Contents and reports/English/UNDP_SRB_Third...Natasa Janjic, Predrag Kanazir, Aleksandra Brankovic,...

NGO Policy Group

2

Contents

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction to NGO Policy Group .......................................................................................................................................7 Part 1 The Report ......................................................................................................................................................................8

Background .............................................................................................................................. 8 Scope of the Survey.................................................................................................................. 8 Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................... 10

Part 2 The Context ..................................................................................................................................................................11 Overview of Selected Statistical Data for Serbia ....................................................................... 11

Geography and Human Settlements ...................................................................................... 11 Demography ....................................................................................................................... 11 Political Environment .......................................................................................................... 12 Economic and Social Environment ....................................................................................... 13

Part 3 Features of the Third Sector in Serbia .....................................................................................................................14 Types of NGOs....................................................................................................................... 14 A Brief History of the Third Sector in Serbia ............................................................................ 16 Institutional Development of the NGO Sector in Serbia ............................................................. 18

Number of NGOs in Serbia .................................................................................................. 18 Legal Status of NGOs.......................................................................................................... 19 Local NGOs........................................................................................................................ 19 International NGOs ............................................................................................................. 19 Efforts to Fill Legislative Gaps ............................................................................................. 19

Capacity of the NGO Sector .................................................................................................... 21 Human Resources................................................................................................................ 21 Human Resource Development in NGOs .............................................................................. 23 Material Resources.............................................................................................................. 24 NGO Activities – Number of Projects Implemented............................................................. 26 Governance and Management .............................................................................................. 27 Communications ................................................................................................................. 28 NGO Networks ................................................................................................................... 30

NGOs and the State................................................................................................................. 32 Basic Features of NGO–Government Relations ..................................................................... 32 Situation at the Local Level.................................................................................................. 32 The Third Yugoslav NGO Forum and Subsequent Initiatives ................................................. 33 Survey Results on NGO – Government Relations .................................................................. 34 Mechanisms for Improved Communication between the First and Third Sectors...................... 35

NGOs, Beneficiaries and Other Stakeholders............................................................................ 37 NGOs and Donors................................................................................................................... 43 Regional Features of NGOs in Serbia ....................................................................................... 46

Part 4 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................49 Appendix.....................................................................................................................................................................................I

Third Sector in Serbia

3

Acknowledgments The NGO Policy Group would like to extend its gratitude to all individuals and the 821 organizations that provided information and insights for this review. Our special thanks go to Mark Schnellbaecher, Deputy Regional Director of Catholic Relief Services, and Sally Johnson, Programme Officer, United Nations Development Programme, for their support throughout the process and valuable comments in reviewing the draft Report. We wish to thank Dr. Mirosinka Dinkic, Research Team Leader, for her professional and passionate commitment to this sizeable task and for being such a good team member. Mrs. Zdenka Milivojevic helped us with her insightful contribution to data analysis. Many thanks to Barbara Pando, Analyst, Europe Team, Catholic Relief Services, whose report on a seminar inspired an important section of the Report. Our grateful thanks also go to Branka Petrovic, Zoran M. Markovic and Svetlana Vukomanovic, Center for the Development of the Nonprofit Sector; Milan Vukomanovic, Center for Religious Studies; and Jasmina Kijevcanin and Sinisa Milatovic, Catholic Relief Services. We are grateful to the organizations that hosted six regional NGO meetings: Timok Club, Knjazevac; Educational Center, Leskovac; Center For Civil Society Development, Zrenjanin; Fund for Development of Political Culture, Kragujevac; Humanitarian Center for Integration and Tolerance, Novi Sad; and NGO Forum, Kraljevo. G17 Institute played a key role in survey design, data collection and analysis. Jelena Momcilovic and Iva Jovanovic took responsibility for the interview process. Their sixteen fellow team members also spent long days in the field, learning about the strengths and weaknesses of the Third Sector in Serbia: Natasa Janjic, Predrag Kanazir, Aleksandra Brankovic, Aleksandar Stevanovic, Dragoljub Djuricic, Srdjan Radivojevic, Ana Sekulic, Branislav Lucic, Ivana Munizaba, Ivica Florovic, Miona Simovic, Svetlana Minic, Marija Sipariga, Mirela Trninic and Dusan Pantic. We hope that this NGO survey will be only the first of many to be conducted by the G17 Institute team. The NGO Policy Group received support from Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the United Nations Development Programme in cooperation with the Government of the Netherlands and Canadian International Development Agency. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of donor agencies. The NGO Policy Group welcomes feedback and comments: [email protected] or [email protected] Copyright: 2001, Center for the Development of the Non-Profit Sector and NGO Policy Group

NGO Policy Group

4

Executive Summary To date there has been very little academic material to support analysis of NGO operations in Serbia. Statistical data that do exist are of little use, given that statistics record only the number of organizations ever registered and fail to provide any additional classif ication or follow up information. Furthermore, as a result of political and legislative constraints over the last decade, there are few publications in Serbia of NGO or donor profiles. Paradoxically, the key promoters of transparency have thus hindered their own endeavors by having to maintain generally low visibility and a less-than-transparent existence. Consequently, NGOs have gained a somewhat mythical public image in Serbia. As a result, it is difficult to assess the real capacity of the sector and, by implication, to support its growth and development. It is equally difficult to evaluate the efficiency of resource utilization or the effectiveness of activities undertaken by NGOs. Without reliable data, NGOs themselves and would-be allies stumble in attempts to form partnerships that build on their respective strengths and resources. Most importantly, if NGOs are unaware of their collective sectoral assets and structures, their individual impact will not be maximized. The NGO Policy Group – a community of practice – was formed to contribute to the development of a Third Sector strategy based on research and extensive consultation with local NGOs and other local and international actors. This Report summarizes the findings of a survey of 821 NGOs throughout Serbia (excluding Kosovo and Metohija), consultations with more than 200 NGO representatives in six regional NGO meetings, and an on-line discussion. Future steps in the process initiated by the NGO Policy Group include consultations with local and international NGOs and government representatives. The survey was designed to look at the current capacity of the Third Sector by examining NGOs’ human, material and financial resources, governance and management, internal and external communication, NGO networks, and relationships with stakeholders. A section of the survey is dedicated to NGO–state relations because they bear new weight and also represent a substantial challenge for NGOs and government alike. In addition, the survey results reveal some regional features of Serbian NGOs. At the time of publication of this Report (August 2001), there is a complete legislative gap regarding registration and operation of international NGOs. Local NGOs are mushrooming despite an outdated law on citizens’ associations. Serbian NGOs recognize that the lack of a sound legal framework is a key structural impediment to sustainable NGO development. Although some steps toward improved NGO–government relations have been made through informal and formal consultation and cooperation, systemic obstacles have not yet been removed. Improvements must include transparent procedures in allocation of funding and state-owned premises for NGO operations; public debates on key issues before policies are decided; more regular and focused consultation with NGOs in their respective areas of expertise, etc. NGOs themselves have some reservations about getting closer to the government as they fear being co-opted, are unsure about mechanisms for exchange and cooperation, mistrust local officials and, sometimes, simply are acting on learned behavior. In general, however, NGOs perceive the new government at all levels to be more open and more willing to form partnerships with NGOs. At this time, however, contacts tend to be personal rather than institutional. The survey results confirm the hypothesis that Serbian NGOs have the potential to become key players in the creation of more just and equitable social relations. Key strengths of Serbian NGOs include their flexibility, ability to maximize available technical resources, growing solidarity between NGOs, shared values, and good use of and rapid adjustment to new knowledge and skills. The survey also reveals some key NGO weaknesses that need to be overcome for the Third Sector to develop its full potential. Those weaknesses include: lack of a defined constituency; low


5

accountability to stakeholders (other than donors); too much focus on traditional “expertise” and too little on “amateur and appreciative” community work; random as opposed to planned and organized involvement of volunteers; lack of strategic planning; uneven management skills; lack of impact monitoring and evaluation; and, weak NGO boards. The impact of the Third Sector can be enhanced by: gaining more in-depth knowledge of institutions; creation of vertical and regional linkages between NGOs; support to independent research on the Third Sector; sharing of best practices; more intense consultations between NGOs beyond the project level; diversifying funding to decrease dependency on external (i.e., foreign) donors. A wide variety of organizations constitute the Serbian NGO sector. Attempts to formulate a rigorous classification of them might still be premature or fail to reflect the reality of NGOs’ work. International classification schemes require major adjustments to be relevant to the current Serbian NGO scene. The main difficulty with classification of NGOs in Serbia is the fact that they are not yet clearly profiled. According to the stated missions of the NGOs that participated in the survey, three broad areas predominate: civil society development, provision of alternative or complementary social services, and environmental protection. According to NGO budgets for the year 2000, the Third Sector in Serbia consists of three groups of NGOs: 1. Expert groups, think thanks and support organizations that comprise the smallest share in total

numbers of NGOs but the largest share in terms of total funding to NGOs. While their primary focus is on policy and sectoral analysis (economic, social, political, etc), training, consultancy services and other high visibility activities, these NGOs are often also directly operational. They are concentrated in main Serbian cities, especially in the regions of Belgrade and Vojvodina, and sometimes have “mirror” offices in other towns. For most citizens who are not familiar with the Third Sector, the term “NGO” is equated with representatives of this group.

2. Medium-sized NGOs with annual budgets from DEM 10,001 to DEM 100,000. These

organizations often have a discrete area of expertise but vary greatly in the number of projects and types of activities undertaken. Their activists have received at least basic training and have experience in proposal design and the nuts and bolts of NGO work. This group of NGOs clusters organizations that have worked with different donors and usually have good relationships with other NGOs involved in a similar geographic and/or programmatic area. They too are concentrated in urban areas.

3. The largest group of NGOs is comprised of ”mini-organizations” from the perspective of

program value, number of members, activists and volunteers, and technical and overall organizational development. They compensate for this with the enormous enthusiasm, activism, solidarity, flexibility, and persistence of a core group of activists.

Since the third group was most represented in the survey, a profile of an “average” Serbian NGO has been developed to include features that are shared by most Serbian NGOs, predominantly but not exclusively those from the third group:

• Registered with the Federal Ministry of Justice. • Although activists generally have a shared vision, the mission is not yet clearly defined and

the organization has not yet formulated a strategic plan. • As a result of many changes from one type of activity to another (in response to changes in

the operating environment), its identity is still unclear. It shifts focus between civil society development, service provision, environmental protection, youth, culture, and education.

• Most likely is based in Belgrade or Vojvodina and least likely in Sandzak or northeastern Serbia.

NGO Policy Group

6

• It has a core group of activists, who are contracted on project basis. Volunteers are recruited occasionally, mostly for short-term engagements. Core activists work as volunteers between projects. There are no full-time employees (whose health, pension and other social contributions are paid by the NGO) because the organization does not have secure funding.

• Most activists and volunteers are formally employed in the public sector. They are teachers, lawyers, economists, journalists, pedagogues, artists, engineers and physicians. The educational level of NGO activists is much higher than in other sectors and far above the average for Serbia.

• There is a gender balance among activists, and most are aged between 30 and 50. • However, most board members are men. • The organization either does not have its own office space or it rents it on a monthly basis. In

an office, there is a PC but usually no modem, printer, fax or photocopier. The NGO does not have a car and uses private vehicles for transportation. It has a very meager administrative budget.

• Total budget ranges from DEM 1,000 – 5,000 and reaches up to DEM 10,000. Key funding sources are foundations and international NGOs, with modest local contributions.

• Implements one to three projects, mostly autonomously and not in cooperation with other NGOs. Despite this, it values networks and is ready to become a member of one or more networks.

• Activists communicate informally and in meetings that are scheduled as needed. Communication with citizens occurs mostly through the media. NGOs communicate directly with beneficiaries.

• The public knows very little about it. Citizens are not sure what it stands for or what it does. • Activists participated in seminars about civil society development, human rights, non-violent

communication, and NGO operations and management, but still feel the need for additional training and skills development, especially in the areas of needs assessments, proposal design, volunteer recruitment and management, team work, business planning, marketing, management. They are interested in foreign languages and computer skills, PR and media relations, environmental protection and everything and anything to do with civil society development.

• In the past, it did not have much interaction with authorities (except the unwanted kind), but it is now starting to communicate with government at all levels.


7

Introduction to NGO Policy Group

The NGO Policy Group is a community of practice. It is an on-going consultation with local and international NGO representatives in Serbia through debates, focus groups, interviews, on-line discussions, roundtables, surveys, and analyses of primary and secondary data. Mission Statement

Goal Promote constructive engagement and collective dialogue among NGOs and government institutions aimed at creating accountable social partnerships. NGO Policy Group Publication This publication relies on the outcomes of six regional NGO meetings that, collectively, gathered more than 200 NGO representatives, an on-line discussion initiated by the NGO Policy Group, and results of an in-depth survey of 821 Serbian NGOs. In cooperation with G17 Institute, the NGO Policy Group conducted the survey to provide an opportunity for local NGOs to share and reflect on their experiences regarding the state of the Third Sector in Serbia, to examine more closely their perceptions of changes in the operating environment in the period immediately following the federal and republican elections held in late 2000, and to consider how to adapt to these changes. While acknowledging that it is difficult to capture all aspects of NGO work, this review hopes to sketch basic common features and some regional differences, as captured and portrayed in mid-2001. Additionally, with this publication the NGO Policy Group aims to raise public awareness regarding the necessity of research for an effective Third Sector.

The NGO Policy Group is an independent voluntary consultative body gathering NGO practitioners and professionals who share a strong interest in the development of an efficient, accountable and transparent NGO sector in Serbia. The NGO Policy Group is a merger of knowledge, experience and interest of individuals and organizations and is not owned by any single organization or individual. It promotes cooperation within the Third Sector and with the public and private sectors. Through intensive and interactive communication and consultation with NGOs and relevant institutions, the NGO Policy Group strives to present an articulate NGO voice at the policy table.

NGO Policy Group

8

Part 1 The Report

Background

In January 2001, the NGO Policy Group was established as a joint initiative of its individual members to new challenges and opportunities for NGOs in Serbia to respond more effectively to the socio-economic problems of transition that clearly call for a more systematic approach based on inter- and cross-sectoral partnerships. The NGO Policy Group “emergency action plan” for the first semester of 2001 envisioned activities in several key areas: Pro-active communication with the emerging Development Aid Coordination Unit (DACU) within the Ministry for International Economic Relations to ensure an NGO voice at the table during the donor strategy development phase, a key concern given the Third Sector’s external donor dependency. On-going consultations with the Serbian Ministry for Social Affairs, UN agencies (especially UN OCHA and UNDP), DfID and the World Bank aimed at familiarizing the NGO sector with different agencies’ perceptions of needs and our own need to learn more about these increasingly important actors influencing civil society development in Serbia. Active involvement of NGO representatives in discussions contributing to the design of a well-informed, responsive and timely Third Sector strategy and to the redefinition of relationships with government, the private sector, and the traditional (external) and potential (local) donor community. Some of the frequently voiced concerns that inspired the survey were: If there are many NGOs in Serbia and if some are strong, does that mean that there is an effective Third Sector? Given their diversity and number, how can NGOs become more proactive social partners? NGOs in Serbia are perceived as key promoters of democratization. Are NGOs themselves democratic organizations? How do NGOs perceive the recent political changes? How should internal structures and external relationships be redefined in light of these changes?

Scope of the Survey In six regional NGO meetings 1 organized by the NGO Policy Group from January to March 2001, NGOs throughout Serbia expressed the need and their desire to redefine relationships with government at all levels, with the private sector, with the donor community and among themselves, as well as to examine and pursue new forms of cooperation with civil society actors throughout the Balkans. This identified need arose directly from two key changes in the operating environment: 1) perception of an opportunity to abandon the low profile necessarily maintained prior to the get-out-the-vote campaign last year and to build on the foundation for more active citizen involvement in civic life created in the election period; and 2) growing interest by the new government and the donor community for concrete ideas and results from the Third Sector that could be used to mitigate the anticipated negative impacts of socio-economic transition. Contrary to the situation during the last decade, in the new political environment many donors are emphasizing capacity building of the government at all levels; simultaneously, there is increasing interest among donors to support capacity building of the NGO sector as a whole rather than or in addition to that of individual organizations. As a result, there is growing demand for information about and analysis of its features, capacities, human resource base, and for innovative and effective

1 The six meetings were held in Knjazevac, Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Novi Sad, Zrenjanin and Leskovac.


9

models that allow for replication and scale up. Unfortunately, there has been no strategic analysis undertaken recently that would help assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Third Sector and point to investments and interventions that could strengthen the sector and its constituent parts. Thus, individuals, organizations and donors associated with or supporting the Third Sector in Serbia have had to rely on experiential findings to draw conclusions and recommendations about its potential role. In addition to donors and international actors who had established a presence in FRY during the Milosevic years, NGOs also now must take into account a more strongly felt presence of new actors, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Intensive consultations in and with other sectors further indicate that an organized and a more strategic approach is required for Serbian NGOs to have other than a token role in the transition process. The survey was designed around the following hypotheses: The Third Sector in Serbia is a (potential) key player in redefining social relationships and in the search for and implementation of innovative solutions and problem-solving, results-oriented models. NGOs have demonstrated their capacity to act as catalysts for change. NGOs have less experience in sustaining change and contributing to problem solving in a proactive, responsive, responsible and effective way. To become effective socia l development organizations, NGOs need to maximize their individual and collective impact. In doing so, NGOs should resist equating their potential with their current capacities. A more effective way forward is to examine strengths and weaknesses of the Third Sector in Serbia. Whereas the NGO Policy Group acknowledges the importance of some basic preconditions for sustainable NGO development, such as an enabling legal and fiscal framework, simultaneous and balanced support in other key areas within the Third Sector itself will contribute to its eased impact and a greater role for it in solving problems at the national, regional and local levels. The NGO Policy Group presumes that additional assistance is needed in the following segments of NGO community and the Third Sector in Serbia: For civil society development organizations – professionalization and “de-expertization” of NGOs that become “anchored” in a constituency.

• Constituency building and civic participation (identifying stakeholders; engaging beneficiaries and communities on a more meaningful, participatory and permanent basis; creating channels for communication with and feedback to/from constituency)

• Organizational growth and professionalization (board development; strengthening first- and second- tier management; introduction of written policies and procedures; clear lines of communication and delegation of responsibilities, etc.)

• Strengthening of “amateur and volunteer” aspects, i.e. “de-expertization” of NGOs (emphasis on activities “anchored” in local communities; utilization of community assets; increased organizational capacity to recruit, engage and preserve a volunteer base; mobilize communities and ensure participation of non-experts, etc.)

For the Third Sector in Serbia – strengthening and expanding the Third Sector’s existing infrastructure to ensure resource optimization and more equal access to information.

• Forming vertical linkages between NGOs (from grassroots organizations to think tanks) • Involving NGOs in building the Third Sector’s infrastructure though consultations on

strategic development at the local, sub-national and national level and exchanges of well-documented experiences and information

• Supporting independent academic research on the Third Sector in Serbia • Identifying knowledge gaps and enabling access to best practices and successful models of

cooperation among the state, for-profits and nonprofits in other countries • Ensuring access to public information and funding under conditions that are transparent for all

NGOs

NGO Policy Group

10

• Strengthening the public profile of, support for and involvement in the Third Sector by raising public awareness and understanding of the concrete achievements and potential contributions of NGOs in Serbia

In brief, the survey was designed to achieve the following objectives:

• Examine the survey hypotheses • Verify the appropriateness of the proposed solutions, and examine alternatives, in a

systematic way • Contribute to the conceptualization of localized instruments for assessment of NGO capacity

and serve as the basis for further more in-depth research, analysis and support

Survey Methodology The NGO Policy Group designed the survey hypothesis and scope. This was not an easy task given that the Third Sector in Serbia is under-researched, mushrooming, and changing at a rapid and dynamic pace. Authors of the survey struggled to strike the right balance of depth, sample size and timeliness – all of which would determine the usefulness and relevance of this endeavor. The NGO Policy Group sought assistance from G17 Institute in questionnaire design. Trained interviewers received an orientation regarding the NGO scene, the scope of the survey and the interview process to be used. A pilot survey to test the questionnaire and methodology included 21 organizations in Belgrade. From April to June, G17 Institute surveyed 821 NGOs in Serbia, excluding Kosovo. The survey covered only national NGOs; it did not include local foundations because the focus was on directly operational, nor did it include international NGOs.2 In choosing the survey sample, the NGO Policy Group and G17 Institute started with the database of the Center for the Development of Nonprofit Sector (CRNPS, its Serbian acronym) for basic information (NGO names, addresses and phone numbers). In March 2001, this database contained information about more than 1,200 NGOs in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Since the survey focused on Serbian NGOs, a total of 1,000 entries constituted the initial survey sample. Interviewers tried to contact all NGOs listed. The final sample was smaller because some NGOs do not have regular office hours, their activists getting together when required for meetings or project implementation. Other NGOs had ceased operations although they have not been formally dissolved. Finally, a very small number of NGOs did not participate in the survey due to unavailability of legitimate representatives, previous commitments, and public holidays. No NGO explicitly refused to take part in the survey. Interviewers were advised to add new organizations to the list based on recommendations provided by other responding NGOs. Readers should bear in mind that close to 500 new entries have been added to the CRNPS database since April 2000 and almost 900 new NGOs registered since January 2001. Furthermore, the survey examined primarily NGOs registered since 1990; their share in the survey sample is 715 organizations, compared to 106 NGOs registered prior to 1990. A sample of 821 non-governmental organizations in Serbia represents a very solid basis for analysis. Data presented in this review refer to the survey sample or the total number of answers obtained. The survey combined qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection. Interviews with NGO representatives were based on a standardized questionnaire with a number of open-ended questions and some with multiple choices. The average duration of an interview was 90 minutes. Organizations with several offices in Serbia were interviewed only once, usually in their headquarters. In most cases, interviewers talked to directors, presidents, coordinators or other authorized NGO representatives.

2 UNDP is providing support to International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) to undertake a complementary survey of international NGOs.


11

Part 2 The Context

Overview of Selected Statistical Data for Serbia Geography and Human Settlements Serbia is situated in the southeastern part of the Balkan Peninsula, surrounded by six countries: Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Bosnia -Herzegovina and Croatia. Serbia occupies an area of 88,361 km2. According to the most recent census (1991), it has 9,778,991 inhabitants living in 6,153 settlements. The average population density is 111inhabitants per km2, with an average of 1,622 inhabitants per settlement. Serbia is divided into 29 districts and the city of Belgrade, or a total of 189 municipalities (160 excluding Kosovo). Of the 6,153 settlements in Serbia, 193 are urban and the majority of the population (60%) lives there. The ratio of the farming population to total population has been consistently declining; it is now estimated at 17%. This decline is felt most acutely in eastern and southeastern Serbia. Demography Serbia’s birth rate is on the decrease in most municipalities and, according to data and forecasts, this trend will continue. Demographic trends in Serbia, therefore, show a coincidence of a drop in birth rate and a slight increase in mortality rate. The average age of the population is increasing, especially in Vojvodina and Central Serbia. The complex crises of the 1990s further contributed to the ageing of the population, primarily through a massive brain drain of educated young people and a lower birth rate due to uncertainty about the future. The gender structure of the population shows that there are more women than men in Serbia. More than half of the population has completed primary education or less (57.9%); the share of the population with post secondary and higher education is approximately 10%. Graph 1, Population according to level of education

Primary School48.4%

High School32.2%

Post Secondary School3.8%

University5.5% Unknown

0.6%

No Education9.5%

Serbs are the largest single ethnic group in Serbia. According to the last census, Serbs constitute 62.6%, followed by Albanians 16.6%, Montenegrins, Yugoslavs, Hungarians, Muslims (Bosniaks), Roma and Croats.

NGO Policy Group

12

Graph 2, Ethnic breakdown of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All FRY (excludingKosovo)

Serbia

Montenegro

Serbs

Montenegrins

Yugoslavs

Hungarians

Moslems

Roma

Croats

Slovaks

Albanians

Rumanians

Others

Source: Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia 2000 and Statistical Guide to Elections 2000 Yugoslavia 3 Political Environment The Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro constitute the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There are two Autonomous Provinces in Serbia, Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija (now administered by the international community). Belgrade is the capital of Serbia and of Yugoslavia. Serbia’s political system is parliamentary with multiple political parties. The last republican elections were held in December 2000. The Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) – a coalition of 18 political parties – took power from the autocratic regime of Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000. DOS promised to implement democratic reforms at all levels. Since the introduction of a sort of pluralism in 1990 through 2001, 200 political parties, 17,000 trade unions and 20,000 citizens’ associations registered. Throughout the decade of authoritarian rule in Yugoslavia, NGOs were the main promoters and key proponents of democratization. As a result, they faced many obstacles in their day-to-day operations. For most of the 1990s, there were few international donors or NGOs in the country, whether due to a lack of access (visa regime), political and economic sanctions and/or lack of confidence in Serbia’s recently formed civic associations. As Serbian NGOs grew in numbers and initiative, they were subjected to ever more harsh state repression. In the year 2000, more and more NGOs were investigated by the financial police, which, as intended, spread fear. With mutually contradicting laws and decrees, everyone was guilty until proven innocent. State-owned and quasi-private media could not be accessed by NGOs, and the infamous Public Information Act threatened the independent media with crippling fines. The little coverage NGOs did receive usually portrayed them negatively – as traitors, mercenaries, anti-governmental and/or terrorist organizations. In a campaign called “Exit 2000,” NGOs joined forces to oppose Milosevic’s increasingly repressive regime and to mobilize a substantial turnout for the elections. NGOs took a creative approach, consisting of a number of coordinated actions, public information materials, leaflets and a set of very dynamic activities carried out by tens of thousands of activists and volunteers in a true door-to-door campaign. Through this campaign, NGOs contributed greatly to an impressive turnout at the federal

3 Courtesy of UN OCHA Office Belgrade. Taken from: »Country Profile and Humanitarian Assistance Fact-Sheet for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (excluding Kosovo), update as of June 2001«


13

elections – a well-spotted conditio sine qua non of the changes. Because they were non-political but not apolitical, NGOs won broad-based public support. The previous lack of awareness about NGOs or their negative public image improved substantially. Economic and Social Environment The actively-employed labor force was 2,152,629 in late 1999, with the largest share working in the public sector (78.1%). A comparison of economic indicators for FRY (including Kosovo) in 1999 and 2000 is presented in Table 1. Table 1, Economic indicators for FRY in 1999 & 2000 Economic Indicators 1999 2000 Social Product (SP) at market prices (in billion US $) 12.3 6.2 Inflation rate 42.4% 50% Unemployment rate 26.5% 26.8% Exports (in million US$) 1,498 1,750 Imports (in million US$) 3,296 4,200 Real SP Growth -23.2% 5%

Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, October 20004 According to recent estimates,5 there are 1,300,000 unemployed people in Serbia. Approximately 730,000 are registered unemployed and about 600,000 people are believed to be unregistered unemployed. According to data of the Ministry for Social Affairs of the Republic of Serbia, one-third of the population lives under the poverty line and 330,000 households are eligible to receive welfare assistance of DEM 8 – 50 per month. There are 1.5 million pensioners in Serbia, of who one-third live on pensions of less then DEM 50 per month. Finally, according to the last census of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), conducted in March-April 2001, Serbia hosts 377,131 refugees from Croatia and Bosnia -Herzegovina and IDPs from Kosovo and Metohija. Table 2, Refugees and IDPs by origin and current residence

Country of Origin Serbia Montenegro Total in 2001 Census 1996 BiH 133,749 34% 10,600 2.7 % 144,349 253,400 Croatia 242,744 62.1% 3,800 1% 246,544 297,500 Macedonia 9 0% 0 0% 9 1,300 Slovenia 629 0.2% 0 0% 629 3,200 Overall Total 377,131 96.3% 14,400 3.7% 391,531 555,400 IDPs from Kosovo 187,129 85% 32,200 15% 219,329 N/A

Source: UNHCR Belgrade, 18 June 2001

4 Courtesy of UN OCHA Office Belgrade. Taken from: "Country Profile and Humanitarian Assistance Fact-Sheet for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (excluding Kosovo), update as of June 2001" 5 Web site http://www.msoc.sr.gov.yu, Ministry for Social Affairs of the Republic of Serbia

NGO Policy Group

14

Part 3 Features of the Third Sector in Serbia

Types of NGOs A wide variety of organizations constitute the Serbian NGO sector. Attempts to formulate a rigorous classification of them might still be premature or fail to reflect the reality of NGOs’ work. International classification schemes require major adjustments to be relevant to the current Serbian NGO scene. After making such necessary adjustments, the comparative value of classifications is often put in question. 6 For instance, in the past ten years, in order for NGOs to register they had to state their purpose carefully, often vaguely, in their by-laws to minimize interference or worse from an increasingly paranoid and hostile regime. Fiscal information provided by NGOs long used to operating on a cash-basis and under the constant threat of a visit from the financial police further fails to capture accurately the nature or scope of NGO activities and cannot be used for classification purposes. Previous analyses relied on indigenous classifications that examined NGO mission, goals, key areas of activity and actual project experience, all from the perspective of the NGOs themselves. An example is a classification developed by the Center for the Development of Non-Profit Sector, adapted from one developed by the Center for Civil Society Studies at The Johns Hopkins University. According to the CRNPS classification, NGOs in Serbia are clustered as follows: alternative cultural organizations, education and research organizations, ecology organizations, societies and movements, humanitarian organizations, socio-humanitarian organizations, youth and student organizations, organizations for local community development, professional and specialist associations, human rights organizations, think tanks, peace organizations and groups, women’s organizations and groups, refugee and displaced persons’ organizations, international organizations, and other non-classified organizations. The main difficulty with classification of NGOs in Serbia lays the fact that they are not yet clearly profiled. Needs, political factors, funding sources, and human resources conditioned organizational growth and development. Organizational identities evolve over time and NGOs engage in a wide range of activities before they carve out a niche. An NGO originally established to address human rights issues, for example, might have most of its actual institutional experience in emergency relief and alternative educational activities, sometimes unrelated to human rights. Some refugee associations that were established as self-help groups with a very narrow and clear focus on refugees are starting to realize that they could become more relevant and more effective by redefining their identity as community development organizations, as their initial membership decides to integrate and the word “integration” is no longer a threat to their existence. A third example points to another factor adding to the confusion: some NGOs identify themselves and are thus classified according to a primary type of activity related to their mission, such as humanitarian, peacebuilding, educational or research organizations, while others identify in the first instance with a membership or target group, such as Roma or single mothers, and not by type of assistance or activity. Thus, in the last ten years most Serbian NGOs emerged from a shared identity that required additional coping skills and resources (refugee, IDP, single mothers, disabled, etc.), shared knowledge and competency or peer group experience (education, health, research, youth, etc.) and a shared vision of a current threat and a desired future (environmental, peace, civil society, human rights groups, etc.). Since most of the surveyed NGOs emerged during the last ten years, it can be assumed that their identities will change in response to new opportunities and challenges presented by the dramatically changed operating environment and as they reflect on a long-term vision and mission appropriate to their new circumstances. An enabling legal framework and efforts to strengthen the Third Sector’s infrastructure (including research initiatives, annual reports, private fundraising, etc.) will give further reason for NGOs to clarify and adjust their missions.

6 As is the traditional North-South divide in Third Sector literature.


15

Regarding organizational mission, respondent NGOs self-classified as follows: civil society development (22.8%), social services (13.89%), environmental protection (11.49%), youth (5.19%), culture (5.0%), education (3.5%), students’ issues (4.0%), healthcare (3.5%), refugees and displaced persons (3.0%), interethnic tolerance, protection of minorities and development of multiethnic society (3.4%), protection of cultural heritage and tradition (3.2%), Roma issues (3.2%), local community development (2.2%), fostering entrepreneurship (2.4%), scientific and professional research, particularly in the field of humanities (3.1%), peace building (1.5%), legal assistance (1.4%), fostering cooperation with other countries, particularly the European Union (1.4%), Third Sector development (1.1%), assistance to disabled war veterans (1.0%) media professionalization and train ing (0.7%), and farming and agriculture support (0.7%). NGO missions with a response rate of less than 0.5% include: transition-related issues, problems of miners, promotion of liberal ideas, development of the region, publishing, multiculturalism, civil control of the army, international standards in the field of electronics, missing persons and prisoners of war. Disaggregated by stated goals, the structure of NGOs is similar to and often overlaps with mission. The largest group of NGOs focuses on civil society development, education, protection of cultural heritage, and an enhanced quality of living. This indicates that there is very little or no distinction made between “mission” and “goals.” The structure of NGOs according to key activities either reflects their missions or shows discrepancies between activities on the one hand and mission and goals on the other. NGOs self-classified in the following activity areas: education (46.66%), culture (26.36%), humanitarian assistance (17.08%), environmenta l protection (15.84%), health care (12.5%), women's rights (10.02%), research (9.03%), distribution of advertising material (8.66%), civil society development and human rights protection (8.79%), legal assistance (8.04%), and media campaigns (7.67%). When organizations with missions focused on cultural development and protection (5%) or education (3.5%) are compared to those with activities prevail in these two areas (26.36% and 46.66% respectively), it is clear that activities do not always closely match the stated organizational mission. This is especially the case with humanitarian activities (17.08%). Naturally, past activities in this area responded to the immediate needs that could not be ignored by many NGOs, regardless of their initial raison d’etre. The survey results indicate several trends in comparison with data presented in the first, second and third editions of the NGO Directory:7 Increase in the number of NGOs that self-identify as civil society development organizations Decrease in the number of organizations that identify distribution of humanitarian assistance as key area of competency or focus Steady share of women’s groups and human rights NGOs among the total number of NGOs Re-emergence of health and cultural organizations An emerging but still not well-articulated new cluster of social service delivery organizations

7 Branka Petrovic, Zarko Paunovic Direktorijum nevladinih organizacija u SR Jugoslaviji , Otvoreni univerzitet, Subotica, 1994; B. Petrovic, Z. Paunovic, A. Divac, T. Gorjanc, Direktorijum nevladinih, neprofitnih organizacija u SR Jugoslaviji , Centar za razvoj neprofitnog sektora, Beograd, 1997; Branka Petrovic, Zarko Paunovic, Svetlana Vukomanovic, Aleksandra Petrovic, Ivana Prica, Zivka Vasilevska, Sasa Savanovic, Zoran M. Markovic, Milan Milosevic, Direktorijum nevladinih, neprofitnih organizacija u SR Jugoslaviji (Srbiji i Crnoj Gori), Trece dopunjeno i prosireno izdanje , Centar za razvoj neprofitnog sektora, Beograd, 2000.

NGO Policy Group

16

A Brief History of the Third Sector in Serbia8 Historical conditions for the development of the nonprofit sector in Serbia can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries in “the traditional forms of rural solidarity, influence of the Eastern Orthodox church and its understanding of charity, as well as in activities of numerous humanitarian, educational and other societies that were operating in Yugoslavia since the beginning of the 20th century until the Second World War.”9 Development of the nonprofit sector in Serbia can be divided in three distinct phases:

• The beginning of establishment of non-governmental organizations, in the period before the Second World War (1941)

• “Governmental” non-governmental organizations, in the period of the communist regime (banning of many old organizations and establishment of the new, state-controlled organizations)

“New” non-governmental organizations, in the period of formally proclaimed political plurality and creation of autonomous and independent NGOs (since 1990) The first phase was characterized by traditional forms of solidarity, particularly in rural communities. During this period, the Serbian Orthodox Church and the royal family played a significant role in the creation and work of these organizations as many had been established under their auspices. Non-governmental organizations are an integral part of social life; along with endowments and rural self-help (“moba”), they constituted the nucleus of the nonprofit sector and of voluntary work in Serbia. Endowments preceded the establishment of non-governmental organizations. Religious endowments emerged at the beginning of the Middle Ages, while the first private endowments appeared in the middle of the 19th century. Non-governmental organizations operated even before enactment of the Law on the Freedom of Associations (1881), such as the Religious Charity “Hevra Kadisa,” established in 1729. The term “non-governmental organization” was first used in 1874 in the journal “Public Voice.” In addition to the term “non-governmental organization,” the following terms were also in use: association, group, alliance and society. Then as now, non-governmental organizations were required to have statutes and operating principles and to be registered. The statutes were submitted to the Administration of the City of Belgrade, which would then notify the Ministry of Interior. However, there were some exceptions to this procedure, such as the Society for Support of Serbian Literature, whose statute was approved in 1881 by the Ministry of Finance. The Guild Decree of 1847 regulated the legal status of craftsmen and their guilds, during Aleksandar Kardjordjevic’s rule. The operating principles of the Workers’ Alliance were approved in 1903 by the Ministry of Peoples’ Economy and in accordance with the Law on the Organization of the Ministry of Peoples’ Economy. Although numerous associations operated before this one, this was the first time that procedures were explicitly stated in law. With the emergence of liberalism in Serbia, many new NGOs were established. The majority of these organizations were short-lived and some were banned by the state. One was the Society of Serbian Youth (1847 – 1851) that stated in its statute that it would “strive for more freedom and democracy in the country.” It was banned in 1851.

8 For more details, see Zarko Paunoviæ, “Razvojni ciklusi nevladinih organizacija u SR Jugoslaviji”, in a Collection of Essays Granice izazov interkulturalnosti, editor Bozidar Jaksiæ, Forum for Interethnic Relations, Belgrade 1997. 9 Nevenka Stanisavljevic, “The Profile of the Voluntary Sector in Post-Communist Countries: Case of Yugoslavia”, Druzboslavne rasprave, Volume XI, Number 19-20, Ljubljana 1995.


17

The second phase began after 1945 when all private organizations, endowments, legacies and funds were nationalized, their property confiscated and their operations restricted. From 1945 until the end of the 1980s, free association of citizens was not permitted and organizations could operate only within the strict limits imposed by the state and under government control – in other words, citizens’ associations and so-called social organizations 10 could be established provided that they operated within the existing ideology or sought to reinforce it. There were no obstacles to registration of sports, recreational, professional or hobby associations, however.11 These organizations were even allowed to operate outside of the official state organizations such as the Socialist Alliance and Alliance of Youth because they did not have political aspirations and did not strive to create or inspire social change. Organizations that were established in this period had many features of a non-governmental organization: founded by citizens in order to address problems or pursue certain interests, they were nonprofit and more or less based on a voluntary activity. Nevertheless, what distinguishes them from modern non-governmental organizations is the fact that they were not autonomous from but controlled by the state. Therefore, this period is characterized by “governmental” non-governmental organizations, which numbered as many as 18,000. The term “citizens’ association” is still used in the legal language in Serbia. The third phase, which began in 1990 and continues today, is marked by the legalization of pluralism and free association of citizens in 1990 and the subsequent mushrooming and diversification of NGOs. This period is also characterized by the break-up of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, armed conflict, consequent influx of refugees and IDPs, and a rapid decline in living standards. A number of associations and groups of citizens were formed to oppose hate speech, end war and violence, to assist its victims and protect elementary human rights, complementing the small number of existing alternative associations and organizations, mostly environmental.

10 This terminology was used for the forms of citizens’ self-organizing and is still present in contemporary laws that regulate these issues (The Law on Associating into Associations, Social Organizations and Political Organizations Established on the Territory of the SFRY, The Law on Social Organizations and Associations of Citizens in SR of Serbia). 11 In the same group are associations and alliances of the visually impaired and disabled people, pensioners’ associations, associations of citizens for preventive health, etc.

NGO Policy Group

18

Institutional Development of the NGO Sector in Serbia Number of NGOs in Serbia According to the Federal Statistics Bureau, there were 19,129 social organizations and citizens' associations registered in Serbia at the end of December 1999 (Table 3).12 Table 3, Number of NGOs in Serbia in 1999

Serbia Type of Organization Vojvodina Central Serbia Kosovo Total

Citizens' associations 692 792 69 1,553 Social organizations 5,526 10,888 1,162 17,576 Total 6,218 11,680 1,231 19,129

The majority of these organizations were established prior to 1990. According to the Federal Ministry of Justice, approximately 2,000 NGOs registered in the period from 1990 until 31 December 2000 and close to 900 since January 2001 alone. Table 4, NGO Registrations Year Number 1994 196 1997 695 2000 2,000 2001 2,800

Since 1996, the number of NGOs has grown rapidly. In addition to those established in major cities (Belgrade, Novi Sad, Subotica, Nis, Podgorica), NGOs were also established in: Vrsac, Kikinda, Pancevo, Cacak, Kraljevo, Valjevo, Uzice, Kragujevac, Knjazevac, Leskovac, Bor, Novi Pazar, Pirot, Smederevo, etc. The sector grew faster in municipalities where the political opposition to Milosevic’s regime came to power in the 1997 elections. There were 33 such “free cities and towns,” constituting a total of some 3,100,000 inhabitants, or approximately half of Serbia’s voters. NGOs operated in an unfavorable environment in the 1990s due to war, sanctions, political repression, international isolation, high unemployment and falling living standards. NGOs were often established by people who had little or no previous experience in the nonprofit sector. Harsh conditions, however, triggered a further increase in the number of NGOs. In the aftermath of the civic and student protests in 1996-1997, for instance, many new student and youth organizations emerged. Beginning in 1997, the Third Sector’s infrastructure began to develop noticeably. Some NGOs started to professionalize and plan for tangible results, creating a cascading effect on to other, less developed NGOs. While the number of NGOs grew steadily throughout the 1990s, it increased dramatically late in the decade, a consequence of deepening social and political crisis and of the persistence of more experienced NGOs that encouraged citizens who favored change to join existing organizations or to establish new ones. The first five months of 2001 saw the registration of some 800 new NGOs,13 building on the momentum for civic action initiated during the get-out-the-vote campaign and responding to an increase in donor activity and a more favorable perception of NGOs in the public eye. Given that NGO activists are no longer hounded by the state, the public’s phobia of NGOs has decreased. Greater interest on the part of the media and the openness of the government for cooperation with NGOs are also contributing to a higher and more favorable profile of the Third Sector.

12 Statisticki godisnjak za Jugoslaviju, Savezni Zavod za statistiku, Belgrade 1997, page 50. 13 Source: Federal Ministry of Justice


19

Legal Status of NGOs14 The Constitutions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia, in chapters dealing with individual freedoms, rights and responsibilities, guarantee the freedom of civic association and free operation of citizens’ associations. Local NGOs The legal status of local non-governmental organizations in Serbia is addressed at two levels: at the federal level by the “Law on Citizens’ Associations, Social Organizations and Political Organizations established on the territory of SFRJ,” and at the Serbian republic level by the “Law on Social Organizations and Associations of Citizens.” Any ten people who are citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the right to vote can establish a citizens’ association. Registration is compulsory for all citizens’ associations. Organizations that seek to operate at the federal level register in accordance with the federal law, while those that wish to operate within Serbia only register in accordance with the republican law. The majority of NGOs in Serbia have registered at the federal level with the Ministry of Justice, even if they intended to operate only in Serbia, because it was easier to do so. Since the Ministry of Interior was responsible for registration at the republican level, during the previous regime it was almost impossible to register in this way. The situation is now similar but for different reasons: the Government of Serbia has abolished the obsolete republican law while the new one is being drafted.15 As a result, NGOs cannot register at the republican level. International NGOs There is no legislation at the federal or Serbian levels regulating the registration and operations of international NGOs. As a result, international agencies operate in a gray area – neither legalized nor illegal – and consequently are vulnerable to political vagaries. There are a number of adverse implications arising from the unregulated status of international NGOs: failure of tax collection; no health, pension and social contributions for local staff; unclear employment status of expatriate staff; etc. Efforts to Fill Legislative Gaps Whereas lack of political will does not appear to hinder development of a clear and favorable legislative framework for local and international NGOs in Serbia, there nonetheless has been very little progress on this issue. The Third Sector should be accountable to constituencies that have a real impact on its performance and development. At the moment, there are no legal incentives for transparency. It is expected, however, that fiscal incentives will be included in the new legislation to encourage local philanthropy and to decrease the very heavy dependency of the Third Sector on foreign donors. NGOs are actively examining best practices in other countries and are significantly involved in drafting the new legislation. An initiative by the Center for the Development of Non-Profit Sector, within the Forum of Yugoslav Non-Governmental Organizations, resulted in a model law on NGOs, prepared by a group of experts16 in cooperation with the International Center for Nonprofit Law (ICNL) and supported by the International Olaf Palme Center. This model law has informed the government at the federal and Serbian levels as they draft legislation that is expected to be read in Parliament at the end of 2001. The Federal Ministry of Justice organized a consultative meeting with local and international NGO representatives in January 2001 to discuss the first draft of the new NGO law. Unfortunately, there has not been another consultation since then to discuss what progress, if any, has been made. Nevertheless, NGOs are persistent in their demands for an enabling legislative framework that will contribute to the development of the Third Sector. The Yugoslav Lawyers 14 For details, see the brochure: Z. Vasilevska, N. Sahovic, B. Petrovic, Z, Paunovic, “Kako osnovati i registrovati nevladinu organizaciju”, Center for the Development of Non-Profit Sector, Belgrade 2000. 15 Written in early August 2001 when a working group on the republican NGO Bill was finishing the draft. 16 Prof. Dejan Janca, Cedomir Radojkovic, Dejan Sahovic and Zivka Vasilevska.

NGO Policy Group

20

Committee for Human Rights, ICVA, various UN Agencies, a number of bilateral and multilateral agencies and international NGOs are also making efforts to encourage the federal and republican governments to improve the environment in which local and foreign NGOs work. In a recent initiative following the Third Yugoslav NGO Forum, representatives of twenty local NGOs met with Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, where they argued that an NGO law should be placed high on the Government’s agenda and that the excuse of more pressing priorities could not be sustained for much longer.


21

Capacity of the NGO Sector This section examines the human, material and financial resources of the Third Sector, the activities undertaken, governance and management structures, internal and external communication systems, NGO networks, skills development and training opportunities. An attempt has been made to summarize findings and opportunities for improvement. Data are presented first to allow for independent interpretation. Human Resources The number and educational backgrounds of people engaged in the NGO sector are indicators of its strength and its potential. It should be noted, however, that there is no consensus among NGOs about the meaning of different terms used for human resources. The terms “members,” “activists,” “volunteers” and “staff” are often used interchangeably but are sometimes given distinct meanings. Furthermore, some NGOs believe that organizational capacity is best expressed by impressively high membership numbers, regardless of the members’ involvement in the organization’s activities or organizational results. For the purpose of this survey, interviewers were advised to make a distinction between different categories only when specifically asking for the share of each category in the overall human resources base of an NGO. Otherwise, throughout the questionnaire interviewers referred to “activists,” meaning the “total number of people involved in an NGO over the past three months, including activists, volunteers, full- and part-time employees and other active citizens.” One-third of NGOs in Serbia do not have activists; founders implement the NGO’s activities. The results of this survey show that 37.64% of NGOs did not engage activists in their activities from January to March 2001, and that one-third did not undertake larger-scale activities in that period. Among those that engaged activists, 20.22% engaged up to 10 people, 13.76% up to 20, and only 7.55% up to 30 activists. There were only a few organizations that engaged 100 or more activists in this period. With regard to volunteers, survey results show that about 70% engage volunteers from time to time, while only 12% have not recruited any volunteers. The majority of NGOs (77.34%) do not have employees, while 16.93% have one to five, 3.29% have six to ten, 1.1% have eleven to twenty, and 1.34% have more than 20 employees. The interviewers were advised to define the term “employee” as “a person for whom the NGO pays pension, health and other social contributions.” Table 5, Distribution of NGOs according to the number of employees Number of Employees NGOs Percentage 0 635 77.341-5 139 16.936-10 27 3.2911-20 9 1.1021-40 4 0.4941 or more 7 0.85Total 821 100 The gender structure of NGOs’ human resource base is fairly balanced – women are in a majority in 21.56% of NGOs and men in 16.2%, in 29.48% men and women are almost equally represented (32.7% of NGOs did not provide answers). Age distribution is also fairly balanced. Representatives of all age groups are involved in NGOs. The age cohort with the greatest representation is 30-50 years old (41.71%), followed by the 20-30 age group (29.04%) and those over 50 years old (21.13%). Youth under 20 years of age constitute an 8.12% share.

NGO Policy Group

22

Table 6, Age distribut ion of activists and volunteers Distribution in %

Age Groups Activists Volunteers Up to 20 8.12 15.61 21-25 11.88 17.08 26-30 17.16 18.82 31-40 19.92 17.70 41-50 21.79 16.03 51-60 11.03 8.04 61 or more 10.10 6.70 Total 100.00 100.00 The educational background of NGO activists is dramatically different in comparison with demographic data and other sectors. The majority of activists are university graduates (58.48%). Furthermore, 5.39% of activists have a masters degree and as many as 4.47% hold a Ph.D. The percentage of those with some post-secondary education is 8.08%, while one-fifth (19.84%) completed high school. The percentage of activists who completed only elementary school is 2.80%, while those who have not completed primary school constitute a 0.94% share. Graph 3

The Structure of NGO Activists According to the Level of Education

University58,5%

Post Secondary School8.1%

High School19.8%

Elementary School 2.8%

No Education or Incomplete

Elementary School0.9%

Ph.D4.5%

Master Degree5.4%

Survey results show that approximately two-thirds of NGOs in Serbia involve experts and professionals from a wide range of educational backgrounds, either on a regular or occasional basis, with the following professions predominating: teachers, lawyers, economists, journalists, pedagogues, psychologists, engineers, artists, sociologists and medical doctors. Thus, NGOs tend to engage representatives of different spheres and structures of social life. It is interesting, however, that people formally employed in the public sector are the best represented group among both activists and volunteers. It could be that NGOs recruit people with knowledge of institutions, their strengths and weaknesses. It is also likely that new ideas penetrate more easily into the Third Sector. Furthermore, NGOs have not been in the position to create sustainable jobs, but they certainly serve as an income transfer mechanism for those already employed in other sectors who need to supplement their salaries. In this way, NGOs have been contributing to the government purse.


23

Table 7, Structure of NGOs according to staff17 Formal employment status Number of people Structure of NGOs* in % Work in a governmental organization 538 66.75 Work in a public enterprise 478 59.31 Work in a private firm 384 47.64 Own a private firm 254 31.51 Shop-owners 167 20.72 Students 502 62.28 Pensioners 322 39.95 Unemployed 391 48.51 * The structure was calculated regarding 806 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers Conclusions: NGOs in Serbia have been accused of being elitist. Indeed, as the survey results show, NGOs do not reflect demographic features of Serbian society. Typically, NGO activists have higher levels of education. Generally, NGO activists are employed in other sectors, most often the public sector. There are several possible interpretations of the survey data. During the last decade NGOs in Serbia served as an alternative coping mechanism, mitigating de-professionalization and impoverishment. They gathered elites in search of common worldviews and meaningful action. NGOs appear to have played a key role in preventing further brain drain. Another interpretation is that NGOs have sheltered and nurtured the true Serbian entrepreneurs who will gradually move into the for-profit sector enriched by diverse experiences and skills. If so, these entrepreneurs could become an important link for partnerships between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors, and will hopefully become private donors. Several opportunities for NGOs are identified in the survey. There is much to be gained in strengthening NGO constituencies by engaging young people, the elderly, workers, and the unemployed, for example . Especially with regard to youth, NGOs could further strengthen their role as functional literacy centers in helping mitigate the effects of years of isolation. As activists and volunteers, these and other groups can contribute to the relevance and legitimacy of individual organizations and of the sector. Organizations wishing to promote civic participation will have to seek to open access to and actively recruit “average citizens.” Enhanced legitimacy is a precondition of a better pubic image and, by extension, of successful local fundraising. Furthermore, diversification in the structure of NGOs’ activist and volunteer base could increase the innovativeness of Serbian NGOs and their leverage with the government at all levels. Provided that more enabling fiscal and labor legislation is passed, the Third Sector will become a significant formal employer in Serbia. Human Resource Development in NGOs Many activists, full- or part-time employees and volunteers took part in trainings and other learning opportunities organized by other NGOs and institutions. Most NGOs sent staff to training and learning events in the field of civil society development, human rights and non-violent communication (44.63%). The next largest grouping participated in activitie s related to NGO organizational development (27.69%) and other specialized trainings (18.89%). Smaller numbers of NGO activists received training in environmental protection (8.79%), women’s rights (8.79%), humanitarian work (7.49%), child rights, children’s issues and parental development (5.7%), media relations (4.56%), and EU integration or re-integration in international institutions (3.58%). Other topics are less represented in the survey results. The survey did not examine the quality or appropriateness of training received. According to clusters of results, it seems that NGOs that receive basic training often pass it on to other organizations in form of donor-funded training projects. This

17 All individuals involved in an NGO activities.

NGO Policy Group

24

could explain the relative homogeneity in the type of training received by different NGOs. Despite the number of activists who participated in different workshops, surveyed NGOs indicated that the following areas of training and skill development need further attention:

a) NGO-related knowledge and skills, including recruitment and management of volunteers, team building, proposal development, development of business plans and NGO strategies, marketing, governance, and NGO management (45.18%);

b) Individual skill development, including foreign languages, computer skills, accounting, new technologies, and educational processes (32.81%);

c) PR and media relations (8.49%); d) Environmental protection, health and organic food (7.77%); e) Civil society development (6.04%); f) Legal assistance (5.76%).

Conclusions: The fact that NGOs predominantly listed areas in which they have already received some training could be interpreted in three ways that are complementary rather than mutually exclusive: 1) training was basic and NGOs perceive that they need more in-depth knowledge in certain areas; 2) due to staff turnover, trained activists are no longer with the organization and new activists need the same sorts of basic training; 3) NGOs perceive knowledge gaps but can only talk about areas with which they are familiar, which could explain the lack of reference to new skills and new areas of work (stakeholder accountability, fiduciary responsibility, participatory decision-making, budget oversight, public -private partnerships, to give just a few examples). These issues are probably included in the broadly defined areas of “civil society development training” and “NGO-related training.” Unlike people working in other sectors, many NGO activists participated in international conferences, study tours and seminars in the past few years. In addition to skills development, these events enabled them to establish contacts with civil society representatives, practitioners, researchers and policy-makers worldwide. These contacts represent another pressure point for NGOs in influencing public policy. To increase the strategic impact of NGOs on policy-makers, a more dynamic flow of information between and among NGOs in Serbia is required. Opportunities include feedback sessions, sharing publications, and peer consultations prior to important visits or meetings. NGO journals and publications are another way in which NGO professionals can disseminate information with wide appeal in to others associated with the Third Sector. Material Resources The survey results indicate that the general working conditions are unsatisfactory for more than half of the NGOs surveyed (53.47 %). On the basis of self-assessment, 40.35% perceive that they have good working conditions and only 6.44 % work in excellent conditions. The key reasons listed for dissatisfaction are: lack of equipment, lack of office space, and inability to cover overhead expenses. Satisfactory working conditions are found in organizations that have their own premises and the equipment they deem necessary for efficiency. A relatively large number of NGOs lack even very basic material resources – 45.68% do not have a single desk, a figure that corresponds to the number of NGOs that have no office space. With regard to computer equipment, slightly less than a half (47.38%) do not even have a single PC, more than half (51.77%) have no printer, and 57.61% lack a modem. A substantial number of NGOs have no phone line (43.61%) or fax machine (59.44%). NGOs without a photocopier represent 82.58% of the sample. Very few NGOs have vehicles – 93.18%18 do not.

18 Most NGOs use personal vehicles for transportation related to NGO business.


25

Graph 4, Percentage of NGOs that lack basic technical equipment

In organizations that have some of the equipment listed above, most have a single piece of equipment (usually a PC); a much smaller group of NGOs have two or more pieces of equipment (mostly PCs and printers). Exceptions to this can be found among NGOs involved in education. NGOs were asked whether they need additional equipment. Of those that do, 61.15% listed computers as their priority; 25.19% need a photo-copier; 22.81% need a vehicle – a car, a van or a bus; 21.30% need a printer; 19.67% need office furniture; 16.54% want a phone; 14.91% require a fax; 10.40% a scanner, etc. Premises are the major problem for many NGOs; 45% have no office space and work from their own flats – another reason behind their low presence and visibility. This is much more of a problem for NGOs established during the last ten years. Older organizations still occupy the premises assigned to them by the state; such offices and/or buildings are state property but NGOs have long-term usage rights. In some cases, para-statal organizations “bought” their premises from the state at extremely favorable rates. The new Serbian government has passed a regulation pertaining to restitution of such property by the state. Upon completion of this process, the government has announced that it will re-allocate office space to NGOs and other organizations in a transparent manner. Currently, most NGOs rent office space (42.08%) or have secured premises through legacy or gift (6.7%), and only 1.85% own their premises. NGOs were asked whether they have ever sought assistance from the state in resolving the issue of office space. Fifty-three percent of NGOs claim that they have. Only 31% of these cases have been resolved, and in 38% of these cases the reply was negative. Conclusions: Contrary to public perceptions, most NGOs operate with very limited material resources. In many cases, members and activists are investors in their own organizations; they use private cars, equipment, and flats to ensure uninterrupted operation of their organizations. Uncertainty of funding for monthly rent and overhead expenses inadvertently impacts NGO vision and performance. Donor

NGO Policy Group

26

focus on short-term project support hinders the institutional growth of Serbian NGOs. Lack of basic IT equipment prevents access to and timely exchange of information in the Third Sector. The IT revolution has not trickled down to the average Serbian NGO. Nevertheless, it is also true that NGOs that have access to the Internet have created and maximized opportunities to reach out to wide audiences. As a matter of fact, NGOs took a very active part in “breaking through the wall of isolation” over the last ten years. NGOs are probably still ahead of other sectors in terms of creative and effective use of information technology. Unfortunately, it is still a rather small number of NGOs in Serbia that have sufficient technical resources to become centers of excellence, and those that do usually work in the areas of education, public information and/or analysis. According to a number of NGOs, arrangements with previous governments regarding the use of state-owned premises by NGOs need to be re-examined in light of transparent and equitable resource allocation that would give all NGOs a more equal starting opportunity or at least a chance to understand clearly defined government priorities and procedures. Hopefully in the future Serbian NGOs will be successul in reanimating a culture of endowments and pr ivate philanthropic giving. In the meantime, NGOs will stumble their way through a wide range of equally untested solutions: design multi-year proposals in response to calls for application by different international, bilateral, and non-governmental agencies; secure matching contributions from a community, businesses and/or local government in order to leverage external funding; collect fees by providing professional services to the non-marginalized groups; raise awareness on socially responsible enterprises and partner with such for-profits; organize fundraising events (but early on, those will likely focused on public good rather than NGO support); and recruit more volunteers to decrease personnel expenses and solidify the human, material and technical resource base. In the next three to five years, some NGOs will stabilize their operations through multi-year partnerships with international and local institutions. Others will diversify their funding base and/or merge their resources. Inevitably, some will disband. NGO Activities – Number of Projects Implemented The survey results pertaining to NGO activities further confirms the hypothesis that there are few NGOs higher up on the ladder of organizational development. The largest share of the sector is occupied by occasional and irregular civic or public good actions. At the time of the survey, 18.25% of NGOs were implementing a single project. More than half (58.72%) were implementing between one and three projects, and 23% were working on more than three projects simultaneously. By cross-examining this data with NGO budgets, it is clear that NGOs are predominantely engaged in short-term activities. More than NGO capacity itself, short project life is attributable to external sources of funding with contracts typically of 3 to 9 months, seldom a year. Of the total number of NGOs that claimed to implement projects in cooperation with other NGOs, more than half were not implementing such a project at the time of the survey. Slightly more than one-fifth implemented one project in collaboration with another NGO; approximately 10% had two such projects and the remaing share was taken by NGOs implementing three or more projects in partnership with other NGOs. Project implementation is related to availability of funding. The 60% of NGOs that identified access to funding as an obstacle to project design and implementation corresponds to the small program value found in half of the NGOs that disclosed budget information. NGOs with higher budgets replied that they face no major financial constraints to project implementation (30.76%). Conclusions: Most NGOs were implementing a single short-term project at the time of the survey. Data presented above are more indicative of resource availability and capacity to attract funding than of NGO capacity for implementation of multiple activities. Furthermore, these data capture a moment in donor life cycles. After the political changes, many donors delayed new funding to allow time for


27

assessment of the new situation and design of new strategies. At the time of publication of this survey report, there is a renewed donor interest in supporting NGOs in Serbia. The extent of this support will depend on individual and collective NGO ability to keep pace with events at the macro-level, in Serbia, in Yugoslavia and in the region. NGOs still have a chance to become strategically involved in various aspects of socio-economic transition. Neither a blurred vision nor a too narrow focus will help. Governance and Management NGOs are legally required to be governed by their boards. Of the total number of NGOs surveyed, 96.47% have a board and 3.53% do not. However, there is a discrepancy between the existence of a board and its real role in NGO governance. Important decisions are predominately reached in an ad hoc manner and, depending on the situation, by a single person or a small group of decision-makers who are most actively involved in the organization’s day-to-day activities. In smaller NGOs, there is no distinction between board governance and management. NGOs were asked to indicate the frequency of board meetings and discussion of issues by their boards. Most boards meet monthly (37.5%); approximately one-fifth of NGOs (22.07%) have weekly board meetings and 3.57% meet daily; in 17.47% board meetings are scheduled every three months; 6.89% of NGO boards meet every six months; 4.59% attend annual meetings; 8.8% meet when they deem it necessary and appropriate. In NGOs that have a small number of members and/or activists, composition of the board usually coincides with NGO staff. Table 8, Frequency of NGO Board Meetings

Frequency NGOs Percentage

Monthly 294 37.50Weekly 173 22.07Quarterly 137 17.47When Needed 69 8.80Every Six Months 54 6.89Annually 36 4.59Daily 28 3.57Twice a Month 18 2.30Every Two Months 7 0.89Twice a Week 4 0.51Other 1 0.13 Boards, as shown in their scope of work, formally approve reports and plans. The survey results indicate that boards meet to discuss issues pertaining to strategy, planning, program development, fundraising, project management and implementation. In rare cases are boards future-oriented, playing an active strategic role. Men are, in general, more represented on NGO boards than women – a fact which does not correspond to the more-or-less balanced gender distribution among activists and volunteers. Equivalent gender distribution can be found in one-third of NGOs surveyed. Close to one-fourth of NGOs have more women on their boards. Composition of NGO boards disaggregated by age group shows that the largest share is occupied by individuals aged between 30 and 40 (28.98%) and those between 40 and 50 (28.13%). Individuals aged up to 25 are represented by a share of 16.87%. Citizens over 50 years of age have a 13.96% share.

NGO Policy Group

28

Another indicator of the of NGO boards and management structures in decision-making can be found in the fact that 70.24% of NGO activists communicate informally and only 9.73% have formal channels of communication between and among staff, management and board. Conclusions : When NGO boards meet too often, it can be presumed that their role is confused with the role of management, especially when it is the same people sitting on boards and managing day-to-day activities. The fact that informal communication predominates in NGOs further reveals the unstructured nature of Serbian NGOs. With a transitory mission, an ill-defined constituency, restricted access to information and with only basic training, it is hard for NGOs to plan strategically. On the other hand, strategic planning is not a legal requirement and NGOs may very well maintain random operations and dysfunctional boards. Active boards and good strategies are simply a step toward alignment and maximization of resources. Board development (including board-management and board-staff relations), strategic planning, and the role of the board in fundraising and representation are some of the areas that require international assistance and expertise. The fact that men are more represented on NGO boards can be interpreted negatively – men sharing power with other men in traditional societies. On the other hand, it can be viewed in a more positive light – NGOs have not replicated the power structure of other sectors, and many more women are included in NGO boards than in the governance structures in other sectors. Finally, cynics might say that NGO boards in Serbia are seldom functional anyway and that the gender ratio does not really matter at this stage. Communications Communication is an important element of an organization’s internal dynamics that can be used as an indicator of organizational development. Large and complex organizations that implement sizeable projects and have a large staff inevitably need to formalize and institutionalize certain rules and procedures that enable them to perform effectively. Those rules and procedures usually regulate delegation of responsibilities, lines of communication and exchange of information, decision-making and financial flow system, etc. In terms of level of organizational development, most Serbian NGOs are at an early stage. The survey shows that two-thirds communicate informally (70.24%) and only 9.73% have formal mechanisms of internal communication. Another 20.03% NGOs combine formal and informal ways. Most NGOs communicate with staff in meetings that are scheduled as needed, followed by NGOs that have regular staff meetings and one-to-one exchanges and consultations.


29

Graph 5

More than half of the NGOs surveyed recruit citizens/activists through the media (58.04%), individual contacts (52.64%), or public announcements (24.37%). It is less frequent for NGOs to use their own activities for recruitment and information dissemination about the organization (14.2%). Some NGOs also use posters and leaflets (10.3%). Most organizations combine different methods. Information about the organization is disseminated in multiple ways. Most NGOs rely on radio (70.2%) and TV (65.03%) broadcasts. Approximately half NGOs reach citizens through public debates and round tables. Consultation and advice to citizens on specific issues are provided by 40.03% of organizations. Public advertisements are used by 31.44%, and 25.51% of NGOs hold regular press conferences. NGOs with access to information technology post their materials on a web site (44.42%) and/or in newspapers, leaflets and other printed materials (42.71%). Many issue press releases and communicate through the media (40.47%) and/or bulletins (34.69%). To a lesser degree, NGOs appear in specialized electronic media broadcasts (11.3%) and brochures (11.17%), monthly NGO publications (3.55%), performances (plays, festivals, public events), NGO bulletins, books and CDs, leaflets, ads, posters and billboards. Table 9, Ways in which NGOs communicate about themselves

Mode NGOs Percentage Web site 338 44.42NGO journals and printed materials 325 42.71Press release, news and articles in the media 308 40.47Bulletins 264 34.69Written reports 176 23.13Regular specialized broadcasts on the radio and/or TV 86 11.30Brochures 85 11.17Monthly NGO publications 27 3.55Other 23 3.02Public performance (plays, festivals, events) 22 2.89NGO’s own bulletin 14 1.84Books and CDs 7 0.92Leaflets, billboards, posters 7 0.92Direct contact with citizens, lectures, round tables, seminars 2 0.26

NGO Policy Group

30

Conclusions: The most striking finding about the different ways in which NGOs communicate with the public pertains to direct communication, with no NGOs citing “open house” days or attempts to communicate through street presentations, door-to-door activities and innovative awareness raising events. It should be noted, however, that since the survey data collection period, some of the NGOs surveyed have engaged in direct communication with citizens, either issue-based or for self-promotion. These are encouraging signs of agility. Donors and NGOs alike might want to re-examine the relative value of information dissemination that relies heavily on electronic media. For most part, NGOs are not creating news. They are changing attitudes. A more engaging approach to citizens might generate a number of benefits for NGOs and citizens alike. NGO Networks Over the last decade NGOs in Serbia have learned about the importance of networking, joint activities and solidarity with other organizations (through creation of ad hoc networks and movements). That experience was gained primarily from joint activities focussed on political obstacles. NGO cooperation has typically been issue-based, focussed on a particular problem and, usually, short-term. In the early 1990s, for instance, we witnessed the emergence of an anti-war movement in Serbia, followed by a student movement that resurfaced every other year (1992, 1994, 1996...), a civic movement to preserve the 1996 election results, the Civic Movement of Serbia and the Yugoslav Action (during the NATO air campaign), the Council for NGO Cooperation, the NGO Union of Serbia, the People's Movement Otpor, Exit 2000 – NGOs for Democratic and Fair Elections, the Forum of Yugoslav NGOs, etc. In addition to these large national networks, many local and regional networks have been created in the past several years. Due to a lack of continuity in action, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether these network still operate. The elusive concept of NGO networks and coalitions is further perplexed by the fact that participating NGOs listed 181 different networks in this survey. Typically, only one, two or three, and in a few cases five to ten, NGOs self-identified as members of a particular network. Some NGOs listed organizations that are not, in fact, networks. The survey findings, therefore, confirm a lack of clarity among NGOs about network membership or affiliation. Most NGOs cited exchange of information, knowledge, ideas and experiences as the key reasons behind more efficient performance within a network compared to working autonomously. As many as 71.1% believe that networks enhance efficiency in operation, but only 35.02% actually undertake activities in collaboration with other organizations. This can be explained by a lack of a shared understanding about a meaning, operating principles and implications of networking and coalition-building. NGOs sometimes confuse networking and/or operational collaboration with communication and inter-organizational relations. Survey results show that the predominant share of NGOs act autonomously, from a single center (65.84%), while 35.02% work as part of an NGO network. Only 13.44% of NGOs have more than one office in Serbia. Table 10, Serbian NGOs disaggregated by mode of operation

Operating Mode NGOs Percentage

Autonomously (from one center) 534 65.84More than one office in Serbia 109 13.44In an NGO network 284 35.02 NGOs that operate within a network decide on important issues in consultation with a secretariat (76.21%) or independently (26.37%).


31

Conclusions: NGO networks emerge and disappear along with the threats and opportunities that bring them to life. As in the case of individual NGOs, once networks are established, there is no real signal of their dissolution except for those involved in their operation. That so many NGOs recognize the value of networking is encouraging. The fact that so few actually operate in a network can be interpreted as a sign of a phase in organizational growth and overall sectoral development. Larger and more successful organizations still find it more beneficial to establish branch offices and implement activities autonomously than to partner with existing NGOs. Admittedly, it is difficult to partner with unclear identities. Serbian NGOs have demonstrated extraordinary ability to joining forces on several key occasions. They now face the challenge of sustaining both networks and the autonomy of member organizations in less turbulent times.

NGO Policy Group

32

NGOs and the State Basic Features of NGO–Government Relations Following the democratic changes in October 2000, in which NGOs took an active part and played a key role, the Third Sector found itself in a new situation. Accustomed to reaction and/or ad hoc activity, NGOs are now faced with a need to act strategically and adopt different methods of work. A key element of a new role for NGOs is their relationship with the government. The Milosevic regime viewed NGOs as anti-governmental organizations. Active NGO participation in the pro-election campaign set the foundation for a fundamentally different relationship with the new government and opened opportunities for public -private sector cooperation. In the new government are officials who have personal experience working in the Third Sector. Their personal familiarity with NGOs and their different perceptions of NGO strengths and weaknesses influence the extent and intensity of their now-official efforts to reach out to the Third Sector in this period of transition. Some NGOs have embraced this opportunity for cooperation, while others are puzzled by the informal ways of communication that resulted in a better access for some NGOs. A third broad group of NGOs are those concerned about being co-opted by the state. As voiced repeatedly at the regional NGO meetings, NGOs cherish their independence from the government, viewing it as one of their greatest achievements, and worry about “getting too close for comfort” and losing their sharp edge. Since these meetings in January and February 2001, a number of initiatives and meetings have been organized by both the state at the national level and NGOs in search for effective ways of communication and cooperation between the two sectors. Preliminary results have been achieved but there is still much room for progress. Situation at the Local Level The regional NGO meetings organized by the NGO Policy Group in cooperation with six local NGO hosts were greeted by NGOs as a timely initiative. NGO representatives shared their models, mechanisms and ad hoc initiatives for “cooperation” with local governments. Their suggestions included: 1) “an empty seat” in the municipal Executive Council (whereby NGOs could elect a representative who can attend sessions, provide an opinion but has no vote); 2) appointment of an NGO contact person or an NGO coordinator in the Municipal Assembly (usually coming from the Third Sector); 3) more-or-less structured and issues-based involvement of NGOs in municipal councils and committees; 4) formal and informal consultation with NGO representatives on particular local issues; 5) creation of community development councils, working groups and/or teams consisting of local government, business and NGO representatives. These attempts show that both NGOs and local government are exploring different ways to improve cooperation and that the situation varies from one municipality to another. They also indicate that neither the government nor NGOs have a clear strategy. To date, there are many examples of the status quo ante, in which there is still no basic communication or where animosity has emerged as a result of unrealistic expectations on either or both sides. For instance, NGOs sometimes ask local government for things it is not (yet) able to provide, such as financial support and access to publicly owned premises for office space. Local governments’ standard reply is that there are too many NGOs and only a limited number of square meters. A coordinated approach by NGOs would be more successful. NGOs ought to advocate for a more transparent office space allocation procedure and clear selection criteria, rather than resorting to individual action and pressure. Local governments, on the other hand, sometimes treat NGOs as “money machines” whose expected contribution to community development is limited to engaging donors and attracting funding. Lack of political will is no longer the key obstacle for cooperation between and among local government and NGOs. At this point, obstacles to improved cooperation are to be found in a learned disconnect of one from the other and their relative lack of familiarity with new roles and with the assets and limitations of potential counterparts. Finally, NGOs and local governments have yet to


33

develop reliable and institutionalized channels of communication. For the time being, communication is random and cooperation is based on personal, informal contacts and trust. The Third Yugoslav NGO Forum and Subsequent Initiatives NGO–government relations in the new environment was a major topic of the Third Forum of Yugoslav NGOs19 held in Belgrade from 17-19 May 2001. More than 350 participants represented local and international NGOs, federal, Serbian and local government, and donors. The Forum marked a turning point in NGO–government relations. For the first time government officials from the highest levels joined NGO representatives in discussions about the role of the Third Sector in the country’s political, civic and socio-economic development. Participants were greeted in a keynote address by Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. In the course of a three day-long meeting a number of government officials presented their views on the role of the Third Sector in a new political environment: President of the Chamber of Citizens of the FR Yugoslavia, Dragoljub Micunovic; Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Goran Svilanovic; Vice President of the Executive Council of Vojvodina, Dusko Radosavljevic; Serbian Minister for International Economic Relations, Goran Pitic; Serbian Minister of Labor, Dragan Milovanovic; Assistant Minister for Social Affairs, Ljiljana Lucic; and Assistant Minister for Education and Sports in the Government of Serbia, Tinde Kovac Cerovic. Participants generally emphasized the importance of communications, interaction and cooperation between the sectors and stressed the significance of independent and autonomous NGOs and their right to remain an informed critic of the government. The Forum concluded with the following recommendations for NGOs:

• Strengthen cooperation with relevant governmental institutions in implementation of activities that are compatible with government initiatives;

• Initiate and develop appropriate forms of cooperation with governmental institutions; • Exert pressure on the state regarding an effective search for solutions to social problems and

satisfaction of needs identified by citizens; • Monitor and contribute to greater transparency in government operations.

The Forum participants further identified the need for clear and transparent public tenders that would open access to government resources to NGOs. At the local level, all actors are encouraged to cooperate more closely in establishing local development coalitions among the public, private and nonprofit sectors. State institutions are urged to consult and make more use of relevant analyses undertaken by the Third Sector and to exploit the wealth of human resources concentrated in it. Another recommendation seeks the disclosure of government data that can improve and inform NGO performance. Indeed, government representatives have taken some concrete steps to improve cooperation with NGOs. They invited NGO representatives to participate in consultations with the Serbian Ministry of Education and Sports and Ministry for Social Affairs. The Ministry for International Economic Relations, through the Development Aid Coordination Unit, reached out to NGOs by posting information about needs and funding priorities. The Serbian Prime Minister initiated monthly meetings with NGO representatives, where issues such as taxation of humanitarian assistance and fiscal incentives were brought to his attention. As a sign of good will, in a letter mailed to all Executive Councils of Municipal Assemblies in June the Prime Minister urged local authorities to open themselves to cooperation with NGOs. In Vojvodina, the Executive Council has established an NGO Fund.

19 The Forum was organized by the Center for the Development of the Nonprofit Sector and the Center for Democracy Foundation supported by the United Nations Development Programme, Fund for an Open Society and Freedom House.

NGO Policy Group

34

The government has yet to prove its ability to create a favorable legal environment for Third Sector development. Still unresolved are the issues of a new NGO law, fiscal regulations and other relevant legal adjustments needed for effective and sustainable NGO operations and organizational development. In consultation with national government representatives, the NGO Policy Group heard that it is sometimes difficult to interact with NGOs because they have no legitimate representatives and no articulated voice. Typically, Government representatives claim to be willing to cooperate and see ways forward in a more organized approach by NGOs. Survey Results on NGO – Government Relations Overall, the results show that before the last elections, NGOs in Serbia cooperated more with local government, especially in opposition ruled munic ipalities, than at higher levels. Prior to October 2000, most NGOs did not cooperate with Serbian ministries (52.57%). Among those that did, cooperation was “bad” for 32.75% and “good” for 13.36%; only 1.32% reported “excellent” cooperation. For example , many groups dealing with refugees/IDPs and disabled people complained about specific policies pertaining to respective target groups rather than a general attitude of dislike or mistrust of NGOs. Asked about the period between January and April 2001, 58.5% stated that they saw no significant improvements in relations with the government; 21.75% noticed a complete change; 17.46% perceived no change whatsoever; and for 2.3% the relationship had deteriorated. IN response to questions about changes in the environment, most NGOs have noticed significant changes (38.31%), 31.51% see partial change, and almost a third (30.18%) do not perceive any changes. Graph 6, Do you notice changes in your environment since October 2000?

No28.3%

Partly32.8%

Yes39.0%

NGOs described the changes they perceived as: (1) a more positive and more relaxed atmosphere and a more open approach by the government to problem-solving (19.86%); (2) growing willingness of citizens to take part in NGO activities and view NGOs more favorably (8.12%); (3) no more obstacles imposed by the government to NGO operations (6.22%); (4) freedom to communicate and express different opinions (4.15%); (5) increased access to the media (2.42%); (6) end of isolation of the country (1.04%). NGOs that claimed not to notice changes gave the following reasons: (1) no real change in government relations with NGOs, dislike of the government’s attitude, lack of understanding for NGOs (12.44%); (2) the NGO had no problems with the previous government and has no problems now (3.11%); (3) it is too soon to judge but they expect to see changes (2.76%); (4) the NGO was established after the elections (1.55%); (5) their activities are not related to political changes (1.21%). NGOs were also asked to identify areas in which they could provide assistance to the government and public institutions: 11.46% offered expert assistance and education, advice, ideas and consultation; 10.35% of NGOs can offer survey and assessment results, projects, a database and other information;


35

9.08% identified assistance in the area of community development and problem-solving focused on local self-governance; 8.44% offered personal services and experience in their area of work or expertise; 8.28% can assist in democratization and human rights protection; 7.48% identified legal assistance in drafting local and national level legislation; 7.32% would like to cooperate in the field of culture and education. Other areas identified pertain to needs assessments and prioritization of needs of youth and other groups, humanitarian assistance, support in the realm of health services, environmental protection and training of civil servants, etc. Key recommendations to the government include more active and substantive cooperation as well as creating opportunities for exchange of ideas and information, especially in areas where NGOs have substantial experience. One-fifth (20.45%) of NGOs now have frequent contacts with the government, close to a half communicates from time to time (4659%), 19.58% rarely, and 13.38% never. Mechanisms for Improved Communication between the First and Third Sectors There are many unknowns regarding the future of NGO–government relations. Some NGOs have unrealistic expectations and see their role in advising and placing demands on the government – NGOs tend to overestimate their capacities and expertise. On the other hand, many government officials at all levels are not aware of the enormous potential that lies in the Third Sector, and many still fail to see any value in more substantive cooperation with NGOs. Institutionalized mechanisms are not in place, and the extent and quality of communication and cooperation varies from one municipality, Ministry and public institution to another. In addition, despite the explosive growth in the number of NGOs in the last two years, there are still blank zones, areas where there is almost or literally no NGO presence; relatively few NGOs are now focused on community development and rural-urban linkages, for instance. Opportunities for manipulation, cooptation and abuse of trust and/or funding are present and should not be overlooked. Some NGOs will agree to play the role of quasi-nongovernmental organizations and other organizations will seek to maintain their independence and autonomy while engaging more actively in communication and exchange with the public sector. Yet another segment of the Third Sector will find its niche in criticizing the government, either appropriately or ritualistically. Finally, there are non-governmental organizations with very little reason or incentive to interact with the state. The right balance will not be easy to strike. A first step might be to reinforce the message that NGOs cannot replace the state and the state cannot replace NGOs. The survey indicates that NGOs in Serbia will continue to play a key role in democratization. A growing number of NGOs are interested in the socio-economic aspects of transition. They are searching for ways to mitigate its adverse effects on citizens and to disseminate and build on best practices. There is little doubt that Serbian NGOs will continue to engage in quasi-political activities, whether in cooperation or in confrontation with the government. Overall, interaction is expected to intensify and strengthen as the state and NGOs discover that it is increasingly difficult to ignore one another. More dynamic communications between the government and NGOs will create difficulties that did not exist before. However willing to become “a democratically elected service for citizens,” the government will find it impossible to maintain regular and meaningful communication with an uncoordinated set of organizations. NGOs must come up with effective and innovative ways to communicate with and channel information to the government to avoid bottlenecks while ensuring transparency and equitable access to information. This will be easier as NGOs redefine their organizational identities and determine their priority areas of interest. Inevitably, they will connect with other similar and complementary organizations within the Third Sector and with other sectors. Some NGOs will become more operational and others will identify a role for themselves in becoming Third Sector support organizations.

NGO Policy Group

36

These processes will take time but will not happen spontaneously. Additional efforts ought to be invested in developing organizational and sectoral strategies. At some point in the future, NGOs will build trust and mechanisms that will enable them to chose individuals who can act as their legitimate representatives and articulate their voice(s) in relevant institutions. If the options are for NGOs to take a slow road or rush into a fight for primacy and influence, the NGO Policy Group opts for the former. Given the many problems in Serbia, its defunct institutions and the structural adjustments that are inevitably coming, it is likely that NGOs will have external incentives to organize among themselves more effectively. So far, the new government has wisely not interfered too much. In the worst case, NGOs and government will instinctively seek allies. In the best case, they will each actively seek opportunities for cooperation in the best interest of those they represent and engage. The government has yet to act on its promise to decentralize. NGOs are a step ahead because they have developed mechanisms and channels for communication at the local and sub-national level. They are forming alliances and establishing networks to mitigate the threat of “Belgradization” and refute any attempts for a centralized decision-making. 20 At the same time, NGOs are proving every day that they are eager to cooperate at the national and cross-border level. They have learned the hard way the importance of exchange of information. “Cold” exchange of information is not enough at this point. NGOs need to discuss and negotiate their views on community and social development. The NGO Policy Group effort is an example of facilitated communication and consultation. The process has only begun and we encourage other NGOs to take an active part in it, whether in cooperation with the NGO Policy Group or independently from it.

20 The next Yugoslav NGO Forum, for instance, will be organized as a set of regional fora with a national level meeting.


37

NGOs, Beneficiaries and Other Stakeholders This section of the survey examined ways in which NGOs communicate with their activists and volunteers, beneficiaries, citizens and local authorities. It also explored relations with different groups as perceived by NGO representatives. NGOs were asked to identify services they currently provide or could provide to different actors. NGO relationships with donors is examined in the next section of this report. According to the survey results, Serbian NGOs have random and unstructured relationships with beneficiaries. Although some NGOs focus on a relatively consistent and well-defined target group (disabled, single mothers, refugees and IDPs, social cases, etc.), most still fail to include their “clients” in key aspects of their operation in a comprehensive and systematic way. The survey demonstrates a sharp divide between NGOs as service providers and beneficiaries as passive recipients of services. The results also indicate that the majority of Serbian NGOs struggle with their own identity, as shown in the discrepancy between mission statements, organizational goals, actual activit ies and future plans. For example, 794 NGOs responded to the question about the mission of their organization. For some NGOs it is still difficult to make a distinction between their mission and activities. For others, this distinction is clear but they have adjusted to circumstances and expanded their activities into areas that were not their original raison d’etre. In terms of mission, most NGOs self-identified in the civil society development group, followed by environmental protection. With regard to past activities, NGOs self-classified in the following key areas: education, culture, humanitarian assistance, social services, environmental protection and human rights protection. Classification of NGOs in Serbia lacks precision and this survey did not aim to propose a more rigorous categorization because it entails a sector-wide debate. However, it has attempted to capture trends in relation to previous classifications, namely the two NGO Directories for FRY published by the Center for the Development of the Nonprofit Sector.21 More than previously NGOs made reference to community development, international and regional cooperation, European integration, NGO development, campaigning, quality of life, culture and multicultural activities. Self-help, single issue and membership groups – such as single mothers, Roma, disabled and refugee association, for instance – tend to maintain concentration on their initial target groups but may vary their activities and approaches. Many NGOs have shifted focus from one beneficiary group to another – offering the same type of service to different groups of clients. The survey reveals that most NGOs surface around skills of their founders and/or activists, their professional experience and/or (access to) knowledge and information rather than adjusting their structures to changing needs and opportunities. Teachers and lawyers lead in terms of numbers of professionals/experts involved in the Third Sector, followed by economists, journalists, psychologists, engineers, artists, medical doctors and sociologists. For more details, see Appendix. Typically, NGOs use the following approaches to identify beneficiaries:

1) Social status, including income, legal status, health status, and other indicators of marginalization as presented in statistics and official data that can be accessed by NGOs

2) NGOs apply age group-related or special criteria to the types of services they offer 3) Beneficiaries are determined by NGO mission and by-Laws 4) NGO’s own assessment or problem identification helps them identify target groups 5) Beneficiaries turn to NGOs for assistance 6) Other criteria, depending on the type of project, donor requirements or the availability of

funding 21 B. Petrovic, Z. Paunovic, A. Divac, V. Nenadic, T. Gorjanc, "Direktorijum nevladinih, neprofitnih organizacija u SR Jugoslaviji" (Center for the Development of Non-Profit Sector, Beograd 1997); Grupa autora, " Direktorijum nevladinih, neprofitnih organizacija u SR Jugoslaviji" (Center for the Development of Non-Profit Sector, Beograd 2000).

NGO Policy Group

38

In addition to their direct beneficiaries, NGOs serve the general public (through debates, seminars and awareness raising activities), interested or favorably inclined segments of the population (legal aid, information dissemination), municipal authorities (proposal writing, information sharing, joint project development and implementation, contacts with national level institutions and donors), political parties (social support services, issues identification), and other NGOs and trade unions (training, joint activities, issue-based alliances). Graph 7 shows eight prevalent beneficiary groups 22 targeted by NGOs in social service provision. It is noteworthy that 70.05% of NGOs identify their organizations as service providers. When asked to describe the ways in which they provide assistance, NGOs clustered in four key groups of answers: 1) enabling access to entitlements and legal assistance; 2) material and medical assistance; 3) education and training; and 4) advice, psycho-social support and counseling. 23 Graph 7, Selected Beneficiary groups of NGO services

Women11.5%

Poor16.4%

Refugees16.5%

Displaced Persons13.5%

Roma11.7%

Handicapped 12.8%

Visually Impaired6.2%

Single Mothers 11.5%

The overwhelming majority of NGOs surveyed (92.79%) claim not to have problems in their relationships with beneficiaries. Of the 821 NGOs surveyed, 81.97% believe beneficiary satisfaction rate to be high with their organization and/or the services it provides. Slightly more than 10% acknowledge that they do not solicit or do not receive feedback, and as few as 0.85% recognize beneficiary dissatisfaction with services provided.

22 Women and single mothers are classified in separate groups because NGOs target “single mothers” through psycho-social support, humanitarian assistance and/or small scale income generation, whereas “women” are usually targeted by women’s groups or in gender sensitive developmental activities of grassroots organizations. 23 Other forms of assistance listed include activities aimed at environmental protection, empowerment of women, house visits to elderly, social and economic integration, proposal design and links with other NGOs, enabling access to Internet, and support in communication, lobbying and research support.


39

Graph 8, Are Beneficiaries satisfied?

Without Answer7.1%No Feedback

10.1%No0.9%

Yes82.0%

In most cases, optimism regarding beneficiary satisfaction is based on informal feedback. A smaller group of NGOs engage beneficiaries in evaluations of services provided or activities undertaken.24 Only 51 organization identified problems in communication and/or coordination of activities with beneficiaries, whereas as many as 770 NGOs failed to do so. The question was open-ended and allowed for multiple answers. Table 11, Problems in NGO coordination of activities with beneficiaries Type of Issue NGOs Percent of total replies Technical 13 29.55 Financial 11 27.27 Organizational 12 25.00 Lack of understanding 5 11.36 Personal 3 6.82 Lack of trust 3 6.82 Political 3 6.82 Other 10 22.73

The survey also examined ways in which NGOs communicate with beneficiaries. Answers are grouped in four key categories shown in Graph 9.

24 It might be interesting for future research to examine in more depth types of beneficiary involvement in evaluation, the nature and structure of surveys conducted by NGOs, timing of beneficiary involvement (project design or late into the project implementation), and level of analysis aimed at identifying and matching beneficiary needs and expectations with project activities and results.

NGO Policy Group

40

Graph 9

Modes of communication with beneficiaries (individually or in small groups) correspond well to NGO focus on community level activities (48.89%) and regional activities (40.89%) as well as to their generally small programs. NGOs interact with the authorities in multiple ways: at the NGO’s request (443), informally (278), in response to an invitation extended by the authorities (243), in public meetings and roundtables (168), by mail (163), and at NGO meetings (110). Since many NGO activists became involved in local government after the last elections, their multiple roles blur the understanding of NGO interaction with local authorities. NGOs were also asked to assess the level of citizens’ familiarity with their activities at the local level. According to the results, 43.24% of NGOs believe that citizens have enough information about them, 40.68% feel that citizens are not familiar enough with their activities, and 15.47% think that citizens are fully aware of what they do. At the national level, 58.71% estimate that there is room for improvement and that citizens ignore some/most of their work (“some” because a given NGO works at the local level), 34.23% are satisfied with the level of public awareness, and 5.6% claim that citizens ignore their work. This self-assessment confirms the results of a survey conducted by the Center for Policy Studies in December 2000. According to that survey, 59% of citizens are unaware of NGO activities, 35% are partially aware, 5% are familiar with NGO work, and only 1% of citizens are actively involved in NGOs. Citizens who know about NGOs are usually familiar with a few large organizations. A closer link with citizens as stakeholders is thus identified as another priority for NGO development in Serbia. In NGOs’ own view, citizens are most aware of their concrete actions, projects and activities (26.37%). NGOs further believe they are known for humanitarian assistance, assistance to children, women and refugees (16.82%), their mission, creativity, humane and democratic nature (16.56%), training, seminars, summer schools, debates and lectures (13.5%), political activities (9.81%), results of their work (9.3%) and events, promotions, festivals and campaigns (8.66%). Approximately two-thirds of NGOs in Serbia are satisfied with citizens’ perceived satisfaction with their performance; 35.32% acknowledge not having feedback; 3.78% failed to reply, and 1.22%


41

believe that citizens are dissatisfied. Results in this part of the survey raise questions about NGOs’ understanding of their own transparency and social accountability. Graph 10

Are Citizens Satisfied

No1.2%

Without Answer3.8%

Yes59.7%

No Feedback35.3%

The survey asked NGOs to identify specific types of assistance they offer to citizens. Most NGOs listed humanitarian assistance (27.87%), alternative forms of education and training (17.61%), legal aid (16.23%), counseling, expert or professional advice and assistance (14.09%), information (12.56%), psycho-social support and preventive health (9.19%), training, round tables and debates pertaining to NGO operation and role (6.58%). Moreover, NGOs listed the following functions that are beyond the organization’s primary scope but are part of their presence in the community: providing moral support; making books, literature and information available; allowing citizens to use their photocopier free of charge; informal public education on standards and procedures; acting as intermediaries between citizens and institutions; transportation services; letting citizens use their premises for a meeting; serving as incubators and mentors for new NGOs, etc. NGOs were further asked to identify areas in which they could provide support to other NGOs. Most (28.71%) offered individual experience and cooperation in their own area of expertise. Education and training ranked second, followed by assistance and cooperation in the areas of democratization, human rights protection and community development initiatives. Next on the list are ideas and human resources, consultancies and technical assistance, information about and contacts with other NGOs and institutions. A smaller group of NGOs offers cooperation on structural issues and reforms, primarily in the social sector. A segment of the Third Sector could facilitate sensitization of other NGOs to specific marginalized groups and ensure access to those groups. Finally, 4.87% NGOs claim to be able and willing to provide any form of assistance and cooperation. A similar package of services is offered by NGOs to public institutions. The difference is that NGOs emphasized their experience in project development – needs assessments, project implementation, monitoring, feedback from the field, etc. NGOs view community development as another broad area in which they have a comparative advantage over public institutions. Fifty NGOs proposed to assist local government and public institutions in conducting training for civil servants. A group of 46 NGOs perceive their criticism of the government as a form of assistance. More than two-thirds (72.32%) replied negatively to a question about whether their current activities should be scaled back given the changed circumstances in Serbia. Justification was sought in the exclusivity of an organizational presence (“We are the only organization in this town to…”); broad focus (“We took a broad perspective and have encompassed various aspects”); and fulfillment of a goal in response to needs (“Our goal has not yet been achieved”/”The need is still there”). Most

NGO Policy Group

42

NGOs see the need to expand the outreach and volume of current activities (83.58%). An additional 13.81% wish to maintain current levels of activities, and only 2.61% propose to scale back. Reasons cited for expansion include: an increased demand and citizens’ interest in NGO activities; perception of greater opportunities for local and international cooperation; expectation of growing needs during transition; need to establish rural-urban linkages as a new area of work; complementarity with government reforms through public awareness raising and activities conducive to attitudinal changes; and chances for a greater inclusion of citizens for greater impact. NGOs with differing views emphasize the need for NGOs to do good work rather than to do much without real results. Some NGOs perceive that their capacity threshold has been reached and that they would need to strengthen their own capacity before they can expand. Some NGOs suggested that it is better for organizations to stabilize, specialize and gain expertise in a certain narrow field than to try to do everything. Strategic planning does not appear to be a common practice for NGOs in Serbia. Although 93.92% of NGOs claim to have a strategy, most (42.78%) plan up to one year ahead. Slightly more than 14% plan up to six months ahead. Close to 16% have a three-year planning framework and 17.47% operate within a five-year strategic plan. When the above data are examined in light of the board’s role and related to seminars attended by NGO representatives, it can be deduced that lack of strategic planning skills represents one of the major weaknesses of the Third Sector and, therefore, a priority area for assistance to NGOs. In response to the question about the most valuable assets of their organizations, NGO representatives highlighted shared values, enthusiasm, optimism, persistence, teamwork and the fact that they are feeling useful. Close to half of the NGOs surveyed value most the expertise and knowledge gathered in their organization. On the other hand, when asked whether they have expert teams for policy analysis and development of alternative solutions, 36.47% of NGOs said they did not. Those who do listed legal (close to 25%) and environmental (18.17%) expertise, economy, psychology and psychosocial research, issues pertaining to youth, elderly, disabled and ethnic minorities, education, culture, agriculture and civil society development. Fewer NGOs included expertise in natural sciences, engineering and information technology. Conclusions: Based on the survey results, participatory involvement of beneficiaries and other stakeholders is not the strongest feature of Serbian NGOs. Their primary frame of reference includes intra-organizational resources and personal contacts, donors, local authorities,25 and other NGOs. For most service providers, beneficiaries are seen as mere recipients of assistance. Communication with citizens is maintained in “cold” ways: through the media, web sites, public announcements, leaflets, posters and other pr inted materials. A period of “electronic media frenzy” is not a surprise given NGOs’ generally low profile during the Milosevic years. Communication with beneficiaries is more personalized. More substantive and meaningful beneficiary involvement could play a key role in enhancing the legitimacy and impact of the Third Sector in Serbia. More ready access to data, statistics and information about government priorities, coupled with growing interest among NGOs in developing basic screening and survey skills, open another window of opportunity for design of activities that are rooted in local community and fitted into the wider social, economic and political context. Finally, regional NGO meetings show that Serbian NGOs are aware of the need to become more transparent in relation to citizens. The current reality, nevertheless, is one of accountability principally to donors.

25 Belgrade-based NGOs are a deviation from this matrix as they primarily refer to national rather than local (municipal) government.


43

NGOs and Donors A number of NGOs noted that there seem to be more donor conferences than donors nowadays. Some emphasized the need for NGOs to learn more about donor relations, explore different approaches, and start asking questions. The Third Sector generally recognizes its delayed involvement in donor agencies’ design of development assistance strategies, even when those strategies directly target NGOs. At the regional NGO meetings, participants acknowledged the shortcomings of their donor dependency and stressed the need to develop a local funding base. Nevertheless, they recognized that over the short- and medium terms NGOs would continue to look to external donors for support. At the same time, there is growing NGO interest in donor education and donor advocacy. Of the 821 NGOs participating in the survey, only 51.64 % disclosed data regarding their budgets for the last twelve months. There are two major reasons behind this low reply rate. First, almost half of the NGOs that participating the survey have no fixed budgets but rather operate through ad hoc actions financed by NGO founders and a few sympathizing citizens (the number of NGOs that did not express their budgets corresponds to and almost coincides with the number of NGOs that have no premises and/or equipment). Secondly, the environment in which NGOs operated in the past forced NGOs to hide financial and other data; many still perceive questions about financial matters as a threat. The half of the NGOs surveyed that agreed to disclose their budgets coincides with smaller organizations that operate with very modest resources. Close to half of these NGOs operated on up to DEM 10,000 last year. According to survey data, 21.7% had a budget of up to DEM 1,000. One-fourth operate on budgets ranging from DEM 1,000 to DEM 5,000; 13.21% had a budget in the range of DEM 5,001 and DEM 10,000; 12.03% fall within the group with annual budgets of DEM 10,001 to DEM 20,000; 5.42% from DEM 20,001 to DEM 30,000; 4.25% had budgets between DEM 30,001 and DEM 50,000; 8.50% range from DEM 60,000 to DEM 100,000; 6.13% fall into the group between DEM 100,001 and DEM 800,000. A single organization stated that it hada budget in the amount of DEM 5,000,000 last year. Table 12, NGOs according to their Year 2000 budgets

Budget in DEM NGOs Percentage 1-1,000 92 21.701,001-5,000 106 25.005,001-10,000 56 13.2110,001-20,000 51 12.0320,001-30,000 23 5.4230,001-40,000 18 4.2540,001-5,0000 18 4.2550,001-60,000 7 1.6560,001-80,000 12 2.8380,001-10,0000 14 3.30100,001-150,000 5 1.18150,001-200,000 9 2.12200,001-300,000 5 1.18300,001-600,000 4 0.94600,001-800,000 3 0.71500,0000 1 0.24Total: 424 100.00The structure is calculated in relation to the number of total replies; 397 NGOs did not reply to this question.

NGO Policy Group

44

Indeed, there is hardly a more convincing indicator of the discrepancies within the Third Sector in Serbia than NGO budgets. Last year, budgets of local NGOs ranged from less than DEM 1,000 DEM to DEM 5,000,000. 26 Despite a few exceptions, the survey reveals that organizations based in the greater Belgrade region and in Vojvodina are much more likely to have annual budgets of DEM 150,000 or more. Smaller NGOs are in general more willing to discuss their budgets. It is expected that larger organizations will have to become more transparent as the result of a combination of several factors: greater visibility and reduced threat, donor and peer pressure, and growing public interest in NGOs. Concerning the key sources of funding, NGOs stated foundations as their primary source, followed by NGOs’ own resources, international NGOs, corporate donations, individual giving, membership fees, local self-governance budgets, etc. As an illustration of diversifying funding sources, NGOs in Belgrade (55), Vojvodina (26) and Sandzak (10) identify fundraising from private persons as their main source of funding. Table 13, NGO distribution according to funding sources

NGOs According to Funding Source Main Other Main Other

Source Number of NGOs Structure in % Foundations 297 95 46.26 18.85International NGO 163 114 25.39 22.62International governmental 31 52 4.83 10.32Inter-governmental 18 21 2.80 4.17Embassies 33 67 5.14 13.29Local self-government 67 54 10.44 10.71Republican budget 42 46 6.54 9.13Federal budget 7 15 1.09 2.98Individual giving 109 154 16.98 30.56Corporate donations 135 166 21.03 32.94NGO’s own resources 183 220 28.50 43.65Membership fees 102 159 15.89 31.55 Among other sources of funding, NGO’s own resources rank first, followed by corporate donations, membership fees, private donations, international NGOs, foundations, embassies, and resources from local government budgets. Lack of financial resources is still recognized as the major problem by 60% of NGOs, although an encouraging 30.76% said they are experiencing no financial obstacles to project design or implementation. Other problems representing 2-5% of interviewees include lack of skilled people, logistical and organizational problems, banking and accounting issues, lack of local government support, and problems with specific donors. Out of 708 organizations responding to this question, 392 (55.37%) have a greater program value today than one year ago. Slightly more 30% (234) have similar budgets, and almost 11% (82) have smaller programs. Approximately 13% of the sample did not answer this question. Most NGOs are proactive in relation to donors. Eighty percent have attempted to establish contacts with donors. More than forty percent27 have either been contacted by a donor or responded to a call for proposals. Approximately 8% stated that they have never cooperated with a donor, either due to a lack of donor interest or because the organization was established very recently. Close to 5% are

26 For NGOs participating in the survey. 27 The total percentage is higher than 100% because of multiple options listed by NGOs.


45

referred to donors by intermediaries (usually other local or international NGOs). One NGO listed lobbying donors as a way of communicating with them. Of the 821 NGOs interviewed, 346 characterized their cooperation with donors as satisfactory. Slightly more than 200 are somewhat satisfied and 183 are dissatisfied. Eighty-seven NGOs are undecided or have no experience with donors. NGOs have provided a rather comprehensive list of things they would like to change or see changed in donor relations with NGOs. Key clusters of answers include: Easier access to donors – simple, clear, direct and less complicated procedures for communication between NGOs and donors; A request that donors become more open (better listeners), less directive, less centralized and more familiar with concrete local issues and regional differences; More clarity is expected regarding donor criteria for support to NGOs (transparent, publicly announced, equal-opportunity calls for proposals); At the same time, NGOs feel that donor selection criteria ought to become more rigorous and to seek more information about NGOs they are funding; NGOs are generally dissatisfied with coordination among donors; Focus on comprehensive and longer-term program support to replace short-term project funding; All donors are focusing on similar areas; as a result there are funding gaps (such as students’ groups, culture, research and science) Grassroots organizations perceive that donors are now shifting interest to large local NGOs and government, and that interest in genuine NGO initiatives is lost to macro- level strategies Conclusions: NGO communication with donors is almost entirely for the purpose of fundraising. There is much scope for expanding NGO-donor relations through consultation, donor education and learning about different donors, their missions, strategies and scope of work in FRY. Greater donor transparency and demand for NGO transparency constitute another precondition for development of sustainable NGOs and effective communication. The NGO scene in Serbia developed as an imbalanced set of organizations. A small number of NGOs have a large share of the sector’s assets and resources – primarily access and information that generate returns in terms of funding for projects, which then place them high on donors’ agenda and generates influence due to experience. The survey results also show donor preference for cooperation with expert organizations and think thanks, which tend to be based in the capital and in Vojvodina. NGOs are searching for ways to improve communication with donors. A similar publication on donors could assist NGOs in understanding donor strategies, priorities, target areas and funding cycles, and thus assist Serbian NGOs to become partners rather than dependents.

NGO Policy Group

46

Regional Features of NGOs in Serbia In order to understand the features of the Third Sector in Serbia, it is necessary to examine its regional specificities. For the purpose of this survey, Serbia (excluding Kosovo) has been divided into eight “regions”: northeastern Serbia, central Serbia, western Serbia, Sandzak, eastern Serbia, southern Serbia, Belgrade and Vojvodina. A striking feature of the regional overview is the concentration of NGOs in the wider Belgrade region and Vojvodina. In these two regions, NGOs are not only more numerous but also more diversified and better equipped in terms of financial and material resources than in other parts of Serbia.28 Table 14, Regional distribution of the survey sample Region NGOs Percentage Northeastern Serbia 26 3.17 Central Serbia 77 9.38 Western Serbia 50 6.09 Sandzak 29 3.53 Eastern Serbia 43 5.24 Southern Serbia 80 9.74 Belgrade 314 38.25 Vojvodina 202 24.60 Total 821 100.00

The survey results allow comparison and analysis of NGO features in relation to demographic and socio-economic characteristics of specific regions. The regional distribution of NGOs according to their main areas of activity indicates that Belgrade and Vojvodina comprise the largest share in most areas of NGO operation: Belgrade and Vojvodina dominate the NGO scene especially in programs that rely on expert knowledge or require consultation with experts. Given the concentration of university centers, libraries and research institutions, expertise is easiest to access in these two regions. Consequently, not only is it easier for NGOs based in these two regions to obtain funding for their own programs; they are also more likely to be involved in consultations with and the strategic development of other organizations and thus gain a voice in decision-making. Demographic data justify the density of NGOs in greater Belgrade and Vojvodina in view of the fact that a substantial share of Serbia’s population lives in these two regions. In all survey regions, civil society development is the single largest cluster of NGOs in relation to the total number of NGOs surveyed in that region. Other key clusters are education, environmental protection, community development and activities for youth. The survey shows that there are no major differences in the structure of the NGO sector disaggregated by regions. Whereas the number of NGOs varies per region, different missions, goals and activities are represented with a similar share in all eight regions. The only difference captured in the survey results is a higher share of humanitarian organizations in central and northeastern Serbia in relation to the total number of NGOs interviewed. This reflects NGOs’ response to some of the major problems in those areas: concentration of refugees and IDPs (also in Vojvodina), unemployment and collapse of industry, tensions between the so-called local social cases and refugees/IDPs, etc. 28 This finding pertains to the sector rather than to individual organizations. Also, it should be noted that the survey sample is only as representative of regional data as is the database of the Center for the Development of the Nonprofit Sector. The sample encompassed all NGOs listed in the database at the time of the survey design.


47

It is surprising, on the other hand, that there are few NGOs in eastern and northeastern Serbia providing assistance to mentally disabled people, given that the number of them in these regions amounts to 4,000 according to 1998 data. Equally under-represented in the regional data are NGOs focused on agricultural extension and farming support. A comparative regional analysis based on organizational size, as determined by the number of activists, volunteers and full-time staff, also reveals interesting results. The NGO scene in Serbia is fragmented, with most large organizations based in Belgrade or Vojvodina (54 out of a total of 73 large NGOs, or 74%). Small organizations are generally more diversified and engage in a wide variety of activities. Often, they act as community centers of cultural, educational, recreational, humanitarian and developmental activity. NGOs in western and southern Serbia engage more volunteers than do NGOs in other regions, and all other regions have a higher volunteer to activist ration than Belgrade or Vojvodina. Despite brain drain and urban poverty, Belgrade has continued to attract human resources in the Third Sector, replicating the gap between Belgrade and other parts of Serbia in other sectors (culture, education, health care, science, etc.) In other regions in Serbia proper, most NGOs have up to 10 activists and volunteers and no formally employed staff. These organizations cover vast areas with a population over a few tens of thousands and more than ten communities, especially in northeastern, western and eastern Serbia. It is much more difficult for them to achieve community-wide impact. In the last ten years, NGOs engaged many women in activities. Some NGOs specialized in assistance to women or focused on women’s issues. Regional analysis of gender distribution shows some differences. Women’s involvement in the Third Sector is highest in Belgrade, Vojvodina and central Serbia. Results in other regions show a balanced and equal distribution, with the exception of Sandzak where women are under-represented in the number of activists. It should be noted, however, that overall, women participate more in the NGO Sector than in other sectors. Their representation on NGO boards does need to be enhanced. Age distribution in the Third Sector differs from age distribution in the general population. Differences are less noticeable in Belgrade than in other regions. On the other hand, elderly citizens are more active in NGOs in Belgrade and Vojvodina than in other regions. The sector-wide trend is to rely on the 25 to 40 age group, with pronounced differences between the western and eastern parts of Serbia. A noticeably smaller number of organizations in southern Serbia engage young activists up to 20 years of age. The Third Sector is generally less strong in activities targeting high school aged children. This feature is especially pronounced in ethnically mixed and less urbanized regions (northeastern and eastern Serbia and Sandzak). The small share of volunteers and activists with less than post-secondary or higher education in any given region in Serbia is an alarming finding because it indicates that NGOs are not at all representative of demographic data for Serbia. In all regions, NGOs have attracted the highest level in terms of formal education. Impoverishment and political repression resulted in high participation rates by highly-educated people in the NGO sector, thus altering its structure by increasing a share of “expert” or highly professional jobs that would normally be found in other fields such as science, commerce and trade or at universities and research institutions. This is interpreted in two ways: 1) NGOs tended to attract the elites and failed to involve “the average citizen”; 2) NGOs emerged in urban centers and focused on urban issues. These data indicate that during the Milosevic regime, NGOs sheltered many educated people who were not in agreement with the government’s policies. Moreover, NGOs provided an alternative job market for first-time job seekers and young and educated people who could not or would not find jobs in other sectors. Finally, NGOs served as an alternative coping strategy in halting de-professionalization, mitigating brain drain and providing

NGO Policy Group

48

additional financial and social resources. Nonetheless, today, a challenge for Serbian NGOs is to expand into rural areas and to diversify membership and the human resource base. Regional analysis of the general operating conditions for Serbian NGOs confirms the cross-sectoral findings. In all regions, NGOs struggle to secure office space and necessary equipment. One-third of the NGOs that participated in the survey work from home and only 10% have a permanent solution regarding office space. These findings indicate that in the past, international donors focused almost exclusively on direct project support with limited support for overhead expenses. Given political instabilities and risks, this was not an unsound strategy. Now, however, NGOs have to find more stable solutions as part of their focus on institutional development. Another indicator of difficult operating conditions for NGOs in Serbia (excluding Belgrade) is the fact that 50% of NGOs have no computer or printer. As a result, it is difficult for these organizations to establish relations with donors that are generally based in Belgrade and have certain standards for communication and application for funding. Similarly, 148 NGOs in southeastern, central, western, eastern, southern Serbia and Sandzak have no phone line. Only 33 NGOs in the above-mentioned regions (excluding Belgrade and Vojvodina) have a photocopier; 272 do not. Similar results are obtained to the question about vehicles. In eastern Serbia, for instance, no NGO (of 43 surveyed) has a car. These data again indicate the urban bias of the Third Sector in Serbia.


49

Part 4 Conclusions

In the end, the NGO Policy Group went back to the four questions that inspired the survey: 1. If there are many NGOs in Serbia and if some are strong, does that mean that there is

an effective Third Sector? The Third Sector in Serbia consists of many “mini-NGOs” and several large organizations that hold the dominant share of total NGO budgets and other resources. Regardless of their size, most NGOs in Serbia are fragile in terms of organizational development, constituting, therefore, a weak Third Sector. NGO networks have been successful in short-term issue-based activities. The survey reveals many encouraging signs that NGOs are re-thinking their role within the Third Sector and in society at large, and a rapidly growing number of organizations seek to improve relationships and form partnerships. 2. Given their diversity and number, how can NGOs become more proactive social

partners? An enabling legal framework constitutes one of the basic preconditions for NGOs to become more proactive social partners. Beyond an NGO law, however, adjustments are required in fiscal and labor-related legislation. Serbian NGOs have demonstrated flexibility and the ability to adjust to, operate in and/or oppose difficult and constantly changing circumstances. Increasingly, NGOs in Serbia seek alliances within the sector and with other sectors. In many ways, NGOs have overcome initial rivalries and are getting better at working together and, especially, exchanging information. More frequently than in the past, NGOs now interact independently from the externally facilitated meetings or partnerships. A still-underutilized comparative advantage of the Third Sector is its potential for constituency building aimed at strengthening NGO legitimacy and community mobilization. 3. NGOs in Serbia are perceived as key promoters of democratization. Are NGOs

themselves democratic organizations? At this time, NGOs in Serbia are primarily accountable to donors. Demands for stakeholder and social accountability will increase as NGOs diversify their funding sources to include community and private giving and respond to tenders for public funding. Internally, NGOs are not yet adequately addressing issues of good governance. There is no power sharing among staff, management and board because, in many organizations, these groups are the same. In many NGOs, communication and operations are based on informal rules. Individuals and small groups of people who are most active in the organization make most decisions, large and small. NGOs spend time planning and discussing strategies, but very few have undertaken a strategic planning exercise. 4. How do NGOs perceive the recent political changes? How should internal structures

and external relationships be redefined in light of these changes? There is no consensus among NGOs regarding political changes in Serbia. Nevertheless, most NGOs surveyed perceive some favorable changes, mainly greater freedoms and openness. NGOs are revisiting their relationships with the state or, more precisely, considering having one. Most organizations are more interested in relationships with local government. However, NGOs will not rush into cooperation because they fear being co-opted, they cherish their autonomy, and do not want to give up their watchdog role. The extent of exchange and cooperation between NGOs and government at all levels varies from NGO to NGO. Overall, there is cautious optimism about NGO – government relations. NGOs and local governments have examined various models, but a replicable one has not yet been developed. Relationships still depend predominantly on personal contacts, trust

NGO Policy Group

50

and expertise. In order to engage in more meaningful and extensive exchange with the government, especially at the national and federal levels, NGOs should explore ways in which they can articulate their voice(s) in a less time-consuming manner than a series of individual consultations. The government, on the other hand, ought to start disseminating information in more transparent and equitable ways. This includes public debates before policies are decided, public tenders for service contracts and use of state-owned premises, and consultation with NGOs on key issues about which NGOs have significant relevant experience, such as refugee return and integration, education and vocational training, social inclusion of marginalized groups and various community based initiatives – to name just a few examples. In Serbia as in most countries, the Third Sector is under-valued. Given the many obstacles and constraints Serbian NGOs faced in the last ten years, the still-unsettled legal and political environment in which they operate, and the meager budgets of most NGOs, criticisms fade away before the enthusiasm and commitment of the NGO activists interviewed and consulted for this survey. As the survey findings clearly indicate, there are many valid arguments to support claims that the Third Sector in Serbia leverages huge returns on the investments that have been made in it. From the NGO Policy Group’s point of view, during the next three to five NGOs in Serbia will play an even greater role in the following areas:

• (Longer-term) Social service delivery • Decentralization • Access to information and alternative choices for citizens • Civic education, vocational training and functional literacy • As a watchdog over the other two sectors • Advocacy for policy changes • Building community development alliances

A word of caution from a participant of an NGO Policy Group regional meeting: “We are so used to criticizing everybody that it will take some time for us to start doing positive things.” To equip itself for the challenges ahead, the Serbian Third Sector should focus on the following areas, where progress is both needed and possible regardless on “donor fashions:”

• Constituency building and stakeholder accountability • Engaging other sectors • Local resource mobilization • Research and innovation • Non-financial partnerships • Planning for results, not donors • Telling their stories

Hopefully the government will live up to its promises to create an enabling environment and abstain from interfering in civil society. It will take collaboration among a responsive government, a strong business sector and a vibrant civil society for Serbia’s transition to occur with lesser pain and for the greater good.

NGO Policy Group Appendix

II

Appendix

NGO Policy Group - Third Sector in Serbia Appendix

I

Appendix Table 15, NGO structure in percentages according to profession*

NGO Structure according to engaging of specialists Occupation Yes No Temporarily

Doctors 48.74 37.06 14.20 Pharmacist 19.33 73.24 7.43 Academicians 16.49 74.16 9.35 Teachers 69.05 21.93 9.02 Political Scientists 34.98 57.54 7.48 Journalists 59.40 28.70 11.90 Philosophers 29.95 62.60 7.46 Philologists 46.75 45.10 8.15 Psychologists 55.32 34.94 9.75 Pedagogues 59.17 32.11 8.72 Sociologists 49.81 40.85 9.35 Economists 60.73 30.61 8.66 Lawyers 68.54 23.10 8.36 Engineers 53.72 38.84 7.44 Managers 27.93 65.56 6.51 Agronomists 29.15 64.89 5.96 Artists 53.38 35.21 11.40 Other Occupations 51.34 34.23 14.43 *The structure is based on the number of NGOs that provided answers Table 16, NGO structure in percentages according to other types of occupations

NGO Structure according to engaging other types of occupations Occupation Yes No Temporarily

Pupils 48.30 42.01 9.69 Students 75.59 14.75 9.67 Unemployed 64.24 29.23 6.52 Pensioners 46.07 45.69 8.24 Agricultural workers, fishermen, hunters

24.02 70.01 5.97

Workers 23.86 68.40 7.74 Workers in all kinds of services

24.84 69.81 5.35

Workers in trade 30.66 62.85 6.49 Policemen, firemen, guards, etc.

11.76 84.02 4.22

Civil servants 43.16 46.71 10.13 Other Occupations 32.94 54.35 12.71


II

Table 17, General working conditions (internal) in NGOs Working Conditions Number of NGOs Structure in % Structure in % Without answer 11 1.34 ... Bad 432 52.62 53.47 Good 326 39.71 40.35 Excellent 52 6.33 6.44 Total 821 100.00 Table 18, The reasons for bad, good or excellent working conditions Reason Number of NGOs Structure in %* Lack of space 346 44.13 Lack of equipment 369 47.07 Lack of support of local authorities 15 1.91 Lack of support of federal government 8 1.02 Lack of funds for basic expenditures 175 22.32 No distinct legal status 6 0.77 Bad NGO infrastructure 20 2.55 Bad cooperation with other NGOs 3 0.38 Possess own premises 100 12.76 Due to an overall situation 41 5.23 Have equipment 84 10.71 Have everything they need for work 127 16.20 Inappropriate supply of foreign literature 15 1.91 Lack of professional personnel 3 0.38 Other 10 1.28 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 784 NGOs answered the question while 37 NGOs did not. Some NGOs stated few reasons (1322). The structure is based on 784 NGOs, i.e. on number of NGOs that gave answers regardless of number of their reasons.


III

Table 19, The number of desks Number of Desks Number of NGOs Structure in %

0 375 45.68 1 128 15.59 2 110 13.40 3 70 8.53 4 37 4.51 5 23 2.80 6 14 1.71 7 13 1.58 8 4 0.49 9 4 0.49 10 15 1.83 12 and more 28 3.41 Total 821 100.00 Table 20, Number of computers Number of Computers Number of NGOs Structure in % 0 389 47.38 1 240 29.23 2 70 8.53 3 36 4.38 4 18 2.19 5 17 2.07 6 6 0.73 7 7 0.85 8 6 0.73 9 2 0.24 10 and more 30 3.65 Total 821 100.00 Table 21, Number of printers Number of Printers Number of NGOs Structure in % 0 425 51.77 1 270 32.89 2 78 9.50 3 27 3.29 4 7 0.85 5 4 0.49 6 2 0.24 7 1 0.12 8 2 0.24 10 and more 5 0.61 Total 821 100.00


IV

Table 22, Number of modems Number of Modems Number of NGOs Structure in % 0 473 57.61 1 244 29.72 2 51 6.21 3 21 2.56 4 11 1.34 5 6 0.73 6 2 0.24 8 3 0.37 10 and more 10 1.22 Total 821 100.00 Table 23, Number of telephone lines Number of Telephone Lines Number of NGOs Structure in % 0 358 43.61 1 335 40.80 2 72 8.77 3 28 3.41 4 5 0.61 5 9 1.10 6 2 0.24 7 1 0.12 8 2 0.24 10 and more 9 1.10 Total 821 100.00 Table 24, Number of fax machines Number of Fax Machines Number of NGOs Structure in % 0 488 59.44 1 305 37.15 2 14 1.71 3 4 0.49 4 and more 10 1.22 Total 821 100.00 Table 25, Number of photocopiers Number of Photocopiers Number of NGOs Structure in % 0 678 82.58 1 120 14.62 2 11 1.34 3 4 0.49 5 and more 8 0.97 Total 821 100.00


V

Table 26, Number of cars Number of Cars Number of NGOs Structure in %

0 765 93.18 1 37 4.51 2 7 0.85 3 4 0.49 4 and more 8 0.97 Total 821 100.00 Table 27, Total equipment of NGOs

Number of Unit Equipment Total Number Activists Employees Volunteers Permanently Active

Computers 1338 34 1 42 10 Printers 675 67 1 83 19 Modems 697 65 1 80 19 Telephone Lines 859 53 1 65 15 Fax Machines 494 92 2 113 27 Typing Machines 241 188 4 232 54 Desks 1959 23 0 29 7 Photocopiers 207 219 5 270 63 Cars 107 424 9 522 123


VI

Table 28, Specific additional equipment necessary for NGOs Specific Additional Equipment Number of NGOs NGO Structure in % Computer Equipment 488 61.15 Photocopier 201 25.19 Cars, mini vans, busses 182 22.81 Printer 170 21.30 Office material and equipment 157 19.67 Telephone 132 16.54 Fax Machine 119 14.91 Premises 86 10.78 Scanner 83 10.40 Video Beam 68 8.52 Camera 67 8.40 TV and Video Recorder 58 7.27 Computers, Modems, Printers, Phone Lines, Fax Machines, Desks, Typing Machines, Photocopiers

44 5.51

Camera 35 4.39 There are no additional needs 26 3.26 Medical Equipment 25 3.13 Desk 25 3.13 Equipment for filming, montage, TV Studio 24 3.01 Laptop 21 2.63 Projector 21 2.63 Graphoscope 14 1.75 Education kit 14 1.75 Sound barrier 13 1.63 Books 13 1.63 Equipment for Alpinism and Speleology 11 1.38 Devices for Detection of Pollution 8 1.00 Boats 8 1.00 DVD 7 0.88 Dictaphone 7 0.88 Small printing equipment 7 0.88 Satellite Link for Internet and other Equipment 7 0.88 Other 6 0.75 Microscope 4 0.50 Musical Instruments 4 0.50 Wardrobe for Students 3 0.38 Equipment for Radio Stations 3 0.38 Combine and agricultural equip. 3 0.38 Nets for Birds 3 0.38 Toys for Children 3 0.38 Equipment for Exhibitions 3 0.38 Equipment for Dog Pound 2 0.25 Pediatric 2 0.25


VII

Specific Additional Equipment Number of NGOs NGO Structure in % Geography Maps 2 0.25 Stroboscope 2 0.25 Money 2 0.25 Freezer, Refrigerator 2 0.25 Flip-chart 1 0.13 Device for Noise Measurement 1 0.13 PH-meter 1 0.13 Thermometer 1 0.13 Utensils for Protection of Cultural Welfares 1 0.13 Wheelchair 1 0.13 Binoculars 1 0.13 Furnace 1 0.13 Painting Equipment 1 0.13 Equipment for Wood Treatment 1 0.13 Utensils for moderation 1 0.13 Equipment for TV Training Center 1 0.13 Utensils for approach to the TV function 1 0.13 Mini CD 1 0.13 Equipment for Light 1 0.13 Gama spectrometer 1 0.13 Detector 1 0.13 Geology Compass 1 0.13 Application 1 0.13 Didactic and Basic Educational Equipment 1 0.13 Knitting and Sewing Material 1 0.13 Washer and Drier 1 0.13 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 798 NGOs answered the question, while 23 NGOs did not. Some NGOs stated more than unnecessary things (2207). The structure is based on 798 NGOs, i.e. on the number of NGOs that answered the question regardless of the number of things.


VIII

Table 29, The way in which premises are obtained Obtained Premises Number of NGOs Structure in % Without Answer 120 Do not posses premises 315 44.94 Rent 295 42.08 Purchase 13 1.85 Gift 47 6.70 Other 31 4.42 Total 821 Table 30, NGOs structure according to the current projects

Projects in Realization Number of Projects Total Autonomous Projects In Cooperation with other NGOs

0 18.27 31.55 55.79 1 24.12 28.87 22.41 2 18.64 16.08 9.74 3 15.96 10.23 6.70 4 6.46 4.26 1.83 5 6.46 3.29 1.22 6 1.83 0.73 0.49 7 1.46 1.46 0.24 8 1.46 0.37 0.24 9 and more 5.36 3.17 1.34 Table 31, Comparison of the project in financial terms to the year 2000 Number of NGOs Structure in %

Without Answer 113 ... Bigger Today 392 55.37 Smaller Today 82 11.58 Same 234 33.05 Total 821 ... *The structure is based on NGOs who answered the question (708) Table 32, Cooperation with political institutions in the period before last elections

Republican Ministries Local Government Number of NGOs % Number of NGOs %

Without Answer 16 ... 25 ... Bad 262 32.55 216 27.14 Good 107 13.29 283 35.55 Excellent 11 1.37 38 4.77 Without Cooperation 425 52.80 259 32.54 *The structure is based on NGOs that answered the question (805 and 796)


IX

Table 33, Cooperation with the local authorities before the latest elections Cooperation Number of

NGOs Structure

in %

Persecuted, prohibition of work, considered as the NATO traitors 40 6.18 Ideologically and politically confronted because of the political orientation of the government

22 3.40

One off cooperation, insufficient engagement of local authorities 4 0.62 Because they are careerists, poltroons, bureaucrats, misused of the position

3 0.46

This NGO was ignored by them, did not obliged them 49 7.57 Gave very little money 8 1.24 Bad cooperation in every sense 11 1.70 Because of treating disabled as the second grade citizens 2 0.31 Non-adequate cooperation 5 0.77 The municipality does not deal with this problem 2 0.31 Bad cooperation until 1996 and good afterwards because the Coalition Zajedno took power

2 0.31

As individuals did not cooperate and after election are registered 1 0.15 They blocked activities 3 0.46 There were neither problems nor cooperation 3 0.46 They do not do their job 1 0.15 Lack of understanding of displaced persons’ problems 1 0.15 Because of incapacities 1 0.15 Lack of understanding 17 2.63 For the reason of adapted attitude related to NGOs 6 0.93 Partially, partial help 4 0.62 They did not fulfill the promises 4 0.62 We did not try to make contacts 3 0.46 Argue with the local authorities due to an identification with the sector 1 0.15 Because of the organization’s goals 1 0.15 They want to use NGOs 1 0.15

BA

D

Other 5 0.77


X

COOPERATION Number of

NGOs Structure

in %

Because of the opposition that took power, they helped with money and premises, invited NGOs to the media

40 6.18

They are related to the matter that have been always approved 2 0.31 Some members of the society were in power 3 0.46 In the beginning they didn’t understand the role of this particular NGO 1 0.15 They helped as much as they could, showed great understanding 82 12.67 A number of NGOs succeeded to influence the power 1 0.15 The NGO did not have political aspirations 1 0.15 The previous government has understanding while this one not 1 0.15 Because the NGOs were considered enemy 1 0.15 They neither helped nor made NGO work difficult 17 2.63 Because there were not communists at power 2 0.31 This NGO is satisfied with cooperation 2 0.31 The level of cooperation was limited by the republican government 1 0.15 In sharing the poverty, the cooperation was good 1 0.15 There were no problems 23 3.55 Depending on people that worked in the municipality 3 0.46 They were on the same mission (overthrowing Slobodan Milosevic) 5 0.77 It could be better 16 2.47 Partner’s relationship 9 1.39

GO

OD

Getting premises for meetings 5 0.77 The previous government knew what the third sector was 9 1.39 Regardless of the changes 1 0.15 They provided premises and equipment 1 0.15 Members of this NGO were in power 1 0.15 They were providing help to the resistance 2 0.31 They were ready for cooperation 12 1.85 Mutual help 1 0.15 E

XC

EL

LE

NT

Because the program we offered was good 4 0.62


XI

COOPERATION Number of

NGOs Structure

in %

This NGO WAS NOT INTERESTED in cooperation 18 2.78 Because the local government made this cooperation IMPOSSIBLE 17 2.63 The particular NGO DID NOT WANT contact 10 1.55 For OTHER REASONS 7 1.08 The NGO DID NOT CONTACT them, they do not know that this NGO exist

26 4.02

DIFFERENCES in opinions 18 2.78 THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED in organizations that were not run by the state

47 7.26

This NGO did not exist at that time 40 6.18 This NGO was not active in that period 1 0.15 Neither problems, nor cooperation 3 0.46 They were not open for cooperation 16 2.47 There was no response 5 0.77 Not Competent 1 0.15

WIT

HO

UT

CO

OPE

RA

TIO

N

Because of bad treatment of NGO and target group 2 0.31 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 647 NGOs answered the question, while 174 NGOs did not. Some NGOs gave more than one answer (658). The structure is based on 647 NGOs, i.e. on NGOs that answered the question regardless of the number of responses.


XII

Table 34, Cooperation with the republican ministries before the latest elections COOPERATION Number of

NGOs Structure in

%

Ideologically and politically CONFRONTED 54 7.86 The NGO itself DID NOT WANT the contact 7 1.02 There were independent media and the regime prohibited the functioning of these media

24 3.49

Short cooperation and after that there was no contact 6 0.87 THEY IGNORED this NGO 95 13.83 This NGO did not want to serve the regime 2 0.29 They did not give money 7 1.02 Because treating disabled as the second grade citizens 1 0.15 Humanitarian funds were misused and did not reach the real beneficiaries

4 0.58

Programs concerning the same problem differ 1 0.15 For the reason of the well known attitude that exist towards NGOs 6 0.87 Rigidity of ministries 2 0.29 This NGO could not register for a long period 11 1.60 Neither problems nor cooperation 3 0.44 They did not perform they job 3 0.44 They did not understand displaced persons 2 0.29 Hiding the truth on the exodus of displaced persons and misuse 2 0.29 Because of the type of work 1 0.15 Systematic approach 1 0.15 No adequate cooperation 4 0.58 Partially 1 0.15 This NGO was hiding its existence 1 0.15 In 1996 and 1997 this NGO was the only non-political organization 1 0.15 The power is politically implicated 1 0.15 Because of the type of work (Otpor) 1 0.15 Pay duty on humanitarian aid 3 0.44 Fictional support, more moral than financial 2 0.29 The state did not have funds and knowledge to develop the third sector 1 0.15 The view that this was the town problem 1 0.15 To provide the authorities with funds 1 0.15 Because of their monopoly 1 0.15 This organization discovered some machinations 1 0.15

BA

D

Other 3 0.44


XIII

This NGO knew the Minister personally 2 0.29 Sanitary inspection gave permission for import 4 0.58 The NGO could function without problem 4 0.58 Because they gave some money 7 1.02 They were partners in solving the problems of children 2 0.29 This NGO entered the register easily 2 0.29 With one ministry good, with others bad 6 0.87 They helped us with our activities 5 0.73 Good cooperation but it could be better 7 1.02 Some level of understanding and response to our requests 30 4.37 They helped as much as they could 3 0.44 It was in advance decided to get the part of funds 2 0.29 Support, but not financial 1 0.15 Did not prohibit 1 0.15

GO

OD

NGO itself fights for its position 1 0.15 Owing to private connections 1 0.15 They responded to our requests fast 1 0.15 Mutual cooperation 1 0.15 They helped our program 2 0.29 Owing to some other organizations 1 0.15 They did not cause problems 1 0.15 They financially supported the experts 1 0.15 E

XC

EL

LE

NT

Because of the type of work 1 0.15

COOPERATION Number of NGOs

Structure in %


XIV

Cooperation Number of

NGOs Structure in %

THIS NGO WAS NOT INTERESTED in cooperation 141 20.52 CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY OF ECOLOGY 2 0.29 Because the Republican Government HINDERS the cooperation 8 1.16 This NGO was questioned by the police and visited by the Secret Service

12 1.75

This NGO was in the process of registering at that time 47 6.84 This NGO was not active in that period 2 0.29 They were on opposite sides ideologically 30 4.37 Ignorance toward the problems of refugees 2 0.29 Lack of trust and knowledge on the third sector 11 1.60 Because of political reasons 33 4.80 Ignorance of authorities lack of readiness for cooperation 65 9.46 The regime did not allow the registration, prohibition of work 11 1.60 This NGO new the minister personally, small contact 1 0.15 This society office did not have any communication but through the Alliance of Societies

4 0.58

They were not interested in culture 3 0.44 Fear from misuses for political purposes 2 0.29 There was no need for cooperation (regularly provided by Bulletin) 3 0.44 There were no regulation on the NGOs work 1 0.15 They were in competition with the state authorities 2 0.29 They are apolitical 1 0.15 Good cooperation 1 0.15 Punished according to the Law on Information 1 0.15 Because the members were passive 1 0.15 This NGO could not reach the minister 1 0.15 The goal was changing of the government 1 0.15 Because of the bad treatment of minorities and NGOs 1 0.15

WIT

HO

UT

CO

OPE

RA

TIO

N

Because of the political situation 1 0.15 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 687 NGOs answered the question while 134 NGOs did not. Some NGOs gave more that one answer (728). The structure is based on 687 NGOs, i.e. on the number of NGOs that answered the question regardless of number of responses


XV

Table 35, Is the relationship with authorities improved after the political changes in Serbia Number of NGOs Structure in %*

Without answer 52 ... Not at all 133 17.30 Not that much 446 58.00 Absolutely 175 22.76 It is worse 15 1.95 Total 821 ... *The structure is based on the number of NGOs that answered the question (769) Table 36, Did you notice some changes in the environment after the political changes Number of NGOs Structure in %*

Without answer 21 ... Yes 312 39.00 No 226 28.25 Partially 262 32.75 Total 821 ... *The structure is based on 800 NGOs that answered the question


XVI

Table 37, What kind of changes did you notice in your environment after the political changes (towards the NGOs ) Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* Citizens wish to participate in NGO activities, better treatment of NGOs 57 8.28 Better treatment in the media, but municipality does not have money 18 2.62 More open approach to problem-solving, openness of the authorities, the atmosphere is better

141 20.49

There are no obstacles 39 5.67 The studies are comprehended seriously at the universities 2 0.29 Slow changes because of the obstructions and inexperience of new authorities

5 0.73

We can communicate and express our opinions more freely 29 4.22 The country is more open to other countries 6 0.87 Praise 3 0.44 In business there are less privileged 1 0.15 Publishing books is more successful 1 0.15 Negative attitude of the new authorities towards our NGO 4 0.58 Donors’ funds are going to the state bodies and not to NGOs 2 0.29 Optimism 7 1.02 No one needs us except our people 1 0.15 Incompetent cadre in the local government 3 0.44 Easier cooperation with donors 4 0.58 Individuals are not informed enough on the new government, its activities and goals

2 0.29

Lower standard of living 2 0.29 Incompetence of the authorities to solve the problems 1 0.15 Tensions are lower and citizens turned to everyday problems 1 0.15 The changes are not so much visible 1 0.15 Treatment of ill people is improved 1 0.15 Access to information is better 2 0.29 The structure of NGOs is changed 1 0.15 More interest in the Roma organizations 1 0.15

YE

S

Other 7 1.02


XVII

Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* Bad cooperation, ignorance of authorities 39 5.67 The time was short, no visible changes in cooperation, we expect improvement

18 2.62

We did not have any problems with the authorities before 18 2.62 Attitude of authorities towards NGOs has not changed 38 5.52 We were not active before 10 1.45 We were viewed as critics of the government 1 0.15 The relationship has nothing to do with political changes considering the nature of our activities

7 1.02

Because of changes themselves 3 0.44 Still lacking the financial and other support 3 0.44 Nonobjective information 1 0.15 The authorities chose their favorite NGOs and do not want to cooperate with others

1 0.15

No contacts whatsoever 2 0.29 The authorities are the target of criticism 1 0.15 They are not interested in this particular NGO 3 0.44 More freedom in working conditions 1 0.15 There are no changes, everything remained the same 3 0.44

NO

No communication with the authorities 2 0.29


XVIII

Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* NGOs are not the government’s priority, they are not interested in this particular NGO

6 0.87

Financial support is needed even more, the authorities help a little 3 0.44 It takes more time for changes to be visible 6 0.87 The atmosphere is better, but cooperation did not improve, the authorities show more understanding, but nothing else

129 18.75

Easier access to institutions and better cooperation 18 2.62 Nationalism decreases 1 0.15 The authorities react to NGO protests 4 0.58 Short period of time of the new government 7 1.02 New government did not fulfill expectations 6 0.87 Good cooperation even before 3 0.44 No more threats coming from authorities 15 2.18 Easier access to donors 1 0.15 Intensified meetings of NGOs 1 0.15 Wrong approach of authorities towards NGOs 2 0.29 Changed attitude towards NGOs 6 0.87 Citizens are better informed on us and ready to participate in our actions 10 1.45 Small financial aid 2 0.29 More open society 4 0.58 The pressure on students and professors decreases 1 0.15 No contacts between authorities and NGOs 5 0.73 The authorities mistrust NGOs due to previous disinformation 1 0.15 Political centers are trying to control NGOs 1 0.15 This NGO registered after the political changes 1 0.15 This NGO has just started its work 1 0.15 We are not the type of NGO on which the political changes could have any impact

1 0.15

Apathy among students – they are not engaged enough in the work of Student’s Union

2 0.29

DOS did not took all power yet 2 0.29 Citizens show more interest in disabled than authorities 1 0.15 The changes are not positive for this NGO 1 0.15

PA

RT

IAL

LY

Some changes have already occurred 1 0.15 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 688 NGOs answered the question, while 133 NGOs did not. Some NGOs stated more that one reason (735). The structure is based on 688 NGOs, i.e. on NGOs that answered the question, regardless of the number of their reasons


XIX

Table 38, The way in which NGOs achieve communication with their beneficiaries and activists

Communication With Beneficiaries With Activists

Way

Number of NGOs

Structure in % Number of NGOs

Structure in %

At regular meetings 170 29.26 304 50.84 At occasional meetings 409 70.40 454 75.92 Through personal communication 382 65.75 259 43.31 Other 15 2.58 6 1.00 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 687 NGOs answered the question, while 134 NGOs did not (beneficiaries) and 673 NGOs answered the question while 148 NGOs did not (activists). Some NGOs stated few ways (976-beneficiaries) and (1023-activists). The structure is based on 687 / 673 NGOs e.g. on NGOs that answered the question, regardless of the number of stated ways.

Table 39, Groups of NGO beneficiaries Number of NGOs Structure in* %

Poor 214 16.37 Refugees 216 16.53 Displaced persons 176 13.47 Roma 153 11.71 Handicapped 167 12.78 Blind 81 6.20 Self-Supporting Mothers 150 11.48 Women 150 11.48 Total 1307 100.00 *The structure is based on 1307 NGOs (one NGO can provide services for more than one group of beneficiaries)


XX

Table 40, The criteria for providing services to various NGOs’ beneficiaries Number of NGOs Structure in %*

Aid is provided to all who ask for help 201 35.89 Lowest income 108 19.29 Interviews and surveys 81 14.46 Based on data and surveys of others 42 7.50 Based on priority cases 27 4.82 Depending on activities, mission, goal, statute 21 3.75 Based on age 20 3.57 Limited by project 19 3.39 Women, self-supporting mothers 17 3.04 Students and pupils 16 2.86 Members 15 2.68 Regulated refugee status, those who wish to return to B&H 15 2.68 The level of disability 13 2.32 Type of illness and handicap 12 2.14 Based on the occupation 10 1.79 Talented and successful pupils 10 1.79 Donors decide 9 1.61 Depends on resources, limited funds 9 1.61 Youth 9 1.61 Violated human rights 9 1.61 Based on social category 8 1.43 Roma and their settlements 8 1.43 Handicapped 8 1.43 Any kind of vulnerability 8 1.43 Status (social, legal, biological, health) 6 1.07 Healthy, but socially vulnerable children 6 1.07 Based on cooperation with other NGOs 5 0.89 Informal conversation 5 0.89 Decision is made by the Managing Board 4 0.71 Violence in the family 4 0.71 Beneficiaries with special needs, according to priorities 4 0.71 Those who have the most contacts with citizens 3 0.54 Cooperation with municipality 3 0.54 Certain type of institutions (cultural, religious) 3 0.54 Geographical criteria 3 0.54 Based on the capacity for work 3 0.54 Marginalized people 3 0.54 Based on seriousness of the problem 3 0.54 Test 3 0.54 From case to case, depending on seriousness of the problem 3 0.54 Open competition 3 0.54 Education level 3 0.54 Traumatized persons 3 0.54 Children of divorced parents or without parents 2 0.36 Contemporary research in art 2 0.36 Belongings to the group in NGO 2 0.36 Ill children 2 0.36 Successes in work 2 0.36


XXI

Number of NGOs Structure in %* Previous experience 2 0.36 Based on the structure of refugees 2 0.36 Endangered species 2 0.36 In cooperation with schools 2 0.36 According to the scope of the association 2 0.36 Based on the open society principles 2 0.36 Other 32 5.71 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 560 NGOs answered the question, while 261 NGOs did not. Some NGOs stated more than one criteria (819). The structure is based on 560 NGOs, i.e. on NGOs that answered the question regardless of the number of stated criteria.

Table 41, How NGOs recruit citizens/activists Recruitment Number of NGOs Structure in %*

Public announcements 194 24.37 Through media presentations 462 58.04 Personal contacts, telephone 419 52.64 Recommendations 36 4.52 Through NGO work and activities 113 14.20 Through e-mail and web communication 32 4.02 Leaflets, posters 82 10.30 Through social work or Red Cross offices 6 0.75 Organization Publications 14 1.76 Letters 25 3.14 Member contacts 27 3.39 Cultural events 8 1.01 Trade union contacts 2 0.25 Voluntary approach 20 2.51 Research 1 0.13 Through branch offices in Serbia 2 0.25 Other (through coordinators, community organizations) 6 0.75 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 796 NGOs provided the answer, while 25 NGOs did not reply. Some of the NGOs gave multiple answers (1449). The structure was calculated according to 796 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of recruiting methods.


XXII

Table 42, How NGOs communicate with the donors Number of NGOs Structure in %*

Donors call 311 39.92 Own request 628 80.62 Recommendations, intermediary, personal contacts, through other NGOs

37 4.75

Conferences, seminars, gatherings, symposiums 7 0.90 Never had communication, nobody interested, never had donor 62 7.96 Meetings, travel, visits 3 0.39 Network resources, own resources, managing boards are donors 6 0.77 Internet, web sites, e-mail, telephone, promotion materials 18 2.31 Informal lobbying 1 0.13 Submitting projects, requesting support for projects 10 1.28 Announcements for projects 28 3.59 SUS 4 0.51 We have two donors, agreements (grants) 2 0.26 Mostly insufficient support 2 0.26 Searching for adequate partners 1 0.13 During realization and evaluation of projects 1 0.13 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 779 NGOs provided the answer and 42 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (1121). The structure was calculated according to 779 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of communication means. Table 43, Are they satisfied with the communication with the donors until present? Number of NGOs Structure in %*

No answer 87 ... Yes 346 47.14 No 183 24.93 Partially 205 27.93 Total 821 ... *The Structure was calculated according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers


XXIII

Table 44, What would you change in your communication with the donors? Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* More practical and less complicated cooperation, direct contacts with the donors

218 32.39

Better insight in the problems, more thorough approach 202 30.01 Nothing 104 15.45 Changing the donors, donor organization and functioning, public calls 101 15.01 More money, better distribution of money, provision of equipment instead of money

81 12.04

Applying models, more flexibility and less democracy 41 6.09 Safe financing, extending deadlines, long-term cooperation 28 4.16 Stricter criteria for grant making, closer check ups of NGOs 21 3.12 Financing program actions 19 2.82 Never had donors 16 2.38 Attitude towards new NGOs and less known NGOs 11 1.63 Greater donor interest 11 1.63 Creating donor strategies, initiatives, they do not respond to requests 8 1.19 Donors’ expertise, reaching wrong decisions 7 1.04 There are few donors, there are more donors conferences 7 1.04 Greater efficiency of particular NGOs 6 0.89 Creating smaller programs and distributing money to NGOs 6 0.89 More professional relationship based on economic principles 5 0.74 Introducing practice of submitting projects in two languages 4 0.59 A lot 3 0.45 Contacts at higher levels 2 0.30 Financing programs that will make our NGO independent 2 0.30 Other 21 3.12 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 673 NGOs provided the answer and 148 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (924). The structure was calculated regarding 673 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers. Table 45, Contacts between NGOs and authorities Number of NGOs Structure in %*

No answer 14 ... Often 165 20.45 From time to time 376 46.59 Seldom 158 19.58 Never 108 13.38 Total 821 ... *The structure was calculated regarding the number of NGOs that provided the answers (807).


XXIV

Table 46, How NGOs communicate with the authorities Number of NGOs Structure in %*

Meetings on the initiative of the authorities 243 34.42 Asking for reception 443 62.75 By post 163 23.09 Informal 279 39.52 Meetings in the NGOs 110 15.58 At public meetings 168 23.80 Other 37 5.24 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 706 NGOs provided the answer and 115 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (1443). The structure was calculated regarding 706 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers. Table 47, How NGOs communicate with the citizens Number of NGOs Structure in %* Organizing regular press conferences 202 25.51 Organizing round tables and public discussions 410 51.77 NGO representatives appear in TV programs 515 65.03 NGO representatives appear in radio programs 556 70.20 By other information channels 383 48.36 Appointments and discussions on certain issues 317 40.03 Posters 381 48.11 Advertisements 249 31.44 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 792 NGOs provided the answer and 29 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (3013). The structure was calculated regarding 792 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers.


XXV

Table 48, Types of aid the NGOs provided to the citizens Types of aid Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* Humanitarian aid 182 27.87 Legal aid 106 16.23 Various types of education 102 15.62 Intellectual, counseling, intermediary and expert aid 92 14.09 Information, media 82 12.56 Medical, psychosocial aid 63 9.65 Sports and ecology events 60 9.19 Organizing seminars on NGOs, publications, open discussions, bulletins 43 6.58 Culture 36 5.51 Aid to self-supporting mothers and children 29 4.44 Donating to local projects, resolving local problems 23 3.52 Motivating women to participate in protecting human rights 16 2.45 Housing of refugees and securing their return 16 2.45 Additional, alternative education, student support, courses in various fields, preparation for university admission tests

13 1.99

Youth education, resolving problems of youth and students 11 1.68 Haven’t so far, it is not their job to provide aid 11 1.68 Family development and support to parents 7 1.07 Not lately, nothing 6 0.92 Raising awareness on civil society 5 0.77 Multiethnic issues, interventions, consultancy, cooperation with minorities 5 0.77

Care for the elderly 5 0.77 All types of aid to Roma 5 0.77 Promotion of European values, introducing the European way of life 4 0.61 Lobbying 4 0.61 All types of aid they could provide 4 0.61 Entrepreneurship, connections with entrepreneurs 3 0.46 Good will and spiritual education 3 0.46 When needed, understanding for their needs 3 0.46 Providing space 3 0.46 Opportunity for applying with projects 2 0.31 Photocopying 2 0.31 Moral support 2 0.31 Aid to the victims of domestic violence 2 0.31 Other 14 2.14 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 653 NGOs provided the answer and 158 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (964). The structure was calculated regarding 653 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers.


XXVI

Table 49, Do you consider necessary for your NGO to continue with the work done in the previous period Number of NGOs Structure in %* No answer 17 ... With the same range of activities 111 13.81 Reducing the range of activities 21 2.61 Increasing the range of activities 672 83.58 Total 821 ... *The structure was calculated regarding 804 NGOs that provided the answer Table 50, What can NGOs offer to each other Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* Individual experiences, cooperation in their area of expertise 230 28.71 Expert advice and education, consultation, ideas and programs, knowledge and experience of studying abroad

118 14.73

Field research results, actions, projects, data bases, information 67 8.36 Education, knowledge, training 66 8.24 Help in developing democracy, projects in the area of human rights protection 63 7.87 Cooperation in the area of culture and education, support in the improving local cultural life

57 7.12

Help in city development in health, ecology and education, cooperation 52 6.49 Humanitarian work, enthusiasm, cooperation in humanitarian activities 45 5.62 Improvement, resolving problems in the local administration, help in conflict resolution

39 4.87

Everything they ask for, all kinds of cooperation 39 4.87 Ideas, independence, tolerance, team work, openness 37 4.62 Cooperation with other NGOs 37 4.62 Intellectual services, aid in strategic planning and writing project proposals 30 3.75 Helping in realization of women emancipation projects, education for women working in different institutions

27 3.37

Providing medical services and health protection 26 3.25 Greater sensibility to the problems of disabled 26 3.25 Human resources 23 2.87 Specialist education for the staff in different institutions 20 2.50 Media support, public relations work, creating the political image, control of the media

19 2.37

Resolving problems of IDPs, education of refugees, working on missing persons cases, minority issues

18 2.25

Programs for support to Roma in all areas of life 16 2.00 International contacts, projects for approaching EU 15 1.87 Technical support in development, logistics 13 1.62 Health education 12 1.50 Family care 9 1.12 Drafts in the local governance and other areas, restitution of property 8 1.00


XXVII

Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* Projects in developing enterprises, arranging contacts with the owners of small and medium enterprises

8 1.00

Projects for resolving social problems, problems of the vulnerable, social care 6 0.75 Lack of equipment, space and help 6 0.75 Better conditions in agriculture when cooperating 4 0.50 Capable and talented young people 3 0.37 Transition 3 0.37 Quality training on the active listening techniques 3 0.37 Alternative projects and programs, innovations 2 0.25 Insight in the work of other NGOs, information exchange 2 0.25 Other 13 1.62 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 801 NGOs provided the answer and 20 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (1170). The structure was calculated regarding 801 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers. Table 51, What NGOs can offer to the local authorities Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* Expertise and education, advice, ideas and programs, knowledge and experience of foreign students

96 12.68

Improvement, resolving problems of the local self-governance, help in problem resolving

89 11.76

Individual experiences and cooperation in their fields of expertise 87 11.49 Field research results in the field, activities, projects, data-bases 72 9.51 Help in developing democracy, projects in the sphere of human rights protection and advancement

65 8.59

Cooperation in the sphere of culture and education, help in improving the cultural life in the community

59 7.79

Help in city development in terms of health, ecology and education, cooperation

51 6.74

Humanitarian work, enthusiasm, cooperation in humanitarian activities 45 5.94 Identifying the priorities concerning the youth and their needs 45 5.94 Education of the individual, knowledge, training 44 5.81 Drafts in the sphere of local self-governance and in other areas, restitution of the property

27 3.57

Ideas of the members, independence, tolerance, team work, openness 26 3.43 Intellectual help, writing project proposals 26 3.43 Everything they want, all types of cooperation 25 3.30 Critical attitude towards the authorities 24 3.17 Programs of support to Roma in all areas of life 23 3.04 International contacts, projects for approaching EU 23 3.04


XXVIII

Number of

NGOs Structure

in %* Help in realization of the women’s emancipation projects, education for women in institutions

23 3.04

Help in project realization 22 2.91 Specialist training of staff working in government institutions 21 2.77 Work with IDPs, education of refugees, missing persons cases, minorities 19 2.51 Social problems resolving projects, working with the vulnerable population, social care

19 2.51

Health education 15 1.98 Human resources 15 1.98 Providing health care and health protection 15 1.98 Media support, public relations, creating political image, control of the media 11 1.45 Projects for developing enterprises, initializing contacts with the owners of the small and medium enterprises

10 1.32

Cooperation with the NGOs 7 0.92 Education of the administrative workers 6 0.79 Family care 6 0.79 Team for changing the impact on the environment 6 0.79 Capable and talented young people 5 0.66 Technical support in equipment, logistics 5 0.66 Open discussions, lectures 4 0.53 Better conditions in agriculture through cooperation 3 0.40 Volunteers for working with the elderly 2 0.26 Suggestions for the decentralization in decision making 2 0.26 Alternative programs and projects, innovation 2 0.26 Information important for sustainable development 2 0.26 Reorganization of the health system 2 0.26 Lack of equipment, space and help 2 0.26 Organizing volunteer activities 2 0.26 Counseling and research services regarding gender, projects and decisions 2 0.26 Insight in work of other NGOs 2 0.26 Other 10 1.32 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 757 NGOs provided the answer and 64 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (1067). The structure was calculated regarding 757 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers.


XXIX

Table 52, Expert teams for analyzing and resolving problems Team Number of NGOs Structure in %*

None 283 36.47 Ecology, ecology marketing, urban and rural ecology 141 18.17 Law, international humanitarian law 86 11.08 Education, schooling, additional training 54 6.96 Psychology and pedagogy 45 5.80 Economics 41 5.28 Cultural events, culture 40 5.15 Healthcare 39 5.03 Research, psychosocial research, public opinion polling 35 4.51 Analysis of the laws on protection of children rights 27 3.48 Analysis of the laws on women’s human rights 26 3.35 Humanitarian aid and work 26 3.35 Media, journalism 19 2.45 Agriculture and economy 18 2.32 Analysis of minority rights, work with ethnic groups 18 2.32 Resolving professional problems 18 2.32 Protection of cultural heritage, urbanism 16 2.06 Civil society 16 2.06 NGO work 15 1.93 International cultural cooperation and exchange 13 1.68 Problems of youth, adolescent delinquency 12 1.55 Analysis of the laws on local governance 11 1.42 All areas 10 1.29 Archeology, astronomy, biology, speleology 10 1.29 Informing and helping refugees and IDPs, providing data on them 10 1.29 Political science 9 1.16 Public relations 9 1.16 Management 8 1.03 Innovation, technical and natural science research 7 0.90 Educational system 7 0.90 Analysis of the drug and alcohol addiction 6 0.77 Transition problems 4 0.52 Problems of the war and military invalids 3 0.39 Geology 3 0.39 Free of customs zone 2 0.26 Work with trade unions 2 0.26 Publishing 2 0.26 Demography 1 0.13 Gerontology 1 0.13 Video production 1 0.13 Internet, information science 1 0.13 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 776 NGOs provided the answer and 45 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (1095). The structure was calculated regarding 776 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers.


XXX

Table 53, Seminars organized by NGOs and attended by their activists, volunteers and employees Types of seminars Number of NGOs Structure in %* Specialist seminars related to NGO management 89 21.45 Seminars related to civil society development and human rights 82 19.76 Ecology seminars 51 12.29 Seminars in health care and psychosocial assistance 50 12.05 Research stations, seminar in scientific areas 34 8.19 Nonviolent communication and constructive conflict resolution 34 8.19 Journalist school, relations with media, press marketing 30 7.23 Seminars on women’s rights 30 7.23 Seminars in art and culture 26 6.27 Seminars on children’s rights and parenting 21 5.06 Volunteer work 19 4.58 Writing and conducting projects 18 4.34 Seminars on humanitarian work 18 4.34 Seminars on entrepreneurship, business planning, marketing 17 4.10 Computer courses 16 3.86 Youth schools, workshops, interactive education 14 3.37 Seminars on interethnic tolerance 9 2.17 Europe, world, integration 9 2.17 Foreign language courses 6 1.45 Regional and economic cooperation, inter-sector cooper. 6 1.45 Academic studies 4 0.96 Seminars for revitalization of rural areas 3 0.72 Seminars related to trade union organizing 3 0.72 Corruption 2 0.48 Raising quality of governance 2 0.48 Social role of the theatre 2 0.48 Other 5 1.20 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 415 NGOs provided the answer and 406 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (600). The structure was calculated regarding 415 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers.


XXXI

Table 54, Seminars organized by other NGOs or specialized institutions and attended by activists, volunteers and employees Type of seminar Number of NGOs Structure in %* Civil society 274 44.63 NGO development 170 27.69 Specialist seminars 116 18.89 Ecology 54 8.79 Women’s rights 54 8.79 Humanitarian work 46 7.49 Seminars for parents, work with children 35 5.70 Media 28 4.56 EU and world integration 22 3.58 Interrelations between health care and community 9 1.47 Psychosocial aid 8 1.30 Local self-governance, community development 5 0.81 Corruption 3 0.49 Health system, AIDS 3 0.49 Theater role 2 0.33 Other 1 0.16 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 614 NGOs provided the answer and 207 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (830). The structure was calculated regarding 614 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers.


XXXII

Table 55, Required types of education for NGOs Types of education Number of NGOs Structure in %* NGO sector management 314 45.18 Advanced qualification, computer work, foreign languages 228 32.81 Media, public relations 59 8.49 Ecology, healthy food and bird protection 54 7.77 Civil society development 42 6.04 Legal aid, European legislation standards 40 5.76 Medicine 31 4.46 Economy 31 4.46 Humanitarian work, social work 23 3.31 Not needed 23 3.31 Cultural education 18 2.59 NGO management, fund raising 17 2.45 All 14 2.01 All areas 13 1.87 Family advancement, children’s rights 11 1.58 Women’s rights 11 1.58 Local community development 10 1.44 Intercultural and multicultural relations, minority rights 9 1.29 Information, public relations 9 1.29 Computer courses 9 1.29 Agricultural sphere 7 1.01 Work with refugees and IDPs 6 0.86 Education of Roma and their rights 3 0.43 Teachers work in demanding conditions 2 0.29 Theology 2 0.29 Volunteer training 1 0.14 Management 1 0.14 English courses 1 0.14 International relations 1 0.14 Specialized seminars 1 0.14 *Out of the total number of interviewed (821 NGOs), 695 NGOs provided the answer and 126 NGOs did not reply. Some NGOs provided multiple answers (991). The structure was calculated regarding 695 NGOs, i.e. according to the number of NGOs that provided the answers, regardless of the number of answers.


XXXIII

Table 56, Knowledge of foreign languages Knowledge of foreign languages Knowledge of foreign languages (in %)*

Employees Activists Employees Activists None 26 41 11.02 6.33 Speak one language 135 423 57.20 65.28 Speak more languages 75 184 31.78 28.40 *The structure was calcula ted regarding the number of NGOs that provided the answer (236 NGOs for employees and 648 NGOs for activist).

Table 57, Computer skills Computer skills Computer skills (in %*) Employees Activists Employees Activists Excellent 86 152 36.44 23.68 Satisfactory 126 418 53.39 65.11 Non 24 72 10.17 11.21 *The structure was calculated regarding the number of NGOs that provided the answer (236 NGOs for employees and 642 NGOs for activist).

Table 58, NGOs within regions Regions Number of NGOs in % Central Serbia (total) 619 75.40 Belgrade 314 38.25 Vojvodina 202 24.60 Serbia without Kosovo and Metohija 821 100.00 Table 59, NGOs within the regions of Serbia Regions Number of NGOs in % Northeast Serbia 26 3.17 Central region of Serbia 77 9.38 Western Serbia 50 6.09 Sandzak 29 3.53 Eastern Serbia 43 5.24 South Serbia 80 9.74 Belgrade 314 38.25 Vojvodina 202 24.60 Total 821 100.00

34

Authors: NGO Policy Group – Sanja Nikolin, Zarko Paunovic, Natasa Vuckovic, Refik Secibovic Sanja Nikolin , M.A. (NGO Consultant – expertise in NGO management, social policy and planning); Zarko Paunovic (B.A. in Political Sciences; Director, Center for the Development of Non-Profit Sector – expertise in analyses and development of NGOs); Natasa Vuckovic (Lawyer; Director, Center for Democracy Foundation –expertise in civic education); Refik Secibovic, Ph.D. (Professor, Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade; President of the Assembly of the Belgrade Open School – expertise in economic geography, alternative education).

Date post:	03-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Contents and reports/English/UNDP_SRB_Third...Natasa Janjic, Predrag Kanazir, Aleksandra Brankovic,...

Documents