public perception about ngos in serbia

PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS NGO SECTOR IN SERBIA

in 2009

Citizens’ Association for Democracy and Civic EducationSimina 9a • 11 000 Belgrade • Tel/fax: +381 11 2625-942; 2623-980 • civin@gradjanske. org • www.gradjanske.org

This publication 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.

Table of Contents

PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS NGO SECTOR IN SERBIA in 2009 2

1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

2. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

ndings ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

4. Findings by areas ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................6

Priority issues ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................6

Participation ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................13

Empowerment ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................19

Trust ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Perception of NGOs ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

3

1. Introduction


This is a web publication presenting data from the survey on public perception and attitudes towards the nongovernmental sector in Serbia, carried out in May 2009. The survey was commissioned by the Institute for Sustainable Communities and financially supported by the USAID.

This survey is a part of the 5 year ISC project “Civil Society Advocacy Initiative” (CSAI), whose overall goal is for the citizens of Serbia to take responsibility for defining their future while building a more democratic and prosperous Serbia moving towards European integration. By providing grants, training, and technical assistance, CSAI works to:

• Support civil society organizations (CSOs) to advocate effectively for political, economic, and social issues that consolidate Serbia’s democratic transition;

• Pursue the adoption of new laws and strategies, amendments to current laws, and monitor the implementation of key legislation critical to improving the lives of Serbia’s citizens;

• Create conditions for citizen activism at the local level; • Provide high quality technical skills in advocacy, networking and consensus building; • Encourage cross-sector partnerships and involvement of key stakeholders in advocacy initiatives.

ISC is implementing its CSAI Program in partnership with the following organizations: Civic Initiatives (CI), the Balkan Community Initiatives Fund (BCIF), the European Center for Non-Profit Law (ECNL) and Smart Kolektiv.

To understand survey results in the Serbian context, it is worth reminding the readers of the key events that took place in the period from May 2006 to May 2009:

• May 2006 – Montenegro declared independence;• 28-29 October 2006 – a referendum on a proposed draft of the new Constitution; • 21 January 2007 – parliamentary elections (the Government was only formed in May);• 20 January 2008 – presidential elections; • 17 February 2008 – Kosovo’s declaration of independence;• 11 May 2008 – early parliamentary, provincial and local elections;• September 2008 – split in SRS and the formation of SNS;• October 2008 – the eruption of the economic crisis;• Early 2009 – conditions set by IMF, the rationalization of the public sector;• March 2009 – public discussion and the adoption of the Anti-Discrimination Law;• April 2009 – the eviction of the Roma settlement Belvil.

The gathered data were analyzed by CI staff: Jelena Milovanovic, Ivana Gliksman, Radojka Pavlovic and Dubravka Velat. We would like to extend our gratitude to Aleksandra Vesic, Civic Initiatives Team TRI trainer and NGO sector expert, for her contribution to data analysis.

Data are commented from the perspectives of NGO representatives. The publication is not an in-depth sociological study, and it does not attempt to give all the answers to the problems and issues observed in the survey. However, we believe that the information provide valuable insight for those who are interested in the NGO sector in Serbia and who want to further explore ways of improving its image in the Serbian society.

Web publications are prepared in both Serbian and English and can be downloaded from www.iscserbia.org and www.gradjanske.org.

4

2. Description of Research2. Description of Research2. Description of Research2. Methodology


The main aim of this research was to determine the Serbian public’s general perception of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), levels of public awareness and familiarity with NGOs, and public attitudes towards the role and work of this sector. A secondary aim of this research was to examine the extent to which the perception, awareness, and attitudes of citizens toward the NGO sector have changed since the last such survey in 2006.

All the data were gathered by a standardized questionnaire which included the following five main, interrelated topics: • Priority issues – Issues faced by the country or the local community that citizens are most concerned about; • Participation – Citizen participation in the life of their local community;• Empowerment – The feeling of the role / power they have to influence the life of their local community;• Trust in institutions – Trust in public institutions and nongovernmental organizations NGOs;• Perception of NGOs – Familiarity with, perception and attitudes about NGOs.

The survey was carried out amongst a representative sample of the citizens of Serbia, aged 18+. The sample type and sampling stages (stratified, three-staged, random, representative sample) allowed the generalization of the given data concerning the targeted population with a defined marginal error. The sample size was 1044 interviewees (the marginal error for 95% confidence interval for incidence of 50% is +/-3.03%).

The interviews were carried out using the "face to face" method at respondents’ homes. The fieldwork was accomplished in the period between 24th April and 5th May, 2009.

The sample of people interviewed was stratified by the following categories:• Gender: male / female;• Age: 18 – 29, 30-44, 45-60, over 60;• Education: elementary or less, secondary, college or university;• Will vote for Parliament: DS, SNS, SRS, DSS, LDP, SPS, other, undecided / refuse to answer, wouldn’t vote;• Region: Belgrade, Central Serbia, Vojvodina;• Type of settlement: urban / rural.

Most graphs provide comparative data, from the 2006 and 2009 surveys. In several instances where the examined data were not collected in 2006 or where significant information was drawn from the 2009 survey, graphs provide data solely from the more recent survey.

The narrative descriptions usually begin with a general analysis of the data from the 2009 survey, followed by a comparison with 2006 survey data. Further explanations go deeper into the analysis of the 2009 data, presenting only those data that show greater variations compared to the average data, and significant differences among research variables (i.e. by gender, age, education, region, type of settlements, political party affiliation – in terms of for whom they would vote in the Parliamentary election. For the sake of simplicity, we call them by the name of the parties they would vote for, i.e. “DS voters” or “SPS voters”.

The collapse of US financial institutions in September 2008 caused a global domino effect. In 2009, the influence of the world economic crisis on Serbia determined the dynamics of events on the political scene. Although a certain level of stability was achieved, the ruling coalition, led by the Democratic Party (DS), came under increased strain as the economic crisis generated more strikes and public protests, as well as intra-coalition political disagreement. Unemployment and poverty increased, and there was a dramatic drop in the standard of living. The need to make further deep cuts in public sector expenses and employment in order to meet the IMF-agreed budget deficit targets heightened the risk of a popular backlash and social discontent. With this context in mind, it is not surprising that the main findings related to public perceptions of and attitudes toward the NGO sector in Serbia in 2009 are generally not as positive as would be desired, but still better than one could have expected.

In terms of priority issues, and compared to 2006, more people perceive unemployment, general economy, corruption and crime as the top issues for the future of the country, while substantially fewer people mention the Kosovo issue among high-priority concerns.

Citizen participation in Serbia is very weak - the great majority of the citizens (78%) do not belong to any of the groups or organizations, networks, associations. This number has even increased when compared to 2006 (71%). Citizens are mostly associated with trade or labor unions (6%), political groups or movements (5%), sports groups (3%) and cultural groups or associations (2%). This may indicate that the every-day struggle to survive has decreased the will of citizens to unite their strength and face new challenges. Membership in some groups requires additional engagement in spare time, which people barely have under the sharpened conditions and increased competition in the professional sphere. Moreover, the authorities neither showed sufficient interest in, nor created favorable conditions for, citizens’ engagement. It must also be pointed out that funding resources for most groups, apart from political parties, are significantly changed, and many people have had difficulty coping with this.

In comparison to 2006, respondents indicated less of a feeling of power to change things in their own lives and in their local communities. The sense of control over all and most decisions has dropped from 51% to 38%, while the feeling of having no control or over very few decisions has grown from 23% to 33%. Several factors influence citizens’ feeling of power to control their own lives and the community, and are primarily tied to the usual role assignment in the decision-making. It is evident that a feeling of control is stronger in more developed and affluent communities, which offer more opportunities. This explains the feeling of self-confidence among Belgrade citizens – which is rather a result of an idea that there are possibilities they can choose from than of direct engagement in regaining control.

Trust in institutions has decreased - with the exception of the church, and to an extent the police, public trust in institutions to work in the best interest of society is extremely low. On the other hand, the situation with NGOs is not as negative as expected: actually, NGOs are trusted more that the Serbian Parliament, Serbian Government, Serbian business community and political parties (which are at the bottom of the “trust list”). One can sense a general lack of trust towards institutions, and a strong feeling of estrangement of the state from the citizens and disappointment that the state is viewed as more concerned with the interests of the political parties constituting it than with the public interest. It is interesting that, compared to other institutions, trust in NGOs is on the rise, which gives hope that the “time of crying” over the betrayed expectations of the 5th October changes is at its end.

The perception of NGOs is still not what we would prefer - the first associations with NGOs are somewhat more positive than negative and 34% of responses imply that more people have positive or neutral associations when hear “NGO”, compared to 29% of associations which can be described as negative. The information that a fifth of the citizens know nothing about NGOs and that the negative attitudes are in correlation with the themes which attract the media’s attention is worrisome. These findings should encourage NGO activists to dedicate more attention to the issue of informing the public about their work and results so that they may reach all the citizens in their communities.

5

3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data ndings


6

3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data


Findings by areas

Priority issuesGraph 1: In your view, what are the 3 issues or problems that are of the greatest importance for the future of the country? – all answers, spontaneous

TOP 10 – SPONTANEOUSLY MENTIONED

Unemployment53%

40%

61%

Low standard of living (smallsalaries, pensions...)

Economy

40%

16%

36%

30%y

Corruption18%

10%

30%

25%

Crime

Ruined economy (factories notki t )

10%

7%

17%

8%working etc.)

Internal politics, bad politics3%

9%

8%

7%2006

2009

Public health

Problems in Kosovo, status ofKosovo terrorism

9%

24%

6%

6%Kosovo, terrorism...

Joining EC9%

6%

6%

In comparison to 2006, more people perceived unemployment, general economy, corruption and crime as the top issues for the future of the country, while substantially fewer people mentioned the Kosovo issue as a high-priority concern.

In response to an open question about the three issues or problems that are of the greatest importance for the future of Serbia, most people mentioned

unemployment (61%), which indicates a significant increase when compared to 2006 (53%). Related to unemployment is also the issue of low living standards, indicated by 36% of the respondents, which is a bit less than it was 3 years ago, when it was 40%. The importance of economy almost doubled (16% in 2006 compared to 30% in 2009). One quarter of citizens (25%) saw corruption as a growing problem (18% in 2006) together with crime (17% in 2009 as compared to 10% in 2006). Substantially fewer people mentioned the Kosovo issue among priorities (6% compared to 24% in 2006), with EU integration, already not highly prioritized in 2006, dropping to 6% (from 9%).

In 2009, unemployment was perceived as the issue of greatest importance for the country by more women (65%) than men (56%), and by young people (69%), persons with elementary and less education (67%), those that would vote for SPS (75%), living outside of Belgrade (Central Serbia 67%, Vojvodina 66%) and in rural areas (64%). Among these people, the lowest percentages belong to persons from Belgrade (39%) and LDP voters (33%). The percentage of people who found the issue of unemployment to be of utmost importance is much greater than the official data on the unemployment rate. This can be explained by individuals’ growing fears of job losses, and the lack of possibilities for new employment. The less frequent anxiety among Belgrade citizens and LDP voters can be explained by the fact that Belgrade offers more opportunities for finding jobs, while LDP voters are generally highly educated with more chances to adjust to the situation. They are not so much personally affected by unemployment, but are still aware that this is a great issue for the future of the society.

The issue of the low standard of living is still in second place among priority issues for the future of society. However, in 2009, fewer people thought the same (40% in 2006, compared to 36% in 2009). This is related to general indicators of poverty, which till the end of 2008 showed a downward trend. The percentage of the poor grew in the first quarter of 2008, but is still smaller than in 2006 (from 8.8% of the poor in 2006 to 5.4% in 2007 and 7.4% in April 2009). If we compare statistical data stratified by regions, in the first half of 2009, the poverty rate was twice higher in Central Serbia than in Belgrade and Vojvodina. The low standard of living is perceived to be of great importance mostly by women (40%) and less educated persons (48%). On the other hand, college and university educated persons were more concerned about the general economy (38%). The same issue was identified by 37% of those that are most economically active (age 30-44). The almost 100% increase in the anxiety of citizens about economy can be associated with their awareness of possible consequences of the economic crisis which appeared much earlier before crisis really affected the economy of Serbia. It is therefore expected that people of working age and more educated people are more familiar with the situation and more able to make guesses, than those at the poverty level and those near the end of their working life.

An interesting variety of answers is visible with regard to corruption which seems to be recognized as an important issue mostly by young people (35%) and persons with secondary education (28%), which is understandable since they belong to a

4. Findings by areas – Priority issues

7



Graph 2.1: What are the top 3 issues or problems about which you personally are most concerned these days? – all answers, spontaneous(Multiple answers; Base: Total target population)

59%

Unemployment

Corruption

38%

8%

5%

52%

45%

17%

Economy

Public health

Crime

5%

21%

8%

14%

16%

9%

Retirements

General crisis, insecurity, lack ofperspective.

5%

7%

9%

7%

6%

2006

2009

Increase of prices

Expansion of Mexican flu

Agriculture

6%

5%

5%

Education, school policy

Social problems

Impact of global economic crisis

6%

9%

4%

4%

%Impact of global economic crisis 3%

group of active citizens who greatly suffer consequences without having any mechanism to confront them. LDP voters (35%) and those living in Belgrade (32%) far clearly recognize the problem of corruption because it is mostly widespread in administrative centers, where decisions related to greater profit are made. The least worried are the elderly (14%) and less educated people (18%) because big scandals usually happen far from them and they do not have a feeling that they are directly affected by them. The attitude of SRS voters (11%) and those living in Vojvodina (15%) can be explained in a similar way because they mostly consist of a similar structure, i.e. elderly citizens, less educated persons and those living far from decision-making places.

There are strong political differences in relation to Kosovo and EU integration issues. The Kosovo issue raises high concerns among SRS (16%) and DSS (14%) voters. The decline in the interest in the Kosovo issue can be associated with the fact that the 2006 research overlapped with the dissolution of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and the popular feeling that Kosovo was next. The hope that this could be prevented was created during the referendum campaign, but three years later, many citizens became aware of the reality and of the fact that the denial of Kosovo independence is only in the interest of political bodies. Only the voters of nationalist parties still cherish hope.

The interest of citizens in EU integration has also declined, because the process is very slow and shows no visible effects, and therefore the feeling that the “promised land” is still far and does not depend on them is much spread. A sense of disappointment is also evident, because in the 2008 parliamentary elections, many more citizens expressed the wish that the state accelerate its EU integration process. This issue is considered to be of great importance by LDP voters (19%) and DS voters (10%) because LDP, having an opposition role, mostly advocates EU integration, while DS gained power on this issue.

In 2009, at a personal level and in comparison to 2006, people were more concerned about unemployment (45%), corruption (17%) and the general economy (14%). A low standard of living was still at the top of personal concerns (52%), but there is a drop compared to 2006 (59%). It is also noteworthy that in 2009 fewer people (16%) were concerned about public health than in 2006 (21%).

A low standard of living was perceived by 55% of women as the key concern, and also by 58% of middle aged persons (45-60 years), and 60% of less educated persons. This was expected because they belong to the groups that have fewer chances in the period of crisis and are forced to accept poorly paid jobs. Similar reasons can be also associated with 63% of those that would vote for SRS, because they are mostly citizens belonging to largely socially excluded groups. Even though the actual poverty rate is lower in 2009 than in 2006, the depth of poverty worsened at the end of 2008, and the World Bank and IMF assessed that the budget allocations in Serbia are the lowest in the region. People living in different geographic regions and types of settlement did not have much difference in their opinions about this question, and they were all almost equally worried about the

low standard of living (from 51 to 53% of population). This is not in accordance with actual indicators, because when compared with the period before the crisis, the poverty index rose more quickly in Belgrade and Central Serbia than in Vojvodina. This indicates a fairly pessimistic view about a personal perspective.

Unemployment was viewed as the biggest personal concern mostly by young people (64%), persons with secondary level education (48%), DSS voters (61%), those living in Central Serbia (55%) and in rural areas (51%). As expected, only 23%

Low standard of living (smallsalaries, pensions...)


8



Graph 2.2: What are the top 3 issues or problems about which you personally are most concerned these days? – Spontaneous, all three answers

18 29

64%50%

17%13%

30 44

48%53%

20%

13%6%

30 44

50%58%

19%

18%5% Unemployment

45 60

23%47%

19%19%

8%Corruption

Economy

>60 10%7%

20%Public health

Unemployment91%91%Unemployment

Low standard of living

Poverty

Human rights

91%

87%

73%

91%

89%

88%

72%

Health care and health insurance

Economic development

Crime and personal security

84%

82%

82%

72%

88%

87%

86%

Corruption

Employees’ rights

Education

81%

75%

73%

86%

79%

78%

Improving conditions for people withspecial needs

Environmental protection

Alcoholism and drug addiction

68%

60%

61%

61%

75%

72%

71%

Reform of the legal system

AIDS and HIV

Problems of your local community

61%

58%

55%

58%

67%

67%

65%

Reform of the political system

Status of refugees and returnees

Gender relations/equality

58%

53%

47%

70%

64%

61%

56%

Kosovo status

Joining European Union

Advance of democracy

Global economic crises

56%

53%

59%

49%

47%

69%

2006

2009

Global economic crises 69%

Graph 3: How important are the following issues for Serbia? – % answers “very important”

Sam

e as

200

6M

ore

impo

rtan

t the

n 20

06Le

ss

impo

rtan

t th

en 2

006

of elderly people expressed concern about unemployment, and a bit more, 27% of people living in Belgrade shared the same concern. The public perceptions concur with the official statistical data. Since the data on the economic crisis were published in October 2008, a sharp deterioration in the labor market occurred. In April 2009, there was an increase in the unemployment rate from 13.3% in the pre-crisis period to 16.6% in 2009. During the same period, from 2008 to 2009, there was a decline in employment of almost 200,000 jobs. According to statistical indicators, the crisis occurred in non-urban areas, particularly in Central Serbia, and skilled workers and young people were the most severely affected. Women were more struck by the crisis in its first phase, while men suffered more in the second.

In 2009, the number of people who believed that corruption had influenced their personal life jumped significantly (from 8% in 2006 to 17% in 2009). This was expected since other research has found that people believed that corruption is mostly present in the health system (78%), and among political parties (76%), and it

Low standard of living(small salaries, pensions...)



9


9PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS NGO SECTOR IN SERBIA in 2009

Low standard ofl iving80%81%Low standard of living

Poverty

Economic development

Crime and personal security

74%

72%

68%

81%

75%

74%

70%p y

Employees’ rights

Problems of your local community

Corruption

65%

58%

63%

70%

65%

60%

66%

Health care and health insurance

Environmental protection

Education

79%

48%

56%

82%

57%

58%


Reform of the legal system

Reform of the political system

45%

42%

38%

37%

51%

47%

41%

Alcoholism and drug addiction

Gender relations/equality

AIDS and HIV

37%

35%

35%

29%

41%

40%

38%

2006

2009


Unemployment

Human rights

K

29%

80%

62%

43%

37%

73%

58%

Kosovo status



Global economic crises

37%

36%

39%

36%

34%

53%Global economic crises 53%

Graph 4: How important are the following problems for your daily life and well-being – % very important

Sam

e as

200

6M

ore

impo

rtan

t the

n 20

06Le

ss im

port

ant t

hen

2006

is usually associated with election processes, which were frequent in the given period. In comparing the percentages of people worried about corruption in different regions, the greatest difference was found between people living in Central Serbia (21%) and those living in Vojvodina (8%). These variations in attitudes can be explained by the fact that a feeling of being personally affected by corruption is more present among the poor, and Central Serbia is thought to be the most underdeveloped region of the country.

Citizens considered issues like unemployment, a low standard of living, poverty and human rights to be equally important in 2009 as in 2006. Although assessed as equally important, data from previous graphs show that these issues are perceived as “top” issues for both the future of the country and as personal concerns. When asked to rank issues in terms of importance, people gave highest marks first to unemployment and then to crime and personal security, health care and health insurance, low standard of living and poverty. At the same time, the situation has worsened and a number of issues were recognized as even more important than in 2006. The biggest “jump” is visible among those issues that have been put on the agenda by the Government and/or were advocated by the NGO sector (environment, conditions for persons with disabilities, alcoholism and drug addiction, local community problems, gender issues). The importance of Kosovo’s status dropped dramatically (from 70% in 2006 to 59% in 2009), together with a significant drop in relation to EU integration and the advance of democracy.

These data show that citizens’ concern is about real life problems and not theory and politics. There are a very few differences among respondents in relation to specific issues. Only a few are worth mentioning. For example, among issues marked as important (4+5), the global economic crisis is considered as less important by citizens from Belgrade (66%) than by people living in Central Serbia (88%). The same issue is more significant for people living in rural areas (89%) than for people from urban areas (78%). Problems at the level of the local community are less significant to those living in urban areas (78%), than to those living in rural areas (89%). The feelings and worries of citizens are in accordance with existing indicators showing that in the period of crisis, the poorly developed sink faster and deeper than others, and that the state cannot spur their development without some foreign assistance. The Kosovo issue has more importance among the older population (88%) than among those of 33-44 years of age (71%). As for the voters of different parties, they showed that they are very familiar with their party politics, and therefore 91% of DSS voters considered the Kosovo status to be an important issue, while much less - 53% of LDP voters thought the same. Gender relations were less important to those living in Vojvodina (70%) than to those living in Central Serbia (81%), where the patriarchal cultural model is more developed. The advancement of democracy was seen as less important by those who would vote for SNS (52% compared to 80% of DS and 79% of LDP voters). As expected, for people with college or university degrees perceive the advancement of democracy


10


PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS NGO SECTOR IN SERBIA in 2009

as more important (78%) than do people with elementary education (65%).. Joining the European Union is an issue that shows the greatest differences based on political party affiliation: from 43% of DSS and 49% of SNS voters, to 83% DS and 97% LDP voters. Citizens from Belgrade consider joining the EU as less important (55%) than citizens from other regions (72% Central Serbia). People belonging to different age groups are also divided on this issue and the young population (77%) considers it to be more important than the older population (58%). This is in accordance with expectations, because younger people have greater capacities for changes, and they see chances for themselves in an advanced and more democratic society.

By comparing data from 2006 and 2009, it can be seen that citizens deem problems like a low standard of living, poverty, economic development, crime and personal security, employees’ rights and problems of their local community equally important for their daily life and well-being. Even though the poverty rate is lower than in 2006, the crisis and insecure future do not allow any shift of people’s concerns in some other social spheres. However, issues like environmental protection, the status of refugees and returnees, and improving conditions for people with disabilities are considered to be more important in 2009 than in 2006. We would need some more in-depth surveys to determine whether this increase is a result of the development of social consciousness, or it is due to people’s tendency to give more favorable answers in the period of the promotion of social solidarity. This is particularly interesting when compared to the issue of human rights, which is not considered as important as it used to be. In 2009, unemployment is marked as less important for the daily life and well-being of citizens than it was in 2006, which does not coincide with the statistical indicators, since in the last year of the given period, the unemployment rate increased from 14% in 2008 to 16.6 in 2009. An explanation might lie in the fact that citizens connect the term “employed” with a long-term stable contract with an employer, and this practice is in decline. Simultaneously, due to the unfavorable tax policy, a grey labor market with some short-term opportunities for earning money flourished, and therefore the status of a formally employed is not so important any more. Human rights, the Kosovo status, EU accession, the advancement of democracy are also viewed as slightly less important.

Estimated as being the most important (4+5) issues for daily life and well-being in 2009 are: health care and health insurance (95%), low standard of living (92%), crime and personal security (89%), economic development (89%) and poverty (88%). The least important (1+2) are joining the European Union (28%), AIDS and HIV (27%), alcoholism and drug addiction (23%) and the Kosovo status (22%).

When it comes to the importance of different issues among different age groups, it can be noted that young people (86%) deem education more important than the older generation (61%). The elderly (45%) find gender relations less important for

their daily life than the young population (67%). An even greater difference is related to the issue of joining the European Union – 63% of young people and 39% of the older generation consider this issue important, which was fully expected since this would open access to wanted opportunities for young people, and forces the elderly to change. This issue also shows variations among voters of different parties, so 89% of LDP, 66% of DS, and 31% of SRS voters think that for their daily life and well-being it is important that Serbia join the European Union. In Central Serbia 57% of citizens believe this issue is important, compared to 41% of Belgrade citizens.

The global economic crisis concerned more than half of the citizens of Serbia, which is understandable since after a multi-year 5% growth of GDP per year, the first impacts of the crisis appeared in late 2008, and in the first half of 2009, GDP declined to 4%. The economic crisis is more important to SNS (83%) than to LDP (49%) voters. It is also more important to Vojvodina (78%) than to Belgrade (55%) citizens, i.e. to those who are in the most unfavorable social position and the farthest from the decision-making places.


11

4. Findings by areas – Participation


Graph 5: Do you belong to any of these groups or organizations, networks, and associations?Multiple answers; Base: Total target population

Trade or labor union

Political group or movement

8%

5%

6%

5%Political group or movement

Sports group

Cultural group or association

5%

2%

5%

3%

2%

Professional association(doctors, teachers, veterans)

Women’s group

2%

1%

1%

1%

Business association/traders’ group

Neighborhood or village committee

2%

1%

1%

1%

Education group (eg PTA or school committee)

Religious or spiritual group(church, mosque, informal religi

2%

3%

1%

1%

1%2006

2009Youth group

NGO or social service organization

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

2009

Parents group

None71%

1%

78%

The great majority of citizens (78%) do not belong to any group, organization, network or association. This number has increased since 2006 (71%). Citizens mostly associate with trade or labor unions (6%), political groups or movements (5%), sports groups (3%) and cultural groups or associations (2%).

More men (25%) than women (19%) are associated with different groups. Those above 30 years of age (23% - 24%), highly educated (35%), and non-leading political party voters (42%) belong to some groups, organizations or networks. It is worth mentioning that only 16% of young people and only 3% of LDP voters (next are SRS voters - 18%), belong to any type of organization.

Among those who belong to some associations, we can note that men are mostly members of political (7%) and sports (6%) groups, and then trade unions (5%), while women are more often members, first of trade unions (6%) and much less of politi-cal (3%) and sports (1%) groups.

Trade unions mostly gather people of working age (10 % - 9%), university graduates (11%), small party voters (17%) and Belgrade citizens (11%). Among members of different political groups, there are mostly small party voters (27%), people with university education (11%), and then SNS and DSS voters (8%). Young people mostly belong to sports groups (6%) and then political groups (4%).

The low rates of participation may indicate that the every-day struggle to survive has caused a decrease in citizens’ will to unite their strength and face new challenges. Membership in some groups requires additional engagement in spare time, which people barely have under the sharpened conditions and increased competition in the professional sphere. Moreover, the authorities neither showed sufficient interest in nor created favorable conditions for citizens’ engagement. It must be pointed out that funding resources for most groups, apart from political parties, have significantly changed, and many people have had difficulty coping with this. An explanation can also be sought in a values gap. On the one hand we have the older population with a collective conscience and a paternalistic approach captured in their memories of “old times” and without progressive ideas. On the other hand, we have younger generations with evident individualism and conform-ism, disappointed in constant delays of a better future. Finally, there must be some “material fatigue” among citizens, as well as the lack of their belief that their personal engagement can bring any qualitative changes. If this is looked in the light of the fact that the middle generation is weakened by almost 300,000 of those who, during the repressive regime, were younger and more ambitious and went abroad, then it becomes clear why citizens have difficulties in finding something that would be worth their engagement.

Each tenth citizen (11%) has taken some action to address a specific concern or problem in their community, which is even less than in 2006. As in 2006, the reasons for not taking any action vary, but most frequently – and somewhat more than in 2006 - citizens just do not believe that it would make a difference. Men were more active (15%) than women (7%), persons from 45 to 60 years old (14%) more active than young people (6%), persons with higher education (18%) were more active than those with elementary education (7%). DSS voters (24%) and those not belonging to the main political parties (22%) were among the more active citizens, and the least active were SRS voters (5%). It is apparent that those who have more spare time (men and the elderly) and those who cannot impose their ideas through the structure of power (DSS and undecided) more often decided in favor of social engagement. The highly educated have a more developed social awareness and easier access to information, while SRS voters are traditionally loyal to their party and have no interest in giving up of their role of being faithful members.

Participation


12



c concern or problem in your community?Base: Total target population

c concern or problem in your community

No

2006 2009

15% 11%

85% 89% Yes

Do not believe that it would make adifference

25%

29%

Do not have time

22%

Do not have time

17%

20%

Do not know how 19%

2006

Not interested

19%

19%

2006

2009

The reason for not taking any action is primarily based on a belief that it would not make any difference (29%), or on a lack of time (20%) while 19% mentioned they do not know how and 19% were not interested. Men were more likely to believe that they could not make any difference (31%), then women (26%), the elderly over 60

(33%), persons with secondary education (30%), and SPS (46%) and DSS (45%) voters. There are vast geographical differences, with more persons from Central Serbia (35%) and in rural areas (32%) not believing that they could make any difference than in Vojvodina (19%) and in urban areas (26%). These data illustrate a growing decline in people’s enthusiasm and an increased feeling of being only objects, and not subjects, of the society. It must be emphasized that women are more determined and systematical than men, and they are not so easily disappointed. Elderly citizens have a feeling of being socially excluded and have more difficulties in adapting to changes, and it should also be remembered that many of them are still engaged within their families as a secure and cheap support to younger members. As for the respondents of different political affiliations, the loss of hope is mostly present among the voters of those parties that had lost power (DSS) or that constantly need just a bit more to come to power (SRS). A common characteristic of other groups is that they are coming from poorly developed areas, where apathy is otherwise more evident.

A lack of time as the reason for the lack of activism was most often mentioned by persons aged 30-44 (28%) and highly educated persons (25%), i.e. those who belong to mostly engaged working groups. The highly educated accept more challenges just to keep their position, while others work a few jobs just to maintain their existence. It is interesting that the lack of time as a reason for not taking any action is more common among those coming from Vojvodina (29%) than among those living in Belgrade and Central Serbia (17%). This is difficult to understand and requires a more in-depth analysis, particularly if we exclude the possibility that such answers were given so that people would not feel bad. The lack of time was a less common reason for those older than 60 (7%) and SPS voters (8%), which are categories that overlap to a great extent.

It is interesting that “do not know how” was most often stated by women (22%) and younger people (23%), and least often by SNS voters (8%). Women and young people are highly marginalized groups, with a high degree of social exclusion, and therefore it is expected that they have restricted access to information. At first sight, it is surprising that among SNS voters there are the least of those who “do not know how”, and if this is connected to the data that they more often than others answered that they “have no time” and that the total of these two answers given by the voters of the leading parties are equal, then we can wonder how sincerely they answered and to what extent some of them avoided to say to not know something.

It is not surprising that elderly people (24%) were less interested in problem solving, as were DS voters (23%), who do this through the position of authority, and those living in Vojvodina (24%). More interested in problem solving were those between 30-44 years of age (15%), LDP (12%) and SPS (8%) voters.


13



c concern or problem in your community?

c concern or problem in community in the past 12 months (11% of target population)

Signed a petition

Attended a city council meeting public

36%

15%

32%

Attended a city council meeting, publichearing, or public discussion

Contacted a public official14%

18%

14%

Attended a demonstration or rally

Participated in an information or election

12%

12%

13%

13%campaign

Spoke at a town meeting or public forum4%

5%

13%

6%

2006

2009

Spoke at a city council meeting

Alerted newspaper, radio, or TV aboutthe problem

5%

6%

5%

5%p

Alerted police about the problem

Joined a group or organization (NGO or

5%

4%

4%

3%other)

Initiated or formed a group4%

3%

2% Graph 8: In the past 12 months, have you worked with others in your village / t of the community?

Base: Total target population

2006 2009

19% 16%

81% 84%No

Yes

As in the year 2006, most of the citizens took action by signing a petition (32%), followed by attending public events/meetings (18%), making contacts with public officials (14%), participating in public protests or rallies (13%) and in information or election campaigns (13%). On the other hand, taking action by speaking at town meetings or public events was quite rare (6%), as was speaking at city council meetings (5%), alerting the media about a problem (4%), and alerting the police about a problem (4%). Only 3% of citizens joined a group or NGO and 2% initiated or formed a group.

In general, the percentage of those who were active is higher among men, those with 45-60 years of age, with secondary education, those that were indecisive about their voting/refused to answer, people from Central Serbia and from urban areas.

Petitions were signed mostly by SNS voters (85%), women (40%), less educated persons (58%) and persons from Belgrade (49%), and most rarely by DSS voters (10%). It is worth mentioning that among those who attended some city council/public events, young people were most represented (49%), while those between 30 and 44 years of age most rarely attended such meetings, only 4%. It can also be noted that men (23%) were more often present at such gatherings than women (8%). Moreover, they were more frequently speakers at town meetings or public forums (7% compared to 3%). People with higher education (11%) and those living in rural areas (11%) were more often speakers at such meetings than middle aged people (45-60 years, 2%) and those living in urban areas (2%). Also, participation in information or election campaigns was more common among highly educated people (31%), vs. only 3% of people with secondary education. When it comes to alerting the police about some problem, SPS voters (24%) did so most frequently, unlike DS voters who rarely contacted the police (6%) and SNS, SRS, DSS and LDP voters who had never done so. The greatest number of SPS voters (35%) also joined a group or organization (NGO and other). Finally, data show that women were more active than men in two types of activities: joining a group or NGO (4% compared to 3% of men) and initiating or forming groups (4% compared to 1% of men).

Citizens who are poorly represented in the ruling regime most frequently decide to participate by taking actions which do not require intense engagement, such as petitions. The most passive is the middle generation with secondary education, who do not have time to “deal with politics”, and also evident is a traditional model that says that this is a “men’s” job. The absence of young people is striking, and indicates that they are not interested in the traditional methods of participation. They more often communicate and are quickly mobilized via contemporary social networks (Facebook, blogs, etc.), and therefore this must also be kept in mind. In the male-dominated system of authority, it is expected that women more often seek other ways to exert influence.

3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data4. Findings by areas – Participation


ts for many other people in your community, would you contribute to the project?Base: Total target population

36% 40% 34% 35%

11% 6% 10% 6%

Don't know

2006 2009 2006 2009

54% 54% 56% 59%

Don t know

No

Yes

Money: Time:

On the other hand, as in 2006, more than half of the citizens, at least declaratively, would be ready to contribute money, and almost 60% would contribute time for the bene�t of other people in their community, even if the project would not bene�t them directly.

There are interesting di�erences among citizens and their readiness to contribute time to community projects. In the category of those who are willing to contribute time for the bene�t of their communities, there are more men (65%) than women

(53%), more people between 30 and 44 years old (65%) than elderly persons (48%), more people with higher education (secondary 66%, university 65%) than with elementary (43%), more DSS voters (72%) more than any other including undecided (53%), more people from Belgrade (64%) than from Vojvodina (54%), and more rural-dwelling (61%) than urban community citizens (57%).

There are no major di�erences when money is concerned in comparison to data related to time contribution. Only slightly more people living in rural areas (55%) would give money to contribute to their communities than people living in urban areas (53%).

These results once again illustrate that solidarity does not lie in a simple and direct dependence on how much people can o�er. When it comes to time and di�erence between men and women, we can sense the in�uence of a patriarchal model that implies that “women should stay at home”, and this is con�rmed by the fact that they are equally willing to give money. It is expected that citizens older than 60 have more spare time than money, but they are also willing to give money, because they are inclined to self-isolation. Persons with a lower level of education often belong to socially excluded groups and have a feeling that they should receive and not give. It is expected that people in smaller communities are more compassionate than those in big cities; they are more often in a situation to solve problems by using their own resources. The fact that people from Belgrade are less willing to give money might be explained by a deeper distrust, because it is harder for them to see direct results when they give money than it is for people in smaller communities.

Only 16% of citizens stated that they worked with others in their communities to do something for the bene�t of the community, which is again slightly less than in 2006. Out of those who were active, there were more men (20%) than women (12%), more middle-aged persons (30-44, 19%) than young people (13%), and more with higher education (22%) than with elementary (10%). DSS voters (25%) cooperated with others to do something for the bene�t of their community, while SPS (7%) and LDP (9%) voters were least active. Activism was more common among people from Central Serbia (18%) and from rural areas (19%) than among people living in Vojvodina (12%) and urban areas (13%).

These survey �ndings are not surprising, because more educated people have a better developed social consciousness, while the set of values of the middle-aged generation is primarily based on the collective spirit. DSS voters are often conservative, and this implies ful�lling commitments that are mainly related to their families and community. It is also signi�cant to what extent the community is developed, i.e. how necessary it is to improve poor conditions.

3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data4. Findings by areas – Empowerment


Graph 10: How much control do citizens feel to have in their own lives and in their local communities?

Graph 11: Do you feel that you have power to make important decisions that change the course of your life?

32%26%

19% 12%Control over all decisions

Control over most decisions

2006 2009

10% 15%13%

18%

26%

29%

32%

Control over some decisions

Control over very fewdecisions

No control

51%

23% 33%

38%22%

21%11% 5%

Totally able to change

Mostly able to change

2006 2009

13% 13%

19% 25%

34%36%

Mostly able to change

Neither able nor unable

Mostly unable to change

Totally unable to change

33% 26%

32% 38%

Graph 12: Do you believe that you have the ability to change things that you do not like in your local community?

23% 22%

7% 6%3% 2% Totally able to change mycommunity

Mostly able to change mycommunity

2006 2009

36% 40%

31% 29% Neither able or unable

Mostly unable to changemy community

Totally unable to changemy community

10%

67% 69%

8%

In comparison to 2006, respondents indicated a diminished feeling of power to change things in their own lives and in their local communities. The sense of control over all and most decisions has dropped from 51% to 38%, while a feeling of having no control or having control over only very few decisions has grown from 23% to 33%.

The feeling of having control over all and most decisions is more prevalent among men (44%) than among women (32%). Persons aged 30-44 (45%), with higher education (44%), DS and DSS voters (44%) and Belgrade citizens (42%) are among those who have more faith in their powers to control their lives and their local communities. There are no major di�erences among other categories of population. However, if speaking about having control over no or very few decisions, then it can be seen that persons over 60 years feel least powerful (45%), so do people with elementary education (45%), SRS voters (46%), those coming from Central Serbia (40%).

Several factors in�uence citizens’ feeling of power to control their own lives and the community, and are primarily tied to the usual role assignment in the decision-making. Moreover, it is evident that a feeling of control is stronger in more developed and a�uent communities, which o�er more opportunities. This explains the feeling of self-con�dence among Belgrade citizens – which is a result of an idea that there are possibilities they can choose from, rather than of direct engagement in regaining control.

The number of people reporting a feeling of being able to totally or mostly change the course of their lives dropped from 33% to 26%, while the number of people feeling unable to change has risen from 32% to 38%. As expected, younger people predominantly felt they were able to change things (39% of age 18-29 and 34% of age 30-44), as do those with higher education (34%), DS voters (32%), Belgrade citizens and those from urban areas (28%). Greater di�erences are among the increasing number of those who felt unable to change the course of their lives: 45%

Empowerment

3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data3. Presentation of data4. Findings by areas – Empowerment

PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS NGO SECTOR IN SERBIA in 2009 16PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS NGO SECTOR IN SERBIA in 2009

Graph 13.1: To what extent do you agree with the following statementsy

2009 7%6% 11% 30% 45%

2009

2006

5%

4%

9%

5%

17%

15%

35%

27%

33%

49%

2006

2009

5%9% 19% 32%

1%

35%

2006

2009

56%

64%

26%

20%

13%

11%

4%

3%

1%

1%

Strongly

2009 45% 26% 19% 8%

1%

2%

g ydisagree

Mostlydisagree

d

2009

2006

46%

45%

26%

28%

18%

18%

8%

8%

2%

1% Yes and No

Mostly agree

2006 41% 27% 21% 9%2%

Stronglyagree

I am not able to uence the laws that govern my

community

I do not have the ability to change

things that I don`t like about my

community

uence the decisions that

are made by the lawmakers in my

community

uence community

members to take action on

important issues

I know I can make erence in my

community

Graph 13.2: To what extent do you agree with the following statements (2009)

I can influence the decisions that 84%I can influence the decisions thatare made by the lawmakers in my

community

72%

4%

I know I can make a difference inmy community

72%

10% disagree(completely/

I can influence communitymembers to take action on

importanti ssues

71%

10%

(completely/mostly)

important issues

I do not have the ability to changethings that I don’t like about my

14%

68%

agree (mostly/completely)

community

I am not able to influence the13%

68%

laws that govern my community 75%

of women compared to 29% of men, 56% of the elderly, 53% of less educated, 66% of SPS and 60% of SRS voters, and people living in Central Serbia (40%) and from rural areas (41%).

Concerning this question, the data do not di�erent signi�cantly compared to 2006. There is a slight decrease in the number of persons who felt they were able to change things in their local communities (from 10% to 8%), and a slight increase among those who felt they were unable to change, from 67% to 69%. As in 2006, more than 1/5 of citizens were not able to de�ne whether they are able or unable to change their lives.

As expected, the elderly (80%) are more insecure in their abilities to bring some changes than young people (58%), people with elementary education (72%) are more insecure than university or college graduates (62%), and SPS voters (86%) are less con�dent than LDP voters (60%).

In comparison to 2006, the feeling of the lack of power to in�uence / change things in their communities somewhat increased (from 41% to 46%), especially with regard to the ability to in�uence community members to take action on important issues (from 56% to 64%), and in such cases people feel even more insecure. As in 2006, the great majority of people agreed that they could not either bring changes or in�uence the laws that govern their communities. However, nothing has changed when it comes to the people’s opinion that they can in�uence decisions that are made by the lawmakers in their communities.

This is a good indicator that shows that citizens are losing self-con�dence and faith that they can bring about some changes in accordance with their interests. It might therefore be expected that a greater centralization of power can generate more resistance among citizens, but obviously, a feeling of disappointment prevailed due to modestly ful�lled expectations after the old regime was overthrown.

The great majority of the citizens (75%) feel that they do not have any in�uence on decisions in their communities, or any ability to make di�erence about things they do not like in their communities (68%).

A feeling of inability to in�uence laws that govern their community is stronger among women (76%) than among men (73%), and among people with primary education (79%) than with university education (68%). This feeling is also more present among the elderly (79%) than among youth (69%), among people in Central Serbia (78%) than in Vojvodina (70%) and Belgrade (73%), and �nally it is more prevalent among people living in rural settlements (78%) than in urban (72%).


17

4. Findings by areas – Empowerment


200925% 19% 34% 15% 6%

2009

2006

8%

25%

14%

20%

33%

32%

29%

17%

15%

7%

2006

2009

7% 14% 27% 25%

6%

26%

Strongly

2006

2009

23%

27%

20%

26%

33%

26%

17%

14%

7%

6%g y

disagree

Mostlydisagree

200913% 20% 27% 26%

15%

13%

g

Yes andNo

2009

2006

32%

12%

22%

25%

26%

27%

14%

21%

6%

15%

Mostlyagree

200630% 21% 29% 13%

7%Stronglyagree

I have the desire to be active in my

community

I do not feel a personal

responsibility to participate in

community projects

I feel driven to participate in

community activities

I usually do not want to get involved in making decisions

ect my community

I am motivated to be involved in my

community

Graph 14.1: Feeling driven to participate in community activities - To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

It is interesting that this feeling is much more prevalent among voters of the ruling parties, DS (81%) and SPS (83%), than among the voters of the opposition, DSS (68%) and LDP (69%). However, almost all respondents felt equally unable to change things they do not like in their community.

Those who have some positive feelings about their ability to change things they dislike in their communities vary, so that greater in�uence on community members to take an action is felt by men (12%) rather than by women (7%), those with university level education (15%) than those with primary education (4%), citizens who do not belong to major parties (21%) compared to the voters of the ruling parties – DS (9%) and SPS (6%), and people in urban settlements (14%) compared to those in rural ones (6%).

Greater self-con�dence in terms of “I know I can make a di�erence in my community” is found, again, among men (13%) rather than among women (7%), among young persons (15%) rather than among those between 30 and 44 and the elderly (7%), among those with higher education (17%) rather than among those with elementary (6%), “other” political party voters (18%) and LDP (15%) compared to SNS (9%), DSS (8%) and SPS (7%) voters. It should also be noted that people living in Central Serbia (12%) and in rural areas (14%) are more self-con�dent than those living in Belgrade (7%), Vojvodina (7%) and urban areas (6%).

The highest level of con�dence in terms of ability to in�uence decisions that are made by the lawmakers in their communities is seen among men (6%), highly educated citizens (7%) and “other” political party voters (12%).

The data sorted by gender, generation, education and type of settlement are expected, since they keep repeating throughout the analysis and have already been commented on. However, it is not easy to explain the exceptionally strong feeling of inability of the voters of the leading parties, and it might have been caused by their anger over the fact that decisions are being made far from them.

In comparison to 2006, even fewer people feel driven to participate in community activities (from 24% in 2006 to 20% in 2009). Therefore, the feeling that people are not driven to participate in community activities increased by 10% (from 43% in 2006 to 53% in 2009).

Men (24%) more than women (15%), young people (24%) more than the older population (16%), people with secondary education (23%) more than those with primary (14%) and university education (19%), people in Central Serbia (23%) more than those in Belgrade (17%) and Vojvodina (15), and people in rural environments (28%) more than in urban (14%) feel motivated to be involved in their communities. With regard to people with di�erent political ideologies, voters of some “other”, small political parties (35%), LDP (30%), SRS and DSS (29%) voters are more motivated than SNS (17%) and SPS (14%) voters.

Just a bit more than one third of citizens (39%) feel a desire to participate in the decision-making in their community. Among those who usually do not want to participate, there are more women (46%) than men (32%), more elderly (48%) than other generations (37%), more persons with primary education (47%) than highly educated (33%), and more people in Vojvodina (48%) than in Belgrade (33%). The least interested in being involved in decision-making are those who would not vote (45%), and SPS (44%) and DS (42%) voters, compared to LDP and SRS (34%) supporters and those who would vote for some other small parties (20%).

Only two in ten of the respondents showed a positive attitude toward participation in the community. Di�erences among the di�erent variables are similar to those


18



Graph 14.2: Feeling driven to participate in community activities - To what extent do you agree with the following statements?y g g

I am motivated to be involved inmy community

54%

20%

I feel driven to participate incommunity activities

53%

20%

I have the desire to be active in mycommunity

44%

21%disagree(completely/

l )I usually do not want to get

involved in making decisions thatwill affect my community

33%

39%

mostly)

agree (mostly/completely)will affect my community

I do not feel a personalresponsibility to participate in

community projects

22%

44%

completely)

community projects

related to previous sentences. Therefore, fewer women (17%) than men (23%), and the elderly (17%) less than young people (23%), feel driven to participate. Substantial variances are also obvious among people with di�erent educational backgrounds, where half as many people with primary education (12%) as with secondary (24%) feel the same. As for people with di�erent political a�liations, this feeling is not so strong among those who would not vote (12%), SNS (12%) or SPS (13%) voters, compared to DS (25%), SRS (27%) and "other" (38%) voters. It is also much weaker among Belgrade and Vojvodina (16%) citizens than among those living in Central Serbia (24%). The situation is similar between those living in urban (16%) and rural (25%) settlements.

Almost half of the citizens (44%) do not feel a personal responsibility to participate in community projects, and most of them belong to the older generation and live in Vojvodina (52%). It is interesting that a great number of the voters of big parties do not feel responsible - DS (52%) and SNS (50%), while this is less frequent among “other” (30%), LDP (34%) and DSS (35%) voters.

The desire to be active in the community is also weak and is felt by 21% of the interviewed – a similar percentage to that of those who feel driven to participate. The desire to be active is almost twice as present among men (27%) as among women (15%), while among people belonging to di�erent age groups, it is the strongest among those between 30 and 44 years of age (23%). It also far weaker among SPS (13%) and LDP (14%) voters, compared to “other” (38%) and DS (28%) voters. Moreover, it is less frequent in Vojvodina (15%) than in Central Serbia (24%), and also in urban environments (16%) than in rural (26%).

In 2009, most citizens did not feel driven to participate in community activities, nor they were motivated to be involved in their community, and just slightly more than each �fth citizen felt personal responsibility to participate in community projects.

Most commonly, reasons for not being active are the lack of feeling a personal responsibility to participate in community projects (44%) and the general lack of will to participate (39%). Only 21% of citizens have a desire to be active, while 44% do not have that desire. A feeling of being driven to participate in community activities was stated by only 20% of citizens, while 53% stated the contrary. Finally, only 20% of citizens are motivated to be involved in the community, while more than half (54%) do not feel motivated to be involved.

The lack of the feeling of a personal responsibility to participate in community projects is more present among women (45%) than men (42%), and among the elderly (52%), those with lower level of education (49%), DS voters (52%), and persons coming from Vojvodina (52%) and from rural areas (48%). A similar distribution stated a lack of desire to get involved in making decision that will a�ect the community, with women being signi�cantly more unwilling (46%) than men (32%). A greater desire, the feeling of being driven and motivated to be involved, is visible among men, younger persons, those with higher education, those coming from small parties, and those living in Central Serbia and in rural areas. Just as an illustration, it can be seen that half as many less educated persons (12%) feel driven to participate compared to persons with secondary education (24%). The same proportion is seen in terms of the motivation among people living in urban and rural areas, with 14% of the former and 28% of the latter feeling motivated to be involved. To put it the other way around – women, elderly, persons with lower education, members of the leading political parties, those living in Belgrade and in Vojvodina, as well as the urban population – should be encouraged to be more active in their communities.

In terms of people with di�erent political orientation, SPS voters feel the least empowered. This can be connected to the structure in which the elderly and women are the majority, but also because of a feeling of being rejected since they had supported a regime which brought the country into con�icts. It is interesting to see that the �ndings for LDP voters are very similar, but it is to be expected that the reasons for this are entirely di�erent. Support for this party comes mostly from youth, the educated, and people from urban environments, who feel disempowered due to their inability to exercise free choice. On the other hand, the voters of the leading party, DS, want to participate, but their personal sense of responsibility is very weak. An impression is gained that they transfer all responsibility to the party leaders who are in the structures of authority and who make decisions somewhere far away from the citizens.


19



Graph 15: Feeling driven to participate in community activities - To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

In the past 12 months, how often have people in your community got together cials or political leaders for something ben-

ting the community?

Were any of such petitions successful?

14% 7%11% 9%2% 2%1% 5%

Don’t know

Many times (>5)

2006 2009

73% 77%

Many times (>5)

A few times (<5)

Once

Never

41%26%

2% 1%

Don't know

None were successful

2006 2009

13% 11%

20%35%

25%

27% None were successful

Most were unsuccessful

Most were successful

Yes, all were successful

23%27%

33% 46%

The majority of the citizens (77%) stated that people in their communities had never jointly petitioned government o�cials or political leaders for something bene�ting their community (even less than in 2006). However, in comparison to 2006, more people reported that petitions were successful (33% in 2006, and 46% in 2009).

Only 7.2% stated that it happened once, 8.8% petitioned less than 5 times and only 1.7% took part in such an initiative for more than 5 times. It is interesting to note that among di�erent parties’ voters, the highest number of SPS voters, even 94%, had never got together to jointly petition government o�cials or political leaders for something bene�ting the community. There are no other signi�cant di�erences among citizens based on their characteristics.

In terms of successfulness, it is interesting to notice the geographic di�erences – initiatives of people living in Central Serbia were more successful (52%) than of those living in Belgrade (38%), i.e. the percentage of unsuccessful petitions is 46% in Belgrade and only 18% in Central Serbia. The same goes for rural areas – those initia-tives were mostly successful in 61% of cases (compared to urban 33%), and mostly unsuccessful in 39% of the cases (compared to 65% in urban areas). Petitions of DSS voters (64%) were more successful than those of SPS voters (23%), while petitions of people with college or university education (61%) were more unsuccessful than those signed by people with secondary education (49%).

The general impression is that citizens very rarely use this mechanism for exerting pressure on the government. One can also conclude that the intensity of needs and the more direct connection to the problem prompt people to take some action, which is the case in small and economically poorly developed communities. It would be di�cult to claim that the citizens of the villages and Central Serbia are more socially conscious, skilled and persistent in their demands. Rather, this could be tied to the fact that in Belgrade, being an administrative center, there are more often initiatives which demand bigger changes addressed to the highest state authority and requiring more complex procedures. On the other hand, in smaller communities the demands are obviously of such a nature and level that the authori-ties more easily �nd ways to meet them.

A higher level of education and public awareness usually implies a better under-standing of what could and should be achieved and arouses higher expectations, which all in�uence the subjective feeling of whether an initiative succeeded or not.


20

4. Findings by areas – Trust


Graph 16: How much do you trust the following institutions to work in the best interest of society?

Political parties68%

58%

6%

Serbian business community

Serbian legislature

58%

68%

7%

9%Serbian legislature

Serbian government61%

49%

9%

12%

NGOs

Local government

49%

53%

13%

14%g

Labor unions54%

38%

14%

15%

mostly not +not at all

Media

Police

38%

31%

18%

32%completely +

l

Church19%

32%

50%

mostly

Public trust in institutions (with the exception of the church, and to some extent the police) to work in the best interest of society is extremely low.

Half of the citizens trust the church, with 19% stating they do not trust. The police is trusted by 32% and equally not trusted (31%) and these are the only two institutions in which public trust is higher than public mistrust. From this point on, it is clear that public trust in other institutions decreases, and there is a signi�cant increase in mistrust. Only 18% of citizens trust the media, followed by 15% of those who express con�dence in trade unions and 14% in local governments. NGOs are somewhere in the middle of this distribution, with 13% of citizens showing trust for, and 49% not trusting, NGOs. These data are still better than those showing citizens’ attitude towards the Serbian Government, legislature and business community. Political parties are at the bottom of the “trust chain” with only 6% of citizens trusting them and a huge majority of citizens (68%) not trusting them.

The church is most trusted by the elderly (60%), persons with elementary education (54%), persons coming from Belgrade (53%), DSS voters (67%) and persons coming from rural areas (54%). The lowest level of trust into the church is shown by people who declared they would not vote in the parliamentary elections (38%).

The police are also most trusted by the elderly (41%), persons with elementary education (36%), DS voters (47%) and Vojvodina residents (41%). Again, the lowest trust is expressed by those who would not vote (22%).

As expected, the media is mostly trusted by persons with university education (25%) and trusted least by those with elementary and less education (12%). Compared to other research variables, DS voters seem to have the most con�dence in the media (30%), labor unions (25%) and local government (23%).

Trust in NGOs decreases with increased age and the level of education. Young people (18%) and persons with university educations (19%) displayed more trust than the elderly (8%) and persons with elementary education (6%) in NGOs. Among political party voters, the greatest trust in NGOs is among LDP voters (27%), then “other parties” voters (20%) while the least is among SNS voters (6%) and those who would not vote (8%).

As expected, the highest trust in the Serbian Government was expressed by DS voters (24%), while the lowest trust (7%) is equally shared by persons with low levels of education, SRS voters, indecisive voters and those who would not vote (6%). A similar but slightly lower level of trust is present in relation to the Serbian legislature. The Serbian business community is most trusted by young people (14%) and LDP voters (12%), and least trusted by those with a low level of education (4%). As for political parties, LDP voters trust them the most (12%), and expectedly, those that would not vote trust them the least (2%).

Previous research has shown that in the post-con�ict Serbian society there is a pronounced “identity crisis”, with the biggest confusion between religious and national identities. Thus, a high level of trust in the church can be connected more to the weakness of the state and to the church as a symbol of ethnic belonging, rather than to the strength of the religious institution itself. Although the police are in second place when it comes to trust, the same number of citizens (one third) mistrust the police as symbolizing a strong hierarchy and authoritarianism, in part due to the memories of the infamous role it had in the previous regime, and also because of its incapability to deal with the growth of crime and corruption. The modest trust in the media shows that the citizens criticize its commercialization, bias and visible dependence on the centers of power. That almost half of voters of the leading party do not trust the media indirectly speaks of the objectivity of media reporting in Serbia. It is worrying that only every tenth citizen of Serbia trusts the Government and the Parliament. One can sense a strong feeling of estrangement of the state from the citizens, and disappointment that it is more concerned with the interests of the political parties it is consisted of than with the public interest. It is interesting that, compared to other institutions, trust in NGOs is on the rise, which gives hope that the “time of crying” over the betrayed expectations of the 5th October changes is at its end.

Trust


21



Graph 17: How much do you trust the following institutions to work in the best interest of society – % answers: “mostly + completely responsible”

Graph 18: How responsible should each of the following institutions be for the general welfare of society?

Serbian business community7%

7%2006y

Political parties9%

7%

6%

2009

NGOs14%

13%

Serbian legislature17%

9%

Local government19%

14%


21%

12%

Labor unions21%

15%

NGOs8%

6%

65%mostly not +not at all

Serbian business community

Church

6%

5%

77%

81%

completely +mostly

Labor unions6%

4%

81%

82%

Media

Political parties

4%

5%

83%

86%p

Local government6%

5%

86%

87%

Police

Serbian legislature

5%

4%

90%

93%g


93%

93%

In comparison to 2006, the public trust in institutions further decreased, especially in the case of the Serbian legislature and the Serbian Government.

Compared to 2006, there was a general decline in citizens’ trust of all institutions. For example, while in 2006, 21% of citizens trusted that labor unions work in the best interest of the society, in 2009, this trust decreased to 15%. The greatest decrease of citizens’ trust can be seen in the case of the Government (of 9%) and legislature (of 8%). The next group consists of labor unions (of 6%) and local self-government (of 5%). The 3% decrease can be seen in terms of the trust that political parties work in the best interest of the society, and the 1% decrease in regard to NGOs. The only group without any changes is the Serbian business community.

This brought some changes in the ranking of these institutions. Labor unions remained at the top of the list, and the local self-government climbed from the third to the second place. The position of the Government moved down from the �rst to the fourth place, while political parties reached the bottom of the scale. When it comes to NGOs, there are no signi�cant changes because it decreased by 1% only, but much more signi�cant is that in the entire hierarchy, NGOs shifted from the �fth place in 2006 to the third place in 2009, and came before the Government.

On the other hand, people continue to expect public institutions to take responsibility for the general welfare of the society, with a vast majority attributing responsibility to the Serbian Government and legislature (93%). NGOs are at the end of the list, but still, the majority of the citizens (65%), think that NGOs should be responsible for the general welfare of society.

These expectations are equally distributed among a population of diverse characteristics. There are only a few exceptions. We can note that middle-aged citizens (30-44 years) have greater expectations than the average, that secondary school graduates expect more than people at other educational levels, that people in villages expect more than those from urban areas, and that people from Central Serbia expect more in comparison to other regions. Answers to this question among people of di�erent political a�liations vary. The voters of the opposition DSS, coalition SPS and the voters of “other” parties have maximum expectations (100%) that the Government and legislature should contribute to the general welfare of society. The voters of the ruling DS have slightly lower expectations (94%), SNS and SRS voters even lower expectations (92%), and LDP voters have the lowest expectations (88%).


22



Graph 19: How responsible should each of the following institutions be for the general welfare of society; % answer “mostly + completely responsible”

ective are the following institutions at solving problems in our country?

g y y p y p

f

NGOs59%

65%2006


65%

77%

2009

Labor unions77%

82%


86%

Local government89%

87%


91%

93%


93%


69%

3%

Labor unions

Serbian businesscommunity

69%

62%

4%

5%community


53%

5%

6%

NGOs

Serbian government

53%

67%

8%

8%g

Local government60%

40%

8%

9%

Media

Police

40%

37%

17%

25%

not effective (not atall/mostly)

Church23%

25%

37%

effective(mostly/completely)

As for NGOs, although di�erences are not signi�cant in comparison with the average percentage, we can notice that persons with university education (71%) and LDP voters (72%) believe that NGOs should be responsible, while only 53% of SPS voters believe the same. Moreover, people living in rural areas (59%) have fewer expectations of NGOs than people living in urban areas (69%).

It is evident that citizens from less developed areas and of a lower social class are directing their expectations more towards state institutions. These are the categories of society that struggle the most with the consequences of a confusing and slow economic reform, and who have a strong feeling that the state is responsible for taking care of them. It should not be overlooked that almost

one-third of the 1.850.000 employed persons in Serbia works in the state administration. The lower the capacity for change is, the higher the expectations that others should solve problems are.

While in comparison to 2006 the public trust in institutions decreased, public expectations for the institutions to take responsibility for society welfare increased, especially in the cases of NGOs and the business community.

The increase in citizens’ expectations from the institutions to take responsibility for the society welfare is not large compared to 2006. In the cases of the Government and legislature it increased from 91% to 93%, and of political parties from 82% to 86%. The greatest increase in expectations is related to the business community

expectations from the local self-government are a clear signal of the high level of centralization. Though slight, there is still a noticeable increase of expectations toward the business sector, which could imply that in the consciousness of some citizens there is a division between the economy and the state.

A very small percentage of people �nd institutions to be e�ective in solving the problems of the country. The best evaluated institutions are the church and the police, and the worst, labor unions (4%) and political parties (3%). Despite a fairly

(from 63% to 77% in 2009) and to NGOs (from 59% to 65% in 2009). The local government is the only institution of which people have lower expectations (from 89% to 87% in 2009).

The citizens are gradually losing hope that the state has a plan on how to get itself out of transition and establish an e�cient and predictable society. They have a realistic picture of the in�uence of the parties’ interests on state politics, while lower


23



ective are the following institutions at solving problems in our ective (mostly + completely)

Political parties7%

3%

20062009

Labor unions10%

4%


5%


6%

NGOs11%

8%


8%

Local government13%

9%

low percentage (8%), it must be noted that citizens think that the Government and NGOs are equally e�ective in solving problems of the country. The greatest degree of dissatisfaction with e�ciency is related to political parties (75%) and the Government (67%).

Men and women similarly assess the e�ectiveness of the church in solving problems in the country. More elderly persons (44%) positively assess the e�ectiveness of church than do other age groups, and with the lowest assessments from middle aged persons (32%). Most satis�ed with the e�ectiveness of the church are DSS voters (53%), followed by DS voters (44%) and then LDP voters (32%). There are also di�erences related to di�erent regions, and it can be noted that Belgrade citizens (48%) more positively assess the e�ectiveness of the church than persons living in Vojvodina (30%).

The voters of DS (40%) have a better opinion of the e�ectiveness of police than the voters of SPS (34%), whose leader is the Minister of Police, while the least satis�ed are LDP voters (13%). A greater number of people living in Vojvodina (33%) positively assess the work of the police than a number of people living in Belgrade (20%).

As expected, the voters of the ruling coalition are most satis�ed with the e�ectiveness of the Government. More speci�cally, twice as many DS voters (16%) as the average, and only marginally fewer SPS voters (14%) share the same feeling. The least satis�ed respondents belong to the group of “undecided/refuse” voters (5%) and those who would not vote (3%).

Twice as many young and middle-aged people between 30 and 45 years of age (each 11%) as elderly persons (5%) expressed a positive opinion of the e�ciency of NGOs, while 4.3 times more people with university educations (13%) than people with elementary education (3%) gave positive assessments of the e�ciency of NGOs. When we observe data about perspectives of people with di�erent political a�liations, the same number of DS, LDP, “other”, and undecided voters gave positive assessments (each 10%), unlike the expectedly small number of SNS voters (4%).

The e�ectiveness of political parties is the worst assessed at only 3%. The only exception to the average is that twice as many voters of the ruling DS (6%) viewed political parties as e�ective.

In comparison to 2006, fewer people perceive these institutions to be e�ective enough.

Along with the overall opinion that a very small percentage of citizens assesses the work of these institutions as e�cient (from 3% to 9%), the biggest “drop” is in the number of those who think that the Parliament is working e�ciently (from 13% down to 6%). Next in line is the Serbian Government (from 14% to 8%) and the trade union (from 10% to 4%), and then the local self-government (from 13% to 9%). At

the very bottom of the list are the political parties – only every 30th citizen has the impression that they work e�ciently. It is important to emphasize that the citizens see the Government and the NGOs as equally e�cient in solving the country’s problems. If this data is compared with the previously analyzed expectations from these two institutions, then the position of the NGOs is even better.

It is not di�cult to understand such a level of citizens’ disappointment in the institutions, only a year after their elections in 2008. It was another in the line of “fateful” elections in which the citizens gave their trust to the concept of EU integration, expecting that this would �nally stimulate the process of reforms. The impression of the citizens is that the representatives whom they have chosen and whom they �nance do not have a really clear intention of creating and leading a policy in the interest of those who elected them. Policy is created somewhere out of the citizens’ reach and it is more determined by the interparty relations than the common interest. If the e�ects of the global economic crisis, which are quickly degrading the arduously-achieved improvement are added to this, then a more complete understanding of the citizens’ perspective may be achieved.


24

4. Findings by areas – Perception of NGOs


rst comes to your mind when you hear “NGO”? spontaneous multiple answers % of most frequent associationsp p q

Humanitarian work, help for the endangered

They don't belong to the Government

Association of citizens, people with similar aims

12%

9%

7%

They are trying to improve generalsituation, address proble

Organization which is not under the influenceof political p

They are independent, they are not underanyone's influence

4%

3%

1%anyone s influence

Bad, I don't like them...

Foreign mercenaries, spies

They are working against the interest of ourl d

5%

4%

3%people and stat

Theft, robbery, money laundering

They are acting in their own interest only

Organizations, associations financed from

3%

3%

2%abroad

Foreign organization, foreigners...

Lies and deception

Organization under the influence of political

2%

2%

1%Organization under the influence of politicalparties

They are not doing anything, they are notsolving problems

Mistrust, they are consideredunserious, insecure, unstable

1%

1%

1%

4%Natasa Kandic

Nothing

Don't know

4%

8%

19%

Posi

tive

/ neu

tral

ass

ocia

tions

34%

of t

he c

itize

nsN

egat

ive

asso

ciat

ions

29%

of t

he c

itize

ns

The �rst associations with NGOs are somewhat more positive than negative, and 34% of responses imply that more people have positive/neutral associations when they hear “NGO” compared to 29% of associations which can be described as negative.

Among answers that can be determined as positive, the most frequently received is that NGOs are associated with humanitarian work and help for the endangered (12%). The response “They don’t belong to the Government” was the second in terms of frequency (9%), and it is interesting that when they were asked about their associations when they hear “Civil Society Organizations”, this answer was not among verbalized ones. Therefore, it might be concluded that this answer is mostly based on linguistic reasons and is not related to how much they are familiar with the work of this sector.

An answer that also kept appearing is that an NGO is an association of citizens with similar aims (7%). Moreover, there are some people who think that NGOs are trying to improve the general situation and address problems (4%).

The most frequent association among answers that can be marked as negative is “Bad, I don’t like them…” (5%) without a more concrete explanation. Others, whose opinions are more concrete, say that NGOs are foreign mercenaries and spies (4% of responses) and the equal percentage of responses shows that some people believe that NGOs are working against the interest of our people and the state, associate them with theft, robbery, money laundering and think NGOs are acting in their own interest only (3% for each of these).

Then, 4% of responses illustrate that for some people Natasa Kandic is the �rst association with NGOs, while 8% show that people think of “nothing” when hear “NGO” plus 19% indicating that people simply “Don’t know”. Therefore, NGOs might consider directing their information activities to this group of citizens.

Data indicating opinions of supporters of di�erent political parties show that the answer that NGOs are related to humanitarian work and help for the endangered was often heard from LDP (23%), SPS (16%), DS (15%) and not so often from SRS (12%), DSS (10%) voters and most rarely from SNS (5%) supporters.

When asked the same question, the young population mostly associated NGOs with humanitarian work (19%), then with the fact that NGOs do not belong to the Government (12%) and that they are associations of people with similar aims (8%). The same order of associations is received from answers given by the middle aged (30-44, 45-60), but not from the elderly. The older generation mostly thinks that NGOs do not belong to the Government (7%) and are working against the interest of our people and the state (7%), then that they deal with humanitarian work (6%) and that they are “bad” without any concrete explanation (5%). Natasa Kandic comes �rst to the minds of Belgrade citizens (13%) much more often than to those living in Central Serbia (2%) or Vojvodina (2%), and more to people living in urban (6%) than to people living in rural areas (2%).

Perception of NGOs


25



9%They don't belong to Government

Humanitarian work, help to the vulnerablegroups

Trying to improve general situation, solveproblems

8%

7%

7%

9%

12%

4%

Independent, not under anyone's influence

Association of citizens, people with similaraims

Organization which is not under the influenceof political parties

%

6%

0%

1%

7%

3%

Mercenaries financed from abroad, spies

They are working against the interest of ourpeople and stat

8%

4%

4%

4%

3%

They are bad, I don't like them..

Theft, plundering, money laundering

Foreign organization, foreigners...

4%

4%

4%

5%

3%

2%

2006

2009

Lies and cheating


They do nothing, they don't solve problems

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

They work only for their own interests

Political organization under the influence ofpolitical parties

Organizations, associations financed fromabroad

2%

1%

3%

1%

2%abroad

Nataša Kandi

Don`t know

3%

23%

4%

26%26%

rst comes to your mind when you hear “NGO”? – spontaneousMost answers that they think nothing or do not know were received from people with elementary education (46%), persons older than 60 (43%), SPS voters (39%) and people living in rural areas (38%). These answers were not so frequent among small party voters (15%), LDP (13%) and DSS (4%) voters.

The public opinion on NGOs is most often based on the recognizable service provisions and sources of funding, while the NGOs’ in�uence on policy making and their advocacy of citizens’ interests are barely sensed. The positive attitudes of people are in�uenced the most by the fact that someone is caring about their needs and that it is being done independently of political parties. These kinds of attitudes are found in those whom the NGOs most often mobilize for their activities (the youth, the educated, from urban environments). Also, the part of the population that is interested in faster changes and is unsatis�ed with the work of the state institutions expresses positive attitudes.

Negative attitudes are mostly tied to the sources of funding, which raises doubt as to whether there are good intentions, especially when this is tied to the individuals who bring up the subjects concerning the con�icts of the recent past. These attitudes are found mostly in the conservative faction, which more often tie their identity to nationality. They see the issue of facing the war crimes and confronting with the past as treason, convinced that foreign forces that fund the NGOs are responsible for the Balkan con�icts. It is worth noting that among those who are often recipients of services, there is an impression that someone bene�ted from their su�ering.

The information that a �fth of the citizens know nothing about NGOs is worrisome, and so is the fact that negative attitudes are in correlation with the themes which attract media attention. These �ndings should encourage NGO activists to dedicate more attention to the provision of information to the public about their work and results so that they may reach the elderly, the less educated and the citizens who live in small communities. Also, what is interesting is that the voters of parliamentary parties know little of or ignore the initiatives and interventions of NGOs concerning the adoption of laws.

The �rst associations upon hearing “NGO” remain basically unchanged in comparison to 2006 – there are somewhat more associations with humanitarian work (12% in 2009 compared to 8% in 2006) and somewhat fewer with “spies” (4% in 2009 compared to 8% in 2006). It can be noted that positive associations are almost equally present in 2006 and 2009, while, generally speaking, we have much less negative association in 2009 (27%) than in 2006 (35%). However, in 2009 more people (26%) do not have any association when hear “NGO” than in 2006 (23%). From the comparative data there can be seen a slight shift of the NGO image in the public in a positive direction. There are fewer and fewer of those who see them as mercenaries and spies who work against the interests of their people, and more of those who recognize them for the good things they do. It is obviously important to the citizens that the NGOs have clearly established and de�ned goals, and there is


26



rst comes to your mind when you hear Civil Society Organizations? –spontaneous

Association of citizens, people with similaraims

19%

They are trying to improve general situation

Good, honest…

11%

3%

Humanitarian work, help for the endangered


1%

2%, ,

They are acting in their own interest only

Negative attitude (bad, I don't like them...)

2%

2%

Organization under the influence of politicalparties

Theftrobbery money laundering

2%

1%Theft, robbery, money laundering

Lies and deception

N thi

1%

12%Nothing

Don't know39%

also a new category which puts an emphasis on the independence from political parties. What should be taken into consideration is the data that there are fewer citizens who see NGOs as an important factor in society that contributes to the improvement of the general situation, as well as an increase in the number of citizens who know nothing about NGOs. Although not worrying, there is still an increase in the number of those who have the impression that the NGOs work only for their own interests.

More than half of the citizens do not have any association with Civil Society Organizations which shows that they are often much more familiar with the term “NGO”. The di�erence, however, is with the overall picture: on hearing “Civil Society Organizations”, the respondents had more positive (34%) than negative (10%) associations while associations on the term “NGOs” are 34% positive, compared to

29% of negative. It is obvious that the term “NGOs” still triggers negative associations. Most of responses (19%) received from people who know what a civil society organization is show that they think that these organizations are associations of people with similar aims, then 11% that they are trying to improve the general situation, 3% that they are good and honest.

A glimpse at these data sorted in di�erent categories of respondents shows that the young and respondents between 30 and 44 years of age think that civil society organizations are associations of people with similar aims (24%), compared to only 13% of responses given by the elderly who share the same opinion. The same association is more present among people with secondary education (23%) than among those with university (15%) and elementary (13%) education, and more often it appears among DS and LDP (28%) voters than among SRS voters (16%) and those who are undecided in terms of declaring who they would vote for (13%).

Persons with elementary education (64%), SNS voters (60%), undecided (60%), older than 60 (57%) and people living in rural areas (56%) were least familiar with the work of CSOs, compared to just 26% of LDP voters.

A comparative analysis shows that the old term “NGO” is no longer tied to humanitarian work, while the term “CSO” is tied to clear goals geared towards the common good, which can indirectly be interpreted as recognizing a clear plan of action. This is in accordance with the evolution of the civil sector, which in the crisis years was oriented more towards providing services, while in the past few years towards advocating the citizens’ interests and encouraging the state to perform its duties more responsibly. It is evident that the citizens sense that change, and the data that there is a small number of the highly educated who recognize this is for some more thorough analysis. Another important association is tied to the new term, which has not been tied to NGOs, and that is “good and honest”, meaning that the people like it and that they recognize a di�erent way of operating.

Here too one can see that people with conservative attitudes, and those who are hard to reach with information, have negative opinions. The strategic redirecting of CSOs towards public advocacy happened before the public services were ready to institutionalize the measures of care for citizens developed through the civil sector. Although the slow pace of the reforms is a direct cause for a turnaround, one should not forget that in that period some of the former service recipients faced a lack of the usual services and direct aid.


27


PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS NGO SECTOR IN SERBIA in 2009PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS NGO SECTOR IN SERBIA in 2009

Graph 25: Do you know what a non-governmental organization (also sometimes called an NGO) is?

Graph 26: Can you name some NGOs? – Spontaneous Multiple answers; Base: those who know what a non-governmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006). Most frequently named NGO (verbatim)

46% 44% No

2006 2009

54% 56%Yes

) q y ( )

6%Zene u crnom (Women in Black)

NVO za ljudska prava (Human Rights NGO)

6%

5%

5%

12%

11%

10%

5%

CESID

Helsinski odbor (Helsinki Board)

NVO za ekologiju, zastita zivotne sredine

C i K (R d C )

7%

2%

5%

5%

4%

Crveni Krst (Red Cross)

Sigurna kuca (Safe House)

JAZAS

Soros

3%

5%

4%

4%

4%

3%

Soros

Kolo srpskih sestara (The Circle of Serb sisters)

CHF International

Gradjanska inicijativa (Civic Initiative)

2%

6%

1%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2006

2009

Gradjanska inicijativa (Civic Initiative)

USAID

ORKA

Udruzenje za zastitu zivotinja (Animals…

2%

2%

2%

2%j j (

Otpor (Resistance)

NVO za zastitu dece (Children Protection NGO)

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

Udruzenje za pomoc hendikepiranima (Helping…

Odbor za ljudska prava (Human Rights Board)

Don't know

4%

43%

1%

1%

35%

In 2009, somewhat more than half of the citizens stated knowledge of what an NGO is. Compared to 2006, the percentage of these citizens rose by 2% only.

In terms of knowing what a non-governmental organization (NGO) is, there are signi�cant di�erences among respondents depending on gender, age, educational level, region and settlement.

A lower level of familiarity with the term is visible among women (48%), persons over 60 years of age (52%), persons with a lower level of education (elementary school and less, 34%), those who would vote for the Serbian Radical Party (60%), those living outside of Belgrade (Central Serbia – 48% and Vojvodina – 48%) and predominantly in rural areas (54%).

Better acquainted with the term “NGO” are college or university graduates (81%), then DSS (82%), LDP (78%) and voters of some small political parties (76%). 55% of the voters of the ruling DS demonstrated this awareness. More Belgrade citizens (75%) know what NGOs are.

When we take the data and compare 56% of citizens who know what NGOs are, with associations about NGOs, where 63% of those examined had some sort of attitude (34% positive and 29% negative), we can see that 6% of citizens have an attitude, and yet they do not know what NGOs are. On the other hand, when it comes to associations with CSOs, 44% of people had some sort of attitude, meaning that they probably based it on at least a basic understanding of what they are. In the �ght against prejudices about the civil sector one should take care as to which term is used when communicating with citizens.

There is a direct correlation between knowing what NGOs are with the level of education and greater access to information and visibility of work in Belgrade. It is more di�cult to �nd a reason why the voters of the parties which were dominant in the previous government (DSS) have more of this knowledge than the voters of the biggest party which is now heading the Government (DS).


28



Graph 27: Do you know any network/coalition of several NGOs?Base: those who know what a non-governmental organization is (56% of target population)

4%

Yes

No

96%

Compared to 2006, among those who stated knowledge of what an NGO is, more citizens were able to name at least some of them.

In the period between these two surveys (2006 and 2009), a few NGOs managed to reach out to somewhat more people, and these are: Women in Black, the Human Rights NGO, NGO for ecology and environment protection, while some decreased their reach, such as CESID, CHF International and Human Rights Board.

Most frequently named by the respondents are Women in Black (11%), Human Rights NGO (10%) and then the Humanitarian Law Fund, CESID and the Helsinki Board (5% of responses for each of these). Women in Black is best known among Belgrade citizens and SPS voters (22%), then among people with elementary education (18%) and persons between 45 and 60 years of age (17%) and least among SRS voters (4%) and Vojvodina citizens (4%). The elderly (13%) are most familiar with the Human Rights NGO, the same as SNS voters (19%). Only 3% of responses received from young people indicate this NGO which is much below the average, but they are trice more than other generations familiar with JAZAS. SRS voters (12%) mostly named SOS, while Red Cross is best known among people living in Central Serbia (7%). NGOs dealing with environmental issues are the most recognizable in Vojvodina (10%), whereas people living in rural areas are mostly familiar with CESID (8%).

At the top of the list of recognizable organizations there are mostly those that the citizens see in a negative context, and which raise, in a provocative way, the still unsolved issues of responsibility for war crimes, Srebrenica, Kosovo. The more these issues are important in daily politics, the more attention they receive from the media and right-oriented parties and they draw more of the citizens’ attention. These organizations obviously do not attract the attention of young people. Understandably, the best known organization for them is JAZAS, as the citizens of rural areas know more about those dealing with the environment.

The question arises as to which NGOs are identi�ed under the term “human rights NGO”, since a broad specter of organizations works in this area in various ways. It should also be noted that shortly before this survey was being done in 2009, there was a broad and passionate debate concerning the adoption of the Anti-Discrimination Law, in which these organizations played an important role. It can also be noticed that numerous organizations which work on the development of democracy and local communities are not recognizable enough to the citizens.

It is expected that the visibility of organizations that deal with humanitarian work will drop, as this form of work has decreased compared to the time marked by the consequences of wars and a collapsed economical power of the state. What draws attention is the information that citizens think of the Red Cross as an NGO.

Only 4% out of 56% of citizens who know what a NGO is (2% in total) stated to be aware of some NGO network. And this group of people consists of more women (6%) than men (3%), more young people (7%) than the middle aged (30-44, 2%), more SRS (12%) and DSS (8%) voters than SNS supporters and “undecided/refused” and those who would not vote (3% of each), of more people living in rural (7%) than in urban (3%) areas.

Those who are familiar with some NGO networks, mostly named UNESCO and CESID (13% for each), the Red Cross and the Helsinki Board (11% for each), and then Women’s Network (9%) and FENS (8%).

The answers to this question show that the public does not have a clear picture of what NGO networks are, how they operate and what they are for. The exceptions are those who have had the opportunity to experience the e�ects and the e�ectiveness of this form of operating. Considering the in�uence that the networks can have when placing pressure to reach goals, the entire civil sector should tackle this question in the future.

Most of the citizens who know what an NGO is do not believe that NGOs in their local community are interested in the opinions of the average citizens, and this number has increased since 2006 (46% in 2009 compared to 39% in 2006).

The glimpse at the data gathered in 2009 and sorted in di�erent categories does not show signi�cant di�erences in the attitudes of di�erent groups, except for a few. In 2009, the middle aged (30-44, 16%) and university/college graduates (21%) were more convinced that NGOs in their local communities were interested in the opinions of ordinary people than the elderly (6%) and persons with elementary education (6%). This opinion was also more present among SRS voters (20%) and people living in Central Serbia (17%) than among LDP voters (8%), people who would not vote (9%) and those living in Vojvodina (8%).


29



Graph 28: Are NGOs in your local community interested in the opinions of people like you? Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)

Graph 29: Are NGOs in Serbia interested in the opinions of people like you? Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)

T

23% 26%

13% 16%

14% 11%

I am not aware of any active NGOs inmy place of residence/ community

I don`t know, I am not informed wellenough about their activities

Not at all

2006 2009

3% 2%11% 11%

19% 15%

16%20%

23% 26%

Mostly no

Yes and no

Mostly yes

Yes, absolutely

39% 46%

14% 13%

24% 27%

16% 15%

I don`t know, I am not informedwell enough about their activities

Not at all

2006 2009

3% 2%13% 14%

25% 22%

19% 21%

Mostly no

Yes and no

Mostly yes

Yes, absolutely

16% 16%

43% 48%

64% of SNS voters (even 18% above the average), 54% of SPS voters and 52% of people living in Vojvodina believed that NGOs are not interested in the opinions of average people.

One should be alarmed by the data that there is a decrease in the number of citizens who recognize that the local NGOs care about their opinion. This implies that the communication is insu�cient, one-way and more aimed towards the promotion of goals, ideas and planned activities, rather than used for needs assessments and evaluation after the realization of activities; it is also in correlation with the data from the survey “NGO Sector in Serbia in 2009”, which says that the direct contact with citizens as a form of communication has decreased. It is encouraging that the citizens of Central Serbia have a positive impression about this question as a large number of big programs for the development of the local community in partnership with local NGOs have been implemented there. Better, more comprehensive and direct communication with citizens would likely contribute to better visibility of local NGOs, would reduce the impression created by the media and would bolster their reputation. The civil sector is at the core of participatory democracy and should promote it more through its own working methods.

Most of the citizens who know what an NGO is do not believe that NGOs in Serbia are interested in the opinions of the average citizens, and this mistrust has somewhat increased since 2006 (48% in 2009 compared to 43% in 2006).

These data sorted in di�erent categories show that young people (21%) more often believe that NGOs are interested in the opinion of ordinary citizens than the elderly (11%), whereas people living in Central Serbia (20%) think the same more often than people in Vojvodina (10%). The same attitude is also more present among small party voters (24%) and least among LDP and SPS (5% of each) voters.

On the other hand, SNS (59%) and small party voters (58%), those who would not vote (54%) and DS voters (41%) believed that NGOs are not interested in the opinions of average citizens.

No big di�erences can be noted between answers given by men and women and also people living in rural and urban areas.

Compared to the impression of the citizens about the respect of their opinions by local NGOs (13% positive), the perception of the entire civil sector of Serbia is somewhat better (16% positive), but far from satisfactory. The presence of larger and more developed organizations probably contributes to this, as they have recognized the importance of two-way communication with citizens through many years of practice. A good example is the generation of youth that was massively involved (around 16.000 individuals) in an analysis of the circumstances and priorities for the creation of the proposal of the Youth Strategy. Consequently, the youth had a more positive attitude towards the respect of their opinion by NGOs at the national level than at the level of local communities.


30



uence on the life of our society?Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)

Graph 31: Do you believe that NGOs/ CSOs can solve your and your family’s problems?Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)

29% 29%

11% 11%

3% 4%4% 7%

DK

They influence very much

They mostly have influence

2006 2009

10% 12%

42% 37%

y y

They neither have influencenor do not have influence

They mostly do not haveinfluence

They do not have influenceat all

14% 15%

52% 49%

Yes, absolutely2%

Mostly yes17%

Yes and no21%

22%Mostly no

N tt ll

22%

31%Not at all

I don`t know, I am not informed well 7%enough about their activities

Similarly to in 2006, almost half of the population thinks that NGOs do not have any in�uence on the life of Serbian society, while only 15% believe that NGOs have in�uence.

Among those who believe that NGOs do not have an in�uence on circumstances in Serbian society there are most Vojvodina citizens (60%), DS (57%) and SPS (57%) voters, people living in rural areas (56%), persons with secondary education (54%), young people (52%) and the middle aged (45-60, 52%). The same attitude is least expressed by SNS (32%), small party (36%) and SRS (38%) voters, Belgrade citizens (40%), people with elementary (42%) and higher (41%) education.

A contrary opinion, that NGOs have an in�uence on Serbian society, is well above the average present among SNS voters (32%) and the elderly (24%), while it is least expressed by LDP (6%), SRS (8%) voters and the young population (8%).

Although the progress is small, a positive trend can be observed in the increase in the number of positive impressions (from 14% to 15%) and the decrease in the number of negative ones (from 52% to 49%). It is interesting that those groups, who through previous questions, expressed more positive attitudes towards NGOs, give more negative answers to this question compared to those who by and large see them as enemies and traitors. The newer concept of one part of NGOs aimed at partnership, and not just the service provision and criticizing the state, is obviously gaining more attention.

It seems contradictory that the citizens who have a generally bad impression about NGOs give more positive opinions about the achieved in�uence on the society. However, if it is kept in mind that this part of the population is the most dissatis�ed with the state of the society and that someone should take responsibility for this, then the connection is somewhat more logical.

More than half of those who know what NGOs are think that NGOs/CSOs cannot solve their personal problems and problems of their families, while only 19% of them believe that they can do so (10% of total population).

Attitudes of men and women, and people living in di�erent settlements (urban/rural) do not di�er much from the average. However, there are some variations among categories based on age and the level of education. Not so surprising is that a greater number of the older (64%) than the young generation (42%) believe that NGOs cannot solve their and problems of their families. Also a greater number of college/university graduates (56%) than people with primary education (45%) do not think that NGOs can solve their personal problems.

Mistrust is also widely spread among people who would not vote (69%), then DSS (61%) and SNS (58%) supporters and well below the average among SRS (44%), LDP (38%) voters and people who are undecided (42%).

22% of people living in Central Serbia, 19% of Belgrade and 16% of Vojvodina


31



Graph 32: Would you say that the involvement of NGOs in solving problems within the following areas is rather useful or rather harmful Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% )

harmful (completely+mostly) useful (mostly+completely)

Solving problems of yourlocal community


19%

24%

23%

30%

35%

Reducing corruption


Reducing poverty

23%

22%

19%

36%

39%

Reducing poverty

Finding solutions regardinglegal status of refugees and…

Employees’ rights

18%

19%

40%

43%

44%

Advance of education

Gender equality

18%

16%

17%

44%

45%

Condition/perspectives ofthe youth

Arts and culture

Protection ofh uman rights

17%

16%

21%

45%

46%

Protection of human rights

Protection of theenvironment

Improving conditions forpeople with special needs

11%

13%

49%

54%

55%p p p

Reducing family violence

Protecting children’s rights

13%

13%

57%

57%

Mos

t use

ful

Leas

t use

ful

citizens said that NGOs can solve their problems. This trust in NGOs is also quite above the average present among SRS voters (40%), much less among DS (23%) and SNS (15%) voters and among only 6% of DSS supporters.

Only every tenth citizen believes that NGOs can solve their personal problems and the problems of their families. Although within most of the categories there are no bigger di�erences, one can notice that this belief is more present among the youth, the less educated, those living in Central Serbia, SRS voters and those who abstain from voting. The lack of belief is the strongest among the elderly, who are generally distrustful and pessimistic, as well as among DSS voters, which is in accordance with their political orientation. The trust is greater among those who have been more often recognized as the target group of NGOs.

On average, the involvement of NGOs in solving problems is evaluated as more useful than harmful.

The usefulness of the involvement of NGOs is mostly recognized for their activities in the following �elds: children’s rights (57%), domestic violence (57%), conditions for persons with disabilities and vulnerable groups (55%) and environmental protection (54%). Assessed as the least useful are their activities related to EU integration (39%), reducing corruption (36%), the advance of democracy (35%) and solving problems in local communities (30%).

Most harmful is their involvement in the advance of democracy (24%), reducing corruption (23%), EU accession (22%) and the protection of human rights (21%).

The signi�cance of the involvement of NGOs in protecting children’s rights is more appreciated by the younger (64%) and people between 30 and 44 years of age (65%) than by those older than 45 (49%), also much more by SRS (68%), DS (67%) and LDP (64%) voters than by SNS voters (34%).

SRS voters (71%) much above the average recognize the usefulness of the activities of NGOs in reducing domestic violence, compared to 39% of SNS voters.

The contribution of NGOs to improving conditions for people with disabilities and vulnerable groups is considered to be most useful by the middle aged (30-44, 64%), the young population (63%), LDP (64%) and small party voters (64%) and least by SNS supporters (36%).

The bene�ts of activities in the �eld of environmental protection undertaken by NGOs are found to be more useful by people living in Central Serbia (64%) and rural areas (61%) than by those living in Belgrade (36%) and urban areas (50%).

The majority of young people (62%) and DS voters (62%) identify the involvement of NGOs as contributing to the protection of human rights. The same opinion is not so widespread among the elderly (36%), DSS voters (28%) and people living in Belgrade (32%).


32



Graph 33: Would you say that the involvement of NGOs in solving problems within the following areas is rather useful or rather harmful - % answers “mostly and completely useful”Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)


64%55%

Protection of human rights

Reducing family violence

Protecting children’s rights

64%

62%

60%

49%

57%

57%

Protection of the environment

Condition/perspectives of the youth

Reducing poverty

55%

54%

52%

54%

45%

40%Reducing poverty

Gender equality

Reducing corruption

Sttf f d t

49%

48%

47%

40%

45%

36%


Arts and culture


46%

45%

45%

43%

46%

39%

Advance of education

Employees’ rights


45%

44%

43%

44%

44%

35% 2006

Solving problems of your local community36%

30%2009

People living in di�erent regions are most notably divided on the issue of NGOs’ contribution to gender equality (54% of people living in Central Serbia compared to 31% of Belgrade citizens), youth position (54% of people in Central Serbia compared to 25% in Belgrade), the advance of education (55% in Central Serbia and 24% in Belgrade), employees’ rights (52% in Central Serbia and 26% in Belgrade), poverty reduction (50% in Central Serbia, 22% in Belgrade), and on all the other issues as well. People living in Vojvodina most appreciate the involvement of NGOs in environmental (57%) and human rights protection (56%).

Around six in ten of young respondents highly value the involvement of NGOs in reducing domestic violence (63%), environmental protection (61%), the advance of education and employees’ rights (59%). Not so many of them are satis�ed with NGO activities related to solving the problems of local communities (39%).

The involvement of NGOs in solving problems related to social and environmental issues is assessed as the most useful by more than 50% of the respondents, while as the least useful there was their involvement in reform processes (between 30 and 40%). It is to be further analyzed how much of this is caused by the general resistance to reforms, and how much by the methods and e�ciency of the NGOs themselves; an additional cause might be the visibility of NGO activities which are tied to the reform processes: their very nature (lobbying, advocacy, communication with institutions) makes them less visible to citizens. There is only a vague idea of what the answer is, based on the structure of those who have a positive or negative attitude. Signi�cantly more young people estimate that NGOs are exerting in�uence on the questions concerning reforms, and especially concerning EU accession and the improvement of democracy. On the other hand, the elderly dominate when it comes to giving a negative mark. Based on political a�liation, DS voters, the “other” and the undecided equally gave positive marks, twice as much than the voters of SNS and DSS. There is 5 times more SNS voters and 3 times more DSS voters than DS ones when it comes to expressing a negative attitude.

What is quite noticeable is a signi�cantly smaller number of citizens of Belgrade who gave a positive mark for the in�uence of NGOs in the areas tied to service provision, while it is twice as high when it is tied to improving democracy, joining the EU, the protection of rights, �ght against corruption. This could be caused by the fact that a �fth of Serbia’s population lives in Belgrade, and in this narrow space there is a large concentration of citizens to whom the NGOs provide services. And since Belgrade is the most expensive city, then it can be better understood why a large number of organizations direct their activities outside of Belgrade, mostly to Central Serbia. This can also be connected to the visibility of activities – the reform activities are more visible in Belgrade due to the presence of the central government, while the NGOs cannot provide everyone with services because of the large number of people, and even when they do, it is less noticeable than in smaller communities.

In comparison to 2006, less people evaluated the involvement of NGOs as useful in most of the areas, and especially in the protection of human rights (from 64% in 2006 to 49% in 2009), poverty reduction (from 52% to 40%), reducing corruption (from 48% in 2006 to 36% in 2009), improving conditions for persons with


33



ect on your opinion of NGOs?Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)

Their activities28%

30%

The behavior of their leaders21%

21%

I don’t have an opinion about NGOs

P f NGO (th id h tt h

13%

18%

18%

Programs of NGOs (the idea – what theystand for)

Their sources offi nancing12%

16%

Their sources of financing

Employees in NGOs3%

12%

3%

Something else3%

1% 2006

DK REF2%

1%2009

The NGO activities and the behavior of their leaders have had the most e�ect on the opinion on NGOs of the people who know what an NGO is – quite similar to 2006. Small changes that can be noted show that more people do not have any opinion about NGOs, and that a bit more people think that the activities of NGOs have the most e�ect on their opinion of NGOs, and a bit less believe that their programs, i.e. areas of work form their opinion about NGOs.

The activities of NGOs are more relevant for shaping attitudes towards them among DS (44%) and SNS (34%) voters, young people (34%) the middle aged (30-44, 33%) and not so relevant among SRS (15%) voters, people with elementary education (20%), respondents who would not vote (22%) and the elderly (24%).

The elderly (31%), SRS (35%) and DSS (34%) voters and people who would not vote (30%) think that the behavior of NGO leaders has had the most e�ect on their opinion of NGOs. The role of NGO leaders is not so great among young people (14%), people with elementary education (11%), DS (12%) and LDP (14%) voters.

For people living in Belgrade (29%) both activities and behavior of NGO leaders are equally important.

More visible exceptions from the average indicate that 30% of people with elementary education do not have any opinion on NGOs, while 19% of them and 21% of SPS voters think that the �nancial sources of NGOs have a great impact on their opinion and 23% of the middle aged (30-44) and 24% of SRS voters believe that the programs of NGOs have he most e�ect on their opinion about NGOs. Programs of NGOs are not so signi�cant for the opinion of the middle aged (45-60, 10%) and people who would not vote (10%).

It is expected that the opinions of citizens on NGOs are in�uenced the most by what reaches them directly. Those who are more open for changes, or have more burning needs, base their opinions on activities and communication, i.e. for them it is important what they get and in which way. The part of the population with a more conservative approach, that values authorities and hierarchy, react more strongly to the conduct of NGO leaders, i.e. to the messages which they get through the media. It is important to stress that there is an increase in the number of people who think that long-term goals, that is, the desired changes, are important, but at the same time there is also more of those who base their attitudes on the policy of the fund providers.

disabilities and vulnerable groups (from 64% in 2006 to 55% in 2009) and youth issues (from 54% in 2006 to 45% in 2009). Nothing changed in people’s attitudes towards the involvement of NGOs in solving problems related to arts and culture and employees’ rights.

The citizens clearly feel the consequences of the changes of unfavorable trends which accumulated in the NGO sector and society up to 2009. On the one hand, there is a decrease in the number of NGOs, due to more and more unfavorable working conditions, such as more di�culties with raising funds, the lack of an a�rmative policy and operating within an unclear legal framework. On the other hand, because of the collapse of the economy, slow reform processes and the �rst e�ects of the world economic crisis, there has been a sudden increase in the needs of the citizens. At the same time, a process of weakening capacities in the NGO sector was underway, because some educated and experienced activists went into international organizations or state institutions.


34



Graph 35: In your opinion, to what extent do the media cover the activities of NGOs?Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)

Graph 36: How do you get informed about the activities of NGOs?Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)

18% 16%

9% 8%

DK REF

Too much

2006 2009

49% 44%

25% 32%As much as they should

Not very much

Watching television

d

71%

38%

71%

Reading newspapers

I do not get informed, I am not interestedin NGOs

11%

36%

15%

By talking to family/friends/acquaintances

Over the Internet

19%

4%

13%

7%

Directly from employees in NGOs7%

7%

4%

2006Brochures

Leaflets

2%

2%

2009

Billboards

S thi l1%

1%

Something else

DK REF2%

5%

In comparison to 2006, more people think that the media cover activities of NGO as much as they should (25% in 2006 compared to 32% in 2009). At the same time, fewer people assess media coverage of NGO activities as not very extensive.

In 2009, even 44% of the respondents believe that the media do not cover the activities of NGOs very much, while 32% are of the opinion that NGO activities are covered as much as they should and 16% think that there are too much NGO activities in the media.

That the activities of NGOs are “not very much” covered is mostly believed by LDP (59%) and DS (52%) voters and the middle aged (30-44, 51%), and well below the average by SNS voters (17%).

The most satis�ed with the media coverage of NGO activities are SPS (48%) and small party voters (41%), the elderly (39%) and SNS (38%) voters. The same attitude is not so prevailing among Belgrade citizens (23%) and people who would not vote (23%), the middle aged (45-60, 25%) and people with elementary education (26%).

SNS voters (39%) mostly believe that the media report too much on the activities of NGOs. This opinion is not so spread among DS (8%), SRS (7%) and LDP (7%) voters and not at all present among SPS voters.

While citizens who are oriented towards reforms would like for the media to dedicate more attention to the activities of NGOs, their numbers are dwindling. At the same time there is an increase in the number of those who think that the media is dedicating to much attention to them and among those the most numerous are the groups that feel that NGOs are working against the national interests of the Serbian people. Some reasons for this situation are caused by the

editorial policy of most media, which usually report on the activities of a small number of well-known NGOs, mostly those which deal with provocative themes of facing the past. More reporting on the small and everyday changes that NGOs achieve in the lives of common people would likely change the overall image. With the much commercialized media that have an underdeveloped sense of social responsibility, the NGOs themselves do not have many options as to how they can change this image.

Most of the people (71%) who know what an NGO is, get informed about their activities by watching TV, as was the case in 2006. Not many things have changed since 2006, only that fewer people get informed about NGO activities by talking to other people, more �nd information on the Internet, more people are not interested in NGOs, and fewer people get informed by reading newspapers.


35



Graph 37: Have you ever had any contact with NGOs? Are you currently in contact with some NGO?

No, never75%

83%

Yes, I volunteered in NGO3%

4%

Yes, I was employed in NGO1%

1%2006

2009

Yes, I was beneficiary of the NGO services4%

3%

2009

I know someone employed in NGO18%

10%

Television as a source of information related to the activities of NGOs is exceptionally valuable to SRS (86%) and small party voters (82%), people in Central Serbia (79%), people who graduated from college or university (78%), SPS voters (78%) and the elderly (77%), and not so valuable to LDP voters (58%) and people in Vojvodina (60%).

Newspaper articles presenting the activities of NGOs are more read by men (38%) than women (33%), more by the elderly (41%) than all the other age groups (young – 31%, early middle aged – 35%, late middle aged – 36%), more by people with higher education (46%) than by people with elementary (25%) or secondary education (35%), more by small party (50%) and SPS (48%) voters than by LDP voters (27%) and people who would not vote (25%), and �nally more by people in Central Serbia (41%) than Vojvodina citizens (29%).

People in Vojvodina (21%), SNS voters (19%) and respondents who would not vote (19%) are mostly uninterested in NGOs.

Discussions with other people are a source of information mostly for SPS (24%) and the least for “undecided” voters (6%).

No profound di�erences can be noted in responses to this question received from people living in di�erent types of settlement (urban/rural).

It is obvious that the dominant majority forms their attitudes about NGOs according to the information they receive through television, and the least through brochures and lea�ets. As the NGOs do not have a lot of in�uence on the editorial policy of TV networks, the citizens’ attitudes depend mostly on what and how the most watched TV network presents, rather than what the NGOS actually do and promote. If this information is combined with the usual practice of NGOs to most often use brochures and lea�ets for communication with the public, then it is no surprise that the people are not informed in the right way.

If the other channels of information are compared, the press, internet and direct communication between citizens and NGO activists, the most direct correlation is with the level of education. People with a lower level of education use only the press as a source of information, and an insigni�cantly small number of people stated to have direct communication with NGO activists. For a good understanding of this information it is important to emphasize that half of Serbia’s population has only a primary school diploma, and that they have a lot of prejudices against NGOs. A more thorough analysis is required to identify the causes of such bad communication, and how much the NGOs are trying to reach this population. Apart from this, it is important to draw attention to the data which shows that the Internet is not so much used for �nding information, especially when it comes to youth.

Most of the citizens, even more than in 2006, reported that they had not had any contact with nongovernmental organizations (83% in 2009 compared to 75% in 2006). Moreover, almost half of those who had some contact with NGOs have not maintained that contact any more.

Among those who had some contact with NGOs there are most of those who know someone employed in an NGO (10%), then those who volunteered in an NGO (4%), those who were bene�ciaries (3%) and �nally those who were employed in an NGO (1%).

The great majority of the elderly (90%), people with elementary education (91%) and SNS voters (92%) have never had any contact with NGOs. This was not such a frequent case with people with university education (77%), DS voters (75%), LDP (77%), and small party voters (73%).

Among 4% of people who volunteered in an NGO, there are more men (6%) than women (2%), more young people (7%) and people between 30 and 44 years of age (6%) than older than 45 (2%), there are also LDP (13%), DS (8%) and small party voters (12%), but none of the respondents who declared that they would vote for SNS, SRS, DSS and SPS have ever volunteered in an NGO.

People with higher education (17%), SPS (18%) and DS (15%) voters, the middle aged (30-44, 14%) more than other groups of people have had contacts with employed in the nongovernmental sector.


36



Graph 38: Would you consider becoming included in activities of an NGO that advocates a change you support?Base: those who are not included in activities of NGO, including those who do not know what NGO is, after they were informed on what the NGO is

erent opinions about NGOs in Serbia. Which of the following two is closer to yours?

17% 10% Don't know

No

2006 2009

36% 31%

48% 59% Yes

14% 14%

7% 8%Don't know

Do not agree with either of the two

2006 2009

36% 41%

43% 37%

Although they receive donations frominternational community, NGOs servethe interests of Serbian people

NGOs are paid by international agenciesto propagate their interests in Serbia

When people who reported having had some contact with NGOs (9% of target population) were asked if they remained in contact with the nongovernmental sector, almost half of them said: “No”. This group mostly consists of the elderly (59%), people with primary education (64%), LDP voters (65%) and people who would not vote (75%).

Among 14% of those who still volunteer in the nongovernmental sector, there are more men (19%) than women (7%), more young people (16%) than the elderly (9%), more Vojvodina (18%) than Belgrade (8%) citizens, more people living in rural (22%) than in urban areas, there are also SPS (22%), small party voters (25%), undecided (19%) and DS (17%) voters and none of SNS, SRS, DSS, LDP and respondents who would not vote.

Many of them, 36%, were in touch with persons employed in NGOs, and in this group we have most SPS (78%) and SRS (60%) voters and least people who would not vote (17%), LDP voters (21%) and people with elementary education (22%).

Among 5% of those surveyed who are bene�ciaries of the NGO services, there are 38% of SRS voters, 11% of Vojvodina citizens and 10% of women and the middle aged (30-44) and no one of people with elementary education, people between 45 and 60 years of age, SNS, DSS and SPS voters.

The fact that less than a �fth of citizens has ever been in contact with an NGO once again draws attention to the need for the NGOs to make more e�orts to get closer to new people, and not to shut themselves into circles of familiar ones. The information that there is a decrease in the number of those who were bene�ciaries or know someone from NGOs, also contributes to this. Women are more often in contact with NGOs, 10 times more often as recipients than men. It is noticeable that men are seldom recipients, and far more often volunteers. The gathered data is not completely in sync with the actual gender structure of the recipients and the volunteers, so a conclusion can be drawn that the perception of citizens is signi�cantly in�uenced by a feeling of pride. It is also unusual that among the men who call themselves volunteers there are mostly people of the working age. It is possible that this information is also a consequence of the many years of the unclear legal framework through which the term volunteer is de�ned.

The majority of the citizens would not consider becoming included in the activities of an NGO. In comparison to 2006, the number of people with this attitude has increased by 11%.

The middle aged (40%) and young people (38%) are more willing to become included in the activities of an NGO that implements a change they support, more than people between 45 and 60 years (31%) and older than 60 (19%). This kind of openness is also more present among people with secondary (36%) than among people with university (31%) or elementary education (22%). And when we observe data showing attitudes of people with di�erent political a�liations, we can note that there are more LDP (46%), DS (40%) and the least of SNS (18%) voters. People

living in Central Serbia (37%) would more gladly consider this option than those living in Vojvodina (26%) and Belgrade (24%). The most indecisive are Belgrade citizens (17%) and those who also do not know who they would vote for (14%).

NGOs are becoming less and less attractive. They are most interesting to young, pro-democratic-oriented people with a medium level of education and this is in places where the work of NGOs is more present and visible, such as Central Serbia. This interest is in direct correlation with activism and the capacity for change, but also with the need for employment.


37



uenced the lives of the citizens of Serbia

Safe House campaign

Campaign for refugees

4%

2%

1%Environment protection campaign

JAZAS campaigns

Fight for human rights

1%

1%

1%

Let's clean Serbia

Humanitarian help, food, medications...

Helping the invalids

1%

1%

1%Helping the invalids

Campaign MERCY CORPS

Fight against corruption

1%

1%

1%SOS phone for women and children victims of…

Women protection

Children protection from violence

1%

1%

1%

Donations for roads building

The aid to schools

AIDS

1%

1%

1%AIDS

Other answers

No

1%

5%

79%

In comparison to 2006, the opinion that NGO propagate the interests of the international community in Serbia has increased by 5% and logically enough, fewer people think that NGOs serve the interests of Serbian people.

That NGOs are paid by international agencies to propagate their interests in Serbia is widely believed by the elderly (55%), SNS (60%), DSS (57%), SRS (51%) voters and Belgrade citizens (50%). This opinion is not shared by many DS voters (20%) and middle aged persons (30-44, 27%).

On the other hand, that NGOs are �nanced by international agencies but nevertheless serve the interests of Serbian people is believed by more than half of the respondents belonging to the 30-44 age group (53%), DS (58%) and LDP (53%) supporters. The same opinion is more present among people living in Central Serbia (45%) than among Belgrade (30%) and Vojvodina (31%) citizens.

It is important to stress that NGOs, unlike many others, raise funding from abroad, and use it on their home ground, while also contributing to the increased involvement of other structures with which they cooperate. For the right-wing political option, who in the public mostly criticizes unemployment and weak economy, these are obviously not important arguments.

It is quite alarming that almost 80% of those who know what an NGO is were not able to name any NGO campaign which had positively in�uenced the lives of people.

However, even though not so many respondents were able to name some NGO campaigns that have brought some positive changes in the lives of Serbian citizens, it is still important to identify which campaigns certain groups of people identi�ed as the most important. For men (3%) and women (5%), people living in rural (3%) and urban (4%) areas, the middle aged (45-60, 7%) and the elderly (3%), people with elementary (7%) and secondary education (3%), DS voters (7%) and persons who would not vote (6%) and Belgrade citizens (11%) the Safe House campaign is the one they are most familiar with and �nd the most signi�cant. Most young people (4%) mentioned JAZAS campaign, while the middle aged (30-44, 4%) identi�ed the campaign for refuges. University graduates (4%) equally identi�ed the Safe House and the environmental protection campaigns, while SNS voters (6%) are most familiar with the Mercy Corps campaign. SRS supporters (12%) well above the average respect SOS phone for women and children victims of violence, people who would vote for LDP (11%) appreciate the �ght for human rights, while SPS supporters (12%) are mostly familiar with the campaign for refugees. DSS voters (4%) equally named the Safe House campaign, donations for road constructions and the aid to schools.

Out of the numerous campaigns launched by NGOs with the goal of changing awareness or raising the sensitivity of citizens towards certain issues, only a small number have left lasting impressions. People better respond to campaigns that evoke sympathy, that require them to give or do something for someone else.


38



Graph 41: To what extent do the following words and attributes describe NGOs in our country?Base: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% of target population)

Personal benefit

Important

42%

41%23%

28%

Needed

Have a future

41%

37%

37%

31%

22%

Unreliable

Old

37%

36%

35%

25%

22%

Professional

Complicated

Helping

33%

32%

26%

20%

32%

completely+mostlythis attribute

Helping

Unsuccessful

Fast

28%

26%

32%

26%

29%

Completely+mostlyopposite attribute

Trust

Close

27%

20%33%

36%

Domestic

Obsolete

18%

14%43%

44%

Mixed feelings were expressed in the choice of attributes which best describe NGOs in Serbia.

Most people (44%) think that NGOs are modern, while a third as many think the opposite, that they are obsolete. More than a half of the middle aged (30-44, 50%), SNS (56%) and SRS (56%) voters and Belgrade citizens (51%) think that NGOs are

modern. The same attitude is also present, but not as much, among people between 45 and 60 years of age (38%), SPS supporters (37%), “undecided” (35%) and Vojvodina citizens (32%). More people living in urban areas (47%) than those living in rural areas (38%) are of the opinion that NGOs are modern. On the other hand, feeling that NGOs are outdated is more present among SPS voters (24%) and Vojvodina citizens (26%), and the least among the middle aged (30-44, 5%).

Twice as many respondents (43% vs. 18%) believe that NGOs are foreign rather than domestic organizations. Among persons belonging to di�erent age groups believing that NGOs are foreign, there are mostly the elderly (49%) and people older than 45 and younger than 60 (48%), and then the middle aged (30-44, 38%) and young people (35%). More striking variations can be seen among people with di�erent political a�liations. The majority of SNS (67%), SRS (62%), small party (55%) and DSS (52%) voters connect NGOs with foreign institutions; while not so many LDP (22%) and DS (31%) voters think the same. The opposite opinion, that NGOs are domestic, is most present among LDP (25%), DSS (23%) and small party (23%) voters, and well below the average among SPS supporters (only 2%). Attitudes of men and women, people living in di�erent regions or types of settlement do not vary much from the average.

More than four in ten (42%) of the respondents thought that personal bene�t is the main reason for the work of NGOs. The opposite, that common bene�t is their main aim, is thought by 23% of people. More men (46%) than women (38%) and more people in Belgrade and Vojvodina (47%) than those living in Central Serbia (36%) think that NGOs work for personal bene�t. The same stance is more often taken by the elderly (56%) than all the other age groups (young – 37%, in early middle age – 33%, in late middle age – 43%), and also more often by college or university graduates (44%) than people with elementary education (39%). Among voters of di�erent political parties, we can note that only 20% of DS and 29% of SPS voters, and even 65% of DSS and 62% of SNS supporters share the same opinion. The opposite, that NGOs work for common bene�ts, is thought mostly by small party (41%) and DS (37%) voters and well below the average by LDP voters (5%).

Those who agree that NGOs are important outnumber those who think the opposite (41% vs. 28%). The importance of NGOs is recognized by a greater number of the middle aged (30-44, 52%) and young population (49%), than by the elderly (29%) and people in late middle age (33%). More than half of the SPS (53%) and DS (50%) voters think the same, and not so many DSS supporters (34%) and people who would not vote (33%). The signi�cance of NGOs is equally appreciated by people with secondary and university education (43%) and less by persons with elementary education (32%). On the other hand, men (32%) more often than women (23%) think that NGOs are unimportant. This is also more often thought by people living in Vojvodina (38%) than people living in other regions (Belgrade – 26%, Central Serbia – 24%).


39



Graph 42: To what extent do the following words and attributes describe NGOs in our country? - MEANSBase: those who know what a nongovernmental organization is (56% in 2009, and 54% in 2006)

Slow

Important

3%

3%

3%

3%p

Obsolete

Professional

4%

3%

3%

4%

3%

Domestic

Complicated

3%

3%

3%

4%

3%

Unsuccessful

Needed

Personal benefit

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2006

2009

Close

Have a future

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

Old

Unreliable

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

Helping

Trust3%

3%

3%

When it comes to the necessity of NGOs, more people believe that NGOs are needed (41%), contrary to 31% of those who think they are unneeded. More women (45%) than men (37%) think that NGOs are needed. The same attitude is more present among persons with secondary education (44%) than among those with university (39%) and primary education (32%). On the other hand, the elderly (53%) signi�cantly more than all the other age groups consider NGOs to be unimportant. Almost three times less young persons (18%) and a bit more of the middle aged (30-44, 20%) think the same. Among supporters of di�erent political parties, around �ve in ten of SRS (53%), SNS (51%) and DSS (51%) voters believe that NGOs are unnecessary. This is not such a frequent attitude among LDP (12%), SPS (16%) and DS (20%) voters.

Having to decide whether NGOs are reliable or unreliable, more citizens described NGOs as unreliable than as reliable (37% vs. 25%). Mistrust in the reliability of NGOs is substantially more present among the elderly (53%) and people in the late middle age (42%) than among people between 30 and 44 (24%) and youth (28%). The same doubt is also well above the average present among DSS (60%) and SNS (52%) voters and not so frequent among DS (17%) and SPS (20%) supporters. Moreover, people living in Belgrade (43%) more than those living in Vojvodina (37%) and Central Serbia (32%) think the same. On the other hand, the data illustrating the number of people with di�erent political a�liations who think the opposite (that NGOs are reliable) indicate that there are more SPS (44%), SRS (40%) and DS (38%) voters than all the others, particularly LDP voters (only 9%).

Basically, the picture of NGOs described by the selected attributes has remained substantially unchanged since 2006.

public perception about ngos in serbia

Business

public perception

ngo sector

perception of ngos

nongovernmental sector

sustainable communities

united states agency

united states government

web publication