NGO Sector in Serbia 2009

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Citizens’ Association for Democracy and Civic EducationSimina 9a • 11 000 Belgrade • Tel/fax: +381 11 2625-942; 2623-980 • civin@gradjanske. org • www.gradjanske.org

This publication other information product (specify)] is made possible by the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the “Civil Society Advocacy Initiative” program, implemented by the Institute for Sustainable Communities.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily re�ect the views of ISC, USAID or the United States Government.

Table of Contents

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

1. Summary of findings..............................................................................................................................................................................................................3

2. Description of Research........................................................................................................................................................................................................5

3. Presentation of data...............................................................................................................................................................................................................8

4. Key findings on the NGO sector...................................................................................................................................................................................... 101.1. Basic information and working conditions......................................................................................................................................................... 101.2. Mission, areas of work and activities..................................................................................................................................................................... 171.3. Legal/fiscal regulations.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 371.4. Political context ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 411.5. Structure of NGOs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 481.6. NGO cooperation – networking ............................................................................................................................................................................. 511.7. NGO cooperation with the state............................................................................................................................................................................. 611.8. NGO cooperation with the business sector........................................................................................................................................................ 711.9. NGO cooperation with the media.......................................................................................................................................................................... 791.10. Personnel and volunteers....................................................................................................................................................................................... 891.11. Attitude of the public towards NGOs................................................................................................................................................................. 921.12. Diversity within the sector/regional standardization.................................................................................................................................1051.13. Financial stability – sources of financing ........................................................................................................................................................1091.14. Involvement of t he community – users in the work of NGOs ...............................................................................................................1231.15. Quality of services ...................................................................................................................................................................................................1251.16. Training for the NGO personnel .........................................................................................................................................................................1291.17. Cooperation with NGOs within the wider region........................................................................................................................................1331.18. The most important problems for the sustainability of NGOs................................................................................................................135

ndings

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

This is a web publication presenting data from research on the situation in the NGO sector in Serbia in the first half of 2009. This period was marked with an intensive campaign for the adoption of the NGO Law and the establishment of the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society. The NGO Law was adopted in July 2009, and the Office was formally established by the Government Decree in April 2010. Both the new NGO Law and the Office illustrate the increased influence of the sector and the improved communication with the government. However, since data in this survey were collected in May-June 2009, they reflect the situation in the sector before these major developments. The main objective of this survey was to ascertain the general situation in the NGO sector in Serbia in mid-2009 and compare it with the situation outlined in the research carried out in early 2005.

As in 2005, the absence of uniform evidence on NGOs was a serious problem confronted by «Strategic Marketing», the agency that conducted the research. It is anticipated that this problem will not appear in future surveys, as the Serbian Business Registers Agency is completing the Register of Citizens’ Associations as a result of the adoption of the new Law on Associations and the process of re-registration. In April 2010 we will have the first comprehensive database of the NGO sector in Serbia ever.

After cross-referencing and a detailed updating of existing databases, we arrived at a basic group of 316 non-governmental organizations from the sample of 516 that was used in the 2005 research. Out of the 316 NGOs, 294 were still active in May 2009, 30 did not took part in the research, and 36 new organizations were included in the sample. Although reduced in number, this presented quite a similar sample to the one from the 2005 research. However, one should bear in mind that this is a limited sample and that data and analysis should be taken as a starting point for a further exploration of the NGO sector status rather than considered a thorough review of the sector.

In terms of survey findings, it reveals that the NGO sector is better equipped and its employees more skilled: computer literacy and the knowledge of English in the sector have increased since in 2005. The workspace situation is somewhat better than in 2005, and the percentage of organizations that own their space has slightly increased (from 6% to 10%), so renting remains the prevalent way of dealing with this problem. There is a slight increase in the percentage of organizations that have secured space for the next 2-3 years and over 3 years (31% compared to 29% in 2005); still, for a large percentage this issue will remain a problem.

The majority of organizations assert that their organization has a defined mission, which is almost the same as in 2005, with a slight increase in the number of NGOs whose mission is related to the development of the local community and the improvement of the citizens’ quality of life. Most of organizations in this sector deal with young people and students, education and research and the protection of human rights (59%). In comparison with 2005, there is an increase of NGOs dealing with environment, legislation and public politics and the protection of national minorities, while there is a decrease in the number of NGOs providing assistance to refugees and IDPs.

The primary or direct beneficiaries of NGO services are most often citizens, youth, women and children, with fewer NGOs dealing with refugees and IDPs, and more dealing with sexual minorities, which certainly indicates a change in the perception of needs among NGOs.

ndings

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

The main change is that the funding situation and outlook for financial stability, although not very good, still seems better than in 2005: in 2009, 43% of NGOs did not secure funding for 2009, which compared to 63% in 2005 is an improvement. However, this still means that for almost half of the NGOs, the funding situation remains unstable. NGOs remain highly dependent on international donors - and in this sense, the situation is not much different. However, there is a noticeable increase in funding coming from local sources: local governments, domestic donor organizations, ministries and the business sector. Though encouraging, this data also demonstrates firstly, that international funding can still not be fully replaced by local sources, and secondly, that the sector needs more time in order to shift from foreign donors as the main sources of support.

It is interesting that, when the problems of locating resources are referred to, the lack of information fell to the second place, while the key issue became complex requests of donors both when competing for projects as well as during implementation. This shows that NGOs are still lagging behind the changes in the donors’ community (a smaller number of international donors, increased presence of public and EU funds).

The political situation is judged as significantly improved in comparison to 2005, and the percentage of those who feel that the political context is unsuitable or very unsuitable dropped from 54% to 43%. It is interesting that political parties are recognized as the only stakeholders whose influence on NGOs increased in the last period. The state is generally seen as more cooperative than in 2005, and there is a higher level of cooperation and an increase of NGOs who feel that the state started to regard them as a partner. Still, although there are numerous issues identified, in comparison with the 2005 research the main issue is not a lack of interest from the state, but the complicated administration and bureaucracy.

The relationship with the business sector changed in the sense that the business sector is seen as an important stakeholder, and NGOs recognize the need to cooperate, which is a continuation of the positive shift from 2001 - 2005.

Nevertheless, and similarly to the 2005 research, one of the dominant impressions remains the absence of the objectivity of NGOs in estimating their own capacities, qualities, and the expertise of their work, their relationships with the media, and their positions in the local communities and the public in general. Again, as in 2005, often the «desired» answers were given, and therefore they contradict the findings of the public opinion poll1, most notably with regard to the uninformed attitudes of the public toward the NGO sector and the needs of the community and society, even while NGOs seem generally satisfied with their PR and media skills. Finally, it is concerning that direct contacts with citizens, as a method of relations with the public decreased from 2005, especially considering that citizens are the main users and constituency of NGOs.

The data shows that there are substantial and visible divisions in the sector, whatever the parameters are. On the one hand there are «big» organizations, mostly from Belgrade and formed before 2000, and on the other mostly «new», small, local organizations, whose survival is particularly endangered. The differences between the groupings is to the advantage of the «big», most noticeably in their capacities (in personnel and infrastructure), access to financial sources, and the understanding of the necessity of cooperation and greater involvement in various networks and regional projects.

Civic Initiatives, Belgrade, June 2010

1“Perception of NGOs“ carried out in May 2009

2. Description of Research2. Description of Research2. Description of Research2. Description of Research

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Population (the sample of NGO from the 2005 research) 516

613 sOGN de

ed 294

Number of NGOs which did not accept cooperation 30

Number of NGOs from population with which the interview was carried out successfully 264

Number of NGOs included in the sample which were not included in the 2005 sample 36

Total number of successfully held interviews 300

SAMPLE

SAMPLE 2009 N = 300

Before 2000

2000 or later

Culture, education, ecology

Humanitarian and social work

Young, economy, professional associations

Development of civile society

P i fh i h

46%

54%

23%

19%

15%

13%

29%Protection of human rights

Up to 14

15 30

31+

Yes

No

Belgrade

Central Serbia

Vojvodina

29%

59%

31%

9%

54%

46%

25%

47%

28%

Young, economy, professional associations

Year

of

regi

stra

tion

Prio

rity

area

of a

ctiv

itySi

zeM

embe

r of

FEN

SRe

gion

The main objective of the survey was to ascertain the general situation in the NGO sector in Serbia and to compare it with the situation outlined in research carried out in early 2005. Since the monitoring of changes in the NGO sector was a main research objective, the sample of NGOs from the 2005 research was used as population, and data were collected by the same questionnaire which was used in 2005 (with minimal additions).

Sample frame: The sample of 516 NGOs which participated in the research conducted in 2005, stratified by regions (Belgrade, Vojvodina and Central Serbia), the size of the organization (small organizations – up to 15 employees, medium organizations - from 15 to 30 employees, and large organizations – 30+ people), membership in FENS, and the year of establishment (before 2000 and after 2000, i.e. during the Milosevic regime, and after the change of the regime in October 2000).

Sample selection: The selection of a sample required several steps, above all an update on the existing database containing 516 NGOs. Since information about NGOs does not exist in any unique database, this was done through the use of available sources of information. The first step was the attempt to get in touch with all 516 NGOs by various contacts (phones, email addresses) which existed in the sample base from the year 2005. Since a considerable number of NGOs have changed addresses, phone numbers, and even e-mail addresses, we tried to find additional information on the websites of the given NGOs. As this attempt also gave just partial results, Strategic Marketing (SM) used databases which Civic Initiatives and BCIF provided. SM also used a "snowball" method to collect information (which coordinators applied in given territorial locality).

By application of all these procedures, and within the time framework planned for the project implementation, we accomplished the following results:

The analysis of the sample structure showed that, according to the structure of the main criteria, the sample fits the population from the 2005 research. For the purpose of the reliability of comparisons, smaller corrections were achieved through post stratification (weighting), so that the final sample represents well the NGO population from 2005 in terms of regional coverage, the size of NGO and the year of establishment.

2. Description of Research2. Description of Research2. Description of Research2. Description of Research

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Respondents

Respondents participating in this research (both for NGOs and donors) were people n senior positions within organizations, those who were familiar with their organization’s functioning and whose opinions are relevant in decision-making processes within their organization.

Research period

The research was conducted from 12th May until 2nd June 2009.

Methodology

Interviewers set interviews with respondents. The interviews were conducted in the respective premises of organizations in the form of structured interviews. Questionnaires included mostly closed-ended questions with a smaller number of open-ended questions.

Each area covered by the survey was represented with a set of questions in the questionnaire, which was comprehensive and the interviews lasted approximately for 1 hour.

Data analysis

All questions from the questionnaire were cross-referenced by a few basic variables. Every question was represented in the form of table which shows the total and cross-references by these variables:

a. the year of foundationb. filed of workc. size of organizationd. FENS membership e. region where the headquarters is

The year when the organization was founded is a variable with two categories: those founded before the year 2000 and those founded in the year 2000 and later. We were of the opinion that the year 2000 was a turning point due to the fall of Milosevic’s regime, and thus it led to changes in the environment in which NGOs operate. It could have been expected that organizations founded before 2000 were more experienced, better positioned and had greater credibility and thus encountered fewer problems in their work.

Field of work – The questionnaire itself offered respondents to choose from 18 given fields of work of their organizations (with a possibility of adding their field of work to the list, if it were not mentioned). When cross-referencing these 18 fields, they were condensed in 5 categories, since many fields were not represented with an adequate number of organizations. In some questions, where it was important to have an insight into each separate filed, we gave cross-references with all fields, but

with a note that the base of organizations is less than 60, and therefore the results can be taken as indicators only and should be further examined.

The size of organization was defined by the total number of active personnel in the organization. This number included members of the managing board, coordinators, employees and part-time workers, but not volunteers. This number was divided in 3 categories: up to 15 people – small organizations, from 15 to 30 people – medium-sized organizations, more than 30 people – big organizations.

FENS membership enables us to outline the situation in the sector both within this network and outside it. As we said before, the sample itself favored organizations which are members of this network. This was done in order to have a large enough base within the network so that conclusions on the situation of the sector could be drawn. In all the questions showing significant difference in this variable, we presented separate results for members and non-members of FENS network.

Region – the region was established based on the municipality where the seat of the organization is. In the analyses we used the division in three basic regions with their socioeconomic peculiarities: Belgrade, Vojvodina and Central Serbia.

To thoroughly achieve the main goal of this research, and that is to outline the overall position of the non-governmental sector in Serbia and to enable comparison with the 2005 survey, we defined the same areas that we thought will best present an objective picture of the sector. However, in the 2009 research we did not include opinions of different donor organizations.

The areas covered through this survey are as follows:

1.Basic information and working conditions2.Mission, areas of activity and activities 3.Legal/fiscal regulations4.Political context5.Structure of NGO6.NGO cooperation – Networking7.NGO cooperation with the state8.NGO cooperation with the business sector9.NGO cooperation with the media10.Personnel and volunteers11.Attitude of the public towards NGOs12.Diversity within the sector/Regional standardization13.Financial stability – sources of finances14.Involvement of community – beneficiaries of the work of NGOs15.Quality of service16.Level of training of personnel working in NGO17.Cooperation with NGO within wider region18.The most important problems for sustainability of NGOs

3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

The gathered data were analyzed by Civic Initiatives staff: Jelena Milovanovic, Ivana Gliksman, Radojka Pavlovic and Dubravka Velat. Aleksandra Vesic, Civic Initiatives Team TRI trainer and NGO sector expert, contributed with an overview of the survey results.

Data are commented from the perspective of NGO persons, i.e. they do not represent an in-depth sociological study since there is not sufficient information for a comprehensive approach. However, we believe that we can provide a valuable input on different aspects of the NGO sector in Serbia for all interested parties.

Web publications are prepared in both Serbian and English versions and may be downloaded from www.gradjanske.org and www.iscserbia.org .

In most of cases, the graphical analysis of data shows comparative data, from both the 2005 and 2009 surveys. However, there are several graphs showing data just from the 2009 survey, when the data in question were not collected in 2005, or when significant information came out of the 2009 survey.

The narrative descriptions typically begin with a general analysis of the data from the 2009 survey, followed by a com-parison with the 2005 survey data. Further explanations delve deeper into the analysis of the 2009 data, presenting only those data that show major variations compared to the average data and significant differences among characteristics of the population (i.e. by the year of registration, priority area of activity, size, FENS membership and region).

3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data ndings on the NGO sector4. Key ndings on the NGO sector ndings on the NGO sector

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 1: Does your organization have premises in which it performs its activities?

We have premises in our ownership

W hi i

6%

43%

10%

We hire our premises

We were given rooms free of charge

We don’t have premises

29%

22%

45%

24%

21%

2005

2009

1.1.Basic information and working conditions

Organization’s office premises and equipmentSimilar to 2005, most NGOs lease their office premises (45%). 10% of respondents state that their organization own their office premises, compared to 6% in 2005. 21% of NGOs do not have any kind of office premises, which is a similar rate to 2005 (22%). The remaining 45% of NGOs were either given office premises free of charge (24%) or do not have office premises at all (21%). There are no major differences among NGOs that own their office premises in terms of their year of registration, priority area of activity and FENS membership. A greater number of NGOs owning office premises is notable among smaller NGOs (11%) and those operating in Central Serbia (14%), while in Vojvodina only 6% and in Belgrade only 7% of NGOs own their office premises. It is typical that NGOs registered before 2000 (57%), those dealing with civil society development (55%), big organizations (74%) and those operating in Belgrade (60%) lease their office premises. It is significant that 39% of NGOs in Vojvodina are given their office premises free of charge. The most difficult position in terms of lacking office premises is for NGOs registered in 2000 and later (31%), those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations (9%), smaller NGOs (27%), those that are not FENS members (27%) and operating in Central Serbia (23%)

Out of 45% of those which rent their office premises, 50% have secured funds for renting offices for a period shorter than one year, which is similar to 2006 (48%). The most significant drop is related to funds secured for the next 12 months – from 23% in 2005 to 14% in 2009, with Belgrade based NGOs being better off (24%) compared to Central Serbia (7%). A larger number of NGOs managed to secure funds for the period from 2 to 3 years, and this number has increased from 8% to 10%. Among those, there is the highest number of NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (16%). Only 2% of NGOs secured funds for premises for the period longer than 3 years, among them 25% of NGOs registered before 2000, 34% of those dealing with humanitarian and social work, 25% of the medium sized NGOs, 22% of FENS members and 29% of NGOs coming from Vojvodina. It is worth mentioning that NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights are in the worst position when it comes to this issue – only 14% have secured funds for the period longer than 3 years.

The situation in terms of equipment is much better than in 2005. For each equipment item, there is an increase in the number of organizations possessing them. Over 4/5 of NGOs have at least one computer, a printer and a telephone line. Over 65% also have a modem, a fax machine, a scanner, a photo camera (huge increase, from 47% to 69%) and a copy machine. Fewer organizations own cameras (33%) and video beams (36%), later showing the highest increase among all items. Still, only 1/5 of NGOs have company cars (22%).

Similar to 2005, big organizations are much better equipped, as well as organizations which were founded earlier and those from Belgrade, since these three variables are connected. Organizations from Belgrade are the biggest and they were founded earlier than organizations from other regions. Also, a somewhat better situation is noticed among organizations that deal with the development of civil society, while those dealing with the protection of human rights are in a worse situation. The differences in equipment are particularly noticeable in the number of organizations that have fax machines, photocopiers, video beams, company cars and cameras. Older, bigger NGOs and those from Belgrade have a significantly larger number of these pieces of equipment. As for computers, printers, modems and telephone lines, there are no differences among organizations – all kinds of organizations are well equipped in this sense.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 2: Do you have the following equipment in your organization? - PERCENTAGE OF YES

Graph 3: Is the equipment satisfactory for your scope of work and the number of employees – SATISFACTORY (1)

Computers

Printer

Modem

Telephone line

Fax machine

85%

80%

73%

75%

59%

91%

89%

77%

82%

74%

Scanner

Photo camera

Copy machine

Camera

Vehicle

Video beam

55%

47%

32%

22%

18%

13%

74%

68%

69%

52%

33%

22%

36%

2005

2009

Camera

Video beam

Vehicle

Copy machine

Computers

49%

50%

48%

46%

45%

36%

39%

27%

47%

59%

2005

2009

Photo camera

Telephone line

Printer

Scanner

Fax machine

Modem

44%

39%

36%

35%

33%

30%

59%

69%

68%

61%

66%

67%

Less

sat

isfa

ctor

yM

ore

satis

fact

ory

Graph 3 shows to what extent NGOs are satisfied with the equipment they have. It can be noticed that the level of satisfaction has increased for almost all pieces of equipment, except for copy machines and computers. Dissatisfaction related to cameras, video-beams and vehicles has dropped from around half to 1/3 of respondents. More than 2/3 of respondents think that the situation in their organization in terms of technical equipment (photo cameras, telephone lines, printers, scanners, fax machines, modems) is more satisfactory than in 2005. In this respect, there are no significant differences among NGOs in all variables, except for big NGOs that are more often satisfied with video beams (64%) and 41% of Belgrade based NGOs being satisfied with their vehicle.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 4: Does your organization have access to the Internet?pp yy gg

2009

16%

2005

2009

84%

84%

16%

No

Yes

Graph 5: How many employees in your organization have the following skills...USE COMPUTER

All employees

M j it f l

28%

36%

33%

Majority of employees

Minority

None of the employees

34%

3%

35%

29%

2%

2005

2009

Internet access and computer skills

Like in 2005, the majority of organizations have Internet access (84%). This percentage is higher among NGOs established before 2000 (91%), those dealing with civil society development (89%), big organizations (94%), FENS members (87%) and those operating in Vojvodina (89%). The worst situation is among NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (19%), small NGOs (79%) and those from Central Serbia (82%).

The rates of employees’ computer literacy have generally improved. Organizations in which no one can use a computer are very rare – only 2%, which is a bit lower than in 2005 (3%). In a large number of cases, all workers in an organization can use a computer (61% of organizations, compared to 43% in 2005). In 25% of the cases, the majority of workers use a computer, and in 12% of the cases the minority.

NGOs dealing with socio-humanitarian work use computers the least (40%), while most of those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations have all workers using computers (84%). Also, organizations from Belgrade use computers more than organizations in other regions (70% of Belgrade-based organizations, compared to 54% in Central Serbia and 65% in Vojvodina). In 17% of cases, the minority of employees in small organizations are computer literate.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 6: How many employees in your organization have the following skills... SPEAK AT LEAST ONE FOREIGN LANGUAGE

ned mission of organization (the reason why it exists) and what is it?

f f

All employees

M j it f l

28%

36%

33%

Majority of employees

Minority

None of the employees

34%

3%

35%

29%

2%

2005

2009 y

2005

91%

2005

2009

92%

9%

8%

Yes

No

87%

5%8% 2009 We have it written

We have it , but not written

We don’t have a defined mission of our organization

Knowledge of foreign languages

Knowledge of a foreign language is an area that has improved slightly, with 2% of organizations where none of the sta� speak a foreign language, and 33% of organizations where everyone speaks at least one foreign language. It is interesting that NGOs registered after 2000 have more cases of all employees speaking one foreign language (35%) than those registered before 2000 (32%).

The worst situation is in those NGOs that deal with humanitarian and social work, where all employees speak a foreign language in only 13% of cases, while in 10% of cases, none can speak any foreign language. In large organizations, more employees speak at least one foreign language. In terms of regions, the best situation is in Belgrade-based NGOs, where in 50% of the cases all employees speak a foreign language and there is no organization in which no one can speak at least one foreign language. The situation is also very good in Vojvodina, where in 43% of NGOs all employees speak a foreign language, and again no cases where employees cannot speak a foreign language. However, in Central Serbia, all employees speak a foreign language in only 19% of NGOs, while in 5% of the NGOs, no one speaks a foreign language.

1.2. Mission, areas of work and activities Mission of organization

92% of organizations assert that their organization has a de�ned mission, which is almost the same as in 2005 (91%). Medium size organizations (92%) and those in Belgrade (91%) are better pro�led in terms of having a mission. The percentage of organizations that have no de�ned mission is largest among organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work (10%) and similar with NGOs that deal with youth, economy and professional associations (9%). Smaller organizations have not de�ned mission more often (7%) as well as organizations from Central Serbia (9% compared to 2% in Belgrade and 3% in Vojvodina).

Among those which have a de�ned mission (92% of the target population), the majority state that their mission is “Promotion of democracy, democratization” and “Protection and promotion of human rights” (8% each). This is followed by “Develop-ment of local community”, “Help for paraplegics, the disabled and resocialization” and “Rights of children, better quality of life of children” (5% each).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 8: What is the mission of your organization? ned mission of organization

Promotion of democracy, democratization

Protection and promotion of human rights

8%

8%

Development of local community

Help for paraplegics, the disabled andresocialization

Ri ht f hild b tt lit f lif f

5%

5%

Rights of children, better quality of life ofchildren

Development of civil society

5%

4%

4%Rights of women, women's rights, legal aid

Improving the lives of young people, theposition of Youth

Rights and a better quality of life of

4%

4%

4%marginalized groups

Improving quality of life of women

Improving the quality of life of citizens

4%

3%

3%p g q y

Assistance to socially vulnerable groups

Building and development of civil society

3%

3%

Lobbying for Europe, the internationalintegration

Life without violence, promotion ofnonviolence

3%

3%

Between 3% to 4.4% of the interviewed organizations stated that their missions included “Development of civil society”, “Rights of women, women's rights, legal aid”, “Improving the lives of young people, the position of youth” or “Rights and a better quality of life of marginalized groups”. Other topics were included as compris-ing their missions by less than 3% of the interviewed organiza-tions. There is a signi�cant di�erence in relation to the year of registration for those NGOs whose mission is “Development of civil society” – 9% of NGOs registered before 2000 and 1% of NGOs registered in 2000 and after have this mission. There is a slight increase in the number of NGOs whose mission is the develop-ment of local community (6% compared to 3% in 2005) and increase of NGOs with the mission “Improving the quality of life of citizens” (6% compared to 0% in 2005).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 9: What is the mission of your organization? ned mission of organization

4%8%8%

5%1%

5%2%

2%1%

4%3%

2%5%

2%1%

9%8%

6%5%

4%4%

4%4%

3%3%3%

3%3%3%

2%2%

4%1%

2%2%

2%3%

1%3%

1%3%

1%1%

2%

1%3%

3%4%

2%2%

1%

2%2%2%2%2%2%

2%2%2%2%

1%1%1%

1%1%1%

1%1%

1%2%

2005

2009

Development of civil society _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Protection and promotion of human rights ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Promotion of democracy, democratization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Development of local community ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Education, promotion of alternative education ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rights of children, better quality of life of children _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Development of social tolerance and interculturality ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Empowering women to improve their position ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Humanitarian work, spreading humanism ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Improving the lives of young people, the position of Youth ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Assistance to socially vulnerable groups ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

rmation of health, disease prevention _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Help for paraplegics, the disabled and resocialization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Education of individuals to improve the quality of life ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

International cooperation, Europe without borders _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Development of local municipality __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rights of women, women’s rights, legal aid ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Psycho social support to vulnerable groups ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Improving the lives of Roma, the preservation of culture ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

rmation of culture and art in society ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Integration of the Roma in society, the local milieu _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Life without violence, promotion of nonviolence _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gathering and help to mentally handicapped persons (MNRL) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Improving quality of life of women __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ict resolution ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Protection and preservation of the environment _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Realization of students (pupils) rights, information _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Improving life by using modern information technology ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The struggle for economic empowerment of women ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Psycho social support for children with special needs ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Building and development of civil society ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lobbying for Europe, the international integration _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rights and a better quality of life of marginalized groups ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gender equality _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Education of the young and children ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Development of creative skills of ill persons __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 10: Does your organization have a strategic plan? Base: Total target population

Graph 11: Which statement describes better the way in which your organization functions: Base: Total target population

Graph 12: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in the area ne a mission, for long-

term and short-term planning): Base: Total target population

51%

200549%

Yes

No

47%

200952%

We have the main orientation and 73%We have the main orientation andarea of activity, and we manage torealize the majority of our projectsin compliance with this orientation

73%

71%in compliance with this orientation

We often had to change theprojects from the area of our main

21%

orientation to meet the requests ofdonors

W d ’ h h i i i 3%

20%2005

2009We don’t have the main orientationand area of activity, but we work incompliance with donors’ requests

3%

5%

2009

No answer

3%

5%No answer 5%

22%61%17%

Education in this area isnecessary

200922%61%17%

Good, but we need additionaleducation

200521%61%18% We don’t need additional

education

Strategic planning

Less than half of the respondent organizations (47%) state that they have a documented strategic plan, a slight decrease when compared to 2005 (51%), even though a strategic plan may be one of the possible conditions sought by donors for the approval of resources. Older organizations (56%), those dealing with the protection of human rights (54%), big (79%), FENS members (52%) and Belgrade based NGOs (55%) more frequently than others state that they have this document.

3/4 of respondent organizations report that they succeed in implementing the majority of their projects in accordance with their general orientation, while 20% state that they often have to change the general orientation of their foreseeable projects in accordance with the demands of the donors. 5% of organizations have no general orientation or �eld of work, so they direct their work purely to the demands of the donors. This is quite similar to 2005. In this category there are no great di�erences among the organizations depending on the research variables (the year when it was founded, �eld of work, size, membership in FENS, region).

The organizations’ appraisal of the situation in the sphere of planning is almost identical to 2005. 22% of respondent organizations think there is no need for additional training, 61% think the situation is good but that additional training is necessary, while 17% believe that training in the sphere of planning is vital. There are no great di�erences depending on the research variables.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 13: Which areas is your organization involved in? Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

64%The young, youth, students

Education and research

Protection of human rights

64%

65%

57%

66%

60%

59%

Humanitarian and social work, health care

International cooperation

50%

42%

45%

59%

52%

45%


Children’s rights

Culture and arts

39%

42%

44%

42%

41%

Women’s rights

Ecology, environmental protection

P t ti f i ht f b f ti l i iti

33%

27%

27%

36%

34%

2005

2009

Protection of rights of members of national minorities

Economic recovery

Legislation, representation and public politics

28%

23%

33%

31%

30%

Roma

Assistance to refugees and IDPs

Peace work

27%

30%

23%

28%

22%

21%Peace work

LGBT (Sexual minorities)

Business and professional associations

7%

12%

5%

21%

10%

8%

Other5%5%

Area of work

When we look at the areas in which organizations are involved (multiple answers), we can see that most respondent organizations deal with young people and students (66%), education and research (60%) and the protection of human rights (59%). Considerable work is being done by organizations in the areas of humanitarian and social work and health care (52%), international cooperation (45%), the development of local community (44%), children’s rights (42%) and culture and arts (41%).

If we look at priority �elds of work, we see that these same �elds again appear in slightly di�erent order: 16% of NGOs have as their priority humanitarian and social work, healthcare, 12% deal with youth/students and with education / research, 11% with women and the protection of human rights and except in the area of protection of human rights (4% more NGOs have this as their priority area), there are very few changes of priorities in comparison with 2005.

In comparison with 2005, there is an increase in the number of NGOs dealing with environment, legislation, public politics, and the protection of national minorities, while there is a decrease in the number of NGOs involved in assistance to refugees and IDPs.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 14: Generally speaking, what do you consider as your organization’s prior-ity area of activity?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

Graph 15: Why did you decide to deal with this particular area of activity? What is the main reason?Base: Total target population

16%Humanitarian and social work, health care

The young, youth, students

Education and research

16%

12%

13%

16%

12%

12%

Women’s rights

Protection of human rights

8%

7%

8%

11%

11%


Culture and arts

Ecology, environmental protection

6%

5%

7%

7%

5%

Children’s rights

Roma


4%

3%

2%

3%

2% 2005


Protection of rights of members of nationalminorities

Legislation, representation and public politics

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2009

Assistance to refugees and IDPs

Economic recovery

Peace work

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%Peace work

LGBT (Sexual minorities)

Business and professional associations

3%

1%

1%

0%

Other3%4%

1% 2%

We were motivated byexperience of other

1% 1%

9%8%

1%2%

20%

organizations/individuals

Suggestions of donors went alongthese lines (it was the easiest to

22% 20% (get money for this area)

There was no one at that time totackle this problem

34%26%

tackle this problem

We had capacities to pursue this

32%43%

area (competent staff, previousexperience)

Our interests were directed32% Our interests were directedtowards this area

Thi th i it i l

2005 2009

This was the priority socialproblem

The largest group of respondents (43%) stated that their organization decided on their area of work because that area was recognized as a priority social problem. 26% stated that the area coincided with their sphere of interest, 20% had the capability to deal with this area (experts, previous experience), while 8% think that nobody had previously worked in that area. It is worth mentioning that NGOs dealing with culture, education, ecology in 37% of the cases felt they had capacities to tackle these areas (competent sta�, previous experience) and only 9% of NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights felt the same.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 16: Who are the PRIMARY/DIRECT users of your services – who is your organization primarily directed at? Base: Total target population

39%All citizens

Youth

Women

39%

13%

10%

11%

33%

16%

12%

Children

National minorities

Roma

11%

2%

3%

10%

4%

3%

Students

Invalids (parents or family members)

The elderly

3%

5%2%

2%y

The poor

Decision makers

Institutions

2%

2%

2%

2%

2005

2009

Institutions

Refugees and IDPs

NGO sector

S l i iti

3%

1%

2%

1%

1%

Sexual minorities

Trade unions

Media

1%

0%

0%

Single parents

The unemployed

Political parties

2%

7%

0%

0%

0%

Other7%7%

Bene�ciaries of NGO services

The primary or direct bene�ciaries of NGO services are most often all citizens (33%). Among other groups, youth (16%), women (12%) and children (10%) are also particularly frequent users. The users of the services of a certain non-governmental organization depends mostly on the �eld of work of that organization.

The graph with all users shows that youth (57%), children (42%) and students (39%) are dominating groups. Other data are pretty much similar to the 2005 survey, except for refugees and IDPs who dropped from 26% to 20% as a direct target group, and sexual minorities who “jumped” from 5% to 10%, which certainly indicates a perception of change in needs among NGOs.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 17: Who are the users of your services in a broader sense of the word, the users that your projects are targeting Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

57%59% 57%

42%

39%

36%

43%

40%

41% 36%

34%

31%

41%

32%

31%

28%

28%

27%

34%

31%

27%

26%

25%

25%

26%

28%

29%

24%

21%

20%

20%

18%

26%

2005

2009

20%

15%

10%

22%

15%

5%

6%

10%

8%

4%

4%

1%

Youth ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Children _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Students ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

All citizens _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NGO sector _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Institutions _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Women __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Media ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Roma ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The unemployed __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The poor _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

National minorities ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Decision makers ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Single parents ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Refugees and IDPs ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The elderly _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Political parties ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sexual minorities __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Trade unions _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Invalids (parents or family members) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DK-Ref ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

76%

55%

55%

80%

55%

53%55%

49%

46%

53%

52%

51%46%

49%

41%

51%

44%

40%

33%

35%

39%

37%

2005

2009

38%

34%

37%

36%

38% 35%

29%

19%

23%

21%

21%

20% 13%

Seminars, trainings, workshops ____________________________________________________________________

Networking and cooperation _____________________________________________________________________

Actions in local community ______________________________________________________________________

Printing of brochures and publications ______________________________________________________________

Holding conferences and meetings, round tables... __________________________________________________________________________________

Media campaigns ______________________________________________________________________________

Realization of research projects ____________________________________________________________________

Lobbying/advocacy _____________________________________________________________________________

Organization of various courses (vocational, computer, languages...) ________________________________________________________________Provision of various professional services (SOS phones, psychological and legal assistance, information, mediation…) ________________________________________________________________________

Holding press conferences ________________________________________________________________________

erent forms of alternative education _____________________________________________________________

Maintenance of web page _______________________________________________________________________

Monitoring of laws and work of institutions __________________________________________________________

Other forms of campaigns (door to door,....) __________________________________________________________

Providing material assistance _____________________________________________________________________

Graph 18: Which types of activities are most frequently carried out in your organization?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

Types of activities

Similar to 2005, among the most common activities in which non-governmental organizations take part are seminars, training and workshops (80%), networking and cooperation (55%), actions in the local community(53%), printing brochures and publications (52%) and carrying out research (41%). Activities that have become more common include holding conferences, meetings and round tables (from 46% in 2005 to 51% in 2009), lobbying and advocacy (from 33% to 39%), while there has been a decrease in activities organizing various types of media campaigns, from 49% to 44%.

According to their areas of work, NGOs whose work is concerned with the protection of human rights are more likely than others to organize media events (60%), carry out lobbying and advocacy activities (54%), provide various professional services and assistance (51%) and hold press conferences (50%). Social-humanitarian organizations more frequently than others provide material assistance (31%), and are least involved in carrying out research projects (22%), di�erent forms of alternative education (19%), moni-toring of laws and work of institutions (8%). Interestingly, big NGOs tend to be more involved in the implementation of research projects (75%), di�erent forms of alternative educa-tion (61%), the maintenance of website (58%), monitoring of laws and institutions (39%).

In terms of regions, NGOs from Belgrade are considerably more active in their work - most are involved in almost all of the activities on the list. These organizations show higher engagement in organizing events (seminars, training – 88%) than in organizing actions in the local community (39%). They are also more active than others in monitoring laws and the work of institutions (32%). Real activism is much more present in Vojvodina (61%) and Central Serbia (55%). They are also more active than others in the �eld of monitoring laws and the work of institutions (32%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 19: What is the total number of project proposals that you submitted to donors during the previous year (2004 / 2008)?Base: Total target population

Graph 20: Of all the projects that your NGO submitted in the previous year, how many were: Base: Total target population

Graph 21: What is the average duration of projects that your organization imple-ments? Base: Total target population

g p p

T

11% 46% 25% 16%0

200911% 46% 25% 16%

1 5

6 10

20055% 61% 22% 12% 11+

Average number of projects by NGO submitted to donors was 6.7 in 2004 and 6.0 in 2008

51% 40% 9% Approved200951% 40% 9% Approved

Rejected

S ill i d

200542% 33% 25%

Still in procedure

AVERAGE NUMBER OF PROJECTS BY NGO 2005 2009

Submitted 6.7 6

Approved 3.4 2.5

Rejected 2.7 2

Still in procedure 0.6 1.5

10% 19% 37% 23% 9%

Up to 3 months

3 6 months2009

10% 19% 37% 23% 9% 3 – 6 months

6 – 12 months

Ci

200515% 30% 32% 16% 7%

Circa one year

More than one year

Project proposals – development and implementation

Most organizations submitted between 1 and 5 project applications (46%) during one year, which represents a signi�cant drop when compared to 2005 (61%). At the same time, there is a trend of submitting a greater number of projects, with 25% of NGOs submitting 6-10 projects and 16% of NGOs submitting 11 and more. Furthermore, there is a signi�cant increase in the number of NGOs that did not submit a single project in the previous year – from 5% in 2005 to 11% in 2009. These are disturbing numbers indicating that, on the one hand there are NGOs that gave up and did not even try to fundraise, while on the other hand there is an exhaustive e�ort illustrated by the increasing number of NGOs which strive to secure �nancial stability for their organization by submitting numerous project applications.

Older NGOs are submitting more projects than younger NGOs, as well as FENS members, medium sized and big NGOs. It is interesting that NGOs from Vojvodina submitted 11+ projects (25%) in larger numbers than NGOs in other regions. When compared to other data in this survey, it is visible that there are more funding opportunities for NGOs from this region (especially state funding).

The average number of submitted proposals in 2008 was 6. On average, 2.5 were approved, and 2.0 rejected, while the rest were still being processed (1.5). As a rule, NGOs that were founded earlier, big organizations, those dealing with youth issues, economy, professional associations and those from Vojvodina, have submitted a large number of proposals and had more projects approved(except for Vojvodina that has less projects approved than Belgrade). When compared with regard to FENS membership, there are no signi�cant di�erences between FENS members and organizations which are not members of FENS.

In most organizations (56%) projects are on average completed in a period from 3 months to a year, which is less than in 2005 (62%). However, there are more projects that last for around one 1 year (23% compared to 16% in 2005), and lasting for more than one year (9% compared to 7% in 2005).

Projects most often completed in the period of up to 3 months are in the �elds of culture, education and ecology (19%), and are those implemented by small NGOs (16%) and by NGOs from Vojvodina (23%). Projects lasting for 6 to 12 months are mostly carried out by NGOs from Central Serbia (50%), while projects that last longer (one year and more) are implemented mostly by big organizations (60%), those from Belgrade (54%) and in the areas of civil society development and humanitarian and social work (12%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 22: How many projects is your organization currently implementing?Base: Total target population

Graph 23: What are the most frequent problems that you were faced with in your work when competing for the projects? Base: Total target population

32%20%20%23%0 projects

200932%20%20%23%

1 project

2 projects

200537%19%31%13%

p j

3+ projects

2009AVERAGE 2.6

2005AVERAGE 2.4

pp gg pp jj g p p

High/complex requests of donors whichwe were unable to meet

41%

45%

42%

Lack of information about competitionsand possibilities to apply

Poor knowledge of English language

45%

21%

35%

16%g g g g

Insufficient motivation among staff19%

16%

15%

Lack of professionalism (competentprofessionals)

Insufficient experience in project design

20%

20%

14% 2005

2009

Insufficient experience in project design

Lack of technical equipment(computer, fax machine, Internet)

22%

13%

11%

Lack of self confidence 8%

Big budget, a lot of resources

None5%

4%

7%

The average number of projects currently carried out by a single organization has dropped from 2.6 in 2005 to 2.4 in 2009. It is disturbing that at the moment, 23% of organizations are not carrying out a single project, which is a signi�cant increase from 2005 (13%). These are predominantly younger organizations (30%), those dealing with humanitarian and social work (40%), small (35%) and based in Central Serbia, non-FENS network members (29%).

The most signi�cant problems that NGOs encounter in writing project proposals are “High/complex requests of donors that we were unable to meet” (42%), then the lack of information on calls for proposals and possibilities for applying (35%). The second problem has dropped signi�cantly when compared to 2005 (from 45% to 35%), which shows improvement in information dissemination related to funding opportunities (probably due to the “Review of funding opportunities” prepared by the PRSP team and Civic Initiatives), but also because much more information is available through the Internet. It is interesting that a new problem – the lack of self-con�dence - appeared in 2009.

Other problems (like a poor knowledge of English, the insu�cient motivation of the sta�, the lack of professionalism, inexperience in project writing and the lack of technical equipment) are mentioned much less frequently – below 20%, which is also much less than in 2005.

In relation to the region, organizations from outside of Belgrade encounter problems more often then Belgrade-based NGOs. For example, NGOs from Central Serbia encounter problems much more often due to the poor knowledge of foreign languages (23%), while organizations from Belgrade very rarely state this problem (4%); similarly, NGOs outside of Belgrade more often encounter problems with insu�cient motivation among the sta� and the lack of con�dence. This corresponds with the data previously presented and can be easily explained by the fact that Belgrade-based NGOs in general have more access to information and resources and have become more professionalized.

Some di�erences were noticed in relation to the size of organizations – smaller NGOs score higher on almost all problems. Logically, big NGOs have least problems with information on funding opportunities (12%), the knowledge of the English language (5%) and the lack of self con�dence. Their problems lie in the lack of competent professionals (17%) and short deadlines/not enough time (8%).

Also, there are some di�erences among NGOs that are FENS members and those which are not: information on funding opportunities is more often a problem of non-members (44% compared to 24% members), as well as experience in project design (19% compared to 7% among members).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Lack of financial resources for realization

Low level of cooperation with various

60%

38%

49%

Low level of cooperation with variouslevels of regime/institutions

Negative attitude of neighborhood

Overwhelming or too many donor

38%

29%

36%

26%

requirements

Legal difficulties

Shortage of equipment and manpower forrealization

22%

23%

23%

20%

16%realization

Insufficient motivation among users of ourservices

Lack of professionalism (competentprofessionals)

15%

13%

16%

14%

13%

2005

2009

Lack of technical equipment (computer, faxmachine, Internet)

Insufficient motivation among staff

25%

12%

13%

12%

11%

Low level of cooperation with media

Poor knowledge of English language

13%

12%

10%

10%

There were no problems

Political situation in the country

3%

1%

Graph 24: What are the most frequent problems that you were faced with in your work during the implementation of the projects?

It is interesting that NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work are somehow in the worst position – they score high on all prioritized problems, with special emphasis on the lack of professionalism (competent professionals - 26%) and insu�cient experience in project design (33%).

Another interesting trend is that NGOs dealing with civil society development reported the biggest problems with “high/complex requests of donors which we were unable to meet” (48%), and at the same time fewer problems with the English language (9%) and technical equipment (8%) than in other �elds. The same relates to older organizations. This shows that older, more experienced NGOs are starting to lag behind the changes in the donors’ community (both the change of donors - more public and EU funds, as well as their procedures and demands).

The lack of �nancial resources is named as the biggest problem in project implementation (49%), although this is less than in 2005 (60%). It is followed by a low level of cooperation with authorities/institutions (36%) at di�erent levels, as well as the negative attitude of the community to the NGO sector (26%). It is interesting that the fourth problem was not mentioned in the 2005 survey and has now being pointed out, and it is “overwhelming or too many donor requirements” (23%). It is obvious that donors have raised the level of complexity in their calls for proposals and also project implementation demands and that even those with a longer history of successful project design and implementation are struggling with it. Having in mind that the lack of technical equipment as a problem in project implementation has dropped from 25% to 12%, it is obvious that NGOs are not lacking “hardware”, but “software”, i.e. capable human resources that would deal with new and more complex requirements set by donors (although this is not visible from the graph as an issue).

There were no signi�cant di�erences in answers among organizations depending on research variables, except for humanitarian and social organizations that more than others have legal di�culties (37%), and they lack professional sta� (23%) who can speak English (18%). In terms of regions, the shortage of equipment and manpower for implementation is less often a problem in Central Serbia (9%), and more common in Vojvodina (27%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 25: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in terms of competing for the projects and implementation of the projects – do you need ad-ditional education

Graph 26: Are you familiar with legal regulations which cover the NGO sector?Base: Total target population

19% 60% 21%

Support in this area isnecessary

200919% 60% 21%

Good, but we needadditional support

200522% 59% 19% No need for additional

education

23%35%

32%Completely familiar

F ili32%

32%

Familiar

Yes and no

U f ili

31%

Unfamiliar

Completely unfamiliar

23%

10%7%

2005 2009

7%3% 2%

2005 2009

55% 67%

In assessing the position of organizations in terms of project competition and implementation, 19% of interviewed organizations think that they do not need additional training, 60% think that the situation is good, but they need additional education, while 21% think that they need additional training in project competition and implementation. This is not a signi�cant change from 2005. However, if one looks back to previous data related to the listed problems NGOs encounter when applying and implementing projects, one would expect a greater need for additional capacity building. There are no signi�cant di�erences in research variables, except that in 35% of cases, humanitarian and social work organization declared that additional training is necessary.

1.3. Legal/�scal regulations Bearing in mind that during the years 2008-2009, there were strong advocacy campaigns for the adoption of a new NGO Law and tax reform related to NGOs, it is not strange that 67% of NGOs stated that they are familiar with legal regulations (55% in 2005), while only 9% stated that they are not familiar with them. Organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work and younger organizations (17%), as well as small NGOs (14%) are less familiar with legal regulations.

Older NGOs (73%), those dealing with young, economy, professional associations (74%), big (84%), FENS members (76%) and those based in Belgrade (80%) tended to be more familiar with legal regulations.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

ed with currently valid legal regulations relating to the NGO sector?

ed with, in your opinion, which aspect of legal regulations should be changed:Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

2% 1%

7% 7%

24% 28%

Completely satisfied

2005 2009

32%32%

29% 27%

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

Completely dissatisfied61% 59%

Law on NGO78%

80%Law on NGO

T li67%

80%

Tax policy

Other laws which relate to work of17%

70%

Other laws which relate to work ofNGO

11%

19%

2005

Other11%

%

5% 2009

I don’t know, I am not informed8%

4%

I have no objections5%

1%

When asked how satis�ed they were with current legal regulations related to the NGO sector, up to 59% of respondents stated that they were not satis�ed. 28% did not have an opinion, while only 8% said they were satis�ed. These data are similar to 2005, as this was before the adoption of the new Law for NGOs.

The most often stated reasons for dissatisfaction in this �eld were: the Law on NGOs (80% of respondents, and again, the survey was conducted before the new Law was adopted), tax policy (70%), and other laws related to the work of NGOs (19%). The last was mentioned by 38% of big NGOs. Although NGOs are not satis�ed with the legal framework which regulates the work

of NGOs, only 28% would be interested in participating in an initiative for a change. There are no major di�erences among NGOs in terms of survey variables.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 29: Are you interested to participate in an initiative to change laws which regulate the work of NGO?Base: Total target population

Graph 30: What should the state do in order to stimulate the work of NGOs?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

3%

30% 28% Don't know

No

70% 69%

No

Yes70% 69%

2005 2009

73%To allow tax relief for NGO

To provide resources / funds for thefinancing of NGOs

74%

75%

68%

To improve the legal framework inwhich NGOs operate (change the law

on NGOs and other laws that…

To allow tax relief for company which

68%

68%

67%

finances NGOs

To reduce the contributions for NGOemployees

54%

%

66%

54%

Tax relief for individual citizens whofinance NGOs

Enable the implementation ofnational programs in accordance

58%

54%

44%

2005

2009p g

Campaign for change of NGO image

Increase the transparency of the

46%

43%

Increase the transparency of theentire legislative process 39%

Respondents most often mentioned their expectations of state action to stimulate the work of NGOs as being: to allow tax relief for NGOs (75%), to secure funds to �nance the NGO sector (68%), to improve the legal framework within which NGOs operate (67%) and to allow tax relief for companies �nancing NGOs (66%). Although at the end of the list, it is worth mentioning that in 29% of the cases the increase of the transparency of the entire legislative process was suggested, and this was not even mentioned in the 2005 survey.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 31: Do you think that the current political climate in the country is suitable for the development of the NGO sector?Base: Total target population

uence of the following institutions on the work of the NGO sector – IMPORTANT ( 4 + 5 )Base: Total target population

6% 5%

9% 11%

31%41%

Very suitable

Suitable41%

31%

Suitable

Neutral31%

25%

23%

Unsuitable

Very unsuitable23% 18%

2005 2009

5443

g p p

NGOs themselves91%

89%

Media87%

86%

Local self government81%

79%

81%

Government79%

75%

Educational institutions

B i t68%

66%

Business sector

Political parties44%

62%

48%

2005

2009Political parties

Church16%

48%

14%

2009

14%

1.4. Political context

Less than ½ of respondents (43%) think that the current political situation in the country is not favorable for the development of the NGO sector. The attitude of the interviewed organizations improved since 2005, when 54% of respondents shared the same opinion. The reason may be related to the change in government to one perceived more positively than that in power during the 2005 survey.

When asked to explain the reason for their views, 13% of respondents stated that there is insu�cient cooperation with the government (negative attitude), 12% said that there is the absence of a law on NGOs, bad laws, bad tax policy and underdeveloped awareness of the necessity of NGOs and a lack of interest, 11% identi�ed a poor image of the NGO sector, and 8% stated connections between politics and NGOs, i.e. the opinion that some authorities favor some NGOs. There are not many di�erences among organizations related to research variables, except between NGOs dealing with human rights and those dealing with the development of civil society. These organizations have opposite views on the suitability of the political context for the NGO sector, and on the reasons for their views. 23% of NGOs dealing with human rights reported that insu�cient cooperation with the government (negative attitude) is the reason, while this view was shared by only 2% of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society. On the contrary, when talking about the absence of a law on NGOs, bad laws and bad tax policy, NGOs dealing with civil society development mentioned these in 22% of cases and NGOs dealing with human rights protection in only 8% of cases.

Respondents assessed all institutions, apart from the church, as bearing an important in�uence on the NGO sector’s activities. The next graph, indicates that the NGO sector perceived that all institutions, apart from church, have an important impact on the functioning of this sector (all average marks do not exceed mark 3 on a 1-5 scale, where 1 means ”not important at all” and 5 means “very important”). However, respondents perceived NGOs (89%), the media (86%), local self-government (81%) and then the national government (75%) as most important. There are no di�erences depending on the research variables. There is a similarity in data from 2005 and 2009 with a few exceptions: �rstly, educational institutions are now mentioned as important, and secondly, political parties are the only stakeholder that is perceived as more important in 2009 then in 2005.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 33: How would you evaluate cooperation between the current Government of the Republic of Serbia and the NGO sector?Base: Total target population

uence the creation of state poli-tics?Base: Total target population

2% 2%7% 12%12%

31%

45%

Excellent

Good45%

32%

Good

Neutral

33%28%

Poor

Very poor

8%

2005 2009

60

41

12% 14%

1% 1%12% 14%

Too much

87% 85%

Too much

Just right

Too little

2005 2009

Cooperation between the present Government and the NGO sector is assessed most often as bad or very bad (a total of 41% of the respondents), which is a signi�cant decrease when compared to 2005 (60%). In 45% of cases it was described as neutral (increase from 31% in 2005), while in 14% of the cases it was evaluated as good and excellent (9% in 2005). Generally speaking, cooperation with the government is believed to be much better than in the 2005 survey. On this question there are no di�erences between organizations depending on the research variables.

Although the cooperation with the government is believed to be much better than in 2005, most NGO sector representatives (85%) were still of the opinion that the in�uence of the NGO sector over the creation of state policies is extremely low. 14% thought that this in�uence was adequate and only 1% that it was too strong.

Representatives of the non-governmental sector who assessed that the sector has little in�uence over state policies (a total of 85% of respondents), thought that NGOs could widen their in�uence primarily through better networking and cooperation between all NGOs (15%), and then more e�cient action, greater engagement of NGOs (11%) and cooperation, communication with the government/local authorities (10%). On this question, there are no di�erences between organizations depending on the research variables, except for NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology, which in 20% of the cases think that there should be more e�cient action and greater engagement of NGOs.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

uence? uence creation of state politics too little

(85% of target population)

Graph 36: Can you name up to 3 NGOs which, in your opinion, had the biggest uence on the development of the NGO sector in Serbia?

Networking, pooling of all NGOs

More efficient action, greater engagementof NGOs

15%

23%

15%

11%

Cooperation, communication with theGovernment/ local authorities

In order to adopt the law on NGOs, thelegal status of NGO to be regulated

7%

9%

10%

9%

Common interests, goals, activities

Cooperation (better cooperation, thepossibility of greater co operation)

M

9%

16%

8%

7%

More concreteprograms, strategy, planned work

Influence of NGOs ongovernment, politics, adoption of laws

Improving the position the status of NGOs

20%

18%

7%

7%

Improving the position, the status of NGOsin the media

Lobbying

Development of NGOs the promotion of

18%

8%

8%

6%

4%

Development of NGOs, the promotion ofour work

NGOs to present their projects the state

i i

%

6%

4%

3%

2%2005

2009

Better communication

Other

DK Ref

5%

8%

1%

1%

DK Ref 6%

p

Gra anske inicijative (Civic Iniciatives)

CRNPS (Center for developpment of nonprofit sector)

54%

26%

12%

62%

21%

CESID

Fond za humanitarno pravo (Fund forhumanitarian rights)

F d t d št (OSI)

12%

6%

10%

9%

7%

Fond za otvoreno društvo (OSI)

Evropski pokret u Srbiji (Europeanmovement)

Žene u crnom (Women in black)

8%

6%

9%

5%

5%ene u crnom (Women in black)

Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava (Helsinkicommittee for human rights)

Autonomni ženski centar (Autonomouswomen center)

4%

3%

5%

5%

4%women center)

YUKOM

JAZAS

4%

3%

3%

2% 2005

Group 484

Centar za demokratiju (Center fodemocracy)

1%

1%

7%

2%

2%

2009

OTPOR (Resistance)

Belgrade Center for Human Rights

7%

3%

12%

1%

1%

Don't know 12%

Most important NGOs

The respondents stated that the most important organizations for the development of the NGO sector are: Civic Initiatives (62%), the Center for Development of Non-pro�t Sector (CRNPS) (21%), CESID (9%) and the Humanitarian Law Fund (7%).

A few organizations have increased their in�uence: Civic Initiatives (from 54% to 62%), the Humanitarian Law Fund (from 6% to 7%), the Helsinki Committee (from 4% to 5%), the Autonomous Women’s Center ( from 3% to 4%) and Group 484 (from 1% to 2%) while the in�uence of all others have dropped.

As expected, there are some di�erences between organizations which are FENS network members and those which are not. To a higher degree, FENS members (75%) perceive Civic Initiatives as one of the 3 most important organizations for the NGO sector development. However, even among organizations which are not FENS members it can be noticed that this organization is the most important (46% of respondents from non member organizations). Similar is with CRNPS – 28% of FENS members and 12% of not FENS members think of CRNPS as the most important NGO for the development of the NGO sector in Serbia.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Table 1:

No employees 1 - 9employees

10 - 100employees T O T A L NGOs

2008 3 943 771 72 4 7862007 3 614 697 43 4 3542006 3 332 618 32 3 982

nancial reports in 2008, by number of employees

Graph 38: Information about the person who is the head of your organization (President or Director of your NGO):Base: Total target population

2% 1% 1%

16% 16% 16%

10 100 employees

83% 84%

10 100 employees

1 employees

82% 83% 84% No employees

2008 2007 2006

Male 55% 47%

Female 46% 52%

Younger (20 35) 27% 19%2005

Middle age (36 50) 48%

26%

41%

37%

2005

2009

Older (over 50) 26% 37%

Primary

Secondary

Higher

21%

78%

20%

77%HigherEDU

CATI

ON

GEN

DER

AGE

1.5. Structure of NGOs

Most NGOs are small in terms of the number of engaged persons – the majority of organizations reported engaging up to 14 persons (59%), and between 15 to 30 persons (31%). Only 9% of NGOs reported having more than 31 persons engaged. However, this should not be taken into consideration as employment with full bene�ts, but rather as engagement via honoraria and in other forms (members of the managing board, coordinators, employees and part-time workers, but not volunteers), due to additional information from a survey on the economic value of the NGO sector commissioned by Civic Initiatives in 2009, which stressed that 82% of NGOs that submitted the �nancial report in 2008 had no employed persons, 16% had from 1 to 9 employees and 1.5% had between 10 to 100 employees. This means that most Serbian NGOs are considered as “micro-enterprises”.

NGOs registered before 2000 have more employees than small NGOs – 15% of big NGOs and only 8% of those registered in 2000 and later have over 31 employees. Humanitarian and social work NGOs are among the smallest (71%), while those dealing with the development of civil society have more people employed (17% of them employ over 31 persons). As expected, the biggest organizations are based in Belgrade (19%), while only 8% in Vojvodina and 5% in Central Serbia engage more than 31 persons. There are no di�erences related to FENS membership.

Of the respondent organizations, 52% reported that their president/director is a woman and 47% reported that their president/director is a man. This is a slight increase of women presidents/directors from 2005 (46% women and 55% of men). However, women presidents are signi�cantly predominant only in the �eld of human rights protection (67% women in comparison to 32% men). Of the presidents/directors, 41% are middle-aged (from 36 to 50 years), 37% are over 50 years of age, and 18.5% are young (from 20-35 years of age). Most NGOs with middle-aged presidents deal with civil society development (47%) or are from Central Serbia (47%). There are di�erences depending on the time when organizations were formed: in those organizations founded before 2000, the percentage of presidents over 50 years of age is much higher (46%), while in new organizations (founded in 2000 and later) there is a larger number of middle-aged presidents (44%). Also, younger presidents are more dominant in organizations dealing with the younger population (39%) and in Belgrade based NGOs (28%). By education, presidents in the NGO sector are in 77% of the cases with college and university education, while in 20% of the cases they �nished secondary school, and only in 1% primary school.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 39: Does your organization have any other written rules and procedures for decision making and the overall work of the organization apart from the Stat-ute?

Base: Total target population

Graph 40: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in the area of management and supervision – do you need additional education:Base: Total target population

Graph 42: What way of cooperation was it?Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated so far in some way with any other NGOs (98% of target population)

B T t l t t l ti

53% 56%

47% 43%

No

Yes

2005 2009

g p p

We have no need foradditional education

27% 38%

57% 52%

Good, but we needadditional support57% 52%

16% 9% Support in this area isnecessary

2005 2009

We helped each other with activities77%76%We helped each other with activities

Realization of common projects64%

76%

75%

Cooperation with NGOs in the network65%

48%

73%

Mutual requests to donors

H l i i f i

48%

44%

54%

Help in equipment, use of premises

Trainings for members50%

51%

50%g

Coalition28%

50%

44% 2005

Lobbying/public advocacy36%

44%2009

Less than ½ of organizations (43%), according to respondents, have written rules and procedures (in addition to the statute) related to the decision-making and overall work of the organization. This percentage is lower than in 2005 (47%). As expected, big organizations tend to have additional rules and procedures (74%), as do those dealing with the development of civil society (52%), and Belgrade-based NGOs (57%). Only 34% of small organizations and 36% of youth, economic-focused and professional organizations have additional rules and procedures.

As for the assessment of the situation in their organization in terms of management and supervising, 38% of respondent organizations think that they do not need additional training in this �eld, 52% are of the opinion that the situation is good but they need additional training, and 9% think that support in this area is necessary. The data show an increase in self-con�dence when compared to 2005. Humanitarian and social work are mostly in need of additional support (15%) and then NGOs from Vojvodina (13%). In the �eld of the development of civil society only 2% of NGOs stated that additional support was needed.

1.6. NGO cooperation – networking

As in 2005, 98% of organizations have had some contact with other NGOs up to now. It should be stressed, though, that by contact we mean any type of cooperation (help in activities, equipment, cooperation within the network, carrying out of projects jointly).

Di�erent types of cooperation most often include: mutual help in activities (76% of those who had cooperation), implementation of common projects (75%), cooperation within some NGO network (73%), joint requests from donors (54%), help in equipment and use of premises (51%), training for members (50%), coalitions (44%) and lobbying/advocacy 44%. It is worth mentioning that all types of cooperation have increased, especially implementation of common projects (from 64% to 75%) and coalitions (from 28% to 44%) which shows increased awareness among NGOs of the need to cooperate.

Between members and non-members of FENS, there is a di�erence only in terms of NGO network cooperation, and FENS members have had cooperation within the NGO network more frequently than those organization which are not FENS members (85% in comparison to 58%). Other signi�cant di�erences are related to the size of organizations and cooperation in lobbying/advocacy: 70% of big and 34% of small NGOs have cooperated in this area. The least cooperation in this area was carried out by humanitarian and social work NGOs (26%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

ed with cooperation that your NGO have had with other NGOs so far?Base: those who cooperated so far in any way with any other NGOs (98% of target population)

Graph 43: Are you a member of some NGO network? Domestic or international?Base: those who cooperated so far in any way with any other NGOs (98% of target population)

34% 28%34% 28%Very satisfied

Satisfied

38% 48%

Satisfied

Neutral

25% 22%

Dissatisfied

Completely dissatisfied25% 22%

3% 2%

2005 2009

72%76%

17%

37%25%

17%

No

69%

No

Yes, international

75%Yes, domestic

26%

2005 2009

The most often stated motives for cooperation were that organizations shared common interests (92% of those who had cooperation), wanted to help other organization (51%), could better utilize their capacities (49%), and could more easily fundraise (39%). Easier fund-raising was stated more often by NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (60%).

Representatives of the NGO sector are mainly satis�ed with the level of cooperation that their NGO has with other organizations in the sector (76%), which is a slight increase compared to 2005 (72%). Out of those who had some kind of cooperation, 28% are very satis�ed, 48% are satis�ed with this cooperation, 22% neither satis�ed nor dissatis�ed (neutral), while only 2% are not satis�ed with this cooperation. NGOs dealing with youth, economy, and professional associations were most satis�ed with cooperation (87%), while NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (68%), and those from Vojvodina (68%), were least satis�ed. When asked about the main problems in cooperation, most respondents either did not give any answer (28%) or stated that there are no problems related to cooperation with other NGOs (17%). The remaining percentage mention the following problems in NGO cooperation: �nancial problems for the implementation of the project (7.1%), the lack of professionalism of other NGOs (5%), poor or no communication (5%), failure to meet agreed obligations (4%), insu�cient engagement and dedication to projects (4%), underdeveloped awareness of the importance of cooperation (4%) and others.

Of organizations that had cooperated with other NGOs (98% of the sample), 75% were members of some domestic NGO network and 37% were members of some international networks, while 17% were not members of any network. In comparison with 2005, there were fewer NGOs that were not members of any network, and an increase in membership in both domestic and international networks. Of course, there is a di�erence between FENS members and non-members: out of organizations which are not members of FENS, 36% do not belong to any network, 45% belong to domestic and 31% to international networks, while 42% of FENS member organizations belong to some international network. In membership in domestic networks, there were no signi�cant di�erences related to the region and time when organizations were formed, area of work or size. However, , the situation pertaining to membership in international networks was di�erent, with members of international networks tending to be larger (68%), older organizations (47%) and organizations from Belgrade (59%).

Several main conclusions can be drawn when we consider the list of membership in international and domestic networks:

1. There is no clear distinction between the concepts of networks and partnerships with other NGOs. Respondents frequently listed the names of di�erent organizations, instead of listing the name of the network; this is similar to the 2005 survey, as well as the results of the research by NGO Policy Group in 2001.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

uence of NGO networks in Serbia?

Graph 45: What do you think is the purpose of FENS?GG hh 4545 WhWh tt dd ththii kk ii tthh ff FEFENSNS??

4%14%

17%

Don’t know

79% 71%

Major influence

Minor influence

Without influence

7% 8%

2005 2009

Exchange of information between NGOs58%

78%

Promotion of civil society values55%

71%

Influence on decision makers in Serbia58%

54%

63%

Triggering off important social issues54%

48%

64%

Improvement of image of NGO sector

Coordination of attitudes and 49%

60%

requirements within NGO sector

Creating of monopoly within sector6%

48%

7%

Promotion of individuals2%

7%

8%

2005

2009

2. As for international networks, there is no single one which gathers a large number of NGOs –although more than 140 international networks were listed, none of them gathers more than 5% of organizations (international network members). The top of the list shows the following international networks (over 2%): CIVICUS (4%), Recom (3%), Flare (3%), Women in black (3%), IDEA (3%), UNITED (2%), YOUTH PEER (2%), Women can do it (2%) and EVS - European voluntary service (2%).

3. As for domestic networks, except FENS (47%), there is no single network with more than 5% of organizations, members of a domestic network. Although there were around 100 networks listed, only some of them have membership which exceeds 2% (domestic network members): FENS (47%), Civic Initiatives (4%), Astra (4%), Women’s network (2%).

Since the sample included intentionally certain number of FENS members and non-members, this research cannot give us conclusions on frequency of membership in FENS network.

Members of domestic and international networks (81% of targeted population) most frequently state the following as the main reasons for becoming members of certain networks, either domestic or international:

• Common interests, goals, activities (31%)• Easier achievement of goals, plans (14%)• Better cooperation (13%)• Information (being better informed) (10%)• Exchange of experiences (9%)• Strengthening of the NGO sector (8%)

There are no di�erences among research variables, except for culture, education and ecology organizations which stated “information – being better informed” as a reason in 21% of the cases and for non-FENS members which in only 1% of the cases stated “strengthening of the NGO sector”.

It can be noticed that the most frequently expressed opinion is that although networks do have certain in�uence it is of a very narrow scope (17%) – this is an increase from 2005 (14%). NGOS dealing with the development of civil society (18%) tend more than others to believe that networks have in�uence, while those dealing with humanitarian and social work believe least (11%) in it.

As expected, all FENS member organizations have heard of this NGO network. Among organizations which are not members of this network, 63% had heard of this network. There were no signi�cant di�erences on this question among organizations depending on research variables, except for humanitarian and social work NGOs which have heard about FENS in 67% of the cases.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 46: How would you evaluate the previous activities of FENS?Base: those who heard of FENS (83% of target population)

Graph 47: How would you generally evaluate cooperation within the NGO sector in Serbia?Base: Total target population

6%8%

7%10%11%

1%

24%7%

2%

18%

16%20%

11%21% 27% 10%

6%

2%2%

Don’t know

Completely successful40% 42%

36% 44% 45%42%

Completely successful

Successful

Neutral

6% 5% 9% 6% 3% 10%

22% 25% 18%15% 14%

18% Unsuccessful

Completely unsuccessful

2005 2005memberof FENS

2005 notmemberof FENS

2009 2009memberof FENS

2009 notmemberof FENS

Don't know1%

3% 4%18% 18%

Don t know

Very developed18% 18% y p

Developed50%

54%

p

Average

25%22%

Underdeveloped22%

4% 1%Completely

2005 2009underdeveloped

The ratio between FENS members and non-members was de�ned by the sample, so this research does not o�er insight into incidence of membership in this network within the NGO sector. Nevertheless, we can talk about the reasons for this membership. As the main reasons for becoming network members, representatives of organizations in FENS network most often stated the following: - Exchange of information between NGOs (78%)- Promotion of civil society values (71%); - In�uence on decision makers in Serbia (63%); - Triggering of important social issues (64%); - Improvement of the NGO sector image (60%).

Prioritized reasons have signi�cantly increased from 2005, from 5 to 20 percentage points, which shows greater expectations from FENS in all aspects of its work.

Organizations which are not FENS members see its purpose also in terms of the exchange of information and the promotion of civil society values. However, they much less recognize its purpose in in�uencing decision makers (39%), triggering important social issues (35%) and improving the image of the sector (30%).

Representatives of organizations which have heard of FENS, but their organizations are not members of the network, state that the main reasons why their organizations are not members are the following:- lack of interest, do not need it (19%);- no contact established (17%);- no particular reason (10%);- FENS has no signi�cant impact, does not meet goals (9%);- lack of opportunity so far, but they would like to become members (9%).

Activities that FENS was involved in so far receive an average mark of 3.1 on a 5-point scale (1=absolutely unsuccessful, 5=completely successful), which is slightly higher than in 2005 (2.9). Out of 83% organizations that have heard of FENS, the biggest mark was given by humanitarian and social organizations and, as expected by FENS members (3.3), while the lowest mark was given by non-FENS members (2.7) and NGOs dealing with the promotion of human rights (2.9). In comparison to other variables there are no signi�cant di�erences in ratings.

If we compare satisfaction levels with the cooperation of their organization, with their opinion about the level of cooperation within the NGO sector, similarly to 2005, we can notice signi�cantly di�erent answers. While the respondents expressed high satisfaction with their organizations’ cooperation, they assessed cooperation within

the sector as being much worse. For example, cooperation within the NGO sector is generally assessed as developed by 22% of NGOs and in 22% of the cases as underdeveloped. NGOs from Vojvodina are very unsatis�ed with the level of cooperation, with 37% stating that cooperation is not developed, while NGOs from Central Serbia were most satis�ed (29%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 48: How would you evaluate attitude of the state towards the NGO sector?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

Graph 49: Have you ever cooperated with any state institutions? Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

The state is uninterested andunderestimates importance of NGO sector

62%

53%

The state recognizes NGO sector as apartner (uses services, consults…

11%

19%

The state perceives NGOs as opponents25%

17%

The state helps development of NGOsector (provides funds )

5%

10%sector (provides funds...)

I can’t estimate9%

10%

10%

2005

200910% 2009

Yes at the level of the Republic

45%

Yes, at the level of the Republic67%

Yes, at the local level

55%

71%,

71%

No

11%

8%

2005

20098% 2009

1.7. NGO cooperation with the state

Over ½ (53%) of the respondents are not satis�ed, in general, with the relationship between the state and the NGO sector, commenting that the state underestimates the importance of the sector. However, it is a good sign that there has been a signi�cant decrease in this opinion since 2005 (62%). Furthermore, the number of those who think that the state recognizes the NGO sector as a partner has increased to 19% (from 11% in 2005). 17% of respondents think that the state perceives NGOs as opponents, which is less than in 2005 (25%). The number of those who think that the state helps the development of the NGO sector has doubled (10% in 2009 and 5% in 2005). There are no signi�cant di�erences in ratings according to the research variables.

8% of respondent NGOs had not had any cooperation with state institutions so far. 71% had experienced cooperation with state institutions at a local level, and 67% with state institutions at a national level. There has been a signi�cant increase in cooperation at both levels compared to 2005. NGOs formed before 2000 (77%), as well as those from Belgrade (73%), cooperated with state institutions at a national level considerably more often than the younger organizations (59%) and small organizations (56%). This information tells us that the older organizations have acquired a certain reputation and because of their experience are better able to position themselves. With regard to the question of cooperation at a local level there are no great di�erences depending on the research variables.

Representatives of organizations which up to now have not had cooperated generally, explained this as a lack of interest in cooperation both on the part of the NGOs (“there was no need for cooperation”, 47%) and on the part of the state institutions (“they didn’t want to cooperate”, 18%). In addition, they also mentioned “prejudices towards the issues that NGOs are engaged with (10%).

However, cooperation between NGOs and local administrations is rated rather more positively than the general situation in the sector. Although 33% of organizations rate the cooperation as bad, 29% rate cooperation as neither good nor bad, and 37% feel that there is good cooperation. This, overall, is an improvement from 2005, when negative opinions were reported by 40% of respondents, and positive opinions by 32% of respondents.

New organizations (35%), those dealing with the protection of human rights (42%), small NGOs (35%), FENS members (36%) and NGOs from Vojvodina (42%) tended to be less satis�ed with cooperation at the local level. Big NGOs (59%) and NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (48%) tended to be most satis�ed with cooperation with local administrations.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 50: How would you evaluate cooperation between your local government and your organization?Base: Total target population

Graph 51: What types of cooperation with state institutions have you had till now?Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with any state institutions (91% of target population)

Graph 52: What are the problems you have been most frequently faced with during cooperation with state institutions?Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with any state institutions (91% of target population)

1%11% 10%

21% 27%Don’t know

Very good cooperation

28%29%

Good

Neutral

19%19%

21%

Poor

Very poor cooperation21% 14%y p p

2005 2009

32

40 33

37

ppgypp

Joint work on a project59%

63%

S i h l f d44%

63%

State in the role of donor

50%

61%

Exchange of experiences andinformation

50%

49%

NGO as a consultant26%

27%

2005

200927% 2009

ppgypp

Big state administration slows down the44%

Big state administration slows down theprocess of information exchange

45%

47%

Important role of informalcontacts, „connections“

45%

45%

Representatives of state organs are notinterested and they don’t realize the role

54%

41%of NGO sector

It is difficult to realize cooperation ond d ff l l f

34%

41%

projects due to different levels ofcompetences

44%

40%

2005State institutions don’t have the funds

for helping NGO activities

44%

35%2009

The most common form of cooperation with the state was working together on projects (63%) which has happened more frequently than in 2005 (59%). This is followed by the state as a donor (61%), which also represents a signi�cant increase when compared to 2005 (44%). The levels of exchange of experiences (49%) and NGOs as consultants (27%) remain essentially unchanged from 2005.

The only di�erences related to this question are on the basis of region: while organizations from Belgrade more often appear in the role of consultants than organizations from other regions (41% compared to 18% from Central Serbia and 29% from Vojvodina), in comparison to 2005 there is a signi�cant increase in Vojvodina NGOs appearing as consultants. On the other hand, the state most often �lled the role of a donor in Vojvodina and least often in Central Serbia (Vojvodina - 69%, Belgrade - 59%, and Central Serbia - 57%).

The most common problems in cooperation with the state are reported as:• Complex state administration slows down the process of information

exchange (47%);• Important role of informal contacts, “connections” (45%);• Representatives of state organs are not interested and they do not realize the

role of the NGO sector (41%);• Difficulty in establishing cooperation on projects due to different levels of

competences (40%);• State institutions do not have funds for helping NGO activities (35%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 53: Have local authorities or the state apparatus disabled work of your organization in any way?Base: Total target population

Graph 54: How would you evaluate the importance of cooperation between the state and the NGO sector?Base: Total target population

75% 73%

25% 27%

No

Yes

2005 2009

49%68%

Very important

Important

19%

68% Important

Neutral

U i

11%

16%

11%

18%Unimportant

Completely unimportant

4%11%

2%11%

2005 2009

68

86

In 2009, 27% of representatives of the NGO sector stated that the state apparatus, or the government, had hindered their work in some way, which is slightly more than in 2005 (25%). This tendency may be explained by the consideration that, since respondents generally reported a more positive attitude towards cooperation with the state, it may be that the increase in the number of those who believe that the state hinders” the work of NGOs is a result of a greater awareness of the role of the state towards NGOs, and corresponding greater expectations from the NGO side. Regarding this question, there are no di�erences depending on the research variables.

The most frequent ways of hindering NGO work were given as: • Deprivation of finances (18%);• Deprivation of space for usage (16%);• Indifference, absence of support (15%);• Obstruction of work (14%);• No cooperation (they gave us no guarantees – 12%).

The largest group of respondents felt that cooperation between NGOs and the state is very important - 86% of all respondents, which is a signi�cant increase compared to 2005 (68%). Still the graph shows us that 13% of organizations do not see this cooperation as important (15% in 2005).

What the sector can do to improve cooperation with the state could be seen from the following graph. It is interesting that NGOs feel that more active engegament from their side would lead to improved cooperation (in�uencing policies, e�cient action, programs and strategies).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 55: What might NGO sector do in order to upgrade cooperation with the state?Base: Total target population Graph 56: Have you ever cooperated with the business sector?


Influence of NGOs ongovernment, politics, adoption of laws

More efficient action, greater engagement ofNGO

11%

10%NGOs

More concrete programs, strategy, plannedwork

They can't do anything else, authorities have todo something now

10%

9%do something now

Better communication

NGOs to present their projects the state

5%

5%

Lobbying

In order to adopt the law on NGOs, the legalstatus of NGO to be regulated

5%

4%

Connecting with other organizations

Contact with citizens, publicappearances, campaigns

4%

4%

Transparency, openness

Education

4%

4%

4%Greater competence, expertise

Improving the position, the status of NGOs in themedia

Cooperation (better cooperation, the possibility

4%

3%

3%of greater

39% 36%39% 36%

61% 64%

No

Yes

2005 2009

1.8. NGO cooperation with the business sector

In 2009, 64% of all respondents said they had cooperated with the business sector, which is a slight increase compared to 2005 (61%). Here, it should be stated that any form of communication between NGOs and businesses is understood as cooperation, such as donations, even of the smallest volume - in goods, �nancial donations, etc. Cooperation is most often established among the older organizations (70% of older organizations have experience of such cooperation), as well as among those dealing with the development of civil society (76%), medium size NGOs (74%) and those based in Vojvodina (71%). The weakest cooperation with the business sector is found among NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (51% of those NGOs do not cooperate with businesses).

Why is it di�cult to establish cooperation? The respondents (representatives from NGOs that had not established cooperation) stated the main reason for not cooperating with the business sector as being the lack of interest which exists both on the side ofthe business sector and among NGOs (other factors appear considerably less often).

It is interesting that, compared to the 2005 data, the number of NGOs that claim that their mission is not connected to the business sector decreased. This indicates that NGOs have a stronger understanding understanding that cooperation between sectors can happen regardless of their missions. On the other hand, it is not encouraging that the percentage of NGOs that feel that business is not interested increased, as well as that the number of NGOs that did not even try to establish cooperation also increased (from 14 to 18%). As expected, many NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (31%) stated that the “Business sector is not ready to cooperate” as the reason for the lack of cooperation.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 57: Why have you never cooperated with the business sector?Multiple answers; Base: those who have never cooperated with business sector (36% of target population)

Graph 58: What types of cooperation have you had with the business sector?Multiple answers; Base: those who have never cooperated with business sector (36% of target population)

Business sector is not interested

We had no need for cooperation we

24%

14%

33%

We had no need for cooperation, wehadn't even tried

Business sector is not ready tocooperate

11%

18%

16%

We had no opportunity, possibility forcooperation

Mission of our NGO is not connected

12%

12%

10%

with business sector

Business sector isunderdeveloped, there are no means

8%

4%

3%

There are no terms for cooperation (weare non profitable and small)

We haven't been offered cooperation

5%

3%

3%

2%

2005

2009We haven t been offered cooperation

Business sector does not realize theimportance of NGO

8%

2%

2%

1%

Other

Don't know

2%

8%

2%

9%9%

Business sector as a donor78%

Business sector as a donor

25%

76%

Consultation

services by NGO

5%

27%

Mutual

cooperation, support5%

13% 2005

2009Other

7%

2%

2009

Generally speaking, this table re�ects NGO perceptions of the interests of the business sector in potential cooperation. However, it is possible that greater e�orts by the NGOs could help in improving the situation and increasing cooperation with business.

The three most frequently referenced methods for establishing cooperation are:• interests of the representatives of the business sector in a given field - 64%; • personal motives of the representatives of the business sector - 35% ;• Board members come from the business sector - 15%.

The most common type of cooperation between the business sector and NGOs is that where the representative of the business sector is found in the role of a donor. If we take into account only those organizations which have cooperated with the business sector, it is noticeable that 76% of these NGOs have had experience with business sector donations (a slightly lower �gure when compared to 2005 – 78%), 27% appeared in consultant roles (25% in 2005), while 13%, compared to 5% in 2005, stated that they had established mutual cooperation and support with the business sector and 2% established cooperation in some other ways. Cooperation where the business sector is found in the role of a donor is more often achieved by organizations from the social-humanitarian �eld than organizations from other �elds (85%) and least with young, economy, professional associations (67%) and big NGOs (66%). Mutual cooperation and support is mostly achieved by NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (28%).

When the business sector appears in the role of a donor, it is most often connected to �nancial donations, with74% of the organizations that had received donations reporting this type of �nancial cooperation, and then donations in kind (62% of these organizations reported this type of in kind cooperation).

The next graph shows the nature of the help received from the business sector. It can be clearly seen that the majority of organizations (70% of NGOs that had received donations) tend to receive sporadic, small amounts of help from the business sector. Only 6% of organizations that received donations actually received strategically planned and continuous help. Another 23% of these organizations state that the help they received is not continuous, but that it is received regularly, for most projects. Those data do not di�er from 2005. This indicates that further e�orts are needed to raise the awareness of the business sector regarding the value of strategic assistance, and to help NGOs to establish more strategic partnerships with businesses.



Graph 59: What is the nature of help that you receive from the business sector? Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with business sector - as a donor (49% of target population)

ed with cooperation of your organization and the business sector?Base: those who cooperated with business sector (64% of target population)

Graph 61: Why cooperation between your organization and the business sector is not more extensive? What are the problems you have been most frequently faced with during cooperation with the business sector?Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with business sector (64% of target population)

Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with business sector as a donor (49% of target population)

Help is sporadic, donations are small72%

70%

Help is not continuous, but theyhelp us on majority of projects

21%

23%help us on majority of projects

We have strategically designed and6%

23%

2005

continuous help 6% 2009

7% 11%%18%

22% Very satisfied

Satisfied38%

37%

Satisfied

Neutral

30% 24%

7%

Dissatisfied

Completely dissatisfied

2005 2009

7% 6%

2005 2009

25% 33%

ppgpp

65%Companies have no tax exemptions forhelping NGO sector

65%

58%

61%

Companies are not informed well enoughabout the role and importance of NGOs

C i i b d i i h

58%

62%

60%

Companies are in a very bad situation – theyhave no funds for donations

Companies are not interested in the work of

62%

35%

56%

Companies are not interested in the work ofNGOs

There is a negative attitude towards NGO 25%

31%

There is a negative attitude towards NGOsector as a whole

Our NGOs have no experience in 17%

22%2005

papproaching business sector 13% 2009

The rates of respondents’ general satisfaction with the cooperation between their own organizations and the business sector increased, with the average mark on a scale from 1 to 5 being 3.1 (2.87 in 2005). As can be seen from the graph, extreme evaluations of cooperation (marks of 1 or 5) appeared in 11% of the cases (7% in 2005).

In terms of regions, the highest level of satisfaction is expressed by NGOs from Central Serbia (average mark 3.3%) and the lowest in Vojvodina (2.8). Those that are not FENS members are more satis�ed (3.4) than FENS members (2.9). Also, a high level of satisfaction is stated by NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (3.3).

We asked the organizations that had previously cooperated with the business sector why there was not more cooperation between them and the business sector. The most frequently stated reasons are that companies receive no tax exemptions for helping the NGO sector (stated by 61% of respondents - representatives of NGOs which had established cooperation with the business sector), and that the companies have insu�cient knowledge of the role and signi�cance of the NGO sector (60%). Further, it was stated that the poor �nancial situations of many companies mean that they have no funds with which to support NGO activities (56% of these respondents). Evidently, according to the opinion of the representatives of the NGO sector, any negative attitude on the part of the representatives of the business sector towards the Third Sector is of secondary signi�cance: the lack of interest in the work of the NGO sector is stated by 31% of respondents who achieved cooperation, and a negative attitude from the business sector towards NGOs by 22% of them.

As in 2005, it is telling that the inexperience of NGOs in approaching the business sector is given as a reason for the lack of cooperation by only 13% of these respondents (even less than in 2005 – 17%). However, the large number of NGOs that claimed that business does not have tax incentives for supporting NGOs, which is not true, shows that there is a need for further education on the NGO side. There are no signi�cant di�erences in the answers to this question depending on the research variables.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 62: How would you evaluate the importance of cooperation between the business sector and the NGO sector?Base: Total target population

37%48% Very important

Important

25%

32%

Important

Neutral

U i t t32%18%

13%8%

12%6%

Unimportant

Completely unimportant

2005 2009

8% 6%

2005 2009

62% 80%

The graph presenting opinions about the importance of this cooperation indicates that the highest percentage of respondents, i.e. representatives of the NGO sector, feel that cooperation with the business sector is of exceptional signi�cance (48%) - a much more common response than in 2005 (37%). Another 32% see it as important (also an increase compared to 2005 – 25%). Even so, it should be kept in mind that 19% of respondents do not acknowledge the signi�cance of such cooperation.

On these two questions there are no signi�cant di�erences depending on the research variables, except for NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (14% think that it is not important compared to the average - 6%).

As in 2005, on the question – “Is it better to cooperate with private or state companies?”- the highest percentage of respondents, i.e. representatives of NGOs who have cooperated with the business sector up to now, feel that there is no di�erence (45% of NGOs which have cooperated with the business sector). However, the remainder of the respondents gives the advantage to private companies (38%) rather than state companies (18%). On this question there are no signi�cant di�erences depending on the research variables.

At the end of this section we asked all the respondents to give us their suggestions to the question of what the NGO sector could do to approach the business sector in a better way. Here is the list of most frequent answers:

• Informing the business sector about the importance and role of NGOs and about mutual bene�ts from cooperation (69%);

• Lobbying (40%);• Campaigns for a change of NGO image (38%);• Organizing joint conferences with the business sector (34%);• Development of an action plan about joint appearance in NGO networks

(31%);• Learning of skills for fund-raising (31%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 63: What type of the media?Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with media (98% of target population)ppgpp

Local electronic (TV, radio) 96%

Local printed

National printed

88%

75%

National electronic (TV, radio) 66%

Local media 67%

Big media, with national coverage

Equally

6%

28%q y 2009 2005

1.8. NGO cooperation with the media

As in 2005, the majority of non-governmental organizations have contact with the media (98%). Here, we have to stress that in this case the concept of contact can mean any form of cooperation (from reporting and advertising right through to working together on projects and providing consulting services).

When we look at the reasons for cooperation, we see that in the majority of cases (93% of organizations which had cooperated with the media) this cooperation is re�ected in the media reporting on some of the organization’s activities. However, according to the statements of our respondents, joint work between NGOs and the media on some projects is not a rare occurrence, with 37% of organizations reporting cooperation, although this was slightly less than in 2005 (42%). This is followed by advertising the organization in the media (28%) which is considerably less than in 2005 (42%). Advertising the organization is mentioned as a form of cooperation considerably more often by representatives of the NGO sector from Belgrade (34%) than from Central Serbia (12%). The reason for this probably lies in the fact that (as can be seen from later answers) the local media give considerably more space to promoting the NGO sector free of charge. A training program for journalists was organized in 15% of the cases, with big organizations taking the lead (30%), and more among FENS members (21%) than those that are not FENS members (9%).

When asked about the type of the media with which cooperation existed, 96% of those who cooperated responded that they cooperated with local electronic media, followed by 88% of those who cooperated with the local printed media, 75% with the national printed media, and 66% with the national electronic media (TV, radio). There is a signi�cant increase in types of the media NGOs cooperated with, when compared to 2005.

Of all the organizations which had contact with the media (altogether 98% of the sample), 50% found it to be easier to communicate with the local media, while 9% found it easier to communicate with the large national media and 40% did not notice any di�erence in the ease of communicating with either local or national media. There is a signi�cant change when compared to 2005, in terms of a shift from working the local media towards the national media, which NGOs �nd increasingly more possible to work with. There are huge regional di�erences, and as it could have be expected it is much easier for Belgrade-based organizations to achieve cooperation with large media houses with national coverage (25%), than it is in other two regions, Vojvodina (2%) and Central Serbia (3%). The data indicates that in Vojvodina and Central Serbia, cooperation with the larger media is almost totally non-existent, but the local media is more open to cooperation. Unsurprisingly, NGOs from these two regions (59%) have much easier cooperation with the local media than those in Belgrade (29%).

62% of representatives of all NGOs that have cooperated with the media felt that in achieving cooperation, there was no di�erence between the printed and the electronic media, which is an increase compared to 2005 (55%). A total of 21% of representatives of these organizations stated that cooperation is more easily achieved with the electronic media (down from 31% in 2005), while 18% more easily achieve cooperation with magazines and daily papers (up from 14% in 2005). In terms of regional di�erences, it could be seen that in Belgrade it is evidently considerably easier for non-governmental organizations to make contact with the printed media (27%), than it is in Vojvodina (18%) and in Central Serbia (12%). The electronic media is mostly accessible in Central Serbia (27%) and less in Belgrade (19%) and in Vojvodina (12%). In Vojvodina, there is the greatest equality in the accessibility of the various types of the media (69%).

Among the electronic media, NGOs had the best cooperation with B92 (18%), then RTS (11%), and RTV Vojvodina (9%). Given their local coverage and the smaller number of NGOs in their communities, the following electronic media are mentioned in smaller percentages: Studio B (4%), RTV Kragujevac and TV Kraljevo (3% each) and others with less than 3% each. As expected, Belgrade-based NGOs (49%) have better cooperation with B92, than those from Vojvodina (13%) and Central Serbia (6%). Also, older organizations (24%), those dealing with the development of civil society (24%), big NGOs (37%) and non-FENS members (22%) have better cooperation with B92 than others. RTS is most accessible for NGOs from Belgrade (23%), and as expected, RTV Vojvodina for those from Vojvodina (31%), with no existent cooperation with NGOs from other regions. In addition, RTV Vojvodina is especially open to NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (18%).

Here is the list of the electronic media that NGOs had best cooperation with:


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 64: Electronic - please name one electronic media you had best cooperation with?Multiple answers; Base: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the electronic media (97% of target population)

ed with cooperation between your organization and the media?Base: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the media (98% of target population)

g p p

B92

RTS

18%

11%

RTV Vojvodina

Studio B

9%

4%

RTV Kragujevac

TV Kraljevo

3%

3%

RTV Pan evo

TV Požega

3%

2%

TV 5, Niš

TV 5, Užice

2%

2%

Radio Zrenjanin

Jasenica

2%

1%

1%TV VK Kikinda

TV Leskovac

1%

1%

1%TV Jedinstvo 1%

Danas 16%Danas

Ostale lokalne novine 16%

14%Blic

Politika

14%

9%

Ve ernje Novosti

Dne nik

7%

7%Dnevnik

Magyar Szo

7%

3%

Pan evac

Narodne novine

3%

3%Narodne novine

Suboti ke novine 3%

Among printed media, DANAS was considered the most accessible for NGOs (16%), then other di�erent local media (16%), BLIC (14%), Politika (9%), Večernje novosti (7%), Dnevnik (7%), and then other printed media (each 3% or less). NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (29%), Belgrade based (28%) and medium size NGOs (26%) have the best cooperation with DANAS, while NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work cooperate with DANAS in only 4% of the cases. Other local newspapers are most accessible in Central Serbia (23%), BLIC (24%) and POLITIKA (30%) in Belgrade, and DNEVNIK (22%) in Vojvodina.

The next four graphs show marks on a 5-point scale: satisfaction with organizational cooperation with the media, a general rating of the development of cooperation between the NGO sector and the media, rating the media’s perception of the NGO sector, and an evaluation of the importance of cooperation between these two sectors.

Responses indicate that cooperation with the media is seen as very important, with this view shared by almost all the representatives of the NGO sector (average mark 4.7). Also, the experiences of this cooperation up to now are mostly positive (the average mark on the scale for satisfaction – 4). As many as 71% of respondents are satis�ed with the cooperation achieved, and only 5% expressed dissatisfaction with the cooperation achieved up to the present.

On the other hand, it is felt that cooperation is not su�ciently developed when the sector as a whole is taken into account (the average mark for cooperation is 3.1 on the 5-point scale. Also, the most stated opinion is that the media inadequately and only partially understand the importance of the NGO sector in Serbia (the most frequently given score is 3.3 on the 5-point scale).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

ed with cooperation between your organization and the media?Base: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the media (98% of target population)

Graph 67: In your opinion, to what extent do the media understand the importance and the role of NGOs?Base: Total target population

Graph 68: In general, how would you evaluate cooperation between the media and the NGO sector in Serbia?Base: Total target population

29% 35% Very satisfied

Satisfied

39% 36%

Satisfied

Neutral

Di i fi d

25% 24%6%

Dissatisfied


2005 2009

6% 4%

2005 2009

68% 71%

9% 9%

26% 31%Yes completely

Maynly yes

48% 45%

Maynly yes

Yes and no

M i l45%

15% 11%

Mainly no

Not at all

2005 2009

3% 3%

5% 3%

20% 25% Very developed

Developed

51% 49%

Developed

Neutral

U d d l d

22% 22%

Underdeveloped

Completely underdeveloped

2005 20092005 2009

35% 40%

In general, journalists are blamed for the problems in cooperation - the signi�cance of the active role of NGOs in cooperation with the media is not recognized. The respondents most often gave the following reasons for their dissatisfaction with their cooperation with the media:

• There is no investigative reporting in the field of monitoring the NGO sector (49%);

• Low level of professionalism among journalists (34%);• The media is not interested in reporting about NGO activities (27%);• It comes to “twisting” of information in the media, in order to create a

sensational topic (24%);• Prices of media ads are very high (20%);• NGOs are not trained well enough for cooperation with the media (15%);

However, 11% of the respondents stated that there were no problems and that they had good cooperation with the media.

NGOs promote the results of their projects in various ways, and most often they appear as reports in the media (42%), press conferences (26%), reports and elaborates (22%), as well as via websites and mailing lists (21%).

The next graph indicates that the most common way for the media to cover the activities of NGOs is by interviewing their representatives (stated by 78% of respondents). Coverage of activities through various newspaper articles is the next on the list (62%), followed by paid advertising (9%).

Reporting by means of newspaper articles is the most common in Belgrade (81%), and the rarest in Central Serbia (47%), which is in accordance with the data already received that the printed media is more accessible in Belgrade.

How do NGOs evaluate the attitude of the media towards the sector? The majority of respondents feel that there are di�ering opinions amongst the media regarding the NGO sector, with some parts having a positive attitude and some negative (43% of all respondents). Also, there is a high percentage of respondents who feel that most of the media has a more positive than negative attitude towards the NGO sector (33%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 69: How would you evaluate the importance of cooperation between the media and the NGO sector?Base: Total target population

Graph 70: In what way do you employ new personnel?5 Very important

71% 78%

Grade 4

71% 78%Grade 3

14%17%11%

Grade 2

11%4% 1 Completely

unimportant

2005 2009

y y y

17%We have developed system (jobannouncements and ads, with conditions

and criteria)

17%

17%

Depending on project, we have nodeveloped system

76%

77%developed system

N / D t l7%

77%

2005No answer / Do not employ

6% 2009

On this question, there are no signi�cant di�erences depending on the research variables, except for Belgrade-based NGOs that in 18% of the cases think that the attitude of the majority of media is positive (compared to Central Serbia – 40%), and 30% of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society stating that the majority of the media is absolutely uninterested, they have neither positive nor negative attitude.

An evaluation of the situation of the organizations in the area of cooperation with the media shows that 39% of respondent organizations feel that there is no need for further training, which is more than it was in 2005 (32%), 51% believe the situation is good, but that further training is necessary, while only 9% think that training in the �eld of cooperation with the media is necessary. On this question there are no great di�erences depending on the research variables.

1.10. Personnel and volunteersResearch �ndings show that the method of employing new personnel has not changed when compared to 2005. Most NGOs (77.2%) hire new sta� depending on the project, without a developed system. Fewer organizations (16.7%) have some already developed system of hiring. The fewest number of NGOs stated that they do not hire new sta� or did not give an answer (5.7%).

When results are compared in terms of the year of registration, a signi�cant di�erence is visible with 25% of NGOs registered before 2000 and 10% of NGOs registered in 2000 and later having a developed system for employment. Organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work have a much better developed system for hiring new sta� (21%) than those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations (12%). Larger NGOs hire sta� based on a developed system more often than do smaller organizations (39% of organizations with more than 30 sta�/activists in comparison to 11% of organizations with less than 14 members of sta�/activists), FENS members (21%) and those in Belgrade (23%). In Central Serbia there is a more dominant tendency of hiring new sta� depending on projects in comparison to the average �gure (83%). In Vojvodina, there is the greatest tendency of not hiring new sta� (13% of organizations).

The most frequent way of recruiting volunteers is through their own initiative: 23% of volunteers apply themselves, i.e. “they just come to the organization”. This is followed by personal contacts, friends and family ties (16%), via ads and competitions (12%). In 9% of cases, volunteers come on recommendation or are engaged depending on the project.

Volunteers mostly apply themselves or come to an NGO that deals with the development of civil society (35%), middle size NGOs (26%), non-FENS NGOs (25%) and those in Belgrade (25%). Volunteers are found through personal contacts, acquaintances and family ties more often by NGOs registered after 2000 (18%) than by those before 2000 (13%), mostly by NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (20%) and least by NGOs dealing with civil society development (3%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

nd volunteers, 2009?

Graph 72: Which are the problems you are faced with regarding employed members and volunteers in your NGO, 2009?

They apply themselves, they come

Personal contacts, acquaintances, family ties

23%

16%

Via ads and competitions

They are our members

12%

11%

On recommendation

They are engaged depending on project

9%

9%

Among students, pupils and their organizations

Informal way, in contact with citizens

6%

5%

Through various promotional activities and…

In cooperation with other NGOs

4%

4%

3%From volunteer centers

In cooperation with institutions (SIZ, The Red Cross)

3%

3%

2%Soldiers during their civil army service

They found out about us from the media

Th f i

2%

2%

1%They are users of our services 1%

y

Not defined nor regulated status of volunteersin Serbia

55%in Serbia

Recruitment and keeping of personnel in NGO 28%

Insufficiently experienced personnel

Insufficient motivation of engaged members

25%

23%Insufficient motivation of engaged members

Recruitment of volunteers 11%

Inadequate management of volunteers and / ormembers employed

6%

Funding

No problems

2%

10%No problems

No answer

10%

4%

The practice of recruiting volunteers by advertisements and competitions is more present in newly formed NGOs (14%) than in older (9%), in those dealing with the protection of human rights (16%), and in only few cases in those dealing with humanitarian and social work (4%). In terms of regions, volunteers in Vojvodina are recruited through advertisements s by only 6% of respondent organizations.

Volunteers are the most present in NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (16%), least in civil society development NGOs (4%), and only in 5% of Vojvodina-based NGOs. It is worth mentioning that volunteers are engaged depending on projects mostly by NGOs dealing with youth, economy, and professional associations (13%) and FENS members (13%), and least by non-FENS NGOs (4%). The recruitment of volunteers among students, pupils and their organizations is mostly carried out by big organizations (17%) and those from Belgrade (15%) and only in 1% of NGOs in Central Serbia.

The most frequent problem that NGOs encounter with sta� and volunteers is the neither de�ned nor regulated status of volunteers in Serbia (55%). This is followed by problems related to recruitment and keeping of NGO personnel (28%), insu�ciently experienced personnel (25%) and insu�cient motivation of engaged members (23%). Problems with the recruitment of volunteers are present in 11% of the cases, while only 6% of NGOs have problems with inadequate management. Although the economic situation in the country is bad, the problem of funding (related to employed sta� and volunteers) appears at the bottom of the list (on average 2% of organizations stated this as one of the problems that their organization had).

Concern over the nonexistent legal framework for volunteering is mostly present among NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (66%), FENS members (60%) and NGOs from Central Serbia (60%), and least among NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (39%), non-FENS NGOs (50%) and those from Belgrade (49%). NGOs dealing with youth, economy, and professional associations have the most problems with the recruitment and retention of personnel (37%), followed by protection of human rights NGOs (35%), while the fewest NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work reported confronting this problem (17%). It seems that insu�ciently experienced personnel is an equal problem for all types of NGOs, especially for big NGOs (32%), those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations have the fewest problems (12%). An insu�cient motivation of engaged members is most present as a problem in NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (28%), and least in NGOs dealing wit the


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 73: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in terms of employing personnel and recruiting volunteers? Do you need additional education?

Graph 74: How would you evaluate the attitude of the environment towards the NGO sector as a whole?Base: Total target population

Education in this field is necessary22%

18%y

It’s good but that we need additional48%

18%

It s good, but that we need additionaleducation

28%

46%

We have no need for additionaleducation

28%

35%

No answer2%

0%

2005

2009

5% 4%

16% 25%Very positive attitude

Positive attitude48%

46%

Positive attitude

Neutral

N ti ttit d

25%23%

Negative attitude

Very negative attitude

7% 2%

2005 2009

21% 29%

1.11. Attitude of the public towards NGOsThe public attitude towards the NGO sector is judged to be mainly neutral (46% of respondents give mark 3 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is an expressly negative attitude and 5 expressly positive). However, there is a signi�cant increase in positive attitudes when compared to 2005, from 21% to 29%, with a decrease in negative attitudes from 32% to 25%. The positive evaluation of the attitude of the environment towards NGOs is the highest among NGOs registered before 2000 (36%), those dealing with youth, economy, and professional associations (40%), medium sized (31%), non-FENS (31%) and those from Central Serbia (35%). The lowest evaluation is among NGOs registered after 2000 (22%), those that work on the development of civil society (19%), big (25%), FENS members (26%) and those based in Belgrade (19%). When compared to data from another survey (“Perception of NGOs in Serbia” carried out in May 2009), it may be noted that citizens’ perceptions have not changed so signi�cantly. This means that NGOs’ perception of their own images is a bit better than among citizens.

Higher marks are noticeable when the respondents reported how they saw the attitude of the community in which they worked toward their NGO. Perceptions of positive attitudes (marks 4 and 5) have increased from 51% in 2005 to 55% in 2009. As in 2005, it may be said that the respondents perceive the attitude of the community in which they work as much more favorable and positive toward their own organizations than towards the NGO sector as a whole. Perceptions of negative public attitudes towards their own NGOs were reported by 1% of NGOs registered before 2000 and 9% of NGOs registered after 2000, and these are the most signi�cant di�erences. As for positive attitudes, those that were registered before 2000 (62%), those dealing with culture, education and ecology (65%),

protection of human rights (28%), and least in NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (15%), while the other research variables do not have relevance to the answers obtained. It is worth mentioning that, when all types of NGOs are compared, big NGOs (31+) primarily face problems with recruiting volunteers (24%).

The rating of the situation in the organizations in terms of hiring sta� and recruiting volunteers is similar to the one in 2005, with an increased con�dence among respondents in terms of their knowledge/skills of the topic. The dominant opinion is that the situation is good, but that they still need additional training in this �eld (46% chose this answer), 18% think that additional training in this �eld is necessary, while 35% think that they do not need additional training in this �eld. NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work most identi�ed a need for additional training (26%), and only 12% of NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology reported needing additional training. In Belgrade, the prevailing opinion among respondents is that their organizations do not need additional training (47% as opposed to Central Serbia-26% and Vojvodina -39%). There are no signi�cant di�erences in answers depending on the size of organization, the year of its establishment, and FENS membership.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 75: How would you evaluate the attitude of the environment you are active in towards your organization?Base: Total target population

Graph 76: How would you evaluate the extent to which citizens in your environment are informed about activities of the NGO sector? Base: Total target population

Graph 77: How interested are citizens in your environment in activities of the NGO sector? Base: Total target population

14% 14%

37% 41%Very positive attitude

2005 2009

37% 41%

36%40%

10% 5%

Positive attitude

Neutral

Negative attitude

Very negative attitude

51% 55%

36%

13% 11%3% 6%

Very well informed

2005 2009

11% 8%

36% 35%

36% 40% Informed

Neutral

Uninformed

Completely uninformed

36% 33%

9% 11%3% 3%

Very interested

2005 2009

10% 10%

41% 43%

36% 33%Interested

Neutral

Uninterested

Completely uninterested

those that are large (70%) and those based in Belgrade (62%) mostly believe that the public has a positive attitude towards their NGOs, while 47% of NGOs registered after 2000, dealing with the protection of human rights and those from Central Serbia think the same.

Perceptions of public awareness about the activities of the NGO sector are relatively low, with 43% of respondents identifying the public as uninformed or completely uninformed, and only 17% of respondents identifying the public as informed or very well informed. Regional di�erences are noticeable in answers to this question, with respondents from Central Serbia perceiving the citizens of Serbia to be informed about the work of the NGO sector to a greater degree (21%), especially compared to the respondents from Belgrade (11%). Overall, there is a slightly positive shift in this area in comparison to 2005, with a smaller percentage of perceptions of citizens as being uninformed or completely uninformed (from 47% to 43%) and an increase in perceptions of citizens as beingneutral (from 36 to 40%), and informed or very well informed (from 16 to 17%).

When asked “How interested are citizens in your area in the work of the NGO sector”, negative marks were expressed to a slightly greater extent (53% in 2009 compared to 51% in 2005), but with also a slight increase in those interested or very interested (from 12% in 2005 to 14% in 2009). Responses to this question demonstrated no great di�erences depending on the research variables (between organizations of varying size, from various regions, formed before or after 2000, FENS members or non-members). Organizations dealing with youth, economy and professional associations felt to a greater degree (21%) that citizens were interested in the work of the NGO sector, while only 5% of those dealing with culture, education and ecology shared this view.

40% of the responding NGO representatives stated that their organizations had public relations strategies, which is a signi�cant drop when compared to 2005 (53%). There are no signi�cant di�erences among NGOs, except by size and region – 62% of big organizations, and 51% of those based in Belgrade, reported having public relations strategies.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 78: Does your organization have any strategy for public relations?Base: Total target population

Graph 79: In what way does your organization communicate with the public?Base: Total target population

47% 59%

53% 40%

No

Yes

2005 2009

Printed material –brochures, flyers, leaflets, posters

65%

71%

Direct contact with citizens/users67%

58%

61%

Public announcements

Press conferences47%

60%

57%Press conferences

Web page (internet site)43%

57%

52%

Media campaigns50%

27%

51%

Annual report

Billb d

27%

8%

29%

Billboards

Other3%

8%

2%200520092009

When explaining the ways in which their organizations communicate with the public, the most frequently given answers are: printed materials, i.e. brochures, �yers, lea�ets, posters (71%), direct contact with citizens/clients (61%), public announcements (60%), press conferences (57%), media campaigns (51%), internet presentations, websites (52%), annual reports (29%). When compared to the 2005 data, there is a clear change in the way NGOs communicate with the public. There is a general increase in all aspects of communication with citizens, except for the direct contact, which has decreased from 67% in 2005. The biggest increases are in the use of press conferences (10% more) and webpage/internet (9%) to communicate with the public. Signi�cant di�erences are shown when the frequency of using printed materials to reach the public is compared depending on the type and size of the organization. Only 49% of organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work print materials, while 81% of those dealing with culture, education and ecology print materials. Also, more big organizations (94%) print signi�cantly than do small NGOs (65%).

It is important to note that NGOs in general have decreased direct contact with citizens. Citizens (various groups or as a whole) should be the primary users and constituents of NGOs; furthermore, direct contact with citizens is an issue that can be connected with issues of public trust in NGOs, the NGO’s public image, and citizens’ motivation to get involved. Given all this, the trend of decreasing contacts with citizens is rather worrying and is something to be seriously considered by NGOs.

There are no major di�erences among NGOs related to their direct contacts with citizens/users and the frequency of issuing public announcements. Press conferences are held by 48% of smaller organizations and by 82% of larger organizations. Organizations dealing with the development of civil society use web pages and websites more signi�cantly (65%) than do organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work (35%). Statistically signi�cant di�erences between the sizes and regions of the organizations are also noticeable. The bigger the organization, the more frequent its use of internet communication– 40% by small NGOs, 67% by medium sized NGOs and 81% by big NGOs. Internet communication is much more commonly used as a method of outreach in Belgrade (76%) than is in

Central Serbia (36%) – as a result, it is clear that computers are more often used as an ‘e�cient’ medium to make contact with NGOs in Belgrade. As expected, media campaigns are mostly run by NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (64%), and only by 31% of NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work.

The preparation of annual reports, as a means of communicating with the public, is most common among big organizations (63%).

92% of respondent NGOs have their own logo, 37% a slogan, and 33% a public relations manager. When compared to 2005, it seems that there is a trend for NGOs to invest more into visual identity and less in human resources. There are no great di�erences in answers to this question depending on the research variables (size of organization, membership in FENS, year of formation, �eld of work, region). The only signi�cant di�erence is on the question of the employment of a public relations manager, with 49% of respondent NGOs dealing with youth, economy and professional associations employing a public relations manager.



Graph 80: Does your organization have …Base: Total target population

Graph 81: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in terms of public relations? Do you need additional education? Base: Total target population

T

Logo86%

92%

Slogan32%

37%

PR manager (person responsible for35% 2005

2009public relations) 33% 2009

23% 36%We have no need foradditional education

2005 2009

25% 16%

51%47%

additional education

It’s good, but we needadditional education

Education in this field isnecessary

Insufficient public knowledge about the roleof NGO

Relationship of the media and

20%

18%

18%

Relationship of the media andNGO, presence in the media

The very work of NGO, clear goal, program38%

17%

13%

Political situation, politics, political parties

P liti f th f i

20%

8%

10%

Politics of the former regime

Conservativeenvironment, patriarchate, prejudice

7%

8%

7%

2005

2009

Relationship of the authorities andNGO, cooperation

Role in democratic streams democratization

11%

6%

5%

3%Role in democratic streams, democratization

Economic situation in the country, economicuncertainty

8%

4%

3%

3%

Foreign donations

Don't know

4%

10%

3%

8%8%

Graph 82: Name the reasons that have dominantly a�ected the public image of the NGO sector in Serbia.

With regard to public relations, 47% of respondents stated that the situation in their organization in this respect is good, but that further training is necessary. When compared to 2005, it is apparent that NGOS have grown more con�dent in their public relations skills, with 1/3 (36%) stating that they do not need further education in this area. This is also interesting considering that the public opinion poll indicates that the popular image of NGOs has not signi�cantly improved.

42% of NGOs that deal with the development of civil society, and those dealing with culture, education and ecology, report that they have considerably less need for further training in public relations. Interestingly enough, humanitarian and social work NGOs (26%) and big organizations (23%) signi�cantly more than others express the need for further training. In the case of larger organizations, this can be explained by the fact that more experienced NGOs realize that there is a signi�cant space for learning in the area of public relations.

When asked to name the factors that had predominantly a�ected the public image of the NGO sector in Serbia, respondents gave the answers presented in the following graph (with the opportunity for multiple answers):

The main factors a�ecting the public image of the NGO sector are viewed as being insu�cient knowledge about the role of the sector (18%), followed by NGOs’ relationships with the media (17%), the work of individual NGOs and the clarity of their goals and program (13%) and political situation/political parties (10%). It is interesting that although the same reasons were mentioned in the 2005 survey, their importance is now assessed as much lower than 4 years before; for example, the signi�cance of the work of NGOs, which in 2005 was seen as the predominant factor a�ecting the public image of the sector, has dropped from 38% in 2005 to 13% in 2009. Similarly, a signi�cant drop is seen in the perceived role of the political situation and political parties (from 20% to 10%) and a slightly smaller drop is seen in the importance attributed, to the relationship with authorities (from 11% to 5%). None of the factors that were previously seen as important have increased in perceived importance, so it is very di�cult to draw any conclusions.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 83: What do you think is the most important factor for improvement of NGO sector image in Serbia? Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

Graph 84: What are the most important problems in our country that NGO should/already are dealing with?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

72%Informing citizens about the role and importance of

NGO sector

72%

40%

85%

Direct contact with citizens (forums, round tables etc)

Realization of better cooperation with local authorities35%

65%

57%p

Upgraded responding to users’ needs30%

57%

46%

Better cooperation with business sector

28%

41%

Realization of better cooperation with politicians andinfluential people

28%

22%

37%

20052009Changed – upgraded relationship with journalists 31%2009

Living standard, economic problems25%

25%Living standard, economic problems

Human rights26%

10%

25%

24%

Environmental protection, ecology

Education

10%

21%

18%

17%

Social problems, social protection

Young people youth

12%

11%

16%

13%

2005

Young people, youth

Unemployment10%

10%

13%

10%

2009

Laws, implementation of laws, rule of laws

Corruption

10%

4%

10%

8%

European integrations4%

8%

There are no major differences among NGOs, except in a few cases: 6% of medium-sized NGOs think that the work of NGOs and clarity of their goals and program are key in affecting the image of the sector. 17% of Belgrade-based NGOs perceive the influence of political parties and political situation as most dominant,while 9% of NGOs from Central Serbia, to a greater extent than Belgrade- and Vojvodina-based NGOs, recognize engagement in social issues as dominant.

When asked “what is the most important factor in improving the image of the NGO sector in Serbia?” (with the opportunity for multiple answers) respondents stated that the most significant factor was informing citizens about the role and importance of the NGO sector (85%). Direct contact with citizens (65%) is also mentioned as very important (which is contradictory to the data that NGOs decreased direct contact with citizens in their public relations), then better cooperation with local authorities (57%), and improved responses to users’ needs (56%). It is interesting that cooperation with the business sector was not mentioned in the 2005 survey, while in 2009, 41% of the respondents (and 62% of NGOs dealing with youth, economy and professional associations) thought it was important for the image of the sector, which shows a significantly changed perception of the relationship between the business sector and NGOs. A changed – improved relationship with journalists was mostly perceived as important by Belgrade-based NGOs (45%), and least by NGOs from Central Serbia (21%). Except for the above, there are no other great differences in the answers to this question depending on the research variables.

1.12. Diversity within the sector/regional standardization

When questioned as to the most important problems in the country that NGOs should address, or are already addressing, (multiple answers), respondents most frequently mentioned the problems with living standards and economic problems (25%) followed by human rights (24%), then the environment and ecology (18%). It is interesting to notice how the perception of problems has changed in 4 years: significant increases may be seen in the mentions of ecology and social problems/protection,, and issues of corruption and European integration.

As expected, NGOs stress the importance of problems that they deal with in a wider sense - the problem of economy and living standard are mostly stressed by NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (43%); the issue of human rights is usually pointed out by those NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (41%); then youth, economy and professional associations mostly stress problems related to young people (33%); education is much more stressed by organizations dealing with culture, education and training (32%); social protection issues are underlined by organizations dealing with socio-humanitarian work (27% of these organizations); etc. The status of marginalized groups is mostly perceived as the most important problem by NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (12%). There are no other differences among NGOs interviewed. The distribution of answers is shown in the graph:



eld in which the NGO cient extent?


Graph 86: Do NGOs respond to the needs of the local community?Base: Total target population

Environmental protection, ecology

Social problems, social protection

8%

6%

13%

9%

Living standard, economic problems

Education

8%

8%

5%

5%

Human rights

Laws, implementation of laws, rule oflaws

6%

2%

5%

5%laws

Young people, youth

Persons with disability

6%

5%

5%

4%

4%y

Children

Unemployment

5%

6%

4%

3%

2%

2005

2009Unemployment

Culture, social life

Healthcare

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%Healthcare

Rights of women

Rights of minority

4%

2%

1%

1%

Rights of minority

25% 29%

12% 11%

Yes completely

2005 2009

5% 1%

15%11%

42%47%

Mainly yes

Neutral

Mainly no

Not at at all

37% 40%

When asked about the areas in which NGOs are not present to a su�cient extent, we can see a growing concern for environmental protection and ecology, as this area is on the top of the “not covered” with 13% (8% in 2005). It is followed by social problems/social protection (9%, compared to 6% in 2005), while all other areas show a signi�cant drop in terms of not being covered by NGOs which shows the opinion of su�ciently present NGOs in various �elds/areas (as listed in the graph).

FENS members are especially concerned for the future of the community, municipality, development (7%).

When asked if there is a �eld in which too many NGOs are active at the expense of neglecting other �elds, the average of “yes” responses was 29%, with Belgrade-based NGOs being much above the average (44%).

Respondents think that in 40% of the cases, NGOs meet the needs of the local community; this represents an increase when compared to 2005 (37%). At the same time, the frequency of the response “not meeting the needs of the local commu-nity” has dropped to 12% (from 20% in 2005). Most humanitarian and social work-related NGOs (59%) believe that NGOs meet the needs of the local communi-ties. This opinion is shared with 54% of NGOs from Central Serbia, while 21% of Belgrade based NGOs believe that NGOs do not meet local community needs.

At the society level, the situation is the same as in 2005, with 38% of the respon-dents stating that NGOs meet the needs of the society. However, 15% of the respondents think that NGOs do not meet the needs of the society – a decrease compared to 2005 (19%).

If we compare responses related to questions about meeting the needs of the local community and meeting the needs of the whole society, respondents think that needs in the local community are met to a greater extent than those at the level of the whole society.



Graph 87: Do NGOs respond to the needs of the society?Base: Total target population

nanced?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

26% 29%

12% 9%

Yes completely

2005 2009

4% 1%15% 14%

42% 46%

Mainly yes

Neutral

Mainly no

Not at at all

38% 38%

Weare financed on basis of projects

84%

88%

Our work is voluntary54%

47%

Membership fees21%

23%

23%

Voluntary contributions23%

26%

18% 20052009

Self financing activities

We have general (institutional) support8%

17%

We have general (institutional) support

Providing services on basis of contracts16%

15%

13%

Presents18%

13%

13%

When asked about the most important �eld in which activities of the NGO sector are lacking respondents mentioned environmental protection and ecology (15%), and standards of living and, economic problems (8%).

1.13. Financial stability – sources of �nancingThe most commonly cited method of �nancing NGOs is based on project �nancing (88%), which is an increase from 2005 (84%). This is followed by the method of voluntary work in the organization (47%), which has decreased since 2005 (54%). Other sources of �nancing include membership fees (23% of respondent organizations), contributions (18% of respondent organizations), and self-�nancing of activities (17% of respondent organizations). It is interesting that general (institutional) support has increased (15% in 2009 compared to 8% in 2005). Voluntary work is a prevalent method of �nancing NGOs in Vojvodina (63%). Financing based on membership fees is somewhat more present among larger organizations (32%), as well as among organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work (34%), and least common among NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (13%). Humanitarian and social work NGOs, to a greater extent than others, have general/institutional support (40%), while more Belgrade-based NGOs �nance themselves through contract-based service provision (22%).

The obtained data unequivocally show that the primary source of funding for 75% of respondent NGOs are international donor organizations; this is very similar to 2005 data. However, it is very important and encouraging to note that there is a signi�cant


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

nances your organization?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

nance your NGO nances organization (44% of target population)International donor organizations

74%

75%

Local government36%

53%

Domestic donor organizations34%

17%

49%

Ministry17%

27%

44% 20052009

Business sector (enterprises, companies)

Self financing34%

35%

28%Self financing

Regional government13%

28%

22%

Citizens15%

11%

The Ministry of Labor and Social Policy

The Ministry for Sports and Youth

51%

7%

40%

37%

The Ministry of Culture

TheMinistry for Environmental Protection

20%

9%

13%

7%

The Ministry of Economy and RegionalDevelopment

The Ministry of Health3%

6%

6%

The Ministry for Human and Minorityissues

The Ministry of Education

4%

9%

6%

4%

4%y

The Ministry of Agriculture

The Ministry of Science

4%

4%

4%

4%

2%

2005

2009y

The Ministry of TelecommunicationsThe

Ministry of Public Administration andl lf

2%

1%

1%Local Self Government

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Ministry of Defence2%

1%

1%

1%The Ministry of Defence 1%

increase in the percentage of organizations funded by entirely local sources, including local government (from 36% to 53%), domestic donor organizations (from 34% to 49%), ministries (from 17% to 44%), the business sector (from 27% to 35%) and �nally regional government (from 13% to 22%). On the other hand, self-�nancing has decreased to 28% (from 34%), as has individual giving from citizens (11% in 2009 compared to 15% in 2005).

International donations are an equally important resource for �nances for all NGOs, regardless of their specializations, with 54% of respondent humanitarian and social NGOs and 91% of respondent NGOs dealing with the development of civil society receiving international funds. However, regional di�erences are evident – in Vojvo-dina, the local administration has a larger share in �nancing NGOs (63%), than do its counterparts in Belgrade (44%) and Central Serbia (52%). Vojvodina-based NGOs also receive support from the Province Government (67%) in comparison to Belgrade and Central Serbia which do not have this institutional resource.

Although there has been a signi�cant increase in the overall funding coming from various Ministries, there is quite a di�erence between Ministries. While the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy is still the largest ministerial funder, the percentage of respon-dent NGOs receiving its support decreased from 51% in 2005 to 40% in 2009. On the contrary, the percentage of respondent NGOs receiving support from the Ministry of Youth and Sport, the second largest funder, increased from 7% in 2005 to 37% in 2009. In most other cases, the percentages of respondent NGOs receiving ministerial

funding slightly decreased from 2005 to 2009 (i.e. Ministry of Culture from 20% to 13%, Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning from 9% to 7%, Ministry of Education from 9% to 4% etc). However, several ministries that were not mentioned as sources of support in 2005 were included in the list of funders in 2009: such are the Ministry of Economy and Regional Development (6%), Ministry of Telecommunications (1%), Ministry of Public Administration (1%) and Ministry of Foreign A�airs (1%).

It can be noticed that older, larger organizations, and speci�cally those dealing with humanitarian and social work, more frequently reported receiving �nancing from ministries (66%).


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 91: How would you evaluate your relationship with donors?Base: Total target population

Graph 92: To what extent would it be acceptable for your organization to be t during

the regime of Milosevic?Base: Total target population

nancial situation in your organization?Base: Total target population

31% 40% Excellent

2005 2009

3% 2%8%

2%

24%

17%

32%38%

Good

Neutral

Poor

Very poor

63% 78%

GG hh 9393 HH lldd iti t thh t ii ll iit iti ii

9%13% 12%6% 4%

10% 10%

Completely acceptable

2005 2009

57% 63%

11% 9%Mainly acceptable

Yes and know

Not acceptable

Not acceptable at all

29% 36%

12% 12%3% 1% Excellent

Good

2005 2009

29% 27%

26% 23%

29% 36%

Fair

Bad

Very bad (on the verge ofsurvival)

Of the respondent NGOs funded by the business sector, most (48%) work with the development of civil society. This is a change when compared to 2005, when mainly educational and cultural organizations (39%) were funded by businesses.

When assessing the relationship with donors, respondents gave positive marks more often than in 2005 (78%, an increase from 63%). The average mark was 4.1 (on 5-point scale, where 1 means a very bad and 5 a very good relationship). A somewhat worse assessment in this area was given by smaller organizations dealing with culture and education, as well as by organizations from Vojvodina.

When asked whether their organization would �nd it acceptable to be �nanced by individuals and companies indicated to have earned extra pro�t during the regime of Milosevic, respondents most often stated that they would not accept it (72%), which is an increase compared to 2005 (68%). Older organizations, larger organizations, FENS members, organizations dealing with culture, education, and ecology, and Belgrade-based NGOs were most reluctant to accept this funding.

In assessing the current �nancial situation, it seems that there are slight changes in comparison to 2005: there is a decrease in the percentage of NGOs considering the situation to be excellent and good (from 15% to 13%), but there is also a decrease in the percentage of organizations that believe the situation is very bad and bad (from 55% to 50%). On the other hand, there is an increase in the percentage of NGOs that assess the situation as fair. Organizations founded before 2000, large organizations, and organizations based in Belgrade give a somewhat more positive assessment of the situation.

Representatives of organizations dealing with civil society gave somewhat more favorable marks, with 17% stating that the �nancial situation in their organization is

good or excellent. Unlike them, smaller NGOs and those founded earlier (before 2000) assess their �nancial situation as rather bad, with up to 60% of respondents from these categories assessing the situation as bad or very bad.)

When asked whether they had secured funds for the work of their organization in 2009, more than half of the respondents (56%) gave positive answers, which indicates a signi�cant improvement when compared to 2005 (when only 37% secured funding for that year). Older NGOs (66%), those dealing with the development of civil society


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 94: Have you acquired funds for the work of your organization in this year?Base: Total target population

Graph 95: Has the annual budget of your organization been increased, remained the same or reduced in the past 3 years?Base: Total target population

Graph 96: Provisional annual budgets of NGOs for 2006, 2007, 2008 (2009 survey)

Graph 97: 2004/2008 - Can you please write down your budgets, roughly, for the past 3 years? Base: Those who answered the question

43%

1% 1%

2005 2009

37%56%

62%43%

DK Ref

No

Yes

30% 30%4% 1% We were not established at

that time

2005 2009

39% 47%

25%22%

Increased

Remained the same

Reduced

ygp

No answer

16%17%No answer

O 100 000 €

12%

17%

10%

18%

Over 100.000 €

20 001 100 000 €

27%

10%

28%

10%

20.001 100.000 €

5 001 20 000 €

19%

28%

18%

26%

5.001 20.000 €

15%

18%

16%

20%

20081.001 5.000 €

11%

16%

11%

16% 2007

2006Up to 1.000 € 11%

10%

p yy q

25%20%

22% 12%Up to 1.000 €

1 001 5 000 €

2005 2009

7% 12%19%

32%27%

24%25% 1.001 5.000 €

5.001 20.000 €

20.001 100.000 €

Over 100.000 €

(63%), large organizations (76%), those that are not FENS members (59%) and those based in Belgrade (72%) were more successful at securing funds for the work of their organizations in the current year. Small NGOs (56%) and those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations (53%) were least successful in acquiring funds for the current year.

When assessing whether annual donations for their organizations had increased, remained the same or reduced in the past 3 years, the largest percentage (47%) of respondents thought that they had reduced, 22% were of the opinion that they remained the same, while 30% stated that they have increased. It is worth mentioning that the number of respondent organizations that have experienced reductions in their annual funding signi�cantly increased from 2005 (from 39% to 47%). There are no major di�erences in answers depending on research variables.

The largest percentage refers to organizations with provisional annual budgets of between 20,001 and 100,000 € (32%), followed by organizations with annual budgets between 5,001 and 20,000 € (24%), followed by organizations with annual budgets of between 1001 – 5000 € (20%). Interestingly, over 12% of organizations reported annual budgets larger than 100,000 €. A relatively high percentage of NGOs did not provide an answer to this question (18%). When the new data are compared to the 2005 survey, the following conclusion can be drawn: in the current research (2009), the number of respondents ready to state the provisional budget amount is larger (84%) than in the previous research (75%).



Table 2: Stated budgets in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in EUR

nancing NGOs in Serbia in the future?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

noigeRSNEF fo rebmeMeziSytivitca fo aera ytiroirPnoitartsiger fo raeYlatoT

Befo

re 2

000

2000

or l

ater

Cultu

re, e

duca

tion,

ec

olog

y

Hum

anita

rian

and

soci

al w

ork

Youn

g, e

cono

my,

pr

ofes

sion

al

asso

ciat

ions

Dev

elop

men

t of

civi

l soc

iety

Prot

ectio

n of

hu

man

righ

ts

Up

to 1

4

15-3

0

31+

Yes

No

Belg

rade

Cent

ral S

erbi

a

Vojv

odin

a

N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2006 54303 83020 30571 57007 33653 45214 115644 46457 30381 70298 140027 60464 47318 106399 44074 308262007 65960 104207 35004 77888 46849 52103 138181 47989 31873 79349 217012 73873 57216 120223 58565 355192008 103334 185566 34570 82841 67358 40321 362209 74069 87502 78340 273179 136035 67288 138889 121179 48111

S h h i l f d53%

State through special funds

Local governments31%

82%

66%Local governments

Donors from abroad (the same as now)48%

66%

60%

Business sector41%

56%

Domestic foundations37%

23%

55%

Self financing23%

8%

21% 2005

2009Citizens’ contributions 13%2009

The average annual budget of NGOs has almost doubled from 2006 (54.303 €) to 2008 (103.334 €). Older organizations, those dealing with the development of civil society, FENS members, big and small organizations are those whose budgets have doubled, and, when based in Central Serbia, almost tripled (from 44.074EUR to 121.179EUR). On the other hand, organizations working with youth, economy, and professional associations have experienced slight decreases in their annual budgets (45.214 € in 2006, 52103 € in 2007 and 40.321 € in 2008). This is an interesting trend, and requires further elaboration. Considering that there is a clear increase in funding for youth-related NGOs provided by the Ministry of Youth, these annual budget decreases may indicate an increase in competition for these funds, i.e. a larger number of youth related NGOs that apply for the same source of funding, and/or smaller funds per NGO provided through this Ministry than through other sources.

When they were asked, “What would be the best way to �nance NGOs in Serbia in the future?” respondents gave answers that show increased expectations towards domestic funding sources, primarily the state, either through special funds (82%) or by local government (66%). This can be explained by the strong advocacy e�orts led by Civic Initiatives through CSAI and other projects in 2008/2009, aimed at establishing institutional mechanism of cooperation and transparent funding, when models of state �nancing were introduced. The NGO community has been informed about the good practices of �nancing through lottery funds, public national foundations and similar which exist in U.K, Croatia and other countries. Furthermore, respondents are expecting more diversi�ed funding coming increasingly from international donors (60%), business sector (66%), domestic foundations (66%) and citizen’s contributions (18%). It is interesting to mention that only in 21% of the cases NGOs expect funding from self-�nancing.



nancial transparency of the work of NGOs be improved, as an important segment of upgrading public image of NGOs?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

Graph 100: In what way does your organization include users in its work?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

State should simplify regulations aboutmanagement of finance

60%

69%

Tax policy change53%

64%

Education of NGOs about management offinance

45%

46%

Compulsory public announcement ofannual financial reports

36%

43%2005

Engagement of financial experts(auditors, bookkeepers)

18%

24%

2005

2009

69%We try to discover users’ needs

We check how satisfied users are with60%

67%

We check how satisfied users are withour work (evaluation)

We consult users during planning42%

59%

We consult users during planningprocess

40%

46%

We recruit users as volunteers

We accept users as members of our35%

46%

We accept users as members of ourorganization

h2%

34% 2005

2009Other 2%

Respondents think that improvements in the �nancial transparency of NGO work can be achieved in the following way:

1. The state should simplify the regulations on �nancial management (69%)2. A change of tax policy (64%)3. Educating NGOs how to manage the �nances (46%)4. Obligatory annual �nancial reports (43%)5. Hiring �nancial experts (auditors, bookkeepers) (24%)6. Other (less than 1%)

Each of the factors increased in comparison to 2005. Di�erences depending on the research parameters were not found. However, it is interesting that respondents indicated higher expectations toward the state, in terms of providing an enabling environment (through simpler regulations and changes to tax policies), than toward NGOs’ own e�orts (for example, educating NGOs about �nancial management).

1.14. Involvement of the community – users in the work of NGOs

The results from the graph above lead to a conclusion that NGOs most often involve users in their work by analyzing their needs (67% of organizations), as well as through evaluations of the organizations’ work, i.e. by checking how satis�ed the users were with their work (59%). Respondents also mentioned that they consult users in planning (46%), recruit users as volunteers (46%) and accept users as their members (34%). The data are similar to those from 2005, except for a slight increase in the number of NGOs consulting users during the planning process (from 42% to 46%) and recruiting users as volunteers (from 40% to 46%). Of the respondents, big NGOs (77%) and those from Central Serbia (77%) more frequently involved community-users than did NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (45%). FENS members (68%) reported conducting evaluations of their work more often than did organizations that are not FENS members (49%), and organizations in Belgrade reported conducting evaluations of their work (63%) more often than did their counterparts in Central Serbia and Vojvodina (57 and 58% respectively). Similar trends are apparent in the use of other methods of soliciting user involvement, with FENS members, larger organizations, and Belgrade-based organizations more prone to consulting users during planning, recruiting users as volunteers and accepting users as members of the organizations than are NGOs in Central Serbia and Vojvodina.

When asked about needs analyses in the project proposal preparation phase, as many as 59% of organizations reported that they always conduct needs analyses - similar to 2005 (58%). The remaining 42% either do this only when the conditions


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 101: Do you examine users’ needs while preparing project proposals?

Graph 102: Do you collect data about users’ reactions after the project implementation phase? In what way does your organization collect data about users’ reactions?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

Yes, always58%

59%

Yes, in case of big projects (that lastlonger than a year)

16%

21%

Yes, if it is the donor’s request9%

5%

Yes, when we have time for it10%

5%

No6%

10%

2005

2009

Formal responses users are asked for (forexample opinion polls, interviews)

62%

61%

Informal ways of collecting feedback fromusers (individually)

32%

47%

We have never collected data aboutusers’ reactions

5%

9%

2005

2009

request them to, or they do not conduct needs analyses at all. The respondent organizations reported that needs assessments are carried out when big projects are being prepared (21%), when donors require them (5%), or when time allows (5%). 10% of respondents stated that they did not conduct any needs assessments. When compared to 2005, it is apparent that NGOs are more active in polling users’ reactions only when big projects are concerned, while in all other cases the percentage of NGOs that poll users’ reactions has decreased. The number of NGOs that do not poll users’ reactions at all has increased since 2005 (from 6% to 10%). The �nding that so many NGO projects are not based on needs assessments is telling, especially considering the data that around 40% of organizations think that NGOs are meeting the needs of their communities.

There were no di�erences in the answers to this question depending on research variables, except that NGOs that are FENS members reported conducting needs analyses more often than did non-FENS members (16% of them answered “No” compared to 4% of FENS members); in terms of regions, more organizations in Central Serbia responded that they did NOT conduct needs analyses (i.e. more CSOs answered ‘No’) and fewer organizations and Belgrade and Vojvodina made that response.

NGO representatives most often reported that the feedback on users’ reactions was obtained formally and directly from the users through questionnaires or interviews (61%), while 47% stated that they received informal feedback, a signi�cant increase in collecting informal feedback when compared to 2005 (32%). At the same time, 9% of respondent organizations reported having never collected users’ observations, which is a slight increase compared to 2005 (5%). There were no signi�cant di�erences depending on research variables.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

ed with your work, i.e. your services?Base: Total target population

Graph 104: Do you carry out project success evaluation?Base: Total target population

30% 33%Completely satisfied

Satisfied

2005 2009

2% 0%14% 12%

53% 53%

Satisfied

Yes and no

Dissatisfied


39% 47%

7% 6% Mainly no

Yes, both external and

2005 2009

8% 7%

46% 40%

Yes, both external andinternal

Mainly yes – internalevaluation

Mainly yes – externalevaluation

1.15. Quality of services When asked to what extent users are satis�ed with their work and services, respondents gave an exceptionally high average mark - 4.2 (on a 5-point scale, 1-not satis�ed at all, 5-completely satis�ed), which indicates that NGO representatives perceive users’ satisfaction with their work as being extremely high. This indicates some improvement, since, generally speaking, 86% stated that their bene�ciaries are satis�ed (compared to 83% in 2005). None of our respondents chose the answer “users are not satis�ed at all”, while 33% think that users are completely satis�ed with their work. Only 0.4% of answers indicated that respondents perceived their users’ dissatisfaction in this respect. There were no major di�erences dependent on the research variables in the answers to this question.

Regarding project success evaluation, 47% of respondents stated that they carry out both internal and external evaluations, 40% stated that they carry out mainly internal evaluations, 7% stated that they carried out only external evaluations, and 6% of respondents answered that they did not carry out any type of evaluation of the success of their projects. Since 2005, there has been an increase in the number of NGOs carrying out both types of evaluations (from 39% to 47%) and also a decrease in the number of those carrying out only internal evaluation (from 46% to 40%).

If we look at the distribution of answers by regions, the following results are obtained: more Belgrade-based respondents reported conducting both internal and external evaluations (57% of respondent organizations), while organizations in Vojvodina more frequently reported conducting solely internal evaluations (45% of respondent organizations). Another di�erence becomes apparent when the answers from organizations which are FENS members are compared to those of non-members – 53% of FENS members carry out both internal and external evaluations, compared to

39% of those that are not FENS members. Depending on the research variables there are no other di�erences.

Of the NGO sector representatives, 43% reported that they carry out internal evaluations of the success of their organizations, 35% stated that they carry out both external and internal evaluations, 3% responded that they carry out only external evaluation, and 19% reported that they do not carry out any form of evaluation. Compared to 2005, there has been a decrease in the rate of internal evaluations (from 49% to 43%) and an increase in the rate of combined evaluations (both internal and external) from 30% to 35%, with a slight increase in the rate of those that do not carry any type of evaluation (from 17% to 19%).

When the research variables are considered in examining these answers, more humanitarian and social work NGOs conduct internal evaluations (54%) than do organizations with other focuses, and internal evaluations are least common among Belgrade-based respondents (30%). Both types of organizational evaluations are mostly conducted by big (49%) and Belgrade-based NGOs (48%), while only 25% of those respondents dealing with youth, economy, and professional associations carry out both types of organizational evaluations. Among organizations that reported not carrying out any evaluations at all, the highest percentage is in the category of organizations working with youth, economy and professional associations (32%) – compared with only 9% of large organizations that reported not carrying out any type of evaluation.



Graph 105: Do you carry out evaluation of the successfulness of your organization’s performance (regardless of projects)?Base: Total target population

Graph 106: Have you had any training for your personnel?Base: Total target population

30%35%

17% 19% No

Yes, both external and

2005 2009

4% 3%

49%43%

35% Yes, both external andinternal

Yes, internal

Yes, external

20% 15%

2005 2009

80% 85%No

Yes

1.16. Training for the NGO personnel

Of the respondent organizations, 85% had training for their sta�, while 15% did not. Compared to 2005, this indicates a 5% increase in the number of organizations o�ering training for their sta�. Organizations that had more training for their sta� included older organizations (88%, compared to newer organizations 83%), those dealing with the development of civil society (92%, compared to organizations focused on culture, education and ecology 80%), medium-size organizations (91%), FENS members (94%, compared to non-FENS 75%, which is the biggest di�erence within the same variable), and those from Central Serbia (89%, compared to Vojvodina NGOs 84%).

The general rating of the level of sta� training is 3.7 (on a 5-point scale, where 1 stands for “not satis�ed at all” and 5 for “completely satis�ed”), which speaks of a moderate level of satisfaction in regard to this question, although a bit higher than in 2005 when it was 3.5. When compared to data from 2005, more NGOs representatives report being satis�ed/completely satis�ed with sta� training (61%, from 54%). Regarding satisfaction with the level of sta� education, NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (71%), big NGOs (70%), FENS members (63%) as well as those from Belgrade (70%) are to a somewhat greater extent satis�ed with the level of training in NGOs compared to the respondents from other organizations. The year of registration has no e�ect on the level of satisfaction regarding the education degree in NGOs – 61% of both older and newer NGOs are satis�ed. NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (37% - with a general rating of 3.3), as well as small organizations (58%) and those based in Central Serbia (56%), seem to be less satis�ed.



Graph 107: Provide a general rate of education degree in your NGO. How would you evaluate situation in your organization in terms of EDUCATION of your personnel, i.e. members?Base: Total target population

Graph 108: Please name up to three topics, areas in which you think you need education as a priority.

Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

41% 46%

13% 15%

Completely satisfied

Satisfied

2005 2009

1% 1%6% 4%

38%33%

46% Satisfied

Fair

Not satisfied

Not satisfied at all

17%Fund raising

Writing of project propositions

Financial management

Strategic planning

17%

36%

21%

22%

21%

21%

20%g p g

Media presentation, PR management, marketing

Lobbying and representing

Management of projects

15%

19%

10%

20%

15%

14%

13%

Management of human resources

Inter sector cooperation

Training of trainers (TOT)

International cooperation, getting familiar with

10%

7%

9%

11%

6%

5%

International cooperation, getting familiar withEuropean va

Team work and leadership

No area

Computer literacy

5%

4%

5%

4%

3%

3%

2005

2009

The area of legislative regulations (taxes...)

Issues and problems we are faced with, advancedtraining

Human rights

5%

6%

2%

3%

3%

3%

3%

Management

Learning foreign languages

Cooperation with authorities (state, local...)

Ed i

2%

4%

3%

3%

2%

Education

Ecology

Bookkeeping, administration

How to attract donors, cooperation with businesssector

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%sector

The main three �elds in which representatives of NGOs most need training are, according to the respondents, fundraising(22%, up from 17% in 2005), writing of project proposals (21%, up from 17% in 2005), and training in �nancial management (21%, down from 36% in 2005). Fewer respondents identi�ed lobbying and representing as an priority area for education (from 19% in 2005, to 14% in 2009), and more identi�ed project management as an area for additional training (from 10% in 2005 to 13% in 2009). These data can be connected to the problems listed in the previous graphs related to designing and implementing projects, where complex demands from funders were recognized as the biggest problem in both cases. At the same time, some of the topics have signi�cantly decreased (�nancial management and lobbying and representing – advocacy), which may indicate that there has been su�cient training in these topics.

Fundraising was identi�ed as a priority training area for small NGOs (26%), organizations dealing with the development of civil society (28%), FENS members (27%) and organizations based in Vojvodina (27%). The respondents that identi�ed project proposal writing as a priority area show signi�cant di�erences according to the research variables, with26% of older NGOs versus 17% of newer NGOs, 37% of respondents dealing with humanitarian and social work versus 9% of those dealing with culture, education and ecology, 29% of respondents from Central Serbia versus only 10% from Vojvodina listing this topic as their priority. NGOs dealing with the development of civil society mostly listed �nancial management (36%) and strategic planning (34%) as their educational priorities, while other types of NGOs do not di�er from the average.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 109: Have you ever used consulting services of other organizations for training for your personnel?Base: Total target population

Graph 110: Have you ever had any international/cross border project that you implemented in cooperation with some NGO from the surrounding countries?Base: Total target population

39% 42%

2005 2009

61% 58%

No

Yes

52% 43%N

2005 2009

48% 57%

52% No

Yes

In 2009, 58% of NGO representatives stated that their organization had used the consulting services of other organizations for the training of their sta� (a decrease when compared to 2005 – 61%), while 42% reported that they had not. Signi�cant di�erences between the organizations depending on the research variables were not found, except in the case of humanitarian and social work NGOs, which least engaged outside consultancy services (44%), and organizations working with youth, economy, and professional associations, which most engaged outside consultancy services (68%).

Organizations that had used consulting services were asked to list the organizations that most often provided consulting services. Respondents mentioned �rst Civic Initiatives (25%), followed by the Team TRI (13%), CRNPS (4%), and ASTRA (4%).

Civic Initiatives provided consultancy services mostly for older NGOs (28%), those dealing with human rights (34%), small NGOs (28%), FENS members (33%) and for those that come from Belgrade (28%). Organizations which are members of the FENS network, in addition to Civic Initiatives, more often named the Team TRI as the organization which o�ered them consulting services than did non-FENS organizations (18% compared to 6%).

1.17. Cooperation with NGOs within the wider regionInternational projects, that is, projects in cooperation with NGOs from the neighboring countries, have up to the present been carried out by 57% of the respondent NGOs, which is a signi�cant increase from 48% in 2005, and illustrates an increased understanding among NGOs that some issues are common for all countries in the region. Older NGOs reported cooperating more with their NGOs from neighboring countries (66%), than did newer NGOs (49%). Also, 71% of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society reported having engaged in regional cooperation, while only 44% of while organizations focused on humanitarian and social work reported doing so. As might be expected, big NGOs referenced international cooperation more often than did small NGOs (88%, versus 48%). In comparison to the average, Belgrade-based NGOs cooperated signi�cantly more often with organizations in other countries in the region (73%), while only 42% of respondent NGOs from Central Serbia had been involved in this form of cooperation.

Respondents identi�ed the most important problems for the NGO sector sustainability in Serbia as: the lack of support by the state (83%), non-stimulating legal regulations (82%), underdeveloped practice of business sector donorship (80%), and withdrawal of international donors named by (78%). It is interesting to note how the awareness of the need to cooperate at di�erent levels and with di�erent organizations and institutions to enable sustainability of the sector has increased (for example, with the business sector from 70% in 2005 to 80% in 2009). Furthermore, there is a growing awareness of the need to improve cooperation among NGOs, with local authorities and with citizens to provide sustainability of the sector. Most of these variables show signi�cant increases: insu�cient (underdeveloped) cooperation among NGOs (from 36% to 52%), negative attitude of the surrounding citizens (from 56% to 63%) and insu�cient cooperation with local authorities (from 65% to 68%). Cooperation with the media is perceived as the least problematic issue (in 45% of the cases, and as extremely important in 20% of


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 111: How important are the following problems for the sustainability of the NGO sector in Serbia - major importance

Lack of support by the state81%

83%

Unstimulating legal regulations

Underdevelopment of donorship within

79%

70%

82%

Underdevelopment of donorship withinbusiness sector

Withdrawal of international donors75%

80%

78%

Insufficient cooperation with localauthorities

65%

56%

68%

Negative attitude of thesurrounding, citizens

U d d l t f NGO t it lf

56%

51%

63%

Underdevelopment of NGO sector itself

Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperationamong NGOs

36%

61%

52% 2005

Poor cooperation with the media44%

45%2009

the cases), which is somewhat unusual, given that the media have signi�cant in�uence on the NGO image and consequently on NGO visibility and strength as a partner to other sectors. There are no di�erences among NGOs in the perception of problems. Bearing in mind that these data were collected in mid 2009, before the adoption of the new NGO Law and while a very intensive advocacy campaign for its adoption was underway, it is not surprising that “lack of support by the state” and “non-stimulating legal regulations” were the highest ranked problems for the sustainability of the sector.

1.18. The most important problems for the sustainability of NGOs

When discussing extremely important problems facing the sector, most respondents, again, mentioned non-stimulating legal regulations (58%), withdrawal of international donors (58%) and lack of support by the state (56%). Therefore, these problems were the �rst to be dealt with, in terms of priorities.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 112: How important are the following problems for the sustainability of the NGO sector in Serbia – EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

Graph 113: If these problems were to be dealt with one by one, how would you rank them by priority? – First placeBase: Total target population

Unstimulating legal regulations58%


Lack of support by the state


56%

49%business sector

Underdevelopment of NGO sector itself32%

Negative attitude of the surrounding, citizens

ff h l l h

32%

33%Insufficient cooperation with local authorities


33%

23%among NGOs



g g g



Underdevelopment of donor ship within

18%

10%business sector


Negative attitude of the surrounding, citizens

I ffi i t ti ith l l th iti

5%

5%Insufficient cooperation with local authorities


3%g


It is interesting that respondents perceive the importance of problems in the same way when speaking about the NGO sector in general and their own NGOs.


NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

Graph 114: Rank the same problems by priority for your organization, regardless of a general situation in the NGO sector – First placeBase: Total target population


g g g




14%

12%business sector


Insufficient cooperation with localauthorities

Negative attitude of the

8%

5%gsurrounding, citizens



1%