ngo sector in serbia civic initiatives and fens 2005, beograd

Contents

Introduction 4

1. Description of research 6

2. Key findings on NGO sector 10

A. General questions basic information and working conditions for NGOs 10

B. Mission, NGOs field of work and activities 16

C. Legal/fiscal regulations for NGOs 24

D. Political context 25

E. NGO structure 29

F. NGO cooperation - networking 34

G. NGO cooperation with the state 39

H. NGO cooperation with business sector 41

I. NGO cooperation with the media 46

K. Public attitude to NGOs 52

J. Staff and volunteers in NGOs 57

L. Diversity within NGO sector 59

N. Financial stability of NGOs - financial sources 62

O. Involvement of community - users in NGO work 71

P. Quality of NGO services 72

Q. Qualification of NGO staff 74

R. Cooperation with NGOs in the region 78

S. Most important problems for NGO sustainability 80

T. Conclusion 81

NGO sector in Serbia - attitudes and opinions of donors

A. General questions - basic information 82

B. Local NGO projects - application process,

terms of competition and implementation monitoring 83

C. Cooperation with other sectors 88

D. The state of NGO sector in Serbia 89

E. Diversity within the sector / Regional standardization 91

F. Fields of NGO training / education 92

G. Problems of NGO sector in Serbia 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, high-

school 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

«Strategic Marketing», 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

4

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

5

Research objective

Specification of goals

the situation of NGO sector in Serbia

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 non-

governmental). 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 conditionsB. Mission, NGO field of work and activitiesC. Legal/fiscal regulations on NGOD. Political contextE. Structure of NGOsF. Cooperation of NGOs - networkingG. NGO cooperation with the stateH. NGO cooperation with the business sectorI. NGO cooperation with the mediaJ. Staff and volunteers in NGOsK. Attitude of public towards NGOsL. Diversity within the NGO sectorM. Financial stability of NGO - financial resourcesN. Community and users' involvement in NGO workO. Quality of serviceP. NGO staff qualificationQ. Cooperation of NGOs in the wider regionR. Most important problems in NGO sustainabilityS. 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 organizationsB. Local NGOs' projects application, competition conditions and

monitoring the realizationC. Cooperation within the sector and with other sectors (other donors and

state institutions)D. Perception of NGO situation in SerbiaE. Diversity within the sectorF. Fields of NGO educationG. 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

Assessing

Description of research

6

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).

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 (1681Organizations).

b) The register of legal entities in Serbia (8476 legal entities and

organizations - Citizens' associations formed after 1991) registered in workc) NGO directories - the data base from various resource centersd) 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

Sample

7

8

addressing this type of questions. Since our time for field work was limited (from

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 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 was conducted from December 20 2004 to February 1 2005.

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 ).

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.

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. the year of foundation

b. filed of work

c. size of organization

d. FENS membership

e. region where the headquarters are

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.

th st

th st

Respondents

Research period

Methodology

Data analysis

Data analyses obtained based on questions from NGO Questionnaire

The year when organization was founded

www.gradjanske.org

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.

The 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 people-

medium-sized organizations, from 15-30 people-big organizations.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.- 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.

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.

size of organization

FENS membership

Region

Analysis of data obtained from Donors' questionnaire

Culture,

education

and ecology

Socio-

humanitarian

Work

Youngpopulation,

economy, andprofessionalassociations

Development

of civil

society

Protection

of human

rightsTotal

1. Culture and art

2. Education and research

3. Ecology and environment protection

4. Humanitarian and social work,

healthcare

5. Young population, students

6. Development of local community

8. Protection of human rights

9. Legislation, advocacy and

public policy

10. Peace work

12. Help for refugees and

displaced persons

14. Economic development

16. Roma population

96. Other

15. Children's rights

18. Protection of ethnic

minority rights

Total

30

66

26

79

62

41

42

10

9

4611. Women's rights

13. International cooperation

13

9

16

4 7

122 92 82 76 144 516

24

14

11

7

30

66

26

79

62

41

42

10

9

46

13

9

24

14

11

18

16

Table 1: NGOs field of work*

9

*Field 7. "Special and professional associations and 17.”LGBT-“sexual minorities" were not given in the table because the

answer to priority filed of work showed zero %.

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.

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.

Organizations' equipment - premises and technical equipment

Key findings on NGO sector

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

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Belgrade

CentralSerbia

Vojvodina

63%

37%

34%

66%

45%

55%

Before 2000 2000 and later

A. General questions - basic information and working conditions

10

Graph 1: The year when organization was founded

Before 200044%

2000 and later56%


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).

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 3: Does your organization have premises in which it carries

out its activities?


6%We own

the premises

43%We rent

the premises

29%We were given the

premises free of charge

22%We do not have

any premises

Less than next 6 months 29%

For the period of next 6months up to a year

19%

For the next year 23%

Longer than next 3 years 21%

8%Next 2 or 3 years

Graph 4: For what period have you secured the funds for premises or

how long will they be available to you?

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

11

Computers

Printers

Modem

Telephone line

Fax

Photocopier

Scanner

Car

Video-beam

Photo camera

Camera

85%

80%

73%

75%

59%

32%

55%

18%

13%

47%

22%

Computers

Printers

Modem

Telephone line

Fax

Photocopier

Scanner

Car

Video-beam

Photo camera

Camera

4,5

2,3

2,6

2,3

1,7

1,8

1,6

1,5

1,2

1,4

1,2

Graph 5: Does your organization have:

(% of positive answers)


Graph 6: How many pieces do you have:

(average number)

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.

12

Percentage of NGOswith given equipment

Current research 2004.

Printer

Modem

Telephone lines

Fax

Photocopier

Computer

NGO Policy Group 2001.

53%

48%

42%

56%

40%

17%

85%

80%

73%

75%

59%

32%

Table 2: Percentage of NGOs which have the given equipment

Computers

Printers

Modem

Telephone line

Fax

Photocopier

Scanner

Car

Video-beam

Photo camera

Camera

Equipment support project

Participated Did notparticipate

Total

Col % Col % Col %

93

88

78

83

52

27

75

24

8

51

23

83

78

72

73

60

34

51

17

14

46

22

85

79

73

75

59

32

55

18

13

47

22

Table 3: NGO equipment depending on participation in EAR project

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 “Support for Civil

Society in eastern and western Serbia”. 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.

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).

13

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?

Base: all respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

No16%

Yes84%

FENS members

FENS non-members

90%

10%

78%

22%

Graph 9: Does your organization have

Internet access? - By FENS membership

Base: all respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 7: Is the equipment satisfactory for your scope of work and number of employees :

(% of negative answers)

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).

14

Computers

Printers

Modem

Telephone line

Fax

Photocopier

Scanner

Car

Video-beam

Photo camera

Camera

45%

36%

30%

39%

33%

46%

35%

48%

44%

49%

50%


Belgrade

Central Serbia

Vojvodina

50%

36%

14%

0%

16%

33%

47%

4%

27%

39%

30%

4%

Everyone Majority Minority No one

Graph 12: How many people in your organization speak at least one

foreign language? - by region

Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

Knowing a foreign language is the cornerstone for successfulcommunication with donors and writing projects. Organizations in which thepersonnel do not speak a foreign language are from the very beginning in a verydifficult position, with little chance of writing successful project proposals. Againwe 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 percentageis considerably higher in Belgrade than in the other two regions (50% comparedwith 16% in Central Serbia and 27% in Vojvodina).

43%


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?


35%

19%

3%


28%

36%

34%

3%

15

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).

Training isnecessary

in thisfield18%

Good, but weneed additional

training61%

We haveno need

for additionaltraining

21%

Graph 13: How would you evaluate your organization's situation in the

field of planning?


16

42%

65%

27%

50%

64%

45%

12%

57%

23% 23%

33%30%

42%

28%

39%

27%

7%

27%

5%

Cultu

rean

dar

t

Educa

tion

and

rese

arch

Eco

logy,

pro

tect

ion

ofth

een

viro

nm

ent

Hum

anita

rian

and

soci

alw

ork

,hea

lthca

re

Young

peo

ple

,st

uden

ts

Build

ing

loca

l com

muniti

es

Busi

nes

san

dpro

fess

ional

asso

ciat

ions

Pro

tect

ion

of

hum

anrights

Legis

latio

n,ad

voca

cyan

dpublic

polic

yPea

cew

ork

Wom

en's

rights

Hel

pfo

rre

fugee

san

ddis

pla

ced

per

sons

Inte

rnat

ional

cooper

atio

n

Eco

nom

icst

rength

enin

gC

hild

ren's

rights

Rom

apopula

tion

LGBT

(Sex

ual

min

oritie

s)

Pro

tect

ion

of

the

rights

ofet

hnic

min

oritie

s

Oth

er

Graph 14: All fields of work (multiple answers)


Graph 15: Priority fields of work (one answer)


6%

13%

5%

16%

12%

8%

0%

7%

2% 2%

8%

3% 2% 3%

4%

3%

0%

2%

0%

Cultu

rean

dar

t

Educa

tion

and

rese

arch

Eco

logy,

pro

tect

ion

ofth

een

viro

nm

ent

Hum

anita

rian

and

soci

alw

ork

,hea

lthca

re

Young

peo

ple

,st

uden

ts

Build

ing

loca

l com

muniti

es

Busi

nes

san

dpro

fess

ional

asso

ciat

ions

Pro

tect

ion

ofhum

anrights

Legis

latio

n,

and

public

polic

y

advo

cacy

Pea

cew

ork

Wom

en's

rights

Hel

pfo

rre

fugee

san

ddis

pla

ced

per

sons

Inte

rnat

ional

cooper

atio

n

Eco

nom

icst

rength

enin

gC

hild

ren's

rights

Rom

apopula

tion

LGBT

(Sex

ual

min

oritie

s)

Pro

tect

ion

of

the

rights

ofet

hnic

min

oritie

s

Oth

er

17

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.

Priority social problem

Our field of interest

Capability to work in this field

On the basis of the donor's suggestion

Nobody has worked in this field before

On the basis of the experience of others

34

32,4

22

9,2

1,4

1

Graph 16: Why did you choose this particular field of work

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

18

41%43%

59%

40%

22%

34%

26%28% 27%

29%

5%

18%

26%

20%

8%

31% 31%

15%

32%

4% 4%

All

citiz

ens

Child

ren

Young

peo

ple

Stu

den

tsThe

elder

lyW

om

en

Ref

ugee

san

ddis

pla

ced

per

sons

The

poor

Rom

a

Mem

ber

sofnat

ional

min

oritie

s

Mem

ber

sofse

xual

min

oritie

sSin

gle

par

ents

The

unem

plo

yed

Dec

isio

n-m

aker

s

Work

ers'

unio

ns

Inst

itutio

ns

Med

iaPolit

ical

par

ties

NG

Os

Disab

led

per

sons

(par

ents

orfa

mily

mem

ber

s)O

ther

Graph 17: All service users (multiple answers)


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.

All

citiz

ens

Child

ren

Young

peo

ple

Stu

den

ts

Wom

en

Ref

uges

and

dis

pla

ced

per

sons

Rom

a

Mem

ber

sofnat

ional

min

oritie

sThe

unem

plo

yed

NG

Ose

ctor

Dis

able

dper

sons

(par

ents

orfa

mily

mem

ber

s)

Oth

er

39%

11%13%

3%

10%

3% 3% 2% 2% 1%5%

7%

Graph 18: Primary/direct users (one answer)


19

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%).


Sem

inar

s,trai

ning

and

wor

ksho

ps

Org

anizin

gva

rious

cour

ses

Car

ryin

gou

t res

earc

h

Prin

ting

bro

chur

esan

dpub

licat

ions

Offe

ring

pro

fess

iona

l ser

vice

s

Hol

din

gpre

ssco

nfer

ence

s

Hol

din

gco

nfer

ence

san

dm

eetin

gs

Med

iaca

mpai

gns

Oth

erty

pes

ofca

mpai

gn

Form

sof

alte

rnat

ive

educ

atio

n

Lobbying

/pub

licad

voca

cy

Net

wor

king

and

coop

erat

ion

Mon

itorin

gla

ws

and

the

wor

kof

inst

itutio

ns

Offe

ring

hum

anita

rian

aid

Act

ions

inth

elo

cal c

omm

unity

Oth

er

76%

35%

41%

49%

38%

34%

46%49%

23%

38%

33%

55%

19%20%

55%

2%

Graph 19: What types of activities are most often conducted by your organization?

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.

20

Graph 20: How many project proposals did you submit to

donors in 2004?


5%

61%

22%

12%

0

from 1 to 5

11+

from 6 to 10

Graph 21: On average, how long do most projects carried out by your

organization last?


15%

30%

32%

16%

7%

Up to 3 months

From 3 to 6 months

From 6 months to a year

About a year

Over a year

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.

13%

31%

19%

37%

0

1

2

3+

Graph 22: How many projects is your organization carrying out at the moment?


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.

21

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%).

Lack of information on competition 45%

41%

22%

21%

20%

20%

19%

5%

15%

High and complicated requests from donors

Lack of technical equipment

Poor knowledge of English

Insufficient experience in project writing

Lack of professionalism

Insufficient motivation of members

We did not have these problems

Other

Graph 23: Most important problems in project competition?

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs) *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.

22

*"Logical Frame Matrix"


Graph 24: Most important problems in project implementation?

60%

38%

29%

25%

23%

22%

15%

13%

13%

12%

12%

3%

Lack of financialmeans

Low level of cooperationwith gov.institutions

Negative attitudeof community

Lack of technicalequipment

Lack of equipmentand staff

Legal problems

Users' lack ofmotivation

Lack of professionalism

Low level ofcooperation with media

Poor knowledgeof English

Members' lack ofmotivation

Other

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%).

Graph 25: How would you assess the situation in your organization in

project competition and implementation?


Support inthis filed

necessary22%


support59%

No needfor additional

training19%

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).

23

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?


Graph 27: To what extent are you satisfied

with current legal regulations related

to NGO sector?


FENS members FENS non members

s2

s3

s4

Completelyfamiliar

Absolutelynot familiar

1

5

6

14

34

28

33

32

26

21

36

24

35

30

19

28

6

7

2

3

2

9

Absolutelydissatisfied

s2

s3

s4

Completelysatisfied

Not familiarwith it

FENS members FENS non members

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%).

24

Graph 28: Are you interested in participating in the initiative for a change

in laws related to NGO work?


No30%

Yes70%

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.)

very unfavorable

s2

s3

s4

very favorable

23

31

31

9

6

Graph 29: Is current political climate in the country favorable for the

development of the NGO sector?


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.

25

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)


Graph 31: How would you rate cooperation

of the present Government of Serbia with

the NGO sector?


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.

28

32

31

7

2

very bad

s2

s3

s4

excellent

Government

Political parties

Local government

Church

Media

Business sector

NGOs themselves

4,3

3,3

4,3

2,3

4,5

3,9

4,6

Too little87% Just enough

12%

Too much1%

Graph 32: To what extent does NGO

sector influence creation of State

policies?


26

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 “Should NGOs play

an active role in the election process?” 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).

No, NGOs should not playan active role in election process

Yes, but only those whose field ofwork includes this

Yes, they should controlelection regularity

Yes, they should invite citizensto take part in election

Yes, they should openly call the citizensto take part and vote for certain option

7

9

33

50

52

Graph 33: Should NGOs play an active role in the election process?

(multiple answers)

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

27

Most important NGOs

The respondents stated that the most important organizations for the

development of NGO sector are: Civic Initiatives, Center for Development of Non-

profit 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.

Graph 34: List up to 3 NGOs which had the most important Influence on

development of NGO sector in Serbia? (first 10)


Civ

icIn

itiat

ives

CRN

PS,C

ente

rfo

r

Dev

elopm

entofN

on

pro

fitse

ctor

CESID

Fund

forO

pen

Soci

ety

Euro

pea

nM

ove

men

tin

Ser

bia

Otp

or

Wom

enin

bla

ckH

um

anita

rian

law

fund

YU

KO

MH

elsi

nki

Com

mitt

ee

forhum

anrights

72

35

11

8

11

6 6 7

3 3

37

18

13

12

5

7 6 5 5 4

FENS members Non-members

28

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%).

Managing board

Coordinators

Employees

Part time workers

Volunteers

96%

77%

34%

55%

79%

Graph 35: Does your organization have: (% of positive answers)


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)

Number of organizationsthat have the given body

PresidentManaging

boardManaging

boardCoordinators Employees

Part-timeworkersPart-timeworkers

Volunteers

1. Total in segment

2. Male

3. Female

4. Younger (20-35)

5. Middle-aged (36-50)

6. Older (over 51)

7. With primary school

8. With secondary school

9. College or University

10. M.A. degree

11. PhD

516

100%

55

46

27

48

26

1

21

78

482 389 172 276 396

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

84

92

67

76

31

5

50

86

15

14

67

74

55

58

14

2

33

75

8

5

70

83

69

64

17

3

54

74

9

5

79

88

75

57

20

5

55

75

11

9

80

43

19

11

70

54

5

2

86

77

Table 4: Structure by gender, age and education; ( )% of presence in the given segment

29

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 middle-

aged, 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 “female sector”, 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.

30

Male52%

Female48%

Graph 36: Gender of respondents


Graph 37: Gender of respondents by

organizations' field of work


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).

Culture, education andecology

Socio-humanitarianwork

Young population,economy, professional

associations

Development ofcivil society

Protection ofhuman rights

61%

39%

55%

45%

54%

46%

58%

42%

38%

62%

Male Female

19%

Only somemembers

5%

Yes, majority

4%

Yes, all

73%

No

Yes, always

Yes, in mostcases

Only in somecases

No

22%

48%

18%

12%

Graph 38: Are members of the managing

board employed in the organization?


Graph 39: Do members of the managing

board, president, director or members of

supervising committee run the projects?

31


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 short-

staffed (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?

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

52%

29%

25%

7%

3%

Project was fromtheir professional domain

Organization is short-staffed-limited funds to hire employees

Functions in organizationare not strictly divided

No need foradditional staff

Other answers

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 decision-

making and overall work of the organization (Graph 42). This percentage is much

higher than expected, presumably because some of the respondents gave

positive , “socially desired”, 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



Only in the field of Development of Civil society it was stated less frequently that

additional training was needed.

32

Assem

bly

Man

aging

boar

d

Super

vising

com

mittee

Pres

iden

t

Dire

ctor

Projec

t coo

rdinator

Execu

tivestaff

5%4%

5% 5%

17%

8%7%

21%

59%

5%

16%

20%

47%

9%8%

55%

32%

28%

11%

37%

16%

Graph 41: Which decisions do the following bodies make:


Strategicdecisions

Daily workdecisions

Decisions related toActivities in Concrete projects

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?

Yes47%

No53%

Additional supportnecessary in this

field 15%

Good, but additionalsupport necessary

58%

No need for additionaltraining

27%

33


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%).

Mutual help inactivities

Cooperation within NGOnetwork

Joint projects

Members' training

Joint requests todonors

Aid in equipment,premises

Lobbying/publicadvocacy

Coalition

Other

77%

65%

64%

50%

48%

44%

36%

28%

4%

Graph 44: Have you had any cooperation with

other NGOs so far?


Graph 45: What kind of cooperation was it?

Yes98%

No2%

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

34

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.


of your organization with other NGOs?


within NGO sector?


0

3

25

38

34

Not satisfiedat all

s2

s3

s4

Very satisfiedi

Completelyundeveloped

s2

s3

s4

Welldeveloped

4

25

50

18

3

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

26

69

25

Yes, international

Yes, domestic

No

FENS members FENS non-members

Graph 48: Are you a member of any NGO

network?

Graph 49: Are you a member of any NGO

network?


Yes, international

Yes, domestic

No

30

23

100

40

25

48

35


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:

5%

58%

37%

Noinfluence

Smallinfluence

Biginfluence

Noinfluence

Smallinfluence

Biginfluence

7%

79%

14%

Graph 50: How would you rate the influence

of network/s that you are a member of?

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

Graph 51: How would you rate the

influence of network in NGO sector?

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

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: “ The concept of coalition and networking is not

clear enough to many organizations “. 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.

36

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



FENS members

FENS non-members

Yes No

100

0

66

34

Graph 52: Have you heard of FENS (Federation of NGOs of Serbia)?


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%)

37

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

FENS members FENS non-members

Exc

hange

ofin

form

atio

n

am

ong

NG

Os

Influ

ence

ove

r

deci

sion-m

ake

rsin

Serb

iaPro

motio

nofci

vil

soci

ety

valu

es

Coord

inatio

nofattitu

des

and

request

sw

ithin

NG

Ose

ctor

Rais

ing

important

soci

al i

ssues

Impro

ving

NG

Ose

ctor

image

Cre

atin

gm

onopoly

with

inth

ese

ctor

Pro

motio

nof

indiv

iduals

58 58 58

39

55

34

49

42

54

35

48

34

6

13

2

6

Oth

er

5 4

No

answ

er

0

6

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

*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.

38

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

4,5

8,9

24,7

18,3

42

36,1

19,8

10,6

8,2

2,2

0,8

23,9

Totally unsuccessful

s2

s3

s4

Totally successful

No answer given

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

Members of FENS Non members of FENS

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 “How would

you evaluate the attitude of the state towards the Third Sector?” 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.

62

The state is uninterestedand underestimates the

importance of theNGO sector

The state helps thedevelopment of the

NGO sector(allocating resources)

5

Unable toevaluate

9

The state views NGOsas competitors

25

The state recognizes theNGO sector as a partner

11

Graph 55: How would you rate the relationship

between the state and the NGO sector?

21

19

28

21

11

Very poorcooperation

s2

s3

s4

Very goodcooperation

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)


cooperation between local government

and your organization?


39

*Multiple answers,

% do not add up to 100%

*Multiple answers, % do not

add up to 100%

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”).

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%).

11

55

45Yes, on a

national level

Yes, on alocal level

There hasbeen no

cooperation

Base: All which cooperated

with the state 89% (455 NGOs)

44

26

59

50

Workingtogether on

a project

NGO as aconsultant

State inrole ofdonor

Graph 57: Have you, up to the present,

cooperated with any state institution

whatsoever?

Graph 58: What type of cooperation have

you had with state institutions up to now?

Base: All respondents 100%

(516 NGOs)

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%).

40

Exchangingexperiences and

information

4Completely unimportant

11s2

16s3

19s4

49Very important

Graph 59: How would you rate the importance of cooperation between

the state and NGOs?


H. Cooperation of NGOs with the business sector

As can be seen from graph 60, 61% of all respondents say they havecooperated with the business sector. Here it should be stated that any form ofcommunication between NGOs and businesses is understood to meancooperation, such as donations, even of the smallest volume- in goods, financialdonations... Cooperation is most often achieved among the older organizations(70% of older organizations have experience of cooperation), as well as amongthe large NGOs (71% of large organizations have cooperated with the businesssector). Also differences are noticeable depending on the field of work (as canbe seen in graph 61): cooperation is considerably more common in the fields ofculture, education, ecology, and social-humanitarian work than in the field ofhuman rights.

Why is cooperation difficult to achieve? The respondents (representativesfrom NGOs who had not achieved cooperation) gave as the most important reasonas to why cooperation had not been achieved- on the one hand the businesssector's lack of interest in cooperation and on the other hand the lack of intereston the part of the NGOs themselves ( other factors appear considerably lessoften):

- (the business sector is notinterested - 24% of organizations which had not achieved cooperation, thebusiness sector is not ready for cooperation-11%, they don't understand theimportance of NGOs - 8%),

- Lack of interest of the business sector

41

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.

Yes61

No39

Graph 60: Have you cooperated with

the business sector up to now?


Yes No

Culture, educationand ecology

Social-humanitarianwork

Young people,economy, professional

associations

Development ofcivil society


74%

26%

73%

27%

61%

39%

59%

41%

44%

56%

Graph 61: Have you cooperated with the

business sector up to now? - by field of work


- - (We had no need forcooperation - 14%. Our mission is not connected to the business sector - 12%,nobody offered us cooperation -3%)

- - The business sector is undeveloped, it has noresources - 8%, there were not opportunities, conditions, possibilities forcooperation -17%.

Cooperation is most often achieved because of the interests of therepresentatives of the business sector in a given field ( this reason is stated by58% of respondents whose NGOs achieved cooperation). The personal motives ofthe representatives of the business sector also play an important role (29% ofthese respondents), as does the business sector's representatives' membership onthe organization's managing board (17%).

The most common type of cooperation between the business sector andNGOs is that where the representative of the business sector is found in therole of donor- if we take into account only those organizations which havecooperated with the business sector, it is noticeable that 78% of these NGOshave had experience with business sector donations, 25% appeared in consultantroles, and 5% provided other types of service. Cooperation where the businesssector is found in the role of donor is more often achieved by organizations fromthe social-humanitarian field than organizations from other fields.

Lack of interest of the NGOs themselves

Other factors

Graph 62: What types of cooperation have you had with the business

sector up to now?

Base: NGOs which cooperated with the business

sector 61% (312 NGOs)

78

25

5

7

Business sectorin the role of donor

NGOs asconsultancy service

Various services related toproblems we deal with

Other


42

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.

Base: NGOs which had received donations from the business sector- 48% (233 NGOs)

Both strategically plannedand continuous help

6%

Help is not continuousbut they help us

with most projects21%

Help is sporadic, it's aquestion of small donations

73%

Graph 63: What is the nature of the help which you receive from the

business sector?


8

12

18

25

37

s2

s3

Totallyunimportant

s4

Veryimportant

Base: NGOs which cooperated with the business sector

- 61% (312 NGOs)

7

30

38

25

7

s2

s3

We arenot satisfied

at all

Total+

We arevery

satisfied


with the cooperation between your

organization and the business sector?


importance of cooperation between the

business sector and NGOs?

When the business sector appears in the role of donor, it is most often aquestion of financial donations (66% of organizations which had receiveddonations), and then donations in kind (60% of these organizations).

The next graph shows the nature of the help received from the businesssector. It can be clearly seen that the majority of organizations receive sporadic,small amounts of help from the business sector (73% of NGOs which hadreceived donations). Only 6% (of organizations which receive donations) actuallyreceive strategically planned and continuous help. Another 21% of theseorganizations state that the help they receive is not continuous, but that it isreceived regularly, for most projects.

43

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 “Is it better to cooperate with private or state

companies?” - 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,


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

With private companies41%

With state companies14%

No difference45%

Graph 66: Is it better to cooperate with private or state-run companies?

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).

44

There is no tax relieffor companies helping

the NGO sector

Companies are in a verypoor state - they have no

resources for donations

Companies have insufficientknowledge of the role and

significance of NGOs

Companies are notinterested in thework of NGOs

There is a negativeattitude towards NGO

sector on the whole

NGOs do not haveexperience in approaching

business sector

Other

65

62

58

35

25

17

4

Graph 67: Why is there no greater cooperation between your

organization and the business sector?

Base: NGOs which have cooperated with the

business sector -61% (312 NVO)



To familiarize business sectorwith the significance and role

of NGOs, and benefitsto both sides of cooperation

A campaign to changethe image of NGOs

Lobbying

Making a plan of actionfor joint appearance

in NGO network

Organizing jointconferences withbusiness sector

Learning the skills forfund raising

Other

74

48

39

38

38

36

3

Graph 68: What can the NGO sector do to approach the business

sector in a better way?


45

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.

I. NGOs' cooperation with the media

Yes98%

No2%

Bases: NGOs which had cooperated

with the media 98% (505 NGOs)

Media reporting onsome of the

organization's activities

Cooperation betweenNGOs and the

media on projects,e.g. educational cam.

Advertising theorganization

Media house asdonor to NGO

NGO in the role ofgiving professional

advice

Training programsfor journalists

95

43

42

20

18

17

Graph 69: Have you up to now

had any type of cooperation

or contact with the media?


Graph 70: Reasons for cooperation with the media

*multiple answers- % do not add

up to 100%

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.

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.

46

With thelocal media

With the larger media,with national coverage

No difference

Belgrade

CentralSerbia

Vojvodina

28

82

74

17

1

4

55

16

23

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

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

67%

6%

28%

With thelocal media

With the largermedia, with

national coverage

No difference

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.

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

Electronic media(TV, radio)

Printed media No difference

Belgrade

Central Serbia

Vojvodina

12%

28%

60%

46%

8%

47%

21%

14%

65%

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

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media

- 98% (505 NGOs)

Electronicmedia

(TV, radio)31%

Printedmedia14%

Nodifference

55%

47


The next four graphs show marks on a 5-point scale: satisfaction with one'spersonal cooperation with the media, a general rating of the development ofcooperation between the NGO sector and the media, rating the media's perceptionof the NGO sector, and an evaluation of the importance of cooperation betweenthese two sectors. We can come to the conclusion that cooperation with the mediais seen as very important - almost all the representatives of the NGO sector thinkthis 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 “moderatelysatisfied”). As many as 78% of respondents are satisfied with the cooperationachieved! Only 8% expressed dissatisfaction with the cooperation achieved up tothe present.

On the other hand it is felt that cooperation is not sufficiently developedwhen the sector as a whole is taken into account ( the average mark forcooperation comes out at 3.04, and the most frequently answer is a three on the5-point scale- “it is neither developed nor undeveloped”). Also the most statedopinion is that the media inadequately and only partially understand the importanceof the NGO sector in Serbia (again the most frequently given score is three on the5-point scale).

2

6

25

39

29

s2

s3

s4

We are notsatisfied at all

We are verysatisfied


2

22

51

20

5

s2

s3

s4

Totallyundeveloped

Verydeveloped


with the cooperation between your

organization and the media?

Graph 76: In general, how developed do you

think the cooperation between the media and

the NGO sector is?


s2

s3

s4

Not at all

Totally

3

15

48

26

9

s2

s3

s4

1

3

11

14

71

Totallyunimportant

Veryimportant


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?


48

In general journalists are blamed for the problems in cooperation - thesignificance of the active role of NGOs in cooperation with the media is notrecognized. The respondents most often gave as the most common reasons fortheir dissatisfaction with their cooperation with the media the fact that there is noinvestigative journalism tracking the work of the NGO sector (48% of representativesof NGOs which had cooperated with the media), as well as the generally low levelof professionalism of journalists ( 38% of these organizations). Only 19% oforganizations felt that the NGOs themselves are not properly prepared for workingwith the media.

48%

38%

27%

24%

23%

19%

12%

3%

13%

There is no investigative journalismtracking the work of NGOs

Low level of professionalismof journalists

The price of advertisingin the media is very high

The media are not interestedin reporting on NGO activities

NGOs are not sufficiently preparedfor cooperation with the media

The influential media have agenerally negative positiontowards the work of NGOs

No problems with anything,good cooperation

No answer

The media distorts informationin order to come up with

sensationalist stories

Base: NGOs which had cooperated

with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)

Graph 79: With what were you not satisfied during your cooperation

with the media?

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

Non-governmental organizations most often advertise their work in the localmedia (this answer was given by 85% of organizations which had cooperated withthe media), followed by advertising via the internet (websites and e-mails) andinformal channels. The rarest form of advertising is in the national media. However,the accessibility of the national media varies considerably depending on the credibilityof the NGO- thus the results show us that promotion of their work in the largenational media is significantly more common amongst the big NGOs, formed before2000, and from Belgrade. NGOs from Belgrade also use the Internet more often asa means of communication, but are less than NGOs from the other regions presentin the local media.

85

53

49

31

5

In the local media

Via the internet (website, mailing lists)

Informal channels

In the national media

Other

Graph 80: Do you advertise the program and projects of you NGO,

and which form does this promotion take?

Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs) *Multiple answers- % do not

add up to 100%

49

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.

39

23

23

16

5

5

3

3

2

2

2

2

7

The media,electronic and printed

Press conferences

Reports, studies

Internet, web sites,mailing lists

Pamphlets andbrochures, your ownpropaganda material

Interviews, statements

Evaluations, finalappraisals of projects

Presentations, promotions,reviews of projects

Informal channels

Announcements

In written form

Meetings, round tables,scientific gatherings,

workshops

No answer given

Graph 81: Which method do you use to publicize the results

of your projects?


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.

84

58

15

4

Interviews about activities

Articles

Paid advertising

Reporting, following the activities

Graph 82: How do the media cover the activities of your organization?


50

*Multiple answers

- percentages do not add up to 100%

*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,


Graph 83: How would you evaluate the

general attitude of the media towards

the NGO sector?



situation in your organization with regard

to cooperation with the media?


The attitude of most ofthe media is positive

Equal number ofmedia with positive

and negative attitude

The attitude ofmost of the

media is negative

Most of the mediaare totally

uninterested

Unable to evaluate

30%

35%

7%

19%

9%

Training is essentialin this area

15%

Good, but furthertraining isnecessary

53%

We have no needfor further training

32%

51

*Multiple answers

- % do not add up to 100%

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


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.


attitude of the community in which you

work towards the NGO sector as a whole?



attitude of the community in which you

work towards your organization?


7

25

48

16

5

Distinctlynegative attitude

s2

s3

s4

Distinctlypositive attitude

2

10

36

37

14

Distinctlynegativeattitude

s2

s3

s4

Distinctlypositiveattitude

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.

52

11

36

36

13

3

s2

s3

s4

Veryunaware

Veryaware

10

36

9

3

s2

s3

s4

Distinctlyuninterested

Distinctlyinterested


Graph 88: How much are the citizens in

your area interested in the work

of the NGO sector?



awareness of the citizens in your area

regarding the NGO sector?

41

When asked “How interested the citizens of your area are in the work of

the NGO sector” (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 non-

members). Only organizations dealing with human rights felt to a greater degree

that citizens were interested in the work of the NGO sector.



a public relations strategy?



a public relations strategy?

Yes53%

No47%

Culture, educationand training

58%

42%

47%

53%

34%

65%

67%

32%

54%

45%

Social-humanitarianwork

Young people,the economy

and professionaassociations

Development ofcivic society


Yes No

53

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 “efficient” 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.

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).

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.

Additional trainingin this field is

necessery25%

Good, but furthertraining isnecessary

52%

We have no needfor furthertraining23%

Graph 91: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization

in terms of public relations?

Baza: Svi ispitanici 100% (516 NVO)

54

There are no significant differences depending on membership of FENS,

region or year of the organizations formation.

When answering the question “What is the decisive factor for you when

creating an organization's image?” the given answers were (with the opportunity for

multiple answers):

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%

Table 5: What is the decisive factor in creating an organization's image?

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):

38%

20% 20%

18% 18%

11%10%

9%8% 8%

7%6%

4%3%

NG

Ose

ctorlin

ks,

net

work

ing

Fore

ign

donat

ions

Role

inth

edem

ocr

atic

pro

cess

,dem

ocr

atiz

atio

n

Conse

rvat

ive

com

munity

,

pat

riar

chy,

pre

judic

e

The

situ

atio

nin

the

country

The

polit

ics

ofth

efo

rmer

regim

e

Med

iapre

senta

tion,sk

ills,

stra

tegy

forpublic

rela

tions

No

answ

er

The

rela

tionsh

ipbet

wee

n

the

gove

rnm

ent

and

NG

Os,

cooper

atio

n

The

rela

tionsh

ipbet

wee

nN

GO

s

and

the

med

ia,pre

sence

inth

em

edia

,co

oper

atio

n

Oth

eran

swer

s

Public

isnotw

ell i

nfo

rmed

on

the

role

ofN

GO

s,

ignora

nce

The

polit

ical

situ

atio

n,

polit

ics,

polit

ical

par

ties

The

work

ofth

e

NG

Os

them

selv

es,a

clea

rgoal

and

pro

gra

m

Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 92: State what in your opinion are the dominant factors affecting

the image of the NGO sector in Serbia?

55

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


research variables (foundation year, field of work, size, membership of FENS,

region)

When asked “what is the most important factor in improving the image of

the NGO sector in Serbia?” (with the opportunity for multiple answers)

respondents stated that the most significant factor was 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:

72%

40%

35%

30%

28%

22%

Familiarizing the citizens with the roleand significance of the NGO sector

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

Achieving better cooperationwith local government

and administration

Improvement in reacting tothe needs of service users

Achieving better cooperation withpoliticians and people of influence

Changing - improving therelationship with journalists

Graph 93: What do you see as the most important factor in improving

the image of the NGO sector in Serbia?


56





J. Staff and volunteers


Graph 95: How do you hire new staff

- by region?


Graph 94: How do you hire new staff?

We have adeveloped system

17%

We do nothire new staff

7%

Depending onthe project, we do

not have a developedsystem

76%

Belgrade

CentralSerbia

Vojvodina

We have adeveloped system

Depending on the project, we donot have a developed system

We do not hire new staff

27%

70%

3%

12%

82%

6%

15%

71%

14%

57

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).

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 “longer tradition” 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 non-

members.

42%

17%

14%

13%

13%

11%

4%

4%

4%

Personal contacts,friends, family ties

Volunteers contact us

They are hireddepending on

the project

From volunteer centers

They heard aboutus from the media

They are our members

They are usersof our services

We do nothave volunteers

Do not know

Insufficientlyexperienced staff

Lack of motivationof hired staff

Recruiting and keepingthe staff in NGO

Recruitingvolunteers

Inadequate managementof volunteers and/or

hired staff

Financial resources

No problems

No answer

30

29

27

14

6

3

7

11

Graph 97: What problems do you

encounter with employed staff and

volunteers in your NGO?

Base: All respondents

- 100% (516 NGOs)

Graph 96: How do you recruit volunteers?

*Multiple answers


58


- 100% (516 NGOs)

*Multiple answers


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 “in their NGO there are no problems

related to employed staff and volunteers”, 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 Serbia-

22% and Vojvodina -26%)

There are no significant differences in answers depending on the size of

organization, time when it was formed, FENS membership.

Additional trainingin this field

is necessary22%


training48%

No needfor additional

training28%

Belgrade

CentralSerbia

Vojvodina

17%

40%

41%

25%

52%

22%

22%

49%

26%


Graph 98: How would you rate thesituation in your organization in termsof hiring staff and recruitingvolunteers?

Graph 99: How would you rate the situation in

your organization in terms of hiring staff and

recruiting volunteers by region?


No need foradditional training

Additional training inthis field is necessary

Good, but we needadditional training

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:

Human rights

Living standards,economic problems

Education

Social problems,social protection

Youth

Unemployment

Laws, implementationof laws, the rule of law

Protection of environment,ecology

Democratization of society

Children

Minority rights

26%

25%

21%

12%

11%

10%

10%

10%

8%

7%

7%


Graph 100: Most important problems that NGOs should or already

are addressing? (first 11 answers)

59


Comparison by research variables:

-There are no differences between FENS members and non-members exceptin their perception of important economic problems - FENS members attach largerimportance to this problem (33% of FENS members as opposed to 18% of non-members).

- NGOs by rule stress the importance of problems that they deal with- theproblem of education is much more stressed by organizations dealing with culture,education and training (30%), social protection by organizations dealing with socio-humanitarian work (23% from these organizations), etc.

-Younger organizations to a somewhat higher degree stress the problem ofunemployment than older organizations.

-There are no other differences depending on the resion and time of theorganization.

The largest number of respondents think that NGO involvement is equallydistributed in relation to current social problems. When asked whether there was anarea in which too many NGOs are involved at the expense of other areas which areneglected, 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 percentageof NGOs which think that NGO sector pays more attention to some areas at theexpense of other areas (21%).

8%

8%

8%

6%

6%

6%

6%

5%

5%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

Standard, economicproblems

Education

Environment protectionEcology

Human rights

Social problems,social protection

Young population

Unemployment

Children

Disabled

Women's rights

Culture, social life

Healthcare

Laws, implementationof laws, the rule of law

Minority rights

Graph 102: What would be the most important area in which activities

of NGO sector are still not sufficiently present? (15 most frequent answers)

Yes32%

No68%

Graph 101: Areas in which there are too many NGOs engaged?

We asked respondents who expressed the opinion that there was a certainfavoritism 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 organizationwas founded, field of work, size, FENS membership and region).

60


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

9% 5%Standard, economic

problemsChildren

7% 3%Education Disabled

9% 3%Environment protection

EcologyWomen's rights

5% 3%Human rights Culture, social life

6% 2%Social problems,social protection

Healthcare

7% 3%YouthLaws, implementationof laws, the rule of law

7% 2%Unemployment Minority rights

Graph 103: What would be the most important area that lacks NGO

activities in your region? (15 most frequent answers)

Respondents from the NGO sector are of the opinion that NGOs meet theneeds of the society and the local community only partially. When asked to rate thisissue 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 researchvariables (when the organization was formed, size, field of work, FENS membership).The only difference relate to the region, NGO representatives from Central Serbia to asomewhat 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 inBelgrade and 3.11 in Vojvodina).

Graph104: Do NGOs meet the needs of the

local community?

Graph 105: Do NGOs meet the needs

of the society?

5Do not meet at all Do not meet at all 4

15

42

25

12

s2

s3

s4

Completely meet

s2

s3

s4

Completely meet

15

42

26

12

61

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

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs) Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)

What are the areas which lack more NGO sector involvement? If we comparethe areas which respondents stated when talking about the whole sector and whenreferring 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 andenvironment protection. There were no significant differences in answers depending onthe region-local problems seem to be similar in all regions!

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 self-

financing activities (42%), as well as other activities of offering services based on

the contracts (27%).

54%Volunteer work

26%Self-financing activities

23%Contributions

21%Membership fee

18%Gifts

16%

Services basedon contracts

(holding seminars, etc.)

8%We have general

institutional support

84%Based on the projects

13%Province

Government

15%Citizens

17%Ministry

27%Business sector

(firms, companies)

34%Domestic donor

organizations

34%Self-financing

36%Local

administration

74%International

donororganizations

Graph 106: How is your organization

financed?


62

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


Graph 107: Who finances your organization?


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 108: How would you rate your

relations with donors?

Graph 109: To what extent would it beacceptable for your organization to befinanced by individuals or firms accusedof making extra profit duringMilosevic's regime?

3

8

24

32

31

1

s2

s3

s4

Very bad

Excellent

No answer 10Completely ready

57

11

13

6

s2

s3

s4

Not ready at all

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).

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).

Assessment of current financial situation

63

Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs) Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)


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?

29

26

29

12

3

s2

s3

s4

Very bad(barely surviving)

Excellent

Yes

37%

No63%

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.

19%

26%

28%

17%

9%

2002 budget

19%

27%

28%

14%

12%

2003 budget

21%

24%

27%

18%

11%

2004 budget

Up to 1.000 euros

1.001 - 5.000 euros

5.001 - 20.000 euros

20.001 - 100.000 euros

Over 100.000 euros

Graph 112: The stated provisional budgets of organizations

in 2002, 2003 and 2004

64

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).

2000 2004 FENSmembers

FENSnon-members

2004

Value in:

Up to 1.000

1.001-5.000

5.001 20.000

20.001 100.000

Over 100.000

Total

Year when researchwas conducted:

In eurosIn DM In euros In euros

Col% Col% Col% Col%

22%

25%

27%

19%

6%

21%

24%

27%

18%

11%

14%

24%

30%

18%

14%

27%

24%

25%

17%

8%

100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 6: Stated provisional NGO budgets in 2000 and 2004 research

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.

65

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

2002

2003

2004

EUR 47.000

EUR 51.000

EUR 56.000

Graph 113: Provisional budget for 2002, 2003, and 2004

(the equivalent in euros): (average value)

2002

2003

2004

Number ofrespondentswho answered

2000

and

late

r

Culture

,education,

ecolo

gy

Socio

-hum

anitarian

work

The

youth

,econom

yand

pro

fessio

nalassocia

tions

Develo

pm

ent

ofciv

ilsocie

ty

Pro

tection

ofhum

an

rights

Up

to14

15-3

0

31+

Yes

No

Belg

rade

Centr

alS

erb

ia

Vojv

odin

a

Befo

re2000

Tota

l

Year

when

org

aniz

ation

was

founded

Fie

ldofw

ork

Siz

e

FE

NS

mem

bers

hip

Regio

n

410

47

51

56

175

83

86

83

235

16

23

36

101

70

68

62

70

55

51

58

66

10

12

15

53

62

84

119

120

35

44

45

122

26

25

19

156

27

30

35

132

89

100

116

196

63

69

75

214

31

34

39

113

79

83

88

193

30

34

41

104

41

47

50

Table 7: The stated budgets for 2002, 2003, 2004

(the equivalent of 1.000 euros): (Average value by research variables)

66

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.


2002 budget 2003 budget 2004 budget

49%

12%

6%

7%

4%

0%

0%

7%

23%

48%

12%

9%

8%

4%

0%

2%

5%

22%

47%

12%

9%

9%

4%

3%

2%

4%

21%

International donororganizations

Domestic donororganizations

Local administration

Ministry

Other

No answer

Self-financing

Business sector(firms, companies)

Province Government

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

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 “Has your organization had financial auditing

by independent auditing house”, 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.

Yes, for individualprojects

22%

Yes, for thewhole organization

8%No 70%


Graph 115: Has your organization had financial auditing by independent

auditing house?

67

Additionaltraining inthis field

necessary32%

No need foradditionaltraining

20%


48%


Graph 116: How would you rate the situation in your organizations in terms

of financial management?

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.

15

34

42

6

1

s2

s3

s4


Excellent


Graph 117: How would you rate current financial situation in the

whole NGO sector?

68

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.

29

26

29

12

3

s2

s3

s4


Excellent


Graph 118: How would you rate current financial situation

in your organization?

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%)…


29%Lack of experience

in fund raising

32%Lack of informationon potential donors

39%Donors finance

only big organizations

49%Small number of donors

50%Business sector does

not finance NGOs

53%Donors do not financecertain fields any more

53%Bad tax policy

57%The state and local self government

have small funds for donations

Complicated requirementsfor project proposals

27%

Other 4%

Graph 119: What are the main problems?

69

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

There were no significant differences in answers depending oncharacteristics of organizations.

In 2001 research by NGO Policy Group, 60% of respondents thought thatthe biggest problems was the lack of financial resources, but it was encouragingthat as many as 31% respondents stated that there were no financial obstacles increation and implementation of projects. Other problems make up 3% of the statedproblems and refer to the lack of trained people, logistics and organizationalproblems, problems related to banking and accounting, lack of support by the localauthorities and problems with certain donors.

When they were asked “What would be the best way to finance NGOs inSerbia in the future?” respondents gave the following answers (multiple answers):


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%

Table 8: What would be the best way to finance NGOs in Serbia in the future?

It can be noticed that expectations in the future go in the direction of statefinancing, 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. The state should simplify the regulations on financial management (60%)

2. A change of tax policy (53%)

3. Educating NGOs how to manage the finances (45%)

4. Obligatory annual financial reports (35%)

5. Hiring financial experts (auditors, bookkeepers) (18%)

6. Other (less than 1%)

Differences depending on the research parameters were not found.

70

N. Involvement of community - users in NGO work

69

60

42

40

35

2

By assessingusers' needs

By evaluating users'satisfaction with our work

We consult usersin planning

We recruit usersas volunteers

We accept users asmembers of organization

Other

58%

16%

9%

10%

6%

Yes, always

Yes, for big projects(lasting over a year)

Yes, if donorrequires it

Yes, when wehave the time

No


Graph 120: How does your organization involve users in its work?


Graph 121: When preparing a project proposal do you assess users' needs?

The results from the graph above lead to a conclusion that NGOs involveusers 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 satisfiedthe users were with their work (60%). Respondents also mentioned that theyconsult users in planning (42%), recruit users as volunteers (40%) and acceptusers as their members (35%).

There were no significant differences in answers given by respondents fromdifferent NGOs (relating to the size, time when organization was formed, field ofwork, FENS membership and the region).

When asked about needs assessment in project proposal preparation, asmuch as 58% of organizations said that they always conduct needs analysis. Theremaining 41% either do not conduct needs assessment or do so only when theconditions request them to. It is possible that the number of NGOs which do notconduct needs assessment is even higher because with this question (as withsome other questions) respondents felt the need to give a socially “desired”answer, so we cannot be absolutely certain that the respondents gave completelyhonest answers. There were no differences depending on research variables. Onlyin Belgrade there is a larger percent of organizations whose respondents answeredthat in project preparation they do not assess users' needs, while in Central Serbiathis percentage is much lower (2% as opposed to 16% in Belgrade).

71


NGO representatives most often claimed that users' feedback was obtainedformally, directly from the users (questionnaires, interviews)

- 62% of respondents, while 32% stated that it was informal feedback. 5% oforganizations have never collected users' reactions so far. There were nosignificant differences depending on research variables.


62%

32%

5%

Informal feedback

We haven't collected users'feedback so far

Respondents give formal feedback(questionnaires, interviews)

Graph 122: How does your organization collect users' feedback on

users' reactions?

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 “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.

s2

s3

s4

0

2

14

53

30

Not satisfiedat all

Completelysatisfied


Graph 123: To what extent are your users satisfied with your services?

72

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.

8%

46%

39%

7%

Generallyyes,

external

Generallyyes,

internal

Yes, bothinternal

and external

Generallyno


Graph 124: Do you carry out evaluation

- appraisal of the success of projects?

4%

49%

30%

17%

Yes, external

Yes, internal

Yes, both internaland external

No

Graph 126: Do you carry out evaluations

-appraisals of the effectiveness of work of your organization?



Graph 125: Do you carry out evaluation

- appraisal of the success of projects?

- by region

Belgrade

2%

39%

52%

8%

CentralSerbia

9%

44%

41%

6%

Vojvodina

13%

53%

25%

7%

Generallyyes, external

Generallyyes, internal

Yes, both internaland external

Generally no

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.

73

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%).

No20%

Yes80%

Yes No

86%

14%

74%

26%

Members of FENS

Non-members of FENS

Graph 127: Have your staff

been trained?


Graph 128: Have your staff been trained?

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.

Base: Organizations which have had

training 80% (409 NGOs)

*Multiple answers - % do not

add up to 100%

Graph 129: If you have had training,

who held the training?

Only the leadership 8%

Mostly theleadershipand somemembers

55%

All members37%

Graph 130: Have you had training

for your staff?

21%

19%

4%

2%

2%

2%

2%

TIM TRI

CivicInitiatives

CRNPS

EuropeanMovement

ForeignNGOs

NDI

Most

74


Base: Organizations which have had training 80%

(409 NGOs)

75%Writing project proposals

62%

60%Strategic planning

52%Project management

51%Lobbying and advocacy

44%Human resource management

43%Fund raising

38%Financial management

32%Training of trainers (TOT)

29%Inter sector cooperation

3%Questions and problems in our

field, advanced training

2%Other answers

Writing project proposals

Project management

Teamwork and leadership

Strategic planning

Training of trainers (TOT)

Human resource management

Fund raising

Lobbying and advocacy

Financial management

Inter-sector cooperation

Media presentations, PR manager, marketing

Other answers

66%

49%

48%

43%

38%

30%

30%

27%

21%

15%

2%

3%

Graph 131: Basic level

Graph 132: Advanced level

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).

75

Base: Organizations which have had training 80% (409 NGOs) *Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Base: Organizations which have had training 80% (409 NGOs) *Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%

Team work, leadership

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.

s2

s3

s4

1

6

38

41

13

We are not satisfied at all

We are very satisfied

Graph 133: Can you give a general rating of the level of training in your NGO?


Fin

anci

al

man

agem

ent

Strat

egic

pla

nnin

g

Lobbyi

ng/a

dvo

cacy

Fund

rais

ing

Writin

gpro

ject

pro

posa

ls

Med

iaap

pea

rance

s

PR

man

ager

,m

arke

ting

Hum

anre

sourc

e

man

agem

ent

Pro

ject

man

agem

ent

Trai

nin

goftrai

ner

s(T

OT)

Inte

r-se

ctorco

oper

atio

n

Team

work

and

lead

ersh

ipIn

the

field

of

legal

regula

tions

Lear

nin

gfo

reig

nla

nguag

esC

om

pute

rtrai

nin

gO

ther

answ

ers

36%

21%

19%

19%

17%

15%

10%

10%

9%

7% 8%

5%

4%

4%

8%

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

priority training?

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%.

76



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%).

Base: Organizations which have used consultancy

services - 61% (316 NGOs)

22%

10%

8%

6%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

Civic Initiatives

CRNPS, Centre for developmentof the non-profit sector

Tim Tri

European movement in Serbia

International organizations

Most

Save the children

CESID

A@IN

Autonomous women's centre

Graph 135: Who provided you with consultancy services,

which organization?

77


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.

No52%

Yes48%


Yes No

Belgrade

CentralSerbia

Vojvodina

69%

31%

33%

67%

54%

46%

Graph 136: Have you, up to now, been involved in any international

projects, projects in which you have cooperated with NGOs from

neighboring countries?

Graph 137: Have you, up to now, been involved in any international

projects, projects in which you have cooperated with NGOs from

neighboring countries?


Smaller organizations, as well as organizations formed after 2000, have also

cooperated in this way more rarely, which was an expected result.

78

Education, training

Youth

Refugees and displacedpeople

Base: NGOs which have workedon international projects 170 45 36 22 27 40

Col% Col% Col% Col% Col% Col%

20.6

8.8

7.6

47

11

2

8

3

14

23

27

5

15

4

7

5

5

10

Culture,education,

and ecology

Socio-humanitarian

work

Young people,economics and

professionalassociations

Developmentof civilsociety

Protectionof human

rights

Total Field

Table 9: Most common areas of cooperation in international projects.

Children

Standard,economic problems

Future of community,municipality, development

Women's rights

Protection of environment,ecology

Human rights

Culture, social life

Joint projects,exchange of experiences

7.1

5.9

5.9

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

4.7

2

2

4

2

16

7

11

17

14

3

3

8

8

5

14

5

5

5

9

5

5

19

7

4

10

3

3

15

3

5

5

3

The media

Humanitarian issues

Peace movements

4.1

4.1

4.1

7

4

11

5

5

9 7

8

5

3

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).

79

R. Most important problems in NGO sustainability

The most important problems for NGO sector sustainability in Serbia are: lack ofsupport by the state and withdrawal of international donors. (average ranking 3.5 and3.9, where 1 means the most important problem). Cooperation with the media isperceived as the least problem. It is interesting that respondents perceive theimportance of problems in the same way when speaking about NGO sector and theirown NGOs.

Some differences related to the region were noticed in perception ofproblems: in Belgrade, much less importance is attached to problems of insufficientcooperation with the local authorities and negative attitude of community. InVojvodina, more than in other regions, bigger importance is attached to undevelopedNGO sector.

Differences between FENS members and non-members are present only withreference to the question of negative attitude of the community: FENS networkmembers perceive negative attitude of the community as a smaller problem thanorganizations which are not FENS members.

Organizations dealing with culture, education and ecology more than otherorganizations perceive undeveloped donorship in the business sector as one of themain problems, while organizations dealing with younger population and economyattach less importance (in comparison to other NGOs) to the problem of unstimulativelegal regulations.

Generally, a similar picture is obtained in perception of problems thatrespondents' NGOs are faced with. The biggest difference among organizationsfounded before and after 2000: older organizations attach bigger importance tounstimulative legal regulations than younger ones, while younger organizationsperceive undeveloped NGO sector as a much more significant problem in comparisonto older organizations. Some regional differences were noticed in perception ofproblems that respondents' own NGOs are encountering: organizations from Belgrade,more than NGOs from Vojvodina and Central Serbia, think that unstimulative legalregulations are a bigger problem than undeveloped NGO sector, insufficientcooperation with local authorities and negative attitude of community towards NGOs.

6Bad cooperation with media

5,7Insufficient cooperationamong NGOs

5,5UndevelopedNGO sector

5,1Negative attitude ofcommunity/citizens

5,2Insufficient cooperationwith local authorities

4,5Unstimulative legalregulations

4,4Undeveloped sponsorshipof business sector

3,9International donors'withdrawal

3,5Lack of supportfrom state

Graph 139: Average ranking of

problems of your NGO?

(Rank 1-most important problems)

3,9International donors'withdrawal

4,2Undeveloped sponsorshipof business sector

4,3Unstimulative legalregulations

4,9Insufficient cooperationwith local authorities

5,4Negative attitude ofcommunity/citizens

5,6UndevelopedNGO sector

5,9Insufficient cooperationamong NGOs

6,3Bad cooperation with media

3,8Lack of supportfrom state

Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)

Graph 138: Average ranking of NGO sector

problems in Serbia

(Rank 1-most important problems)

80

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.

Training in this fieldis necessary


No need foradditional training

Planning

Applying for projectsand their implementation

Management and supervision

Contact with the media

Hiring staff andrecruiting volunteers

Public relations

Financial management

18% 61% 21%

22% 59% 19%

16% 57% 27%

15% 53% 32%

22% 50% 28%

25% 51% 23%

32% 48% 20%

Graph 140: How would you assess the situation in the following fields?

Do you need additional training?

81


The NGO sector in Serbia - The attitude and

opinions of the donors

A. General questions - basic information

What amount does your organization give in grants?

MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE

N

Mean

SD

25 percentile

Median

75 percentile

Mode

Minimum

Maximum

30

12867

54339.52

875

1750

4250

1000

1

300000

30

594507

1998364.54

18750

33000

100000

20000

1200

10000000

30

46207

145743.93

7500

17000

30000

10000

600

800000

Table 10: Amount given in grants (in euros)

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.

On the basis of this table we can draw some conclusions about the amounts givenin grants:

1. The first and main conclusion is that the amount given in grants variesgreatly 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 10.000and 30.000 euros. The minimum value of grants that the donors give is between

82

1000 and 4000 euros, while the maximum value of grants is most often in between20.000 and 100.000 euros. 65% of donors accept applications throughout the year,while 34% accept applications only during a limited period of time. Thesecompetitions are usually organized once a year and last for 4 weeks.

Almost all interviewed donors (except one) have offices in Serbia, and mostoften 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 (aselected body) which includes local staff and foreigners employed by theorganization.

B. Local NGO projects-applications, competition requirements

and monitoring of progress

Art andculture

Education andresearch

Ecology andprotection of

the environment

Humanitarianand social work,

health

Young people,youth and

students

Building localcommunities

Business andprofessionalassociations


Legislation,advocacy and

public policy

Peace work

39%

42%

6%

63%

65%

13%

39%

27%

5%

44%

50%

16%

73%

64%

12%

59%

45%

8%

34%

12%

0%

68%

57%

7%

66%

23%

2%

46%

23%

2%

Women's rights

Helpingrefugees and

displaced persons

Internationalcooperation

Strengtheningthe economy

Children'srights

Romapopulation

LGHT(sexual

minorities)

Protecting therights of ethnic

minorities

54%

33%

8%

44%

30%

3%

49%

42%

2%

42%

28%

3%

37%

39%

4%

71%

27%

3%

32%

7%

0%

61%

27%

2%

17%

5%

0%

Other

Areas of donors'project approval

All fields ofNGO sector work

Priority fieldsof NGO work

Graph 141: Project areas

83

The fields in which projects are most often approved are: youth (73%),Roma population (71%), protection of human rights (68%), legislation and publicpolicy (66%). From the graph shown we can see that the fields in which the donorsapprove projects and the areas with which NGOs are concerned do not alwayscoincide. We notice the most disproportion in the fields of:

1. Legislation, advocacy and public policy, the protection and rights of theRoma population and other ethnic minorities. We can see that greater interest inthese fields exists among the donor organizations than among NGOs.

2. In the fields of culture and education, as well as in socio-humanitarianwork and children's rights, we notice a different trend. Interest in these fields isgreater among NGOs than donors.

3. The least disproportion, at least according to this research, is evident inthe following fields: ecology and protection of the environment, young people,development of local communities, human rights, women's rights, help for refugeesand displaced persons, international cooperation and strengthening of the economy.In these fields a more harmonious relationship between the interests of the donorsand the NGOs is noticeable.

Donors are most often ready to support the following types of activity (Graph142): seminars, training workshops (93%), printing brochures and publications (76%),actions in the local community (71%), media campaigns (68%), networking and NGOcooperation (66%).

If we compare the present activities of the NGOs and the activities which thedonors most often support, we see that, to a larger degree than the NGOsthemselves, it is the donors who are interested in promoting activities such asprinting publications and brochures, media campaigns, lobbying and public advocacy,and holding conferences and meetings. Also, among the donors there is moreinterest in monitoring laws and the work of institutions, than in the current activitiesof the NGO sector.

With regard to educational activities such as seminars, training andworkshops, networking and cooperation, and activities in the local community, boththe 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 donorsthis period is somewhat longer- from 6 to 10 weeks, for 17% this period is between11 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 acommon form of communication (51%), as well as various mailing lists (internalmailing lists- 44%, resource centre mailing lists- 32%). When we look at these datait becomes clear how important it is for NGOs to have computer equipment, accessto 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 theirapplicants.

84

Activities which the donors support Existing NGO activities

Seminars,training workshops

Organization ofvarious courses

Carryingout research

Printing brochuresand publications

Offering professionalservices

Holding pressconferences

Organizing conferencesand meetings

Mediacampaign

Other typesof campaign

Alternative formsof education

Lobbying/publicadvocacy

Networkingand cooperation

Monitoring laws andwork of institutions

Offeringmaterial help

Action in thelocal community

32%

38%

10%

20%

44%

35%

54%

41%

44%

38%

42%

34%

59%

46%

37%

23%

49%

33%

66%

55%

54%

19%

93%

76%

76%

49%

68%

49%

71%

55%

Graph 142: Types of 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). Thepicture drawn is completely different from the opinion of the NGO sector.

While the representatives of the NGO sector talk about how complicated theserequirements are, the representatives of the donor organizations most often feel that

85

their are very easy to fulfill. Such a picture tells us that it is possiblethat the problem lies not in the excessive difficulty of the of the donors,but in the fact that the NGO sector is not sufficiently trained to fulfill these

.

requirementsrequirements

requirements

Donors most often feel that their requirements are precise and clear and thatthey are asking for simple things, and that in return they gain more informationabout the NGOs and about the quality of the projects.

39% of donors are of the opinion that local NGOs do not have any greatdifficulty 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 theyencounter during local NGO applications is insufficient experience on the part of theapplicant in writing projects (76% of respondents mention this problem), as well as alack of professionalism in the NGO sector (73%).

3%

Insufficient experienceon the part of the applicant

in writing projects

Lack of professionalism(shortage of

specialist personnel)

Lack of knowledgeof English among applicants

Applicants' lack ofinformation on competition

and opportunities

Lack of technicalresources

(computers, faxes, Internet)

Lack of confidenceof the applicants

Insufficient motivationof the applicants

Other

76%

73%

36%

27%

21%

21%

33%

Graph 144: What problems do you most often encounter during local

NGO applications?

Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)

s2

s3

s4

37

17

27

7

7

5

Graph 143: Can you evaluate to what degree your requirements are

difficult to fulfill?

86

Very easy

Very difficult

No answer given

*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%Base: All respondents - 100% (41 donors)

Graph 145: How much do the following affect the approval of a project?

4,1

3,9

4,1

4,5

2,6

4,2

2,7

87

59% of respondent organizations announce the names of NGOs whoseprojects are approved, 34% do not (7% did not answer this question). Donors whodo announce names most often gave as their reason for this that it is necessary foreverything to be transparent and that the public have an insight into the applicationprocess. Donors who did not announce the names of organizations stated as theirreason that it was not necessary (“It is not necessary, because we do not holdofficial competitions”, “It is not relevant, because we are not a classic donororganization, but we have a partnership with the NGOs”), as well as saying that itwas the responsibility of the NGOs themselves to announce that their project hadbeen approved (“We demand that the NGOs announce it themselves”).

15% of donor organizations do not carry out evaluations of the work of localNGOs. 20% carry out evaluations using external evaluators, while the largest numberof donors -66%, carry out their own evaluations of the work of local NGOs. Of thedonors 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%), andat the end of the project (31%). As can be seen, some donors carry out evaluationsmore that once, at various stages of the project. Projects which cover the whole ofSerbia are most often supported (85%).

On the graph below we can see the ratings for the importance of specificfactors in the approval of proposed projects. The representatives of the donororganizations 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 thedonor complement each other. This finding is also clearly shown by what hasalready been seen in earlier parts of the questionnaire - donors most often supportonly 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, andwith that, positive experience and trust in the recipient NGO, along with a clearlywritten project proposal - once again we come across the significance of havingskills in writing projects.

Only after all these factors, in terms of importance for the approval of theproject, can the appeal of the project itself be found. The regional location and thediffusion of the NGO, as well as the recommendations of other donors, areperceived more as being unimportant than important factors in making decisions onthe approval of project proposals.

Matching the aims of the project with the aims of the donor

Estimating the magnitude of the project's consequences

Previous experience with and trust in the recipient NGO

Recommendations of other donors

Regional headquarters of the NGO and its diffusion


Clearly written project proposals

How interesting the project is

C. Cooperation with other sectors

Cooperation with other donors

Cooperation with state institutions

Cooperation with the business sector

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.)

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.)

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?

s2

s3

s4

29

49

20

0

0

2

88

I absolutely disagree

I agree completely

No answer


89

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.

Plans for the future

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.).

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.

s2

s3

s4

5

7

59

24

5

0

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

Much better than situation in other countries in the region

No answer


90

Current fields of financing Fields that will be financed in the future

Humanitarian,social work,

healthcare

Youthpopulation,

students

Developmentof local

community

Business andprofessionalassociations


Legislature,representation,

public policy

Peace work

39%

31%

Cultureand art

Educationand research

Ecology,environment

protection

63%

62%

39%

41%

44%

46%

73%

59%

59%

51%

34%

28%

68%

64%

66%

59%

46%

46%

Women'srights

Help forrefugees and

displaced persons

Internationalcooperation

Economicempowerment

Children's rights

Roma

LGBT(sexual

minorities)

Protectionnational

Minorities' rights

Other

54%

46%

44%

33%

49%

46%

42%

36%

37%

33%

71%

64%

61%

59%

17%

10%

32%

23%

Graph 148: Project fields

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.

91

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

25 Percentile

Median

75 Percentile

Mode

Minimum

Maximum

36

2272200

8354352.89

97750

175000

1000000

100000

1200

50000000

16

2875508

4936181.86

262500

875000

3600000

1000000

120

18000000

23

580565

905531.03

100000

200000

750000

200000

8000

3500000

Budget for NGOdonations in Serbia

in 2004

Planned budgetfor donations

in 2005.

Planned budget fordonations in 2005within NGO sector

Table 11: Donors' budgets

When donors were asked whether their organizations' budget for NGOsector donations in Serbia will decrease, increase or remain the same, 32% ofthe respondents say that it will decrease, another 32% that it will remain thesame 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 thisintention. The largest part of those who are planning to leave Serbia are planningto do so in the period between 2007 and 2010. Majority of these organizationshave prepared their exit strategy-the strategy for closing down programs.

According to the opinion of majority questionee, representatives of thedonor organizations, international donors should be present in Serbia for fewmore years – between 5 and 10 years.

E. Diversity within the sector

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.

First 10 answers 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%

Table 12: According to donors the most important problems that NGO

sector in Serbia should address: (multiple answers)

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

Protection of human rights

92

Of local community Of society

32

24

49

66

17

10

2

0

0

0

s2

s3

s4

Graph 149: Do NGOs meet the needs:

F. Fields of additional training for NGOs

Donors are moderately satisfied with the level of NGO qualification in Serbia.

s2 7

2

s4 37

s3 54

0

Graph 150: Can you give overall assessment of NGO level of qualification

in Serbia?


Frequency Percentage

13

10

10

8

5

5

4

4

32.5%

25.0%

25.0%

20.0%

12.5%

12.5%

10.0%

10.0%

Table 13

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

Absolutely not

Absolutely yes


Completely satisfied

Not satisfied at all

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

93

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.

Undeveloped sponsorship within the business sector

Unstimulative legal regulations

Lack of support from the state

Withdrawal of international donors

Insufficient (undeveloped) cooperation among NGOs

Insufficient cooperation with local authorities

Poor cooperation with the media

Negative attitude of the community, citizens


Graph 151: How important are the following for NGO sector sustainability

in Serbia?

Undeveloped NGO sector 3,1

4,2

3,6

3,9

3,2

3,5

3,4

4,1

3,2

94

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) 29

Table 5: In your opinion, what is of main importance in creating an image

of an organization? 55

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? 70

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:

Graph 1: Year when organization was founded 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

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

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

with NGO sector?

Graph 32: To what extent does NGO sector influence creation of state policy? 26

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

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

Graph 40: Why do members of the board and supervising committee run the projects?

Graph 41: Who makes each of the following decisions?

Graph 42: Apart from the Statute, does your organization have written rules

9

13

13

65

66

79

82

91

91

92

10

11

21

26

27

28

32

33

95

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

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

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

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

Graph 62: What kind of cooperation have you had so far with the business sector?

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

sector and NGO?

Graph 66: Do you have better cooperation with private or state 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

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

Graph 73: Was this cooperation easier with electronic or printed media?

Graph 74: Was this cooperation easier with electronic or printed media? - by region

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

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

on the whole?

Graph 86: How would you rate the attitude of your community towards

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

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


of hiring staff and volunteers?


of hiring staff and volunteers - by region?

35

37

39

42

43

43

owned 44

46

47

47

48

51

52

52

53

59

59

Graph 100: What are the most important problems in our country that NGOs should

or already are addressing? (first 11 answers) 59

Graph 101: Areas that too many NGOs are engaged in 60

Graph 102: What would be the most important area in which activities of NGOs

are still insufficiently present? (15 most frequent answers) 60

Graph 103: What would be the most important area which, in your opinion, lacks

NGO activities in your region? (15 most frequent answers) 61

Graph 104: Do NGOs meet the needs of the local community? 61

Graph 105: Do NGOs meet the needs of the society? 61

Graph 106: How is your organization financed? 62

Graph 107: Who is financing your organization? 62

Graph 108: How would you rate your relationship with donors? 63

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? 63

Graph 110: How would you rate current financial situation of your organization? 64

Graph 111: Have you secured funds for your organization's work in 2005? 64

Graph 112: Stated provisional budget for 2002, 2003 and 2004. 64

Graph 113: Stated provisional budget for 2002, 2003 and 2004

(equivalent in euros): ( average value) 66

Graph 114: The main source of income for 2002, 2003 and 2004. 67

Graph 115: Has your organization had financial auditing conducted by an independent

auditing house? 67


of financial management? 68

Graph 117: How would you rate the current financial situation in the NGO sector

on the whole? 68

Graph 118: How would you rate current financial situation of your organization? 69

Graph 119: What are the main problems? 69

Graph 120: How does your organization involve citizens in its work? 71

Graph 121: When preparing project proposals, do you conduct needs' analyses

for your users? 71

Graph 122: How does your organization obtain users' feedback? 72

Graph 123: How satisfied are your users with your work/services? 72

Graph 124: Do you conduct evaluation of the projects and how successful they were? 73

Graph 125: Do you conduct evaluation of the projects and how successful they were?

- by region 73

Graph 126: Do you conduct evaluation of the work that your organization is doing? 73

Graph 127: Have you had any staff trainings? 74


Graph 129: Who organized the trainings? 74


Graph 131: Basic level 75

Graph 132: Advanced level 75

Graph 133: Can you give overall assessment of the level of qualification in your NGO? 76

Graph 134: Can you list topics and fields in which you think you might need

priority training? 76

Graph 135: Which organization provided consulting services? 77

Graph 136: So far, have you had any international projects in which you cooperated

with any NGOs from the neighboring countries? 78

Graph 137: So far, have you had any international projects in which you cooperated

with any NGOs from the neighboring countries? 78

Graph 138: Average ranking of NGO sector problems in Serbia

(Rank 1-the most important problem) 80

Graph 139: Average ranking of your own NGO problems

(Rank 1-the most important problem) 80

Graph 140: How would you rate the situation in the following fields?

Do you need additional training? 81

Graph 141: Project fields 83

Graph 142: Type of activities 85

Graph 143: Can you assess to what extent your requirements are difficult to fulfill? 86

Graph 144: What are the most common problems related to local NGO applications

for grants that you encountered? 86

Graph 145: Can you rate the influence of the following in approval of project proposals? 87

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.? 88

Graph 147: What is your opinion of the state of NGO sector in Serbia in comparison

to other countries in the region? 89

Graph 148: Project fields 90

Graph 149: Do NGOs meet the needs: 92

Graph 150: Can you give overall assessment of the qualification level

of NGOs in Serbia? 92

Graph 151: To what extent are the following problems important for sustainability

of NGO sector in Serbia? 93

96

ngo sector in serbia civic initiatives and fens 2005, beograd

Documents

ngo work

state of ngo sector

problems of ngo sector

ngo sustainability

ngo structure

ngo cooperation networking

business sector

qualification of ngo