NGO sector in Serbia Civic Initiatives and FeNS 2005, Beograd by Gradjanske inicijative Gradjanske inicijative

Contents Introduction 1. Description of research 2. Key findings on NGO sector A. General questions basic information and working conditions for NGOs B. Mission, NGOs field of work and activities C. Legal/fiscal regulations for NGOs D. Political context E. NGO structure F. NGO cooperation - networking G. NGO cooperation with the state H. NGO cooperation with business sector I. NGO cooperation with the media K. Public attitude to NGOs J. Staff and volunteers in NGOs L. Diversity within NGO sector N. Financial stability of NGOs - financial sources O. Involvement of community - users in NGO work P. Quality of NGO services Q. Qualification of NGO staff R. Cooperation with NGOs in the region S. Most important problems for NGO sustainability T. Conclusion NGO sector in Serbia - attitudes and opinions of donors A. General questions - basic information B. Local NGO projects - application process, terms of competition and implementation monitoring C. Cooperation with other sectors D. The state of NGO sector in Serbia E. Diversity within the sector / Regional standardization F. Fields of NGO training / education G. Problems of NGO sector in Serbia

4 6 10 10 16 24 25 29 34 39 41 46 52 57 59 62 71 72 74 78 80 81 82 83 88 89 91 92 93

General observations Before you is research which describes the situation in the NGO sector in Serbia at the beginning of 2005. Bearing in mind, on the one hand the huge results and involvement of the whole sector in the last 15 years, and on the other the vast difficulties the sector is confronted by in its work today, we considered it most important at this moment to establish the current state of the sector and the challenges it faces, so that the sector and those who support it might be able to react adequately. The aim is to maintain the capacity of non-governmental organizations, thanks to whom many people have been provided for, including refugee families, and children fleeing violence. Women have found refuge in shelters, the handicapped have come out of isolation, Roma and other minorities have started to achieve their civil rights, many business plans have been executed, highschool pupils and students have had the opportunity to meet their peers from abroad...... Apart from being able to help all parties interested in formulating a strategy for the development and the work of the NGO sector, this research is intended to be used as a data reference source for future monitoring of civil society development. In fact, at this moment there is only one other piece of research to compare the present situation with-the research of the NGO Policy Group of 2001. Thus, one of the first conclusions forced upon us is the need for more frequent, relatively standardized research, if possible at regular three or five-year periods. It is significant that the research included donors, unfortunately, in smaller numbers than anticipated. The absence of uniform evidence on NGOs was a serious problem confronted by ÂŤStrategic MarketingÂť, as the agency which carried out the research. Various sources were used in defining the basic groups : organizations which submitted final accounts in 2003, the register of legal entities in Serbia registered in work ( 8476 legal entities and citizens' associations formed since 1991), the NGO directory - the basis for information of various resource centers such as the Civic' initiatives directory ( 1286 organizations). The absence of legal regulations resulted in lack of uniform evidence, but it was also clear that the resource centers' database was unreliable because the information had not been brought up to date, which is the responsibility of the NGO sector. After cross-referencing and a detailed updating of the before mentioned database, we arrived at a basic group of 997 non-governmental organizations in existence, which were active in December 2004 when the research was carried out. Of this number, 371 organizations are members of FENS. During the research 14.9 % of NGOs dropped out of the sample as they were no longer active. This must worry the small number of organizations who submitted their final accounts to the authorized institutions. This shows that NGOs do not have the basic knowledge of their responsibilities, such as the fact that organizations which have no turnover are still required to submit accounts, with turnover marked as zero. The confusion in the division of authority and structure in NGOs is clear, especially with regard to the assembly and the managing boards, which in a large number of organizations carry out both the strategic and the operative business. Looking at internet access, use of computers and the knowledge of English in the sector, it could be said that NGOs are far better equipped than in 2001. However, when the problems of locating resources are referred to, lack of information is given as the main reason. This tells us that, in spite of the internet, a passive approach is used rather than an active search for information. The situation is somewhat confusing because this information differs wildly from region to region. So on one side there is Belgrade and 51 municipalities covered by the Fund for the Support of Civil Society in Serbia, and on the other a significant number of small and active NGOs in other parts of Serbia who have almost nothing. Workspace remains a restrictive factor in the work of NGOs, because only 6% of organizations own their own premises. Renting or using someone else's workspace are the most prevalent ways of overcoming this problem, while 22 % of NGOs have no work space at all. A worrying fact is that a total of only 29 % of organizations have secured workspace for a period of two or more years. For us the overall results of the research were sobering. Therefore, in this introduction, before anything else, we point out the problems we noticed, not in order to criticize, but to focus attention on how they might be solved. In many areas the situation in the NGO sector is worrying. The data tells us that the very survival of the sector has been seriously endangered, as up to 63 % of organizations have not secured resources for 2005. The diverse reasons for this situation have been thoroughly analyzed in this research but before everything it is worth pointing out the reduction of funds and the changes to the structure of financing from abroad which for a long time will not and cannot be replaced by financing from domestic sources. The prediction that donors will soon leave the region demands an urgent and all encompassing united strategy to maintain the sector in such a condition so as to

satisfy at least the basic needs of the society, and not to harm the process of democratization. It is interesting the decisions to leave Serbia were taken at the donor organizations' headquarters, while those working here on the ground think that their involvement is necessary for at least another 5 to 10 years. The political situation is judged as bad and especially unfavorable for NGOs, primarily because of the state's (government's) lack of interest in cooperation. At the same time almost all the research has shown large expectations for support from state and local administrations. Therefore it is difficult to understand that 30 % of NGOs are not interested in taking part in discussions with the state about the necessary new laws and financial regulations concerning the NGO sector, and only 50 % think they should play an active role in the election process. The prevailing opinion is that it should all be done by someone else. Here we can see clear differences in the proactive attitude of the NGOs who are members of FENS, and those who are not. The relationship with the business sector was not dealt with at all by the research in 2001, so that the information received about the minimal cooperation between NGOs and business, and that primarily at a local level, can be seen as a positive shift. If nothing else, the necessity of this type of cooperation shows itself as a new theme and already some organizations are taking it into consideration. The number of those employed full-time in the sector is slightly higher than in 2001 (34 % compared to 23 %), and the level of education among the employees is, as it was then, exceptionally high. The impression is that society, and not just the NGOs, does not yet understand the potential of the NGO sector in the field of employment, and in particular that it has no strategy for recruiting volunteers. Nevertheless, the dominant impression forced upon us is the absence of objectivity in estimating their own capacity, quality, and the expertise of their work, the relationship with the media, and their position in the local community and regarding the public in general. The impression is reached that often the «desired» answers are given, resulting in a series of contradictions. For example, the general situation in the sector is reckoned to be worse than their own concrete situation. Thus the unsatisfactory experiences of the employees, and especially of the volunteers, is underlined, which contradicts the high level of satisfaction among the trained staff. Added to that, 20 % of NGOs have had no training at all, and in only 37 % of NGOs all members are trained (generally the leadership is trained). Almost 70 % of NGOs say they hold seminars and workshops, and later state that the sector is lacking in training, more exactly, professionalism. This seriously brings into question the quality of the training offered to beneficiaries, and is a clear sign of the necessity of introducing standards in this field. The differences in perceptions of the sector are especially visible between the NGOs themselves and the donors, who see them as not professional enough. The disagreements related to problems regarding the project writing are dramatic. The NGOs feel that the demands of the donors are very complicated, and the donors think exactly the opposite, and cite this as the biggest problem in the applications process. The sector thinks it knows how to write projects, and the donors do not agree. There is also an important difference in defining the priority of policies which NGOs should be pursuing, and an attempt to reconcile them and secure continuity of work has led to an unfocussed performance. These differences are best seen in the areas of monitoring of laws and the work of institutions, in which the donors have shown incomparably more interest than the NGOs themselves. The data shows that there are visible divisions in the sector whatever the parameters. On the one hand there are the «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», noticeable in their capacities (in personnel and infrastructure), access to financial sources, and understanding of the necessity of cooperation and greater involvement in various networks and regional projects When all this information is added to the financial stability of the organizations, the malicious could reach the worrying conclusion that investment in the NGO sector would be a mistake. However, FENS and the Civic Initiative see things from the opposite side. The results which the sector has achieved in spite of these complicated and unfavorable circumstances are a guarantee that the sector, with adequate support from donors, the state, and the business sector, is capable of overcoming the existing crisis, and contributing to the dynamic development of civil society, and thereby the development of Serbia into a modern, democratic, European state. We believe that this research is a significant contribution to the achievement of that aim. Dubravka Velat Miljenko Dereta

Description of research Research objective Assessing the situation of NGO sector in Serbia Specification of goals In order to thoroughly achieve the main goal of assessing the overall position of non-governmental sector in Serbia, we defined areas that we thought will best offer an objective picture of the sector. With this research we hoped to include both opinions of people from the NGO sector and opinions of those working in different donor organizations. Although some topics were common for both groups, in order to have two different angles on a certain area of interest, most topics were specific and important for certain types of organizations (donors' and nongovernmental). We thought that it was most significant to hear out the opinions of people from NGO sector about the following topics: A. General questions - basic information and NGO working conditions B. Mission, NGO field of work and activities C. Legal/fiscal regulations on NGO D. Political context E. Structure of NGOs F. Cooperation of NGOs - networking G. NGO cooperation with the state H. NGO cooperation with the business sector I. NGO cooperation with the media J. Staff and volunteers in NGOs K. Attitude of public towards NGOs L. Diversity within the NGO sector M. Financial stability of NGO - financial resources N. Community and users' involvement in NGO work O. Quality of service P. NGO staff qualification Q. Cooperation of NGOs in the wider region R. Most important problems in NGO sustainability S. Conclusion Also, one of the main aims of this research was to separately establish the position of NGOs which are FENS network members. We were particularly interested in donors' opinions about the following topics: A. General questions- basic information on donor organizations B. Local NGOs' projects application, competition conditions and monitoring the realization C. Cooperation within the sector and with other sectors (other donors and state institutions) D. Perception of NGO situation in Serbia E. Diversity within the sector F. Fields of NGO education G. Problems It should also be stressed that a smaller number of donor organizations (which were included in the sample) do not perceive their organization as donors of the NGO sector in the strict term of the word. (They do not have project

announcements and do not award grants), but establish a partner relationship with NGOs in realization of the projects. That is why representatives of such organizations could not give answers to most questions from the questionnaire (the questionnaire mostly looks into the field of awarding grants and conditions of project competition). Sample The planned sample was to include 500 NGOs and 50 donors operating on the territory of Serbia. During the research 516 NGOs and 41 donors were interviewed. A. NGO sample The basic group included all NGOs registered in Serbia. Since there is no uniform evidence data on all registered NGOs on the territory of Serbia, in defining the main sample we used different sources: a) Organizations which submitted final account for the year 2003 (1681 Organizations). b) The register of legal entities in Serbia (8476 legal entities and organizations - Citizens' associations formed after 1991) registered in work c) NGO directories - the data base from various resource centers d) Civic Initiatives directory (1286 organizations, out of which 371 are FENS members) After detailed updating of the database, we arrived at a basic group of 997 non-governmental organizations in existence, which were active in December 2004 when the research was carried out. Of this number, 371 organizations are members of FENS. The sample included 516 NGOs. The sample was stratified in three strata. The strata and realization of sample by each stratum was the following: 1. FENS members- 243 organizations. 2. Organizations which are not FENS members- 256 organizations. 3. Important organizations (which are not members of FENS) 17 organizations. These organizations were included in the sample on purpose, because we thought they had and still have significant influence not only on the sector itself but on the public life in general. We think that the sample offers a clear picture of the current state of the NGO sector in Serbia. Since the distribution has shifted in favor of FENS network members, the results are shown separately for FENS members and organizations which are not members, in all questions that showed difference in results in comparison to members or in cases where we thought this variable could be significant. During the research, 8.72% of NGOs from the sample refused to participate in it. Apart from that, 14.92% of organization included in the sample 516 were replaced by other organizations from the basic group because these NGOs were no longer active. B. Donor sample Out of the planned 50 donors' sample, 41 were interviewed. This was due to the fact that with many international donors, one person is in charge of

addressing this type of questions. Since our time for field work was limited (from th st December 20 2004 to February 1 2005) we did not manage to reach some of our potential respondents. The problem was that in some organizations (such as Embassies) the procedure for their representatives to take part in the research at all was quite long. Some organizations refused participation due to other engagements, while some organizations were in the midst of closing down programs and leaving the region. Respondents Respondents participating in this research (both for NGOs and donors) were people in high positions within organizations, those who were familiar with its functioning and able to provide all the necessary information-those whose opinions are relevant in decision - making process within their organization. Research period th st Research was conducted from December 20 2004 to February 1 2005. Methodology Interviewers set interviews with respondents. The interviews were conducted on organizations' premises in the form of structured interviews. Both questionnaires (for NGOs and Donors) included mostly closed- type questions with smaller number of open-ended questions. (NGO Questionnaire and Donor Questionnaire can be found at www.gradjanske.org). Each field (given in Specification of goals) was represented with a set of questions in the questionnaire. The NGO questionnaire was more comprehensive and the interviews lasted approximately for 1 hour. Donor Questionnaire was significantly shorter, and the interviews lasted on average about 20 minutes. Data analysis Data analyses obtained based on questions from NGO Questionnaire All questions from the questionnaire were cross-referenced by few basic variables. Every question was represented in the form of table which shows the total and cross-references by these variables: a. b. c. d. e.

the year of foundation filed of work size of organization FENS membership region where the headquarters are

The year when organization was founded is a variable with two categories: those founded before the year 2000 and those founded in the year 2000 and later. We were of the opinion that the year 2000 was a turning point due to the fall of Milosevic's regime, and thus it has led to changes in the environment in which NGOs operate. We supposed that it was to be expected that organizations founded before 2000 were more experienced, better positioned and had greater credibility and less problems in organizations' work. Field of work - The questionnaire itself offered respondents to choose from the 18 given fields of work of their organizations (with a possibility of adding their field of work to the list, if it were not mentioned.) When cross-referencing these 18 fields, they were condensed in 5 categories, since many fields were not represented with adequate number of organizations. Only with some questions, where it was

important to have an insight into each separate filed, we gave cross-references with all fields, but with a note that fields were the base of organization is less than 60, results can be taken as indicators only and should be further investigated. Table 1: NGOs field of work* Culture, education and ecology

Young

Development Sociopopulation, of civil humanitarian economy, and professional society Work associations

Protection of human rights

Total

1. Culture and art

2. Education and research

3. Ecology and environment protection

4. Humanitarian and social work, healthcare

79 62

5. Young population, students 6. Development of local community

62 41

41 42

8. Protection of human rights 9. Legislation, advocacy and public policy

10. Peace work

10 9 46

11. Women's rights 12. Help for refugees and displaced persons

46 13

13. International cooperation

14. Economic development

15. Children's rights

16. Roma population

18. Protection of ethnic minority rights

96. Other Total

122

144

516

The size of organization was defined based on the total number of active personnel in the organization. This number included members of the managing board, coordinators, employees and part-time workers, but not volunteers. This number was divided in 3 categories up to 15 people-small organizations, from 15-30 peoplemedium-sized organizations, from 15-30 people-big organizations. FENS membership enables us to establish the situation in the sector both within this network and outside it. As we said before, the sample itself favored organizations which are members of this network. This was done in order to have a large enough base within the network so that conclusions on the situation of the sector could be drawn. In all the questions showing significant difference in this variable, we presented separate results for members and non-members of FENS network. Region - the region was established based on the municipality where the seat of the organization is. In the analyses we used the division in three basic regions with their socioeconomic peculiarities: Belgrade, Vojvodina and Central Serbia. Analysis of data obtained from Donors' questionnaire Since a total number of donors in the sample was 41, it is clear that the only valid results are those obtained from the whole sample and that any type of cross-referencing could not provide reliable results. The picture obtained from 41 donors can be more of an indicator of donors' attitudes and help in clearer insight into certain problems in the non-governmental sector. *Field 7. "Special and professional associations and 17.â&#x20AC;?LGBT-â&#x20AC;&#x153;sexual minorities" were not given in the table because the answer to priority filed of work showed zero %.

Key findings on NGO sector A. General questions - basic information and working conditions 44% of NGOs were founded before 2000, while 56% were founded later. There are no differences in field of work and FENS membership, but significant differences appear in terms of organization size and the region. Larger organizations are mainly the ones founded earlier, so in Belgrade there is a much larger percent of organizations founded before 2000 than in other two regions. As the results will show this characteristic, that organizations from Belgrade are to a higher percent larger and founded earlier, will have an impact on clear regional differences in certain questions. Graph 1: The year when organization was founded

2000 and later 56%

Before 2000 44%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 2: The year when organization was founded - by region 63%

Belgrade 37%

Central Serbia

34% 66%

45%

Vojvodina

55%

Before 2000

2000 and later

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Organizations' equipment - premises and technical equipment Only 6% of respondents state that their organization own the premises, while as many as 22% of NGOs do not have any kind of premises. The remaining 72% of NGOs either rent the premises or work in premises which were offered to them free of charge. Out of this number, almost half (48%) have secured funds for premises rental for a period shorter than one year.

Considering the issue of working premises, there are no significant differences among NGOs in most researched variables (year when the organization was founded, size, FENS membership, field of work). The region is the only item that shows differences, it can be noticed that organizations from Belgrade more often have secured working premises (only 13% of NGOs from Belgrade do not have secured working space in comparison to 23% in Vojvodina and 28% in Central Serbia). Graph 3: Does your organization have premises in which it carries out its activities? We own the premises

We rent the premises

43%

We were given the premises free of charge

29%

We do not have any premises

22%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 4: For what period have you secured the funds for premises or how long will they be available to you? Less than next 6 months

29%

For the period of next 6 months up to a year

19%

For the next year

Next 2 or 3 years

Longer than next 3 years

23%

21%

Base: NGOs which rent or were given premises for free 72% (352 NGOs)

What is the situation in NGO sector in terms of equipment? It can be concluded that the situation in terms of equipment is very good. Over 3/4 of NGOs have at least one computer, a printer and a telephone line. Over 1/2 also have a modem, a fax machine and a scanner. Fewer organizations have company cars, video beams and cameras (under 1/4 of organizations). As we expected, bigger organizations are much better equipped, as well as organizations which were founded earlier and those from Belgrade, since these three variables are connected. Organizations from Belgrade are the biggest and they were founded earlier than organizations from other regions. Also, somewhat better situation is noticed in organizations that deal with development of civil society. The differences in equipment are particularly noticeable in the number of organizations that have fax machines, photocopiers, video beams, company cars and cameras. Older, bigger NGOs and those from Belgrade have a significantly larger number of these pieces of equipment. As for computers, printers, modems and telephone lines, there are no differences among organizations - all kinds of organization are well equipped in this sense.

Graph 5: Does your organization have: (% of positive answers) Computers

85% 80%

Printers

73%

Modem Telephone line

75% 59%

Fax Photocopier

Video-beam

55% 18%

Camera

4,5 2,3

Printers

2,6

Modem Telephone line

2,3 1,7

Fax

1,8 1,6

Scanner

1,5

Car

13%

Photo camera

Computers

Photocopier

32%

Scanner Car

Graph 6: How many pieces do you have: (average number)

Video-beam 47%

22%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Photo camera Camera

1,2 1,4 1,2

Base: NGOs which have the equipment

Among organizations which own the given equipment, average number of computers is 4.5, printers -2.3, telephone lines- 2.3. However, it must be stressed that there is a big number of larger and much better equipped organizations which increase the average data for the sector. This is why perhaps it would be better to use median as an indicator (unlike arithmetic mean, median shows the mean distribution, below and above it are 50% of the cases respectively): for computers median is 2 pieces, while for all other pieces of equipment, median shows one piece. This indicates that the largest number of organizations which have the given equipment own one piece of equipment. Again differences can be notices depending on the researched variables: larger organizations, those founded earlier and those from Belgrade have a significantly larger number of pieces, particulary computers, printers, modems and telephone lines. Considering their filed of work, organizations that deal with culture, education and ecology are much better equipped (in terms of number of pieces of the given equipment) than organizations dealing with other fields. If we compare the results on equipment with the results obtained in 2001 research NGO Policy Group, we can see that the obtained pictures about the situation in NGO sector are significantly different. It must be pointed out that the sample in the two researches were obtained in different ways, so our sample included a larger percent of better developed organizations. This is why we cannot definitely know to what extent this difference is the result of the difference in the sample, and to what extent it shows an improving trend in equipment of the sector. The proportion of pieces of equipment owned by organizations is almost twice higher in 2004 research than it was in 2001, as Table 2 shows.

Table 2: Percentage of NGOs which have the given equipment Percentage of NGOs with given equipment Computer Printer Modem Telephone lines Fax Photocopier

NGO Policy Group 2001.

Current research 2004.

53% 48% 42% 56% 40% 17%

85% 80% 73% 75% 59% 32%

In 2003, Fund for Support of Civil Society in Serbia was established by consortium European Moment in Serbia and Expert Network (with support from European Agency for Reconstruction), as part of the project â&#x20AC;&#x153;Support for Civil Society in eastern and western Serbiaâ&#x20AC;?. This fund provided support in technical equipment to NGOs from 51 municipalities. We wanted to see whether there were any differences in equipment among NGOs depending on their participation in this project. Table 3: NGO equipment depending on participation in EAR project

Computers Printers Modem Telephone line Fax Photocopier Scanner Car Video-beam Photo camera Camera

Equipment support project Participated Did not participate Col % Col % 83 93 78 88 78 72 73 83 52 60 34 27 75 51 17 24 8 14 51 46 23 22

Total Col % 85 79 73 75 59 32 55 18 13 47 22

We can conclude that there are some differences - NGOs from municipalities which received donations from this fund are better equipped in computers, printers and scanners. Graph 7 shows to what extent NGOs are satisfied with equipment that they have. The graph shows the percentage of organizations which think that their equipment is unsatisfactory. It can be noticed that a large number of respondents was not satisfied with the equipment of their organizations. At least 1/3 and sometimes even up to 1/2 of respondents think that the situation in their organization in terms of technical equipment (computers, telephone lines, fax, cars, photocopiers) is unsatisfactory. In this respect, there are no significant differences among NGOs in all variables (year when it was founded, size of organization, FENS membership, field of work, region).

Graph 7: Is the equipment satisfactory for your scope of work and number of employees : (% of negative answers) Computers

45% 36%

Printers

30%

Modem Telephone line

39% 33%

Fax Photocopier

46% 35%

Scanner

48%

Car

50%

Video-beam Photo camera

44%

Camera

49%

Base: all respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Majority of organizations have Internet access (84%) and this percentage is even higher among FENS network members (90% in comparison to 78% among organizations that are not FENS members). Graph 8: Does your organization have Internet access?

No 16%

Graph 9: Does your organization have Internet access? - By FENS membership

FENS members 90% 10%

FENS non-members 78%

Yes 84%

Base: all respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

22%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Organizations in which no one can use a computer are very rare - only 3%. In large number of cases, all workers in the organization can use a computer (43% of organizations). In 35% of the cases, majority of workers use a computer, and in 19% of the cases minority. NGOs dealing with socio-humanitarian work use computers the least (only in 26% of these organizations all workers use a computer). Also, organizations from Belgrade use computers more than workers in organizations in other regions (in 60% of the cases, all workers use a computer in comparison to 34% in Central Serbia and Vojvodina).

Graph 10: How many people in your organization use a computer?

Graph 11: How many people in your org. speak at least one foreign language?

43%

36%

35%

34% 28%

19%

Everyone Majority

Minority

Everyone Majority Minority

No one

Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Knowing a foreign language is the cornerstone for successful communication with donors and writing projects. Organizations in which the personnel do not speak a foreign language are from the very beginning in a very difficult position, with little chance of writing successful project proposals. Again we see that in 3% of organizations none of the staff speak a foreign language. In 28% of cases everyone speaks a foreign language, and again that percentage is considerably higher in Belgrade than in the other two regions (50% compared with 16% in Central Serbia and 27% in Vojvodina). Graph 12: How many people in your organization speak at least one foreign language? - by region 50% 36%

Belgrade

14% 0% 16% 33%

Central Serbia

47% 4% 27% 39%

Vojvodina

30% 4%

Everyone

Majority

Minority

No one

Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

B. Mission, fields of work and activities

91% of organizations assert that their organization has a defined mission. We see that the older organizations are better profiled - the percentage of organizations who have no defined mission is larger among organizations formed after 2000 -as many as 12% compared to 2% among older organizations. More than half of the respondent organizations -51%, state that they have a documented strategic plan. Since a strategic plan for the organization is one of the possible demands sought by donors as a condition for the approval of resources, it is possible that the result obtained is higher than in reality because of the social desirability of the answer. Older organizations, more frequently than the new ones, state that they have this document (60% compared with 44%). 3/4 of respondent organizations assert that they succeed in realizing majority of their projects in accordance with their general orientation, while 21% state that they often have to change the general orientation of their foreseeable projects in accordance with the demands of the donors. 5% of organizations have no general orientation or field of work; rather they direct their work purely to the demands of the donors. In this category there are no great differences between the organizations depending on the research variables (the year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region). The organizations' appraisal of the situation in the sphere of planning 21% of respondent organizations think there is no need for additional training, 61% think the situation is good but that additional training is necessary, while 18% believe that training in the sphere of planning is vital. There are no great differences depending on the research variables (the year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). Graph 13: How would you evaluate your organization's situation in the field of planning? We have no need for additional training 21%

Training is necessary in this field 18%

Good, but we need additional training 61% Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Ed u

ltu

gy ca an ,p tio ma d rot na nit art ec n ari dr tio an no es ea an f th rch ds ee oc nv ial i r o wo nm rk, Yo en he un t a g l Bu t h p Bu c e sin a o ild re ple es ing ,s sa tud loc nd al en pro co ts fes mm sio Le un n P gis itie al rot as lat s ec so ion tio cia ,a no t dv i on fh oc s um ac an ya rig nd hts pu bli He cp lp oli for cy Pe ref ac e ug Wo wo ee me rk sa n's nd dis r igh pla Int ts ce ern d ati p e on rso Ec al ns on co om op era ic str tio en n gth en Ch ing ild Pro ren tec 's tio R rig LG om n hts BT ap of ( o S p the ex u lat ua rig io lm hts ino n of riti eth es nic ) mi no riti es Ot he r

olo

Cu ltu Ed olo re u g c Hu y, an a t ion pro ma d nit tec an art ari d t ion an res o ea an f th rch ds ee oc nv ial iro wo nm rk, Yo en he un t a g lth Bu p B ca eo sin uil re ple din es ,s sa gl tud oc nd al en pro co ts fes mm Le s i u on gis Pro n itie al lat tec as s ion tio so ,a no cia dv f tio oc ns hu ac ma y an nr dp igh ub ts lic He lp po licy for Pe ref ac e ug Wo wo ee me rk sa n's nd dis r igh pla Int ts ce ern dp ati e o rso na Ec ns lc on oo om p era ic str tio en n gth en Ch ing ild Pro ren tec 's tio R rig LG om n hts BT ap of ( o S p the ex u l ua ati rig o lm hts ino n of r itie eth s) nic mi no riti es Ot he r Ec

Graph 14: All fields of work (multiple answers) 65%

64%

50% 57%

42% 45%

13%

42%

33%

27%

0% 2%

30%

3% 2%

39%

23% 23% 28%

5% 3%

27%

12% 27%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 15: Priority fields of work (one answer)

16% 12%

7% 8% 4% 2%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

When we look at the priorities in the fields of work we can see that most organizations in this sector deal with social-humanitarian work, followed by education and research, and then working with young people. Considerable work is being done in the areas of building local communities, protecting human rights, women's rights, art and culture. If we look at all the fields with that organizations deal with ( not only their priorities), we see that these same fields again appear as the most important, but alongside them there are also activities in the fields of international cooperation, children's rights, protection of refugees, and protection of the Roma population and members of other ethnic minorities. The impression is given that only a small number of organizations are directly concerned with these fields, but that, depending on the donation and current needs, a number of the organizations specializes in this field, as a field supplementary to their usual work. The largest group of respondents (34%) stated that their organization decided on their field of work because that field coincided with their sphere of interest. 32% stated that that field is perceived as a priority problem of the community. 22% had the capability to deal with this field ( experts, previous experience), while 9% think that nobody worked in that field. Graph 16: Why did you choose this particular field of work Our field of interest

Priority social problem

32,4

Capability to work in this field

Nobody has worked in this field before On the basis of the donor's suggestion On the basis of the experience of others

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

9,2 1,4 1

*Multiple answers-% do not add up to 100%

Graph 17: All service users (multiple answers) 59%

43%

40% 34% 26%

32%

31% 31%

28% 27% 29%

26%

22% 18%

20% 15%

4% 4%

All cit ize ns Ch i ldr Yo en un gp eo ple Stu de nts Re Th fug ee ee lde sa rly nd dis W om pla ce en dp ers on Me s Th mb ep ers oo of r Me na tio Ro mb n ma ers al mi of no se riti xu es al mi no riti Sin es gle Th pa eu ren ne ts mp De loy cis ed ion -m Wo a ke rke rs rs' un ion s Ins titu tio ns Dis M ab P ed oli led tic ia pe al rso pa ns r tie (pa s ren ts NG or fam O s ily

me mb ers )

Ot he r

41%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 18: Primary/direct users (one answer) 39%

13%

11%

10% 2%

mi no riti es ne mp loy ed N (pa GO ren se D ts cto or isab r fam led ily pe me rso mb ns ers ) Ot he r

na tio na l of Me mb ers

dd isp an es fug Re

Th eu

Ro ma

rso ns pe

Wo me n

lac

ple

nts de Stu

eo gp

Yo un

Ch ild ren

All cit ize ns

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Primary/direct users of NGO services are most often all citizens. Out of all groups, the children, young population and women are particularly stressed. Who the users of a certain non-governmental organization services will be depends mostly on the field of work of that organization. The graphs with all users shows that young population, children and students are the dominating group.

Types of activities Among the most common activities in which non-governmental organizations take part are seminars, training and workshops (76%), networking and cooperation (55%), actions in the local community (55%), printing brochures and publications (49%), carrying out research (41%), as well as various types of media promotions: media compaigns (49%), and holding conferences and meetings (46%). According to their fields of work, NGOs whose work is concerned with human rights are more likely than others to offer different types of professional help and services (50% of these organizations provide these activities), while NGOs from the field of social-humanitarian work, more frequently than other NGOs, deal with the collection and distribution of humanitarian aid (47%). According to region, NGOs from Belgrade are considerably more active in their work - most are involved in almost all the activities on the list. These organizations are particularly more active in the sphere of presenting their activities (printing brochures and publications-71%, holding conferences and meetings-58%, as well as in the field of lobbying and public advocacy-46%, and monitoring laws and the work of institutions-35%). Graph 19: What types of activities are most often conducted by your organization? 76%

55%

55% 49%

49% 46%

41% 38% 35%

38% 34%

33%

23% 19%

20%

Oth er

Se mi na rs, tra inin ga Or nd ga niz wo ing rks ho var ps iou Pri sc Ca ntin o rry urs gb ing es roc ou hu t r r e e s sea Off an eri rch dp ng ub pro lica fes tion Ho sio s Ho ldin na ldin l se gp gc r res vic on es sc fer on en f e ce r e nc sa es nd me Me etin dia gs Oth ca er mp Fo t y aig pe rm so ns so fc f a a m lter p na aig Lo tive n bb yin ed u g/ c a Ne pu tion two blic Mo nito rkin ad rin v ga oc gl aw ac nd sa y co nd o pe the rat wo ion Off rk of eri ins ng Ac t i t utio hu tion ma ns s in nita the ria na loc id al c om mu nity

Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Projects- writing proposals and implementation If we look at the next graph we see that in 2004 most organizations submitted between 1 and 5 project applications. Although the size and type of project is important, it is still possible to conclude that we are talking about too small a number of projects to secure smooth functioning of an organization throughout the year. Equally a figure of 11 projects a year is large, and, even though they may be small projects, exhausts the organization and probably speaks more of a great effort to secure a stable financial situation in the organization itself.

Graph 20: How many project proposals did you submit to donors in 2004? 0

61%

from 1 to 5

22%

from 6 to 10

11+

12%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

The average number of submitted proposals in 2004 was 5.2. On average, 2.5 were accepted, and 2.0 refused, while the rest are still being processed. NGOs that were founded earlier, bigger organizations and those from Belgrade, by rule have a large number of proposals and more accepted projects. When compared with regard to FENS membership, there are no significant differences between FENS members and organizations which are not members of FENS. Graph 21: On average, how long do most projects carried out by your organization last? 15%

Up to 3 months

30%

From 3 to 6 months From 6 months to a year

32%

About a year

16%

Over a year

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

In most organizations (62%) projects are on average completed in a period from 3 months to a year. Projects which are most often completed in the period of up to 3 months are in the fields of culture, education and ecology, as well as in the fields dealing with young population and students. Graph 22: How many projects is your organization carrying out at the moment? 0

13%

1 2 3+

31% 19% 37%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Another worrying result is that 13% of organizations are at the moment not carrying out a single project! These are predominantly organizations formed later (18% of these organizations as opposed to 8% of organizations formed before 2000), as well as NGOs which are not FENS network members (within the network, this percent is 8%, while outside the network it is 18%). Graph 23: Most important problems in project competition? 45%

Lack of information on competition High and complicated requests from donors

41% 22%

Lack of technical equipment Poor knowledge of English

21%

Insufficient experience in project writing

20%

Lack of professionalism

20%

Insufficient motivation of members We did not have these problems Other

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

19% 5% 15%

*Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%

The most significant problems that NGOs encounter in writing project proposals are insufficient information on project competition and possibilities of applying (45%) and high and complicated requests from donors (e.g. auditing report or fulfilled LFM*/LOGFRAME- 41%). Problems like the lack of technical equipment, poor knowledge of English and inexperience in project writing are mentioned much less frequently (about 20% organizations). Some differences were noticed in relation to the time when organizations were founded new organizations much more often than older state that they lack technical equipment (29% as opposed to 13%). In the field of the development of the civil society, there are fewer problems with the knowledge of English and technical equipment than in other fields. Smaller organizations also to a somewhat high percent have more problems with lack of technical equipment, poor knowledge of English and inexperience in project writing. In relation to the region, NGOs from Central Serbia encounter problems much more often due to poor knowledge of foreign languages, while organizations from Belgrade very rarely state this problem. Also, organizations from Belgrade have a better situation in personnel matters both in terms of their qualification/ professionalism and their motivation.

*"Logical Frame Matrix"

Graph 24: Most important problems in project implementation? Lack of financial means

60%

Low level of cooperation with gov.institutions

38%

Negative attitude of community Lack of technical equipment Lack of equipment and staff Legal problems

29% 25%

Users' lack of motivation

15%

Lack of professionalism

13%

23%

Low level of cooperation with media

13%

22%

Poor knowledge of English

12%

Members' lack of motivation

12%

Other

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Lack of financial means is stated as the biggest problem in project implementation (60%), low level of cooperation with different levels of authorities/institutions (39%), as well as negative attitude of the community to NGO sector (29%). There were no significant differences on this question among organizations depending on research variables (year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region). Graph 25: How would you assess the situation in your organization in project competition and implementation? No need for additional training 19%

Support in this filed necessary 22%

Good, but we need additional support 59%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

In assessing the position of organization in terms of project competition and implementation, 19% of interviewed organizations think that they do not have the need for additional training, 59% think that the situation is good, but they need additional training, while 22% think that they need additional training in project competition and implementation. There are no significant differences in research variables (the year when organization was formed, field of work, size, FENS membership, region), the only field which does not require additional training was Development of civil society-as many as 30%).

C. Legal/fiscal regulations

56% of respondents stated that they are familiar with legal regulations related to NGO sector. 31% were not sure, while 14% stated that they were not familiar with them. Younger organizations and organizations which are not FENS members are less familiar with legal regulations. With regard to field of work, it can be noticed that organizations dealing with development of civil society are more familiar with legal regulations in comparison to organizations dealing with all other fields (63% of these organizations), while NGOs dealing with younger population are the least familiar (46% of these organizations). When asked how satisfied they were with current legal regulations related to the NGO sector, up to 62% of respondents stated that they were not satisfied. 24% did not have an opinion, while only 9% said they were satisfied. The most often stated reasons for dissatisfaction in this field were : the law on NGOs (78% of respondents), tax policy (67%), as well as other laws related to work of NGOs (17%). Graph 26: Are you familiar with legal regulations related to NGO sector? Absolutely not familiar

Graph 27: To what extent are you satisfied with current legal regulations related to NGO sector?

28 33

28 6

32 26

Completely familiar

FENS members

Absolutely dissatisfied

Completely satisfied

2 3

Not familiar with it

FENS non members

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

FENS members

FENS non members

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

An interesting result is that 30% of NGOs are not interested in taking part in the initiative for a change in laws related to NGO work (Graph 28). This percentage is even higher among smaller organizations (42% as opposed to 24% in medium-sized and 27% in larger organizations), and is smaller among FENS members (23% as opposed to 37% non members) and organizations from Belgrade (20% in comparison to 31% in Central Serbia and 38% in Vojvodina). Respondents most often mentioned that what the state is expected to do in order to stimulate NGO work was to secure funds to finance the NGO sector (74%), tax relief (73%), improvement of legal frame in which NGOs operate (68%) and tax relief for firms financing NGOs (68%).

2 9

Graph 28: Are you interested in participating in the initiative for a change in laws related to NGO work? No 30%

Yes 70%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

D. Political context Most respondents, over 1/2 (54%) think that the current political situation in the country is not favorable for the development of the NGO sector. The reason is two-fold: on the one hand there is an overall negative attitude and a lack of interest in the work of the NGO sector which originates from the Milosevic's regime, but has not changed significantly in the past years. On the other hand, the political situation itself is assessed as unstable, with retrograde and conservative political parties in power. (Lack of interest in the NGO sector was stated by 27% respondents, poor image of NGO sector by 24%, dissatisfaction with political parties in power by 19% of respondents, and general political crises and instability by 14%). On this question there is no difference among organizations depending on the research variables (the year when it was founded, field of work, size, FENS membership, region.) Graph 29: Is current political climate in the country favorable for the development of the NGO sector? very unfavorable

s4 very favorable

9 6

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

How do respondents assess the importance of influence of various institutions over NGO sector's activities? If we look at the graph, we can notice that the NGO sector thought that all institutions, apart from the church, have an important impact on the functioning of this sector (all average marks exceed mark 3 on a 1-5 scale, where 1 means ”not important at all” and 5 means “very important”). However, respondents perceived as the most important the NGOs, the media and only then instances of the state apparatus - government and local authorities.

Graph 30: How important is the influence of the following institutions for NGO sector work: (average mark on a 5 point scale, 1=completely unimportant, 5=very important) 4,3

Government 3,3

Political parties Local government Church

4,3 2,3

Media

4,5 3,9

Business sector

4,6

NGOs themselves

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

There are some differences depending on the research variables. Younger organizations attach larger importance to the influence of local government than older organizations (4.4 as opposed to 4.2). Organizations dealing with social-humanitarian work attach somewhat larger influence to the church, unlike organizations dealing with culture and arts, which attach the least importance to church out of all given organizations. This result is expected because NGOs dealing with humanitarian work are often aimed at target groups that church organizations deal with as well, and there is a common field of activity that these two types of organizations share. Organizations from Central Serbia thought that the church and the business sector had somewhat more influence than did organizations from other regions, while organizations from Belgrade also perceived the influence of state institutions as significantly lower, both on republic and local level. Cooperation of the present Government of Serbia with the NGO sector is assessed most often as bad or very bad (a total of 60% of the respondents). On this question there are no differences between organizations depending on the research variables (the year when organization was formed, field of work, size, FENS membership, region). Also, most of NGO sector representatives were of the opinion that at the moment the influence of NGO sector over creation of state policies is extremely low. 12% thought that this influence was adequate and only 1% that it was too strong.

Graph 31: How would you rate cooperation of the present Government of Serbia with the NGO sector? 28

very bad

Just enough 12%

Too much 1%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Too little 87%

excellent

Graph 32: To what extent does NGO sector influence creation of State policies?

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Representatives of the non-governmental sector who assessed that their sector has little influence over state policies (a total of 87% of respondents), thought that NGOs could widen their influence primarily through better cooperation among NGOs themselves. Their answers are given in several groups: -united activities of NGOs, better cooperation (44%), -more efficient activities, higher level of involvement and improvement in NGO work (32%), -active pressure over the authorities (33%), -efforts to improve the image of NGOs in the media (18%), -other answers (21%). On this question there are no differences between organizations depending on the research variables (the year when organization was formed, field of work, size, FENS membership, region). As for the role of NGO sector regarding the socio political situation in the country, we wanted to hear the opinions of the sector representatives on the active role of the sector in the election process. When asked â&#x20AC;&#x153;Should NGOs play an active role in the election process?â&#x20AC;? 9 % of the respondents thought that NGOs should not play an active role and 33% were of the opinion that only organizations whose field of work included these activities should play an active part in the election process. Still, the largest number of NGO sector representatives (approximately 1/2 of the respondents) thought that all NGOs should play an active role in this respect and that this role included: 1. inviting citizens to vote in the elections (52%) 2. control of election regularity (50%). A small number of respondents (7%) thought that NGOs should openly call the citizens to vote for a certain option or a certain candidate. On this question there are no differences between organizations depending on the research variables (the year when organization was formed, field of work, size, FENS membership, region). Graph 33: Should NGOs play an active role in the election process? (multiple answers) No, NGOs should not play an active role in election process

Yes, but only those whose field of work includes this

Yes, they should control election regularity

Yes, they should invite citizens to take part in election Yes, they should openly call the citizens to take part and vote for certain option Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

52 7 *Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%

Most important NGOs The respondents stated that the most important organizations for the development of NGO sector are: Civic Initiatives, Center for Development of Nonprofit sector, CESID, Fund for Open Society. As expected, there are some differences between organizations which are FENS network members and those which are not. To a higher degree, FENS members perceive Civic Initiatives as one of the 3 most important organizations for the NGO sector development. However, even among organizations which are not FENS members it can be noticed that this organization is the most important (37% of respondents from non member organizations state that this organization is the most important for the development of NGO sector). Another result is also interesting-in answer to this question respondents listed an immense number of organizations (over 150) which appear with frequency not higher than 2%. Why were the answers so diverse? Obviously, this is due to the lack of networking, clear structure of the sector and the lack of communication within the sector. The respondents would often list a large number of smaller NGOs, those with local character, as organizations important in the development of NGO sector. Among organizations which are non-members of FENS, diversity of answers is even higher, and these organizations were also the ones which more often refused to give an answer to this question.

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

He lsin for ki C hu om ma mi n r ttee igh ts

YU KO M

fun d aw

Hu ma nit ari an l

nb lac k

Ot po r

3 Non-members

Wo me ni

Fu nd for O So pen Eu cie rop ty ea nM ov in eme Se nt rbi a

CE SID

Civ ic Ini tia De tive ve C s R lop N me PS nt , Ce of No nter n p for se rofit cto r FENS members

12 8

Graph 34: List up to 3 NGOs which had the most important Influence on development of NGO sector in Serbia? (first 10)

E. Structure of NGOs 96% of organizations have a managing board. In 77% of organizations there are project coordinators, 34% of NGOs have full time staff in the organizations, 55% have part-time staff, while 79% of organizations have volunteers. On this question there is no significant difference among organizations depending on the research variables (the year when it was founded, field of work, size, FENS membership, region.) apart from the number of staff. This number might give us a better insight into stability of organization and its long-term strategic functioning than any other indicator. It can be noticed that the percentage of organizations with employed full-time staff is higher with older organizations (45%), as well as organizations from Belgrade (48%). This percentage is also higher than average in the field of Civil Society Development (51%) and lower in organizations dealing with young population and students (20%). Graph 35: Does your organization have: (% of positive answers) Managing board

96% 77%

Coordinators Employees

34% 55%

Part time workers

79%

Volunteers

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Each of the segments was assessed by gender, age and education structure. The table shows percentage of incidence - how many organizations with the given body (e.g. managing board, coordinators, etc.) have the given categories of members (structure by gender, age and education) Table 4: Structure by gender, age and education; (% of presence in the given segment) President

Managing board

Coordinators

Employees

Part-time workers

Volunteers

516

482

389

172

276

396

100%

2. Male

3. Female

4. Younger (20-35)

5. Middle-aged (36-50)

6. Older (over 51)

Number of organizations that have the given body 1. Total in segment

7. With primary school

8. With secondary school

9. College or University 10. M.A. degree 11. PhD

In 46% of the cases, the president of the organization is a woman and in 54% it is a man. Only in the field of human rights protection, women presidents are predominant (61% in comparison to 39%). 48% of presidents are middleaged, 27% are younger (from 20-35 years of age) and 26% are older (over 50 years of age). There are differences depending on the time when organization was formed in those which were founded before 2000, the percentage of presidents who are over 50 years of age is much higher (36%), while in new organizations (founded in 2000 and later) there is a larger number of younger presidents (35%). Also, younger presidents are more dominant in organizations dealing with younger population (52%). By education, presidents in the NGO sector are in 78% of the cases those with college and university education, while in 21% of the cases they completed secondary school, and only in 1% primary school. As for the managing boards and the gender structure of their members, we can notice that there are more women than men (out of all managing boards, in 92% of them women are represented, while men are represented in 84% of these bodies.) Age structure shows that managing boards have majority of middle-aged members (in 76% of the cases, aged 36-50), then younger members (67%-aged 20-35) and finally the oldest (over 50-31%). As for education, managing boards consist of majority of members with college and university education (86%), but also members with master's degree (15%) or PhD (15%). Members with secondary school make 50%, while members of primary school make only 5% of managing boards. As for gender, age and education structure of all research segments (president, managing board, coordinators, employees, part-time workers, volunteers), the following conclusions can be made: 1. NGO is a predominantly a â&#x20AC;&#x153;female sectorâ&#x20AC;?, with larger participation of women in all segments of the organizations. However, the only position in which there are more men than women (54% in comparison to 46%) is the position of the president of the organization. As we said before, this is not the case only in the field of Protection of Human Rights, where women are represented more, including the leading positions. 2. Structure of organization in terms of age, varies depending on the segment. In the managing board there are more middle-aged people (35-50), among coordinators and the employees the number of younger and middle-aged members is almost equal, while among part-time workers, especially among volunteers the predominant is the younger generation (20-35). Older generation (over 50) is the least present in all segments (on average about 15%-20%). 3. With regards to education, the largest percent of members of the NGO sector are people with university education (over 70% of organizations in all segments have people with college and university education). Only among volunteers there is a higher percentage of activists with secondary school. However, this result can better be interpreted parallel to the age factor-majority of volunteers are from younger generation, probably students (which means that their last completed school is secondary school, but it should not be neglected that they will continue their further education). Since respondents were also those in high positions within organizations, we wanted to see the structure of this sample by gender and age. The data obtained (Graphs 36 and 37) indicates that the number of male and female respondents is almost identical: 52% of men and 48% of women were represented in the sample. The largest number of women are involved in organizations dealing with protection of human rights, while the smallest number work in NGOs dealing with culture, education and ecology.

Graph 37: Gender of respondents by organizations' field of work

Graph 36: Gender of respondents

61%

Culture, education and ecology

39% 55%

Male 52%

Female 48%

Socio-humanitarian work

45%

Young population, economy, professional associations

46%

54%

58%

Development of civil society

42% 38%

Protection of human rights

62%

Female

Male

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

A total of 72% of respondents have college or university education. 27% have secondary school education and only 2% primary school education. Percentage of respondents with university education is the highest in Belgrade, and Vojvodina and Central Serbia are relatively equal in this respect (almost every other activist in their NGOs have completed university education). In Belgrade, there is the smallest number of those with college education, while the largest number appear in Central Serbia region. In majority of organizations, members of the managing board are not employed in the organizations itself (73% of the cases). There were no significant differences on this question among organizations depending on research variables (year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region). Graph 38: Are members of the managing board employed in the organization? 73%

Graph 39: Do members of the managing board, president, director or members of supervising committee run the projects?

Yes, always

22%

Yes, in most cases

48%

Only in some cases

18%

19% No

4% Yes, all

12%

Yes, majority

Only some members

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

No Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

In almost 1/2 of the respondent organizations (48%), members of the managing board, president, director or members of the supervising committee run the projects (Graph 39). This high percentage indicates insufficiently developed controlling, managing and operational functions. This percentage is even higher among youth organizations and those dealing with young population (in 70% of these organizations members of the managing board, president, director or members of the supervising committee run the projects). Most frequently respondents explain this by saying that the project was from the professional domain of the person from the given managing board (52%). However, it was also frequently mentioned that organizations are shortstaffed (29%), and that the functions within the organization are not strictly divided (25%).

Graph 40: Why do members of managing board or Supervising committee run projects? Project was from their professional domain

52%

Organization is short-staffedlimited funds to hire employees

29%

Functions in organization are not strictly divided No need for additional staff Other answers

25% 7% 3%

Base: NGOs in which members of managing board or supervising committee run projects - 88% (489 NGOs)

Decision-making process As it was seen from Graph 41, assembly and the managing board most often make strategically important decisions, president and director make the decisions on daily activities, while coordinators and executing staff make decisions related to activities in daily projects. However, as it can be seen, frequent overlapping indicates that the division of authority is not strict and defined. Almost 1/2 of organizations, according to respondents' opinions, apart from statute, also have written regulations and procedures related to decisionmaking and overall work of the organization (Graph 42). This percentage is much higher than expected, presumably because some of the respondents gave positive , â&#x20AC;&#x153;socially desiredâ&#x20AC;?, answers although this does not represent a realistic picture (they do not have the rules in written form). As for assessment of the situation in their organization in terms of management and supervising (Graph 43), 16% of respondent organizations think that they do not need additional training in this filed, 57% are of the opinion that the situation is good but they need additional training, while 27% think that training in management and supervision is necessary. There were no significant differences on this question among organizations depending on research variables (year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region). Only in the field of Development of Civil society it was stated less frequently that additional training was needed.

Graph 41: Which decisions do the following bodies make: 59%

55%

47%

37% 32% 28%

21%

20%

17% 16%

16%

11% 9% % 8

7% 5%

f af

or ec

oo tc ec

ive

or ct re Di

Su co per m vis m in itt g ee

Strategic decisions

Daily work decisions

Decisions related to Activities in Concrete projects

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 42: Apart from the Statute, does your organization have written regulations and procedures for decision-making and overall work of the organization?

Graph 43: Do you need additional training in management and supervision field?

No need for additional training 27%

No 53%

Additional support necessary in this field 15%

Yes 47%

Good, but additional support necessary 58%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

F. NGO cooperation - networking 98% of organizations have had some contact with other NGOs up to now. It should be stressed, though, that by contact we mean any type of cooperation (help in activities, equipment, cooperation within the network, carrying out of projects jointly). Different types of cooperation most often include: mutual help in activities (77% of those who had cooperation), cooperation within the NGO network (65%), joint projects (64%), members' training (50%), joint requests to donors (48%), aid in equipment and premises (44%). Among FENS members and non-members there is a difference only in terms of NGO network cooperation, FENS members have had cooperation within the NGO network more frequently than those organization which are not FENS members (78% in comparison to 54%). Graph 44: Have you had any cooperation with other NGOs so far?

No 2%

Graph 45: What kind of cooperation was it?

Mutual help in activities

77%

Cooperation within NGO network

65%

Joint projects

64% 50%

Members' training Joint requests to donors

48%

Aid in equipment, premises

Yes 98%

Lobbying/public advocacy

36% 28%

Coalition Other

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

44%

Base: NGOs which had cooperated, 98% (505 NGOs)

The most often stated motive for cooperation was the fact that organizations shared the same interests (86% of those who had cooperation), but also the need to comply with donors' demands or to raise funds more easily (59%), to use the capacities better (45%) and to help other organizations (43%). Easier fund-raising was stated more often by larger organizations, those from Belgrade and FENS network members. Representatives of the NGO sector are mainly satisfied with the level of cooperation that their NGO has with other organizations in the sector. 71% (of those who had some kind of cooperation) are satisfied with this cooperation, 25% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, while only 4% are not satisfied with this cooperation. When asked about the main problems in cooperation, most respondents either do not give any answer (46% of those that had some kind of cooperation) or state that there are no problems related to cooperation with other NGOs (11%). The remaining percentage mention the following problems in NGO cooperation insufficient involvement, lack of motivation in NGO members, bad and inadequate communication among organizations, lack of professionalism in NGO

work, insufficient financial resources, even lack of trust among organizations. However, if we compare satisfaction with cooperation of their organization with the opinion about the level of cooperation within the NGO sector, we can notice significantly different answers. While there is a great satisfaction with the cooperation on the part of that particular organization, cooperation within the sector is assessed as being much worse. Graph 47: How would you rate cooperation within NGO sector?

Graph 46: How would you rate cooperation of your organization with other NGOs?

Not satisfied at all s2

Completely undeveloped

0 3

Very satisfiedi

s4 Well developed

Base: Those organizations which had cooperation, 98% (505 NGOs)

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

NGO networking Out of organizations that had cooperated with other NGOs (98% of the sample), 75% are members of some NGO network. 69% of these NGOs are members of domestic networks and 26% members of international networks. Of course, there is a difference between FENS members and non-members: out of organizations which are not members of FENS, 48% do not belong to any network, 40% are members of domestic networks, while 23% are members of international networks. As for membership in domestic networks, there are no significant differences related to the region, time when organization was formed, field of work or size. However, with international networks, the situation is different. Members of international networks are to a higher percentage larger, older organizations and organizations from Belgrade. Graph 48: Are you a member of any NGO network?

Yes, international

Graph 49: Are you a member of any NGO network?

Yes, international 26

23 30

Yes, domestic Yes, domestic

100

No No

25 FENS members

Base: Those organizations which had cooperation, 98% (505 NGOs)

48 25

FENS non-members

Base: Those organizations which had cooperation, 98% (505 NGOs)

Several main conclusions can be drawn when we consider the list of membership in international and domestic networks: 1. There is no clear distinction between the concepts of network and partnership with other NGOs. As it was often the case, instead of listing the name of the network, respondents frequently listed the names of different organizations. This is the result which is identical to the findings of research by NGO Policy Group in 2001: â&#x20AC;&#x153; The concept of coalition and networking is not clear enough to many organizations â&#x20AC;&#x153;. NGOs which participated in this research list as many as 181 networks. Most often, only one, or sometimes two or three NGOs recognize that their organization is a member of some network. Some NGOs listed membership in organizations which in fact are not networks. Research findings show that NGO organizations still do not clearly distinguish what the concept of network includes and how it functions. 2. As for international networks, there is no single one which gathers a large number of NGOs although more than 100 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%): SEEEN, Seecran, RNC, European movement, Save the children, CIVICUS, Teledom, Council of Europe, Youth peer. 3. As for domestic networks, except FENS, there is no single network with more than 5% of organizations, members of domestic network. Although there were also more than 100 networks listed, only some of them have membership which exceeds 2% (domestic network members): CRNPS, NVO PVO, Volvoks, Srbija Without Poverty. Since the sample included intentionally certain numbers of FENS members and non-members, this research cannot give us conclusions on membership frequency in FENS network. Members of domestic and international network most frequently state the following as the main reasons for becoming members of certain networks, either domestic or international : -easier achievement of goals and common interests, the need for joint problem solving (63% of NGOs, network members). -development of NGO sector, improvement of work, exchange of experience, higher level of information, better communication, financial support (49%) -opportunity to have more effective, stronger influence (24%) -improving the image of NGOs in the media (7%). The following graphs show comparison of attitudes on the influence of their NGOs and influence of networks within NGO sector: Graph 50: How would you rate the influence of network/s that you are a member of?

No influence

Small influence

Big influence

58%

37%

Base: NGO network members, 70% (360 NGOs)

Graph 51: How would you rate the influence of network in NGO sector?

Small influence

Big influence

79%

14%

Base: Organizations which had cooperation, 98% (505 NVO)

It can be noticed that the most frequently expressed opinion is that although networks do have certain influence it is of a very narrow scope. Also, it is noticeable that larger influence is attached to the activities of their own networks than networking within the NGO sector. This result can be interpreted as an indicator that representatives of the NGO sector in general think that networks are important for the sector, but do not see their full influence, while from their own experience, they can see the impact of the network which they are members of. There were no significant differences on this question among organizations depending on research variables (year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region). As we expected, all organizations-FENS members, have heard of this NGO network. Among organizations which are not members of this network, a total of 66% of organizations heard of this network. There were no significant differences on this question among organizations depending on research variables (year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region). Graph 52: Have you heard of FENS (Federation of NGOs of Serbia)?

100 FENS members 0 66 FENS non-members 34

Yes

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

The ratio between FENS members and non-members was defined by the sample, so this research does not offer an insight into incidence of membership in this network within NGO sector. Nevertheless, we can talk about the reasons for this membership. As the main reasons for becoming network members, representatives of organizations in FENS network most often stated the following: -better cooperation, exchange of experience, better level of information (45% of FENS members) -strengthening the sector on the whole, development, improvement of work, better status in the media (37%) -easier achievement of common interests (29%) -strengthening the sector's influence over the authorities and law passing (14%). Representatives of organizations which have heard of FENS, but their organizations are not members of the network, state that the main reasons why their organizations are not members the following: -lack of information about the network (47% of organizations that have heard of FENS but have not become members), -lack of interest in network membership (18%), -doubts about FENS influence, negative attitude to FENS (11%), -personal problems (13%), -cooperation with organizations they feel closer to, organizations with similar missions (3%)

Graph 53: What is in your opinion the purpose of FENS? 58 58

58 55

54 49

48 42

39 34

13 6

6 2

No an sw er

er Oth

cha

eo fi am nform on g N ation de GO cis s ion -m Influ e ake nce rs in S ove erb r ia Pro mo soc tion iety of c an d r Co val ivil ord eq ue ue s i sts natio wit no hin f NG attitu O s des ect or Ra isin gi soc mpo rt ial Im iss ant pro ue s vin gN GO sec ima tor Cre ge ati wit ng m hin o the nopo sec ly tor Pro m ind otion ivid of ua ls

FENS members

FENS non-members

Base: All who had heard of FENS 82% (423 NGOs)

*Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%

Attitude to FENS network is most often positive - organizations which are not members of this network see its purpose mainly in strengthening the NGO sector, while its members perceive its purpose in a much wider sense along with strengthening the NGO sector, they state that it means stronger impact on decision-makers and the whole public opinion in Serbia. Organizations that have heard of FENS, most often list as the most important purpose of FENS: exchange of information within the NGOs, greater influence on decision-makers in Serbia, promotion of values of civil society and coordination of attitudes and request within the NGO sector in relation to the state, raising important social issues and improvement in the image of the NGO sector. Representatives of organizations which are not FENS members agree with FENS members that FENS has an important role in strengthening the relations within the NGO sector, but they mention far less often its influence outside the sector influence over decision-makers and public opinion. Activities that FENS was involved in so far receive average mark 2.92 on a 5-point scale (1=absolutely unsuccessful, 5=completely successful). The largest percentage of respondents gave mark 3 (40% of organizations that have heard of FENS) when rating how successful FENS activities have been so far. Organizations which are FENS members give somewhat more positive marks for this network activity than non-member organizations. In comparison to other variables (when was the organization formed, field of work, size, region), there are no significant differences in ratings.

Graph 54: How would you rate the activities of FENS up to now? 4,5

Totally unsuccessful

8,9 24,7

18,3 42

36,1 19,8

Totally successful

No answer given

10,6 8,2 2,2 0,8 23,9

Non members of FENS

Members of FENS

Base: Total of organizations which heard of FENS 82% (423 NGOs)

G. Cooperation between NGOs and the state Most respondents are not satisfied, in general, with the relationship between the state and the NGO sector, and perceive this relationship as underdeveloped. The most frequently given answer to the question â&#x20AC;&#x153;How would you evaluate the attitude of the state towards the Third Sector?â&#x20AC;? is indeed that the state is uninterested and underestimates the importance of the NGO sector (62% of respondents). 25% feel that the state views NGOs as competitors. However, cooperation between NGOs and local administrations is rated rather more positively than the general situation in the sector, even if, for the most part, they are still represented by negative ratings- 40% of organizations rate the cooperation as bad, 28% as neither good nor bad, while 32% feel that there is good cooperation. Graph 55: How would you rate the relationship between the state and the NGO sector? The state recognizes the NGO sector as a partner

The state views NGOs as competitors The state is uninterested and underestimates the importance of the NGO sector The state helps the development of the NGO sector (allocating resources)

Graph 56: How would you rate the cooperation between local government and your organization? Very poor cooperation

25 19

s2 62

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

Unable to evaluate

Very good cooperation

21 11

9 Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

11% of respondent NGOs have not had any cooperation with state institutions so far. 55% have experienced cooperation with state institutions on a local level and 45% with state institutions on a national level. Non-governmental organizations formed before 2000, as well as those from Belgrade, cooperated with state institutions on a national level considerably more often than the younger organizations and those organizations from smaller areas. This information tells us that the older organizations have acquired a certain reputation and because of their experience are better able to position themselves. On the question of cooperation on a local level there are no great differences depending on the research variables (when it was formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). Representatives of organizations who up to the present have not cooperated generally gave the reason for this as a lack of interest in cooperation both on the part of the NGOs themselves (“cooperation wasn't necessary”), and on the part of the state institutions (“they didn't want to cooperate”). Graph 57: Have you, up to the present, cooperated with any state institution whatsoever? There has been no cooperation

Graph 58: What type of cooperation have you had with state institutions up to now? State in role of donor

11 NGO as a consultant

Yes, on a local level Yes, on a national level

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Working together on a project

45 Exchanging experiences and information *Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%

Base: All which cooperated with the state 89% (455 NGOs)

The most common form of cooperation with the state is working together on projects ( stated by 59% of organizations which had cooperated with the state), followed by exchanging experiences and information(50%). The state helped 44% of organizations as a donor. It is a little strange that as many as 26% of organizations stated they had had a role as consultants in their cooperation, although this is probably because consultancy is seen as a very wide concept (more in the sense of specialist help). On this question the only differences are on the basis of region: organizations from Belgrade more often appear in the role of consultants than organizations from other regions (38% compared to 22% from Central Serbia and 20% from Vojvodina), and on the other hand the state in the role of donor is most common in Vojvodina and rarest in Central Serbia (Vojvodina - 60%, Belgrade - 47%, and Central Serbia - 34%). The most common problems in cooperation with the state are most often said to be: - A lack of interest on the part of the representatives of state institution (54% of organizations which had cooperated with the state), - the large role played by informal contacts, “connections” (45%), - state institutions do not have the resources to help NGO activities (44%), - the large state administration slows the process of exchanging information(44%), - cooperation on projects is difficult to achieve because of differing levels of competence (34%).

50 *Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%

25% of representatives of the NGO sector stated that the state apparatus, or the government, up until now had hindered their work in some way. It is possible that this percentage is even larger, but some of the actions of the state apparatus were not seen as hindrances. These hindrances for the most part relate to the period after the fall of Milosevic's regime, while the percentage during that regime was considerably higher. On this question there are no differences depending on the research variables (when it was formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). The most frequent ways of hindering the work are given as: refusal of the use of space (18% of organizations who said that state hindered their work), refusal of finances (15% of given organizations), non-cooperation - “they gave us no guarantee”, “they favored other organizations” (13%), disinterest (11%). The largest group of respondents feel that cooperation between NGOs and the state is very important-49% of all respondents. Still the graph shows us that 15% of organizations do not see this cooperation as important. Graph 59: How would you rate the importance of cooperation between the state and NGOs? Completely unimportant

Very important

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

H. Cooperation of NGOs with the business sector As can be seen from graph 60, 61% of all respondents say they have cooperated with the business sector. Here it should be stated that any form of communication between NGOs and businesses is understood to mean cooperation, such as donations, even of the smallest volume- in goods, financial donations... Cooperation is most often achieved among the older organizations (70% of older organizations have experience of cooperation), as well as among the large NGOs (71% of large organizations have cooperated with the business sector). Also differences are noticeable depending on the field of work (as can be seen in graph 61): cooperation is considerably more common in the fields of culture, education, ecology, and social-humanitarian work than in the field of human rights. Why is cooperation difficult to achieve? The respondents (representatives from NGOs who had not achieved cooperation) gave as the most important reason as to why cooperation had not been achieved- on the one hand the business sector's lack of interest in cooperation and on the other hand the lack of interest on the part of the NGOs themselves ( other factors appear considerably less often): - Lack of interest of the business sector- (the business sector is not interested - 24% of organizations which had not achieved cooperation, the business sector is not ready for cooperation-11%, they don't understand the importance of NGOs - 8%),

Graph 60: Have you cooperated with the business sector up to now?

Graph 61: Have you cooperated with the business sector up to now? - by field of work Culture, education and ecology

Social-humanitarian work

No 39

74% 26% 73% 27%

Young people, economy, professional associations Yes 61

Development of civil society

61% 39% 59% 41%

Protection of human rights

Yes Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

- Lack of interest of the NGOs themselves - (We had no need for cooperation - 14%. Our mission is not connected to the business sector - 12%, nobody offered us cooperation -3%) - Other factors - The business sector is undeveloped, it has no resources - 8%, there were not opportunities, conditions, possibilities for cooperation -17%. Cooperation is most often achieved because of the interests of the representatives of the business sector in a given field ( this reason is stated by 58% of respondents whose NGOs achieved cooperation). The personal motives of the representatives of the business sector also play an important role (29% of these respondents), as does the business sector's representatives' membership on the organization's managing board (17%). 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 donor- if we take into account only those organizations which have cooperated with the business sector, it is noticeable that 78% of these NGOs have had experience with business sector donations, 25% appeared in consultant roles, and 5% provided other types of service. Cooperation where the business sector is found in the role of donor is more often achieved by organizations from the social-humanitarian field than organizations from other fields. Graph 62: What types of cooperation have you had with the business sector up to now? Business sector in the role of donor

NGOs as consultancy service Various services related to problems we deal with Other

Base: NGOs which cooperated with the business sector 61% (312 NGOs)

*Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%

44% 56%

When the business sector appears in the role of donor, it is most often a question of financial donations (66% of organizations which had received donations), and then donations in kind (60% of these organizations). The next graph shows the nature of the help received from the business sector. It can be clearly seen that the majority of organizations receive sporadic, small amounts of help from the business sector (73% of NGOs which had received donations). Only 6% (of organizations which receive donations) actually receive strategically planned and continuous help. Another 21% of these organizations state that the help they receive is not continuous, but that it is received regularly, for most projects. Graph 63: What is the nature of the help which you receive from the business sector? Both strategically planned and continuous help 6% Help is not continuous but they help us with most projects 21%

Help is sporadic, it's a question of small donations 73% Base: NGOs which had received donations from the business sector- 48% (233 NGOs)

Satisfaction with the cooperation of their own organization with the business sector is modest - the average mark on a scale from 1 to 5 is 2.87, and as can be seen from the graph, extreme evaluations of cooperation (marks of 1 or 5) are rare, which tells us that distinctly negative or positive examples of cooperation are rare. Graph 64: To what extent are you satisfied with the cooperation between your organization and the business sector? We are not satisfied at all

Totally unimportant

We are very satisfied

Total+

Graph 65: How would you rate the importance of cooperation between the business sector and NGOs?

Base: NGOs which cooperated with the business sector - 61% (312 NGOs)

Very important

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

The graph that assesses the importance of cooperation, however has a completely different trend. It can be seen that the highest percentage of respondents - representatives of the NGO sector feel that cooperation with the business sector is of exceptional significance ( 37% of all respondents), and another 25% see it as important. Even so, it should be kept in mind that 20% of respondents do not see the significance of such cooperation. On these two questions there are no significant differences depending on the research variables (when was the organization formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). On the question â&#x20AC;&#x153;Is it better to cooperate with private or state companies?â&#x20AC;? - the highest percentage of respondents - representatives of NGOs who have cooperated with the business sector up to now feel that there is no difference (45% of NGOs who have cooperated with the business sector). However, the remainder of the respondents give the advantage to private companies. On this question there are no significant differences depending on the research variables (when was the organization formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). Graph 66: Is it better to cooperate with private or state-run companies?

No difference 45%

With private companies 41%

With state companies 14% Base : NGOs which had cooperated with the business sector - 61% (312 NGOs)

We asked the organizations which had previously cooperated with the business sector why there is not more cooperation between them and the business sector. The most frequently stated reasons are primarily the financial difficulties which companies have to deal with, generally, and in particular in relation to this type of cooperation: companies receive no tax breaks for helping the NGO sector ( stated by 65% of respondents - representatives of NGOs which had achieved cooperation with the business sector), as well as the fact that the companies are in very poor condition (62% of these respondents). Insufficient knowledge of the role and significance of the NGO sector is in third place (58%). Evidently, according to the opinion of the representatives of the NGO sector, there is no negative attitude on the part of the representatives of the business sector towards the Third Sector or it is of secondary significance: lack of interest in the work of the NGO sector is stated by 35% of respondents who achieved cooperation, and a negative attitude from the business sector towards NGOs 25%. It is indicative that on the last rung of this ladder of reasons we find the inexperience of NGOs in approaching the business sector, which is given as a reason for the lack of cooperation by only 17% o these respondents. On this question there are no significant differences depending on the research variables (when organization was formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region).

Graph 67: Why is there no greater cooperation between your organization and the business sector? There is no tax relief for companies helping the NGO sector

Companies are in a very poor state - they have no resources for donations

Companies have insufficient knowledge of the role and significance of NGOs

Companies are not interested in the work of NGOs

There is a negative attitude towards NGO sector on the whole

NGOs do not have experience in approaching business sector Other

Base: NGOs which have cooperated with the business sector -61% (312 NVO)

*Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%

At the end of this section we asked all the respondents to give us their suggestions to the question of what the NGO sector could do to approach the business sector in a better way. Most frequently, the respondents asserted that it is necessary better to familiarize the business sector with their work, the role and significance of the NGO sector, as well as the benefits both sectors would gain from such cooperation.

Graph 68: What can the NGO sector do to approach the business sector in a better way? To familiarize business sector with the significance and role of NGOs, and benefits to both sides of cooperation

A campaign to change the image of NGOs

Lobbying

Making a plan of action for joint appearance in NGO network

Organizing joint conferences with business sector

Learning the skills for fund raising

Other

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

*Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%

I. NGOs' cooperation with the media

The majority of non-governmental organizations have contact with the media (98%). Here we have to stress that in this case the concept of contact can mean any form of cooperation (from reporting and advertising right through to working together on projects and providing consultancy services. On this question there are no differences depending on the research variables (when organization was formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). When we look at the reasons for cooperation, we see that in the majority of cases (95% of organizations which had cooperated) this cooperation is reflected in media reporting on some of the organization's activities. However, according to the statements of our respondents, joint work between NGOs and the media on some projects is not a rare occurrence (43% of organizations which had cooperated). This is followed by advertising the organization in the media (42% of organizations). Advertising the organization is mentioned as a form of cooperation considerably more often by representatives of the NGO sector from smaller areas than those from Belgrade - the reason for this probably lies in the fact that (as can be seen from later answers) local media give considerably more space to promoting the NGO sector. Graph 69: Have you up to now had any type of cooperation or contact with the media? No 2%

Graph 70: Reasons for cooperation with the media Media reporting on some of the organization's activities

Cooperation between NGOs and the media on projects, e.g. educational cam.

Advertising the organization Media house as donor to NGO

Yes 98%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

NGO in the role of giving professional advice

Training programs for journalists

Bases: NGOs which had cooperated with the media 98% (505 NGOs)

*multiple answers- % do not add up to 100%

Of all the organizations which had had contact with the media (altogether 98% of the sample), 67% found it easier to have contact with the local media, while only 6% found it easier to achieve cooperation with the large national media , and 28% did not notice any difference (graph 71). However there are huge regional differences (graph 72) - in Belgrade it is much easier to achieve cooperation with large media houses with national coverage, than it is in the other two regions, Vojvodina and Central Serbia. We could say that in these two regions cooperation with the larger media is almost totally non-existent, but that the local media is obviously more open to cooperation.

Graph 71: Have you found cooperation easier with local or large national media?

Graph 72: Have you found cooperation easier with local or large national media? - by region 28 Belgrade

With the local media

With the larger media, with national coverage

17 55

67%

Central Serbia

82 1 16

74 No difference

28%

Vojvodina

4 23

With the local media Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

With the larger media, with national coverage

No difference

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

55% of representatives of all NGOs which had cooperated with the media feel that in achieving cooperation, there was no difference between the printed and the electronic media (graph 73). 31% of representatives of these organizations stated that cooperation is more easily achieved with the electronic media, while 14% more easily achieve cooperation with magazines and daily papers. A clearer picture appears when we look at this question taking into account regional differences (graph 74). We notice, again, that the picture in Belgrade is considerably different than in the other two regions. In Belgrade it is evidently considerably easier than in the other regions for non-governmental organizations to make contact with the printed media. The greatest difference in accessibility between these two types of media is in Central Serbia - the electronic media is far more accessible than the press, while in Vojvodina there is the greatest equality in the accessibility of the various types of media. Graph 73: Have you found cooperation easier with the electronic or the printed media?

Graph 74: Have you found cooperation easier with the electronic or the printed media? - by region 12% Belgrade

28%

Electronic media (TV, radio) 31%

60%

46% Central Serbia

8% 47%

No difference 55%

21% Printed media 14%

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

Vojvodina

14% 65%

Electronic media (TV, radio)

Printed media

No difference

Basis: NGOs which had cooperated with the media- 98% (505 NGOs)

The next four graphs show marks on a 5-point scale: satisfaction with one's personal cooperation with the media, a general rating of the development of cooperation between the NGO sector and the media, rating the media's perception of the NGO sector, and an evaluation of the importance of cooperation between these two sectors. We can come to the conclusion that cooperation with the media is seen as very important - almost all the representatives of the NGO sector think this way. Also, the experiences of this cooperation up to now are mostly positive (the average mark on the scale for satisfaction - 3.87 and the answer “moderately satisfied”). As many as 78% of respondents are satisfied with the cooperation achieved! Only 8% expressed dissatisfaction with the cooperation achieved up to the present. On the other hand it is felt that cooperation is not sufficiently developed when the sector as a whole is taken into account ( the average mark for cooperation comes out at 3.04, and the most frequently answer is a three on the 5-point scale- “it is neither developed nor undeveloped”). Also the most stated opinion is that the media inadequately and only partially understand the importance of the NGO sector in Serbia (again the most frequently given score is three on the 5-point scale). Graph 76: In general, how developed do you think the cooperation between the media and the NGO sector is?

Graph 75: To what extent are you satisfied with the cooperation between your organization and the media? We are not satisfied at all

Totally undeveloped

We are very satisfied

Very developed

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

Graph 77: To what extent, in your opinion, do the media understand the importance of the role of NGOs?

Graph 78: How would you rate the importance of cooperation between the media and NGOs?

Not at all

Totally

Totally unimportant

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

Very important Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

In general journalists are blamed for the problems in cooperation - the significance of the active role of NGOs in cooperation with the media is not recognized. The respondents most often gave as the most common reasons for their dissatisfaction with their cooperation with the media the fact that there is no investigative journalism tracking the work of the NGO sector (48% of representatives of NGOs which had cooperated with the media), as well as the generally low level of professionalism of journalists ( 38% of these organizations). Only 19% of organizations felt that the NGOs themselves are not properly prepared for working with the media. Graph 79: With what were you not satisfied during your cooperation with the media? There is no investigative journalism tracking the work of NGOs

48%

Low level of professionalism of journalists

38%

The price of advertising in the media is very high

27%

The media are not interested in reporting on NGO activities

24%

The media distorts information in order to come up with sensationalist stories

23%

NGOs are not sufficiently prepared for cooperation with the media

19%

The influential media have a generally negative position towards the work of NGOs No problems with anything, good cooperation

12% 3%

No answer

13% *Multiple answers- % do not add up to 100%

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

Non-governmental organizations most often advertise their work in the local media (this answer was given by 85% of organizations which had cooperated with the media), followed by advertising via the internet (websites and e-mails) and informal channels. The rarest form of advertising is in the national media. However, the accessibility of the national media varies considerably depending on the credibility of the NGO- thus the results show us that promotion of their work in the large national media is significantly more common amongst the big NGOs, formed before 2000, and from Belgrade. NGOs from Belgrade also use the Internet more often as a means of communication, but are less than NGOs from the other regions present in the local media. Graph 80: Do you advertise the program and projects of you NGO, and which form does this promotion take? In the local media

Via the internet (website, mailing lists)

Informal channels

In the national media Other

31 5

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

*Multiple answers- % do not add up to 100%

NGOs report the results of their projects in various ways - however, most often they appear as reports in the media, press conferences, statements and studies, as well as via websites and mailing lists. Graph 81: Which method do you use to publicize the results of your projects? The media, electronic and printed

Press conferences

Reports, studies

Internet, web sites, mailing lists Pamphlets and brochures, your own propaganda material

16 5

Interviews, statements

Evaluations, final appraisals of projects

Presentations, promotions, reviews of projects

Informal channels

Announcements

In written form

Meetings, round tables, scientific gatherings, workshops

No answer given

7 *Multiple answers - percentages do not add up to 100%

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

On the basis of the next graph we can see that the most common way for the media to follow the activities of NGOs is by interviewing their representatives (stated by 84% of respondents). Coverage of activities through various newspaper articles is next on the list, followed by paid adverts. We see at the very bottom of the list, with a total of only 4%, the continuous tracking of NGO activity by the media. Reporting by means of newspaper articles is most common in Belgrade, and rarest in Central Serbia, which is in accordance with the data already received that the printed media is more accessible in Belgrade. Graph 82: How do the media cover the activities of your organization? Interviews about activities

84 58

Articles Paid advertising Reporting, following the activities

15 4

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

*Multiple answers - percentages do not add up to 100%

How do NGOs evaluate the attitude of the media regarding their sector? The majority of respondents feel that that there are differing opinions amongst the media regarding the NGO sector, with some parts having a positive attitude and some negative (35% of all respondents). Also there is a high percentage of respondents who feel that most of the media has a more positive than negative attitude towards the NGO sector (30%). On this question there are no significant differences depending on the research variables (time when organization was formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). Evaluation of the situation of the organizations in the area of cooperation with the media - 32% of respondent organizations feel that there is no need for further training, 53% believe the situation is good, but that further training is necessary, while 15% think that training in the field of cooperation with media is essential. On this question there are no great differences depending on the research variables (time when organization was formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). Graph 84: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization with regard to cooperation with the media?

Graph 83: How would you evaluate the general attitude of the media towards the NGO sector? The attitude of most of the media is positive

30%

Equal number of media with positive and negative attitude The attitude of most of the media is negative

35%

Training is essential in this area 15%

Most of the media are totally uninterested Unable to evaluate

We have no need for further training 32%

19%

Good, but further training is necessary 53%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

K. The attitude of public towards NGOs

The public attitude towards the NGO sector is judged to be mainly neutral (47% of respondents give a mark of 3 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is an expressly negative attitude and 5 expressly positive). The average mark on this scale is 2.86 (on a scale of 1 to 5). On this question there are no great differences depending on the research variables (time when organization was formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS,region). Somewhat higher marks are noticeable when the respondents reported how they saw the attitude of the community in which they worked, concretely towards their NGO (the most common mark was 4 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is a distinctly negative and 5 a distinctly positive attitude). The average mark on this scale is 3.50 (compared to 2.86 in the sector as a whole). It could be said that the respondents perceive the attitude of the community in which they work as much more favorable and positive towards their own organization than towards the NGO sector as a whole. Graph 85: How would you evaluate the attitude of the community in which you work towards the NGO sector as a whole?

Distinctly negative attitude

Distinctly positive attitude

s3 s4

Graph 86: How would you evaluate the attitude of the community in which you work towards your organization?

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

s3 s4 Distinctly positive attitude

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

The perception of the awareness of the citizens regarding the work of NGOs is relatively low (graph 87) (an average mark of 2.60 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is very unaware and 5 very aware). On this question regional differences are noticeable. Respondents from Central Serbia perceive the citizens of Serbia to be informed to a greater degree about the work of the NGO sector, especially compared to the respondents from Belgrade.

Graph 87: How would you evaluate the awareness of the citizens in your area regarding the NGO sector?

Very unaware

Graph 88: How much are the citizens in your area interested in the work of the NGO sector?

Distinctly uninterested

s4 Very aware

Distinctly interested

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

When asked â&#x20AC;&#x153;How interested the citizens of your area are in the work of the NGO sectorâ&#x20AC;? (graph 87), negative marks were expressed to a greater extent. The average mark on this scale is 2.5 (on a 5-point scale where 1 is very uninterested and 5 is very interested). On this question there were no great differences depending on the research variables (between organizations of varying size, from various regions, formed before or after 2000, FENS members or nonmembers). Only organizations dealing with human rights felt to a greater degree that citizens were interested in the work of the NGO sector.

Graph 89: Does your organization have a public relations strategy?

Graph 90: Does your organization have a public relations strategy? 58%

Culture, education and training

42% 47%

Social-humanitarian work

No 47%

Yes 53%

53%

Young people, the economy and professiona associations

34% 65% 67%

Development of civic society

32% 54%

Protection of human rights

Yes Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

45%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

53% of respondents, representatives of the NGO sector, stated that their organization had a public relations strategy (as is shown in Graph 89). Regarding the field of work, it is noticeable that a different trend exists only amongst those NGOs which deal with youth ( the picture is totally reversed - among these organizations 65% have no public relations strategy, and only 34% do). Organizations dealing with the development of civic society for the most part have a strategy (67% of these organizations). The differences are not significant between the various regions, whether or not they are members of FENS, year of formation or the size of the organization. When explaining the ways in which their organization communicates with the public, the most frequently given answers are: direct contact with citizens/ beneficiares (67%), printed materials- brochures, flyers, leaflets, posters (65%), public announcements (58%), media campaigns (50%), press conferences (46%), internet presentations, websites (43%), annual reports (27%). Significant differences are shown when we compare the frequency with which press conferences are held by smaller organizations (up to 14 members) (34%) and larger ones (55%). Also, organizations dealing with the development of civil society use web pages and websites more significantly (58%) than organizations dealing with the protection of human rights (32%). Statistically significant differences between the regions are also noticeable. Internet communication is much more accessible in Belgrade than is the case in Central Serbia. It is possible that it is easier to make contact with NGOs in Belgrade, and that computers are more often used as an â&#x20AC;&#x153;efficientâ&#x20AC;? medium. The preparation of annual reports, as a means of communicating with the public, is more common among organizations formed before 2000, as well as among those which are members of FENS. 86% of NGOs have their own logo, 32% a slogan, and 35% a PR manager. On this question there are no great differences depending on the research variables (size of organization, membership of FENS, year of formation, field of work, region). The only significant difference is on the question of the employment of a PR manager by smaller and larger organizations. As might be expected, 47% of larger NGOs have a PR manager, while that is the case in only 25% of smaller organizations. Graph 91: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in terms of public relations? We have no need for further training 23%

Additional training in this field is necessery 25%

Good, but further training is necessary 52% Baza: Svi ispitanici 100% (516 NVO)

The evaluation of the situation in the organizations with regard to public relations- Half of the polled NGOs (52%) state that the situation in their organization in this respect is good, but that further training is necessary. NGOs which deal with the development of civil society say they have considerably less need for further training - 9% of these organizations. Smaller organizations, significantly more than larger ones, state the need for further training (33% compared to 19% of larger organizations).

There are no significant differences depending on membership of FENS, region or year of the organizations formation. When answering the question â&#x20AC;&#x153;What is the decisive factor for you when creating an organization's image?â&#x20AC;? the given answers were (with the opportunity for multiple answers): Table 5: What is the decisive factor in creating an organization's image? The relationship with users, addressing the citizens in a clear way Presence in the media Successful activities A clear position on the current problems in community Public addressing skills Well made promotional material (logo, leaflets, flyers) The organization should have attractive activities Having a public relations strategy Good links and contacts with other leaders/organizations in the community

72% 64% 52% 47% 45% 45% 39% 34% 30%

Larger regional differences were obtained when the attractiveness of the organizations' activities were looked at as an important part of creating an NGO's image: respondents from Vojvodina judged the attractiveness of an organization's activities as much more significant for the creation of their image (50%) than respondents from the Central Serbia region (30%) and Belgrade (40%). In Belgrade there was more emphasis on the possession of a public relations strategy (45%). When asked which were the dominant factors affecting the image of the NGO sector in Serbia, the respondents stated (multiple answers): Graph 92: State what in your opinion are the dominant factors affecting the image of the NGO sector in Serbia? 38%

20%

20% 18%

18%

11% 10% 9%

Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

do Fore na ig tio n ns se c t ne or tw link ork s, ing

NG O

cle NG Th ar Os e go th wo al em rk an se of d lv th po The litic po prog es, ae r s, litic Pu po al am bli litic situ ci al ati s pa on on no rtie , the t we s rol ll in e o fo r m f ign NG ed ora Os Th er nc , ela e Ot tio h er an ns an in d th hip sw the e be ers me med twe dia ia, en , c pr NG Th oo es O er pe enc s ela ra e tio an n d N t sh tion GO he g ip b s, ov etw co ern e op m en era en tio t n Me N str di oa ate a p ns gy res we r for en pu tati o bli n cr ,s ela kill of tio s, ns the for The me po r re liti gim cs Th e es i Co t h e tuati ns o co n i e un n pa rvativ try tria e rch com y, m pre un pro Rol jud ity, ce e in ice ss, th de e d mo em cra oc tiza rati tio c n

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

On this question there are no great differences depending on the research variables (foundation year, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region) When asked â&#x20AC;&#x153;what is the most important factor in improving the image of the NGO sector in Serbia?â&#x20AC;? (with the opportunity for multiple answers) respondents stated that the most significant factor was familiarizing the citizens with the role and importance of the NGO sector (72%). The remaining answers and their respective percentages are shown in the following graph: Graph 93: What do you see as the most important factor in improving the image of the NGO sector in Serbia? Familiarizing the citizens with the role and significance of the NGO sector

72%

Direct contact with the citizens (meetings, round tables, etc.)

40%

Achieving better cooperation with local government and administration

35%

Improvement in reacting to the needs of service users

30%

Achieving better cooperation with politicians and people of influence Changing - improving the relationship with journalists Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

28%

22%

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

On this question there are no great differences depending on the research variables (time when organization was formed, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region).

J. Staff and volunteers Research findings show that the largest number of NGOs (76%) hire new staff depending on the project, without a developed system. Fewer organizations (17%) have an already developed system. The fewest number of NGOs stated that they do not hire new staff (7%). This result coincides with the research NGO Policy Group in 2001, where it was stated that 70% of the organizations occasionally hire volunteers. With regards to the findings of that research, the number of organizations that do not hire new staff has decreased from 12% to 7%. When results by region are compared, it can be said that organizations from Belgrade have more often developed system of hiring new staff (27%) than those in Vojvodina (15%) and Central Serbia (12%). In Central Serbia there is a more dominant tendency of hiring new staff depending on the project in comparison to the average figure (82%). In Vojvodina, there is the largest tendency of not hiring new staff (14% of organizations). Graph 94: How do you hire new staff?

We do not hire new staff 7%

Graph 95: How do you hire new staff - by region? 27% Belgrade

We have a developed system 17%

70% 3%

Central Serbia

12% 82% 6%

15% Depending on the project, we do not have a developed system 76%

Vojvodina

71% 14%

We have a developed system

Depending on the project, we do not have a developed system

We do not hire new staff Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Organizations with more than 30 activists, more often than smaller ones hire staff based on the developed system (23% in comparison to 13% organizations with fewer than 14 members of staff). There is also a difference between organizations founded before and after the year 2000: organizations with â&#x20AC;&#x153;longer traditionâ&#x20AC;? are more experienced, so it is not surprising that there are more of them with a developed system of hiring new staff (22% as opposed to 13%). The most frequent way of recruiting volunteers is through personal contacts, friends and family ties (42%), then by independent applications by volunteers (17%) this method is the least efficient in organizations dealing with youth (only 7% of these organizations recruit volunteers in this way). In 14% of organizations volunteers are recruited depending on the project. This is also the case with organizations dealing with culture and education. Volunteer centers as one of the potential resources of new staff are present in 13% of the cases. There are differences between NGOs which are FENS members and nonmembers.

Graph 97: What problems do you encounter with employed staff and volunteers in your NGO?

Graph 96: How do you recruit volunteers? Personal contacts, friends, family ties

42% 17%

Volunteers contact us They are hired depending on the project

14%

Insufficiently experienced staff Lack of motivation of hired staff

From volunteer centers

13%

Recruiting and keeping the staff in NGO

They heard about us from the media

13%

Recruiting volunteers

They are our members

11% 4%

Financial resources

We do not have volunteers

No problems

Do not know

No answer *Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

29 27 14

Inadequate management of volunteers and/or hired staff

They are users of our services

Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

6 3 7 11 *Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Most frequent problems that NGOs encounter with staff and volunteers are: insufficient experience of staff (30%) and lack of motivation of hired staff (29%). This distribution of answers indicates an important problem which must be solved in order for NGOs to be more efficient and to function better. In Belgrade the situation is somewhat different: smaller percentage (only 17% of organizations from Belgrade) of NGOs express lack of motivation of hired staff. As in previous cases, membership in FENS did not have any impact on the answers that were obtained. Two more problems that are encountered are recruiting and keeping the staff in NGOs (27%), as well recruiting volunteers (14%). These results show that the problem is not only recruiting the staff ready to take part in NGO work, but also the problem of keeping the staff in the organization. Inadequate management of volunteers and/or employed members was stated as one of the less important problems (6%). According to respondents, the NGOs which are the least affected by this problem are those dealing with socio-humanitarian work (only 1%). Although economic situation in the country is bad, the problem of financial resources that NGO's are facing (related to employed staff and volunteers) appears at the bottom of the list (on average 3% of organizations stated this as one of the problems that their organization had). 7% of organizations mention that â&#x20AC;&#x153;in their NGO there are no problems related to employed staff and volunteersâ&#x20AC;?, and 11% did not give an answer to this question. Apart from the stated differences, there are no other significant differences among regions, with relation to the size of organization, the time when it was formed and field of work. Rating of situation in the organizations in terms of hiring staff and recruiting volunteers-the dominant opinion is that the situation is good, but that they still need additional training in this field (48% chose this answer), 22% think that additional training in this field is necessary, while 28% think that they do not have any need for additional training in this field. In Belgrade, the prevailing opinion is that their organization does not need additional training (41% as opposed to Central Serbia22% and Vojvodina -26%) There are no significant differences in answers depending on the size of organization, time when it was formed, FENS membership.

Graph 99: How would you rate the situation in your organization in terms of hiring staff and recruiting volunteers by region?

Graph 98: How would you rate the situation in your organization in terms of hiring staff and recruiting volunteers? No need for additional training 28%

17%

Additional training in this field is necessary 22%

Belgrade

40% 41% 25%

Central Serbia

52% 22% 22%

Vojvodina

49% 26%

Good, but we need additional training 48%

Good, but we need additional training

Additional training in this field is necessary

No need for additional training

Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

L. Diversity within the sector When stating the most important problems in the country that NGOs should or already are addressing (multiple answers), respondents most frequently mentioned the problems with human rights (26%), then living standard of citizens (25%) as well as problems in education (21%). Distribution of other answers is shown in the graph: Graph 100: Most important problems that NGOs should or already are addressing? (first 11 answers) Human rights

26%

Living standards, economic problems

25%

Education

21%

Social problems, social protection

12% 11%

Youth Unemployment

10%

Laws, implementation of laws, the rule of law

10%

Protection of environment, ecology

10%

Democratization of society

Children

Minority rights

Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Comparison by research variables: -There are no differences between FENS members and non-members except in their perception of important economic problems - FENS members attach larger importance to this problem (33% of FENS members as opposed to 18% of nonmembers). - NGOs by rule stress the importance of problems that they deal with- the problem of education is much more stressed by organizations dealing with culture, education and training (30%), social protection by organizations dealing with sociohumanitarian work (23% from these organizations), etc. -Younger organizations to a somewhat higher degree stress the problem of unemployment than older organizations. -There are no other differences depending on the resion and time of the organization. The largest number of respondents think that NGO involvement is equally distributed in relation to current social problems. When asked whether there was an area in which too many NGOs are involved at the expense of other areas which are neglected, 68% of respondents were of the opinion that there were no such areas. There are no significant differences in answers to this question in research variables, except with reference to the region in Vojvodina there is even a smaller percentage of NGOs which think that NGO sector pays more attention to some areas at the expense of other areas (21%). We asked respondents who expressed the opinion that there was a certain favoritism of areas (a total of 32% of the sample) to state which areas these were. 28% of respondents stated the field of human rights, 10%-politics, 9%-education, 7%ecology. There are no larger differences in research variables (time when organization was founded, field of work, size, FENS membership and region). Graph 101: Areas in which there are too many NGOs engaged? Yes 32%

No 68%

Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 102: What would be the most important area in which activities of NGO sector are still not sufficiently present? (15 most frequent answers) Standard, economic problems

Children

Education

Disabled

Environment protection Ecology

Women's rights

Human rights

Culture, social life

Social problems, social protection

Healthcare

Young population

Laws, implementation of laws, the rule of law

Unemployment

Minority rights

Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

What are the areas which lack more NGO sector involvement? If we compare the areas which respondents stated when talking about the whole sector and when referring to their region only, we can see that the answers do not differ very much. (Graph 102 and 103). Most frequent answers are economic problems, education and environment protection. There were no significant differences in answers depending on the region-local problems seem to be similar in all regions! Graph 103: What would be the most important area that lacks NGO activities in your region? (15 most frequent answers) Standard, economic problems

9% 7%

Education Environment protection Ecology

Human rights

Social problems, social protection

Children

Disabled

Women's rights

Culture, social life

3% 2%

Healthcare

Youth

Laws, implementation of laws, the rule of law

Unemployment

Minority rights

Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

3% 2%

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Respondents from the NGO sector are of the opinion that NGOs meet the needs of the society and the local community only partially. When asked to rate this issue on a 5-point scale, most often respondents gave mark 3 (1=do not meet at all, 5=meet completely). On this question there were no differences according to research variables (when the organization was formed, size, field of work, FENS membership). The only difference relate to the region, NGO representatives from Central Serbia to a somewhat higher percentage think that NGOs meet the needs of local communities (average mark on a 5-point scale was 3.45 in comparison to average mark 3.02 in Belgrade and 3.11 in Vojvodina).

Graph 105: Do NGOs meet the needs of the society?

Graph104: Do NGOs meet the needs of the local community? Do not meet at all

Do not meet at all

Completely meet

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Completely meet

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

M. Financial stability - financial resources

Based on the results (shown in Graph 106), we can notice that the most frequently present method of financing NGOs is project based financing (84%). Apart from this, organizations often have volunteer work (54% of organizations). Also, 26% of organizations have self-financing activities, 23% obtain contributions, 21% have membership fees. Financing based on membership fees is somewhat more present among larger organizations (33%), as well as among organizations dealing with culture and education (30%). Organizations dealing with culture and education slightly more often than organizations from other fields also have selffinancing activities (42%), as well as other activities of offering services based on the contracts (27%). Graph 106: How is your organization financed? Based on the projects

84% 54%

Volunteer work Self-financing activities

26%

Contributions

23% 21%

Membership fee

18%

Gifts Services based on contracts (holding seminars, etc.) We have general institutional support

Graph 107: Who finances your organization?

16%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

International donor organizations

74%

Local administration

36%

Self-financing

34%

Domestic donor organizations

34%

Business sector (firms, companies) Ministry Citizens Province Government

27% 17% 15% 13%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs) *Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

The obtained data (Graph 107) undoubtedly indicate that the primary financiers of NGOs are international donor organizations, in 74% of the case, which is more than double the percentage of the next ranked financial resource local administration (36%). Self-financing is one of the mentioned ways of financing, as well as domestic donor organizations, business sector, ministries, citizens and Province Government. International donations are an equally important resource of finances for all NGOs, regardless of their characteristics (size, time when it was formed, field of work, FENS membership and the region). However, regional differences are evident in Vojvodina where local administration has a larger share in financing NGOs (50% as opposed to Belgrade-24% and Central Serbia -33%) as well as Province Government (40%, in comparison to Belgrade and Central Serbia which do not have this resource). There are also differences in funds provided by the ministries. Globally speaking, ministries finance 17% of organizations. However, it can be noticed that ministries more often finance organizations with larger credibility, older, larger organizations. Ministry of work, employment and social issues is the largest financial resource of the NGO sector (50% of all organizations financed by

ministries are financed by this Ministry), followed by Ministry of culture. As expected, Ministry of work, employment and social issues most often finances NGOs dealing with socio-humanitarian work. Business sector finances 27% of organizations, but this percentage is much higher among organizations dealing with culture and education (39%). We can compare the current findings with research NGO Policy Group in 2001 when NGOs stated that foundations were the first financial resource, then their own resources, international NGOs, donations from corporations, individual contributions, membership, and local government funds. Business sector was not mentioned in this research as a financial resource. When assessing the relationship with donors, in 63% of the cases respondents gave positive marks. Average mark was 3.80 (on 5-point scale, where 1 means very bad and 5 very good relationship). Somewhat worse assessment in this respect was given by smaller organizations dealing with culture and education, as well as by organizations dealing with youth. When asked whether their organization would find it acceptable to be financed by individuals and firms accused of making extra profit during the Milosevic's regime, respondents most often stated that they were not completely Graph 109: To what extent would it be acceptable for your organization to be financed by individuals or firms accused of making extra profit during Milosevic's regime?

Graph 108: How would you rate your relations with donors? 3

Very bad

Not ready at all

Excellent

No answer

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Completely ready

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

refuses this kind of cooperation (57%). NGOs dealing with socio-humanitarian work are slightly more ready to accept this kind of cooperation (44% completely refuse this type of cooperation). Assessment of current financial situation In assessing current financial situation, negative marks are predominant -29% of NGO representatives state that the situation is very bad, and that their organizations are barely surviving. Another 26% assess the situation as moderately bad. Only 15% of respondents see the situation as good or excellent. Organizations founded earlier and with more activists give somewhat more positive picture of the situation. Representatives of organizations dealing with civil society also give somewhat more favorable marks (29% state that the situation in their organization is good or excellent). Unlike them, smaller NGOs and those founded earlier (before 2000) assess their financial situation as rather bad (over 60% of respondents assessed the situation as bad or very bad).

Graph 111: Have you secured funds for your organization's work in 2005?

Graph 110: How would you assess current financial situation of your organization? Very bad (barely surviving)

Yes 26

Excellent

37%

No 63%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

When asked whether they had secured funds for their organization's work in 2005, only 37% gave positive answers, while as many as 63% of organizations have not managed to secure the funds needed for their work in 2005 up to now! Smaller organizations were less successful in this respect, organizations which were founded later, as well as organizations dealing with youth and culture and art (among all these organization, more than 70% have not secured funds for this year). When assessing whether annual donations for their organizations have increased, remained the same or decreased in the past 3 years, the largest percentage (39%) of respondents think that they have decreased, 25% were of the opinion that they remained the same, while 30% stated that they have increased. The differences in answers were noticed depending on the size of organization larger organizations in 40% of the cases think that their annual donations have increased, while the same opinion is shared only by 19% of smaller organizations. The data in Graph 112 represent provisional annual budgets of NGOs for 2002, 2003 i 2004. Graph 112: The stated provisional budgets of organizations in 2002, 2003 and 2004 19% 26% 28%

2002 budget 17% 9% 19%

27% 28%

2003 budget 14%

Up to 1.000 euros

12% 1.001 - 5.000 euros 21% 5.001 - 20.000 euros

24% 27%

2004 budget 18% 11%

20.001 - 100.000 euros Over 100.000 euros

Base: All respondents who agreed to answer the question approximately 3/4 of the sample

It should be stressed that the base included 72.7% (2002 budget), or 76.6% (2003 and 2004 budget) of respondents who did not refuse an answer to this question. Analysis of answers shows that the budgets have not changed much from 2002 to 2004. The largest percentage refers to organizations with the budget between 5.000 and 20.000 euros, then organizations with the budget between 1.001 and 5.000 euros. It is interesting that there are more than 10% of organizations with the budget larger than 100.000 euros (this distribution should be interpreted in relation to the nature of the sample, as has already been mentioned in methodology). When the obtained data are compared to research from December 2001 (NGO Policy Group), the following conclusion can be drawn: in current research (2005) the number of respondents ready to state the provisional budget amount is 20% larger than in previous research. It is possible that this change was influenced by new political and economic situation, a change in transparency of financial management on a global level. We can notice that the annual budget of NGOs has increased almost twice from 2000 to 2004. On the other hand, in the past 3 years, there was a currency change from Deutschemark to euro and this has contributed to overall increase in all expenses. If we take into consideration that the prices expressed in marks had almost doubled with the change of mark into euro and that the value of DM in 2000 is approximately equal in its purchasing power to the present value expressed in euros, we can notice that the distribution of answers in 2000 and 2004 is rather similar. There are, however some differences depending on FENS membership. There are fewer members of this network with extremely low budget (up to 1000 euros) and also, there are more organizations with budget over 100.000 euros. Apart from this difference which paints the picture of financial status on the total sample as slightly better than it really is, it should also be pointed out that our sample included several larger, important organizations on purpose. This probably contributed slightly to the increase in percentage of organizations mentioned in the last category (with more than 100.000 euros budget). Table 6: Stated provisional NGO budgets in 2000 and 2004 research

2004 Year when research was conducted:

2000

2004

FENS members

FENS non-members

Value in:

In DM

In euros

Col%

Up to 1.000

22%

21%

14%

27%

1.001-5.000

25%

24%

5.001 20.000

27%

30%

25%

20.001 100.000

19%

18%

17%

Over 100.000 Total

11%

14%

100%

An increase in the budget in past 3 years can be noticed. In 2002, average annual budget of an NGO was 47.000 euros, in 2003-51.000 euros and in 2004 - 56.000 euros.

Graph 113: Provisional budget for 2002, 2003, and 2004 (the equivalent in euros): (average value) 2002

EUR 47.000

2003

EUR 51.000

2004

EUR 56.000

Base: All respondents who agreed to answer the question approximately 3/4 of the sample

Culture, education, ecology

Socio-humanitarian work

The youth, economy and professional associations

Development of civil society

Protection of human rights

Up to 14

15-30

31+

Yes

Belgrade

Central Serbia

Vojvodina

Region

FENS membership

2000 and later

Size

Field of work

Year when organization was founded Before 2000

Total

Table 7: The stated budgets for 2002, 2003, 2004 (the equivalent of 1.000 euros): (Average value by research variables)

Number of respondents 410 who answered

175

235

101

120

122

156

132

196

214

113

193

104

2002

2003

100

2004

119

116

Depending on the research variables there are some regularities (size, time when organization was formed, filed of work, FENS membership and the region). -As expected, older, larger organizations and those from Belgrade have bigger provisional budgets. As we mentioned earlier, the three variables are interconnected-majority of larger organizations have been founded earlier and are situated in Belgrade. The average annual budget of organizations is more than twice as large in Belgrade as in smaller areas, so we can conclude that there is a concentration of large projects in the capital. -Also, organizations which are FENS members are financially in a better position than organizations which are not members of this network - financial budgets of these organizations are almost twice as large. Organizations dealing with youth are in a worst financial situation, while organizations dealing with development of civil society have the largest annual budgets. The increase in the annual budgets is most noticeable in organizations which were founded later, then in larger organizations and organizations dealing with the development of civil society. With respect to budget increase, there are no significant differences depending on the region and FENS membership. It can also be noticed that annual budget of smaller organizations (up to 15 members) is decreasing.

12%

Local administration

4% 3% 2% 4%

9% 9% 2%

International donor organizations Domestic donor organizations

0% 0% 2002 budget

21%

22% 5%

9% 8% 4%

6% 7%

12%

23%

47%

48%

49%

Graph 114: Main sources of income in 2002, 2003 and 2004

2003 budget

2004 budget

Self-financing

Ministry

Business sector (firms, companies)

Other

Province Government

No answer

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

The graph above shows main sources of income in 2002, 2003 and 2004. It is evident that the main sources of income during these years were international donor organizations. There were no differences among organizations depending on research variables. When answering the question â&#x20AC;&#x153;Has your organization had financial auditing by independent auditing houseâ&#x20AC;?, the results show that organizations had auditing for separate projects in 22% of the cases, on the level of the whole organizations in 8% of the cases, while the most frequently given answer was that they did not have auditing-70% gave this answer. Graph 115: Has your organization had financial auditing by independent auditing house? Yes, for individual projects 22%

No 70%

Yes, for the whole organization 8%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

When we compare the percentage of organizations founded before and after 2000, we can see that a larger number of older organizations had auditing on the level of separate projects than younger organizations (28% compared to 17%). The same is true of organizations from Belgrade, while other variables show no bigger differences. When assessing the situation in their organization in terms of financial management and possible need for additional training, we get the data which show that 32% of respondents think that additional training is necessary, 48% think that the situation in the organization is good, but that additional training is needed, while 20% think that there is no need for further training. In Belgrade, the percentage of organizations which think that they do not need additional training is slightly higher (30%) in comparison to the situation in other regions - Vojvodina and Central Serbia. Also, the need for further training is somewhat higher among organizations dealing with youth and organizations dealing with culture and art. Graph 116: How would you rate the situation in your organizations in terms of financial management? Additional training in this field necessary 32%

No need for additional training 20%

Good, but we need additional training 48% Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

When assessing current financial situation in the whole NGO sector, respondents gave mark 2.44 (on a 5-point scale, 1-very bad, 5-excellent). We can see that the marks are slightly better than those given for assessment of their organizations (where 2.33 was an average mark on the same scale). There were no significant differences depending on the characteristics of organizations. Graph 117: How would you rate current financial situation in the whole NGO sector? Very bad (barely surviving)

Excellent

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

Graph 118: How would you rate current financial situation in your organization? Very bad (barely surviving)

Excellent

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

The following graph shows main problems that the NGO sector is faced with (multiple answers). It is noticeable that there is no single problem or several problems which are dominant, but a similar percentage of a large number of most important problems which hinder functioning of the NGO sector: small state and local self government funds (57%), bad tax policy (53%), lack interests of donors for certain fields (53%), undeveloped donorship in the business sector (50%)â&#x20AC;Ś Graph 119: What are the main problems? The state and local self government have small funds for donations

57%

Bad tax policy

53%

Donors do not finance certain fields any more

53%

Business sector does not finance NGOs

50%

Small number of donors

49%

Donors finance only big organizations

39%

Lack of information on potential donors

32%

Lack of experience in fund raising

29%

Complicated requirements for project proposals Other Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

27% 4% *Multiple answers: % do not add up to 100%

There were no significant differences in answers depending on characteristics of organizations. In 2001 research by NGO Policy Group, 60% of respondents thought that the biggest problems was the lack of financial resources, but it was encouraging that as many as 31% respondents stated that there were no financial obstacles in creation and implementation of projects. Other problems make up 3% of the stated problems and refer to the lack of trained people, logistics and organizational problems, problems related to banking and accounting, lack of support by the local authorities and problems with certain donors. When they were asked â&#x20AC;&#x153;What would be the best way to finance NGOs in Serbia in the future?â&#x20AC;? respondents gave the following answers (multiple answers): Table 8: What would be the best way to finance NGOs in Serbia in the future? Base: All respondents State through special funds Foreign donors (as is the case now) Business sector Domestic foundations Local self-government Self-financing Citizens' contributions Other

516 53% 48% 41% 37% 31% 23% 8% 2%

It can be noticed that expectations in the future go in the direction of state financing, international donors and business sector. Improvement in financial transparency of NGO work as an important segment in improving the public image of NGOs can be achieved in the following way: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The state should simplify the regulations on financial management (60%) A change of tax policy (53%) Educating NGOs how to manage the finances (45%) Obligatory annual financial reports (35%) Hiring financial experts (auditors, bookkeepers) (18%) Other (less than 1%)

Differences depending on the research parameters were not found.

N. Involvement of community - users in NGO work Graph 120: How does your organization involve users in its work? By assessing users' needs

By evaluating users' satisfaction with our work

We consult users in planning

We recruit users as volunteers

We accept users as members of organization Other

2 *Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

The results from the graph above lead to a conclusion that NGOs involve users in their work most often by assessing users' needs (69% of organizations), as well as through evaluation of organizations' work, i.e. by checking how satisfied the users were with their work (60%). Respondents also mentioned that they consult users in planning (42%), recruit users as volunteers (40%) and accept users as their members (35%). There were no significant differences in answers given by respondents from different NGOs (relating to the size, time when organization was formed, field of work, FENS membership and the region). When asked about needs assessment in project proposal preparation, as much as 58% of organizations said that they always conduct needs analysis. The remaining 41% either do not conduct needs assessment or do so only when the conditions request them to. It is possible that the number of NGOs which do not conduct needs assessment is even higher because with this question (as with some other questions) respondents felt the need to give a socially â&#x20AC;&#x153;desiredâ&#x20AC;? answer, so we cannot be absolutely certain that the respondents gave completely honest answers. There were no differences depending on research variables. Only in Belgrade there is a larger percent of organizations whose respondents answered that in project preparation they do not assess users' needs, while in Central Serbia this percentage is much lower (2% as opposed to 16% in Belgrade). Graph 121: When preparing a project proposal do you assess users' needs? Yes, always

58%

Yes, for big projects (lasting over a year) Yes, if donor requires it Yes, when we have the time No

16% 9% 10% 6%

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

NGO representatives most often claimed that users' feedback was obtained formally, directly from the users (questionnaires, interviews) - 62% of respondents, while 32% stated that it was informal feedback. 5% of organizations have never collected users' reactions so far. There were no significant differences depending on research variables.

Graph 122: How does your organization collect users' feedback on users' reactions? Respondents give formal feedback (questionnaires, interviews)

62%

32%

Informal feedback

We haven't collected users' feedback so far

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

O. Quality of service

When asked to what extent users are satisfied with their work and services, respondents gave exceptionally high average mark-4.12 (on a 5-point scale, 1-not satisfied at all, 5-completely satisfied), which indicates that NGO representatives perceive users' satisfaction with their work as being extremely high. None of our respondents chose the answer â&#x20AC;&#x153;users are not satisfied at all', while 30% think that users are completely satisfied with their work. Only 2% of answers show that respondents perceived their users' dissatisfaction in this respect. The largest number of neutral assessment was given by NGOs dealing with youth, economy and professional associations (23%), which is much more than the average and the number of the same answers given by organizations dealing with other fields. Smaller organizations more often than large ones (5% as opposed to 0%) think that users are dissatisfied with their work.

Graph 123: To what extent are your users satisfied with your services? Not satisfied at all s2

0 2

s4 Completely satisfied Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

Regarding evaluation of the success of the projects: 46% of respondents state that they mainly carry out internal evaluation, 39% state that they carry out both internal and external evaluation, 8%-only external, while 7% of respondents answered that they did not carry out any type of evaluation of the success of their projects. Graph 124: Do you carry out evaluation - appraisal of the success of projects? 46%

Graph 125: Do you carry out evaluation - appraisal of the success of projects? - by region 2% 39%

Belgrade

39%

52% 8% 9% 44% 41%

Central Serbia 6% 13% 8%

53%

Vojvodina

25% 7%

Generally yes, external

Generally yes, internal

Yes, both internal and external

Generally no

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

Generally yes, external Generally yes, internal

Yes, both internal and external Generally no

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

If we look at the distribution of answers by region, the following results are obtained: in Belgrade, both internal and external evaluation are carried out most often (52% of organizations), while in the other two regions-Central Serbia and Vojvodina in most cases only internal evaluation is carried out (44% and 53% respectively). Another difference becomes apparent when the answers from organizations which are FENS members are compared to those of non-members. Only 2% of FENS network members do not evaluate their projects, whereas this is the situation with 11% of organizations which are not FENS members. 49% of the NGO sector representatives claim that they carry out internal evaluation of the effectiveness of their organizations (regardless of the projects), 30% state that they carry out both external and internal evaluations and 4% say that they carry out only external evaluation. 17% claim that they do not carry out any form of evaluation. Depending on the research variables (size and time when organization was founded, region and FENS membership) there are no differences, except in the case of organizations dealing with youth where any form of evaluation of the organization's work occurs in only a small percentage of cases. Graph 126: Do you carry out evaluations -appraisals of the effectiveness of work of your organization? Yes, external

Yes, internal

49%

Yes, both internal and external No

30%

17%

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

P. Level of training of the NGO staff. On the basis of the processed data we obtain the result that 80% of organizations had training for their staff, while 20% did not. The percentage of organizations which had no training for their staff is even higher among smaller organizations (29%), organizations dealing with youth (30%), as well as among those organizations which are not members of the FENS network (26%). Graph 127: Have your staff been trained?

Graph 128: Have your staff been trained?

No 20%

86% Members of FENS

14% 74%

Non-members of FENS

26%

Yes 80%

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

Yes

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

TIM TRI and Civic Initiative are most frequently named as the organizations which have held training sessions to the respondent NGOs. It is interesting that over 180 organizations are mentioned as having held training sessions and the majority of these organizations are named by only one respondent. On this question no differences were found depending on the research variables (time when organization was founded, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). Among the organizations which had provided training for their members, most often, in 54% of cases, these sessions were attended by management and some members, while only 36% provided training for all their members. 8% of organizations put only leading members through training. The results obtained are shown in the graph above. In Belgrade twice as many organizations (15%) send only their leadership on training sessions. Graph 130: Have you had training for your staff?

Graph 129: If you have had training, who held the training?

Only the leadership 8% 21%

TIM TRI Civic Initiatives

19% 4%

CRNPS European Movement Foreign NGOs

2% 2%

NDI

Most

Base: Organizations which have had training 80% (409 NGOs)

All members 37%

Mostly the leadership and some members 55% *Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Base: Organizations which have had training 80% (409 NGOs)

Graph 131: Basic level Writing project proposals

75%

Team work, leadership

62%

Strategic planning

60%

Project management

52%

Lobbying and advocacy

51%

Human resource management

44%

Fund raising

43%

Financial management

38%

Training of trainers (TOT)

32%

Inter sector cooperation

29%

Questions and problems in our field, advanced training

Other answers

Base: Organizations which have had training 80% (409 NGOs)

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

At the basic levels, just as at the higher levels, the most common types of training are writing project proposals, project managemant, teamwork and leadership, and strategic planning. On this question no great differences were found depending on the research variables (size, time when it was founded, field of work, membership of FENS or region).

The general rating of the level of staff training is 3.59 (on a 5- point scale, where 1 - not satisfied at all and 5 - completely satisfied), which speaks of a moderate level of satisfaction in regard to this question. The respondents from organizations which were formed before 2000, larger organizations, along with those from Belgrade are to a somewhat greater extent satisfied with the level of training in NGOs compared to the respondents from the other organizations. Graph 133: Can you give a general rating of the level of training in your NGO? 1

We are not satisfied at all

s3 s4

We are very satisfied

Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

The fields in which representatives of NGOs most need training are, according to the respondents, firstly financial management-36%, strategic planning 21%, training in the field of fundraising and lobbying/advocacy - 19%.

Str a

ma Fin na an ge cia me l teg nt ic pla Lo nn bb ing yin g/a dv oc ac y Fu nd r ais Wr ing itin gp p r M PR rop oje ma edia os ct als na ap ge pe r, m ara Hu n ma arke ces t ma n re ing na sou Pro ge rc jec me e t nt ma Tra na ini ge ng m of en tra t Int ine err s( se TO cto T) rc Tea oo mw pe rat ork ion an dl ea de rsh leg In t ip Le arn al he r ing eg fiel ula d o for tio f eig ns nl an gu ag Co es mp ute r tr ain ing Ot he ra ns we rs

10%

15%

17%

19%

21%

36%

Graph 134: Can you list the areas, fields, in which you need priority training?

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

On this question there are no great differences depending on the research variables (time when organization was founded, field of work, size, membership of FENS, region). 61% of NGO representatives state that their organization had used the consultancy services of other organizations for the training of their staff, while 39% gave a negative answer to this question. Significant differences between the organizations depending on the research variables were not found. Of the organizations which most often provided consultancy services respondents mentioned first Civic Initiatives (22% of organizations which had used consultancy services), followed by CRNPS (10%), Tim Tri (8%), European Movement in Serbia (6%). There are no great differences depending on the research variables except in relation to membership of FENS: organizations which are members of the FENS network named Civic Initiatives to a larger extent as the organization which offered them consultancy services than non-member organizations (31% compared to 13%). Graph 135: Who provided you with consultancy services, which organization? Civic Initiatives

22%

CRNPS, Centre for development of the non-profit sector Tim Tri

10% 8%

European movement in Serbia

International organizations

Most

Save the children

CESID

A@IN

Autonomous women's centre

Base: Organizations which have used consultancy services - 61% (316 NGOs)

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Q. Cooperation with NGOs in the wider region

International projects, that is, projects in cooperation with NGOs from the neighboring countries, have up to the present, been carried out by 48% of the respondent NGOs. NGOs from Belgrade have cooperated with other countries in the region significantly more often in comparison to the total (69%), while only every third NGO from Central Serbia has been involved in this form of cooperation. Graph 136: Have you, up to now, been involved in any international projects, projects in which you have cooperated with NGOs from neighboring countries?

No 52%

Yes 48%

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 137: Have you, up to now, been involved in any international projects, projects in which you have cooperated with NGOs from neighboring countries? 69% Belgrade

31%

33%

Central Serbia

67%

54%

Vojvodina 46%

Yes

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Smaller organizations, as well as organizations formed after 2000, have also cooperated in this way more rarely, which was an expected result.

The table shows the data on the most common fields of cooperation in international projects. It can be concluded that organizations most often cooperated in those areas which are already part of their field of work. On this question there are no great differences depending on the research variables (size of organization, membership of FENS, time when it was formed, field of work, region). Table 9: Most common areas of cooperation in international projects. Total

Field Culture, education, and ecology

Base: NGOs which have worked on international projects

Young people, Development Socioeconomics and of civil humanitarian professional society work associations

Protection of human rights

170

Col%

20.6

Youth

8.8

Refugees and displaced people

7.6

Children

7.1

5.9

Women's rights

5.3

Protection of environment, ecology

5.3

Human rights

5.3

Joint projects, exchange of experiences

5.3

Culture, social life

4.7

The media

4.1

Humanitarian issues

4.1

Peace movements

4.1

Education, training

Standard, economic problems Future of community, municipality, development

11 4

5 5

3 8

5 9

5 7

R. Most important problems in NGO sustainability Graph 138: Average ranking of NGO sector problems in Serbia (Rank 1-most important problems) Lack of support from state International donors' withdrawal Undeveloped sponsorship of business sector Unstimulative legal regulations

3,5 3,9 4,4

4,5

Graph 139: Average ranking of problems of your NGO? (Rank 1-most important problems) Lack of support from state

3,8

International donors' withdrawal

3,9

Undeveloped sponsorship of business sector

4,2

Unstimulative legal regulations

4,3

Insufficient cooperation with local authorities

5,2

Insufficient cooperation with local authorities

Negative attitude of community/citizens

5,1

Negative attitude of community/citizens

Undeveloped NGO sector

5,5

Undeveloped NGO sector

Insufficient cooperation among NGOs

5,7

Insufficient cooperation among NGOs

Bad cooperation with media

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

The most important problems for NGO sector sustainability in Serbia are: lack of support by the state and withdrawal of international donors. (average ranking 3.5 and 3.9, where 1 means the most important problem). Cooperation with the media is perceived as the least problem. It is interesting that respondents perceive the importance of problems in the same way when speaking about NGO sector and their own NGOs. Some differences related to the region were noticed in perception of problems: in Belgrade, much less importance is attached to problems of insufficient cooperation with the local authorities and negative attitude of community. In Vojvodina, more than in other regions, bigger importance is attached to undeveloped NGO sector. Differences between FENS members and non-members are present only with reference to the question of negative attitude of the community: FENS network members perceive negative attitude of the community as a smaller problem than organizations which are not FENS members. Organizations dealing with culture, education and ecology more than other organizations perceive undeveloped donorship in the business sector as one of the main problems, while organizations dealing with younger population and economy attach less importance (in comparison to other NGOs) to the problem of unstimulative legal regulations. Generally, a similar picture is obtained in perception of problems that respondents' NGOs are faced with. The biggest difference among organizations founded before and after 2000: older organizations attach bigger importance to unstimulative legal regulations than younger ones, while younger organizations perceive undeveloped NGO sector as a much more significant problem in comparison to older organizations. Some regional differences were noticed in perception of problems that respondents' own NGOs are encountering: organizations from Belgrade, more than NGOs from Vojvodina and Central Serbia, think that unstimulative legal regulations are a bigger problem than undeveloped NGO sector, insufficient cooperation with local authorities and negative attitude of community towards NGOs.

4,9 5,4 5,6 5,9 6,3

S. Conclusion

This graph shows assessment of situation in different segments of NGO sector. It can be noticed that additional training is required the most in financial management, then public relations, planning and applying for project competitions as well as project implementation.

Graph 140: How would you assess the situation in the following fields? Do you need additional training? Planning Applying for projects and their implementation

18%

16%

Contact with the media

15%

Public relations

Financial management

59%

22%

Management and supervision

Hiring staff and recruiting volunteers

61%

57%

25%

32%

Training in this field is necessary

19%

27%

53%

22%

21%

32%

50%

28%

51%

48% Good, but we need additional training

23%

20% No need for additional training

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

The NGO sector in Serbia - The attitude and opinions of the donors A. General questions - basic information Over 1/2 of interviewed donors have been present in Serbia since the 1990s. 1/3 have come to Serbia after 2000. Most of the interviewed representatives of the donor organizations are unable to say how much longer they will be operating in Serbia (49%). The rest most commonly state that they will end their stay in Serbia in 2007. The most common donor organization programs involve grants (78%) and training (66%). The most frequent users of these grants are NGOs (81%), state institutions (49%), and individuals (37%). Regarding the types of grants, we find that most donors award grants for projects (85%), while institutional grants are given by only 24% of donor organizations (multiple answers given). Most (42%) interviewed donors believe the need for institutional grants still exists and that grants should be given to trustworthy NGOs. 24% do not agree with this statement and 34% say they do not know. 51% of donor organizations award grants for particular topics, 12% within the wider framework of the field, while 22% award both types-for particular topics and within the wider framework. 15% of organizations do not give grants and therefore did not answer this question. The majority of donors' representatives stated that their organization only approve projects which are in the field of work, while a smaller percentage believe in helping interesting projects even if they are not in their field of work (68% compared to 27%). During 2004 half of the donors received up to 100 project proposals, and another third between 100 and 200 project proposal. However, the number of approved projects is significantly lower-slightly more than half of the donors (54%) approved up to 20 projects during 2004. Table 10: Amount given in grants (in euros) What amount does your organization give in grants? MINIMUM N Mean SD 25 percentile Median 75 percentile Mode Minimum Maximum

30 12867 54339.52 875 1750 4250 1000 1 300000

MAXIMUM 30 594507 1998364.54 18750 33000 100000 20000 1200 10000000

AVERAGE 30 46207 145743.93 7500 17000 30000 10000 600 800000

On the basis of this table we can draw some conclusions about the amounts given in grants: 1. The first and main conclusion is that the amount given in grants varies greatly both from donor to donor and within the framework of the donor organization. 2. The average value of grants in the majority of cases lies between 10.000 and 30.000 euros. The minimum value of grants that the donors give is between

1000 and 4000 euros, while the maximum value of grants is most often in between 20.000 and 100.000 euros. 65% of donors accept applications throughout the year, while 34% accept applications only during a limited period of time. These competitions are usually organized once a year and last for 4 weeks. Almost all interviewed donors (except one) have offices in Serbia, and most often make their decisions on the approval of projects in Serbia (in 85% of cases). The decisions regarding project approvals are most often taken by a board (a selected body) which includes local staff and foreigners employed by the organization.

B. Local NGO projects-applications, competition requirements and monitoring of progress

Graph 141: Project areas 54%

39% 42%

Art and culture

8% 63% 65%

Education and research

Helping refugees and displaced persons

13% 39%

Ecology and protection of the environment

49% 42%

42%

Strengthening the economy

28% 3%

16% 73% 64%

37% 39%

Children's rights 4%

12%

71%

59%

Building local communities

Roma population

45% 8% 34%

LGHT (sexual minorities)

12% 0% 68%

Protection of human rights

57% 7%

Legislation, advocacy and public policy

2% 44% 50%

Young people, youth and students

44% 30%

International cooperation

27%

Humanitarian and social work, health

Business and professional associations

33%

Women's rights

27% 3% 32% 7% 0%

Protecting the rights of ethnic minorities

61% 27% 2% 17%

66% Other

23%

5% 0%

2% 46% 23%

Peace work 2% Areas of donors' project approval

All fields of NGO sector work

Priority fields of NGO work

The fields in which projects are most often approved are: youth (73%), Roma population (71%), protection of human rights (68%), legislation and public policy (66%). From the graph shown we can see that the fields in which the donors approve projects and the areas with which NGOs are concerned do not always coincide. We notice the most disproportion in the fields of: 1. Legislation, advocacy and public policy, the protection and rights of the Roma population and other ethnic minorities. We can see that greater interest in these fields exists among the donor organizations than among NGOs. 2. In the fields of culture and education, as well as in socio-humanitarian work and children's rights, we notice a different trend. Interest in these fields is greater among NGOs than donors. 3. The least disproportion, at least according to this research, is evident in the following fields: ecology and protection of the environment, young people, development of local communities, human rights, women's rights, help for refugees and displaced persons, international cooperation and strengthening of the economy. In these fields a more harmonious relationship between the interests of the donors and the NGOs is noticeable. Donors are most often ready to support the following types of activity (Graph 142): seminars, training workshops (93%), printing brochures and publications (76%), actions in the local community (71%), media campaigns (68%), networking and NGO cooperation (66%). If we compare the present activities of the NGOs and the activities which the donors most often support, we see that, to a larger degree than the NGOs themselves, it is the donors who are interested in promoting activities such as printing publications and brochures, media campaigns, lobbying and public advocacy, and holding conferences and meetings. Also, among the donors there is more interest in monitoring laws and the work of institutions, than in the current activities of the NGO sector. With regard to educational activities such as seminars, training and workshops, networking and cooperation, and activities in the local community, both the donors and the NGO sector show an equally high level of interest. Most often it takes between 1 and 5 weeks to process grant applications (from announcement to making a decision) 42% of respondents. For 32% of donors this period is somewhat longer- from 6 to 10 weeks, for 17% this period is between 11 and 15 weeks, and for 10% the process lasts longer than 15 weeks. Communication with potential applicants is most often on a personal level (telephone, mail and visits) - in 85% of cases, but websites also appear as a common form of communication (51%), as well as various mailing lists (internal mailing lists- 44%, resource centre mailing lists- 32%). When we look at these data it becomes clear how important it is for NGOs to have computer equipment, access to the internet and knowledge of the English language. Most donor organizations provide instructions for project applications (68%). Also, the donors' representatives told us the exact demands they require of their applicants.

Graph 142: Types of activities 93%

Seminars, training workshops

76% 44%

Organization of various courses

35% 54%

Carrying out research

41% 76%

Printing brochures and publications

49% 44%

Offering professional services

38% 42%

Holding press conferences

34% 59%

Organizing conferences and meetings

46% 68%

Media campaign

49% 37%

Other types of campaign

23% 32%

Alternative forms of education

38% 49%

Lobbying/public advocacy

33% 66%

Networking and cooperation

55% 54%

Monitoring laws and work of institutions

Offering material help

19% 10% 20%

Action in the local community

Activities which the donors support

71% 55%

Existing NGO activities

Next we wanted to ask the donors' representatives to evaluate how difficult, in their opinion, it is for NGO applicants to fulfill the requirements (Graph 143). The picture drawn is completely different from the opinion of the NGO sector. While the representatives of the NGO sector talk about how complicated these requirements are, the representatives of the donor organizations most often feel that

their requirements are very easy to fulfill. Such a picture tells us that it is possible that the problem lies not in the excessive difficulty of the requirements of the donors, but in the fact that the NGO sector is not sufficiently trained to fulfill these requirements. Graph 143: Can you evaluate to what degree your requirements are difficult to fulfill? Very easy

Very difficult

No answer given

Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)

Donors most often feel that their requirements are precise and clear and that they are asking for simple things, and that in return they gain more information about the NGOs and about the quality of the projects. 39% of donors are of the opinion that local NGOs do not have any great difficulty fulfilling these conditions, 41% feel that they have only minor difficulties; while only 10% feel that local NGOs have major difficulties in fulfilling the demands (10% of respondents gave no answer to this question). According to the donors' statements, the most frequent problems they encounter during local NGO applications is insufficient experience on the part of the applicant in writing projects (76% of respondents mention this problem), as well as a lack of professionalism in the NGO sector (73%). Graph 144: What problems do you most often encounter during local NGO applications? Insufficient experience on the part of the applicant in writing projects Lack of professionalism (shortage of specialist personnel)

76%

73%

Lack of knowledge of English among applicants

36%

Applicants' lack of information on competition and opportunities

33%

Lack of technical resources (computers, faxes, Internet)

27%

Lack of confidence of the applicants

21%

Insufficient motivation of the applicants

21%

Other

Base: All respondents - 100% (41 donors)

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

59% of respondent organizations announce the names of NGOs whose projects are approved, 34% do not (7% did not answer this question). Donors who do announce names most often gave as their reason for this that it is necessary for everything to be transparent and that the public have an insight into the application process. Donors who did not announce the names of organizations stated as their reason that it was not necessary (“It is not necessary, because we do not hold official competitions”, “It is not relevant, because we are not a classic donor organization, but we have a partnership with the NGOs”), as well as saying that it was the responsibility of the NGOs themselves to announce that their project had been approved (“We demand that the NGOs announce it themselves”). 15% of donor organizations do not carry out evaluations of the work of local NGOs. 20% carry out evaluations using external evaluators, while the largest number of donors -66%, carry out their own evaluations of the work of local NGOs. Of the donors who carry out evaluations, the largest percentage do so during the project (47%). Evaluations are also carried out both before the start of a project (43%), and at the end of the project (31%). As can be seen, some donors carry out evaluations more that once, at various stages of the project. Projects which cover the whole of Serbia are most often supported (85%). On the graph below we can see the ratings for the importance of specific factors in the approval of proposed projects. The representatives of the donor organizations rated the importance of each of the given factors on a 5- point scale, where 1- totally irrelevant and 5- most important. We can see, on the graph below, that the most important factor is that the aims of the project and the aims of the donor complement each other. This finding is also clearly shown by what has already been seen in earlier parts of the questionnaire - donors most often support only those projects which are clearly located in the framework of their own field. Next in terms of importance is the appraisal of the magnitude of the project, and with that, positive experience and trust in the recipient NGO, along with a clearly written project proposal - once again we come across the significance of having skills in writing projects. Only after all these factors, in terms of importance for the approval of the project, can the appeal of the project itself be found. The regional location and the diffusion of the NGO, as well as the recommendations of other donors, are perceived more as being unimportant than important factors in making decisions on the approval of project proposals. Graph 145: How much do the following affect the approval of a project? Matching the aims of the project with the aims of the donor

4,5

Estimating the magnitude of the project's consequences

4,2

Previous experience with and trust in the recipient NGO

4,1

Clearly written project proposals

4,1

How interesting the project is Recommendations of other donors Regional headquarters of the NGO and its diffusion

3,9 2,7 2,6

Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)

C. Cooperation with other sectors

Cooperation with other donors 93% of donors have had cooperation with other donors up to now. Almost all who had cooperation say that it is constant or very frequent (78%). The list of fields in which cooperation is achieved is very long -these can coincide with donor organizations' field of work (protection of human rights, education, etc.) or various forms of networking, information exchange, help in work (coordination, legal help, capacity building, etc.) Cooperation with state institutions 61% of donors have direct program cooperation with state institutions. When asked how often they cooperated with state institutions, 39% said that this was constant cooperation, 10% that it was frequent, 32%-rare, 12%-never and 7% did not give an answer to this question. Fields of cooperation with state institutions are different, but still, the most frequent one is reform of state institutions followed by activities in connection with donor organization's field of work (educational and research, protection of human rights, humanitarian and social work, etc.) Cooperation with the business sector Trust in business sector as the exponents of donorship in Serbia is minimal. Up to 78% of interviewed respondents from donor organizations did not agree with the statement that after the withdrawal of some donor organizations, business sector will successfully finance NGO sector activities. Graph146: To what extent do you agree with the statement: After some donor organizations withdraw, business sector in Serbia will be able to successfully finance NGO activities? I absolutely disagree

I agree completely

No answer

Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)

D. The situation in the NGO sector in Serbia

Most donors were of the opinion that the situation in the NGO sector in Serbia is similar to the situation in other countries in the region. Graph 147: What is your opinion of the situation in NGO sector in Serbia in comparison to other countries in the region? Much worse than situation in other countries in the region

s4 Much better than situation in other countries in the region

No answer

Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)

The main problems of the NGO sector in Serbia are the problem of financing (37%), bad legal frame (24%), problem of qualified staff in NGOs (22%), insufficient cooperation among NGOs (22%), lack of visions, ideas in NGOs (17%), bad image of NGOs in public (12%), lack of experience (10%). Difficulties that donors encounter mainly refer to legal frame (78%), followed by the political situation in the country (51%). Respondents stated that the most frequent problems they, as donors, had in their work with local NGOs, are lack of professionalism, motivation and experience in the NGO sector. With their work, donors primarily want to have an impact on overall democratization of the society, development of civic awareness, development of local communities, strengthening of the NGO sector, international integrations. Also, donors often stated that the reason for their work was development of their field of interest (women's rights, development of the Roma community, etc.) Somewhat less than 1/2 of the interviewed donors (41%) have so far conducted needs assessment of the NGO sector in Serbia. Most often, they did this informally, through personal contacts, in meetings, open debates, but also formally, through different kinds of research. Various indirect forms of research were also used (collecting information from other organizations, resource centers, media, etc.).

Plans for the future With reference to project donations in Serbia, most or the interviewed donors have long-term plan of activities (71%). The graph shows percentage of donors who are currently financing certain areas, as well as their plans for the future. We can see that the fields of financing are generally not to be changed drastically. Somewhat smaller budgets are anticipated for fields related to youth and students.

Graph 148: Project fields 39%

Culture and art

62% 39%

44%

49% 46% 42%

Economic empowerment

46%

Youth population, students

36%

73%

37%

Children's rights

59%

Development of local community Business and professional associations

44% 33%

International cooperation

41%

Humanitarian, social work, healthcare

46%

Help for refugees and displaced persons

63%

Education and research Ecology, environment protection

54%

Women's rights

31%

33%

59% 51%

28% 68%

Protection of human rights

64%

Legislature, representation, public policy

Current fields of financing

64%

LGBT (sexual minorities)

34%

Peace work

71%

Roma

23%

Protection national Minorities' rights

66% 59%

32%

Other

61% 59% 17% 10%

46% 46% Fields that will be financed in the future

In 2004, there were large differences in budgets for NGO sector donations. Depending on the organization, the budgets for NGO donations varied between 1.200 and 50. 000.000 euros. However, the largest share of the budget (in 50% of organizations) varied between 100.000 and 1.000.000 euros. 65% of donors have a prepared budget for donations for 2005. In this group, the largest number (50%) has a budget between 250.000. and 3.600.000 euros. Out of this amount, the budget varying from 100.000 and 750.000 euros is set aside for the NGO sector. There were no significant differences in allotted donation amounts among donors who will be present in Serbia next year.

Table 11: Donors' budgets

N Mean Std. Deviation 25 Percentile Median 75 Percentile Mode Minimum Maximum

Budget for NGO donations in Serbia in 2004

Planned budget for donations in 2005.

36 2272200 8354352.89 97750 175000 1000000 100000 1200 50000000

16 2875508 4936181.86 262500 875000 3600000 1000000 120 18000000

Planned budget for donations in 2005 within NGO sector 23 580565 905531.03 100000 200000 750000 200000 8000 3500000

When donors were asked whether their organizations' budget for NGO sector donations in Serbia will decrease, increase or remain the same, 32% of the respondents say that it will decrease, another 32% that it will remain the same and only 17% that it will increase. 20% could not give their assessment. 32% of donors intend to leave Serbia soon, others still do not have this intention. The largest part of those who are planning to leave Serbia are planning to do so in the period between 2007 and 2010. Majority of these organizations have prepared their exit strategy-the strategy for closing down programs. According to the opinion of majority questionee, representatives of the donor organizations, international donors should be present in Serbia for few more years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; between 5 and 10 years.

E. Diversity within the sector Table 12: According to donors the most important problems that NGO sector in Serbia should address: (multiple answers) First 10 answers Protection of human rights Protection of ethnic minorities rights Reform of state institutions Development of local community Development of civil society Economic development Education and research Ecology, environment protection Legislature, advocacy and public policy

Frequency 14 9 8 6 5 5 4 4 4

Percentage 34.1% 22.0% 19.5% 14.6% 12.2% 12.2% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8%

Up to 37% think that there are fields in which there are too many NGOs involved, most often these fields include protection of human rights and Roma population rights. Donors stated various fields which lack more NGO sector involvement mostly fields that coincide with donor organizations' field of work. A very similar situation is noticeable when the question is repeated for their region-a whole list of various fields is mentioned. The largest number of respondents think that NGOs in Serbia address the needs of local community and the society to a moderate degree.

Graph 149: Do NGOs meet the needs: Absolutely not

0 0 17

10 49

66 32

24 2

Absolutely yes 0

Of local community

Of society

Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)

F. Fields of additional training for NGOs Donors are moderately satisfied with the level of NGO qualification in Serbia. Graph 150: Can you give overall assessment of NGO level of qualification in Serbia? Not satisfied at all

s4 Completely satisfied

Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)

Fields most often stressed as the ones which need further NGO training are: Table 13

Public relations, cooperation with the media Management Project writing and implementation Professional development (foreign languages, computer) Fund raising Training related to the fields (topics) that they deal with Civil society, democracy Manamgent human resources

Frequency 13 10 10 8 5 5 4 4

Percentage 32.5% 25.0% 25.0% 20.0% 12.5% 12.5% 10.0% 10.0%

G. Problems of NGO sector in Serbia

The largest problems of NGO sector in Serbia are undeveloped sponsorship within the business sector, unstimulative legal regulations as well as lack of support from the state. Graph 151: How important are the following for NGO sector sustainability in Serbia? Undeveloped sponsorship within the business sector

4,2

Unstimulative legal regulations

4,1

Lack of support from the state

3,9

Withdrawal of international donors

3,6

Insufficient (undeveloped) cooperation among NGOs

3,5

Insufficient cooperation with local authorities

3,4

Poor cooperation with the media

3,2

Negative attitude of the community, citizens

3,2

Undeveloped NGO sector

3,1

Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)

TABEL AND GRAPH INDEX Table 1: NGO field of work Table 2: Percentage of NGOs with given equipment Table 3: NGO equipment depending on participation in EAR project Table 4: Structure by gender, age and education: (% presence in given segment) Table 5: In your opinion, what is of main importance in creating an image of an organization? Table 6: Stated provisional NGO budget in 2000 and 2004 research Table 7: Stated provisional budgets of organizations for 2002, 2003, 2004 (equivalent in 1.000 euros): (Average value by research variables) Table 8:What would be the best way to finance NGOs in Serbia in the future? Table 9: Most frequent fields of cooperation in international projects Table 10: Grant amount (in euros) Table 11: Donors' budget Table 12: According to donors, most important problems that NGO sector should address (multiple answers): Table 13:

9 13 13 29 55 65 66 70 79 82 91 91 92

Graph 1: Year when organization was founded 10 10 Graph 2: Year when organization was founded by region Graph 3: Does your organization have premises in which it carries out its activities? 11 Graph 4: For what period do you have secured funds for rental of premises or how 11 long will the premises be available to you? Graph 5: Does your organization have: (% of positive answers 12 Graph 6: How many of these items does your organization have: (average number of items) 13 Graph 7: Is the equipment satisfactory for your scope of work and number of staff: (% of negative answers) 14 Graph 8: Do you have Internet access in your organization? 14 Graph 9: Do you have Internet access in your organization? - By FENS membership 14 Graph 10: How many people in your organization use a computer? 15 Graph 11: How many people in your organization speak at least one foreign language? 15 Graph 12: How many people in your organization speak at least one foreign language? - by region 15 Graph 13: How would you assess the situation in your organization in terms of planning? 18 Graph 14: All fields of work (multiple answers) 17 Graph 15: Priority field of work (one answer) 17 Graph 16: Why did you choose this particular field of work? 18 Graph 17: All users of services (multiple answers) 19 Graph 18: Primary/direct users (one answer) 19 Graph 19: What types of activities are most frequently carried out in your organization? 20 21 Graph 20: How many project proposals did you submit to donors in 2004? Graph 21: On average, how long do most projects carried out by your organization last? 21 Graph 22: How many projects is your organization carrying out currently? 21 Graph 23: Most common problems related to application for project competitions? 22 Graph 24: Most common problems related to project implementation? 23 Graph 25: How would you assess your organization in terms of project application and implementation? 23 Graph 26: Are you familiar with legal regulations related to NGO sector? 24 Graph 27: To what extent are you satisfied with the current legal regulations related to NGO sector? 24 Graph 28: Are you interested in taking part in the initiative for a change in law related to NGO activities? 25 Graph 29: Is the current political situation in the country favorable for NGO sector development? 25 Graph 30: To what extent is the influence of the following institutions important for NGO sector work? 26 Graph 31: How would you rate cooperation of the current Republic Government 26 with NGO sector? Graph 32: To what extent does NGO sector influence creation of state policy? 26 27 Graph 33: Should NGOs play an active role in the election process? Graph 34: Can you list up to 3 NGOs that have had the most significant influence 28 on NGO sector development in Serbia? (first 10) Graph 35: Does your organization have: (% of positive answers) 29 Graph 36: Gender of respondents 31 Graph 37: Gender of respondents by organization's field of work 31 Graph 38: Are members of the managing board employed in the organization? 31 Graph 39: Do members of the board, president, director or members of the supervising committee run the projects? 31 32 Graph 40: Why do members of the board and supervising committee run the projects? 33 Graph 41: Who makes each of the following decisions? Graph 42: Apart from the Statute, does your organization have written rules

and procedures for decision-making and overall work of the organization? 33 Graph 43: Do you need additional training in management and supervision? 33 Graph 44: Have you had any kind of cooperation with other NGOs so far? 34 Graph 45: What kind of cooperation have you had with other NGOs? 34 Graph 46: How would you rate cooperation that your NGO had with other NGOs? 34 Graph 47: How would you rate cooperation within the NGO sector in Serbia? 35 35 Graph 48: Are you a member of any NGO network? Graph 49: Are you a member of any NGO network? 35 Graph 50: How would you assess the influence of the network/s that you are a member of? 36 Graph 51: How would you assess the general influence of NGO networks in Serbia? 36 37 Graph 52: Have you heard of FENS (Federation of NGO Organizations of Serbia)? Graph 53: In your opinion, what is the purpose of FENS? 38 Graph 54: How would you rate FENS activities so far? 39 39 Graph 55: How would you assess the attitude of the state towards NGO sector? Graph 56: How would you rate cooperation of local self-government with your organization? 39 Graph 57: Have you cooperated with any state institutions so far? 40 Graph 58: What kind of cooperation with state institutions have you had so far? 40 Graph 59: How would you rate the importance cooperation between the state and NGOs? 41 Graph 60: Have you cooperated with the business sector so far? 42 Graph 61: Have you cooperated with the business sector so far? - by field of work 42 42 Graph 62: What kind of cooperation have you had so far with the business sector? 43 Graph 63: What is the nature of help you are receiving from business sector? Graph 64: To what extent are you satisfied with cooperation that your organization has with the business sector? 43 Graph 65: How would you rate the importance cooperation between the business 43 sector and NGO? 44 Graph 66: Do you have better cooperation with private or state owned companies? Graph 67: Why doesn't your organization cooperate more with the business sector? 45 Graph 68: What can NGOs do to improve cooperation with the business sector? 45 Graph 69: So far, have you had any kind of cooperation or contact with the media? 46 46 Graph 70: What were the reasons for this cooperation? Graph 71: Was this cooperation easier in the local or national media? 47 Graph 72: Was this cooperation easier in the local or national media? - by region 47 47 Graph 73: Was this cooperation easier with electronic or printed media? 47 Graph 74: Was this cooperation easier with electronic or printed media? - by region 48 Graph 75: To what extent are you satisfied with cooperation with the media? Graph 76: How would you rate the level of cooperation between the media and NGOs in general? 48 Graph 77: In your opinion, to what extent do the media understand the importance and the role of NGOs? 48 Graph 78: How would you rate the importance cooperation between the media and NGOs? 48 Graph 79: What were you dissatisfied with in cooperation with the media? 49 Graph 80: Do you promote programs and projects of your NGO and in what way? 49 Graph 81: How do you report about the results and successes of projects after they have been completed? 50 Graph 82: How do the media cover activities of your organization? 50 51 Graph 83: How would you assess general attitude of the media towards NGO sector? Graph 84: How would you asses the situation in your organization in terms of cooperation with the media? 51 Graph 85: How would you rate the attitude of your community towards NGO sector 52 on the whole? Graph 86: How would you rate the attitude of your community towards 52 your organization? Graph 87: How informed are the citizens in your community about NGO sector activities? 53 Graph 88: How interested are the citizens in your community in NGO sector activities? 53 Graph 89: Does your organization have a strategy in relations with the public? 53 53 Graph 90: Does your organization have a strategy in relations with the public? Graph 91: How would you assess the situation in your organization in terms of public relations? 54 Graph 92: Name the reasons which, in your opinion, have had a dominant impact on NGO sector image in Serbia? 55 Graph 93: What do you perceive as the main factor for improvement of NGO sector image? 56 Graph 94: How do you hire new staff? 57 Graph 95: How do you hire new staff - by region 57 Graph 96: How do you recruit volunteers? 58 Graph 97: What are the problems that you encounter with staff and volunteers within your NGO? 58 Graph 98: How would you assess the situation in your organization in terms 59 of hiring staff and volunteers? Graph 99: How would you assess the situation in your organization in terms 59 of hiring staff and volunteers - by region?

Graph 100: What are the most important problems in our country that NGOs should or already are addressing? (first 11 answers) Graph 101: Areas that too many NGOs are engaged in Graph 102: What would be the most important area in which activities of NGOs are still insufficiently present? (15 most frequent answers) Graph 103: What would be the most important area which, in your opinion, lacks NGO activities in your region? (15 most frequent answers) Graph 104: Do NGOs meet the needs of the local community? Graph 105: Do NGOs meet the needs of the society? Graph 106: How is your organization financed? Graph 107: Who is financing your organization? Graph 108: How would you rate your relationship with donors? Graph 109: To what extent would it be acceptable for your organization to be financed by individuals and firms accused of making extra profit during the Milosevic's regime? Graph 110: How would you rate current financial situation of your organization? Graph 111: Have you secured funds for your organization's work in 2005? Graph 112: Stated provisional budget for 2002, 2003 and 2004. Graph 113: Stated provisional budget for 2002, 2003 and 2004 (equivalent in euros): ( average value) Graph 114: The main source of income for 2002, 2003 and 2004. Graph 115: Has your organization had financial auditing conducted by an independent auditing house? Graph 116: How would you assess the situation in your organization in terms of financial management? Graph 117: How would you rate the current financial situation in the NGO sector on the whole? Graph 118: How would you rate current financial situation of your organization? Graph 119: What are the main problems? Graph 120: How does your organization involve citizens in its work? Graph 121: When preparing project proposals, do you conduct needs' analyses for your users? Graph 122: How does your organization obtain users' feedback? Graph 123: How satisfied are your users with your work/services? Graph 124: Do you conduct evaluation of the projects and how successful they were? Graph 125: Do you conduct evaluation of the projects and how successful they were? - by region Graph 126: Do you conduct evaluation of the work that your organization is doing? Graph 127: Have you had any staff trainings? Graph 128: Have you had any staff trainings? Graph 129: Who organized the trainings? Graph 130: Have you had any staff trainings? Graph 131: Basic level Graph 132: Advanced level Graph 133: Can you give overall assessment of the level of qualification in your NGO? Graph 134: Can you list topics and fields in which you think you might need priority training? Graph 135: Which organization provided consulting services? Graph 136: So far, have you had any international projects in which you cooperated with any NGOs from the neighboring countries? Graph 137: So far, have you had any international projects in which you cooperated with any NGOs from the neighboring countries? Graph 138: Average ranking of NGO sector problems in Serbia (Rank 1-the most important problem) Graph 139: Average ranking of your own NGO problems (Rank 1-the most important problem) Graph 140: How would you rate the situation in the following fields? Do you need additional training? Graph 141: Project fields Graph 142: Type of activities Graph 143: Can you assess to what extent your requirements are difficult to fulfill? Graph 144: What are the most common problems related to local NGO applications for grants that you encountered? Graph 145: Can you rate the influence of the following in approval of project proposals? Graph 146: To what extent do you agree with the following statement: After some donor organizations withdraw, business sector in Serbia will be able to successfully finance NGO activities.? Graph 147: What is your opinion of the state of NGO sector in Serbia in comparison to other countries in the region? Graph 148: Project fields Graph 149: Do NGOs meet the needs: Graph 150: Can you give overall assessment of the qualification level of NGOs in Serbia? Graph 151: To what extent are the following problems important for sustainability of NGO sector in Serbia?

59 60 60 61 61 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 64 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 71 71 72 72 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 75 75 76 76 77 78 78 80 80 81 83 85 86 86 87

88 89 90 92 92 93