Post on 23-Mar-2016
description
transcript
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%
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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%
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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%
Everyone Majority Minority No one
Graph 10: How many people in your
organization use a computer?
Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 11: How many people in your org.
speak at least one foreign language?
Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
35%
19%
3%
Everyone Majority Minority No one
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?
Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 15: Priority fields of work (one answer)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Primary/direct users of NGO services are most often all citizens. Out of all
groups, the children, young population and women are particularly stressed. Who
the users of a certain non-governmental organization services will be depends
mostly on the field of work of that organization. The graphs with all users shows
that young population, children and students are the dominating group.
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)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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%).
Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
The average number of submitted proposals in 2004 was 5.2. On average, 2.5
were accepted, and 2.0 refused, while the rest are still being processed. NGOs
that were founded earlier, bigger organizations and those from Belgrade, by rule
have a large number of proposals and more accepted projects. When compared
with regard to FENS membership, there are no significant differences between
FENS members and organizations which are not members of FENS.
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"
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Support inthis filed
necessary22%
Good, but weneed additional
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 27: To what extent are you satisfied
with current legal regulations related
to NGO sector?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
How do respondents assess the importance of influence of various institutions
over NGO sector's activities? If we look at the graph, we can notice that the
NGO sector thought that all institutions, apart from the church, have an important
impact on the functioning of this sector (all average marks exceed mark 3 on a
1-5 scale, where 1 means ”not important at all” and 5 means “very important”).
However, respondents perceived as the most important the NGOs, the media and
only then instances of the state apparatus - government and local authorities.
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)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 31: How would you rate cooperation
of the present Government of Serbia with
the NGO sector?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
There are some differences depending on the research variables. Younger
organizations attach larger importance to the influence of local government than older
organizations (4.4 as opposed to 4.2). Organizations dealing with social-humanitarian
work attach somewhat larger influence to the church, unlike organizations dealing with
culture and arts, which attach the least importance to church out of all given
organizations. This result is expected because NGOs dealing with humanitarian work
are often aimed at target groups that church organizations deal with as well, and there
is a common field of activity that these two types of organizations share. Organizations
from Central Serbia thought that the church and the business sector had somewhat
more influence than did organizations from other regions, while organizations from
Belgrade also perceived the influence of state institutions as significantly lower, both on
republic and local level.
Cooperation of the present Government of Serbia with the NGO sector is
assessed most often as bad or very bad (a total of 60% of the respondents). On this
question there are no differences between organizations depending on the research
variables (the year when organization was formed, field of work, size, FENS
membership, region). Also, most of NGO sector representatives were of the opinion that
at the moment the influence of NGO sector over creation of state policies is extremely
low. 12% thought that this influence was adequate and only 1% that it was too strong.
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Each of the segments was assessed by gender, age and education
structure. The table shows percentage of incidence - how many organizations
with the given body (e.g. managing board, coordinators, etc.) have the given
categories of members (structure by gender, age and education)
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
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 37: Gender of respondents by
organizations' field of work
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
A total of 72% of respondents have college or university education. 27%
have secondary school education and only 2% primary school education.
Percentage of respondents with university education is the highest in Belgrade,
and Vojvodina and Central Serbia are relatively equal in this respect (almost
every other activist in their NGOs have completed university education). In
Belgrade, there is the smallest number of those with college education, while the
largest number appear in Central Serbia region.
In majority of organizations, members of the managing board are not
employed in the organizations itself (73% of the cases). There were no significant
differences on this question among organizations depending on research variables
(year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region).
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 39: Do members of the managing
board, president, director or members of
supervising committee run the projects?
31
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
In almost 1/2 of the respondent organizations (48%), members of the
managing board, president, director or members of the supervising committee run
the projects (Graph 39). This high percentage indicates insufficiently developed
controlling, managing and operational functions. This percentage is even higher
among youth organizations and those dealing with young population (in 70% of
these organizations members of the managing board, president, director or
members of the supervising committee run the projects).
Most frequently respondents explain this by saying that the project was
from the professional domain of the person from the given managing board
(52%). However, it was also frequently mentioned that organizations are 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
differences on this question among organizations depending on research variables
(year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region).
Only in the field of Development of Civil society it was stated less frequently that
additional training was needed.
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:
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
F. NGO cooperation - networking
98% of organizations have had some contact with other NGOs up to now.
It should be stressed, though, that by contact we mean any type of cooperation
(help in activities, equipment, cooperation within the network, carrying out of
projects jointly).
Different types of cooperation most often include: mutual help in activities
(77% of those who had cooperation), cooperation within the NGO network (65%),
joint projects (64%), members' training (50%), joint requests to donors (48%), aid
in equipment and premises (44%). Among FENS members and non-members
there is a difference only in terms of NGO network cooperation, FENS members
have had cooperation within the NGO network more frequently than those
organization which are not FENS members (78% in comparison to 54%).
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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.
Graph 46: How would you rate cooperation
of your organization with other NGOs?
Graph 47: How would you rate cooperation
within NGO sector?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: Those organizations which had cooperation, 98% (505 NGOs)
Yes, international
Yes, domestic
No
30
23
100
40
25
48
35
Base: Those organizations which had cooperation, 98% (505 NGOs)
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
differences on this question among organizations depending on research variables
(year when it was founded, field of work, size, membership in FENS, region).
FENS members
FENS non-members
Yes No
100
0
66
34
Graph 52: Have you heard of FENS (Federation of NGOs of Serbia)?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
The ratio between FENS members and non-members was defined by the
sample, so this research does not offer an insight into incidence of membership
in this network within NGO sector. Nevertheless, we can talk about the reasons
for this membership. As the main reasons for becoming network members,
representatives of organizations in FENS network most often stated the following:
-better cooperation, exchange of experience, better level of information
(45% of FENS members)
-strengthening the sector on the whole, development, improvement of
work, better status in the media (37%)
-easier achievement of common interests (29%)
-strengthening the sector's influence over the authorities and law passing
(14%).
Representatives of organizations which have heard of FENS, but their
organizations are not members of the network, state that the main reasons why
their organizations are not members the following:
-lack of information about the network (47% of organizations that have
heard of FENS but have not become members),
-lack of interest in network membership (18%),
-doubts about FENS influence, negative attitude to FENS (11%),
-personal problems (13%),
-cooperation with organizations they feel closer to, organizations with
similar missions (3%)
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)
Graph 56: How would you rate the
cooperation between local government
and your organization?
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
H. Cooperation of NGOs with the business sector
As can be seen from graph 60, 61% of all respondents say they 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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Yes No
Culture, educationand ecology
Social-humanitarianwork
Young people,economy, professional
associations
Development ofcivil society
Protection ofhuman rights
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
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
- - (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
*Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%
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?
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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
Graph 64: To what extent are you satisfied
with the cooperation between your
organization and the business sector?
Graph 65: How would you rate the
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,
membership of FENS, region).
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)
*Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
*Multiple answers, % do not add up to 100%
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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
Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)
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
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
2
22
51
20
5
s2
s3
s4
Totallyundeveloped
Verydeveloped
Graph 75: To what extent are you satisfied
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?
Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)
s2
s3
s4
Not at all
Totally
3
15
48
26
9
s2
s3
s4
1
3
11
14
71
Totallyunimportant
Veryimportant
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
Graph 77: To what extent, in your opinion,
do the media understand the importance
of the role of NGOs?
Graph 78: How would you rate the importance
of cooperation between the media and NGOs?
Base: All respondents (516 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?
Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)
On the basis of the next graph we can see that the most common way
for the media to follow the activities of NGOs is by interviewing their
representatives (stated by 84% of respondents). Coverage of activities through
various newspaper articles is next on the list, followed by paid adverts. We see
at the very bottom of the list, with a total of only 4%, the continuous tracking of
NGO activity by the media.
Reporting by means of newspaper articles is most common in Belgrade,
and rarest in Central Serbia, which is in accordance with the data already
received that the printed media is more accessible in Belgrade.
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?
Base: NGOs which had cooperated with the media - 98% (505 NGOs)
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,
membership of FENS, region).
Graph 83: How would you evaluate the
general attitude of the media towards
the NGO sector?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 84: How would you evaluate the
situation in your organization with regard
to cooperation with the media?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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
research variables (time when organization was formed, field of work, size,
membership of FENS,region).
Somewhat higher marks are noticeable when the respondents reported
how they saw the attitude of the community in which they worked, concretely
towards their NGO (the most common mark was 4 on a 5-point scale, where 1
is a distinctly negative and 5 a distinctly positive attitude). The average mark on
this scale is 3.50 (compared to 2.86 in the sector as a whole). It could be said
that the respondents perceive the attitude of the community in which they work
as much more favorable and positive towards their own organization than towards
the NGO sector as a whole.
Graph 85: How would you evaluate the
attitude of the community in which you
work towards the NGO sector as a whole?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 86: How would you evaluate the
attitude of the community in which you
work towards your organization?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 88: How much are the citizens in
your area interested in the work
of the NGO sector?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 87: How would you evaluate the
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.
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 90: Does your organization have
a public relations strategy?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 89: Does your organization have
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
Protection ofhuman rights
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%
On this question there are no great differences depending on the
research variables (foundation year, field of work, size, membership of FENS,
region)
When asked “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?
Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)
56
On this question there are no great differences depending on the
research variables (time when organization was formed, field of work, size,
membership of FENS, region).
*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%
J. Staff and volunteers
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 95: How do you hire new staff
- by region?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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
- % do not add up to 100%
58
Base: All respondents
- 100% (516 NGOs)
*Multiple answers
- % do not add up to 100%
Most frequent problems that NGOs encounter with staff and volunteers are:
insufficient experience of staff (30%) and lack of motivation of hired staff (29%). This
distribution of answers indicates an important problem which must be solved in
order for NGOs to be more efficient and to function better.
In Belgrade the situation is somewhat different: smaller percentage (only
17% of organizations from Belgrade) of NGOs express lack of motivation of hired
staff. As in previous cases, membership in FENS did not have any impact on the
answers that were obtained.
Two more problems that are encountered are recruiting and keeping the
staff in NGOs (27%), as well recruiting volunteers (14%). These results show that
the problem is not only recruiting the staff ready to take part in NGO work, but also
the problem of keeping the staff in the organization. Inadequate management of
volunteers and/or employed members was stated as one of the less important
problems (6%). According to respondents, the NGOs which are the least affected by
this problem are those dealing with socio-humanitarian work (only 1%). Although
economic situation in the country is bad, the problem of financial resources that
NGO's are facing (related to employed staff and volunteers) appears at the bottom
of the list (on average 3% of organizations stated this as one of the problems that
their organization had).
7% of organizations mention that “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%
Good, but weneed additional
training48%
No needfor additional
training28%
Belgrade
CentralSerbia
Vojvodina
17%
40%
41%
25%
52%
22%
22%
49%
26%
Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)
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%
Base: All respondents - 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 100: Most important problems that NGOs should or already
are addressing? (first 11 answers)
59
*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%
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)
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?
*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%
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
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 107: Who finances your organization?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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)
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 111: Have you secured funds for
your organization's work in 2005?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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.
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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%
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Graph 115: Has your organization had financial auditing by independent
auditing house?
67
Additionaltraining inthis field
necessary32%
No need foradditionaltraining
20%
Good, but we needadditional training
48%
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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
Very bad(barely surviving)
Excellent
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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
Very bad(barely surviving)
Excellent
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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%)…
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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):
Base: All respondents
State through special funds
Foreign donors (as is the case now)
Business sector
Domestic foundations
Local self-government
Self-financing
Citizens' contributions
Other
516
53%
48%
41%
37%
31%
23%
8%
2%
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
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
Graph 120: How does your organization involve users in its work?
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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
*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%
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.
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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: All respondents (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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
Basis: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%
On this question there are no great differences depending on the research
variables (time when organization was founded, field of work, size, membership of
FENS, region).
61% of NGO representatives state that their organization had used the
consultancy services of other organizations for the training of their staff, while 39%
gave a negative answer to this question. Significant differences between the
organizations depending on the research variables were not found.
Of the organizations which most often provided consultancy services
respondents mentioned first Civic Initiatives (22% of organizations which had used
consultancy services), followed by CRNPS (10%), Tim Tri (8%), European Movement
in Serbia (6%). There are no great differences depending on the research variables
except in relation to membership of FENS: organizations which are members of
the FENS network named Civic Initiatives to a larger extent as the organization
which offered them consultancy services than non-member organizations (31%
compared to 13%).
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
*Multiple answers - % do not add up to 100%
Q. Cooperation with NGOs in the wider region
International projects, that is, projects in cooperation with NGOs from the
neighboring countries, have up to the present, been carried out by 48% of the
respondent NGOs. NGOs from Belgrade have cooperated with other countries in the
region significantly more often in comparison to the total (69%), while only every third
NGO from Central Serbia has been involved in this form of cooperation.
No52%
Yes48%
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
Smaller organizations, as well as organizations formed after 2000, have also
cooperated in this way more rarely, which was an expected result.
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
Good, but we needadditional training
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
Base: All respondents 100% (516 NGOs)
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
Protection ofhuman rights
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
Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)
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
Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)
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
Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)
90
Current fields of financing Fields that will be financed in the future
Humanitarian,social work,
healthcare
Youthpopulation,
students
Developmentof local
community
Business andprofessionalassociations
Protection ofhuman rights
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?
Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)
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
Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)
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
Base: All respondents 100% (41 donors)
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
Graph 98: How would you assess the situation in your organization in terms
of hiring staff and volunteers?
Graph 99: How would you assess the situation in your organization in terms
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
Graph 116: How would you assess the situation in your organization in terms
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 128: Have you had any staff trainings? 74
Graph 129: Who organized the trainings? 74
Graph 130: Have you had any staff 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