• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
NGO Sector in Serbia 2009
 

NGO Sector in Serbia 2009

on

  • 1,281 views

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 ...

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 GovernmentDecree 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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,281
Views on SlideShare
1,281
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    NGO Sector in Serbia 2009 NGO Sector in Serbia 2009 Presentation Transcript

    • 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 2009This 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 Contents1. Summary of findings..............................................................................................................................................................................................................32. Description of Research........................................................................................................................................................................................................53. Presentation of data...............................................................................................................................................................................................................84. 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
    • ndingsThis is a web publication presenting data from research on the situation in the NGO sector in Serbia in the first half of 2009. Thisperiod was marked with an intensive campaign for the adoption of the NGO Law and the establishment of the Office forCooperation with Civil Society. The NGO Law was adopted in July 2009, and the Office was formally established by the GovernmentDecree in April 2010. Both the new NGO Law and the Office illustrate the increased influence of the sector and the improvedcommunication with the government. However, since data in this survey were collected in May-June 2009, they reflect thesituation in the sector before these major developments. The main objective of this survey was to ascertain the general situationin 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 thatconducted the research. It is anticipated that this problem will not appear in future surveys, as the Serbian Business RegistersAgency is completing the Register of Citizens’ Associations as a result of the adoption of the new Law on Associations and theprocess 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-governmentalorganizations 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, thispresented quite a similar sample to the one from the 2005 research. However, one should bear in mind that this is a limited sampleand that data and analysis should be taken as a starting point for a further exploration of the NGO sector status rather thanconsidered 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 andthe knowledge of English in the sector have increased since in 2005. The workspace situation is somewhat better than in 2005, andthe percentage of organizations that own their space has slightly increased (from 6% to 10%), so renting remains the prevalentway of dealing with this problem. There is a slight increase in the percentage of organizations that have secured space for the next2-3 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 aslight increase in the number of NGOs whose mission is related to the development of the local community and the improvementof the citizens’ quality of life. Most of organizations in this sector deal with young people and students, education and research andthe protection of human rights (59%). In comparison with 2005, there is an increase of NGOs dealing with environment, legislationand public politics and the protection of national minorities, while there is a decrease in the number of NGOs providing assistanceto refugees and IDPs.The primary or direct beneficiaries of NGO services are most often citizens, youth, women and children, with fewer NGOs dealingwith refugees and IDPs, and more dealing with sexual minorities, which certainly indicates a change in the perception of needsamong NGOs. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • ndings The main change is that the funding situation and outlook for financial stability, although not very good, still seems better than in 2005: in 2009, 43% of NGOs did not secure funding for 2009, which compared to 63% in 2005 is an improvement. However, this still means that for almost half of the NGOs, the funding situation remains unstable. NGOs remain highly dependent on international donors - and in this sense, the situation is not much different. However, there is a noticeable increase in funding coming from local sources: local governments, domestic donor organizations, ministries and the business sector. Though encouraging, this data also demonstrates firstly, that international funding can still not be fully replaced by local sources, and secondly, that the sector needs more time in order to shift from foreign donors as the main sources of support. It is interesting that, when the problems of locating resources are referred to, the lack of information fell to the second place, while the key issue became complex requests of donors both when competing for projects as well as during implementation. This shows that NGOs are still lagging behind the changes in the donors’ community (a smaller number of international donors, increased presence of public and EU funds). The political situation is judged as significantly improved in comparison to 2005, and the percentage of those who feel that the political context is unsuitable or very unsuitable dropped from 54% to 43%. It is interesting that political parties are recognized as the only stakeholders whose influence on NGOs increased in the last period. The state is generally seen as more cooperative than in 2005, and there is a higher level of cooperation and an increase of NGOs who feel that the state started to regard them as a partner. Still, although there are numerous issues identified, in comparison with the 2005 research the main issue is not a lack of interest from the state, but the complicated administration and bureaucracy. The relationship with the business sector changed in the sense that the business sector is seen as an important stakeholder, and NGOs recognize the need to cooperate, which is a continuation of the positive shift from 2001 - 2005. Nevertheless, and similarly to the 2005 research, one of the dominant impressions remains the absence of the objectivity of NGOs in estimating their own capacities, qualities, and the expertise of their work, their relationships with the media, and their positions in the local communities and the public in general. Again, as in 2005, often the «desired» answers were given, and therefore they contradict the findings of the public opinion poll1, most notably with regard to the uninformed attitudes of the public toward the NGO sector and the needs of the community and society, even while NGOs seem generally satisfied with their PR and media skills. Finally, it is concerning that direct contacts with citizens, as a method of relations with the public decreased from 2005, especially considering that citizens are the main users and constituency of NGOs. The data shows that there are substantial and visible divisions in the sector, whatever the parameters are. On the one hand there are «big» organizations, mostly from Belgrade and formed before 2000, and on the other mostly «new», small, local organizations, whose survival is particularly endangered. The differences between the groupings is to the advantage of the «big», most noticeably in their capacities (in personnel and infrastructure), access to financial sources, and the understanding of the necessity of cooperation and greater involvement in various networks and regional projects. Civic Initiatives, Belgrade, June 20101“Perception of NGOs“ carried out in May 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 2. 2. 2. Description of Research Description of of Research Description ResearchThe main objective of the survey was to ascertain the general situation in the NGO The analysis of the sample structure showed that, according to the structure of thesector in Serbia and to compare it with the situation outlined in research carried out main criteria, the sample fits the population from the 2005 research. For the purposein early 2005. Since the monitoring of changes in the NGO sector was a main of the reliability of comparisons, smaller corrections were achieved through postresearch objective, the sample of NGOs from the 2005 research was used as stratification (weighting), so that the final sample represents well the NGOpopulation, and data were collected by the same questionnaire which was used in population from 2005 in terms of regional coverage, the size of NGO and the year of2005 (with minimal additions). establishment.Sample frame: The sample of 516 NGOs which participated in the research SAMPLEconducted in 2005, stratified by regions (Belgrade, Vojvodina and Central Serbia),the size of the organization (small organizations – up to 15 employees, medium SAMPLE 2009 N = 300organizations - from 15 to 30 employees, and large organizations – 30+ people),membership in FENS, and the year of establishment (before 2000 and after 2000, i.e.during the Milosevic regime, and after the change of the regime in October 2000). registration 46% Year ofSample selection: The selection of a sample required several steps, above all an Before 2000update on the existing database containing 516 NGOs. Since information about 2000 or later 54%NGOs does not exist in any unique database, this was done through the use ofavailable sources of information. The first step was the attempt to get in touch with 23% Culture, education, ecologyall 516 NGOs by various contacts (phones, email addresses) which existed in the Priority area of activitysample base from the year 2005. Since a considerable number of NGOs have Humanitarian and social work 19%changed addresses, phone numbers, and even e-mail addresses, we tried to findadditional information on the websites of the given NGOs. As this attempt also gave Young, economy, 15% Young, economy, professional associationsjust partial results, Strategic Marketing (SM) used databases which Civic Initiatives professional associationsand BCIF provided. SM also used a "snowball" method to collect information (which Development of civile society 13%coordinators applied in given territorial locality). Protection of human rights P i fh i h 29%By application of all these procedures, and within the time framework planned forthe project implementation, we accomplished the following results: Up to 14 59% 31% Size 15 30 Population (the sample of NGO from the 2005 research) 516 31+ 9% ed NGOs 316 Member Yes 54% ed 294 of FENS No 46% Number of NGOs which did not accept cooperation 30 Number of NGOs from population with which the Belgrade 25% 264 interview was carried out successfully Region Central Serbia 47% Number of NGOs included in the sample which were not 36 Vojvodina 28% included in the 2005 sample Total number of successfully held interviews 300 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 2. 2. 2. Description of Research Description of of Research Description ResearchRespondents with a note that the base of organizations is less than 60, and therefore the results can be taken as indicators only and should be further examined.Respondents participating in this research (both for NGOs and donors) were peoplen senior positions within organizations, those who were familiar with their The size of organization was defined by the total number of active personnel in theorganization’s functioning and whose opinions are relevant in decision-making organization. This number included members of the managing board, coordinators,processes within their organization. employees and part-time workers, but not volunteers. This number was divided in 3 categories: up to 15 people – small organizations, from 15 to 30 people –Research period medium-sized organizations, more than 30 people – big organizations.The research was conducted from 12th May until 2nd June 2009. FENS membership enables us to outline the situation in the sector both within thisMethodology network and outside it. As we said before, the sample itself favored organizations which are members of this network. This was done in order to have a large enoughInterviewers set interviews with respondents. The interviews were conducted in the base within the network so that conclusions on the situation of the sector could berespective premises of organizations in the form of structured interviews. drawn. In all the questions showing significant difference in this variable, weQuestionnaires included mostly closed-ended questions with a smaller number of presented separate results for members and non-members of FENS network.open-ended questions. Region – the region was established based on the municipality where the seat of theEach area covered by the survey was represented with a set of questions in the organization is. In the analyses we used the division in three basic regions with theirquestionnaire, which was comprehensive and the interviews lasted approximately socioeconomic peculiarities: Belgrade, Vojvodina and Central Serbia.for 1 hour. To thoroughly achieve the main goal of this research, and that is to outline theData analysis overall position of the non-governmental sector in Serbia and to enable comparison with the 2005 survey, we defined the same areas that we thought will best presentAll questions from the questionnaire were cross-referenced by a few basic variables. an objective picture of the sector. However, in the 2009 research we did not includeEvery question was represented in the form of table which shows the total and opinions of different donor organizations.cross-references by these variables:a. the year of foundation The areas covered through this survey are as follows:b. filed of work 1.Basic information and working conditionsc. size of organization 2.Mission, areas of activity and activitiesd. FENS membership 3.Legal/fiscal regulationse. region where the headquarters is 4.Political context 5.Structure of NGOThe year when the organization was founded is a variable with two categories: 6.NGO cooperation – Networkingthose founded before the year 2000 and those founded in the year 2000 and later. 7.NGO cooperation with the stateWe were of the opinion that the year 2000 was a turning point due to the fall of 8.NGO cooperation with the business sectorMilosevic’s regime, and thus it led to changes in the environment in which NGOs 9.NGO cooperation with the mediaoperate. It could have been expected that organizations founded before 2000 were 10.Personnel and volunteersmore experienced, better positioned and had greater credibility and thus 11.Attitude of the public towards NGOsencountered fewer problems in their work. 12.Diversity within the sector/Regional standardizationField of work – The questionnaire itself offered respondents to choose from 18 13.Financial stability – sources of financesgiven fields of work of their organizations (with a possibility of adding their field of 14.Involvement of community – beneficiaries of the work of NGOswork to the list, if it were not mentioned). When cross-referencing these 18 fields, 15.Quality of servicethey were condensed in 5 categories, since many fields were not represented with 16.Level of training of personnel working in NGOan adequate number of organizations. In some questions, where it was important to 17.Cooperation with NGO within wider regionhave an insight into each separate filed, we gave cross-references with all fields, but 18.The most important problems for sustainability of NGOs NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of data of data PresentationPresentation Presentation of data 3. of data The gathered data were analyzed by Civic Initiatives staff: Jelena Milovanovic, Ivana Gliksman, Radojka Pavlovic and Dubravka Velat. Aleksandra Vesic, Civic Initiatives Team TRI trainer and NGO sector expert, contributed with an overview of the survey results. Data are commented from the perspective of NGO persons, i.e. they do not represent an in-depth sociological study since there is not sufficient information for a comprehensive approach. However, we believe that we can provide a valuable input on different aspects of the NGO sector in Serbia for all interested parties. Web publications are prepared in both Serbian and English versions and may be downloaded from www.gradjanske.org and www.iscserbia.org . In most of cases, the graphical analysis of data shows comparative data, from both the 2005 and 2009 surveys. However, there are several graphs showing data just from the 2009 survey, when the data in question were not collected in 2005, or when significant information came out of the 2009 survey. The narrative descriptions typically begin with a general analysis of the data from the 2009 survey, followed by a com- parison with the 2005 survey data. Further explanations delve deeper into the analysis of the 2009 data, presenting only those data that show major variations compared to the average data and significant differences among characteristics of the population (i.e. by the year of registration, priority area of activity, size, FENS membership and region). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data1.1.Basic information and working conditionsOrganization’s office premises and equipmentSimilar to 2005, most NGOs lease their office premises (45%). 10% of respondents state Out of 45% of those which rent their office premises, 50% have secured funds forthat their organization own their office premises, compared to 6% in 2005. 21% of NGOs renting offices for a period shorter than one year, which is similar to 2006 (48%). Thedo not have any kind of office premises, which is a similar rate to 2005 (22%). The most significant drop is related to funds secured for the next 12 months – from 23%remaining 45% of NGOs were either given office premises free of charge (24%) or do not in 2005 to 14% in 2009, with Belgrade based NGOs being better off (24%) comparedhave office premises at all (21%). There are no major differences among NGOs that own to Central Serbia (7%). A larger number of NGOs managed to secure funds for thetheir office premises in terms of their year of registration, priority area of activity and period from 2 to 3 years, and this number has increased from 8% to 10%. AmongFENS membership. A greater number of NGOs owning office premises is notable among those, there is the highest number of NGOs dealing with culture, education andsmaller NGOs (11%) and those operating in Central Serbia (14%), while in Vojvodina only ecology (16%). Only 2% of NGOs secured funds for premises for the period longer6% and in Belgrade only 7% of NGOs own their office premises. It is typical that NGOs than 3 years, among them 25% of NGOs registered before 2000, 34% of those dealingregistered before 2000 (57%), those dealing with civil society development (55%), big with humanitarian and social work, 25% of the medium sized NGOs, 22% of FENSorganizations (74%) and those operating in Belgrade (60%) lease their office premises. It members and 29% of NGOs coming from Vojvodina. It is worth mentioning thatis significant that 39% of NGOs in Vojvodina are given their office premises free of charge. NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights are in the worst position when itThe most difficult position in terms of lacking office premises is for NGOs registered in comes to this issue – only 14% have secured funds for the period longer than 3 years.2000 and later (31%), those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations(9%), smaller NGOs (27%), those that are not FENS members (27%) and operating in The situation in terms of equipment is much better than in 2005. For eachCentral Serbia (23%) equipment item, there is an increase in the number of organizations possessingGraph 1: Does your organization have premises in which it performs its activities? them. Over 4/5 of NGOs have at least one computer, a printer and a telephone line. Over 65% also have a modem, a fax machine, a scanner, a photo camera (huge increase, from 47% to 69%) and a copy machine. Fewer organizations own cameras (33%) and video beams (36%), later showing the highest increase among all items. Still, only 1/5 of NGOs have company cars (22%). 6% We have premises in our ownership Similar to 2005, big organizations are much better equipped, as well as 10% organizations which were founded earlier and those from Belgrade, since these three variables are connected. Organizations from Belgrade are the biggest and they 43% were founded earlier than organizations from other regions. Also, a somewhat better We hi W hire our premises i situation is noticed among organizations that deal with the development of civil 45% 2005 society, while those dealing with the protection of human rights are in a worse 2009 situation. The differences in equipment are particularly noticeable in the number of 29% organizations that have fax machines, photocopiers, video beams, company cars We were given rooms free of charge and cameras. Older, bigger NGOs and those from Belgrade have a significantly larger 24% number of these pieces of equipment. As for computers, printers, modems and telephone lines, there are no differences among organizations – all kinds of 22% organizations are well equipped in this sense. We don’t have premises 21% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 2: Do you have the following equipment in your organization? Graph 3: Is the equipment satisfactory for your scope of work and the number of- PERCENTAGE OF YES employees – SATISFACTORY (1) 85% Computers 49% 91% Less satisfactory Camera 36% 80% Printer 89% 50% Video beam 39% 73% Modem 77% 48% Vehicle 27% 75% Telephone line 82% 46% 2005 59% Copy machine 47% 2009 Fax machine 74% 2005 45% 55% Computers Scanner 59% 68% 2009 47% 44% Photo camera Photo camera 59% 69% 32% 39% Copy machine More satisfactory 52% Telephone line 69% 22% Camera 36% 33% Printer 68% 18% Vehicle 22% 35% Scanner 61% 13% Video beam 36% 33% Fax machine 66% 30%Graph 3 shows to what extent NGOs are satisfied with the equipment they have. It Modemcan be noticed that the level of satisfaction has increased for almost all pieces of 67%equipment, except for copy machines and computers. Dissatisfaction related tocameras, video-beams and vehicles has dropped from around half to 1/3 ofrespondents. More than 2/3 of respondents think that the situation in theirorganization in terms of technical equipment (photo cameras, telephone lines,printers, scanners, fax machines, modems) is more satisfactory than in 2005. In thisrespect, there are no significant differences among NGOs in all variables, except forbig NGOs that are more often satisfied with video beams (64%) and 41% of Belgradebased NGOs being satisfied with their vehicle. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataInternet access and computer skills Graph 5: How many employees in your organization have the following skills... USE COMPUTERLike in 2005, the majority of organizations have Internet access (84%). Thispercentage is higher among NGOs established before 2000 (91%), those dealingwith civil society development (89%), big organizations (94%), FENS members (87%)and those operating in Vojvodina (89%). The worst situation is among NGOs dealing 28%with humanitarian and social work (19%), small NGOs (79%) and those from Central All employees 33%Serbia (82%).Graph 4: Does your organization have access to the Internet? p y g 36% Majority f M j it of employees l 35% 2005 16% 2009 34% 2009 84% No Minority 29% Yes 16% 3% 2005 None of the employees 84% 2% The rates of employees’ computer literacy have generally improved. Organizations in which no one can use a computer are very rare – only 2%, which is a bit lower than in 2005 (3%). In a large number of cases, all workers in an organization can use a computer (61% of organizations, compared to 43% in 2005). In 25% of the cases, the majority of workers use a computer, and in 12% of the cases the minority. NGOs dealing with socio-humanitarian work use computers the least (40%), while most of those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations have all workers using computers (84%). Also, organizations from Belgrade use computers more than organizations in other regions (70% of Belgrade-based organizations, compared to 54% in Central Serbia and 65% in Vojvodina). In 17% of cases, the minority of employees in small organizations are computer literate. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataKnowledge of foreign languages 1.2. Mission, areas of work and activitiesGraph 6: How many employees in your organization have the following skills... Mission of organizationSPEAK AT LEAST ONE FOREIGN LANGUAGE 92% of organizations assert that their organization has a de ned mission, which is almost the same as in 2005 (91%). Medium size organizations (92%) and those in Belgrade (91%) are better pro led in terms of having a mission. The percentage of 28% organizations that have no de ned mission is largest among organizations dealing All employees with humanitarian and social work (10%) and similar with NGOs that deal with 33% youth, economy and professional associations (9%). Smaller organizations have not de ned mission more often (7%) as well as organizations from Central Serbia (9% 36% compared to 2% in Belgrade and 3% in Vojvodina). Majority f M j it of employees l 35% 2005 ned mission of organization 2009 (the reason why it exists) and what is it? y 34% Minority 29% 91% 3% 2005 None of the employees 9% Yes 2% No 92% f f 2009Knowledge of a foreign language is an area that has improved slightly, with 2% of 8%organizations where none of the sta speak a foreign language, and 33% oforganizations where everyone speaks at least one foreign language. It is interestingthat NGOs registered after 2000 have more cases of all employees speaking oneforeign language (35%) than those registered before 2000 (32%). 8% 2009 We have it written 5%The worst situation is in those NGOs that deal with humanitarian and social work,where all employees speak a foreign language in only 13% of cases, while in 10% ofcases, none can speak any foreign language. In large organizations, more employees We have it , but not writtenspeak at least one foreign language. In terms of regions, the best situation is inBelgrade-based NGOs, where in 50% of the cases all employees speak a foreign 87%language and there is no organization in which no one can speak at least one foreign We don’t have a definedlanguage. The situation is also very good in Vojvodina, where in 43% of NGOs all mission of our organizationemployees speak a foreign language, and again no cases where employees cannotspeak a foreign language. However, in Central Serbia, all employees speak a foreignlanguage in only 19% of NGOs, while in 5% of the NGOs, no one speaks a foreign Among those which have a de ned mission (92% of the target population), thelanguage. majority state that their mission is “Promotion of democracy, democratization” and “Protection and promotion of human rights” (8% each). This is followed by “Develop- ment of local community”, “Help for paraplegics, the disabled and resocialization” and “Rights of children, better quality of life of children” (5% each). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data Graph 8: What is the mission of your organization?Between 3% to 4.4% of the interviewed organizations stated that ned mission of organizationtheir missions included “Development of civil society”, “Rights ofwomen, womens rights, legal aid”, “Improving the lives of youngpeople, the position of youth” or “Rights and a better quality of lifeof marginalized groups”. Other topics were included as compris- Promotion of democracy, democratization 8%ing their missions by less than 3% of the interviewed organiza-tions. There is a signi cant di erence in relation to the year of 8% Protection and promotion of human rightsregistration for those NGOs whose mission is “Development ofcivil society” – 9% of NGOs registered before 2000 and 1% of NGOsregistered in 2000 and after have this mission. There is a slight Development of local community 5%increase in the number of NGOs whose mission is the develop-ment of local community (6% compared to 3% in 2005) and Help for paraplegics, the disabled and 5%increase of NGOs with the mission “Improving the quality of life of resocializationcitizens” (6% compared to 0% in 2005). Rights f hild Ri ht of children, b tt quality of lif of better lit f life f 5% children Development of civil society 4% Rights of women, womens rights, legal aid 4% Improving the lives of young people, the 4% position of Youth Rights and a better quality of life of 4% marginalized groups Improving quality of life of women 3% Improving the q p g quality of life of citizens y 3% Assistance to socially vulnerable groups 3% Building and development of civil society 3% Lobbying for Europe, the international 3% integration Life without violence, promotion of 3% nonviolence NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 9: What is the mission of your organization? ned mission of organization 9% 4% Development of civil society _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8% 8% Protection and promotion of human rights ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6% 8% Promotion of democracy, democratization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5% 5% Development of local community ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 1% Education, promotion of alternative education ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 5% Rights of children, better quality of life of children _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 2% Development of social tolerance and interculturality ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 2% Empowering women to improve their position ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 1% Humanitarian work, spreading humanism ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 4% Improving the lives of young people, the position of Youth ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 3% Assistance to socially vulnerable groups______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 2% rmation of health, disease prevention _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 5% Help for paraplegics, the disabled and resocialization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3% 2% Education of individuals to improve the quality of life ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 1% International cooperation, Europe without borders_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% Development of local municipality __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 4% Rights of women, women’s rights, legal aid ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2005 2% Psycho social support to vulnerable groups ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 2% 2009 Improving the lives of Roma, the preservation of culture ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 2% rmation of culture and art in society ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 2% Integration of the Roma in society, the local milieu _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 3% Life without violence, promotion of nonviolence_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 1% Gathering and help to mentally handicapped persons (MNRL) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 3% Improving quality of life of women __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 1% ict resolution ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 3% Protection and preservation of the environment _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 1% Realization of students (pupils) rights, information _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 1% Improving life by using modern information technology ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2% The struggle for economic empowerment of women ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 1% Psycho social support for children with special needs ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 3% Building and development of civil society ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 3% Lobbying for Europe, the international integration _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 4% Rights and a better quality of life of marginalized groups ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2% Gender equality _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% 2% Education of the young and children ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2% 1% Development of creative skills of ill persons __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataStrategic planning Graph 11: Which statement describes better the way in which your organizationLess than half of the respondent organizations (47%) state that they have a functions: Base: Total target populationdocumented strategic plan, a slight decrease when compared to 2005 (51%), eventhough a strategic plan may be one of the possible conditions sought by donors forthe approval of resources. Older organizations (56%), those dealing with the We have the main orientation and 73%protection of human rights (54%), big (79%), FENS members (52%) and Belgrade area of activity, and we manage tobased NGOs (55%) more frequently than others state that they have this document. realize the majority of our projects 71% in compliance with this orientationGraph 10: Does your organization have a strategic plan?Base: Total target population We often had to change the 21% projects from the area of our main orientation to meet the requests of 20% donors 2005 We don’t have the main orientation W d ’ h h i i i 3% 2009 51% and area of activity, but we work in 5% compliance with donors’ requests 2005 49% 3% Yes No answer 5% No 47% 2009 The organizations’ appraisal of the situation in the sphere of planning is almost 52% identical to 2005. 22% of respondent organizations think there is no need for additional training, 61% think the situation is good but that additional training is necessary, while 17% believe that training in the sphere of planning is vital. There are no great di erences depending on the research variables. Graph 12: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in the area3/4 of respondent organizations report that they succeed in implementing the ne a mission, for long-majority of their projects in accordance with their general orientation, while 20% term and short-term planning):state that they often have to change the general orientation of their foreseeable Base: Total target populationprojects in accordance with the demands of the donors. 5% of organizations have nogeneral orientation or eld of work, so they direct their work purely to the demandsof the donors. This is quite similar to 2005. In this category there are no great Education in this area isdi erences among the organizations depending on the research variables (the year necessary 17% 61% 22%when it was founded, eld of work, size, membership in FENS, region). 2009 Good, but we need additional education 18% 61% 21% We don’t need additional 2005 education NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data Graph 13: Which areas is your organization involved in?Area of work Multiple answers; Base: Total target populationWhen we look at the areas in which organizations areinvolved (multiple answers), we can see that mostrespondent organizations deal with young people and 64%students (66%), education and research (60%) and the The young, youth, students 66%protection of human rights (59%). Considerable work is 65%being done by organizations in the areas of humanitarian Education and research 60%and social work and health care (52%), international 57%cooperation (45%), the development of local community Protection of human rights 59%(44%), children’s rights (42%) and culture and arts (41%). 50% Humanitarian and social work, health care 52%If we look at priority elds of work, we see that these same 42% elds again appear in slightly di erent order: 16% of NGOs International cooperation 45%have as their priority humanitarian and social work, 45%healthcare, 12% deal with youth/students and with Development of local community 44%education / research, 11% with women and the protection 39%of human rights and except in the area of protection of Children’s rights 42%human rights (4% more NGOs have this as their priority 42% Culture and arts 41%area), there are very few changes of priorities in comparisonwith 2005. 33% Women’s rights 36% 2005In comparison with 2005, there is an increase in the number 27% Ecology, environmental protection 34%of NGOs dealing with environment, legislation, public 2009politics, and the protection of national minorities, while 27% Protection f i ht f P t ti of rights of members of national minorities b f ti l i iti 33%there is a decrease in the number of NGOs involved inassistance to refugees and IDPs. 28% Economic recovery 31% 23% Legislation, representation and public politics 30% 27% Roma 28% 30% Assistance to refugees and IDPs 22% 23% Peace work 21% 7% LGBT (Sexual minorities) 10% 12% Business and professional associations 8% 5% Other 5% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 14: Generally speaking, what do you consider as your organization’s prior-ity area of activity? The largest group of respondents (43%) stated that their organization decided onMultiple answers; Base: Total target population their area of work because that area was recognized as a priority social problem. 26% stated that the area coincided with their sphere of interest, 20% had the capability to 16% deal with this area (experts, previous experience), while 8% think that nobody had Humanitarian and social work, health care 16% previously worked in that area. It is worth mentioning that NGOs dealing with 12% culture, education, ecology in 37% of the cases felt they had capacities to tackle The young, youth, students 12% these areas (competent sta , previous experience) and only 9% of NGOs dealing 13% with the protection of human rights felt the same. Education and research 12% 8% Graph 15: Why did you decide to deal with this particular area of activity? Women’s rights 11% What is the main reason? 7% Base: Total target population Protection of human rights 11% 8% Development of local community We were motivated by 7% experience of other 6% 1% 2% 1% 1% organizations/individuals Culture and arts 7% 8% 9% Suggestions of donors went along 5% these lines (it was the easiest to ( Ecology, environmental protection 22% 20% 5% get money for this area) 4% There was no one at that time to Children’s rights 3% tackle this problem 26% 3% 34% Roma 2% We had capacities to pursue this 2005 2% area (competent staff, previous International cooperation 2% 2009 experience) 43% Protection of rights of members of national 2% 32% Our interests were directed 2% towards this area minorities 2% Legislation, representation and public politics 2% This Thi was th priority social the i it i l problem 3% 2005 2009 Assistance to refugees and IDPs 2% 3% Economic recovery 2% 2% Peace work 1% LGBT (Sexual minorities) 1% Business and professional associations 0% 3% Other 4% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataBene ciaries of NGO servicesThe primary or direct bene ciaries of NGO services are most often 39%all citizens (33%). Among other groups, youth (16%), women All citizens 33%(12%) and children (10%) are also particularly frequent users. The 13%users of the services of a certain non-governmental organization Youth 16%depends mostly on the eld of work of that organization. 10% Women 12%The graph with all users shows that youth (57%), children (42%)and students (39%) are dominating groups. Other data are pretty 11% Children 10%much similar to the 2005 survey, except for refugees and IDPs whodropped from 26% to 20% as a direct target group, and sexual 2% National minorities 4%minorities who “jumped” from 5% to 10%, which certainlyindicates a perception of change in needs among NGOs. 3% Roma 3%Graph 16: Who are the PRIMARY/DIRECT users of your services – 3% Students 2%who is your organization primarily directed at? 5%Base: Total target population Invalids (parents or family members) The elderly y 2% The poor 2% 2005 Decision makers 2% 2009 Institutions 2% 3% Refugees and IDPs 1% 1% NGO sector 1% Sexual minorities S l i iti 1% Trade unions 0% Media 0% Single parents 0% 2% The unemployed 0% Political parties 0% 7% Other 7% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 17: Who are the users of your services in a broader sense of the word, the users that your projects are targeting Multiple answers; Base: Total target population 59% 57% Youth ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 43% 42% Children _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 40% 39% Students ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 41% 36% All citizens _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 32% 34% NGO sector _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 31% 31% Institutions _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 34% 28% Women __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 31% 28% Media ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 27% 27% Roma ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 26% 26% The unemployed __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 28% 25% The poor _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 29% 25% National minorities ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 20% 24% 2005 Decision makers ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 18% 21% 2009 Single parents ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 26% 20% Refugees and IDPs ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 22% 20% The elderly _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15% 15% Political parties____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5% 10% Sexual minorities __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8% 6% Trade unions _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% 10% Other ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4% Invalids (parents or family members) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1% DK-Ref___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataTypes of activitiesSimilar to 2005, among the most common activities in which 76% 80% Seminars, trainings, workshops ____________________________________________________________________non-governmental organizations take part are seminars,training and workshops (80%), networking and cooperation 55% 55%(55%), actions in the local community(53%), printing Networking and cooperation _____________________________________________________________________brochures and publications (52%) and carrying out research(41%). Activities that have become more common include 55% 53%holding conferences, meetings and round tables (from 46% Actions in local community ______________________________________________________________________in 2005 to 51% in 2009), lobbying and advocacy (from 33% to39%), while there has been a decrease in activities organizing 49% 52%various types of media campaigns, from 49% to 44%. Printing of brochures and publications ______________________________________________________________According to their areas of work, NGOs whose work is Holding conferences and meetings, 46% 51%concerned with the protection of human rights are more round tables... __________________________________________________________________________________likely than others to organize media events (60%), carry outlobbying and advocacy activities (54%), provide various 49% 44%professional services and assistance (51%) and hold press Media campaigns ______________________________________________________________________________conferences (50%). Social-humanitarian organizations morefrequently than others provide material assistance (31%), 41% 40% Realization of research projects ____________________________________________________________________and are least involved in carrying out research projects(22%), di erent forms of alternative education (19%), moni-toring of laws and work of institutions (8%). Interestingly, big 33% 39% Lobbying/advocacy _____________________________________________________________________________ 2005NGOs tend to be more involved in the implementation ofresearch projects (75%), di erent forms of alternative educa- Organization of various coursestion (61%), the maintenance of website (58%), monitoring of 35% 37% 2009 (vocational, computer, languages...) ________________________________________________________________laws and institutions (39%). Provision of various professional services (SOS phones, psychological and legal assistance, 38% 37%In terms of regions, NGOs from Belgrade are considerably information, mediation…) ________________________________________________________________________more active in their work - most are involved in almost all ofthe activities on the list. These organizations show higherengagement in organizing events (seminars, training – 88%) 34% 36% Holding press conferences________________________________________________________________________than in organizing actions in the local community (39%).They are also more active than others in monitoring laws and 38% 35%the work of institutions (32%). Real activism is much more erent forms of alternative education _____________________________________________________________present in Vojvodina (61%) and Central Serbia (55%). Theyare also more active than others in the eld of monitoring 29%laws and the work of institutions (32%). Maintenance of web page _______________________________________________________________________ 19% 21% Monitoring of laws and work of institutions __________________________________________________________Graph 18: Which types of activities are most frequentlycarried out in your organization? 23% 21% Other forms of campaigns (door to door,....) __________________________________________________________Multiple answers; Base: Total target population 20% 13% Providing material assistance _____________________________________________________________________ NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data Graph 20: Of all the projects that your NGO submitted in the previous year,Project proposals – development and implementation how many were: Base: Total target populationMost organizations submitted between 1 and 5 project applications (46%) duringone year, which represents a signi cant drop when compared to 2005 (61%). At thesame time, there is a trend of submitting a greater number of projects, with 25% ofNGOs submitting 6-10 projects and 16% of NGOs submitting 11 and more.Furthermore, there is a signi cant increase in the number of NGOs that did not 51% 40% 9% Approved 2009submit a single project in the previous year – from 5% in 2005 to 11% in 2009. These Rejectedare disturbing numbers indicating that, on the one hand there are NGOs that gaveup and did not even try to fundraise, while on the other hand there is an exhaustive Still in S ill i procedure de ort illustrated by the increasing number of NGOs which strive to secure nancial 42% 33% 25%stability for their organization by submitting numerous project applications. 2005Older NGOs are submitting more projects than younger NGOs, as well as FENSmembers, medium sized and big NGOs. It is interesting that NGOs from Vojvodina AVERAGE NUMBER OF 2005 2009submitted 11+ projects (25%) in larger numbers than NGOs in other regions. When In most organizations (56%) projects are on PROJECTS BY NGOcompared to other data in this survey, it is visible that there are more funding average completed in a period from 3 months to Submitted 6.7 6opportunities for NGOs from this region (especially state funding). a year, which is less than in 2005 (62%). However, Approved 3.4 2.5 there are more projects that last for around one 1Graph 19: What is the total number of project proposals that you submitted to Rejected 2.7 2 year (23% compared to 16% in 2005), and lastingdonors during the previous year (2004 / 2008)? for more than one year (9% compared to 7% in Still in procedure 0.6 1.5Base: Total target population g p p 2005). Projects most often completed in the period of up to 3 months are in the elds of culture, education and ecology (19%), and are those implemented by small NGOs 0 (16%) and by NGOs from Vojvodina (23%). Projects lasting for 6 to 12 months are 11% 46% 25% 16% mostly carried out by NGOs from Central Serbia (50%), while projects that last longer 2009 15 (one year and more) are implemented mostly by big organizations (60%), those from 6 10 Belgrade (54%) and in the areas of civil society development and humanitarian and social work (12%). 11+ 5% 61% 22% 12% 2005 Graph 21: What is the average duration of projects that your organization imple- Average number of projects by NGO submitted to donors ments? Base: Total target population was 6.7 in 2004 and 6.0 in 2008TThe average number of submitted proposals in 2008 was 6. On average, 2.5 were Up to 3 monthsapproved, and 2.0 rejected, while the rest were still being processed (1.5). As a rule,NGOs that were founded earlier, big organizations, those dealing with youth issues, 10% 19% 37% 23% 9% 3 – 6 months 2009economy, professional associations and those from Vojvodina, have submitted a 6 – 12 monthslarge number of proposals and had more projects approved(except for Vojvodinathat has less projects approved than Belgrade). When compared with regard to FENS Circa Ci one yearmembership, there are no signi cant di erences between FENS members and 15% 30% 32% 16% 7% More than one year 2005organizations which are not members of FENS. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataThe average number of projects currently carried out by a single organization has Some di erences were noticed in relation to the size of organizations – smaller NGOsdropped from 2.6 in 2005 to 2.4 in 2009. It is disturbing that at the moment, 23% of score higher on almost all problems. Logically, big NGOs have least problems withorganizations are not carrying out a single project, which is a signi cant increase information on funding opportunities (12%), the knowledge of the English languagefrom 2005 (13%). These are predominantly younger organizations (30%), those (5%) and the lack of self con dence. Their problems lie in the lack of competentdealing with humanitarian and social work (40%), small (35%) and based in Central professionals (17%) and short deadlines/not enough time (8%).Serbia, non-FENS network members (29%). Also, there are some di erences among NGOs that are FENS members and thoseGraph 22: How many projects is your organization currently implementing? which are not: information on funding opportunities is more often a problem ofBase: Total target population non-members (44% compared to 24% members), as well as experience in project design (19% compared to 7% among members). Graph 23: What are the most frequent problems that you were faced with in your 0 projects work when competing for the projects? Base: Total target population p g p j g p p 2009 23% 20% 20% 32% 2009 1 project AVERAGE 2.6 2 projects p j 41% High/complex requests of donors which 2005 13% 31% 19% 37% we were unable to meet 42% 2005 3+ projects AVERAGE 2.4 45% Lack of information about competitions and possibilities to apply 35%The most signi cant problems that NGOs encounter in writing project proposals are 21%“High/complex requests of donors that we were unable to meet” (42%), then the lack Poor knowledge of English language g g g g 16%of information on calls for proposals and possibilities for applying (35%). The secondproblem has dropped signi cantly when compared to 2005 (from 45% to 35%), 19%which shows improvement in information dissemination related to funding Insufficient motivation among staff 15%opportunities (probably due to the “Review of funding opportunities” prepared bythe PRSP team and Civic Initiatives), but also because much more information is 20% Lack of professionalism (competentavailable through the Internet. It is interesting that a new problem – the lack of professionals) 14% 2005self-con dence - appeared in 2009. 20% 2009Other problems (like a poor knowledge of English, the insu cient motivation of the Insufficient experience in project design 13%sta , the lack of professionalism, inexperience in project writing and the lack oftechnical equipment) are mentioned much less frequently – below 20%, which is 22% Lack of technical equipmentalso much less than in 2005. (computer, fax machine, Internet) 11%In relation to the region, organizations from outside of Belgrade encounterproblems more often then Belgrade-based NGOs. For example, NGOs from Central Lack of self confidenceSerbia encounter problems much more often due to the poor knowledge of foreign 8%languages (23%), while organizations from Belgrade very rarely state this problem(4%); similarly, NGOs outside of Belgrade more often encounter problems with Big budget, a lot of resources 4%insu cient motivation among the sta and the lack of con dence. This correspondswith the data previously presented and can be easily explained by the fact that 5%Belgrade-based NGOs in general have more access to information and resources and None 7%have become more professionalized. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataIt is interesting that NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work aresomehow in the worst position – they score high on all prioritized problems, 60%with special emphasis on the lack of professionalism (competent Lack of financial resources for realizationprofessionals - 26%) and insu cient experience in project design (33%). 49% Low level of cooperation with various 38%Another interesting trend is that NGOs dealing with civil societydevelopment reported the biggest problems with “high/complex requests levels of regime/institutions 36%of donors which we were unable to meet” (48%), and at the same time fewerproblems with the English language (9%) and technical equipment (8%) 29%than in other elds. The same relates to older organizations. This shows that Negative attitude of neighborhood 26%older, more experienced NGOs are starting to lag behind the changes in thedonors’ community (both the change of donors - more public and EU funds, Overwhelming or too many donoras well as their procedures and demands). requirements 23%The lack of nancial resources is named as the biggest problem in project 22%implementation (49%), although this is less than in 2005 (60%). It is followed Legal difficulties 20%by a low level of cooperation with authorities/institutions (36%) at di erentlevels, as well as the negative attitude of the community to the NGO sector Shortage of equipment and manpower for 23%(26%). It is interesting that the fourth problem was not mentioned in the 16% realization2005 survey and has now being pointed out, and it is “overwhelming or toomany donor requirements” (23%). It is obvious that donors have raised the 15% Insufficient motivation among users of ourlevel of complexity in their calls for proposals and also project services 14%implementation demands and that even those with a longer history of 2005successful project design and implementation are struggling with it. Having 13%in mind that the lack of technical equipment as a problem in project Lack of professionalism (competent 2009implementation has dropped from 25% to 12%, it is obvious that NGOs are professionals) 13%not lacking “hardware”, but “software”, i.e. capable human resources that 25%would deal with new and more complex requirements set by donors Lack of technical equipment (computer, fax(although this is not visible from the graph as an issue). machine, Internet) 12% 12%There were no signi cant di erences in answers among organizations Insufficient motivation among staffdepending on research variables, except for humanitarian and social 11%organizations that more than others have legal di culties (37%), and theylack professional sta (23%) who can speak English (18%). In terms of 13%regions, the shortage of equipment and manpower for implementation is Low level of cooperation with media 10%less often a problem in Central Serbia (9%), and more common in Vojvodina(27%). 12% Poor knowledge of English language 10% Graph 24: What are the most frequent problems that you were faced within your work during the implementation of the projects? There were no problems 3% Political situation in the country 1% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataIn assessing the position of organizations in terms of project competition and 1.3. Legal/ scal regulationsimplementation, 19% of interviewed organizations think that they do not need Bearing in mind that during the years 2008-2009, there were strong advocacyadditional training, 60% think that the situation is good, but they need additional campaigns for the adoption of a new NGO Law and tax reform related to NGOs, it is noteducation, while 21% think that they need additional training in project competition strange that 67% of NGOs stated that they are familiar with legal regulations (55% inand implementation. This is not a signi cant change from 2005. However, if one 2005), while only 9% stated that they are not familiar with them. Organizations dealinglooks back to previous data related to the listed problems NGOs encounter when with humanitarian and social work and younger organizations (17%), as well as smallapplying and implementing projects, one would expect a greater need for NGOs (14%) are less familiar with legal regulations.additional capacity building. There are no signi cant di erences in researchvariables, except that in 35% of cases, humanitarian and social work organization Older NGOs (73%), those dealing with young, economy, professional associations (74%),declared that additional training is necessary. big (84%), FENS members (76%) and those based in Belgrade (80%) tended to be more familiar with legal regulations.Graph 25: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in terms of Graph 26: Are you familiar with legal regulations which cover the NGO sector?competing for the projects and implementation of the projects – do you need ad- Base: Total target populationditional education Support in this area is 55% 67% necessary 19% 60% 21% 2009 Good, but we need additional support 23% 22% 59% 19% No need for additional 35% 2005 education Completely familiar 32% Familiar F ili 32% Yes and no Unfamiliar U f ili 31% Completely unfamiliar 23% 10% 7% 3% 2% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataWhen asked how satis ed they were with current legal regulations related to the ed with, in your opinion, which aspect of legalNGO sector, up to 59% of respondents stated that they were not satis ed. 28% did regulations should be changed:not have an opinion, while only 8% said they were satis ed. These data are similar to Multiple answers; Base: Total target population2005, as this was before the adoption of the new Law for NGOs. ed with currently valid legal regulationsrelating to the NGO sector? 78% Law on NGO 2% 80% 1% 7% 7% 67% Tax li T policy 24% 28% 70% Completely satisfied 17% Satisfied Other laws which relate to work of Neutral NGO 19% 32% 32% Dissatisfied 2005 11% 61% 59% Completely dissatisfied Other 2009 5% 29% 27% 8% % I don’t know, I am not informed 4% 2005 2009 5% I have no objectionsThe most often stated reasons for dissatisfaction in this eld were: the Law on NGOs 1%(80% of respondents, and again, the survey was conducted before the new Law wasadopted), tax policy (70%), and other laws related to the work of NGOs (19%). Thelast was mentioned by 38% of big NGOs. Although NGOs are not satis ed with the legal framework which regulates the work of NGOs, only 28% would be interested in participating in an initiative for a change. There are no major di erences among NGOs in terms of survey variables. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 29: Are you interested to participate in an initiative to change laws which Graph 30: What should the state do in order to stimulate the work of NGOs?regulate the work of NGO? Multiple answers; Base: Total target populationBase: Total target population 73% 3% To allow tax relief for NGO 75% 30% 28% Dont know No 74% To provide resources / funds for the financing of NGOs 68% Yes 70% 69% To improve the legal framework in 68% which NGOs operate (change the law 67% on NGOs and other laws that… 68% To allow tax relief for company which 2005 2009 finances NGOs 66%Respondents most often mentioned their expectations of state action to stimulate 54% To reduce the contributions for NGOthe work of NGOs as being: to allow tax relief for NGOs (75%), to secure funds to employees 54% nance the NGO sector (68%), to improve the legal framework within which NGOsoperate (67%) and to allow tax relief for companies nancing NGOs (66%). Although % 58%at the end of the list, it is worth mentioning that in 29% of the cases the increase of Tax relief for individual citizens whothe transparency of the entire legislative process was suggested, and this was not finance NGOs 54%even mentioned in the 2005 survey. 2005 Enable the implementation of national programs in accordance p g 44% 2009 46% Campaign for change of NGO image 43% Increase the transparency of the entire legislative process 39% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data1.4. Political context Respondents assessed all institutions, apart from the church, as bearing an important in uence on the NGO sector’s activities. The next graph, indicates that theLess than ½ of respondents (43%) think that the current political situation in the NGO sector perceived that all institutions, apart from church, have an importantcountry is not favorable for the development of the NGO sector. The attitude of the impact on the functioning of this sector (all average marks do not exceed mark 3 oninterviewed organizations improved since 2005, when 54% of respondents shared a 1-5 scale, where 1 means ”not important at all” and 5 means “very important”).the same opinion. The reason may be related to the change in government to oneperceived more positively than that in power during the 2005 survey. However, respondents perceived NGOs (89%), the media (86%), local self-government (81%) and then the national government (75%) as most important.When asked to explain the reason for their views, 13% of respondents stated that There are no di erences depending on the research variables. There is a similarity inthere is insu cient cooperation with the government (negative attitude), 12% said data from 2005 and 2009 with a few exceptions: rstly, educational institutions arethat there is the absence of a law on NGOs, bad laws, bad tax policy and now mentioned as important, and secondly, political parties are the onlyunderdeveloped awareness of the necessity of NGOs and a lack of interest, 11% stakeholder that is perceived as more important in 2009 then in 2005.identi ed a poor image of the NGO sector, and 8% stated connections betweenpolitics and NGOs, i.e. the opinion that some authorities favor some NGOs. There arenot many di erences among organizations related to research variables, except uence of the following institutions on the workbetween NGOs dealing with human rights and those dealing with the development of the NGO sector – IMPORTANT ( 4 + 5 )of civil society. These organizations have opposite views on the suitability of the Base: Total target population g p ppolitical context for the NGO sector, and on the reasons for their views. 23% of NGOsdealing with human rights reported that insu cient cooperation with thegovernment (negative attitude) is the reason, while this view was shared by only 2% 91%of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society. On the contrary, when talking NGOs themselvesabout the absence of a law on NGOs, bad laws and bad tax policy, NGOs dealing with 89%civil society development mentioned these in 22% of cases and NGOs dealing with 87%human rights protection in only 8% of cases. Media 86%Graph 31: Do you think that the current political climate in the country is suitable 81%for the development of the NGO sector? Local self governmentBase: Total target population 81% 79% 6% 5% Government 75% 9% 11% Very suitable Educational institutions 66% 31% 41% Suitable 54 68% 43 Neutral Business sector B i t 62% 31% Unsuitable 25% 2005 44% Very unsuitable Political parties 2009 23% 48% 18% 16% Church 14% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data uence the creation of state poli-Cooperation between the present Government and the NGO sector is assessed mostoften as bad or very bad (a total of 41% of the respondents), which is a signi cant tics? Base: Total target populationdecrease when compared to 2005 (60%). In 45% of cases it was described as neutral(increase from 31% in 2005), while in 14% of the cases it was evaluated as good andexcellent (9% in 2005). Generally speaking, cooperation with the government isbelieved to be much better than in the 2005 survey. On this question there are no 1% 1%di erences between organizations depending on the research variables. 12% 14%Graph 33: How would you evaluate cooperation between the current Governmentof the Republic of Serbia and the NGO sector?Base: Total target population Too much Just right 87% 85% Too little 2% 2% 7% 12% Excellent 31% 45% Good 60 Neutral 2005 2009 32% 41 Poor 33% 28% Very poor 8% 2005 2009Although the cooperation with the government is believed to be much better thanin 2005, most NGO sector representatives (85%) were still of the opinion that thein uence of the NGO sector over the creation of state policies is extremely low. 14%thought that this in uence was adequate and only 1% that it was too strong.Representatives of the non-governmental sector who assessed that the sector haslittle in uence over state policies (a total of 85% of respondents), thought that NGOscould widen their in uence primarily through better networking and cooperationbetween all NGOs (15%), and then more e cient action, greater engagement ofNGOs (11%) and cooperation, communication with the government/localauthorities (10%). On this question, there are no di erences between organizationsdepending on the research variables, except for NGOs dealing with culture,education and ecology, which in 20% of the cases think that there should be moree cient action and greater engagement of NGOs. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data uence? uence creation of state politics too little As expected, there are some di erences between organizations which are FENS(85% of target population) network members and those which are not. To a higher degree, FENS members (75%) perceive Civic Initiatives as one of the 3 most important organizations for the 15% NGO sector development. However, even among organizations which are not FENS Networking, pooling of all NGOs 15% members it can be noticed that this organization is the most important (46% of respondents from non member organizations). Similar is with CRNPS – 28% of FENS More efficient action, greater engagement 23% 11% members and 12% of not FENS members think of CRNPS as the most important NGO of NGOs for the development of the NGO sector in Serbia. Cooperation, communication with the Government/ local authorities 10% Graph 36: Can you name up to 3 NGOs which, in your opinion, had the biggest In order to adopt the law on NGOs, the 7% p uence on the development of the NGO sector in Serbia? legal status of NGO to be regulated 9% 9% Common interests, goals, activities 8% 54% Gra anske inicijative (Civic Iniciatives) 62% Cooperation (better cooperation, the 16% 7% CRNPS (Center for developpment of non 26% possibility of greater co operation) profit sector) 21% More concrete M 7% 12% programs, strategy, planned work CESID 9% Influence of NGOs on 20% 7% Fond za humanitarno pravo (Fund for 6% government, politics, adoption of laws 7% humanitarian rights) Improving the position, the status of NGOs position 18% 10% in the media 6% Fond F d za otvoreno d št (OSI) t društvo 9% 8% Lobbying Evropski pokret u Srbiji (European 8% 4% movement) 5% Development of NGOs, the promotion of NGOs 8% % 6% our work 3% Žene u crnom (Women in black) ene 5% 6% 2005 NGOs to present their projects the state Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava (Helsinki 4% 2% 2009 5% committee for human rights) 4% 3% Better communication i i Autonomni ženski centar (Autonomous 1% 4% women center) 5% 4% Other 1% YUKOM 3% 8% 3% DK Ref 6% JAZAS 2% 2005 1% Group 484 2% 2009Most important NGOs Centar za demokratiju (Center fo 1%The respondents stated that the most important organizations for the development democracy) 2%of the NGO sector are: Civic Initiatives (62%), the Center for Development of 7% OTPOR (Resistance)Non-pro t Sector (CRNPS) (21%), CESID (9%) and the Humanitarian Law Fund (7%). 1% 3%A few organizations have increased their in uence: Civic Initiatives (from 54% to Belgrade Center for Human Rights 1%62%), the Humanitarian Law Fund (from 6% to 7%), the Helsinki Committee (from 4% 12%to 5%), the Autonomous Women’s Center ( from 3% to 4%) and Group 484 (from 1% Dont know 12%to 2%) while the in uence of all others have dropped. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data1.5. Structure of NGOs Of the respondent organizations, 52% reported that their president/director is a woman and 47% reported that their president/director is a man. This is a slight increase ofMost NGOs are small in terms of the number of engaged persons – the majority of women presidents/directors from 2005 (46% women and 55% of men). However,organizations reported engaging up to 14 persons (59%), and between 15 to 30 women presidents are signi cantly predominant only in the eld of human rightspersons (31%). Only 9% of NGOs reported having more than 31 persons engaged. protection (67% women in comparison to 32% men). Of the presidents/directors, 41%However, this should not be taken into consideration as employment with full are middle-aged (from 36 to 50 years), 37% are over 50 years of age, and 18.5% are youngbene ts, but rather as engagement via honoraria and in other forms (members of (from 20-35 years of age). Most NGOs with middle-aged presidents deal with civil societythe managing board, coordinators, employees and part-time workers, but not development (47%) or are from Central Serbia (47%). There are di erences dependingvolunteers), due to additional information from a survey on the economic value of on the time when organizations were formed: in those organizations founded beforethe NGO sector commissioned by Civic Initiatives in 2009, which stressed that 82% of 2000, the percentage of presidents over 50 years of age is much higher (46%), while inNGOs that submitted the nancial report in 2008 had no employed persons, 16% new organizations (founded in 2000 and later) there is a larger number of middle-agedhad from 1 to 9 employees and 1.5% had between 10 to 100 employees. This means presidents (44%). Also, younger presidents are more dominant in organizations dealingthat most Serbian NGOs are considered as “micro-enterprises”. with the younger population (39%) and in Belgrade based NGOs (28%). By education,Table 1: presidents in the NGO sector are in 77% of the cases with college and university 1-9 10 - 100 education, while in 20% of the cases they nished secondary school, and only in 1% No employees T O T A L NGOs primary school. employees employees 2008 3 943 771 72 4 786 Graph 38: Information about the person who is the head of your organization 2007 3 614 697 43 4 354 (President or Director of your NGO): 2006 3 332 618 32 3 982 Base: Total target population nancial reports in 2008, by number of employees 55% 47% AGE 2% 1% 1% Male 16% 16% 16% 46% 52% Female 10 100 employees 1 employees 82% 83% 84% No employees Younger (20 35) 27% 19% 2005 GENDER Middle age (36 50) 48% 41% 2009 Older (over 50) 26% 37% 2008 2007 2006NGOs registered before 2000 have more employees than small NGOs – 15% of big PrimaryNGOs and only 8% of those registered in 2000 and later have over 31 employees. EDUCATIONHumanitarian and social work NGOs are among the smallest (71%), while those 21% 20%dealing with the development of civil society have more people employed (17% of Secondarythem employ over 31 persons). As expected, the biggest organizations are based inBelgrade (19%), while only 8% in Vojvodina and 5% in Central Serbia engage more Higher 78% 77%than 31 persons. There are no di erences related to FENS membership. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataLess than ½ of organizations (43%), according to respondents, have written rules and 1.6. NGO cooperation – networkingprocedures (in addition to the statute) related to the decision-making and overall workof the organization. This percentage is lower than in 2005 (47%). As expected, big As in 2005, 98% of organizations have had some contact with other NGOs up to now. Itorganizations tend to have additional rules and procedures (74%), as do those dealing should be stressed, though, that by contact we mean any type of cooperation (help inwith the development of civil society (52%), and Belgrade-based NGOs (57%). Only 34% activities, equipment, cooperation within the network, carrying out of projects jointly).of small organizations and 36% of youth, economic-focused and professionalorganizations have additional rules and procedures. Di erent types of cooperation most often include: mutual help in activities (76% of those who had cooperation), implementation of common projects (75%), cooperation withinGraph 39: Does your organization have any other written rules and procedures some NGO network (73%), joint requests from donors (54%), help in equipment and usefor decision making and the overall work of the organization apart from the Stat- of premises (51%), training for members (50%), coalitions (44%) and lobbying/advocacyute? 44%. It is worth mentioning that all types of cooperation have increased, especially implementation of common projects (from 64% to 75%) and coalitions (from 28% to 44%) which shows increased awareness among NGOs of the need to cooperate. 53% 56% No Graph 42: What way of cooperation was it? Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated so far in some way with any other NGOs (98% of target 47% 43% Yes population) 2005 2009 77% We helped each other with activities 76%BBase: T t l target population Total t t l ti 64% Realization of common projects 75%As for the assessment of the situation in their organization in terms of management andsupervising, 38% of respondent organizations think that they do not need additional 65% Cooperation with NGOs in the network 73%training in this eld, 52% are of the opinion that the situation is good but they needadditional training, and 9% think that support in this area is necessary. The data show an 48%increase in self-con dence when compared to 2005. Humanitarian and social work are Mutual requests to donors 54%mostly in need of additional support (15%) and then NGOs from Vojvodina (13%). In the 44% eld of the development of civil society only 2% of NGOs stated that additional support Help in H l i equipment, use of premises i f i 51%was needed. 50% Trainings for members g 50%Graph 40: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in the areaof management and supervision – do you need additional education: 28%Base: Total target population g p p Coalition 44% 2005 We have no need for 36% Lobbying/public advocacy 2009 44% additional education 27% 38% Good, but we need Between members and non-members of FENS, there is a di erence only in terms of NGO 57% additional support network cooperation, and FENS members have had cooperation within the NGO 52% Support in this area is network more frequently than those organization which are not FENS members (85% in 16% 9% comparison to 58%). Other signi cant di erences are related to the size of organizations necessary and cooperation in lobbying/advocacy: 70% of big and 34% of small NGOs have 2005 2009 cooperated in this area. The least cooperation in this area was carried out by humanitarian and social work NGOs (26%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataThe most often stated motives for cooperation were that organizations shared Of organizations that had cooperated with other NGOs (98% of the sample), 75%common interests (92% of those who had cooperation), wanted to help other were members of some domestic NGO network and 37% were members of someorganization (51%), could better utilize their capacities (49%), and could more international networks, while 17% were not members of any network. In comparisoneasily fundraise (39%). Easier fund-raising was stated more often by NGOs with 2005, there were fewer NGOs that were not members of any network, and andealing with the development of civil society (60%). increase in membership in both domestic and international networks. Of course, there is a di erence between FENS members and non-members: out ofRepresentatives of the NGO sector are mainly satis ed with the level of organizations which are not members of FENS, 36% do not belong to any network,cooperation that their NGO has with other organizations in the sector (76%), 45% belong to domestic and 31% to international networks, while 42% of FENSwhich is a slight increase compared to 2005 (72%). Out of those who had some member organizations belong to some international network. In membership inkind of cooperation, 28% are very satis ed, 48% are satis ed with this domestic networks, there were no signi cant di erences related to the region andcooperation, 22% neither satis ed nor dissatis ed (neutral), while only 2% are time when organizations were formed, area of work or size. However, , the situationnot satis ed with this cooperation. NGOs dealing with youth, economy, and pertaining to membership in international networks was di erent, with members ofprofessional associations were most satis ed with cooperation (87%), while international networks tending to be larger (68%), older organizations (47%) andNGOs dealing with the development of civil society (68%), and those from organizations from Belgrade (59%).Vojvodina (68%), were least satis ed. When asked about the main problems incooperation, most respondents either did not give any answer (28%) or stated Graph 43: Are you a member of some NGO network? Domestic or international?that there are no problems related to cooperation with other NGOs (17%). The Base: those who cooperated so far in any way with any other NGOs (98% of target population)remaining percentage mention the following problems in NGO cooperation: nancial problems for the implementation of the project (7.1%), the lack ofprofessionalism of other NGOs (5%), poor or no communication (5%), failure tomeet agreed obligations (4%), insu cient engagement and dedication toprojects (4%), underdeveloped awareness of the importance of cooperation 17%(4%) and others. 25% 37% No ed with cooperation that your NGO have Yes, internationalhad with other NGOs so far? 69%Base: those who cooperated so far in any way with any other NGOs (98% of target population) Yes, domestic 75% 26% 34% 28% Very satisfied 2005 2009 76% 72% Satisfied 38% 48% Neutral Several main conclusions can be drawn when we consider the list of membership in Dissatisfied international and domestic networks: Completely dissatisfied 1. There is no clear distinction between the concepts of networks and partnerships 25% 22% with other NGOs. Respondents frequently listed the names of di erent 3% 2% organizations, instead of listing the name of the network; this is similar to the 2005 survey, as well as the results of the research by NGO Policy Group in 2001. 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data uence of NGO networks in Serbia?2. As for international networks, there is no single one which gathers a large number of NGOs –although more than 140 international networks were listed, none of them gathers more than 5% of organizations (international network members). The top of the list shows the following international networks (over 2%): CIVICUS 4% (4%), Recom (3%), Flare (3%), Women in black (3%), IDEA (3%), UNITED (2%), 14% YOUTH PEER (2%), Women can do it (2%) and EVS - European voluntary service 17% (2%). Don’t know3. As for domestic networks, except FENS (47%), there is no single network with more than 5% of organizations, members of a domestic network. Although there were Major influence 79% 71% around 100 networks listed, only some of them have membership which exceeds Minor influence 2% (domestic network members): FENS (47%), Civic Initiatives (4%), Astra (4%), Women’s network (2%). Without influenceSince the sample included intentionally certain number of FENS members and 7% 8%non-members, this research cannot give us conclusions on frequency ofmembership in FENS network. 2005 2009Members of domestic and international networks (81% of targeted population)most frequently state the following as the main reasons for becoming members of G h 45: What do you think is the purpose of FENS? Graph 45 Wh t d thi thi k i th f FENS? FENS?certain networks, either domestic or international: • Common interests, goals, activities (31%) • Easier achievement of goals, plans (14%) 58% • Better cooperation (13%) Exchange of information between NGOs 78% • Information (being better informed) (10%) 55% • Exchange of experiences (9%) Promotion of civil society values 71% • Strengthening of the NGO sector (8%)There are no di erences among research variables, except for culture, education and 58% Influence on decision makers in Serbia 63%ecology organizations which stated “information – being better informed” as areason in 21% of the cases and for non-FENS members which in only 1% of the cases 54%stated “strengthening of the NGO sector”. Triggering off important social issues 64%It can be noticed that the most frequently expressed opinion is that although 48%networks do have certain in uence it is of a very narrow scope (17%) – this is an Improvement of image of NGO sector 60%increase from 2005 (14%). NGOS dealing with the development of civil society (18%)tend more than others to believe that networks have in uence, while those dealing 49% Coordination of attitudes andwith humanitarian and social work believe least (11%) in it. 48% requirements within NGO sectorAs expected, all FENS member organizations have heard of this NGO network. 6%Among organizations which are not members of this network, 63% had heard of this Creating of monopoly within sector 7%network. There were no signi cant di erences on this question among 2005organizations depending on research variables, except for humanitarian and social 2%work NGOs which have heard about FENS in 67% of the cases. Promotion of individuals 8% 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data The ratio between FENS members and non-members was de ned by the sample, so the sector as being much worse. For example, cooperation within the NGO sector isthis research does not o er insight into incidence of membership in this network generally assessed as developed by 22% of NGOs and in 22% of the cases aswithin the NGO sector. Nevertheless, we can talk about the reasons for this underdeveloped. NGOs from Vojvodina are very unsatis ed with the level ofmembership. As the main reasons for becoming network members, representatives cooperation, with 37% stating that cooperation is not developed, while NGOs fromof organizations in FENS network most often stated the following: Central Serbia were most satis ed (29%).- Exchange of information between NGOs (78%) Graph 46: How would you evaluate the previous activities of FENS? Base: those who heard of FENS (83% of target population)- Promotion of civil society values (71%);- In uence on decision makers in Serbia (63%); 1% 2%- Triggering of important social issues (64%); 11% 8% 7% 10% 24% 7% 18%- Improvement of the NGO sector image (60%). 6% 20% 2% 16% 2% 21% 27% 10%Prioritized reasons have signi cantly increased from 2005, 11% Don’t knowfrom 5 to 20 percentage points, which shows greater Completely successfulexpectations from FENS in all aspects of its work. 40% 42% 42% 36% 44% SuccessfulOrganizations which are not FENS members see its purpose 45%also in terms of the exchange of information and the Neutralpromotion of civil society values. However, they much less 18% Unsuccessful 22% 25% 18%recognize its purpose in in uencing decision makers (39%), 15% 14%triggering important social issues (35%) and improving the 6% 5% 9% 6% 10% Completely unsuccessful 3%image of the sector (30%).Representatives of organizations which have heard of FENS, 2005 2005 2005 not 2009 2009 2009 notbut their organizations are not members of the network, member member member memberstate that the main reasons why their organizations are not of FENS of FENS of FENS of FENSmembers are the following:- lack of interest, do not need it (19%); Graph 47: How would you generally evaluate cooperation within the NGO sector- no contact established (17%); in Serbia? Base: Total target population- no particular reason (10%);- FENS has no signi cant impact, does not meet goals (9%); Don t Dont know 1%- lack of opportunity so far, but they would like to become members (9%). 3% 4% 18% 18% Very developed y pActivities that FENS was involved in so far receive an average mark of 3.1 on a 5-pointscale (1=absolutely unsuccessful, 5=completely successful), which is slightly higher Developed pthan in 2005 (2.9). Out of 83% organizations that have heard of FENS, the biggest 50%mark was given by humanitarian and social organizations and, as expected by FENS 54% Averagemembers (3.3), while the lowest mark was given by non-FENS members (2.7) andNGOs dealing with the promotion of human rights (2.9). In comparison to othervariables there are no signi cant di erences in ratings. 25% Underdeveloped 22%If we compare satisfaction levels with the cooperation of their organization, with 4% 1%their opinion about the level of cooperation within the NGO sector, similarly to 2005, Completelywe can notice signi cantly di erent answers. While the respondents expressed high underdeveloped 2005 2009satisfaction with their organizations’ cooperation, they assessed cooperation within NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data 1.7. NGO cooperation with the stateGraph 48: How would you evaluate attitude of the state towards the NGO sector? Representatives of organizations which up to now have not had cooperatedMultiple answers; Base: Total target population generally, explained this as a lack of interest in cooperation both on the part of the NGOs (“there was no need for cooperation”, 47%) and on the part of the state institutions (“they didn’t want to cooperate”, 18%). In addition, they also mentioned 62% “prejudices towards the issues that NGOs are engaged with (10%). The state is uninterested and underestimates importance of NGO sector 53% Graph 49: Have you ever cooperated with any state institutions? Multiple answers; Base: Total target population 11% The state recognizes NGO sector as a partner (uses services, consults… 19% 25% 45% The state perceives NGOs as opponents Yes, Yes at the level of the Republic 17% 67% 5% The state helps development of NGO sector (provides funds ) funds...) 10% 55% 2005 Yes, at the local level , 9% 71% I can’t estimate 2009 10% 11% 2005 NoOver ½ (53%) of the respondents are not satis ed, in general, with the relationship 8% 2009between the state and the NGO sector, commenting that the state underestimatesthe importance of the sector. However, it is a good sign that there has been asigni cant decrease in this opinion since 2005 (62%). Furthermore, the number of However, cooperation between NGOs and local administrations is rated rather morethose who think that the state recognizes the NGO sector as a partner has increased positively than the general situation in the sector. Although 33% of organizationsto 19% (from 11% in 2005). 17% of respondents think that the state perceives NGOs rate the cooperation as bad, 29% rate cooperation as neither good nor bad, and 37%as opponents, which is less than in 2005 (25%). The number of those who think that feel that there is good cooperation. This, overall, is an improvement from 2005, whenthe state helps the development of the NGO sector has doubled (10% in 2009 and negative opinions were reported by 40% of respondents, and positive opinions by5% in 2005). There are no signi cant di erences in ratings according to the research 32% of respondents.variables. New organizations (35%), those dealing with the protection of human rights (42%),8% of respondent NGOs had not had any cooperation with state institutions so far. small NGOs (35%), FENS members (36%) and NGOs from Vojvodina (42%) tended to71% had experienced cooperation with state institutions at a local level, and 67% be less satis ed with cooperation at the local level. Big NGOs (59%) and NGOswith state institutions at a national level. There has been a signi cant increase in dealing with humanitarian and social work (48%) tended to be most satis ed withcooperation at both levels compared to 2005. NGOs formed before 2000 (77%), as cooperation with local administrations.well as those from Belgrade (73%), cooperated with state institutions at a nationallevel considerably more often than the younger organizations (59%) and smallorganizations (56%). This information tells us that the older organizations haveacquired a certain reputation and because of their experience are better able toposition themselves. With regard to the question of cooperation at a local level thereare no great di erences depending on the research variables. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 50: How would you evaluate cooperation between your local government Graph 51: What types of cooperation with state institutions have you had till now?and your organization? Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with any state institutions (91% of target p p p p y g population)Base: Total target population 59% 1% 37 Joint work on a project 32 11% 10% 63% Don’t know 21% 27% Very good cooperation 44% State i the role of d S in h l f donor 28% Good 61% 29% Neutral 50% 19% 33 Poor Exchange of experiences and 40 19% information 49% 21% Very poor cooperation yp p 14% 26% 2005 NGO as a consultant 2005 2009 27% 2009 The most common form of cooperation with the state was working together onprojects (63%) which has happened more frequently than in 2005 (59%). This is Graph 52: What are the problems you have been most frequently faced withfollowed by the state as a donor (61%), which also represents a signi cant increase during cooperation with state institutions?when compared to 2005 (44%). The levels of exchange of experiences (49%) and Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with any state institutions (91% of target p p p p y g population)NGOs as consultants (27%) remain essentially unchanged from 2005.The only di erences related to this question are on the basis of region: while 44%organizations from Belgrade more often appear in the role of consultants than Big state administration slows down theorganizations from other regions (41% compared to 18% from Central Serbia and process of information exchange 47%29% from Vojvodina), in comparison to 2005 there is a signi cant increase inVojvodina NGOs appearing as consultants. On the other hand, the state most often 45% Important role of informal lled the role of a donor in Vojvodina and least often in Central Serbia (Vojvodina - contacts, „connections“ 45%69%, Belgrade - 59%, and Central Serbia - 57%).The most common problems in cooperation with the state are reported as: Representatives of state organs are not 54% interested and they don’t realize the role • Complex state administration slows down the process of information 41% of NGO sector exchange (47%); • Important role of informal contacts, “connections” (45%); It is difficult to realize cooperation on 34% • Representatives of state organs are not interested and they do not realize the projects d to d ff due different l l of levels f 40% role of the NGO sector (41%); competences • Difficulty in establishing cooperation on projects due to different levels of 44% 2005 competences (40%); State institutions don’t have the funds 2009 for helping NGO activities 35% • State institutions do not have funds for helping NGO activities (35%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data In 2009, 27% of representatives of the NGO sector stated that the state apparatus, or Graph 54: How would you evaluate the importance of cooperation between thethe government, had hindered their work in some way, which is slightly more than in state and the NGO sector?2005 (25%). This tendency may be explained by the consideration that, since Base: Total target populationrespondents generally reported a more positive attitude towards cooperation withthe state, it may be that the increase in the number of those who believe that the statehinders” the work of NGOs is a result of a greater awareness of the role of the statetowards NGOs, and corresponding greater expectations from the NGO side.Regarding this question, there are no di erences depending on the research variables.The most frequent ways of hindering NGO work were given as: 49% Very important • Deprivation of finances (18%); 68% Important • Deprivation of space for usage (16%); 68 Neutral • Indifference, absence of support (15%); 19% 86 Unimportant U i • Obstruction of work (14%); 16% 18% Completely unimportant • No cooperation (they gave us no guarantees – 12%). 11% 11% 4% 2%Graph 53: Have local authorities or the state apparatus disabled work of yourorganization in any way? 2005 2009Base: Total target population What the sector can do to improve cooperation with the state could be seen from the following graph. It is interesting that NGOs feel that more active engegament from their side would lead to improved cooperation (in uencing policies, e cient 75% 73% No action, programs and strategies). 25% 27% Yes 2005 2009The largest group of respondents felt that cooperation between NGOs and the stateis very important - 86% of all respondents, which is a signi cant increase comparedto 2005 (68%). Still the graph shows us that 13% of organizations do not see thiscooperation as important (15% in 2005). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 55: What might NGO sector do in order to upgrade cooperation with thestate? 1.8. NGO cooperation with the business sectorBase: Total target population Graph 56: Have you ever cooperated with the business sector? Base: Total target population Influence of NGOs on 11% government, politics, adoption of laws More efficient action, greater engagement of 39% 36% 10% NGOs NGO No More concrete programs, strategy, planned 10% 61% 64% Yes work They cant do anything else, authorities have to 9% do something now 2005 2009 Better communication 5% 5% In 2009, 64% of all respondents said they had cooperated with the business sector, NGOs to present their projects the state which is a slight increase compared to 2005 (61%). Here, it should be stated that any form of communication between NGOs and businesses is understood as Lobbying 5% cooperation, such as donations, even of the smallest volume - in goods, nancial donations, etc. Cooperation is most often established among the older In order to adopt the law on NGOs, the legal 4% organizations (70% of older organizations have experience of such cooperation), as status of NGO to be regulated well as among those dealing with the development of civil society (76%), medium 4% size NGOs (74%) and those based in Vojvodina (71%). The weakest cooperation with Connecting with other organizations the business sector is found among NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (51% of those NGOs do not cooperate with businesses). Contact with citizens, public 4% appearances, campaigns Why is it di cult to establish cooperation? The respondents (representatives from NGOs that had not established cooperation) stated the main reason for not Transparency, openness 4% 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 Education 4% considerably less often). It is interesting that, compared to the 2005 data, the number of NGOs that claim that Greater competence, expertise 4% their mission is not connected to the business sector decreased. This indicates that NGOs have a stronger understanding understanding that cooperation between Improving the position, the status of NGOs in the 3% sectors can happen regardless of their missions. On the other hand, it is not media encouraging that the percentage of NGOs that feel that business is not interested Cooperation (better cooperation, the possibility increased, as well as that the number of NGOs that did not even try to establish 3% of greater cooperation also increased (from 14 to 18%). As expected, many NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (31%) stated that the “Business sector is not ready to cooperate” as the reason for the lack of cooperation. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 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) The most common type of cooperation between the business sector and NGOs is that where the representative of the business sector is found in the role of a donor. If we take into account only those organizations which have cooperated with the business sector, it is noticeable that 76% of these NGOs have had experience with 24% business sector donations (a slightly lower gure when compared to 2005 – 78%), Business sector is not interested 33% 27% appeared in consultant roles (25% in 2005), while 13%, compared to 5% in 2005, stated that they had established mutual cooperation and support with the business We had no need for cooperation, we cooperation 14% sector and 2% established cooperation in some other ways. Cooperation where the hadnt even tried 18% 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 Business sector is not ready to 11% elds (85%) and least with young, economy, professional associations (67%) and big cooperate 16% NGOs (66%). Mutual cooperation and support is mostly achieved by NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (28%). We had no opportunity, possibility for 12% Graph 58: What types of cooperation have you had with the business sector? cooperation 10% Multiple answers; Base: those who have never cooperated with business sector (36% of target population) Mission of our NGO is not connected 12% with business sector 4% 78% Business sector as a donor 76% Business sector is 8% underdeveloped, there are no means 3% 25% There are no terms for cooperation (we 5% services by NGO 27% are non profitable and small) 3% 2005 Consultation 2009 5% 3% We havent been offered cooperation haven t cooperation, support 13% 2005 2% Mutual 2009 Business sector does not realize the 8% 7% importance of NGO 1% Other 2% 2% Other 2% When the business sector appears in the role of a donor, it is most often connected 8% to nancial donations, with74% of the organizations that had received donations Dont know reporting this type of nancial cooperation, and then donations in kind (62% of 9% these organizations reported this type of in kind cooperation). The next graph shows the nature of the help received from the business sector. It canGenerally speaking, this table re ects NGO perceptions of the interests of the business be clearly seen that the majority of organizations (70% of NGOs that had receivedsector in potential cooperation. However, it is possible that greater e orts by the NGOs donations) tend to receive sporadic, small amounts of help from the business sector.could help in improving the situation and increasing cooperation with business. Only 6% of organizations that received donations actually received strategically planned and continuous help. Another 23% of these organizations state that the helpThe three most frequently referenced methods for establishing cooperation are: they received is not continuous, but that it is received regularly, for most projects. • interests of the representatives of the business sector in a given field - 64%; Those data do not di er from 2005. This indicates that further e orts are needed to • personal motives of the representatives of the business sector - 35% ; raise the awareness of the business sector regarding the value of strategic assistance, • Board members come from the business sector - 15%. and to help NGOs to establish more strategic partnerships with businesses. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 59: What is the nature of help that you receive from the business sector? We asked the organizations that had previously cooperated with the businessMultiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with business sector - as a donor (49% of target population) sector why there was not more cooperation between them and the business sector. The most frequently stated reasons are that companies receive no tax exemptions for helping the NGO sector (stated by 61% of respondents - 72% representatives of NGOs which had established cooperation with the business Help is sporadic, donations are small sector), and that the companies have insu cient knowledge of the role and 70% signi cance of the NGO sector (60%). Further, it was stated that the poor 21% nancial situations of many companies mean that they have no funds with which Help is not continuous, but they to support NGO activities (56% of these respondents). Evidently, according to help us on majority of projects 23% the opinion of the representatives of the NGO sector, any negative attitude on the part of the representatives of the business sector towards the Third Sector is 6% 2005 We have strategically designed and of secondary signi cance: the lack of interest in the work of the NGO sector is continuous help 6% 2009 stated by 31% of respondents who achieved cooperation, and a negative attitude from the business sector towards NGOs by 22% of them. As in 2005, it is telling that the inexperience of NGOs in approaching the businessThe rates of respondents’ general satisfaction with the cooperation between their own sector is given as a reason for the lack of cooperation by only 13% of theseorganizations and the business sector increased, with the average mark on a scale respondents (even less than in 2005 – 17%). However, the large number of NGOsfrom 1 to 5 being 3.1 (2.87 in 2005). As can be seen from the graph, extreme that claimed that business does not have tax incentives for supporting NGOs,evaluations of cooperation (marks of 1 or 5) appeared in 11% of the cases (7% in 2005). which is not true, shows that there is a need for further education on the NGO side. There are no signi cant di erences in the answers to this questionIn terms of regions, the highest level of satisfaction is expressed by NGOs from depending on the research variables.Central Serbia (average mark 3.3%) and the lowest in Vojvodina (2.8). Those that arenot FENS members are more satis ed (3.4) than FENS members (2.9). Also, a high level Graph 61: Why cooperation between your organization and the business sector isof satisfaction is stated by NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (3.3). not more extensive? What are the problems you have been most frequently faced with during cooperation with the business sector? Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with business sector (64% of target p p p p g population) ed with cooperation of your organizationand the business sector?Base: those who cooperated with business sector (64% of target population) 65% Companies have no tax exemptions for helping NGO sector 61% Companies are not informed well enough 58% 7% 11% % 60% about the role and importance of NGOs 25% 18% 33% 22% Very satisfied 62% Companies are i a very b d situation – they C i in bad i i h Satisfied have no funds for donations 56% 38% 37% Neutral Companies are not interested in the work of 35% NGOs 31% Dissatisfied 30% 24% There is a negative attitude towards NGO 25% Completely dissatisfied sector as a whole 22% 7% 6% 2005 Our NGOs have no experience in p 17% approaching business sector 13% 2009 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data The graph presenting opinions about the importance of this cooperation indicates At the end of this section we asked all the respondents to give us their suggestionsthat the highest percentage of respondents, i.e. representatives of the NGO sector, to the question of what the NGO sector could do to approach the business sector infeel that cooperation with the business sector is of exceptional signi cance (48%) - a a better way. Here is the list of most frequent answers:much more common response than in 2005 (37%). Another 32% see it as important(also an increase compared to 2005 – 25%). Even so, it should be kept in mind that • Informing the business sector about the importance and role of NGOs and19% of respondents do not acknowledge the signi cance of such cooperation. about mutual bene ts from cooperation (69%);On these two questions there are no signi cant di erences depending on the • Lobbying (40%);research variables, except for NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights • Campaigns for a change of NGO image (38%);(14% think that it is not important compared to the average - 6%). • Organizing joint conferences with the business sector (34%); • Development of an action plan about joint appearance in NGO networksAs in 2005, on the question – “Is it better to cooperate with private or state (31%);companies?”- the highest percentage of respondents, i.e. representatives of NGOswho have cooperated with the business sector up to now, feel that there is no • Learning of skills for fund-raising (31%).di erence (45% of NGOs which have cooperated with the business sector). However,the remainder of the respondents gives the advantage to private companies (38%)rather than state companies (18%). On this question there are no signi cantdi erences depending on the research variables.Graph 62: How would you evaluate the importance of cooperation between thebusiness sector and the NGO sector?Base: Total target population 37% Very important 48% 62% 80% Important 25% Neutral 32% Unimportant U i t t 18% 12% 13% Completely unimportant 8% 6% 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data1.8. NGO cooperation with the mediaAs in 2005, the majority of non-governmental organizations have contact with the Of all the organizations which had contact with the media (altogether 98% of themedia (98%). Here, we have to stress that in this case the concept of contact can mean sample), 50% found it to be easier to communicate with the local media, while 9%any form of cooperation (from reporting and advertising right through to working found it easier to communicate with the large national media and 40% did nottogether on projects and providing consulting services). notice any di erence in the ease of communicating with either local or national media. There is a signi cant change when compared to 2005, in terms of a shift fromWhen we look at the reasons for cooperation, we see that in the majority of cases (93% working the local media towards the national media, which NGOs nd increasinglyof organizations which had cooperated with the media) this cooperation is re ected in more possible to work with. There are huge regional di erences, and as it could havethe media reporting on some of the organization’s activities. However, according to be expected it is much easier for Belgrade-based organizations to achievethe statements of our respondents, joint work between NGOs and the media on some cooperation with large media houses with national coverage (25%), than it is inprojects is not a rare occurrence, with 37% of organizations reporting cooperation, other two regions, Vojvodina (2%) and Central Serbia (3%). The data indicates that inalthough this was slightly less than in 2005 (42%). This is followed by advertising the Vojvodina and Central Serbia, cooperation with the larger media is almost totallyorganization in the media (28%) which is considerably less than in 2005 (42%). non-existent, but the local media is more open to cooperation. Unsurprisingly, NGOsAdvertising the organization is mentioned as a form of cooperation considerably more from these two regions (59%) have much easier cooperation with the local mediaoften by representatives of the NGO sector from Belgrade (34%) than from Central than those in Belgrade (29%).Serbia (12%). The reason for this probably lies in the fact that (as can be seen from lateranswers) the local media give considerably more space to promoting the NGO sector 62% of representatives of all NGOs that have cooperated with the media felt that infree of charge. A training program for journalists was organized in 15% of the cases, achieving cooperation, there was no di erence between the printed and thewith big organizations taking the lead (30%), and more among FENS members (21%) electronic media, which is an increase compared to 2005 (55%). A total of 21% ofthan those that are not FENS members (9%). representatives of these organizations stated that cooperation is more easily achieved with the electronic media (down from 31% in 2005), while 18% more easilyWhen asked about the type of the media with which cooperation existed, 96% of achieve cooperation with magazines and daily papers (up from 14% in 2005). Inthose who cooperated responded that they cooperated with local electronic media, terms of regional di erences, it could be seen that in Belgrade it is evidentlyfollowed by 88% of those who cooperated with the local printed media, 75% with the considerably easier for non-governmental organizations to make contact with thenational printed media, and 66% with the national electronic media (TV, radio). There printed media (27%), than it is in Vojvodina (18%) and in Central Serbia (12%). Theis a signi cant increase in types of the media NGOs cooperated with, when compared electronic media is mostly accessible in Central Serbia (27%) and less in Belgradeto 2005. (19%) and in Vojvodina (12%). In Vojvodina, there is the greatest equality in theGraph 63: What type of the media? accessibility of the various types of the media (69%).Multiple answers; Base: those who cooperated with media (98% of target p p p p g population) Among the electronic media, NGOs had the best cooperation with B92 (18%), then RTS (11%), and RTV Vojvodina (9%). Given their local coverage and the smaller Local electronic (TV, radio) 96% number of NGOs in their communities, the following electronic media are mentioned in smaller percentages: Studio B (4%), RTV Kragujevac and TV Kraljevo Local printed 88% (3% each) and others with less than 3% each. As expected, Belgrade-based NGOs National printed 75% (49%) have better cooperation with B92, than those from Vojvodina (13%) and Central Serbia (6%). Also, older organizations (24%), those dealing with the National electronic (TV, radio) 66% development of civil society (24%), big NGOs (37%) and non-FENS members (22%) have better cooperation with B92 than others. RTS is most accessible for NGOs from Belgrade (23%), and as expected, RTV Vojvodina for those from Vojvodina (31%), 67% with no existent cooperation with NGOs from other regions. In addition, RTV Local media Vojvodina is especially open to NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology Big media, with national coverage 6% (18%).  2009 Equally q y 28%  2005 Here is the list of the electronic media that NGOs had best cooperation with: NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 64: Electronic - please name one electronic media you had best cooperation ed with cooperation between yourwith? organization and the media?Multiple answers; Base: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the electronic media (97% Base: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the media (98% of target population)of target p p g population) Danas 16% B92 18% Ostale lokalne novine 16% RTS 11% Blic 14% RTV Vojvodina 9% Politika 9% Studio B 4% Ve ernje Novosti 7% RTV Kragujevac 3% Dnevnik Dne nik 7% TV Kraljevo 3% Magyar Szo 3% RTV Pan evo 3% 3% Pan evac TV Požega 2% 3% Narodne novine TV 5, Niš 2% Suboti ke novine 3% TV 5, Užice 2% 2% The next four graphs show marks on a 5-point scale: satisfaction with organizational Radio Zrenjanin cooperation with the media, a general rating of the development of cooperation 1% between the NGO sector and the media, rating the media’s perception of the NGO Jasenica sector, and an evaluation of the importance of cooperation between these two 1% sectors. TV VK Kikinda 1% Responses indicate that cooperation with the media is seen as very important, with TV Leskovac this view shared by almost all the representatives of the NGO sector (average mark 1% 4.7). Also, the experiences of this cooperation up to now are mostly positive (the TV Jedinstvo average mark on the scale for satisfaction – 4). As many as 71% of respondents are satis ed with the cooperation achieved, and only 5% expressed dissatisfaction with the cooperation achieved up to the present.Among printed media, DANAS was considered the most accessible for NGOs (16%),then other di erent local media (16%), BLIC (14%), Politika (9%), Večernje novosti On the other hand, it is felt that cooperation is not su ciently developed when the(7%), Dnevnik (7%), and then other printed media (each 3% or less). NGOs dealing sector as a whole is taken into account (the average mark for cooperation is 3.1 onwith the development of civil society (29%), Belgrade based (28%) and medium size the 5-point scale. Also, the most stated opinion is that the media inadequately andNGOs (26%) have the best cooperation with DANAS, while NGOs dealing with only partially understand the importance of the NGO sector in Serbia (the mosthumanitarian and social work cooperate with DANAS in only 4% of the cases. Other frequently given score is 3.3 on the 5-point scale).local newspapers are most accessible in Central Serbia (23%), BLIC (24%) andPOLITIKA (30%) in Belgrade, and DNEVNIK (22%) in Vojvodina. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data ed with cooperation between your Reporting by means of newspaper articles is the most common in Belgrade (81%),organization and the media? and the rarest in Central Serbia (47%), which is in accordance with the data alreadyBase: those who had any kind of cooperation or contact with the media (98% of target population) received that the printed media is more accessible in Belgrade. Graph 67: In your opinion, to what extent do the media understand the importance and the role of NGOs? 29% Base: Total target population 35% Very satisfied 68% 71% Satisfied 39% Neutral 9% 9% 36% Dissatisfied Di i fi d 35% 40% Yes completely 26% 31% 25% 24% Completely dissatisfied Maynly yes 6% 4% Yes and no 48% 45% Mainly M i l no 2005 2009 Not at all 15% 11% 3% 3%In general, journalists are blamed for the problems in cooperation - the signi canceof the active role of NGOs in cooperation with the media is not recognized. The 2005 2009respondents most often gave the following reasons for their dissatisfaction withtheir cooperation with the media: Graph 68: In general, how would you evaluate cooperation between the media • There is no investigative reporting in the field of monitoring the NGO sector and the NGO sector in Serbia? (49%); Base: Total target population • Low level of professionalism among journalists (34%); • The media is not interested in reporting about NGO activities (27%); 5% 3% • It comes to “twisting” of information in the media, in order to create a 20% 25% Very developed sensational topic (24%); • Prices of media ads are very high (20%); Developed • NGOs are not trained well enough for cooperation with the media (15%); 51% 49% Neutral Underdeveloped U d d l dHowever, 11% of the respondents stated that there were no problems and that theyhad good cooperation with the media. 22% Completely underdeveloped 22%NGOs promote the results of their projects in various ways, and most often theyappear as reports in the media (42%), press conferences (26%), reports and 2005 2009elaborates (22%), as well as via websites and mailing lists (21%).The next graph indicates that the most common way for the media to cover the How do NGOs evaluate the attitude of the media towards the sector? The majority ofactivities of NGOs is by interviewing their representatives (stated by 78% of respondents feel that there are di ering opinions amongst the media regarding therespondents). Coverage of activities through various newspaper articles is the next NGO sector, with some parts having a positive attitude and some negative (43% of allon the list (62%), followed by paid advertising (9%). respondents). Also, there is a high percentage of respondents who feel that most of the media has a more positive than negative attitude towards the NGO sector (33%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataOn this question, there are no signi cant di erences depending on the research 1.10. Personnel and volunteersvariables, except for Belgrade-based NGOs that in 18% of the cases think that theattitude of the majority of media is positive (compared to Central Serbia – 40%), and Research ndings show that the method of employing new personnel has not30% of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society stating that the majority of changed when compared to 2005. Most NGOs (77.2%) hire new sta depending onthe media is absolutely uninterested, they have neither positive nor negative attitude. the project, without a developed system. Fewer organizations (16.7%) have some already developed system of hiring. The fewest number of NGOs stated that they doAn evaluation of the situation of the organizations in the area of cooperation with not hire new sta or did not give an answer (5.7%).the media shows that 39% of respondent organizations feel that there is no need for When results are compared in terms of the year of registration, a signi cantfurther training, which is more than it was in 2005 (32%), 51% believe the situation is di erence is visible with 25% of NGOs registered before 2000 and 10% of NGOsgood, but that further training is necessary, while only 9% think that training in the registered in 2000 and later having a developed system for employment. eld of cooperation with the media is necessary. On this question there are no great Organizations dealing with humanitarian and social work have a much betterdi erences depending on the research variables. developed system for hiring new sta (21%) than those dealing with youth,Graph 69: How would you evaluate the importance of cooperation between the economy and professional associations (12%). Larger NGOs hire sta based on a developed system more often than do smaller organizations (39% of organizationsmedia and the NGO sector?Base: Total target population with more than 30 sta /activists in comparison to 11% of organizations with less than 14 members of sta /activists), FENS members (21%) and those in Belgrade (23%). In Central Serbia there is a more dominant tendency of hiring new sta depending on projects in comparison to the average gure (83%). In Vojvodina, there is the greatest tendency of not hiring new sta (13% of organizations). 5 Very important y y y Graph 70: In what way do you employ new personnel? Grade 4 We have developed system (job 17% 71% 78% announcements and ads, with conditions Grade 3 17% and criteria) 76% Grade 2 Depending on project, we have no 14% developed system 77% 17% 11% 4% 1 Completely 7% 2005 unimportant No N answer / D not employ Do t l 6% 2009 2005 2009 The most frequent way of recruiting volunteers is through their own initiative: 23% of volunteers apply themselves, i.e. “they just come to the organization”. This is followed by personal contacts, friends and family ties (16%), via ads and competitions (12%). In 9% of cases, volunteers come on recommendation or are engaged depending on the project. Volunteers mostly apply themselves or come to an NGO that deals with the development of civil society (35%), middle size NGOs (26%), non-FENS NGOs (25%) and those in Belgrade (25%). Volunteers are found through personal contacts, acquaintances and family ties more often by NGOs registered after 2000 (18%) than by those before 2000 (13%), mostly by NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (20%) and least by NGOs dealing with civil society development (3%). NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data Graph 72: Which are the problems you are faced with regarding employedThe practice of recruiting volunteers by advertisements and competitions is morepresent in newly formed NGOs (14%) than in older (9%), in those dealing with the y members and volunteers in your NGO, 2009?protection of human rights (16%), and in only few cases in those dealing withhumanitarian and social work (4%). In terms of regions, volunteers in Vojvodina are Not defined nor regulated status of volunteers 55%recruited through advertisements s by only 6% of respondent organizations. in SerbiaVolunteers are the most present in NGOs dealing with culture, education and Recruitment and keeping of personnel in NGO 28%ecology (16%), least in civil society development NGOs (4%), and only in 5% ofVojvodina-based NGOs. It is worth mentioning that volunteers are engaged Insufficiently experienced personnel 25%depending on projects mostly by NGOs dealing with youth, economy, andprofessional associations (13%) and FENS members (13%), and least by non-FENS Insufficient motivation of engaged members 23%NGOs (4%). The recruitment of volunteers among students, pupils and theirorganizations is mostly carried out by big organizations (17%) and those from Recruitment of volunteers 11%Belgrade (15%) and only in 1% of NGOs in Central Serbia. Inadequate management of volunteers and / or 6% nd volunteers, 2009? members employed Funding 2% They apply themselves, they come 23% No problems 10% Personal contacts, acquaintances, family ties 16% 4% No answer Via ads and competitions 12% The most frequent problem that NGOs encounter with sta and volunteers is the They are our members 11% neither de ned nor regulated status of volunteers in Serbia (55%). This is followed by 9% problems related to recruitment and keeping of NGO personnel (28%), insu ciently On recommendation experienced personnel (25%) and insu cient motivation of engaged members They are engaged depending on project 9% (23%). Problems with the recruitment of volunteers are present in 11% of the cases, while only 6% of NGOs have problems with inadequate management. Although the Among students, pupils and their organizations 6% economic situation in the country is bad, the problem of funding (related to employed sta and volunteers) appears at the bottom of the list (on average 2% of Informal way, in contact with citizens 5% organizations stated this as one of the problems that their organization had). 4% Through various promotional activities and… Concern over the nonexistent legal framework for volunteering is mostly present 4% among NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (66%), FENS members In cooperation with other NGOs (60%) and NGOs from Central Serbia (60%), and least among NGOs dealing with 3% culture, education and ecology (39%), non-FENS NGOs (50%) and those from From volunteer centers Belgrade (49%). NGOs dealing with youth, economy, and professional associationsIn cooperation with institutions (SIZ, The Red Cross) 3% have the most problems with the recruitment and retention of personnel (37%), followed by protection of human rights NGOs (35%), while the fewest NGOs dealing Soldiers during their civil army service 2% with humanitarian and social work reported confronting this problem (17%). It seems that insu ciently experienced personnel is an equal problem for all types of They found out about us from the media 2% NGOs, especially for big NGOs (32%), those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations have the fewest problems (12%). An insu cient 1% They Th are users of our services f i motivation of engaged members is most present as a problem in NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (28%), and least in NGOs dealing wit the NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataprotection of human rights (28%), and least in NGOs dealing with the development 1.11. Attitude of the public towards NGOsof civil society (15%), while the other research variables do not have relevance to theanswers obtained. It is worth mentioning that, when all types of NGOs are The public attitude towards the NGO sector is judged to be mainly neutral (46% ofcompared, big NGOs (31+) primarily face problems with recruiting volunteers (24%). respondents give mark 3 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is an expressly negative attitude and 5 expressly positive). However, there is a signi cant increase in positive attitudes when compared to 2005, from 21% to 29%, with a decrease in negative attitudesGraph 73: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in terms from 32% to 25%. The positive evaluation of the attitude of the environment towardsof employing personnel and recruiting volunteers? Do you need additional NGOs is the highest among NGOs registered before 2000 (36%), those dealing witheducation? youth, economy, and professional associations (40%), medium sized (31%), non-FENS (31%) and those from Central Serbia (35%). The lowest evaluation is among NGOs registered after 2000 (22%), those that work on the development of civil society (19%), big (25%), FENS members (26%) and those based in Belgrade 22% (19%). When compared to data from another survey (“Perception of NGOs in Serbia” Education in this field is necessary y carried out in May 2009), it may be noted that citizens’ perceptions have not 18% changed so signi cantly. This means that NGOs’ perception of their own images is a 48% bit better than among citizens. It s good, It’s good but that we need additional 46% Graph 74: How would you evaluate the attitude of the environment towards the education NGO sector as a whole? Base: Total target population 28% We have no need for additional education 35% 5% 4% 2% 2005 21% 16% 29% No answer 25% 0% 2009 Very positive attitude Positive attitude 48% 46% NeutralThe rating of the situation in the organizations in terms of hiring sta and recruiting Negative ttit d N ti attitudevolunteers is similar to the one in 2005, with an increased con dence amongrespondents in terms of their knowledge/skills of the topic. The dominant opinion is 25% Very negative attitude 23%that the situation is good, but that they still need additional training in this eld (46% 7% 2%chose this answer), 18% think that additional training in this eld is necessary, while35% think that they do not need additional training in this eld. NGOs dealing withhumanitarian and social work most identi ed a need for additional training (26%), 2005 2009and only 12% of NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology reportedneeding additional training. In Belgrade, the prevailing opinion among respondents Higher marks are noticeable when the respondents reported how they saw theis that their organizations do not need additional training (47% as opposed to attitude of the community in which they worked toward their NGO. Perceptions ofCentral Serbia-26% and Vojvodina -39%). There are no signi cant di erences in positive attitudes (marks 4 and 5) have increased from 51% in 2005 to 55% in 2009.answers depending on the size of organization, the year of its establishment, and As in 2005, it may be said that the respondents perceive the attitude of theFENS membership. community in which they work as much more favorable and positive toward their own organizations than towards the NGO sector as a whole. Perceptions of negative public attitudes towards their own NGOs were reported by 1% of NGOs registered before 2000 and 9% of NGOs registered after 2000, and these are the most signi cant di erences. As for positive attitudes, those that were registered before 2000 (62%), those dealing with culture, education and ecology (65%), NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data Graph 76: How would you evaluate the extent to which citizens in yourthose that are large (70%) and those based in Belgrade (62%) mostly believe that thepublic has a positive attitude towards their NGOs, while 47% of NGOs registered environment are informed about activities of the NGO sector? Base: Total target populationafter 2000, dealing with the protection of human rights and those from CentralSerbia think the same.Graph 75: How would you evaluate the attitude of the environment you are active 3% 6%in towards your organization? 13% 11%Base: Total target population Very well informed 36% 40% Informed 14% 14% Neutral Uninformed Very positive attitude 36% 35% 37% 41% Completely uninformed 51% 55% Positive attitude Neutral 11% 8% Negative attitude 36% 40% 2005 2009 Very negative attitude 10% Graph 77: How interested are citizens in your environment in activities of the NGO 5% sector? Base: Total target population 2005 2009Perceptions of public awareness about the activities of the NGO sector are relatively 3% 3% 9% 11%low, with 43% of respondents identifying the public as uninformed or completelyuninformed, and only 17% of respondents identifying the public as informed or very Very interestedwell informed. Regional di erences are noticeable in answers to this question, with 36% 33%respondents from Central Serbia perceiving the citizens of Serbia to be informed Interestedabout the work of the NGO sector to a greater degree (21%), especially compared to Neutralthe respondents from Belgrade (11%). Overall, there is a slightly positive shift in this Uninterestedarea in comparison to 2005, with a smaller percentage of perceptions of citizens as 41% 43%being uninformed or completely uninformed (from 47% to 43%) and an increase in Completely uninterestedperceptions of citizens as beingneutral (from 36 to 40%), and informed or very wellinformed (from 16 to 17%). 10% 10%When asked “How interested are citizens in your area in the work of the NGO sector”, 2005 2009negative marks were expressed to a slightly greater extent (53% in 2009 comparedto 51% in 2005), but with also a slight increase in those interested or very interested(from 12% in 2005 to 14% in 2009). Responses to this question demonstrated no 40% of the responding NGO representatives stated that their organizations hadgreat di erences depending on the research variables (between organizations of public relations strategies, which is a signi cant drop when compared to 2005 (53%).varying size, from various regions, formed before or after 2000, FENS members or There are no signi cant di erences among NGOs, except by size and region – 62% ofnon-members). Organizations dealing with youth, economy and professional big organizations, and 51% of those based in Belgrade, reported having publicassociations felt to a greater degree (21%) that citizens were interested in the work relations strategies.of the NGO sector, while only 5% of those dealing with culture, education andecology shared this view. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 78: Does your organization have any strategy for public relations?Base: Total target population Central Serbia (36%) – as a result, it is clear that computers are more often used as an ‘e cient’ medium to make contact with NGOs in Belgrade. As expected, media campaigns are mostly run by NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights (64%), and only by 31% of NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work. 47% 59% No The preparation of annual reports, as a means of communicating with the public, is most common among big organizations (63%). 53% 40% Yes Graph 79: In what way does your organization communicate with the public? Base: Total target population 2005 2009 Printed material – 65%When explaining the ways in which their organizations communicate with the brochures, flyers, leaflets, posters 71%public, the most frequently given answers are: printed materials, i.e. brochures, 67% yers, lea ets, posters (71%), direct contact with citizens/clients (61%), public Direct contact with citizens/users 61%announcements (60%), press conferences (57%), media campaigns (51%), internetpresentations, websites (52%), annual reports (29%). When compared to the 2005 58%data, there is a clear change in the way NGOs communicate with the public. There is Public announcements 60%a general increase in all aspects of communication with citizens, except for the direct 47%contact, which has decreased from 67% in 2005. The biggest increases are in the use Press conferences 57%of press conferences (10% more) and webpage/internet (9%) to communicate withthe public. Signi cant di erences are shown when the frequency of using printed 43%materials to reach the public is compared depending on the type and size of the Web page (internet site) 52%organization. Only 49% of organizations dealing with humanitarian and social workprint materials, while 81% of those dealing with culture, education and ecology 50%print materials. Also, more big organizations (94%) print signi cantly than do small Media campaigns 51%NGOs (65%). 27% Annual report 29%It is important to note that NGOs in general have decreased direct contact withcitizens. Citizens (various groups or as a whole) should be the primary users and 8%constituents of NGOs; furthermore, direct contact with citizens is an issue that can be Billboards Billb d 8%connected with issues of public trust in NGOs, the NGO’s public image, and citizens’ 3%motivation to get involved. Given all this, the trend of decreasing contacts with Other 2005citizens is rather worrying and is something to be seriously considered by NGOs. 2% 2009There are no major di erences among NGOs related to their direct contacts withcitizens/users and the frequency of issuing public announcements. Pressconferences are held by 48% of smaller organizations and by 82% of larger 92% of respondent NGOs have their own logo, 37% a slogan, and 33% a publicorganizations. Organizations dealing with the development of civil society use web relations manager. When compared to 2005, it seems that there is a trend for NGOspages and websites more signi cantly (65%) than do organizations dealing with to invest more into visual identity and less in human resources. There are no greathumanitarian and social work (35%). Statistically signi cant di erences between the di erences in answers to this question depending on the research variables (size ofsizes and regions of the organizations are also noticeable. The bigger the organization, membership in FENS, year of formation, eld of work, region). The onlyorganization, the more frequent its use of internet communication– 40% by small signi cant di erence is on the question of the employment of a public relationsNGOs, 67% by medium sized NGOs and 81% by big NGOs. Internet communication manager, with 49% of respondent NGOs dealing with youth, economy andis much more commonly used as a method of outreach in Belgrade (76%) than is in professional associations employing a public relations manager. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 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, respondents gave the answers presented in the following graph (with the opportunity for multiple answers): 86% Graph 82: Name the reasons that have dominantly a ected the public image of the Logo 92% NGO sector in Serbia. 32% Slogan Insufficient public knowledge about the role 20% 37% of NGO 18% 35% 2005 Relationship of the media and 18% PR manager (person responsible for 17% 33% 2009 NGO, presence in the media public relations) 38% The very work of NGO, clear goal, program 13%T 20%With regard to public relations, 47% of respondents stated that the situation in their Political situation, politics, political parties 10%organization in this respect is good, but that further training is necessary. When 8%compared to 2005, it is apparent that NGOS have grown more con dent in their Politics f the former regime P liti of th f i 8%public relations skills, with 1/3 (36%) stating that they do not need further education 7% 2005in this area. This is also interesting considering that the public opinion poll indicates Conservativethat the popular image of NGOs has not signi cantly improved. environment, patriarchate, prejudice 7% 2009 Relationship of the authorities and 11%42% of NGOs that deal with the development of civil society, and those dealing with NGO, cooperation 5%culture, education and ecology, report that they have considerably less need for 6%further training in public relations. Interestingly enough, humanitarian and social Role in democratic streams democratization streams, 3%work NGOs (26%) and big organizations (23%) signi cantly more than others 8%express the need for further training. In the case of larger organizations, this can be Economic situation in the country, economic uncertainty 3%explained by the fact that more experienced NGOs realize that there is a signi cant 4%space for learning in the area of public relations. Foreign donations 3% 10%Graph 81: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in terms of Dont know 8%public relations? Do you need additional education?Base: Total target population The main factors a ecting the public image of the NGO sector are viewed as being insu cient knowledge about the role of the sector (18%), followed by NGOs’ relationships with the media (17%), the work of individual NGOs and the clarity of 23% We have no need for their goals and program (13%) and political situation/political parties (10%). It is 36% additional education interesting that although the same reasons were mentioned in the 2005 survey, their It’s good, but we need importance is now assessed as much lower than 4 years before; for example, the 51% signi cance of the work of NGOs, which in 2005 was seen as the predominant factor 47% additional education a ecting the public image of the sector, has dropped from 38% in 2005 to 13% in Education in this field is 2009. Similarly, a signi cant drop is seen in the perceived role of the political 25% 16% necessary situation and political parties (from 20% to 10%) and a slightly smaller drop is seen in the importance attributed, to the relationship with authorities (from 11% to 5%). 2005 2009 None of the factors that were previously seen as important have increased in perceived importance, so it is very di cult to draw any conclusions. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataThere are no major differences among NGOs, except in a few cases: 6% of 1.12. Diversity within the sector/regional standardizationmedium-sized NGOs think that the work of NGOs and clarity of their goals andprogram are key in affecting the image of the sector. 17% of Belgrade-based NGOs When questioned as to the most important problems in the country that NGOsperceive the influence of political parties and political situation as most should address, or are already addressing, (multiple answers), respondents mostdominant,while 9% of NGOs from Central Serbia, to a greater extent than Belgrade- frequently mentioned the problems with living standards and economic problemsand Vojvodina-based NGOs, recognize engagement in social issues as dominant. (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:When asked “what is the most important factor in improving the image of the NGO significant increases may be seen in the mentions of ecology and socialsector in Serbia?” (with the opportunity for multiple answers) respondents stated problems/protection,, and issues of corruption and European integration.that the most significant factor was informing citizens about the role andimportance of the NGO sector (85%). Direct contact with citizens (65%) is also As expected, NGOs stress the importance of problems that they deal with in a widermentioned as very important (which is contradictory to the data that NGOs sense - the problem of economy and living standard are mostly stressed by NGOsdecreased direct contact with citizens in their public relations), then better dealing with the development of civil society (43%); the issue of human rights iscooperation with local authorities (57%), and improved responses to users’ needs usually pointed out by those NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights(56%). It is interesting that cooperation with the business sector was not mentioned (41%); then youth, economy and professional associations mostly stress problemsin the 2005 survey, while in 2009, 41% of the respondents (and 62% of NGOs dealing related to young people (33%); education is much more stressed by organizationswith youth, economy and professional associations) thought it was important for the dealing with culture, education and training (32%); social protection issues areimage of the sector, which shows a significantly changed perception of the underlined by organizations dealing with socio-humanitarian work (27% of theserelationship between the business sector and NGOs. A changed – improved organizations); etc. The status of marginalized groups is mostly perceived as therelationship with journalists was mostly perceived as important by Belgrade-based most important problem by NGOs dealing with the protection of human rightsNGOs (45%), and least by NGOs from Central Serbia (21%). Except for the above, (12%). There are no other differences among NGOs interviewed.there are no other great differences in the answers to this question depending onthe research variables. The distribution of answers is shown in the graph:Graph 83: What do you think is the most important factor for improvement of Graph 84: What are the most important problems in our country that NGO should/NGO sector image in Serbia? already are dealing with?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population Multiple answers; Base: Total target population 25% 72% Living standard, economic problems Informing citizens about the role and importance of 25% NGO sector 85% 26% Human rights 24% 40% Direct contact with citizens (forums, round tables etc) 10% 65% Environmental protection, ecology 18% 35% 21% Realization of better cooperation with local authorities p 57% Education 17% 12% 30% Social problems, social protection 16% Upgraded responding to users’ needs 2005 46% 11% Young people youth people, 13% 2009 Better cooperation with business sector 10% 41% Unemployment 10% 28% 10% Realization of better cooperation with politicians and Laws, implementation of laws, rule of laws 37% 10% influential people 2005 4% 22% Corruption 8% Changed – upgraded relationship with journalists 2009 31% 4% European integrations 8% NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataWhen asked about the areas in which NGOs are not present to a su cient extent, we When asked if there is a eld in which too many NGOs are active at the expense ofcan see a growing concern for environmental protection and ecology, as this area is neglecting other elds, the average of “yes” responses was 29%, with Belgrade-on the top of the “not covered” with 13% (8% in 2005). It is followed by social based NGOs being much above the average (44%).problems/social protection (9%, compared to 6% in 2005), while all other areas showa signi cant drop in terms of not being covered by NGOs which shows the opinion Respondents think that in 40% of the cases, NGOs meet the needs of the localof su ciently present NGOs in various elds/areas (as listed in the graph). community; this represents an increase when compared to 2005 (37%). At the same time, the frequency of the response “not meeting the needs of the local commu-FENS members are especially concerned for the future of the community, nity” has dropped to 12% (from 20% in 2005). Most humanitarian and socialmunicipality, development (7%). work-related NGOs (59%) believe that NGOs meet the needs of the local communi- eld in which the NGO ties. This opinion is shared with 54% of NGOs from Central Serbia, while 21% of cient extent? Belgrade based NGOs believe that NGOs do not meet local community needs.Base: Total target population At the society level, the situation is the same as in 2005, with 38% of the respon- dents stating that NGOs meet the needs of the society. However, 15% of the 8% respondents think that NGOs do not meet the needs of the society – a decrease Environmental protection, ecology 13% compared to 2005 (19%). 6% Social problems, social protection 9% If we compare responses related to questions about meeting the needs of the local 8% community and meeting the needs of the whole society, respondents think that Living standard, economic problems 5% needs in the local community are met to a greater extent than those at the level of the whole society. 8% Education 5% Graph 86: Do NGOs respond to the needs of the local community? Base: Total target population 6% Human rights 5% Laws, implementation of laws, rule of 2% laws 5% 12% 11% 6% Young people, youth 4% Yes completely 37% 25% 29% 40% 5% Mainly yes Persons with disability y 4% Neutral 5% 2005 42% Children 3% 47% Mainly no 6% 2009 Not at at all Unemployment 2% 15% 11% 3% 5% 1% Culture, social life 1% 3% 2005 2009 Healthcare 1% 4% Rights of women 1% 2% Rights of minority NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 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%). 12% 9% Other sources of nancing include membership fees (23% of respondent 29% 38% Yes completely organizations), contributions (18% of respondent organizations), and self- nancing 38% 26% of activities (17% of respondent organizations). It is interesting that general Mainly yes (institutional) support has increased (15% in 2009 compared to 8% in 2005). Neutral Voluntary work is a prevalent method of nancing NGOs in Vojvodina (63%). 42% 46% Financing based on membership fees is somewhat more present among larger Mainly no organizations (32%), as well as among organizations dealing with humanitarian and Not at at all social work (34%), and least common among NGOs dealing with the protection of 15% human rights (13%). Humanitarian and social work NGOs, to a greater extent than 14% 4% 1% others, have general/institutional support (40%), while more Belgrade-based NGOs nance themselves through contract-based service provision (22%). 2005 2009 nanced? Multiple answers; Base: Total target populationWhen asked about the most important eld in which activities of the NGO sector arelacking respondents mentioned environmental protection and ecology (15%), andstandards of living and, economic problems (8%). We 84% are financed on basis of projects 88% 54% Our work is voluntary 47% 21% Membership fees 23% 23% Voluntary contributions 18% 2005 26% 2009 Self financing activities 17% 8% We have general (institutional) support 15% 16% Providing services on basis of contracts 13% 18% Presents 13% 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
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataincrease in the percentage of organizations funded by entirely local sources, including funding slightly decreased from 2005 to 2009 (i.e. Ministry of Culture from 20% to 13%,local government (from 36% to 53%), domestic donor organizations (from 34% to Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning from 9% to 7%, Ministry of Education49%), ministries (from 17% to 44%), the business sector (from 27% to 35%) and nally from 9% to 4% etc). However, several ministries that were not mentioned as sources ofregional government (from 13% to 22%). On the other hand, self- nancing has support in 2005 were included in the list of funders in 2009: such are the Ministry ofdecreased to 28% (from 34%), as has individual giving from citizens (11% in 2009 Economy and Regional Development (6%), Ministry of Telecommunications (1%),compared to 15% in 2005). Ministry of Public Administration (1%) and Ministry of Foreign A airs (1%). nances your organization? It can be noticed that older, larger organizations, and speci cally those dealing withMultiple answers; Base: Total target population humanitarian and social work, more frequently reported receiving nancing from ministries (66%). 74% nance your NGO International donor organizations 75% nances organization (44% of target population) 36% Local government 53% 51% 34% The Ministry of Labor and Social Policy 40% Domestic donor organizations 49% 7% 17% The Ministry for Sports and Youth 37% Ministry 44% 2005 20% 2009 The Ministry of Culture 13% 27% Business sector (enterprises, companies) 35% The 9% Ministry for Environmental Protection 7% 34% Self financing 28% The Ministry of Economy and Regional Development 6% 13% Regional government 3% 22% The Ministry of Health 6% 15% 4% Citizens The Ministry for Human and Minority 11% 4% issues 9% The Ministry of Education y 4%International donations are an equally important resource for nances for all NGOs,regardless of their specializations, with 54% of respondent humanitarian and social 4%NGOs and 91% of respondent NGOs dealing with the development of civil society The Ministry of Agriculture 4% 2005receiving international funds. However, regional di erences are evident – in Vojvo- 4%dina, the local administration has a larger share in nancing NGOs (63%), than do its The Ministry of Science y 2009 2%counterparts in Belgrade (44%) and Central Serbia (52%). Vojvodina-based NGOs alsoreceive support from the Province Government (67%) in comparison to Belgrade and The Ministry of Telecommunications 1%Central Serbia which do not have this institutional resource. The Ministry of Public Administration andAlthough there has been a signi cant increase in the overall funding coming from Local Self Government l lf 1%various Ministries, there is quite a di erence between Ministries. While the Ministry ofLabor and Social Policy is still the largest ministerial funder, the percentage of respon- The Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1%dent NGOs receiving its support decreased from 51% in 2005 to 40% in 2009. On thecontrary, the percentage of respondent NGOs receiving support from the Ministry of 2% The Ministry of Defence 1%Youth and Sport, the second largest funder, increased from 7% in 2005 to 37% in 2009.In most other cases, the percentages of respondent NGOs receiving ministerial NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataOf the respondent NGOs funded by the business sector, most (48%) work with the good or excellent. Unlike them, smaller NGOs and those founded earlier (before 2000)development of civil society. This is a change when compared to 2005, when mainly assess their nancial situation as rather bad, with up to 60% of respondents from theseeducational and cultural organizations (39%) were funded by businesses. categories assessing the situation as bad or very bad.) Graph 92: To what extent would it be acceptable for your organization to beWhen assessing the relationship with donors, respondents gave positive marks moreoften than in 2005 (78%, an increase from 63%). The average mark was 4.1 (on 5-point t duringscale, where 1 means a very bad and 5 a very good relationship). A somewhat worse the regime of Milosevic? Base: Total target populationassessment in this area was given by smaller organizations dealing with culture andeducation, as well as by organizations from Vojvodina.Graph 91: How would you evaluate your relationship with donors? 10% 10%Base: Total target population 6% 4% 13% 12% Completely acceptable 9% 11% Mainly acceptable Yes and know 31% 63% 40% Excellent Not acceptable 78% 57% 63% Good Not acceptable at all 32% Neutral 38% Poor 24% Very poor 2005 2009 17% 8% 3% 2% 2% G h 93 H ld ti i t th h t nancial situation in your i l it ti i i organization? Base: Total target population 2005 2009When asked whether their organization would nd it acceptable to be nanced by 3% 1% Excellentindividuals and companies indicated to have earned extra pro t during the regime of 12% 12%Milosevic, respondents most often stated that they would not accept it (72%), which is Goodan increase compared to 2005 (68%). Older organizations, larger organizations, FENS 29% 36%members, organizations dealing with culture, education, and ecology, and Belgrade-based NGOs were most reluctant to accept this funding. Fair 26% 23%In assessing the current nancial situation, it seems that there are slight changes in Badcomparison to 2005: there is a decrease in the percentage of NGOs considering thesituation to be excellent and good (from 15% to 13%), but there is also a decrease in 29% 27% Very bad (on the verge ofthe percentage of organizations that believe the situation is very bad and bad (from survival)55% to 50%). On the other hand, there is an increase in the percentage of NGOs thatassess the situation as fair. Organizations founded before 2000, large organizations, 2005 2009and organizations based in Belgrade give a somewhat more positive assessment ofthe situation. When asked whether they had secured funds for the work of their organization inRepresentatives of organizations dealing with civil society gave somewhat more 2009, more than half of the respondents (56%) gave positive answers, which indicatesfavorable marks, with 17% stating that the nancial situation in their organization is a signi cant improvement when compared to 2005 (when only 37% secured funding for that year). Older NGOs (66%), those dealing with the development of civil society NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data Graph 96: Provisional annual budgets of NGOs for 2006, 2007, 2008 (2009 survey) p g y(63%), large organizations (76%), those that are not FENS members (59%) and thosebased in Belgrade (72%) were more successful at securing funds for the work of theirorganizations in the current year. Small NGOs (56%) and those dealing with youth, 16%economy and professional associations (53%) were least successful in acquiring funds No answer 17%for the current year. 18%Graph 94: Have you acquired funds for the work of your organization in this year? 12%Base: Total target population Over 100 000 € O 100.000 10% 10% 27% 1% 1% 28% 20.001 100.000 20 001 100 000 € 43% 26% 62% DK Ref 19% No 5.001 20.000 5 001 20 000 € 18% 20% 56% Yes 37% 15% 2008 1.001 5.000 € 16% 16% 2007 11% 2005 2009 2006 Up to 1.000 € 11% 10%When assessing whether annual donations for their organizations had increased,remained the same or reduced in the past 3 years, the largest percentage (47%) of The largest percentage refers to organizations with provisional annual budgets ofrespondents thought that they had reduced, 22% were of the opinion that they between 20,001 and 100,000 € (32%), followed by organizations with annualremained the same, while 30% stated that they have increased. It is worth mentioning budgets between 5,001 and 20,000 € (24%), followed by organizations with annualthat the number of respondent organizations that have experienced reductions in budgets of between 1001 – 5000 € (20%). Interestingly, over 12% of organizationstheir annual funding signi cantly increased from 2005 (from 39% to 47%). There are reported annual budgets larger than 100,000 €. A relatively high percentage ofno major di erences in answers depending on research variables. NGOs did not provide an answer to this question (18%). When the new data are compared to the 2005 survey, the following conclusion can be drawn: in the currentGraph 95: Has the annual budget of your organization been increased, remained research (2009), the number of respondents ready to state the provisional budgetthe same or reduced in the past 3 years? amount is larger (84%) than in the previous research (75%).Base: Total target population Graph 97: 2004/2008 - Can you please write down your budgets, roughly, for the p y past 3 years? Base: Those who answered the question q 4% 1% We were not established at 30% that time 12% 30% 22% Up to 1.000 € Increased 20% 22% 25% 1.001 5.000 1 001 5 000 € 25% 24% Remained the same 5.001 20.000 € 27% 47% 32% 20.001 100.000 € 39% Reduced 19% Over 100.000 € 7% 12% 2005 2009 2005 2009 NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataTable 2: Stated budgets in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in EUR Total Year of registration Priority area of activity Size Member of FENS Region Culture, education, Humanitarian and Young, economy, Development of Central Serbia human rights Protection of 2000 or later professional associations Before 2000 civil society social work Vojvodina Belgrade Up to 14 ecology 15-30 31+ Yes NoN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2006 54303 83020 30571 57007 33653 45214 115644 46457 30381 70298 140027 60464 47318 106399 44074 308262007 65960 104207 35004 77888 46849 52103 138181 47989 31873 79349 217012 73873 57216 120223 58565 355192008 103334 185566 34570 82841 67358 40321 362209 74069 87502 78340 273179 136035 67288 138889 121179 48111The average annual budget of NGOs has almost doubled from 2006 (54.303 €) to nancing NGOs in2008 (103.334 €). Older organizations, those dealing with the development of civil Serbia in the future?society, FENS members, big and small organizations are those whose budgets have Multiple answers; Base: Total target populationdoubled, and, when based in Central Serbia, almost tripled (from 44.074EUR to121.179EUR). On the other hand, organizations working with youth, economy, andprofessional associations have experienced slight decreases in their annual budgets 53%(45.214 € in 2006, 52103 € in 2007 and 40.321 € in 2008). This is an interesting trend, State through special f d S h h i l funds 82%and requires further elaboration. Considering that there is a clear increase infunding for youth-related NGOs provided by the Ministry of Youth, these annual 31%budget decreases may indicate an increase in competition for these funds, i.e. a Local governments 66%larger number of youth related NGOs that apply for the same source of funding,and/or smaller funds per NGO provided through this Ministry than through other 48%sources. Donors from abroad (the same as now) 60% 41%When they were asked, “What would be the best way to nance NGOs in Serbia in Business sector 56%the future?” respondents gave answers that show increased expectations towardsdomestic funding sources, primarily the state, either through special funds (82%) or 37%by local government (66%). This can be explained by the strong advocacy e orts led Domestic foundations 55%by Civic Initiatives through CSAI and other projects in 2008/2009, aimed atestablishing institutional mechanism of cooperation and transparent funding, when 23%models of state nancing were introduced. The NGO community has been informed Self financing 21% 2005about the good practices of nancing through lottery funds, public national 8%foundations and similar which exist in U.K, Croatia and other countries. Furthermore, 2009 Citizens’ contributions 13%respondents are expecting more diversi ed funding coming increasingly frominternational donors (60%), business sector (66%), domestic foundations (66%) andcitizen’s contributions (18%). It is interesting to mention that only in 21% of the casesNGOs expect funding from self- nancing. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataRespondents think that improvements in the nancial transparency of NGO work can 1.14. Involvement of the community – users in the work of NGOsbe achieved in the following way: Graph 100: In what way does your organization include users in its work? Multiple answers; Base: Total target population 1. The state should simplify the regulations on nancial management (69%) 2. A change of tax policy (64%) 69% 3. Educating NGOs how to manage the nances (46%) We try to discover users’ needs 67% 4. Obligatory annual nancial reports (43%) 60% We check how satisfied users are with 5. Hiring nancial experts (auditors, bookkeepers) (24%) 59% our work (evaluation) 6. Other (less than 1%) 42% We consult users during planningEach of the factors increased in comparison to 2005. Di erences depending on the process 46%research parameters were not found. However, it is interesting that respondents 40%indicated higher expectations toward the state, in terms of providing an enabling We recruit users as volunteers 46%environment (through simpler regulations and changes to tax policies), than towardNGOs’ own e orts (for example, educating NGOs about nancial management). 35% We accept users as members of our organization 34% 2005 nancial transparency of the work 2% 2009of NGOs be improved, as an important segment of upgrading public image of Other h 2%NGOs?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population The results from the graph above lead to a conclusion that NGOs most often involve users in their work by analyzing their needs (67% of organizations), as well as 60% through evaluations of the organizations’ work, i.e. by checking how satis ed the State should simplify regulations about management of finance 69% users were with their work (59%). Respondents also mentioned that they consult users in planning (46%), recruit users as volunteers (46%) and accept users as their 53% members (34%). The data are similar to those from 2005, except for a slight increase Tax policy change 64% in the number of NGOs consulting users during the planning process (from 42% to 46%) and recruiting users as volunteers (from 40% to 46%). Of the respondents, big 45% NGOs (77%) and those from Central Serbia (77%) more frequently involved Education of NGOs about management of finance 46% community-users than did NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (45%). FENS members (68%) reported conducting evaluations of their work more often 36% than did organizations that are not FENS members (49%), and organizations in Compulsory public announcement of annual financial reports 43% Belgrade reported conducting evaluations of their work (63%) more often than did 2005 their counterparts in Central Serbia and Vojvodina (57 and 58% respectively). Similar 18% Engagement of financial experts 2009 trends are apparent in the use of other methods of soliciting user involvement, with (auditors, bookkeepers) 24% FENS members, larger organizations, and Belgrade-based organizations more prone to consulting users during planning, recruiting users as volunteers and accepting users as members of the organizations than are NGOs in Central Serbia and Vojvodina. When asked about needs analyses in the project proposal preparation phase, as many as 59% of organizations reported that they always conduct needs analyses - similar to 2005 (58%). The remaining 42% either do this only when the conditions NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data Graph 102: Do you collect data about users’ reactions after the projectrequest them to, or they do not conduct needs analyses at all. The respondentorganizations reported that needs assessments are carried out when big projects are implementation phase? In what way does your organization collect data aboutbeing prepared (21%), when donors require them (5%), or when time allows (5%). users’ reactions? Multiple answers; Base: Total target population10% of respondents stated that they did not conduct any needs assessments. Whencompared to 2005, it is apparent that NGOs are more active in polling users’reactions only when big projects are concerned, while in all other cases the 62%percentage of NGOs that poll users’ reactions has decreased. The number of NGOs Formal responses users are asked for (forthat do not poll users’ reactions at all has increased since 2005 (from 6% to 10%). The example opinion polls, interviews) 61% nding that so many NGO projects are not based on needs assessments is telling,especially considering the data that around 40% of organizations think that NGOs 32% Informal ways of collecting feedback fromare meeting the needs of their communities. users (individually) 47%Graph 101: Do you examine users’ needs while preparing project proposals? 5% 2005 We have never collected data about users’ reactions 9% 2009 58% Yes, always 59% 16% Yes, in case of big projects (that last longer than a year) 21% 9% Yes, if it is the donor’s request 5% 10% Yes, when we have time for it 5% 2005 6% No 10% 2009There were no di erences in the answers to this question depending on researchvariables, except that NGOs that are FENS members reported conducting needs analysesmore often than did non-FENS members (16% of them answered “No” compared to 4%of FENS members); in terms of regions, more organizations in Central Serbia respondedthat they did NOT conduct needs analyses (i.e. more CSOs answered ‘No’) and fewerorganizations and Belgrade and Vojvodina made that response.NGO representatives most often reported that the feedback on users’ reactions wasobtained formally and directly from the users through questionnaires or interviews(61%), while 47% stated that they received informal feedback, a signi cant increasein collecting informal feedback when compared to 2005 (32%). At the same time, 9%of respondent organizations reported having never collected users’ observations,which is a slight increase compared to 2005 (5%). There were no signi cantdi erences depending on research variables. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data data1.15. Quality of services 39% of those that are not FENS members. Depending on the research variables there are no other di erences.When asked to what extent users are satis ed with their work and services,respondents gave an exceptionally high average mark - 4.2 (on a 5-point scale, 1-not Graph 104: Do you carry out project success evaluation?satis ed at all, 5-completely satis ed), which indicates that NGO representatives Base: Total target populationperceive users’ satisfaction with their work as being extremely high. This indicatessome improvement, since, generally speaking, 86% stated that their bene ciaries aresatis ed (compared to 83% in 2005). None of our respondents chose the answer “users 7% 6% Mainly noare not satis ed at all”, while 33% think that users are completely satis ed with theirwork. Only 0.4% of answers indicated that respondents perceived their users’ 39% 47%dissatisfaction in this respect. There were no major di erences dependent on the Yes, both external andresearch variables in the answers to this question. internal ed with your work, i.e. your Mainly yes – internalservices? 46% 40% evaluationBase: Total target population Mainly yes – external 8% 7% evaluation 30% 33% 2005 2009 Completely satisfied Satisfied Of the NGO sector representatives, 43% reported that they carry out internal Yes and no evaluations of the success of their organizations, 35% stated that they carry out both 53% 53% external and internal evaluations, 3% responded that they carry out only external Dissatisfied evaluation, and 19% reported that they do not carry out any form of evaluation. Completely dissatisfied Compared to 2005, there has been a decrease in the rate of internal evaluations (from 14% 49% to 43%) and an increase in the rate of combined evaluations (both internal and 12% external) from 30% to 35%, with a slight increase in the rate of those that do not carry 2% 0% any type of evaluation (from 17% to 19%). 2005 2009 When the research variables are considered in examining these answers, more humanitarian and social work NGOs conduct internal evaluations (54%) than doRegarding project success evaluation, 47% of respondents stated that they carry out organizations with other focuses, and internal evaluations are least common amongboth internal and external evaluations, 40% stated that they carry out mainly internal Belgrade-based respondents (30%). Both types of organizational evaluations areevaluations, 7% stated that they carried out only external evaluations, and 6% of mostly conducted by big (49%) and Belgrade-based NGOs (48%), while only 25% ofrespondents answered that they did not carry out any type of evaluation of the those respondents dealing with youth, economy, and professional associations carrysuccess of their projects. Since 2005, there has been an increase in the number of out both types of organizational evaluations. Among organizations that reported notNGOs carrying out both types of evaluations (from 39% to 47%) and also a decrease in carrying out any evaluations at all, the highest percentage is in the category ofthe number of those carrying out only internal evaluation (from 46% to 40%). organizations working with youth, economy and professional associations (32%) – compared with only 9% of large organizations that reported not carrying out any typeIf we look at the distribution of answers by regions, the following results are obtained: of evaluation.more Belgrade-based respondents reported conducting both internal and externalevaluations (57% of respondent organizations), while organizations in Vojvodina morefrequently reported conducting solely internal evaluations (45% of respondentorganizations). Another di erence becomes apparent when the answers fromorganizations which are FENS members are compared to those of non-members –53% of FENS members carry out both internal and external evaluations, compared to NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 105: Do you carry out evaluation of the successfulness of yourorganization’s performance (regardless of projects)? 1.16. Training for the NGO personnelBase: Total target population Of the respondent organizations, 85% had training for their sta , while 15% did not. Compared to 2005, this indicates a 5% increase in the number of organizations o ering training for their sta . Organizations that had more training for their sta included older organizations (88%, compared to newer organizations 83%), those 17% 19% No dealing with the development of civil society (92%, compared to organizations focused on culture, education and ecology 80%), medium-size organizations (91%), 30% Yes, both external and FENS members (94%, compared to non-FENS 75%, which is the biggest di erence 35% internal within the same variable), and those from Central Serbia (89%, compared to Vojvodina NGOs 84%). Yes, internal Graph 106: Have you had any training for your personnel? 49% Base: Total target population 43% Yes, external 4% 3% 20% 15% 2005 2009 No 80% 85% Yes 2005 2009 The general rating of the level of sta training is 3.7 (on a 5-point scale, where 1 stands for “not satis ed at all” and 5 for “completely satis ed”), which speaks of a moderate level of satisfaction in regard to this question, although a bit higher than in 2005 when it was 3.5. When compared to data from 2005, more NGOs representatives report being satis ed/completely satis ed with sta training (61%, from 54%). Regarding satisfaction with the level of sta education, NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology (71%), big NGOs (70%), FENS members (63%) as well as those from Belgrade (70%) are to a somewhat greater extent satis ed with the level of training in NGOs compared to the respondents from other organizations. The year of registration has no e ect on the level of satisfaction regarding the education degree in NGOs – 61% of both older and newer NGOs are satis ed. NGOs dealing with humanitarian and social work (37% - with a general rating of 3.3), as well as small organizations (58%) and those based in Central Serbia (56%), seem to be less satis ed. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 107: Provide a general rate of education degree in your NGO. How wouldyou evaluate situation in your organization in terms of EDUCATION of your 17%personnel, i.e. members? Fund raising 22%Base: Total target population 17% Writing of project propositions 21% 36% Financial management 21% 13% 15% 21% Strategic p g planning g 20% Completely satisfied 15% 41% Media presentation, PR management, marketing 15% 46% Satisfied 19% Fair Lobbying and representing 14% 10% Not satisfied Management of projects 13% 38% 33% Not satisfied at all 10% Management of human resources 11% 6% 1% 4% 1% 7% Inter sector cooperation 6% 9% 2005 2009 Training of trainers (TOT) 5% International cooperation, getting familiar with European va 5%The main three elds in which representatives of NGOs most need training are, 5% 2005according to the respondents, fundraising(22%, up from 17% in 2005), writing of Team work and leadership 4%project proposals (21%, up from 17% in 2005), and training in nancial management 2009(21%, down from 36% in 2005). Fewer respondents identi ed lobbying and No area 3%representing as an priority area for education (from 19% in 2005, to 14% in 2009), 4% Computer literacy 3%and more identi ed project management as an area for additional training (from10% in 2005 to 13% in 2009). These data can be connected to the problems listed in 5% The area of legislative regulations (taxes...) 3%the previous graphs related to designing and implementing projects, where Issues and problems we are faced with, advanced 6%complex demands from funders were recognized as the biggest problem in both 3% trainingcases. At the same time, some of the topics have signi cantly decreased ( nancialmanagement and lobbying and representing – advocacy), which may indicate that Human rights 3%there has been su cient training in these topics. 2% Management 3% Graph 108: Please name up to three topics, areas in which you think you need 4% education as a priority. Learning foreign languages 3% Multiple answers; Base: Total target populationFundraising was identi ed as a priority training area for small NGOs (26%), Cooperation with authorities (state, local...) 2%organizations dealing with the development of civil society (28%), FENS members(27%) and organizations based in Vojvodina (27%). The respondents that identi ed Education Ed i 2%project proposal writing as a priority area show signi cant di erences according to Ecologythe research variables, with26% of older NGOs versus 17% of newer NGOs, 37% of 1%respondents dealing with humanitarian and social work versus 9% of those dealing Bookkeeping, administration 1%with culture, education and ecology, 29% of respondents from Central Serbia versus 3%only 10% from Vojvodina listing this topic as their priority. NGOs dealing with the How to attract donors, cooperation with business 1%development of civil society mostly listed nancial management (36%) and strategic sectorplanning (34%) as their educational priorities, while other types of NGOs do notdi er from the average. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataIn 2009, 58% of NGO representatives stated that their organization had used the 1.17. Cooperation with NGOs within the wider regionconsulting services of other organizations for the training of their sta (a decrease International projects, that is, projects in cooperation with NGOs from thewhen compared to 2005 – 61%), while 42% reported that they had not. Signi cant neighboring countries, have up to the present been carried out by 57% of thedi erences between the organizations depending on the research variables were respondent NGOs, which is a signi cant increase from 48% in 2005, and illustrates annot found, except in the case of humanitarian and social work NGOs, which least increased understanding among NGOs that some issues are common for all countriesengaged outside consultancy services (44%), and organizations working with youth, in the region. Older NGOs reported cooperating more with their NGOs fromeconomy, and professional associations, which most engaged outside consultancy neighboring countries (66%), than did newer NGOs (49%). Also, 71% of NGOs dealing with the development of civil society reported having engaged in regionalservices (68%). cooperation, while only 44% of while organizations focused on humanitarian and social work reported doing so. As might be expected, big NGOs referencedOrganizations that had used consulting services were asked to list the organizations international cooperation more often than did small NGOs (88%, versus 48%). Inthat most often provided consulting services. Respondents mentioned rst Civic comparison to the average, Belgrade-based NGOs cooperated signi cantly moreInitiatives (25%), followed by the Team TRI (13%), CRNPS (4%), and ASTRA (4%). often with organizations in other countries in the region (73%), while only 42% of respondent NGOs from Central Serbia had been involved in this form of cooperation.Civic Initiatives provided consultancy services mostly for older NGOs (28%), those Graph 110: Have you ever had any international/cross border project that youdealing with human rights (34%), small NGOs (28%), FENS members (33%) and for implemented in cooperation with some NGO from the surrounding countries? Base: Total target populationthose that come from Belgrade (28%). Organizations which are members of the FENSnetwork, in addition to Civic Initiatives, more often named the Team TRI as theorganization which o ered them consulting services than did non-FENSorganizations (18% compared to 6%). 52% 43% No NGraph 109: Have you ever used consulting services of other organizations fortraining for your personnel? YesBase: Total target population 48% 57% 2005 2009 39% 42% No Respondents identi ed the most important problems for the NGO sector sustainability in Serbia as: the lack of support by the state (83%), non-stimulating 61% 58% Yes legal regulations (82%), underdeveloped practice of business sector donorship (80%), and withdrawal of international donors named by (78%). It is interesting to note how the awareness of the need to cooperate at di erent levels and with di erent organizations and institutions to enable sustainability of the sector has increased (for example, with the business sector from 70% in 2005 to 80% in 2009). 2005 2009 Furthermore, there is a growing awareness of the need to improve cooperation among NGOs, with local authorities and with citizens to provide sustainability of the sector. Most of these variables show signi cant increases: insu cient (underdeveloped) cooperation among NGOs (from 36% to 52%), negative attitude of the surrounding citizens (from 56% to 63%) and insu cient cooperation with local authorities (from 65% to 68%). Cooperation with the media is perceived as the least problematic issue (in 45% of the cases, and as extremely important in 20% of NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data datathe cases), which is somewhat unusual, given that the media have signi cant 1.18. The most important problems for the sustainability of NGOsin uence on the NGO image and consequently on NGO visibility and strength as apartner to other sectors. There are no di erences among NGOs in the perception of Graph 111: How important are the following problems for the sustainability ofproblems. the NGO sector in Serbia - major importanceBearing in mind that these data were collected in mid 2009, before the adoption ofthe new NGO Law and while a very intensive advocacy campaign for its adoption was 81%underway, it is not surprising that “lack of support by the state” and “non-stimulating Lack of support by the statelegal regulations” were the highest ranked problems for the sustainability of the 83%sector. 79% Unstimulating legal regulations 82% 70% Underdevelopment of donorship within business sector 80% 75% Withdrawal of international donors 78% 65% Insufficient cooperation with local authorities 68% 56% Negative attitude of the surrounding, citizens 63% 51% Underdevelopment of NGO sector it lf U d d l t f t itself 61% 36% Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperation 52% 2005 among NGOs 44% 2009 Poor cooperation with the media 45% When discussing extremely important problems facing the sector, most respondents, again, mentioned non-stimulating legal regulations (58%), withdrawal of international donors (58%) and lack of support by the state (56%). Therefore, these problems were the rst to be dealt with, in terms of priorities. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 112: How important are the following problems for the sustainability of Graph 113: If these problems were to be dealt with one by one, how would youthe NGO sector in Serbia – EXTREMELY IMPORTANT rank them by priority? – First place Base: Total target population 58% Unstimulating legal regulations 28% Unstimulating legal regulations g g g 58% Withdrawal of international donors 19% Withdrawal of international donors 56% Lack of support by the state 18% Lack of support by the state Underdevelopment of donorship within 49% business sector Underdevelopment of donor ship within 10% 32% business sector Underdevelopment of NGO sector itself 8% Underdevelopment of NGO sector itself 32% Negative attitude of the surrounding, citizens 5% Negative attitude of the surrounding, citizens 33% Insufficient cooperation with l l authorities ff h local h 5% Insufficient I ffi i t cooperation with l l authorities ti ith local th iti Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperation 23% among NGOs Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperation 3% 20% among NGOs g Poor cooperation with the media 1% Poor cooperation with the media It is interesting that respondents perceive the importance of problems in the same way when speaking about the NGO sector in general and their own NGOs. NGOs IN SERBIA 2009
    • 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector Presentationndings data NGO sector Presentationndings the 4. Key of of data dataGraph 114: Rank the same problems by priority for your organization, regardlessof a general situation in the NGO sector – First placeBase: Total target population 29% Unstimulating legal regulations g g g 20% Withdrawal of international donors 14% Lack of support by the state Underdevelopment of donorship within 12% business sector 8% Underdevelopment of NGO sector itself Insufficient cooperation with local 8% authorities Negative attitude of the g 5% surrounding, citizens 2% Poor cooperation with the media Insufficient (underdeveloped) cooperation 1% among NGOs NGOs IN SERBIA 2009