This is a web publication presenting data from research on the situation in the NGO sector in Serbia in the first half of 2009. This period was marked with an intensive campaign for the adoption of the NGO Law and the establishment of the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society. The NGO Law was adopted in July 2009, and the Office was formally established by the GovernmentDecree in April 2010. Both the new NGO Law and the Office illustrate the increased influence of the sector and the improved communication with the government. However, since data in this survey were collected in May-June 2009, they reflect the situation in the sector before these major developments. The main objective of this survey was to ascertain the general situation in the NGO sector in Serbia in mid-2009 and compare it with the situation outlined in the research carried out in early 2005.

1. Citizens’ Association for Democracy and Civic Education
Simina 9a • 11 000 Belgrade • Tel/fax: +381 11 2625-942; 2623-980 • civin@gradjanske. org • www.gradjanske.org
NGOs IN SERBIA
2009
This publication other information product (specify)] is made possible by the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
under the “Civil Society Advocacy Initiative” program, implemented by the Institute for Sustainable Communities.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily re ect the views of ISC, USAID or the United States Government.

2. Table of Contents
1. Summary of findings..............................................................................................................................................................................................................3
2. Description of Research........................................................................................................................................................................................................5
3. Presentation of data...............................................................................................................................................................................................................8
4. Key findings on the NGO sector...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.1. Basic information and working conditions......................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2. Mission, areas of work and activities..................................................................................................................................................................... 17
1.3. Legal/fiscal regulations.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
1.4. Political context ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 41
1.5. Structure of NGOs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48
1.6. NGO cooperation – networking ............................................................................................................................................................................. 51
1.7. NGO cooperation with the state............................................................................................................................................................................. 61
1.8. NGO cooperation with the business sector........................................................................................................................................................ 71
1.9. NGO cooperation with the media.......................................................................................................................................................................... 79
1.10. Personnel and volunteers....................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
1.11. Attitude of the public towards NGOs................................................................................................................................................................. 92
1.12. Diversity within the sector/regional standardization.................................................................................................................................105
1.13. Financial stability – sources of financing ........................................................................................................................................................109
1.14. Involvement of t he community – users in the work of NGOs ...............................................................................................................123
1.15. Quality of services ...................................................................................................................................................................................................125
1.16. Training for the NGO personnel.........................................................................................................................................................................129
1.17. Cooperation with NGOs within the wider region........................................................................................................................................133
1.18. The most important problems for the sustainability of NGOs................................................................................................................135
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

3. ndings
This is a web publication presenting data from research on the situation in the NGO sector in Serbia in the first half of 2009. This
period was marked with an intensive campaign for the adoption of the NGO Law and the establishment of the Office for
Cooperation with Civil Society. The NGO Law was adopted in July 2009, and the Office was formally established by the Government
Decree in April 2010. Both the new NGO Law and the Office illustrate the increased influence of the sector and the improved
communication with the government. However, since data in this survey were collected in May-June 2009, they reflect the
situation in the sector before these major developments. The main objective of this survey was to ascertain the general situation
in the NGO sector in Serbia in mid-2009 and compare it with the situation outlined in the research carried out in early 2005.
As in 2005, the absence of uniform evidence on NGOs was a serious problem confronted by «Strategic Marketing», the agency that
conducted the research. It is anticipated that this problem will not appear in future surveys, as the Serbian Business Registers
Agency is completing the Register of Citizens’ Associations as a result of the adoption of the new Law on Associations and the
process of re-registration. In April 2010 we will have the first comprehensive database of the NGO sector in Serbia ever.
After cross-referencing and a detailed updating of existing databases, we arrived at a basic group of 316 non-governmental
organizations from the sample of 516 that was used in the 2005 research. Out of the 316 NGOs, 294 were still active in May 2009,
30 did not took part in the research, and 36 new organizations were included in the sample. Although reduced in number, this
presented quite a similar sample to the one from the 2005 research. However, one should bear in mind that this is a limited sample
and that data and analysis should be taken as a starting point for a further exploration of the NGO sector status rather than
considered a thorough review of the sector.
In terms of survey findings, it reveals that the NGO sector is better equipped and its employees more skilled: computer literacy and
the knowledge of English in the sector have increased since in 2005. The workspace situation is somewhat better than in 2005, and
the percentage of organizations that own their space has slightly increased (from 6% to 10%), so renting remains the prevalent
way of dealing with this problem. There is a slight increase in the percentage of organizations that have secured space for the next
2-3 years and over 3 years (31% compared to 29% in 2005); still, for a large percentage this issue will remain a problem.
The majority of organizations assert that their organization has a defined mission, which is almost the same as in 2005, with a
slight increase in the number of NGOs whose mission is related to the development of the local community and the improvement
of the citizens’ quality of life. Most of organizations in this sector deal with young people and students, education and research and
the protection of human rights (59%). In comparison with 2005, there is an increase of NGOs dealing with environment, legislation
and public politics and the protection of national minorities, while there is a decrease in the number of NGOs providing assistance
to refugees and IDPs.
The primary or direct beneficiaries of NGO services are most often citizens, youth, women and children, with fewer NGOs dealing
with refugees and IDPs, and more dealing with sexual minorities, which certainly indicates a change in the perception of needs
among NGOs.
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

4. ndings
The main change is that the funding situation and outlook for financial stability, although not very good, still seems better than in
2005: in 2009, 43% of NGOs did not secure funding for 2009, which compared to 63% in 2005 is an improvement. However, this still
means that for almost half of the NGOs, the funding situation remains unstable. NGOs remain highly dependent on international
donors - and in this sense, the situation is not much different. However, there is a noticeable increase in funding coming from local
sources: local governments, domestic donor organizations, ministries and the business sector. Though encouraging, this data also
demonstrates firstly, that international funding can still not be fully replaced by local sources, and secondly, that the sector needs
more time in order to shift from foreign donors as the main sources of support.
It is interesting that, when the problems of locating resources are referred to, the lack of information fell to the second place, while
the key issue became complex requests of donors both when competing for projects as well as during implementation. This shows
that NGOs are still lagging behind the changes in the donors’ community (a smaller number of international donors, increased
presence of public and EU funds).
The political situation is judged as significantly improved in comparison to 2005, and the percentage of those who feel that the
political context is unsuitable or very unsuitable dropped from 54% to 43%. It is interesting that political parties are recognized as
the only stakeholders whose influence on NGOs increased in the last period. The state is generally seen as more cooperative than
in 2005, and there is a higher level of cooperation and an increase of NGOs who feel that the state started to regard them as a
partner. Still, although there are numerous issues identified, in comparison with the 2005 research the main issue is not a lack of
interest from the state, but the complicated administration and bureaucracy.
The relationship with the business sector changed in the sense that the business sector is seen as an important stakeholder, and
NGOs recognize the need to cooperate, which is a continuation of the positive shift from 2001 - 2005.
Nevertheless, and similarly to the 2005 research, one of the dominant impressions remains the absence of the objectivity of NGOs
in estimating their own capacities, qualities, and the expertise of their work, their relationships with the media, and their positions
in the local communities and the public in general. Again, as in 2005, often the «desired» answers were given, and therefore they
contradict the findings of the public opinion poll1, most notably with regard to the uninformed attitudes of the public toward the
NGO sector and the needs of the community and society, even while NGOs seem generally satisfied with their PR and media skills.
Finally, it is concerning that direct contacts with citizens, as a method of relations with the public decreased from 2005, especially
considering that citizens are the main users and constituency of NGOs.
The data shows that there are substantial and visible divisions in the sector, whatever the parameters are. On the one hand there
are «big» organizations, mostly from Belgrade and formed before 2000, and on the other mostly «new», small, local organizations,
whose survival is particularly endangered. The differences between the groupings is to the advantage of the «big», most
noticeably in their capacities (in personnel and infrastructure), access to financial sources, and the understanding of the necessity
of cooperation and greater involvement in various networks and regional projects.
Civic Initiatives,
Belgrade, June 2010
1“Perception of NGOs“ carried out in May 2009
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

5. 2. 2. 2. Description of Research
Description of of Research
Description Research
The main objective of the survey was to ascertain the general situation in the NGO The analysis of the sample structure showed that, according to the structure of the
sector in Serbia and to compare it with the situation outlined in research carried out main criteria, the sample fits the population from the 2005 research. For the purpose
in early 2005. Since the monitoring of changes in the NGO sector was a main of the reliability of comparisons, smaller corrections were achieved through post
research objective, the sample of NGOs from the 2005 research was used as stratification (weighting), so that the final sample represents well the NGO
population, and data were collected by the same questionnaire which was used in population from 2005 in terms of regional coverage, the size of NGO and the year of
2005 (with minimal additions). establishment.
Sample frame: The sample of 516 NGOs which participated in the research SAMPLE
conducted in 2005, stratified by regions (Belgrade, Vojvodina and Central Serbia),
the size of the organization (small organizations – up to 15 employees, medium SAMPLE 2009 N = 300
organizations - from 15 to 30 employees, and large organizations – 30+ people),
membership in FENS, and the year of establishment (before 2000 and after 2000, i.e.
during the Milosevic regime, and after the change of the regime in October 2000).
registration
46%
Year of
Sample selection: The selection of a sample required several steps, above all an Before 2000
update on the existing database containing 516 NGOs. Since information about
2000 or later 54%
NGOs does not exist in any unique database, this was done through the use of
available sources of information. The first step was the attempt to get in touch with 23%
Culture, education, ecology
all 516 NGOs by various contacts (phones, email addresses) which existed in the
Priority area of activity
sample base from the year 2005. Since a considerable number of NGOs have Humanitarian and social work 19%
changed addresses, phone numbers, and even e-mail addresses, we tried to find
additional information on the websites of the given NGOs. As this attempt also gave Young, economy, 15%
Young, economy, professional associations
just partial results, Strategic Marketing (SM) used databases which Civic Initiatives professional associations
and BCIF provided. SM also used a "snowball" method to collect information (which Development of civile society 13%
coordinators applied in given territorial locality).
Protection of human rights
P i fh i h 29%
By application of all these procedures, and within the time framework planned for
the project implementation, we accomplished the following results: Up to 14 59%
31%
Size
15 30
Population (the sample of NGO from the 2005 research) 516
31+ 9%
ed NGOs 316
Member Yes 54%
ed 294 of FENS
No 46%
Number of NGOs which did not accept cooperation 30
Number of NGOs from population with which the Belgrade 25%
264
interview was carried out successfully
Region
Central Serbia 47%
Number of NGOs included in the sample which were not
36 Vojvodina 28%
included in the 2005 sample
Total number of successfully held interviews 300
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

6. 2. 2. 2. Description of Research
Description of of Research
Description Research
Respondents with a note that the base of organizations is less than 60, and therefore the results
can be taken as indicators only and should be further examined.
Respondents participating in this research (both for NGOs and donors) were people
n senior positions within organizations, those who were familiar with their The size of organization was defined by the total number of active personnel in the
organization’s functioning and whose opinions are relevant in decision-making organization. This number included members of the managing board, coordinators,
processes within their organization. employees and part-time workers, but not volunteers. This number was divided in 3
categories: up to 15 people – small organizations, from 15 to 30 people –
Research period medium-sized organizations, more than 30 people – big organizations.
The research was conducted from 12th May until 2nd June 2009. FENS membership enables us to outline the situation in the sector both within this
Methodology network and outside it. As we said before, the sample itself favored organizations
which are members of this network. This was done in order to have a large enough
Interviewers set interviews with respondents. The interviews were conducted in the base within the network so that conclusions on the situation of the sector could be
respective premises of organizations in the form of structured interviews. drawn. In all the questions showing significant difference in this variable, we
Questionnaires included mostly closed-ended questions with a smaller number of presented separate results for members and non-members of FENS network.
open-ended questions.
Region – the region was established based on the municipality where the seat of the
Each area covered by the survey was represented with a set of questions in the organization is. In the analyses we used the division in three basic regions with their
questionnaire, which was comprehensive and the interviews lasted approximately socioeconomic peculiarities: Belgrade, Vojvodina and Central Serbia.
for 1 hour.
To thoroughly achieve the main goal of this research, and that is to outline the
Data analysis overall position of the non-governmental sector in Serbia and to enable comparison
with the 2005 survey, we defined the same areas that we thought will best present
All questions from the questionnaire were cross-referenced by a few basic variables.
an objective picture of the sector. However, in the 2009 research we did not include
Every question was represented in the form of table which shows the total and
opinions of different donor organizations.
cross-references by these variables:
a. the year of foundation The areas covered through this survey are as follows:
b. filed of work 1.Basic information and working conditions
c. size of organization 2.Mission, areas of activity and activities
d. FENS membership 3.Legal/fiscal regulations
e. region where the headquarters is 4.Political context
5.Structure of NGO
The year when the organization was founded is a variable with two categories:
6.NGO cooperation – Networking
those founded before the year 2000 and those founded in the year 2000 and later.
7.NGO cooperation with the state
We were of the opinion that the year 2000 was a turning point due to the fall of
8.NGO cooperation with the business sector
Milosevic’s regime, and thus it led to changes in the environment in which NGOs
9.NGO cooperation with the media
operate. It could have been expected that organizations founded before 2000 were
10.Personnel and volunteers
more experienced, better positioned and had greater credibility and thus
11.Attitude of the public towards NGOs
encountered fewer problems in their work.
12.Diversity within the sector/Regional standardization
Field of work – The questionnaire itself offered respondents to choose from 18 13.Financial stability – sources of finances
given fields of work of their organizations (with a possibility of adding their field of 14.Involvement of community – beneficiaries of the work of NGOs
work to the list, if it were not mentioned). When cross-referencing these 18 fields, 15.Quality of service
they were condensed in 5 categories, since many fields were not represented with 16.Level of training of personnel working in NGO
an adequate number of organizations. In some questions, where it was important to 17.Cooperation with NGO within wider region
have an insight into each separate filed, we gave cross-references with all fields, but 18.The most important problems for sustainability of NGOs
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

7. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of data of data
PresentationPresentation
Presentation of data
3. of data
The gathered data were analyzed by Civic Initiatives staff: Jelena Milovanovic, Ivana Gliksman, Radojka Pavlovic and
Dubravka Velat. Aleksandra Vesic, Civic Initiatives Team TRI trainer and NGO sector expert, contributed with an overview
of the survey results.
Data are commented from the perspective of NGO persons, i.e. they do not represent an in-depth sociological study
since there is not sufficient information for a comprehensive approach. However, we believe that we can provide a
valuable input on different aspects of the NGO sector in Serbia for all interested parties.
Web publications are prepared in both Serbian and English versions and may be downloaded from
www.gradjanske.org and www.iscserbia.org .
In most of cases, the graphical analysis of data shows comparative data, from both the 2005 and 2009 surveys. However,
there are several graphs showing data just from the 2009 survey, when the data in question were not collected in 2005,
or when significant information came out of the 2009 survey.
The narrative descriptions typically begin with a general analysis of the data from the 2009 survey, followed by a com-
parison with the 2005 survey data. Further explanations delve deeper into the analysis of the 2009 data, presenting only
those data that show major variations compared to the average data and significant differences among characteristics
of the population (i.e. by the year of registration, priority area of activity, size, FENS membership and region).
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

8. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
1.1.Basic information and working conditions
Organization’s office premises and equipment
Similar to 2005, most NGOs lease their office premises (45%). 10% of respondents state Out of 45% of those which rent their office premises, 50% have secured funds for
that their organization own their office premises, compared to 6% in 2005. 21% of NGOs renting offices for a period shorter than one year, which is similar to 2006 (48%). The
do not have any kind of office premises, which is a similar rate to 2005 (22%). The most significant drop is related to funds secured for the next 12 months – from 23%
remaining 45% of NGOs were either given office premises free of charge (24%) or do not in 2005 to 14% in 2009, with Belgrade based NGOs being better off (24%) compared
have office premises at all (21%). There are no major differences among NGOs that own to Central Serbia (7%). A larger number of NGOs managed to secure funds for the
their office premises in terms of their year of registration, priority area of activity and period from 2 to 3 years, and this number has increased from 8% to 10%. Among
FENS membership. A greater number of NGOs owning office premises is notable among those, there is the highest number of NGOs dealing with culture, education and
smaller NGOs (11%) and those operating in Central Serbia (14%), while in Vojvodina only ecology (16%). Only 2% of NGOs secured funds for premises for the period longer
6% and in Belgrade only 7% of NGOs own their office premises. It is typical that NGOs than 3 years, among them 25% of NGOs registered before 2000, 34% of those dealing
registered before 2000 (57%), those dealing with civil society development (55%), big with humanitarian and social work, 25% of the medium sized NGOs, 22% of FENS
organizations (74%) and those operating in Belgrade (60%) lease their office premises. It members and 29% of NGOs coming from Vojvodina. It is worth mentioning that
is significant that 39% of NGOs in Vojvodina are given their office premises free of charge. NGOs dealing with the protection of human rights are in the worst position when it
The most difficult position in terms of lacking office premises is for NGOs registered in comes to this issue – only 14% have secured funds for the period longer than 3 years.
2000 and later (31%), those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations
(9%), smaller NGOs (27%), those that are not FENS members (27%) and operating in The situation in terms of equipment is much better than in 2005. For each
Central Serbia (23%) equipment item, there is an increase in the number of organizations possessing
Graph 1: Does your organization have premises in which it performs its activities? them. Over 4/5 of NGOs have at least one computer, a printer and a telephone line.
Over 65% also have a modem, a fax machine, a scanner, a photo camera (huge
increase, from 47% to 69%) and a copy machine. Fewer organizations own cameras
(33%) and video beams (36%), later showing the highest increase among all items.
Still, only 1/5 of NGOs have company cars (22%).
6%
We have premises in our ownership Similar to 2005, big organizations are much better equipped, as well as
10%
organizations which were founded earlier and those from Belgrade, since these
three variables are connected. Organizations from Belgrade are the biggest and they
43% were founded earlier than organizations from other regions. Also, a somewhat better
We hi
W hire our premises
i situation is noticed among organizations that deal with the development of civil
45% 2005
society, while those dealing with the protection of human rights are in a worse
2009 situation. The differences in equipment are particularly noticeable in the number of
29% organizations that have fax machines, photocopiers, video beams, company cars
We were given rooms free of charge and cameras. Older, bigger NGOs and those from Belgrade have a significantly larger
24%
number of these pieces of equipment. As for computers, printers, modems and
telephone lines, there are no differences among organizations – all kinds of
22% organizations are well equipped in this sense.
We don’t have premises
21%
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

9. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Graph 2: Do you have the following equipment in your organization? Graph 3: Is the equipment satisfactory for your scope of work and the number of
- PERCENTAGE OF YES employees – SATISFACTORY (1)
85%
Computers 49%
91%
Less satisfactory
Camera 36%
80%
Printer 89% 50%
Video beam 39%
73%
Modem 77% 48%
Vehicle 27%
75%
Telephone line 82%
46% 2005
59% Copy machine 47% 2009
Fax machine 74%
2005 45%
55% Computers
Scanner 59%
68% 2009
47% 44%
Photo camera Photo camera 59%
69%
32% 39%
Copy machine
More satisfactory
52% Telephone line 69%
22%
Camera 36%
33% Printer 68%
18%
Vehicle 22% 35%
Scanner 61%
13%
Video beam 36% 33%
Fax machine 66%
30%
Graph 3 shows to what extent NGOs are satisfied with the equipment they have. It Modem
can be noticed that the level of satisfaction has increased for almost all pieces of 67%
equipment, except for copy machines and computers. Dissatisfaction related to
cameras, video-beams and vehicles has dropped from around half to 1/3 of
respondents. More than 2/3 of respondents think that the situation in their
organization in terms of technical equipment (photo cameras, telephone lines,
printers, scanners, fax machines, modems) is more satisfactory than in 2005. In this
respect, there are no significant differences among NGOs in all variables, except for
big NGOs that are more often satisfied with video beams (64%) and 41% of Belgrade
based NGOs being satisfied with their vehicle.
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

10. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Internet access and computer skills Graph 5: How many employees in your organization have the following skills...
USE COMPUTER
Like in 2005, the majority of organizations have Internet access (84%). This
percentage is higher among NGOs established before 2000 (91%), those dealing
with civil society development (89%), big organizations (94%), FENS members (87%)
and those operating in Vojvodina (89%). The worst situation is among NGOs dealing 28%
with humanitarian and social work (19%), small NGOs (79%) and those from Central All employees
33%
Serbia (82%).
Graph 4: Does your organization have access to the Internet?
p y g
36%
Majority f
M j it of employees
l
35% 2005
16% 2009
34%
2009
84% No Minority
29%
Yes
16% 3%
2005 None of the employees
84% 2%
The rates of employees’ computer literacy have generally improved. Organizations in
which no one can use a computer are very rare – only 2%, which is a bit lower than in
2005 (3%). In a large number of cases, all workers in an organization can use a
computer (61% of organizations, compared to 43% in 2005). In 25% of the cases, the
majority of workers use a computer, and in 12% of the cases the minority.
NGOs dealing with socio-humanitarian work use computers the least (40%), while
most of those dealing with youth, economy and professional associations have all
workers using computers (84%). Also, organizations from Belgrade use computers
more than organizations in other regions (70% of Belgrade-based organizations,
compared to 54% in Central Serbia and 65% in Vojvodina). In 17% of cases, the
minority of employees in small organizations are computer literate.
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

11. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Knowledge of foreign languages 1.2. Mission, areas of work and activities
Graph 6: How many employees in your organization have the following skills... Mission of organization
SPEAK AT LEAST ONE FOREIGN LANGUAGE
92% of organizations assert that their organization has a de ned mission, which is
almost the same as in 2005 (91%). Medium size organizations (92%) and those in
Belgrade (91%) are better pro led in terms of having a mission. The percentage of
28% organizations that have no de ned mission is largest among organizations dealing
All employees with humanitarian and social work (10%) and similar with NGOs that deal with
33%
youth, economy and professional associations (9%). Smaller organizations have not
de ned mission more often (7%) as well as organizations from Central Serbia (9%
36% compared to 2% in Belgrade and 3% in Vojvodina).
Majority f
M j it of employees
l
35% 2005 ned mission of organization
2009 (the reason why it exists) and what is it?
y
34%
Minority
29%
91%
3% 2005
None of the employees 9% Yes
2%
No
92%
f f 2009
Knowledge of a foreign language is an area that has improved slightly, with 2% of 8%
organizations where none of the sta speak a foreign language, and 33% of
organizations where everyone speaks at least one foreign language. It is interesting
that NGOs registered after 2000 have more cases of all employees speaking one
foreign language (35%) than those registered before 2000 (32%).
8% 2009 We have it written
5%
The worst situation is in those NGOs that deal with humanitarian and social work,
where all employees speak a foreign language in only 13% of cases, while in 10% of
cases, none can speak any foreign language. In large organizations, more employees We have it , but not written
speak at least one foreign language. In terms of regions, the best situation is in
Belgrade-based NGOs, where in 50% of the cases all employees speak a foreign 87%
language and there is no organization in which no one can speak at least one foreign We don’t have a defined
language. The situation is also very good in Vojvodina, where in 43% of NGOs all mission of our organization
employees speak a foreign language, and again no cases where employees cannot
speak a foreign language. However, in Central Serbia, all employees speak a foreign
language in only 19% of NGOs, while in 5% of the NGOs, no one speaks a foreign Among those which have a de ned mission (92% of the target population), the
language. majority state that their mission is “Promotion of democracy, democratization” and
“Protection and promotion of human rights” (8% each). This is followed by “Develop-
ment of local community”, “Help for paraplegics, the disabled and resocialization”
and “Rights of children, better quality of life of children” (5% each).
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

12. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Graph 8: What is the mission of your organization?
Between 3% to 4.4% of the interviewed organizations stated that
ned mission of organization
their missions included “Development of civil society”, “Rights of
women, women's rights, legal aid”, “Improving the lives of young
people, the position of youth” or “Rights and a better quality of life
of marginalized groups”. Other topics were included as compris- Promotion of democracy, democratization 8%
ing their missions by less than 3% of the interviewed organiza-
tions. There is a signi cant di erence in relation to the year of 8%
Protection and promotion of human rights
registration for those NGOs whose mission is “Development of
civil society” – 9% of NGOs registered before 2000 and 1% of NGOs
registered in 2000 and after have this mission. There is a slight Development of local community 5%
increase in the number of NGOs whose mission is the develop-
ment of local community (6% compared to 3% in 2005) and Help for paraplegics, the disabled and 5%
increase of NGOs with the mission “Improving the quality of life of resocialization
citizens” (6% compared to 0% in 2005).
Rights f hild
Ri ht of children, b tt quality of lif of
better lit f life f 5%
children
Development of civil society 4%
Rights of women, women's rights, legal aid 4%
Improving the lives of young people, the 4%
position of Youth
Rights and a better quality of life of 4%
marginalized groups
Improving quality of life of women 3%
Improving the q
p g quality of life of citizens
y 3%
Assistance to socially vulnerable groups 3%
Building and development of civil society 3%
Lobbying for Europe, the international 3%
integration
Life without violence, promotion of 3%
nonviolence
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

13. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Graph 9: What is the mission of your organization? ned mission of organization
9% 4%
Development of civil society _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8% 8%
Protection and promotion of human rights ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6% 8%
Promotion of democracy, democratization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5% 5%
Development of local community ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4% 1%
Education, promotion of alternative education ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4% 5%
Rights of children, better quality of life of children _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4% 2%
Development of social tolerance and interculturality ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4% 2%
Empowering women to improve their position ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3% 1%
Humanitarian work, spreading humanism ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3% 4%
Improving the lives of young people, the position of Youth ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
3% 3%
Assistance to socially vulnerable groups______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3% 2%
rmation of health, disease prevention _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3% 5%
Help for paraplegics, the disabled and resocialization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3% 2%
Education of individuals to improve the quality of life ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 1%
International cooperation, Europe without borders_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2%
Development of local municipality __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 4%
Rights of women, women’s rights, legal aid ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 2005
2%
Psycho social support to vulnerable groups ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 2% 2009
Improving the lives of Roma, the preservation of culture ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 2%
rmation of culture and art in society ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 2%
Integration of the Roma in society, the local milieu _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 3%
Life without violence, promotion of nonviolence_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 1%
Gathering and help to mentally handicapped persons (MNRL) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 3%
Improving quality of life of women __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 1%
ict resolution ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 3%
Protection and preservation of the environment _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 1%
Realization of students (pupils) rights, information _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 1%
Improving life by using modern information technology ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 2%
The struggle for economic empowerment of women ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 1%
Psycho social support for children with special needs ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 3%
Building and development of civil society ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 3%
Lobbying for Europe, the international integration _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 4%
Rights and a better quality of life of marginalized groups ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 2%
Gender equality _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1% 2%
Education of the young and children ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2% 1%
Development of creative skills of ill persons __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

14. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Strategic planning
Graph 11: Which statement describes better the way in which your organization
Less than half of the respondent organizations (47%) state that they have a functions: Base: Total target population
documented strategic plan, a slight decrease when compared to 2005 (51%), even
though a strategic plan may be one of the possible conditions sought by donors for
the approval of resources. Older organizations (56%), those dealing with the We have the main orientation and 73%
protection of human rights (54%), big (79%), FENS members (52%) and Belgrade area of activity, and we manage to
based NGOs (55%) more frequently than others state that they have this document. realize the majority of our projects 71%
in compliance with this orientation
Graph 10: Does your organization have a strategic plan?
Base: Total target population We often had to change the 21%
projects from the area of our main
orientation to meet the requests of 20%
donors 2005
We don’t have the main orientation
W d ’ h h i i i 3% 2009
51% and area of activity, but we work in
5%
compliance with donors’ requests
2005
49% 3%
Yes
No answer 5%
No
47%
2009 The organizations’ appraisal of the situation in the sphere of planning is almost
52% identical to 2005. 22% of respondent organizations think there is no need for
additional training, 61% think the situation is good but that additional training is
necessary, while 17% believe that training in the sphere of planning is vital. There are
no great di erences depending on the research variables.
Graph 12: How would you evaluate the situation in your organization in the area
3/4 of respondent organizations report that they succeed in implementing the
ne a mission, for long-
majority of their projects in accordance with their general orientation, while 20%
term and short-term planning):
state that they often have to change the general orientation of their foreseeable Base: Total target population
projects in accordance with the demands of the donors. 5% of organizations have no
general orientation or eld of work, so they direct their work purely to the demands
of the donors. This is quite similar to 2005. In this category there are no great Education in this area is
di erences among the organizations depending on the research variables (the year necessary
17% 61% 22%
when it was founded, eld of work, size, membership in FENS, region). 2009 Good, but we need additional
education
18% 61% 21% We don’t need additional
2005 education
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

15. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Graph 13: Which areas is your organization involved in?
Area of work
Multiple answers; Base: Total target population
When we look at the areas in which organizations are
involved (multiple answers), we can see that most
respondent organizations deal with young people and
64%
students (66%), education and research (60%) and the The young, youth, students 66%
protection of human rights (59%). Considerable work is 65%
being done by organizations in the areas of humanitarian Education and research 60%
and social work and health care (52%), international 57%
cooperation (45%), the development of local community Protection of human rights 59%
(44%), children’s rights (42%) and culture and arts (41%). 50%
Humanitarian and social work, health care 52%
If we look at priority elds of work, we see that these same 42%
elds again appear in slightly di erent order: 16% of NGOs International cooperation 45%
have as their priority humanitarian and social work, 45%
healthcare, 12% deal with youth/students and with Development of local community 44%
education / research, 11% with women and the protection 39%
of human rights and except in the area of protection of Children’s rights 42%
human rights (4% more NGOs have this as their priority 42%
Culture and arts 41%
area), there are very few changes of priorities in comparison
with 2005. 33%
Women’s rights 36%
2005
In comparison with 2005, there is an increase in the number 27%
Ecology, environmental protection 34%
of NGOs dealing with environment, legislation, public 2009
politics, and the protection of national minorities, while 27%
Protection f i ht f
P t ti of rights of members of national minorities
b f ti l i iti 33%
there is a decrease in the number of NGOs involved in
assistance to refugees and IDPs. 28%
Economic recovery 31%
23%
Legislation, representation and public politics 30%
27%
Roma 28%
30%
Assistance to refugees and IDPs 22%
23%
Peace work 21%
7%
LGBT (Sexual minorities) 10%
12%
Business and professional associations 8%
5%
Other 5%
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

16. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Graph 14: Generally speaking, what do you consider as your organization’s prior-
ity area of activity?
The largest group of respondents (43%) stated that their organization decided on
Multiple answers; Base: Total target population
their area of work because that area was recognized as a priority social problem. 26%
stated that the area coincided with their sphere of interest, 20% had the capability to
16% deal with this area (experts, previous experience), while 8% think that nobody had
Humanitarian and social work, health care 16% previously worked in that area. It is worth mentioning that NGOs dealing with
12% culture, education, ecology in 37% of the cases felt they had capacities to tackle
The young, youth, students 12% these areas (competent sta , previous experience) and only 9% of NGOs dealing
13% with the protection of human rights felt the same.
Education and research 12%
8% Graph 15: Why did you decide to deal with this particular area of activity?
Women’s rights 11% What is the main reason?
7% Base: Total target population
Protection of human rights 11%
8%
Development of local community We were motivated by
7%
experience of other
6% 1% 2%
1% 1% organizations/individuals
Culture and arts 7% 8%
9% Suggestions of donors went along
5% these lines (it was the easiest to
(
Ecology, environmental protection 22% 20%
5% get money for this area)
4% There was no one at that time to
Children’s rights 3% tackle this problem
26%
3% 34%
Roma 2% We had capacities to pursue this
2005
2% area (competent staff, previous
International cooperation 2% 2009 experience)
43%
Protection of rights of members of national 2% 32% Our interests were directed
2% towards this area
minorities
2%
Legislation, representation and public politics 2% This
Thi was th priority social
the i it i l
problem
3% 2005 2009
Assistance to refugees and IDPs 2%
3%
Economic recovery 2%
2%
Peace work 1%
LGBT (Sexual minorities) 1%
Business and professional associations 0%
3%
Other 4%
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009

17. 3. 3. 3. Presentation of onon the NGO sector
Presentationndings data NGO sector
Presentationndings the
4. Key of of data
data
Bene ciaries of NGO services
The primary or direct bene ciaries of NGO services are most often 39%
all citizens (33%). Among other groups, youth (16%), women All citizens 33%
(12%) and children (10%) are also particularly frequent users. The 13%
users of the services of a certain non-governmental organization Youth 16%
depends mostly on the eld of work of that organization. 10%
Women 12%
The graph with all users shows that youth (57%), children (42%)
and students (39%) are dominating groups. Other data are pretty 11%
Children 10%
much similar to the 2005 survey, except for refugees and IDPs who
dropped from 26% to 20% as a direct target group, and sexual 2%
National minorities 4%
minorities who “jumped” from 5% to 10%, which certainly
indicates a perception of change in needs among NGOs. 3%
Roma 3%
Graph 16: Who are the PRIMARY/DIRECT users of your services – 3%
Students 2%
who is your organization primarily directed at?
5%
Base: Total target population Invalids (parents or family members)
The elderly
y 2%
The poor 2% 2005
Decision makers 2% 2009
Institutions 2%
3%
Refugees and IDPs 1%
1%
NGO sector 1%
Sexual minorities
S l i iti 1%
Trade unions 0%
Media 0%
Single parents 0%
2%
The unemployed 0%
Political parties 0%
7%
Other 7%
NGOs IN SERBIA 2009