Citizens’ Association for Democracy and Civic Education

Simina 9a • 11 000 Belgrade • Tel/fax: +381 11 2625-942; 2623-980 • civin@gradjanske. org • www.gradjanske.org

NGOs IN SERBIA
2009

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

1. 2. 3. 4.

Summary of findings..............................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Description of Research........................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Presentation of data...............................................................................................................................................................................................................8 Key findings on the NGO sector...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1. Basic information and working conditions......................................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2. Mission, areas of work and activities..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 1.3. Legal/fiscal regulations.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 1.4. Political context ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 41 1.5. Structure of NGOs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 1.6. NGO cooperation – networking ............................................................................................................................................................................. 51 1.7. NGO cooperation with the state............................................................................................................................................................................. 61 1.8. NGO cooperation with the business sector........................................................................................................................................................ 71 1.9. NGO cooperation with the media.......................................................................................................................................................................... 79 1.10. Personnel and volunteers....................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 1.11. Attitude of the public towards NGOs................................................................................................................................................................. 92 1.12. Diversity within the sector/regional standardization.................................................................................................................................105 1.13. Financial stability – sources of financing ........................................................................................................................................................109 1.14. Involvement of t he community – users in the work of NGOs ...............................................................................................................123 1.15. Quality of services ...................................................................................................................................................................................................125 1.16. Training for the NGO personnel.........................................................................................................................................................................129 1.17. Cooperation with NGOs within the wider region........................................................................................................................................133 1.18. The most important problems for the sustainability of NGOs................................................................................................................135

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

ndings

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.

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

and similarly to the 2005 research. although there are numerous issues identified. especially considering that citizens are the main users and constituency of NGOs. However. Nevertheless. mostly from Belgrade and formed before 2000. their relationships with the media. small. Civic Initiatives. It is interesting that. This shows that NGOs are still lagging behind the changes in the donors’ community (a smaller number of international donors. The state is generally seen as more cooperative than in 2005. that international funding can still not be fully replaced by local sources. most noticeably in their capacities (in personnel and infrastructure). still seems better than in 2005: in 2009. whatever the parameters are. However.2005.and in this sense. even while NGOs seem generally satisfied with their PR and media skills. and the expertise of their work. the funding situation remains unstable. 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. local organizations. while the key issue became complex requests of donors both when competing for projects as well as during implementation. the situation is not much different. Again. the lack of information fell to the second place. ministries and the business sector. increased presence of public and EU funds). often the «desired» answers were given. which is a continuation of the positive shift from 2001 . one of the dominant impressions remains the absence of the objectivity of NGOs in estimating their own capacities. as a method of relations with the public decreased from 2005. and NGOs recognize the need to cooperate. Though encouraging. 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. Belgrade. and secondly. 43% of NGOs did not secure funding for 2009. it is concerning that direct contacts with citizens. It is interesting that political parties are recognized as the only stakeholders whose influence on NGOs increased in the last period. as in 2005. qualities. and on the other mostly «new».ndings The main change is that the funding situation and outlook for financial stability. The political situation is judged as significantly improved in comparison to 2005. most notably with regard to the uninformed attitudes of the public toward the NGO sector and the needs of the community and society. and the percentage of those who feel that the political context is unsuitable or very unsuitable dropped from 54% to 43%. that the sector needs more time in order to shift from foreign donors as the main sources of support. access to financial sources. although not very good. in comparison with the 2005 research the main issue is not a lack of interest from the state. this still means that for almost half of the NGOs. The data shows that there are substantial and visible divisions in the sector. which compared to 63% in 2005 is an improvement. and therefore they contradict the findings of the public opinion poll1. June 2010 1“Perception of NGOs“ carried out in May 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . and the understanding of the necessity of cooperation and greater involvement in various networks and regional projects. when the problems of locating resources are referred to. NGOs remain highly dependent on international donors . whose survival is particularly endangered. and their positions in the local communities and the public in general. Still. Finally. On the one hand there are «big» organizations. domestic donor organizations. The differences between the groupings is to the advantage of the «big». this data also demonstrates firstly. there is a noticeable increase in funding coming from local sources: local governments.

we accomplished the following results: The analysis of the sample structure showed that. the size of NGO and the year of establishment. By application of all these procedures. membership in FENS. education. this was done through the use of available sources of information. the sample of NGOs from the 2005 research was used as population. so that the final sample represents well the NGO population from 2005 in terms of regional coverage.2. and the year of establishment (before 2000 and after 2000. during the Milosevic regime. medium organizations . Vojvodina and Central Serbia). Since the monitoring of changes in the NGO sector was a main research objective. ecology Humanitarian and social work 23% 19% 15% 13% 29% 46% 54% Young. i. the sample fits the population from the 2005 research. above all an update on the existing database containing 516 NGOs. Young. and even e-mail addresses. Description Description of of Research of Research Research 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. economy. and within the time framework planned for the project implementation. and large organizations – 30+ people). Since a considerable number of NGOs have changed addresses. Strategic Marketing (SM) used databases which Civic Initiatives and BCIF provided. Description 2. according to the structure of the main criteria. 2. For the purpose of the reliability of comparisons. SM also used a "snowball" method to collect information (which coordinators applied in given territorial locality). SAMPLE SAMPLE 2009 N = 300 Year of registration Before 2000 2000 or later Culture. Since information about NGOs does not exist in any unique database.from 15 to 30 employees. smaller corrections were achieved through post stratification (weighting). As this attempt also gave just partial results.e. we tried to find additional information on the websites of the given NGOs. and data were collected by the same questionnaire which was used in 2005 (with minimal additions). Sample selection: The selection of a sample required several steps. the size of the organization (small organizations – up to 15 employees. email addresses) which existed in the sample base from the year 2005. stratified by regions (Belgrade. professional associations professional associations Priority area of activity Development of civile society P Protection i of fh human i h rights Up to 14 59% 31% 9% 54% 46% 25% 47% 28% Size Population (the sample of NGO from the 2005 research) ed NGOs ed Number of NGOs which did not accept cooperation Number of NGOs from population with which the interview was carried out successfully Number of NGOs included in the sample which were not included in the 2005 sample Total number of successfully held interviews 516 316 294 30 264 36 300 15 30 31+ Member of FENS Yes No Belgrade Region Central Serbia Vojvodina NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . economy. Sample frame: The sample of 516 NGOs which participated in the research conducted in 2005. The first step was the attempt to get in touch with all 516 NGOs by various contacts (phones. and after the change of the regime in October 2000). phone numbers.

if it were not mentioned). However. size of organization d. In all the questions showing significant difference in this variable. This number included members of the managing board. and therefore the results can be taken as indicators only and should be further examined. Every question was represented in the form of table which shows the total and cross-references by these variables: a. The interviews were conducted in the respective premises of organizations in the form of structured interviews. As we said before.Mission. 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.Cooperation with NGO within wider region 18. more than 30 people – big organizations. which was comprehensive and the interviews lasted approximately for 1 hour. FENS membership e.NGO cooperation with the state 8. where it was important to have an insight into each separate filed. we presented separate results for members and non-members of FENS network. coordinators. Region – the region was established based on the municipality where the seat of the organization is. 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.NGO cooperation with the media 10. those who were familiar with their organization’s functioning and whose opinions are relevant in decision-making processes within their organization. Methodology Interviewers set interviews with respondents. in the 2009 research we did not include opinions of different donor organizations. Description 2. It could have been expected that organizations founded before 2000 were more experienced. the sample itself favored organizations which are members of this network.Financial stability – sources of finances 14. the year of foundation b.Quality of service 16. employees and part-time workers.Political context 5.Diversity within the sector/Regional standardization 13.NGO cooperation with the business sector 9. better positioned and had greater credibility and thus encountered fewer problems in their work.Structure of NGO 6. 2. they were condensed in 5 categories. Description Description of of Research of Research Research Respondents Respondents participating in this research (both for NGOs and donors) were people n senior positions within organizations. but with a note that the base of organizations is less than 60.Attitude of the public towards NGOs 12. 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. we gave cross-references with all fields. areas of activity and activities 3. In the analyses we used the division in three basic regions with their socioeconomic peculiarities: Belgrade. since many fields were not represented with an adequate number of organizations. and that is to outline the overall position of the non-governmental sector in Serbia and to enable comparison with the 2005 survey. FENS membership enables us to outline the situation in the sector both within this network and outside it. we defined the same areas that we thought will best present an objective picture of the sector. Each area covered by the survey was represented with a set of questions in the questionnaire. filed of work c. The size of organization was defined by the total number of active personnel in the organization. Data analysis All questions from the questionnaire were cross-referenced by a few basic variables. The areas covered through this survey are as follows: 1. from 15 to 30 people – medium-sized organizations.Involvement of community – beneficiaries of the work of NGOs 15. We were of the opinion that the year 2000 was a turning point due to the fall of Milosevic’s regime.Basic information and working conditions 2. Research period The research was conducted from 12th May until 2nd June 2009.2. In some questions. but not volunteers. To thoroughly achieve the main goal of this research. This number was divided in 3 categories: up to 15 people – small organizations.Legal/fiscal regulations 4. and thus it led to changes in the environment in which NGOs operate.Level of training of personnel working in NGO 17. Vojvodina and Central Serbia. Questionnaires included mostly closed-ended questions with a smaller number of open-ended questions. When cross-referencing these 18 fields.Personnel and volunteers 11.NGO cooperation – Networking 7.The most important problems for sustainability of NGOs NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .

followed by a comparison with the 2005 survey data. Presentation 3. Ivana Gliksman. The narrative descriptions typically begin with a general analysis of the data from the 2009 survey. Data are commented from the perspective of NGO persons. when the data in question were not collected in 2005. However.gradjanske. priority area of activity. presenting only those data that show major variations compared to the average data and significant differences among characteristics of the population (i.iscserbia. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . However. contributed with an overview of the survey results. or when significant information came out of the 2009 survey. by the year of registration. the graphical analysis of data shows comparative data.e. size. In most of cases. Presentation of of data of data data of data The gathered data were analyzed by Civic Initiatives staff: Jelena Milovanovic. they do not represent an in-depth sociological study since there is not sufficient information for a comprehensive approach. i.3. Civic Initiatives Team TRI trainer and NGO sector expert.org . Web publications are prepared in both Serbian and English versions and may be downloaded from www.e. we believe that we can provide a valuable input on different aspects of the NGO sector in Serbia for all interested parties. Radojka Pavlovic and Dubravka Velat. FENS membership and region). Further explanations delve deeper into the analysis of the 2009 data.org and www. Aleksandra Vesic. there are several graphs showing data just from the 2009 survey. Presentation Presentation 3. from both the 2005 and 2009 surveys. 3.

1. big organizations (74%) and those operating in Belgrade (60%) lease their office premises. from 47% to 69%) and a copy machine. 6% We have premises in our ownership 10% 43% W hire We hi our premises i 29% We were given rooms free of charge 24% 22% We don’t have premises 21% 45% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . Fewer organizations own cameras (33%) and video beams (36%). since these three variables are connected. a somewhat better situation is noticed among organizations that deal with the development of civil society. big organizations are much better equipped. 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. and this number has increased from 8% to 10%. a scanner. a photo camera (huge increase. 34% of those dealing with humanitarian and social work. compared to 6% in 2005. there are no differences among organizations – all kinds of organizations are well equipped in this sense. priority area of activity and FENS membership. Older. bigger NGOs and those from Belgrade have a significantly larger number of these pieces of equipment. which is a similar rate to 2005 (22%). Over 4/5 of NGOs have at least one computer. The differences in equipment are particularly noticeable in the number of organizations that have fax machines. those dealing with youth. Also. Among those. The most significant drop is related to funds secured for the next 12 months – from 23% in 2005 to 14% in 2009. A greater number of NGOs owning office premises is notable among smaller NGOs (11%) and those operating in Central Serbia (14%). There are no major differences among NGOs that own their office premises in terms of their year of registration. 3. a printer and a telephone line. only 1/5 of NGOs have company cars (22%). while in Vojvodina only 6% and in Belgrade only 7% of NGOs own their office premises. most NGOs lease their office premises (45%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 1. with Belgrade based NGOs being better off (24%) compared to Central Serbia (7%). a fax machine. as well as organizations which were founded earlier and those from Belgrade. 50% have secured funds for renting offices for a period shorter than one year. Over 65% also have a modem. there is an increase in the number of organizations possessing them. 25% of the medium sized NGOs. 21% of NGOs do not have any kind of office premises. those that are not FENS members (27%) and operating in Central Serbia (23%) Graph 1: Does your organization have premises in which it performs its activities? Out of 45% of those which rent their office premises. Presentation Presentation 4. As for computers.3. A larger number of NGOs managed to secure funds for the period from 2 to 3 years. Only 2% of NGOs secured funds for premises for the period longer than 3 years. among them 25% of NGOs registered before 2000. video beams. It is typical that NGOs registered before 2000 (57%). economy and professional associations (9%).Basic information and working conditions Organization’s office premises and equipment Similar to 2005. Still. modems and telephone lines. The most difficult position in terms of lacking office premises is for NGOs registered in 2000 and later (31%). those dealing with civil society development (55%). The remaining 45% of NGOs were either given office premises free of charge (24%) or do not have office premises at all (21%). The situation in terms of equipment is much better than in 2005. For each equipment item. 22% of FENS members and 29% of NGOs coming from Vojvodina. smaller NGOs (27%). there is the highest number of NGOs dealing with culture. Presentation 3. printers. while those dealing with the protection of human rights are in a worse situation. which is similar to 2006 (48%). Organizations from Belgrade are the biggest and they were founded earlier than organizations from other regions. photocopiers. company cars and cameras. 10% of respondents state that their organization own their office premises. It is significant that 39% of NGOs in Vojvodina are given their office premises free of charge. Similar to 2005. education and ecology (16%). later showing the highest increase among all items.

Dissatisfaction related to cameras. Presentation 3. Modem NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 More satisfactory Less satisfactory 2005 2009 Computers 85% 91% 49% . In this respect. Presentation Presentation 4.PERCENTAGE OF YES Graph 3: Is the equipment satisfactory for your scope of work and the number of employees – SATISFACTORY (1) Camera Video beam Vehicle Copy machine Printer Modem Telephone line Fax machine Scanner Photo camera Copy machine Camera Vehicle Video beam 22% 18% 22% 13% 36% 32% 52% 33% 47% 69% 59% 55% 68% 80% 89% 73% 77% 75% 82% 74% 36% 50% 39% 48% 27% 46% 47% 45% 59% 44% 59% 69% 36% 68% 35% 61% 33% 66% 30% 67% 39% 2005 2009 Computers Photo camera Telephone line Printer Scanner Fax machine Graph 3 shows to what extent NGOs are satisfied with the equipment they have. except for copy machines and computers. More than 2/3 of respondents think that the situation in their organization in terms of technical equipment (photo cameras. modems) is more satisfactory than in 2005. It can be noticed that the level of satisfaction has increased for almost all pieces of equipment. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 2: Do you have the following equipment in your organization? . video-beams and vehicles has dropped from around half to 1/3 of respondents. 3. except for big NGOs that are more often satisfied with video beams (64%) and 41% of Belgrade based NGOs being satisfied with their vehicle. telephone lines. printers.3. scanners. fax machines. there are no significant differences among NGOs in all variables.

the minority of employees in small organizations are computer literate. USE COMPUTER 28% All employees 33% 36% M j it of Majority f employees l 35% 34% 2005 2009 16% 2009 84% 16% 2005 84% No Yes Minority 3% None of the employees 2% 29% The rates of employees’ computer literacy have generally improved. NGOs dealing with socio-humanitarian work use computers the least (40%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . In a large number of cases. Organizations in which no one can use a computer are very rare – only 2%. In 17% of cases. big organizations (94%). the majority of organizations have Internet access (84%). Graph p 4: Does your y organization g have access to the Internet? Graph 5: How many employees in your organization have the following skills. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Internet access and computer skills Like in 2005. organizations from Belgrade use computers more than organizations in other regions (70% of Belgrade-based organizations. Also. In 25% of the cases. small NGOs (79%) and those from Central Serbia (82%).. those dealing with civil society development (89%). Presentation 3. 3. the majority of workers use a computer. compared to 43% in 2005). This percentage is higher among NGOs established before 2000 (91%). Presentation Presentation 4. economy and professional associations have all workers using computers (84%). all workers in an organization can use a computer (61% of organizations. The worst situation is among NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (19%). compared to 54% in Central Serbia and 65% in Vojvodina). FENS members (87%) and those operating in Vojvodina (89%). while most of those dealing with youth. which is a bit lower than in 2005 (3%).3.. and in 12% of the cases the minority.

Medium size organizations (92%) and those in Belgrade (91%) are better pro led in terms of having a mission. The situation is also very good in Vojvodina..2. no one speaks a foreign language. which is almost the same as in 2005 (91%). 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. Mission. where all employees speak a foreign language in only 13% of cases. This is followed by “Development of local community”. “Help for paraplegics. the disabled and resocialization” and “Rights of children. Presentation Presentation 4. but not written 87% We don’t have a defined mission of our organization Among those which have a de ned mission (92% of the target population). none can speak any foreign language. Presentation 3. while in 5% of the NGOs. and again no cases where employees cannot speak a foreign language. The worst situation is in those NGOs that deal with humanitarian and social work. areas of work and activities Mission of organization 92% of organizations assert that their organization has a de ned mission. better quality of life of children” (5% each). where in 43% of NGOs all employees speak a foreign language. SPEAK AT LEAST ONE FOREIGN LANGUAGE 1. In terms of regions. economy and professional associations (9%). 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. more employees speak at least one foreign language. all employees speak a foreign language in only 19% of NGOs. 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). In large organizations. and 33% of organizations where everyone speaks at least one foreign language.3. in Central Serbia. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . 3. the best situation is in Belgrade-based NGOs. (the reason why y it exists) and what is it? ned mission of organization 28% All employees 33% 36% M j it of Majority f employees l 35% 34% Minority 3% None of the employees 2% 29% 2005 2009 91% 2005 9% 92% Yes No f of a foreign language is an area that has improved slightly. However. democratization” and “Protection and promotion of human rights” (8% each). while in 10% of cases. 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%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Knowledge of foreign languages Graph 6: How many employees in your organization have the following skills. with f 2% of Knowledge organizations where none of the sta speak a foreign language. 2009 8% 5% 8% 2009 We have it written We have it . the majority state that their mission is “Promotion of democracy..

the disabled and resocialization Ri ht of Rights f children. the international integration Life without violence. the position of youth” or “Rights and a better quality of life of marginalized groups”. Presentation Presentation 4. Graph 8: What is the mission of your organization? ned mission of organization Promotion of democracy. “Improving the lives of young people. Other topics were included as comprising their missions by less than 3% of the interviewed organizations. democratization Protection and promotion of human rights Development of local community Help for paraplegics. promotion of nonviolence 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4% 8% 8% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .3. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Between 3% to 4. Presentation 3. the position of Youth Rights and a better quality of life of marginalized groups Improving quality of life of women p g the q quality y of life of citizens Improving Assistance to socially vulnerable groups Building and development of civil society Lobbying for Europe. hild b better tt quality lit of f lif life of f children Development of civil society Rights of women. “Rights of women. legal aid Improving the lives of young people. women's rights. 3. 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.4% of the interviewed organizations stated that their missions included “Development of civil society”. women's rights. There is a slight increase in the number of NGOs whose mission is the development 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). legal aid”.

the international integration _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 1% Rights and a better quality of life of marginalized groups ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 1% Gender equality _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 1% Education of the young and children ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2% Development of creative skills of ill persons __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2% ict resolution ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2005 8% 6% Promotion of democracy. Presentation 3. the position of Youth ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 3% Assistance to socially vulnerable groups______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 3% rmation of health. democratization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . information _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 1% Improving life by using modern information technology ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 1% The struggle for economic empowerment of women ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 1% Psycho social support for children with special needs ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 1% Building and development of civil society ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 1% Lobbying for Europe.3. the disabled and resocialization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 3% Education of individuals to improve the quality of life ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2% International cooperation. better quality of life of children _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 2% Development of social tolerance and interculturality ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 4% Empowering women to improve their position ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 3% Humanitarian work. the local milieu _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 2% Life without violence. spreading humanism ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 3% Improving the lives of young people. women’s rights. promotion of alternative education ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5% 4% Rights of children. legal aid ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2% Psycho social support to vulnerable groups ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 2% Improving the lives of Roma. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 9: What is the mission of your organization? ned mission of organization 4% 9% Development of civil society _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8% 8% Protection and promotion of human rights ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5% 5% Development of local community ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 4% Education. the preservation of culture ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2009 2% 2% rmation of culture and art in society ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 2% Integration of the Roma in society. Presentation Presentation 4. 3. promotion of nonviolence_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2% Gathering and help to mentally handicapped persons (MNRL) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 2% Improving quality of life of women __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 2% Protection and preservation of the environment _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 1% Realization of students (pupils) rights. disease prevention _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5% 3% Help for paraplegics. Europe without borders_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% Development of local municipality __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 2% Rights of women.

Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Strategic planning Less than half of the respondent organizations (47%) state that they have a documented strategic plan. FENS members (52%) and Belgrade based NGOs (55%) more frequently than others state that they have this document. Presentation Presentation 4. Older organizations (56%). region). 61% think the situation is good but that additional training is necessary. even though a strategic plan may be one of the possible conditions sought by donors for the approval of resources. 22% of respondent organizations think there is no need for additional training. a slight decrease when compared to 2005 (51%). and we manage to realize the majority of our projects in compliance with this orientation We often had to change the projects from the area of our main orientation to meet the requests of donors We d W don’t ’ h have the h main i orientation i i and area of activity. while 20% state that they often have to change the general orientation of their foreseeable projects in accordance with the demands of the donors. 3. so they direct their work purely to the demands of the donors. This is quite similar to 2005. big (79%). 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 We have the main orientation and area of activity. There are no great di erences depending on the research variables. but we need additional education 2005 18% 61% 21% We don’t need additional education NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . eld of work. but we work in compliance with donors’ requests 3% 5% 3% No answer 5% 73% 71% 21% 20% 2005 2009 51% 2005 49% Yes No 47% 2009 52% The organizations’ appraisal of the situation in the sphere of planning is almost identical 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. those dealing with the protection of human rights (54%). while 17% believe that training in the sphere of planning is vital.3. size. Presentation 3. for longterm and short-term planning): Base: Total target population 3/4 of respondent organizations report that they succeed in implementing the majority of their projects in accordance with their general orientation. 2009 17% 61% 22% Education in this area is necessary Good. Graph 12: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in the area ne a mission. membership in FENS. 5% of organizations have no general orientation or eld of work.

legislation. Base: Total target population The young. healthcare. representation and public politics Roma Assistance to refugees and IDPs Peace work LGBT (Sexual minorities) Business and professional associations Other 7% 10% 12% 8% 5% 5% 23% 30% 27% 28% 30% 22% 23% 21% 27% 34% 27% 33% 28% 31% 64% 66% 65% 60% 57% 59% 50% 52% 42% 45% 45% 44% 39% 42% 42% 41% 33% 36% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . children’s rights (42%) and culture and arts (41%). education and research (60%) and the protection of human rights (59%). the development of local community (44%). environmental protection P t ti of Protection f rights i ht of f members b of f national ti l minorities i iti Economic recovery Legislation. and the protection of national minorities.3. public politics. Considerable work is being done by organizations in the areas of humanitarian and social work and health care (52%). international cooperation (45%). Presentation Presentation 4. Presentation 3. youth. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Area of work When we look at the areas in which organizations are involved (multiple answers). 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). students Education and research Protection of human rights Humanitarian and social work. health care International cooperation Development of local community Children’s rights Culture and arts Women’s rights Ecology. Graph 13: Which areas is your organization involved in? Multiple answers. there is an increase in the number of NGOs dealing with environment. while there is a decrease in the number of NGOs involved in assistance to refugees and IDPs. 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. we can see that most respondent organizations deal with young people and students (66%). 12% deal with youth/students and with education / research. there are very few changes of priorities in comparison with 2005. 3. In comparison with 2005.

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. Graph 15: Why did you decide to deal with this particular area of activity? What is the main reason? Base: Total target population We were motivated by experience of other organizations/individuals Suggestions of donors went along (it was the easiest to these lines ( get money for this area) There was no one at that time to tackle this problem We had capacities to pursue this area (competent staff. Base: Total target population 16% 16% 12% 12% 13% 12% 8% 11% 7% 11% 8% 7% 6% 7% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 3% 4% 2005 2009 34% 26% 1% 9% 22% 1% 1% 2% 8% 20% Humanitarian and social work. representation and public politics Assistance to refugees and IDPs Economic recovery Peace work LGBT (Sexual minorities) Business and professional associations Other 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. previous experience) Our interests were directed towards this area This was th Thi the priority i it social i l problem 2005 2009 32% 43% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . students Education and research Women’s rights Protection of human rights Development of local community Culture and arts Ecology. Presentation 3. education. 3. what do you consider as your organization’s priority area of activity? Multiple answers.3. 26% stated that the area coincided with their sphere of interest. It is worth mentioning that NGOs dealing with culture. health care The young. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 14: Generally speaking. youth. Presentation Presentation 4. environmental protection Children’s rights Roma International cooperation Protection of rights of members of national minorities Legislation. while 8% think that nobody had previously worked in that area. 20% had the capability to deal with this area (experts. previous experience).

Presentation 3.3. Graph 16: Who are the PRIMARY/DIRECT users of your services – who is your organization primarily directed at? Base: Total target population All citizens Youth Women Children National minorities Roma Students Invalids (parents or family members) The elderly y The poor Decision makers Institutions Refugees and IDPs NGO sector S Sexual l minorities i iti Trade unions Media Single parents The unemployed Political parties Other 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 7% 7% 13% 16% 10% 12% 11% 10% 33% 39% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . women (12%) and children (10%) are also particularly frequent users. children (42%) and students (39%) are dominating groups. Other data are pretty much similar to the 2005 survey. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Bene ciaries of NGO services The primary or direct bene ciaries of NGO services are most often all citizens (33%). The graph with all users shows that youth (57%). Presentation Presentation 4. youth (16%). 3. The users of the services of a certain non-governmental organization depends mostly on the eld of work of that organization. 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%. Among other groups. which certainly indicates a perception of change in needs among NGOs.

the users that your projects are targeting Multiple answers. Presentation Presentation 4. Presentation 3. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 17: Who are the users of your services in a broader sense of the word. Base: Total target population 59% 57% Youth ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 42% 43% Children _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 39% 40% Students ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 36% 41% All citizens _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 34% 32% NGO sector _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 31% 31% Institutions _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 34% 28% Women __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 28% 31% Media ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 27% 27% Roma ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 26% 26% The unemployed __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 25% 28% The poor _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 25% 29% National minorities ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 20% 24% 2005 Decision makers ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2009 18% 21% Single parents ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 26% 20% Refugees and IDPs ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 22% 20% The elderly _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15% 15% Political parties____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10% 5% Sexual minorities __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6% 8% Trade unions _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10% 4% Other ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% Invalids (parents or family members) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% DK-Ref___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .3. 3.

3. 38% 37% information.. while there has been a decrease in activities organizing various types of media campaigns. actions in the local community(53%). According to their areas of work. In terms of regions. mediation…) ________________________________________________________________________ Holding press conferences________________________________________________________________________ erent forms of alternative education _____________________________________________________________ Maintenance of web page _______________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of laws and work of institutions __________________________________________________________ 33% 39% 34% 36% 38% 35% 29% 19% 21% Graph 18: Which types of activities are most frequently carried out in your organization? Multiple answers. di erent forms of alternative education (61%). printing brochures and publications (52%) and carrying out research (41%). monitoring of laws and institutions (39%). They are also more active than others in the eld of monitoring laws and the work of institutions (32%). among the most common activities in which non-governmental organizations take part are seminars. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Types of activities Similar to 2005. training – 88%) than in organizing actions in the local community (39%). the maintenance of website (58%). workshops ____________________________________________________________________ Networking and cooperation _____________________________________________________________________ Actions in local community ______________________________________________________________________ Printing of brochures and publications ______________________________________________________________ Holding conferences and meetings.. Interestingly. carry out lobbying and advocacy activities (54%). from 49% to 44%. meetings and round tables (from 46% in 2005 to 51% in 2009). Presentation Presentation 4. provide various professional services and assistance (51%) and hold press conferences (50%).3.. NGOs whose work is concerned with the protection of human rights are more likely than others to organize media events (60%). trainings. languages. __________________________________________________________________________________ Media campaigns ______________________________________________________________________________ Realization of research projects ____________________________________________________________________ 76% 80% 55% 55% 55% 53% 49% 52% 49% 44% 41% 40% Lobbying/advocacy _____________________________________________________________________________ 2005 Organization of various courses 2009 35% 37% (vocational. These organizations show higher engagement in organizing events (seminars. monitoring of laws and work of institutions (8%). Presentation 3.. and are least involved in carrying out research projects (22%). 46% 51% round tables.most are involved in almost all of the activities on the list.. NGOs from Belgrade are considerably more active in their work . psychological and legal assistance. computer. Activities that have become more common include holding conferences.) __________________________________________________________ Providing material assistance _____________________________________________________________________ 23% 21% 20% 13% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .. Seminars. Real activism is much more present in Vojvodina (61%) and Central Serbia (55%). Base: Total target population Other forms of campaigns (door to door. training and workshops (80%).. networking and cooperation (55%). Social-humanitarian organizations more frequently than others provide material assistance (31%). lobbying and advocacy (from 33% to 39%). big NGOs tend to be more involved in the implementation of research projects (75%).. They are also more active than others in monitoring laws and the work of institutions (32%).) ________________________________________________________________ Provision of various professional services (SOS phones. di erent forms of alternative education (19%).

Presentation 3. However. while projects that last longer (one year and more) are implemented mostly by big organizations (60%).0 rejected. On average. NGOs that were founded earlier. with 25% of NGOs submitting 6-10 projects and 16% of NGOs submitting 11 and more. 3. and lasting for more than one year (9% compared to 7% in 2005). it is visible that there are more funding opportunities for NGOs from this region (especially state funding). have submitted a large number of proposals and had more projects approved(except for Vojvodina that has less projects approved than Belgrade). These are disturbing numbers indicating that. those dealing with youth issues. 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. It is interesting that NGOs from Vojvodina submitted 11+ projects (25%) in larger numbers than NGOs in other regions. 2. how many were: Base: Total target population 2009 51% 40% 9% Approved Rejected S ill i Still in procedure d 2005 42% 33% 25% In most organizations (56%) projects are on average completed in a period from 3 months to a year.5 2 1. as well as FENS members. When compared to other data in this survey. which represents a signi cant drop when compared to 2005 (61%). As a rule. AVERAGE NUMBER OF PROJECTS BY NGO Submitted Approved Rejected Still in procedure 2005 6.3. Older NGOs are submitting more projects than younger NGOs. on the one hand there are NGOs that gave up and did not even try to fundraise. education and ecology (19%). there is a trend of submitting a greater number of projects. which is less than in 2005 (62%).0 in 2008 T The average number of submitted proposals in 2008 was 6. big organizations.5 were approved. 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. Presentation Presentation 4.4 2. Up to 3 months 2009 10% 19% 37% 23% 9% 3 – 6 months 6 – 12 months Ci one year Circa 2005 15% 30% 32% 16% 7% More than one year NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . professional associations and those from Vojvodina. while the rest were still being processed (1. At the same time.7 3. Furthermore.6 2009 6 2. there are no signi cant di erences between FENS members and organizations which are not members of FENS.7 0. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Project proposals – development and implementation Most organizations submitted between 1 and 5 project applications (46%) during one year. Projects lasting for 6 to 12 months are mostly carried out by NGOs from Central Serbia (50%). and are those implemented by small NGOs (16%) and by NGOs from Vojvodina (23%).5).7 in 2004 and 6.5 2009 11% 46% 25% 16% 0 15 6 10 11+ 2005 5% 61% 22% 12% Projects most often completed in the period of up to 3 months are in the elds of culture. those from Belgrade (54%) and in the areas of civil society development and humanitarian and social work (12%). and 2. there are more projects that last for around one 1 year (23% compared to 16% in 2005). medium sized and big NGOs. Graph 21: What is the average duration of projects that your organization implements? Base: Total target population Average number of projects by NGO submitted to donors was 6. When compared with regard to FENS membership. Graph 19: What is the total number of project proposals that you submitted to donors during the previous year (2004 / 2008)? Base: Total target g population p p Graph 20: Of all the projects that your NGO submitted in the previous year. economy.

the lack of professionalism. For example. Their problems lie in the lack of competent professionals (17%) and short deadlines/not enough time (8%). non-FENS network members (29%). Insufficient motivation among staff Lack of professionalism (competent professionals) Insufficient experience in project design Lack of technical equipment (computer.4 2005 13% 31% 19% 37% 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%).6 in 2005 to 2. inexperience in project writing and the lack of technical equipment) are mentioned much less frequently – below 20%. Presentation Presentation 4. similarly. Graph 22: How many projects is your organization currently implementing? Base: Total target population Some di erences were noticed in relation to the size of organizations – smaller NGOs score higher on almost all problems. Internet) Lack of self confidence 8% Big budget. The second problem has dropped signi cantly when compared to 2005 (from 45% to 35%). 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. NGOs outside of Belgrade more often encounter problems with insu cient motivation among the sta and the lack of con dence. as well as experience in project design (19% compared to 7% among members). which is also much less than in 2005. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector The average number of projects currently carried out by a single organization has dropped from 2. then the lack of information on calls for proposals and possibilities for applying (35%). which is a signi cant increase from 2005 (13%). the insu cient motivation of the sta . NGOs from Central Serbia encounter problems much more often due to the poor knowledge of foreign languages (23%). organizations from outside of Belgrade encounter problems more often then Belgrade-based NGOs.4 in 2009. small (35%) and based in Central Serbia. These are predominantly younger organizations (30%). 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). a lot of resources 4% 5% 7% None NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .3.appeared in 2009. 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). fax machine. Graph 23: What are the most frequent problems that you were faced with in your work when competing p g for the projects? p j Base: Total target g population p p High/complex requests of donors which we were unable to meet Lack of information about competitions and possibilities to apply Poor knowledge language g of English g g g 21% 16% 19% 15% 20% 14% 20% 13% 22% 11% 2005 2009 41% 42% 45% 35% 0 projects AVERAGE 2. Also. while organizations from Belgrade very rarely state this problem (4%). big NGOs have least problems with information on funding opportunities (12%). Other problems (like a poor knowledge of English. It is interesting that a new problem – the lack of self-con dence . 3.6 2009 2009 23% 20% 20% 32% 1 project 2 projects p j 3+ projects 2005 AVERAGE 2. 23% of organizations are not carrying out a single project. In relation to the region. Logically. those dealing with humanitarian and social work (40%). but also because much more information is available through the Internet. Presentation 3. It is disturbing that at the moment. the knowledge of the English language (5%) and the lack of self con dence.

it is obvious that NGOs are not lacking “hardware”. fax machine. 3. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector It is interesting that NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work are somehow in the worst position – they score high on all prioritized problems. and it is “overwhelming or too many donor requirements” (23%). but “software”. Internet) Insufficient motivation among staff Low level of cooperation with media Poor knowledge of English language There were no problems Political situation in the country 38% 36% 29% 26% 23% 22% 20% 23% 16% 15% 14% 13% 13% 25% 12% 12% 11% 13% 10% 12% 10% 3% 1% 60% 49% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .26%) and insu cient experience in project design (33%). Graph 24: What are the most frequent problems that you were faced with in your work during the implementation of the projects? Lack of financial resources for realization Low level of cooperation with various levels of regime/institutions Negative attitude of neighborhood Overwhelming or too many donor requirements Legal difficulties Shortage of equipment and manpower for realization Insufficient motivation among users of our services Lack of professionalism (competent professionals) Lack of technical equipment (computer. It is interesting that the fourth problem was not mentioned in the 2005 survey and has now being pointed out. 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). In terms of regions. 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%). except for humanitarian and social organizations that more than others have legal di culties (37%). Presentation 3. and they lack professional sta (23%) who can speak English (18%). This shows that older. with special emphasis on the lack of professionalism (competent professionals . the shortage of equipment and manpower for implementation is less often a problem in Central Serbia (9%).e. as well as their procedures and demands). i.more public and EU funds. The same relates to older organizations. Presentation Presentation 4. as well as the negative attitude of the community to the NGO sector (26%). and at the same time fewer problems with the English language (9%) and technical equipment (8%) than in other elds. more experienced NGOs are starting to lag behind the changes in the donors’ community (both the change of donors .3. It is followed by a low level of cooperation with authorities/institutions (36%) at di erent levels. and more common in Vojvodina (27%). although this is less than in 2005 (60%). There were no signi cant di erences in answers among organizations depending on research variables. Having in mind that the lack of technical equipment as a problem in project implementation has dropped from 25% to 12%. The lack of nancial resources is named as the biggest problem in project implementation (49%). 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.

19% of interviewed organizations think that they do not need additional training. 60% think that the situation is good. but we need additional support No need for additional education 55% 67% 23% 35% Completely familiar 32% 32% F ili Familiar Yes and no U f ili Unfamiliar 31% 23% 10% 3% 2005 2009 7% 2% Completely unfamiliar 2005 22% 59% 19% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .3. This is not a signi cant change from 2005. Legal/ scal regulations Bearing in mind that during the years 2008-2009. while only 9% stated that they are not familiar with them. Older NGOs (73%). professional associations (74%). those dealing with young. 3. big (84%). one would expect a greater need for additional capacity building. Presentation Presentation 4. it is not strange that 67% of NGOs stated that they are familiar with legal regulations (55% in 2005). as well as small NGOs (14%) are less familiar with legal regulations. There are no signi cant di erences in research variables. economy. if one looks back to previous data related to the listed problems NGOs encounter when applying and implementing projects. Presentation 3. except that in 35% of cases. However. FENS members (76%) and those based in Belgrade (80%) tended to be more familiar with legal regulations. while 21% think that they need additional training in project competition and implementation. humanitarian and social work organization declared that additional training is necessary. 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 additional education 1. there were strong advocacy campaigns for the adoption of a new NGO Law and tax reform related to NGOs.3. but they need additional education. Organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work and younger organizations (17%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector In assessing the position of organizations in terms of project competition and implementation. Base: Total target population Graph 26: Are you familiar with legal regulations which cover the NGO sector? 2009 19% 60% 21% Support in this area is necessary Good.

Presentation Presentation 4. These data are similar to 2005. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector When asked how satis ed they were with current legal regulations related to the NGO sector. I am not informed 2005 2009 4% 5% I have no objections The most often stated reasons for dissatisfaction in this eld were: the Law on NGOs (80% of respondents. There are no major di erences among NGOs in terms of survey variables. and other laws related to the work of NGOs (19%). The last was mentioned by 38% of big NGOs. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . the survey was conducted before the new Law was adopted). Base: Total target population ed with. in your opinion.3. Presentation 3. while only 8% said they were satis ed. as this was before the adoption of the new Law for NGOs. and again. relating to the NGO sector? 2% 7% 24% 1% 7% regulations should be changed: Multiple answers. 28% did not have an opinion. which aspect of legal ed with currently valid legal regulations 78% Law on NGO 67% T policy Tax li Completely satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied 80% 28% 70% 17% 19% 11% 2005 2009 32% Other laws which relate to work of NGO 32% 61% 29% 59% 27% Other 5% 8% % I don’t know. tax policy (70%). 1% Although NGOs are not satis ed with the legal framework which regulates the work of NGOs. 3. only 28% would be interested in participating in an initiative for a change. up to 59% of respondents stated that they were not satis ed.

39% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . Although at the end of the list. 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%). Base: Total target population 3% 30% 28% Don't know No 70% 69% Yes 73% To allow tax relief for NGO To provide resources / funds for the financing of NGOs To improve the legal framework in which NGOs operate (change the law on NGOs and other laws that… To allow tax relief for company which finances NGOs To reduce the contributions for NGO employees Tax relief for individual citizens who finance NGOs Enable the implementation of national p programs g in accordance Campaign for change of NGO image Increase the transparency of the entire legislative process 54% 54% % 58% 54% 2005 44% 46% 43% 2009 75% 74% 68% 68% 67% 68% 66% 2005 2009 Respondents most often mentioned their expectations of state action to stimulate the work of NGOs as being: to allow tax relief for NGOs (75%). and this was not even mentioned in the 2005 survey. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 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.3. Presentation 3. it is worth mentioning that in 29% of the cases the increase of the transparency of the entire legislative process was suggested. Presentation Presentation 4. 3.

local self-government (81%) and then the national government (75%) as most important. When asked to explain the reason for their views. the media (86%). NGOs dealing with civil society development mentioned these in 22% of cases and NGOs dealing with human rights protection in only 8% of cases. indicates that the NGO sector perceived that all institutions. apart from church. the opinion that some authorities favor some NGOs. where 1 means ”not important at all” and 5 means “very important”). bad laws. bad laws and bad tax policy. Presentation 3. educational institutions are now mentioned as important.e. 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. These organizations have opposite views on the suitability of the political context for the NGO sector. On the contrary. 3. i. as bearing an important in uence on the NGO sector’s activities. The reason may be related to the change in government to one perceived more positively than that in power during the 2005 survey. uence of the following institutions on the work of the NGO sector – IMPORTANT ( 4 + 5 ) Base: Total target g population p p 91% NGOs themselves 89% 87% Media 86% 81% Local self government 81% 79% 6% 9% 31% 5% 11% Very suitable 41% Suitable Neutral Unsuitable Very unsuitable Government 75% Educational institutions 66% 68% 54 31% 23% 43 25% 18% B i Business sector t 44% Political parties 16% Church 48% 62% 2005 2009 2005 2009 14% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . 23% of NGOs dealing with human rights reported that insu cient cooperation with the government (negative attitude) is the reason. The attitude of the interviewed organizations improved since 2005. when talking about the absence of a law on NGOs. 13% of respondents stated that there is insu cient cooperation with the government (negative attitude). have an important impact on the functioning of this sector (all average marks do not exceed mark 3 on a 1-5 scale. Presentation Presentation 4. and secondly. when 54% of respondents shared the same opinion. apart from the church.4. However.3. while this view was shared by only 2% of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society. 12% said that there is the absence of a law on NGOs. and on the reasons for their views. respondents perceived NGOs (89%). and 8% stated connections between politics and NGOs. 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 Respondents assessed all institutions. The next graph. 11% identi ed a poor image of the NGO sector. except between NGOs dealing with human rights and those dealing with the development of civil society. bad tax policy and underdeveloped awareness of the necessity of NGOs and a lack of interest. political parties are the only stakeholder that is perceived as more important in 2009 then in 2005. There are not many di erences among organizations related to research variables. There is a similarity in data from 2005 and 2009 with a few exceptions: rstly. There are no di erences depending on the research variables. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 1.

3. 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%). except for NGOs dealing with culture. Generally speaking. while in 14% of the cases it was evaluated as good and excellent (9% in 2005). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 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 in 20% of the cases think that there should be more e cient action and greater engagement of NGOs. greater engagement of NGOs (11%) and cooperation. communication with the government/local authorities (10%). 14% thought that this in uence was adequate and only 1% that it was too strong. Presentation Presentation 4. In 45% of cases it was described as neutral (increase from 31% in 2005). and then more e cient action. which is a signi cant decrease when compared to 2005 (60%). Graph 33: How would you evaluate cooperation between the current Government of the Republic of Serbia and the NGO sector? Base: Total target population tics? uence the creation of state poli- Base: Total target population 1% 12% 1% 14% Too much 87% 2% 7% 31% 2% 12% Excellent 45% 32% 33% 28% 8% 2005 2009 Good Neutral Poor Very poor 2005 85% Just right Too little 60 41 2009 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. Presentation 3. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . there are no di erences between organizations depending on the research variables. On this question there are no di erences between organizations depending on the research variables. education and ecology. cooperation with the government is believed to be much better than in the 2005 survey. 3. On this question.

position the status of NGOs in the media Lobbying Development of NGOs. the Humanitarian Law Fund (from 6% to 7%). A few organizations have increased their in uence: Civic Initiatives (from 54% to 62%). the Helsinki Committee (from 4% to 5%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector uence creation of state politics too little uence? (85% of target population) Networking. greater engagement of NGOs Cooperation. Graph 36: Can you name up to 3 NGOs which. goals. strategy.3. there are some di erences between organizations which are FENS network members and those which are not. activities Cooperation (better cooperation. the legal status of NGO to be regulated Common interests. CESID (9%) and the Humanitarian Law Fund (7%). the possibility of greater co operation) M More concrete programs. 3. politics. However. 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. the Center for Development of Non-pro t Sector (CRNPS) (21%). pooling of all NGOs More efficient action. had the biggest p uence on the development of the NGO sector in Serbia? Gra anske inicijative (Civic Iniciatives) CRNPS (Center for developpment of non profit sector) 26% 21% 12% 9% 6% 7% 10% 9% 8% 5% 6% 5% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 7% 1% 3% 1% 12% 12% 2005 2009 54% 62% 16% 7% 7% 20% 7% 18% 6% 8% 4% 8% % 3% 6% 2% 4% 1% 5% 1% 8% 6% 2005 2009 CESID Fond za humanitarno pravo (Fund for humanitarian rights) F d za otvoreno Fond t d društvo št (OSI) Evropski pokret u Srbiji (European movement) Žene u crnom (Women in black) Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava (Helsinki committee for human rights) Autonomni ženski centar (Autonomous women center) YUKOM JAZAS Group 484 Centar za demokratiju (Center fo democracy) OTPOR (Resistance) Belgrade Center for Human Rights Don't know Most important NGOs The respondents stated that the most important organizations for the development of the NGO sector are: Civic Initiatives (62%). communication with the Government/ local authorities In order to adopt the law on NGOs. planned work Influence of NGOs on government. adoption of laws Improving the position. Presentation 3. in your opinion. FENS members (75%) perceive Civic Initiatives as one of the 3 most important organizations for the NGO sector development. 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. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . NGOs the promotion of our work NGOs to present their projects the state Better communication i i Other DK Ref 7% 9% 9% 8% 11% 10% 15% 15% 23% As expected. Presentation Presentation 4. To a higher degree. 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).

100 No employees T O T A L NGOs employees employees 2008 3 943 771 72 4 786 2007 3 614 697 43 4 354 2006 3 332 618 32 3 982 nancial reports in 2008. 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%). However. Of the presidents/directors. by number of employees AGE 2% 16% 1% 16% 1% 16% 10 100 employees 1 employees 82% 83% 84% No employees Of the respondent organizations. Also. 16% had from 1 to 9 employees and 1. This means that most Serbian NGOs are considered as “micro-enterprises”. Graph 38: Information about the person who is the head of your organization (President or Director of your NGO): Base: Total target population Male Female 55% 46% 47% 52% Younger (20 35) GENDER 27% 19% 2005 Middle age (36 50) Older (over 50) 48% 26% 37% 41% 2009 2008 2007 2006 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. employees and part-time workers. and only in 1% primary school.5% had between 10 to 100 employees. women presidents are signi cantly predominant only in the eld of human rights protection (67% women in comparison to 32% men). 41% are middle-aged (from 36 to 50 years). coordinators. As expected.5. which stressed that 82% of NGOs that submitted the nancial report in 2008 had no employed persons. Humanitarian and social work NGOs are among the smallest (71%). and 18. Most NGOs with middle-aged presidents deal with civil society development (47%) or are from Central Serbia (47%). presidents in the NGO sector are in 77% of the cases with college and university education. EDUCATION Primary Secondary Higher 21% 20% 78% 77% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . There are no di erences related to FENS membership. but rather as engagement via honoraria and in other forms (members of the managing board. while in 20% of the cases they nished secondary school. while only 8% in Vojvodina and 5% in Central Serbia engage more than 31 persons. Presentation Presentation 4.5% are young (from 20-35 years of age). Presentation 3. younger presidents are more dominant in organizations dealing with the younger population (39%) and in Belgrade based NGOs (28%). This is a slight increase of women presidents/directors from 2005 (46% women and 55% of men). 52% reported that their president/director is a woman and 47% reported that their president/director is a man. while in new organizations (founded in 2000 and later) there is a larger number of middle-aged presidents (44%). Table 1: 1-9 10 . this should not be taken into consideration as employment with full bene ts. while those dealing with the development of civil society have more people employed (17% of them employ over 31 persons). By education. due to additional information from a survey on the economic value of the NGO sector commissioned by Civic Initiatives in 2009. and between 15 to 30 persons (31%). There are di erences depending on the time when organizations were formed: in those organizations founded before 2000. Only 9% of NGOs reported having more than 31 persons engaged. However. 37% are over 50 years of age. the percentage of presidents over 50 years of age is much higher (46%). but not volunteers). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 1. 3. the biggest organizations are based in Belgrade (19%).3.

though. as do those dealing with the development of civil society (52%). Only 34% of small organizations and 36% of youth. joint requests from donors (54%). The data show an increase in self-con dence when compared to 2005. The least cooperation in this area was carried out by humanitarian and social work NGOs (26%). economic-focused and professional organizations have additional rules and procedures.3. 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 Statute? 1. 98% of organizations have had some contact with other NGOs up to now. that by contact we mean any type of cooperation (help in activities. NGO cooperation – networking As in 2005. and Belgrade-based NGOs (57%). It should be stressed. help in equipment and use of premises (51%). 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 g population p p 2005 2009 We have no need for additional education 27% 57% 16% 2005 38% 52% 9% 2009 Good. This percentage is lower than in 2005 (47%).6. Presentation 3. 3. cooperation within the network. 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. In the eld of the development of civil society only 2% of NGOs stated that additional support was needed. cooperation within some NGO network (73%). Graph 42: What way of cooperation was it? Multiple answers. Di erent types of cooperation most often include: mutual help in activities (76% of those who had cooperation). but we need additional support Support in this area is necessary Between members and non-members of FENS. 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. there is a di erence only in terms of NGO network cooperation. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Less than ½ of organizations (43%). coalitions (44%) and lobbying/advocacy 44%. 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%). have written rules and procedures (in addition to the statute) related to the decision-making and overall work of the organization. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . big organizations tend to have additional rules and procedures (74%). according to respondents. Base: those who cooperated so far in some way with any other NGOs (98% of target population) 53% 47% 2005 Base: T B Total t l target t t population l ti 56% 43% 2009 No Yes We helped each other with activities Realization of common projects Cooperation with NGOs in the network Mutual requests to donors H l i Help in equipment. equipment. It is worth mentioning that all types of cooperation have increased. Humanitarian and social work are mostly in need of additional support (15%) and then NGOs from Vojvodina (13%). training for members (50%). As expected. Presentation Presentation 4. and 9% think that support in this area is necessary. 38% of respondent organizations think that they do not need additional training in this eld. i use of f premises i Trainings g for members Coalition Lobbying/public advocacy 28% 44% 36% 44% 48% 54% 44% 51% 50% 50% 64% 77% 76% 75% 65% 73% As for the assessment of the situation in their organization in terms of management and supervising. implementation of common projects (75%). 52% are of the opinion that the situation is good but they need additional training. carrying out of projects jointly).

There is no clear distinction between the concepts of networks and partnerships with other NGOs. were least satis ed. 28% are very satis ed. Presentation Presentation 4.1%). Out of those who had some kind of cooperation. this is similar to the 2005 survey. the situation pertaining to membership in international networks was di erent. underdeveloped awareness of the importance of cooperation (4%) and others. and could more easily fundraise (39%). In membership in domestic networks. However. 25% 3% 2005 22% 2% 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . while 17% were not members of any network. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector The most often stated motives for cooperation were that organizations shared common interests (92% of those who had cooperation). Of course. area of work or size. and professional associations were most satis ed with cooperation (87%). older organizations (47%) and organizations from Belgrade (59%). as well as the results of the research by NGO Policy Group in 2001. instead of listing the name of the network. 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%). there were fewer NGOs that were not members of any network. . In comparison with 2005. 45% belong to domestic and 31% to international networks. and those from Vojvodina (68%). international 75% 26% Yes. with members of international networks tending to be larger (68%). When asked about the main problems in cooperation. wanted to help other organization (51%). NGOs dealing with youth. Respondents frequently listed the names of di erent organizations. economy. which is a slight increase compared to 2005 (72%). poor or no communication (5%). 3. and an increase in membership in both domestic and international networks.3. while only 2% are not satis ed with this cooperation. Presentation 3. insu cient engagement and dedication to projects (4%). 22% neither satis ed nor dissatis ed (neutral). 36% do not belong to any network. there were no signi cant di erences related to the region and time when organizations were formed. The remaining percentage mention the following problems in NGO cooperation: nancial problems for the implementation of the project (7. domestic had with other NGOs so far? 69% Base: those who cooperated so far in any way with any other NGOs (98% of target population) 34% 28% 72% 38% 76% 48% Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied 2005 2009 Several main conclusions can be drawn when we consider the list of membership in international and domestic networks: 1. Easier fund-raising was stated more often by NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (60%). the lack of professionalism of other NGOs (5%). could better utilize their capacities (49%). while 42% of FENS member organizations belong to some international network. most respondents either did not give any answer (28%) or stated that there are no problems related to cooperation with other NGOs (17%). while NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (68%). there is a di erence between FENS members and non-members: out of organizations which are not members of FENS. 48% are satis ed with this cooperation. 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) 17% 25% 37% No Yes. 75% were members of some domestic NGO network and 37% were members of some international networks. failure to meet agreed obligations (4%). ed with cooperation that your NGO have Of organizations that had cooperated with other NGOs (98% of the sample).

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.3. Presentation Presentation 4. Flare (3%). members of a domestic network. 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%). As for international networks. uence of NGO networks in Serbia? 4% 14% 17% Don’t know 79% Major influence 71% Minor influence Without influence 7% 2005 8% 2009 G h 45: 45 What Wh t do d you think thi th i k is i the th purpose of f FENS? FENS FE NS? ? Graph Exchange of information between NGOs Promotion of civil society values Influence on decision makers in Serbia Triggering off important social issues Improvement of image of NGO sector Coordination of attitudes and requirements within NGO sector Creating of monopoly within sector Promotion of individuals 6% 7% 2% 8% 58% 78% 55% 71% 58% 63% 54% 64% 48% 60% 49% 48% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . 3.European voluntary service (2%). Women can do it (2%) and EVS . while those dealing with humanitarian and social work believe least (11%) in it. there is no single one which gathers a large number of NGOs –although more than 140 international networks were listed. Among organizations which are not members of this network. this research cannot give us conclusions on frequency of membership in FENS network. Presentation 3. activities (31%) • Easier achievement of goals. Recom (3%). Civic Initiatives (4%). Women in black (3%). 63% had heard of this network. all FENS member organizations have heard of this NGO network. YOUTH PEER (2%). UNITED (2%). Since the sample included intentionally certain number of FENS members and non-members. 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. 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”. NGOS dealing with the development of civil society (18%) tend more than others to believe that networks have in uence. As expected. except for culture. except for humanitarian and social work NGOs which have heard about FENS in 67% of the cases. Although there were around 100 networks listed. There were no signi cant di erences on this question among organizations depending on research variables. either domestic or international: • Common interests. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 2. there is no single network with more than 5% of organizations. except FENS (47%). Women’s network (2%). 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%). goals. As for domestic networks. only some of them have membership which exceeds 2% (domestic network members): FENS (47%). 3. IDEA (3%). Astra (4%).

no contact established (17%).lack of opportunity so far. as expected by FENS members (3.9).1 on a 5-point scale (1=absolutely unsuccessful. While the respondents expressed high satisfaction with their organizations’ cooperation. but they would like to become members (9%). representatives of organizations in FENS network most often stated the following: . 2009 2009 2009 not 2005 2005 2005 not but their organizations are not members of the network. do not need it (19%). NGOs from Vojvodina are very unsatis ed with the level of cooperation. Base: Total target population .Triggering of important social issues (64%). does not meet goals (9%). If we compare satisfaction levels with the cooperation of their organization. cooperation within the NGO sector is generally assessed as developed by 22% of NGOs and in 22% of the cases as underdeveloped. 1% 3% 4% .Exchange of information between NGOs (78%) . However.FENS has no signi cant impact. Don't Don t know . while the lowest mark was given by non-FENS members (2.3). .In uence on decision makers in Serbia (63%). 16% 20% the sector as being much worse. Out of 83% organizations that have heard of FENS. In comparison to other variables there are no signi cant di erences in ratings. we can notice signi cantly di erent answers. Presentation Presentation 4. with their opinion about the level of cooperation within the NGO sector. 3. Nevertheless. the biggest mark was given by humanitarian and social organizations and. For example. As the main reasons for becoming network members. 18% Activities that FENS was involved in so far receive an average mark of 3. from 5 to 20 percentage points.7) and NGOs dealing with the promotion of human rights (2. we can talk about the reasons for this membership. Prioritized reasons have signi cantly increased from 2005. Presentation 3. Organizations which are not FENS members see its purpose also in terms of the exchange of information and the promotion of civil society values. so this research does not o er insight into incidence of membership in this network within the NGO sector. 1% .3. they much less recognize its purpose in in uencing decision makers (39%).lack of interest. which is slightly higher than in 2005 (2. with 37% stating that cooperation is not developed.Improvement of the NGO sector image (60%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector The ratio between FENS members and non-members was de ned by the sample. they assessed cooperation within 18% Very y developed p Developed p 50% 54% Average Underdeveloped Completely underdeveloped 25% 4% 2005 22% 1% 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .no particular reason (10%). Graph 46: How would you evaluate the previous activities of FENS? Base: those who heard of FENS (83% of target population) 24% 2% 11% 36% 7% 7% 21% 2% 10% 27% 18% 2% 10% Don’t know Completely successful Successful Neutral Unsuccessful Completely unsuccessful 40% 42% 44% 42% 45% 18% 14% 3% 10% 22% 6% 25% 5% 18% 9% 15% 6% Representatives of organizations which have heard of FENS. which shows greater expectations from FENS in all aspects of its work. in Serbia? .9). 8% 11% 6% . similarly to 2005.Promotion of civil society values (71%). triggering important social issues (35%) and improving the image of the sector (30%). while NGOs from Central Serbia were most satis ed (29%). member member member member state that the main reasons why their organizations are not of FENS of FENS of FENS of FENS members are the following: Graph 47: How would you generally evaluate cooperation within the NGO sector . 5=completely successful).

47%) and on the part of the state institutions (“they didn’t want to cooperate”. when negative opinions were reported by 40% of respondents.7. Base: Total target population 45% Yes at the level of the Republic Yes. Base: Total target population Graph 48: How would you evaluate attitude of the state towards the NGO sector? The state is uninterested and underestimates importance of NGO sector The state recognizes NGO sector as a partner (uses services. they also mentioned “prejudices towards the issues that NGOs are engaged with (10%). NGO cooperation with the state Multiple answers. consults… The state perceives NGOs as opponents The state helps development of NGO sector (provides funds funds. overall. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . Presentation Presentation 4. 67% 55% 2005 2009 Yes. it is a good sign that there has been a signi cant decrease in this opinion since 2005 (62%). 18%). is an improvement from 2005. . Furthermore. cooperation between NGOs and local administrations is rated rather more positively than the general situation in the sector. No 2005 2009 8% However. 3. Graph 49: Have you ever cooperated with any state institutions? Multiple answers. 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). New organizations (35%). There has been a signi cant increase in cooperation at both levels compared to 2005. With regard to the question of cooperation at a local level there are no great di erences depending on the research variables. which is less than in 2005 (25%). and positive opinions by 32% of respondents.) ) I can’t estimate 5% 10% 9% 10% 11% 19% 25% 17% 62% 53% Representatives of organizations which up to now have not had cooperated generally. 17% of respondents think that the state perceives NGOs as opponents. those dealing with the protection of human rights (42%). Although 33% of organizations rate the cooperation as bad. 29% rate cooperation as neither good nor bad. However. at the local level 71% 11% Over ½ (53%) of the respondents are not satis ed. in general. FENS members (36%) and NGOs from Vojvodina (42%) tended to be less satis ed with cooperation at the local level. explained this as a lack of interest in cooperation both on the part of the NGOs (“there was no need for cooperation”. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 1. 71% had experienced cooperation with state institutions at a local level.. 8% of respondent NGOs had not had any cooperation with state institutions so far. commenting that the state underestimates the importance of the sector. small NGOs (35%). Big NGOs (59%) and NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (48%) tended to be most satis ed with cooperation with local administrations. NGOs formed before 2000 (77%). In addition.. This. the number of those who think that the state recognizes the NGO sector as a partner has increased to 19% (from 11% in 2005). and 67% with state institutions at a national level. Presentation 3. This information tells us that the older organizations have acquired a certain reputation and because of their experience are better able to position themselves. There are no signi cant di erences in ratings according to the research variables. with the relationship between the state and the NGO sector. as well as those from Belgrade (73%). and 37% feel that there is good cooperation.3. cooperated with state institutions at a national level considerably more often than the younger organizations (59%) and small organizations (56%).

“connections” (45%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 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 p answers. On the other hand. Belgrade . Base: those who cooperated p with any y state institutions (91% of target g p population) p 32 11% 21% 28% 1% 59% 37 Don’t know Very good cooperation Good Neutral 10% 27% 29% Joint work on a project 44% S State i in the h role l of fd donor 50% 49% 26% NGO as a consultant 27% 63% 61% 40 19% 21% 19% 14% 2009 33 Poor Very y poor p cooperation p Exchange of experiences and information 2005 2009 2005 The most common form of cooperation with the state was working together on projects (63%) which has happened more frequently than in 2005 (59%). • Important role of informal contacts.59%. 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). the state most often lled the role of a donor in Vojvodina and least often in Central Serbia (Vojvodina 69%. which also represents a signi cant increase when compared to 2005 (44%). Presentation Presentation 4. • Difficulty in establishing cooperation on projects due to different levels of competences (40%).57%).3. Presentation 3. Graph 52: What are the problems you have been most frequently faced with during cooperation with state institutions? Multiple p answers. • Representatives of state organs are not interested and they do not realize the role of the NGO sector (41%). and Central Serbia . Base: those who cooperated p with any y state institutions (91% of target g p population) p Big state administration slows down the process of information exchange Important role of informal contacts. The levels of exchange of experiences (49%) and NGOs as consultants (27%) remain essentially unchanged from 2005. • State institutions do not have funds for helping NGO activities (35%). 3. „connections“ Representatives of state organs are not interested and they don’t realize the role of NGO sector It is difficult to realize cooperation on projects due d to d different ff l levels l of f competences State institutions don’t have the funds for helping NGO activities 44% 47% 45% 45% 54% 41% 34% 40% 44% 35% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . The most common problems in cooperation with the state are reported as: • Complex state administration slows down the process of information exchange (47%). in comparison to 2005 there is a signi cant increase in Vojvodina NGOs appearing as consultants. This is followed by the state as a donor (61%).

86% of all respondents. e cient action. The most frequent ways of hindering NGO work were given as: • Deprivation of finances (18%). or the government. • No cooperation (they gave us no guarantees – 12%). • Deprivation of space for usage (16%). This tendency may be explained by the consideration that. 27% of representatives of the NGO sector stated that the state apparatus. which is a signi cant increase compared to 2005 (68%). 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. programs and strategies). It is interesting that NGOs feel that more active engegament from their side would lead to improved cooperation (in uencing policies. had hindered their work in some way. Still the graph shows us that 13% of organizations do not see this cooperation as important (15% in 2005). 3. there are no di erences depending on the research variables. • Indifference. Presentation 3. and corresponding greater expectations from the NGO side. which is slightly more than in 2005 (25%).3. • Obstruction of work (14%). Regarding this question. The largest group of respondents felt that cooperation between NGOs and the state is very important . Presentation Presentation 4. absence of support (15%). since respondents generally reported a more positive attitude towards cooperation with the state. NGOs 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 49% Very important 68% Important Neutral U i Unimportant Completely unimportant 19% 16% 11% 4% 2005 68 18% 11% 2% 2009 86 75% 25% 2005 73% 27% 2009 No Yes What the sector can do to improve cooperation with the state could be seen from the following graph. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector In 2009.

the possibility of greater 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 11% 10% 10% 9% 39% 61% 36% 64% No Yes 2005 2009 In 2009. Cooperation is most often established among the older organizations (70% of older organizations have experience of such cooperation). strategy. medium size NGOs (74%) and those based in Vojvodina (71%). compared to the 2005 data. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . such as donations. 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). As expected. 3. On the other hand. 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. even of the smallest volume . It is interesting that. adoption of laws More efficient action. 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).8. NGO cooperation with the business sector Base: Total target population Graph 56: Have you ever cooperated with the business sector? Influence of NGOs on government.in goods. campaigns Transparency. as well as among those dealing with the development of civil society (76%). authorities have to do something now Better communication NGOs to present their projects the state Lobbying In order to adopt the law on NGOs. 64% of all respondents said they had cooperated with the business sector. Presentation 3. which is a slight increase compared to 2005 (61%). politics. the number of NGOs that claim that their mission is not connected to the business sector decreased. as well as that the number of NGOs that did not even try to establish cooperation also increased (from 14 to 18%). etc. expertise Improving the position. it is not encouraging that the percentage of NGOs that feel that business is not interested increased. planned work They can't do anything else. greater engagement of NGO NGOs More concrete programs. Here. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 55: What might NGO sector do in order to upgrade cooperation with the state? Base: Total target population 1. the legal status of NGO to be regulated Connecting with other organizations Contact with citizens.3. Presentation Presentation 4. public appearances. it should be stated that any form of communication between NGOs and businesses is understood as cooperation. the status of NGOs in the media Cooperation (better cooperation. openness Education Greater competence. This indicates that NGOs have a stronger understanding understanding that cooperation between sectors can happen regardless of their missions. nancial donations.

27% appeared in consultant roles (25% in 2005). • Board members come from the business sector . and then donations in kind (62% of these organizations reported this type of in kind cooperation). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 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) Business sector as a donor services by NGO Consultation cooperation. there are no means There are no terms for cooperation (we are non profitable and small) We haven't haven t been offered cooperation Business sector does not realize the importance of NGO Other Don't know 4% 8% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 8% 1% 2% 2% 8% 9% 14% 18% 11% 16% 12% 10% 12% 24% 33% 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. This indicates that further e orts are needed to raise the awareness of the business sector regarding the value of strategic assistance. If we take into account only those organizations which have cooperated with the business sector. possibility for cooperation Mission of our NGO is not connected with business sector Business sector is underdeveloped.35% . cooperation we hadn't even tried Business sector is not ready to cooperate We had no opportunity. but that it is received regularly. However. education and ecology (28%). and to help NGOs to establish more strategic partnerships with businesses. compared to 5% in 2005. 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. it is noticeable that 76% of these NGOs have had experience with business sector donations (a slightly lower gure when compared to 2005 – 78%). Presentation Presentation 4. stated that they had established mutual cooperation and support with the business sector and 2% established cooperation in some other ways. professional associations (67%) and big NGOs (66%).64%. this table re ects NGO perceptions of the interests of the business sector in potential cooperation. Graph 58: What types of cooperation have you had with the business sector? Multiple answers. Mutual cooperation and support is mostly achieved by NGOs dealing with culture. small amounts of help from the business sector. Another 23% of these organizations state that the help they received is not continuous. The three most frequently referenced methods for establishing cooperation are: • interests of the representatives of the business sector in a given field . support Mutual Other 5% 13% 7% 2% 25% 27% 78% 76% 2005 2009 2005 2009 When the business sector appears in the role of a donor. with74% of the organizations that had received donations reporting this type of nancial cooperation. for most projects. The next graph shows the nature of the help received from the business sector. Generally speaking. it is most often connected to nancial donations. it is possible that greater e orts by the NGOs could help in improving the situation and increasing cooperation with business.3.15%. Only 6% of organizations that received donations actually received strategically planned and continuous help. It can be clearly seen that the majority of organizations (70% of NGOs that had received donations) tend to receive sporadic. Presentation 3. Base: those who have never cooperated with business sector (36% of target population) Business sector is not interested We had no need for cooperation. 3. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . while 13%. Those data do not di er from 2005. • personal motives of the representatives of the business sector .

1 (2. donations are small Help is not continuous.8).3).87 in 2005). Presentation 3.3%) and the lowest in Vojvodina (2. 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. extreme evaluations of cooperation (marks of 1 or 5) appeared in 11% of the cases (7% in 2005). However. Evidently. There are no signi cant di erences in the answers to this question depending on the research variables.9). 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). 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 p answers. shows that there is a need for further education on the NGO side. As can be seen from the graph. Presentation Presentation 4. a high level of satisfaction is stated by NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (3.4) than FENS members (2. 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). Further. Base: those who cooperated p with business sector (64% of target g p population) p Multiple answers. according to the opinion of the representatives of the NGO sector. ed with cooperation of your organization Base: those who cooperated with business sector (64% of target population) and the business sector? Companies have no tax exemptions for helping NGO sector Companies are not informed well enough about the role and importance of NGOs 65% 61% 58% 60% 62% 56% 35% 31% 25% 22% 17% 13% 2005 2009 25% 7% 18% 38% 11% % 22% 37% 24% 6% 2009 33% Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied Companies C i are i in a very b bad d situation i i – they h have no funds for donations Companies are not interested in the work of NGOs There is a negative attitude towards NGO sector as a whole Our NGOs have no experience p in approaching business sector 30% 7% 2005 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . but they help us on majority of projects We have strategically designed and continuous help 6% 6% 21% 23% 2005 2009 70% The rates of respondents’ general satisfaction with the cooperation between their own organizations and the business sector increased. the large number of NGOs that claimed that business does not have tax incentives for supporting NGOs. Those that are not FENS members are more satis ed (3.as a donor (49% of target population) 72% Help is sporadic. Base: those who cooperated with business sector . and a negative attitude from the business sector towards NGOs by 22% of them. which is not true. In terms of regions. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 59: What is the nature of help that you receive from the business sector? We asked the organizations that had previously cooperated with the business sector why there was not more cooperation between them and the business sector. 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%).3. and that the companies have insu cient knowledge of the role and signi cance of the NGO sector (60%). with the average mark on a scale from 1 to 5 being 3. 3. Also. the highest level of satisfaction is expressed by NGOs from Central Serbia (average mark 3. As in 2005.

Lobbying (40%). On these two questions there are no signi cant di erences depending on the research variables. i. Organizing joint conferences with the business sector (34%). However. Presentation 3. representatives of NGOs who have cooperated with the business sector up to now. feel that cooperation with the business sector is of exceptional signi cance (48%) . Development of an action plan about joint appearance in NGO networks (31%). On this question there are no signi cant di erences depending on the research variables.the highest percentage of respondents. Campaigns for a change of NGO image (38%). feel that there is no di erence (45% of NGOs which have cooperated with the business sector).3. except for NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (14% think that it is not important compared to the average . representatives of the NGO sector. Presentation Presentation 4. on the question – “Is it better to cooperate with private or state companies?”. Graph 62: How would you evaluate the importance of cooperation between the business sector and the NGO sector? Base: Total target population 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. i. 62% 37% 25% 18% 12% 8% 48% Very important 80% Important Neutral U i Unimportant t t Completely unimportant 32% 13% 6% 2009 2005 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . it should be kept in mind that 19% of respondents do not acknowledge the signi cance of such cooperation. Even so.6%). 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%). As in 2005. Another 32% see it as important (also an increase compared to 2005 – 25%). 3. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector The graph presenting opinions about the importance of this cooperation indicates that the highest percentage of respondents.e.e.a much more common response than in 2005 (37%). the remainder of the respondents gives the advantage to private companies (38%) rather than state companies (18%). Learning of skills for fund-raising (31%).

When asked about the type of the media with which cooperation existed. according to the statements of our respondents. while 18% more easily achieve cooperation with magazines and daily papers (up from 14% in 2005). NGOs from these two regions (59%) have much easier cooperation with the local media than those in Belgrade (29%). When we look at the reasons for cooperation. and 66% with the national electronic media (TV. those dealing with the development of civil society (24%). 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). Unsurprisingly. Presentation 3. Vojvodina (2%) and Central Serbia (3%). Among the electronic media.3. and RTV Vojvodina (9%). Graph 63: What type of the media? Multiple p answers. NGO cooperation with the media As in 2005. RTV Vojvodina for those from Vojvodina (31%). education and ecology (18%). when compared to 2005. Presentation Presentation 4. The electronic media is mostly accessible in Central Serbia (27%) and less in Belgrade (19%) and in Vojvodina (12%). with national coverage Equally q y 6% 28% 67%  2009  2005 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . 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%). 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%). Also. in terms of a shift from working the local media towards the national media. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 1. the majority of non-governmental organizations have contact with the media (98%). followed by 88% of those who cooperated with the local printed media. 3. 62% of representatives of all NGOs that have cooperated with the media felt that in achieving cooperation. There are huge regional di erences. NGOs had the best cooperation with B92 (18%). Belgrade-based NGOs (49%) have better cooperation with B92. 75% with the national printed media.8. 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). There is a signi cant change when compared to 2005. RTV Kragujevac and TV Kraljevo (3% each) and others with less than 3% each. The data indicates that in Vojvodina and Central Serbia. Here. than it is in Vojvodina (18%) and in Central Serbia (12%). joint work between NGOs and the media on some projects is not a rare occurrence. A training program for journalists was organized in 15% of the cases. 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. big NGOs (37%) and non-FENS members (22%) have better cooperation with B92 than others. In Vojvodina. RTS is most accessible for NGOs from Belgrade (23%). As expected. with big organizations taking the lead (30%). then RTS (11%). it could be seen that in Belgrade it is evidently considerably easier for non-governmental organizations to make contact with the printed media (27%). radio). there is the greatest equality in the accessibility of the various types of the media (69%). older organizations (24%). 96% of those who cooperated responded that they cooperated with local electronic media. Here is the list of the electronic media that NGOs had best cooperation with: Local electronic (TV. and as expected. Given their local coverage and the smaller number of NGOs in their communities. In terms of regional di erences. than it is in other two regions. with no existent cooperation with NGOs from other regions. 50% found it to be easier to communicate with the local media. There is a signi cant increase in types of the media NGOs cooperated with. there was no di erence between the printed and the electronic media. and more among FENS members (21%) than those that are not FENS members (9%). However. RTV Vojvodina is especially open to NGOs dealing with culture. Base: those who cooperated p with media (98% of target g p population) p Of all the organizations which had contact with the media (altogether 98% of the sample). 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. In addition. than those from Vojvodina (13%) and Central Serbia (6%). 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. which NGOs nd increasingly more possible to work with. although this was slightly less than in 2005 (42%). radio) Local printed National printed National electronic (TV. cooperation with the larger media is almost totally non-existent. with 37% of organizations reporting cooperation. This is followed by advertising the organization in the media (28%) which is considerably less than in 2005 (42%). the following electronic media are mentioned in smaller percentages: Studio B (4%). which is an increase compared to 2005 (55%). but the local media is more open to cooperation. radio) 66% 75% 96% 88% Local media Big media.

rating the media’s perception of the NGO sector.3 on the 5-point scale). and only 5% expressed dissatisfaction with the cooperation achieved up to the present.3. Politika (9%). while NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work cooperate with DANAS in only 4% of the cases. a general rating of the development of cooperation between the NGO sector and the media. and an evaluation of the importance of cooperation between these two sectors. Belgrade based (28%) and medium size NGOs (26%) have the best cooperation with DANAS. 3. Also. Užice Radio Zrenjanin Jasenica TV VK Kikinda TV Leskovac TV Jedinstvo 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 9% 11% 18% Danas Ostale lokalne novine Blic Politika Ve ernje Novosti Dne nik Dnevnik Magyar Szo Pan evac Narodne novine Suboti ke novine 3% 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 9% 14% 16% 16% The next four graphs show marks on a 5-point scale: satisfaction with organizational cooperation with the media. BLIC (14%).1 on the 5-point scale. Večernje novosti (7%). the experiences of this cooperation up to now are mostly positive (the average mark on the scale for satisfaction – 4).7). Presentation Presentation 4. Niš TV 5. with this view shared by almost all the representatives of the NGO sector (average mark 4. Presentation 3.please name one electronic media you had best cooperation with? organization and the media? ed with cooperation between your Multiple answers. and then other printed media (each 3% or less). Among printed media. NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (29%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . 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. On the other hand. Also. As many as 71% of respondents are satis ed with the cooperation achieved. Other local newspapers are most accessible in Central Serbia (23%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 64: Electronic . Base: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the electronic media (97% g p p of target population) Base: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the media (98% of target population) B92 RTS RTV Vojvodina Studio B RTV Kragujevac TV Kraljevo RTV Pan evo TV Požega TV 5. then other di erent local media (16%). and DNEVNIK (22%) in Vojvodina. BLIC (24%) and POLITIKA (30%) in Belgrade. Responses indicate that cooperation with the media is seen as very important. 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. Dnevnik (7%). DANAS was considered the most accessible for NGOs (16%).

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%). and most often they appear as reports in the media (42%). as well as via websites and mailing lists (21%). with some parts having a positive attitude and some negative (43% of all respondents). and the rarest in Central Serbia (47%). Graph 67: In your opinion. The media is not interested in reporting about NGO activities (27%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector organization and the media? ed with cooperation between your Reporting by means of newspaper articles is the most common in Belgrade (81%). Graph 68: In general. Presentation Presentation 4. 3. NGOs promote the results of their projects in various ways. journalists are blamed for the problems in cooperation . 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%).3. 11% of the respondents stated that there were no problems and that they had good cooperation with the media. Low level of professionalism among journalists (34%). Also.the signi cance of the active role of NGOs in cooperation with the media is not recognized. Prices of media ads are very high (20%). It comes to “twisting” of information in the media. press conferences (26%). followed by paid advertising (9%). how would you evaluate cooperation between the media and the NGO sector in Serbia? Base: Total target population 5% 20% 3% 25% Very developed Developed Neutral U d d l Underdeveloped d Completely underdeveloped 51% 49% However. in order to create a sensational topic (24%). 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). which is in accordance with the data already received that the printed media is more accessible in Belgrade. NGOs are not trained well enough for cooperation with the media (15%). Coverage of activities through various newspaper articles is the next on the list (62%). Presentation 3. to what extent do the media understand the importance and the role of NGOs? 29% Base: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the media (98% of target population) 68% 39% 25% 6% 2005 35% Very satisfied Base: Total target population 71% 36% 24% 4% 2009 Satisfied Neutral Di Dissatisfied i fi d Completely dissatisfied 48% 15% 3% 2005 45% 11% 3% 2009 9% 9% 31% 35% 26% 40% Yes completely Maynly yes Yes and no M i l no Mainly Not at all In general. 22% 22% 2005 2009 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. reports and elaborates (22%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 .

they have neither positive nor negative attitude. acquaintances and family ties more often by NGOs registered after 2000 (18%) than by those before 2000 (13%). Volunteers mostly apply themselves or come to an NGO that deals with the development of civil society (35%). Graph 69: How would you evaluate the importance of cooperation between the media and the NGO sector? Base: Total target population 1. there is the greatest tendency of not hiring new sta (13% of organizations). 3. and 30% of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society stating that the majority of the media is absolutely uninterested. which is more than it was in 2005 (32%). Most NGOs (77. This is followed by personal contacts. Presentation 3. y do you y employ y new personnel? Graph 70: In what way We have developed system (job announcements and ads. “they just come to the organization”.e. When results are compared in terms of the year of registration. middle size NGOs (26%). economy and professional associations (12%). 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%). Personnel and volunteers Research ndings show that the method of employing new personnel has not changed when compared to 2005.7%). but that further training is necessary. volunteers come on recommendation or are engaged depending on the project. we have no developed system 7% N answer / D No Do not t employ l 6% 2005 2009 17% 17% 76% 77% 5 Very important Grade 4 71% 78% Grade 3 Grade 2 17% 4% 2009 1 Completely unimportant 14% 11% 2005 The most frequent way of recruiting volunteers is through their own initiative: 23% of volunteers apply themselves. FENS members (21%) and those in Belgrade (23%). while only 9% think that training in the eld of cooperation with the media is necessary. without a developed system. 51% believe the situation is good. 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. via ads and competitions (12%). mostly by NGOs dealing with culture. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector On this question. 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. The fewest number of NGOs stated that they do not hire new sta or did not give an answer (5. there are no signi cant di erences depending on the research variables. In 9% of cases. Organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work have a much better developed system for hiring new sta (21%) than those dealing with youth. In Vojvodina.7%) have some already developed system of hiring.2%) hire new sta depending on the project. Presentation Presentation 4.10. with conditions and criteria) Depending on project. 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). i. Volunteers are found through personal contacts. In Central Serbia there is a more dominant tendency of hiring new sta depending on projects in comparison to the average gure (83%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . Fewer organizations (16. non-FENS NGOs (25%) and those in Belgrade (25%). On this question there are no great di erences depending on the research variables. education and ecology (20%) and least by NGOs dealing with civil society development (3%). friends and family ties (16%).3.

least in civil society development NGOs (4%). while the fewest NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work reported confronting this problem (17%). 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. in those dealing with the protection of human rights (16%). Presentation Presentation 4. Problems with the recruitment of volunteers are present in 11% of the cases. 2009? 23% 16% 12% 11% 9% 9% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% Graph 72: Which are the problems you are faced with regarding employed y members and volunteers in your NGO. NGOs dealing with youth. non-FENS NGOs (50%) and those from Belgrade (49%). while only 6% of NGOs have problems with inadequate management. Concern over the nonexistent legal framework for volunteering is mostly present among NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (66%). 3. Presentation 3. especially for big NGOs (32%). It is worth mentioning that volunteers are engaged depending on projects mostly by NGOs dealing with youth. pupils and their organizations Informal way. and least in NGOs dealing wit the NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . The Red Cross) Soldiers during their civil army service They found out about us from the media Th are users of They f our services i No problems No answer 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%). followed by protection of human rights NGOs (35%). An insu cient motivation of engaged members is most present as a problem in NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (28%). 2009? Not defined nor regulated status of volunteers in Serbia Recruitment and keeping of personnel in NGO Insufficiently experienced personnel Insufficient motivation of engaged members Recruitment of volunteers Inadequate management of volunteers and / or members employed Funding 6% 2% 10% 4% 11% 28% 25% 23% 55% They apply themselves. family ties Via ads and competitions They are our members On recommendation They are engaged depending on project Among students. education and ecology (39%). In terms of regions. and professional associations have the most problems with the recruitment and retention of personnel (37%). and least by non-FENS NGOs (4%). It seems that insu ciently experienced personnel is an equal problem for all types of NGOs. they come Personal contacts. economy. Volunteers are the most present in NGOs dealing with culture. and only in 5% of Vojvodina-based NGOs. nd volunteers. economy and professional associations have the fewest problems (12%). and in only few cases in those dealing with humanitarian and social work (4%).3. volunteers in Vojvodina are recruited through advertisements s by only 6% of respondent organizations. economy. education and ecology (16%). The recruitment of volunteers among students. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector The practice of recruiting volunteers by advertisements and competitions is more present in newly formed NGOs (14%) than in older (9%). acquaintances. FENS members (60%) and NGOs from Central Serbia (60%). in contact with citizens Through various promotional activities and… In cooperation with other NGOs From volunteer centers In cooperation with institutions (SIZ. and least among NGOs dealing with culture. insu ciently experienced personnel (25%) and insu cient motivation of engaged members (23%). 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). Although the economic situation in the country is bad. those dealing with youth. and professional associations (13%) and FENS members (13%).

when all types of NGOs are compared. education and ecology reported needing additional training. Presentation 3. Graph 74: How would you evaluate the attitude of the environment towards the NGO sector as a whole? 22% Education in this field is necessary y It’s It s good good. In Belgrade. it may be noted that citizens’ perceptions have not changed so signi cantly. Perceptions of positive attitudes (marks 4 and 5) have increased from 51% in 2005 to 55% in 2009. but that they still need additional training in this eld (46% chose this answer).3. those that were registered before 2000 (62%). However. big (25%). NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work most identi ed a need for additional training (26%). This means that NGOs’ perception of their own images is a bit better than among citizens. with a decrease in negative attitudes from 32% to 25%. The lowest evaluation is among NGOs registered after 2000 (22%). big NGOs (31+) primarily face problems with recruiting volunteers (24%). There are no signi cant di erences in answers depending on the size of organization. Graph 73: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in terms of employing personnel and recruiting volunteers? Do you need additional education? 1. It is worth mentioning that. The dominant opinion is that the situation is good. and FENS membership. non-FENS (31%) and those from Central Serbia (35%). while 35% think that they do not need additional training in this eld. 3. with an increased con dence among respondents in terms of their knowledge/skills of the topic.11. the prevailing opinion among respondents is that their organizations do not need additional training (47% as opposed to Central Serbia-26% and Vojvodina -39%). the year of its establishment. and professional associations (40%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . education and ecology (65%). 18% think that additional training in this eld is necessary. Attitude of the public towards NGOs The public attitude towards the NGO sector is judged to be mainly neutral (46% of respondents give mark 3 on a 5-point scale. As for positive attitudes. where 1 is an expressly negative attitude and 5 expressly positive). but that we need additional education We have no need for additional education 2% No answer 0% 28% 35% 2005 2009 18% 48% 46% Base: Total target population 21% 5% 16% 4% 25% 29% Very positive attitude Positive attitude Neutral N ti attitude Negative ttit d Very negative attitude 48% The rating of the situation in the organizations in terms of hiring sta and recruiting volunteers is similar to the one in 2005. As in 2005. while the other research variables do not have relevance to the answers obtained. 46% 25% 7% 2005 23% 2% 2009 Higher marks are noticeable when the respondents reported how they saw the attitude of the community in which they worked toward their NGO. economy. and least in NGOs dealing with the development of civil society (15%). 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. Presentation Presentation 4. from 21% to 29%. those dealing with youth. FENS members (26%) and those based in Belgrade (19%). and only 12% of NGOs dealing with culture. those that work on the development of civil society (19%). The positive evaluation of the attitude of the environment towards NGOs is the highest among NGOs registered before 2000 (36%). 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. there is a signi cant increase in positive attitudes when compared to 2005. medium sized (31%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector protection of human rights (28%). those dealing with culture. When compared to data from another survey (“Perception of NGOs in Serbia” carried out in May 2009).

FENS members or non-members). 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%). When asked “How interested are citizens in your area in the work of the NGO sector”. with 43% of respondents identifying the public as uninformed or completely uninformed. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . education and ecology shared this view. 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 3% 13% 36% 6% 11% Very well informed 40% Informed Neutral Uninformed 35% 8% 2009 Completely uninformed 14% 14% Very positive attitude 36% 11% 2005 51% 37% 41% 55% Positive attitude Neutral Negative attitude 36% 10% 40% 5% 2009 Very negative attitude Graph 77: How interested are citizens in your environment in activities of the NGO sector? Base: Total target population 2005 Perceptions of public awareness about the activities of the NGO sector are relatively low. while 47% of NGOs registered after 2000. reported having public relations strategies. which is a signi cant drop when compared to 2005 (53%). Organizations dealing with youth. except by size and region – 62% of big organizations. Responses to this question demonstrated no great di erences depending on the research variables (between organizations of varying size.3. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector those that are large (70%) and those based in Belgrade (62%) mostly believe that the public has a positive attitude towards their NGOs. Overall. from various regions. there is a slightly positive shift in this area in comparison to 2005. while only 5% of those dealing with culture. negative marks were expressed to a slightly greater extent (53% in 2009 compared to 51% in 2005). economy and professional associations felt to a greater degree (21%) that citizens were interested in the work of the NGO sector. Presentation 3. 3. especially compared to the respondents from Belgrade (11%). and informed or very well informed (from 16 to 17%). but with also a slight increase in those interested or very interested (from 12% in 2005 to 14% in 2009). 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%). dealing with the protection of human rights and those from Central Serbia think the same. and 51% of those based in Belgrade. formed before or after 2000. 3% 9% 36% 3% 11% 33% Very interested Interested Neutral Uninterested Completely uninterested 41% 10% 2005 43% 10% 2009 40% of the responding NGO representatives stated that their organizations had public relations strategies. and only 17% of respondents identifying the public as informed or very well informed. Presentation Presentation 4. There are no signi cant di erences among NGOs.

and citizens’ motivation to get involved. 67% by medium sized NGOs and 81% by big NGOs. 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%). posters Direct contact with citizens/users Public announcements Press conferences Web page (internet site) Media campaigns Annual report Billb d Billboards Other 3% 2% 8% 8% 27% 29% 47% 57% 43% 52% 50% 51% 65% 71% 67% 61% 58% 60% 2005 2009 92% of respondent NGOs have their own logo. and 33% a public relations manager. When compared to 2005. 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. which has decreased from 67% in 2005. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 78: Does your organization have any strategy for public relations? Base: Total target population Central Serbia (36%) – as a result. Internet communication is much more commonly used as a method of outreach in Belgrade (76%) than is in Printed material – brochures. Given all this. while 81% of those dealing with culture. media campaigns (51%). The only signi cant di erence is on the question of the employment of a public relations manager. public announcements (60%). press conferences (57%). brochures. leaflets. There are no great di erences in answers to this question depending on the research variables (size of organization. flyers. 3. There are no major di erences among NGOs related to their direct contacts with citizens/users and the frequency of issuing public announcements. with 49% of respondent NGOs dealing with youth. year of formation.3. the trend of decreasing contacts with citizens is rather worrying and is something to be seriously considered by NGOs. except for the direct contact. it seems that there is a trend for NGOs to invest more into visual identity and less in human resources. Graph 79: In what way does your organization communicate with the public? Base: Total target population 47% 53% 2005 59% 40% 2009 No Yes When explaining the ways in which their organizations communicate with the public. The biggest increases are in the use of press conferences (10% more) and webpage/internet (9%) to communicate with the public. The preparation of annual reports. direct contact with citizens is an issue that can be connected with issues of public trust in NGOs. and only by 31% of NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work. As expected. furthermore. Also. eld of work. the most frequently given answers are: printed materials. websites (52%). direct contact with citizens/clients (61%). as a means of communicating with the public. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . internet presentations. Presentation 3. posters (71%). Presentation Presentation 4. Press conferences are held by 48% of smaller organizations and by 82% of larger organizations. 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. annual reports (29%). lea ets. yers. i. The bigger the organization. there is a clear change in the way NGOs communicate with the public. media campaigns are mostly run by NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (64%). membership in FENS. is most common among big organizations (63%). There is a general increase in all aspects of communication with citizens. economy and professional associations employing a public relations manager. When compared to the 2005 data. Only 49% of organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work print materials.e. Statistically signi cant di erences between the sizes and regions of the organizations are also noticeable. the NGO’s public image. more big organizations (94%) print signi cantly than do small NGOs (65%). education and ecology print materials. it is clear that computers are more often used as an ‘e cient’ medium to make contact with NGOs in Belgrade. 37% a slogan. region). the more frequent its use of internet communication– 40% by small NGOs.

the signi cance of the work of NGOs. so it is very di cult to draw any conclusions. 47% of respondents stated that the situation in their organization in this respect is good. political parties P liti of Politics f th the f former regime i Conservative environment. Similarly. it is apparent that NGOS have grown more con dent in their public relations skills. politics. and those dealing with culture.3. This is also interesting considering that the public opinion poll indicates that the popular image of NGOs has not signi cantly improved. Presentation 3. None of the factors that were previously seen as important have increased in perceived importance. Insufficient public knowledge about the role of NGO Relationship of the media and NGO. 3. 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. It is interesting that although the same reasons were mentioned in the 2005 survey. presence in the media The very work of NGO. humanitarian and social work NGOs (26%) and big organizations (23%) signi cantly more than others express the need for further training. economic uncertainty Foreign donations Don't know 2005 2009 23% 51% 36% We have no need for additional education It’s good. Presentation Presentation 4. followed by NGOs’ relationships with the media (17%). When compared to 2005. but that further training is necessary. cooperation Role in democratic streams streams. clear goal. Interestingly enough. to the relationship with authorities (from 11% to 5%). for example. has dropped from 38% in 2005 to 13% in 2009. but we need additional education Education in this field is necessary 47% 25% 2005 16% 2009 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%). the work of individual NGOs and the clarity of their goals and program (13%) and political situation/political parties (10%). 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 Political situation. respondents gave the answers presented in the following graph (with the opportunity for multiple answers): 86% 92% 32% Logo Graph 82: Name the reasons that have dominantly a ected the public image of the NGO sector in Serbia. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 80: Does your organization have … Base: Total target population When asked to name the factors that had predominantly a ected the public image of the NGO sector in Serbia. their importance is now assessed as much lower than 4 years before. democratization Economic situation in the country. prejudice Relationship of the authorities and NGO. which in 2005 was seen as the predominant factor a ecting the public image of the sector. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . patriarchate. In the case of larger organizations. report that they have considerably less need for further training in public relations. education and ecology. 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. 42% of NGOs that deal with the development of civil society. with 1/3 (36%) stating that they do not need further education in this area. program 20% 18% 18% 17% 38% 13% 20% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7% 11% 5% 6% 3% 8% 3% 4% 3% 10% 8% Slogan PR manager (person responsible for public relations) 37% 35% 33% 2005 2009 T With regard to public relations.

3. 3. Presentation 3. Presentation Presentation 4. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector
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 Belgradeand 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. 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

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: Graph 84: What are the most important problems in our country that NGO should/ already are dealing with?
Multiple answers; Base: Total target population
25% 25% 26% 24% 10% 18% 21% 17% 12% 16% 11% 13% 10% 10% 10% 10% 4% 8% 4% 8%

Informing citizens about the role and importance of NGO sector
40%

72% 85%

Living standard, economic problems Human rights

Direct contact with citizens (forums, round tables etc)
35%

65%

Environmental protection, ecology Education Social problems, social protection

Realization of better cooperation p with local authorities
30%

57%

Upgraded responding to users’ needs Better cooperation with business sector Realization of better cooperation with politicians and influential people Changed – upgraded relationship with journalists
28% 37% 22% 31%

46%

2005 2009

Young people people, youth
41%

Unemployment Laws, implementation of laws, rule of laws
2005 2009

Corruption European integrations

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

3. 3. Presentation 3. Presentation Presentation 4. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector
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%). cient extent? eld in which the NGO 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 Belgradebased 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 community” 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 communities. 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 respondents 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 86: Do NGOs respond to the needs of the local community?
Base: Total target population

Base: Total target population

Environmental protection, ecology Social problems, social protection Living standard, economic problems Education Human rights Laws, implementation of laws, rule of laws Young people, youth Persons with disability y Children Unemployment Culture, social life Healthcare Rights of women Rights of minority
3% 6% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 1% 2% 2% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 6%

8% 13% 9% 8% 8% 5% 6% 5%

12%

11% 29%

37%
2005 2009

25%

40%

Yes completely Mainly yes Neutral Mainly no Not at at all

42%

47%

15% 5% 2005

11% 1% 2009

NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

3. 3. Presentation 3. Presentation Presentation 4. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector
Graph 87: Do NGOs respond to the needs of the society?
Base: Total target population

1.13. Financial stability – sources of nancing
The 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%).
Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

12%

9% 29%

38%

26%

38%

Yes completely Mainly yes Neutral

42% 15% 4% 2005

46%

Mainly no Not at at all

14% 1% 2009

nanced?

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%).

We

84%

are financed on basis of projects
54%

88% 47% 21% 23% 23% 18% 26% 17% 8% 15% 16% 13% 18% 13%

Our work is voluntary Membership fees Voluntary contributions Self financing activities We have general (institutional) support Providing services on basis of contracts Presents

2005 2009

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

nancing has decreased to 28% (from 34%). Ministry of Education from 9% to 4% etc).e. the percentage of respondent NGOs receiving support from the Ministry of Youth and Sport. the business sector (from 27% to 35%) and nally regional government (from 13% to 22%). In most other cases. as has individual giving from citizens (11% in 2009 compared to 15% in 2005). the percentage of respondent NGOs receiving its support decreased from 51% in 2005 to 40% in 2009. self. companies) Self financing Regional government Citizens 17% 44% 27% 35% 34% 28% 13% 22% 15% 11% 36% 53% 34% 49% 74% 75% nances organization (44% of target population) nance your NGO The Ministry of Labor and Social Policy The Ministry for Sports and Youth 2005 2009 7% 51% 40% 37% 20% 13% 9% 7% 6% 3% 6% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% The Ministry of Culture The Ministry for Environmental Protection The Ministry of Economy and Regional Development The Ministry of Health The Ministry for Human and Minority issues y of Education The Ministry The Ministry of Agriculture y of Science The Ministry The The Ministry of Telecommunications Ministry of Public Administration and Local l Self lf Government The Ministry of Foreign Affairs The Ministry of Defence International donations are an equally important resource for nances for all NGOs. ministries (from 17% to 44%). 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%). regional di erences are evident – in Vojvodina. including local government (from 36% to 53%). larger organizations. Base: Total target population funding slightly decreased from 2005 to 2009 (i. Presentation 3. Ministry of Culture from 20% to 13%. 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. Presentation Presentation 4. and speci cally those dealing with humanitarian and social work. Multiple answers. than do its counterparts in Belgrade (44%) and Central Serbia (52%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector increase in the percentage of organizations funded by entirely local sources. more frequently reported receiving nancing from ministries (66%). there is quite a di erence between Ministries. On the contrary.3. It can be noticed that older. increased from 7% in 2005 to 37% in 2009. Ministry of Public Administration (1%) and Ministry of Foreign A airs (1%). 3. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning from 9% to 7%. On the other hand. While the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy is still the largest ministerial funder. Ministry of Telecommunications (1%). nances your organization? International donor organizations Local government Domestic donor organizations Ministry Business sector (enterprises. domestic donor organizations (from 34% to 49%). with 54% of respondent humanitarian and social NGOs and 91% of respondent NGOs dealing with the development of civil society receiving international funds. the percentages of respondent NGOs receiving ministerial 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . However. However. Although there has been a signi cant increase in the overall funding coming from various Ministries. regardless of their specializations. the local administration has a larger share in nancing NGOs (63%). the second largest funder.

A somewhat worse assessment in this area was given by smaller organizations dealing with culture and education. there is an increase in the percentage of NGOs that assess the situation as fair. FENS members. Representatives of organizations dealing with civil society gave somewhat more favorable marks. In assessing the current nancial situation. Presentation Presentation 4. large organizations. those dealing with the development of civil society NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . most (48%) work with the development of civil society. Unlike them. larger organizations. when mainly educational and cultural organizations (39%) were funded by businesses. Older organizations. as well as by organizations from Vojvodina. where 1 means a very bad and 5 a very good relationship). with 17% stating that the nancial situation in their organization is 3% 12% 29% 26% 29% 1% 12% 36% Excellent Good Fair 23% 27% Bad Very bad (on the verge of survival) 2005 2009 When asked whether they had secured funds for the work of their organization in 2009. an increase from 63%). When assessing the relationship with donors. respondents gave positive marks more often than in 2005 (78%. 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%). respondents most often stated that they would not accept it (72%). The average mark was 4. and Belgradebased NGOs were most reluctant to accept this funding. and ecology. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Of the respondent NGOs funded by the business sector.1 (on 5-point scale. On the other hand. organizations dealing with culture.) Graph 92: To what extent would it be acceptable for your organization to be t during the regime of Milosevic? Base: Total target population 10% 6% 13% 11% 10% 4% 12% 9% Completely acceptable Mainly acceptable Yes and know Not acceptable Not acceptable at all 63% 31% 32% 40% 78% Excellent Good Neutral Poor Very poor 57% 63% 38% 24% 3% 2005 8% 17% 2% 2% 2009 2005 2009 G h 93 H organization? ld ti i t th h t nancial i l situation it ti i in i your Base: Total target population 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. Older NGOs (66%).3. which indicates a signi cant improvement when compared to 2005 (when only 37% secured funding for that year). Organizations founded before 2000. more than half of the respondents (56%) gave positive answers. which is an increase compared to 2005 (68%). smaller NGOs and those founded earlier (before 2000) assess their nancial situation as rather bad. Graph 91: How would you evaluate your relationship with donors? Base: Total target population good or excellent. 3. This is a change when compared to 2005. and organizations based in Belgrade give a somewhat more positive assessment of the situation. Presentation 3. education. with up to 60% of respondents from these categories assessing the situation as bad or very bad. but there is also a decrease in the percentage of organizations that believe the situation is very bad and bad (from 55% to 50%).

Graph 97: 2004/2008 .000 € 1 001 5.000 € 10% When assessing whether annual donations for their organizations had increased.000 1.001 5. 2008 (2009 survey) y 16% 17% No answer O Over 100 100.3. A relatively high percentage of NGOs did not provide an answer to this question (18%). There are no major di erences in answers depending on research variables. Small NGOs (56%) and those dealing with youth.000 € Over 100. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector (63%). 22% were of the opinion that they remained the same.000 €. 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.000 € (24%).000 000 € 20 001 100. remained the same or reduced in the past 3 years? Base: Total target population The largest percentage refers to organizations with provisional annual budgets of between 20. large organizations (76%).000 € 19% 7% 2005 12% 2009 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . over 12% of organizations reported annual budgets larger than 100. for the p y Base: Those who answered the question q past 3 years? 4% 30% 25% 39% 1% 30% 22% 47% We were not established at that time Increased Remained the same Reduced 22% 25% 27% 12% 20% 24% 32% Up to 1.001 100 000 € 12% 10% 18% 10% 27% 28% 1% 62% 1% 43% DK Ref No 26% 19% 18% 5 001 20.000 € (32%). 2007.001 and 100. Presentation 3.Can you please write down your budgets. 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%). Graph 94: Have you acquired funds for the work of your organization in this year? Base: Total target population Graph p 96: Provisional annual budgets g of NGOs for 2006.001 and 20. the largest percentage (47%) of respondents thought that they had reduced.001 20. remained the same or reduced in the past 3 years. roughly. economy and professional associations (53%) were least successful in acquiring funds for the current year. Interestingly.000 20.001 100. When the new data are compared to the 2005 survey. Graph 95: Has the annual budget of your organization been increased.001 5 000 € 5. Presentation Presentation 4. followed by organizations with annual budgets between 5. while 30% stated that they have increased.000 5. followed by organizations with annual budgets of between 1001 – 5000 € (20%). the following conclusion can be drawn: in the current research (2009). 3.001 20 000 € 1.000 € 20.000 € 15% 16% 37% 56% Yes 20% 2008 2007 2006 16% 11% 11% 2005 2009 Up to 1. the number of respondents ready to state the provisional budget amount is larger (84%) than in the previous research (75%).

a larger number of youth related NGOs that apply for the same source of funding. Base: Total target population Serbia in the future? nancing NGOs in S State through h h special i lf funds d Local governments Donors from abroad (the same as now) Business sector Domestic foundations Self financing Citizens’ contributions 23% 21% 8% 13% 31% 53% 82% 66% 48% 60% 41% 56% 37% 55% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 Vojvodina Belgrade Up to 14 15-30 31+ Yes No . respondents are expecting more diversi ed funding coming increasingly from international donors (60%). Furthermore. Presentation 3. aimed at establishing institutional mechanism of cooperation and transparent funding. Croatia and other countries.e. and/or smaller funds per NGO provided through this Ministry than through other sources. and professional associations have experienced slight decreases in their annual budgets (45. primarily the state. when based in Central Serbia. Older organizations.321 € in 2008).334 €). either through special funds (82%) or by local government (66%). On the other hand.074EUR to 121. economy. Multiple answers. When they were asked. 52103 € in 2007 and 40. It is interesting to mention that only in 21% of the cases NGOs expect funding from self. ecology Priority area of activity Humanitarian and social work Young. business sector (66%). organizations working with youth. 3. professional associations Development of civil society Size Member of FENS Region Central Serbia Protection of human rights 2000 or later Before 2000 N 2006 2007 2008 - - 30571 35004 34570 57007 77888 82841 33653 46849 67358 45214 52103 40321 115644 138181 362209 - - 70298 79349 78340 140027 217012 273179 60464 73873 136035 47318 57216 67288 106399 120223 138889 44074 58565 121179 30826 35519 48111 54303 83020 65960 104207 103334 185566 46457 30381 47989 31873 74069 87502 The average annual budget of NGOs has almost doubled from 2006 (54.nancing.3. Considering that there is a clear increase in funding for youth-related NGOs provided by the Ministry of Youth. i. This can be explained by the strong advocacy e orts led by Civic Initiatives through CSAI and other projects in 2008/2009. those dealing with the development of civil society. and requires further elaboration.214 € in 2006. domestic foundations (66%) and citizen’s contributions (18%). FENS members. economy. education. almost tripled (from 44.303 €) to 2008 (103. Presentation Presentation 4. and. This is an interesting trend. “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. 2007 and 2008 in EUR Total Year of registration Culture. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Table 2: Stated budgets in 2006. The NGO community has been informed about the good practices of nancing through lottery funds.179EUR). public national foundations and similar which exist in U. big and small organizations are those whose budgets have doubled. when models of state nancing were introduced.K. these annual budget decreases may indicate an increase in competition for these funds.

Obligatory annual nancial reports (43%) 5. education and ecology (45%). Of the respondents. The remaining 42% either do this only when the conditions NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . as many as 59% of organizations reported that they always conduct needs analyses similar to 2005 (58%). as an important segment of upgrading public image of NGOs? 1. However. than toward NGOs’ own e orts (for example. in terms of providing an enabling environment (through simpler regulations and changes to tax policies). big NGOs (77%) and those from Central Serbia (77%) more frequently involved community-users than did NGOs dealing with culture. bookkeepers) 18% 24% 36% 43% 45% 46% 60% 69% 53% 64% 2005 2009 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). bookkeepers) (24%) 6. larger organizations. nancial transparency of the work of NGOs be improved. with FENS members. Respondents also mentioned that they consult users in planning (46%).e. Di erences depending on the research parameters were not found. The data are similar to those from 2005. Similar trends are apparent in the use of other methods of soliciting user involvement. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Respondents think that improvements in the nancial transparency of NGO work can be achieved in the following way: 1. Hiring nancial experts (auditors.14. 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). i. 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%). recruit users as volunteers (46%) and accept users as their members (34%). Presentation 3. educating NGOs about nancial management). Presentation Presentation 4. 3. and Belgrade-based organizations more prone to consulting users during planning. FENS members (68%) reported conducting evaluations of their work more often than did organizations that are not FENS members (49%). by checking how satis ed the users were with their work (59%). as well as through evaluations of the organizations’ work. it is interesting that respondents indicated higher expectations toward the state. 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. Educating NGOs how to manage the nances (46%) 4. Other (less than 1%) Each of the factors increased in comparison to 2005. Involvement of the community – users in the work of NGOs Graph 100: In what way does your organization include users in its work? Multiple answers. Base: Total target population State should simplify regulations about management of finance Tax policy change Education of NGOs about management of finance Compulsory public announcement of annual financial reports Engagement of financial experts (auditors. A change of tax policy (64%) 3. Base: Total target population 69% We try to discover users’ needs We check how satisfied users are with our work (evaluation) We consult users during planning process We recruit users as volunteers We accept users as members of our organization 2% 35% 34% 42% 46% 40% 46% 67% 60% 59% 2005 2009 Other h 2% Multiple answers. The state should simplify the regulations on nancial management (69%) 2.3.

There were no signi cant di erences depending on research variables. The nding that so many NGO projects are not based on needs assessments is telling. Presentation 3. Presentation Presentation 4. in case of big projects (that last longer than a year) 9% 16% 21% 59% Yes. in terms of regions. more organizations in Central Serbia responded that they did NOT conduct needs analyses (i. while in all other cases the percentage of NGOs that poll users’ reactions has decreased. while 47% stated that they received informal feedback. Graph 101: Do you examine users’ needs while preparing project proposals? 58% Multiple answers. if it is the donor’s request Yes. 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). NGO representatives most often reported that the feedback on users’ reactions was obtained formally and directly from the users through questionnaires or interviews (61%). At the same time. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector request them to. 10% of respondents stated that they did not conduct any needs assessments. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . always Yes. Base: Total target population 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? Formal responses users are asked for (for example opinion polls. When compared to 2005. when donors require them (5%). more CSOs answered ‘No’) and fewer organizations and Belgrade and Vojvodina made that response. The respondent organizations reported that needs assessments are carried out when big projects are being prepared (21%). or they do not conduct needs analyses at all. when we have time for it No 5% 10% 5% 6% 10% 2005 2009 There were no di erences in the answers to this question depending on research variables. The number of NGOs that do not poll users’ reactions at all has increased since 2005 (from 6% to 10%). interviews) Informal ways of collecting feedback from users (individually) We have never collected data about users’ reactions 5% 9% 32% 47% 62% 61% 2005 2009 Yes. which is a slight increase compared to 2005 (5%). 3. it is apparent that NGOs are more active in polling users’ reactions only when big projects are concerned.3. or when time allows (5%). especially considering the data that around 40% of organizations think that NGOs are meeting the needs of their communities. 9% of respondent organizations reported having never collected users’ observations. a signi cant increase in collecting informal feedback when compared to 2005 (32%).e.

Among organizations that reported not carrying out any evaluations at all. and 6% of respondents answered that they did not carry out any type of evaluation of the success of their projects. 86% stated that their bene ciaries are satis ed (compared to 83% in 2005). 47% of respondents stated that they carry out both internal and external evaluations. the following results are obtained: more Belgrade-based respondents reported conducting both internal and external evaluations (57% of respondent organizations). while 33% think that users are completely satis ed with their work. 3% responded that they carry out only external evaluation. Graph 104: Do you carry out project success evaluation? Base: Total target population 7% 39% 6% 47% Mainly no Yes. When the research variables are considered in examining these answers. which indicates that NGO representatives perceive users’ satisfaction with their work as being extremely high. the highest percentage is in the category of organizations working with youth.4% of answers indicated that respondents perceived their users’ dissatisfaction in this respect. and 19% reported that they do not carry out any form of evaluation. Presentation 3. ed with your work. 35% stated that they carry out both external and internal evaluations. while organizations in Vojvodina more frequently reported conducting solely internal evaluations (45% of respondent organizations). economy. Both types of organizational evaluations are mostly conducted by big (49%) and Belgrade-based NGOs (48%). compared to NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . Depending on the research variables there are no other di erences. i. Presentation Presentation 4. Only 0.4. more humanitarian and social work NGOs conduct internal evaluations (54%) than do organizations with other focuses.15. with a slight increase in the rate of those that do not carry any type of evaluation (from 17% to 19%). 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%). Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 1. respondents gave an exceptionally high average mark . since. 1-not satis ed at all. There were no major di erences dependent on the research variables in the answers to this question.2 (on a 5-point scale. 5-completely satis ed). economy and professional associations (32%) – compared with only 9% of large organizations that reported not carrying out any type of evaluation. 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. 3. Quality of services When asked to what extent users are satis ed with their work and services. Compared to 2005. both external and internal Mainly yes – internal evaluation Mainly yes – external evaluation 46% 8% Base: Total target population 40% 7% 2009 30% 33% Completely satisfied Satisfied Yes and no Dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied 2005 53% 53% 14% 2% 2005 12% 0% 2009 Of the NGO sector representatives. 7% stated that they carried out only external evaluations. Since 2005. your services? 39% of those that are not FENS members. None of our respondents chose the answer “users are not satis ed at all”. while only 25% of those respondents dealing with youth. Regarding project success evaluation. 43% reported that they carry out internal evaluations of the success of their organizations. If we look at the distribution of answers by regions. and professional associations carry out both types of organizational evaluations.e. 40% stated that they carry out mainly internal evaluations.3. and internal evaluations are least common among Belgrade-based respondents (30%). 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%. This indicates some improvement. generally speaking.

3. more NGOs representatives report being satis ed/completely satis ed with sta training (61%. Organizations that had more training for their sta included older organizations (88%. education and ecology (71%). 85% had training for their sta . Training for the NGO personnel Of the respondent organizations. while 15% did not. Compared to 2005. Graph 106: Have you had any training for your personnel? Base: Total target population 17% 30% 19% 35% No Yes. compared to Vojvodina NGOs 84%). as well as small organizations (58%) and those based in Central Serbia (56%). compared to non-FENS 75%. where 1 stands for “not satis ed at all” and 5 for “completely satis ed”). medium-size organizations (91%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . which is the biggest di erence within the same variable). which speaks of a moderate level of satisfaction in regard to this question.3). compared to organizations focused on culture. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 105: Do you carry out evaluation of the successfulness of your organization’s performance (regardless of projects)? Base: Total target population 1. 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. compared to newer organizations 83%). from 54%). FENS members (94%. seem to be less satis ed. and those from Central Serbia (89%.5. those dealing with the development of civil society (92%. NGOs dealing with culture. 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. big NGOs (70%). Presentation 3. external 20% 2009 15% No 80% 85% Yes 2005 2009 The general rating of the level of sta training is 3. education and ecology 80%). although a bit higher than in 2005 when it was 3. this indicates a 5% increase in the number of organizations o ering training for their sta .16. internal 49% 4% 2005 43% 3% Yes.with a general rating of 3. Presentation Presentation 4. When compared to data from 2005. NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (37% .7 (on a 5-point scale. both external and internal Yes. Regarding satisfaction with the level of sta education. 3.

The respondents that identi ed project proposal writing as a priority area show signi cant di erences according to the research variables. 37% of respondents dealing with humanitarian and social work versus 9% of those dealing with culture.) Issues and problems we are faced with. while other types of NGOs do not di er from the average. fundraising(22%. PR management. How would you evaluate situation in your organization in terms of EDUCATION of your personnel. FENS members (27%) and organizations based in Vojvodina (27%). Fewer respondents identi ed lobbying and representing as an priority area for education (from 19% in 2005. Presentation 3. 3. according to the respondents. with26% of older NGOs versus 17% of newer NGOs. up from 17% in 2005)..) Ed Education i Ecology Bookkeeping. some of the topics have signi cantly decreased ( nancial management and lobbying and representing – advocacy). local. At the same time. and training in nancial management (21%. organizations dealing with the development of civil society (28%). 2005 2009 Multiple answers. areas in which you think you need education as a priority. Presentation Presentation 4. NGOs dealing with the development of civil society mostly listed nancial management (36%) and strategic planning (34%) as their educational priorities. These data can be connected to the problems listed in the previous graphs related to designing and implementing projects.. marketing Lobbying and representing Management of projects Management of human resources Inter sector cooperation Training of trainers (TOT) International cooperation. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 107: Provide a general rate of education degree in your NGO. up from 17% in 2005). members? Base: Total target population Fund raising Writing of project propositions Financial management 17% 22% 17% 21% 36% 21% 21% 20% 15% 15% 19% 14% 10% 13% 10% 11% 7% 6% 9% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 4% 3% 5% 3% 6% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 13% 41% 15% Completely satisfied Strategic g p planning g 46% Satisfied Fair Not satisfied Media presentation..e. to 14% in 2009). which may indicate that there has been su cient training in these topics. getting familiar with European va Team work and leadership No area Computer literacy The area of legislative regulations (taxes.3. writing of project proposals (21%. education and ecology. Graph 108: Please name up to three topics. 29% of respondents from Central Serbia versus only 10% from Vojvodina listing this topic as their priority. cooperation with business sector 38% 6% 1% 2005 33% 4% 1% 2009 Not satisfied at all The main three elds in which representatives of NGOs most need training are. i. Base: Total target population Fundraising was identi ed as a priority training area for small NGOs (26%). and more identi ed project management as an area for additional training (from 10% in 2005 to 13% in 2009). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . where complex demands from funders were recognized as the biggest problem in both cases. administration How to attract donors.. down from 36% in 2005). advanced training Human rights Management Learning foreign languages Cooperation with authorities (state.

big NGOs referenced international cooperation more often than did small NGOs (88%. and organizations working with youth. that is. negative attitude of the surrounding citizens (from 56% to 63%) and insu cient cooperation with local authorities (from 65% to 68%). projects in cooperation with NGOs from the neighboring countries. Respondents mentioned rst Civic Initiatives (25%). Cooperation with the media is perceived as the least problematic issue (in 45% of the cases. except in the case of humanitarian and social work NGOs. small NGOs (28%). 71% of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society reported having engaged in regional cooperation.3. 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%). have up to the present been carried out by 57% of the respondent NGOs. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector In 2009. Organizations which are members of the FENS network. Signi cant di erences between the organizations depending on the research variables were not found. there is a growing awareness of the need to improve cooperation among NGOs. while only 44% of while organizations focused on humanitarian and social work reported doing so. 3. in addition to Civic Initiatives. Presentation 3. with local authorities and with citizens to provide sustainability of the sector. Older NGOs reported cooperating more with their NGOs from neighboring countries (66%). Organizations that had used consulting services were asked to list the organizations that most often provided consulting services.17. As might be expected. which least engaged outside consultancy services (44%). underdeveloped practice of business sector donorship (80%). while only 42% of respondent NGOs from Central Serbia had been involved in this form of cooperation. Graph 109: Have you ever used consulting services of other organizations for training for your personnel? Base: Total target population 1. Presentation Presentation 4. versus 48%). with the business sector from 70% in 2005 to 80% in 2009). than did newer NGOs (49%). Belgrade-based NGOs cooperated signi cantly more often with organizations in other countries in the region (73%). which most engaged outside consultancy services (68%). and ASTRA (4%). In comparison to the average. 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 52% 43% N No Yes 48% 57% 39% 42% 2005 No Yes 2009 61% 58% 2005 2009 Respondents identi ed the most important problems for the NGO sector sustainability in Serbia as: the lack of support by the state (83%). those dealing with human rights (34%). while 42% reported that they had not. followed by the Team TRI (13%). and as extremely important in 20% of NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . non-stimulating legal regulations (82%). Civic Initiatives provided consultancy services mostly for older NGOs (28%). Also. Cooperation with NGOs within the wider region International projects. and illustrates an increased understanding among NGOs that some issues are common for all countries in the region. 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. FENS members (33%) and for those that come from Belgrade (28%). and professional associations. economy. CRNPS (4%). and withdrawal of international donors named by (78%). more often named the Team TRI as the organization which o ered them consulting services than did non-FENS organizations (18% compared to 6%). Furthermore. which is a signi cant increase from 48% in 2005. Most of these variables show signi cant increases: insu cient (underdeveloped) cooperation among NGOs (from 36% to 52%).

major importance 81% Lack of support by the state 83% 79% Unstimulating legal regulations Underdevelopment of donorship within business sector Withdrawal of international donors Insufficient cooperation with local authorities Negative attitude of the surrounding. 3.3. 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. citizens U d d l Underdevelopment t of f NGO sector t it itself lf Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperation among NGOs Poor cooperation with the media 36% 52% 44% 45% 65% 68% 56% 63% 51% 61% 70% 82% 80% 75% 78% 2005 2009 When discussing extremely important problems facing the sector. mentioned non-stimulating legal regulations (58%). withdrawal of international donors (58%) and lack of support by the state (56%). 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. The most important problems for the sustainability of NGOs Graph 111: How important are the following problems for the sustainability of the NGO sector in Serbia . most respondents. Therefore. these problems were the rst to be dealt with. Presentation Presentation 4. Bearing in mind that these data were collected in mid 2009. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector the cases). Presentation 3. There are no di erences among NGOs in the perception of problems. again. before the adoption of the new NGO Law and while a very intensive advocacy campaign for its adoption was underway. in terms of priorities. which is somewhat unusual.18.

3. 3. citizens Insufficient ff cooperation with hl local l authorities h Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperation among NGOs Poor cooperation with the media 23% 20% 32% 32% 33% 49% 58% 58% 56% Unstimulating g legal g regulations g Withdrawal of international donors Lack of support by the state Underdevelopment of donor ship within business sector Underdevelopment of NGO sector itself Negative attitude of the surrounding. Presentation 3. how would you rank them by priority? – First place Base: Total target population Unstimulating legal regulations Withdrawal of international donors Lack of support by the state Underdevelopment of donorship within business sector Underdevelopment of NGO sector itself Negative attitude of the surrounding. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector 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. citizens I ffi i t cooperation Insufficient ti with ith l local l authorities th iti Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperation among g NGOs Poor cooperation with the media 1% 5% 5% 3% 10% 8% 19% 18% 28% 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. Presentation Presentation 4.

3. citizens Poor cooperation with the media Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperation among NGOs 2% 1% 5% 8% 8% 14% 12% 20% 29% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009 . Presentation Presentation 4. Key ndings ofndings of data of data on data on the the NGO NGO sector sector Graph 114: Rank the same problems by priority for your organization. Presentation 3.3. regardless of a general situation in the NGO sector – First place Base: Total target population Unstimulating g legal g regulations g Withdrawal of international donors Lack of support by the state Underdevelopment of donorship within business sector Underdevelopment of NGO sector itself Insufficient cooperation with local authorities Negative g attitude of the surrounding.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful