Annual report on giving to the non-profit sector in Serbia in 2017 is published by Trag Foundation, in partnership with Catalyst Balkans.

1. 1
October 2018
MAIN FINDINGS
2017 ANNUAL
REPORT
SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SERBIA
58%
16%
VOJVODINA
14.5%
SUMADIJA AND WESTERN SERBIA 7.5%
OUTSIDE OF SERBIA
SERBIA - MULTIPLE REGIONS 0.7%
3.2%
BELGRADE CITY
Geographic Distribution of Giving to Nonprofit Organizations
(% of the total instances directed to nonprofits)
TOTAL NUMBER
OF RECORDED
DONATIONS
3,042
DONATIONS DIRECTED
TO NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS
25.9%
*Kosovo is presented without prejudice to positions on its status,
and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the
Kosovo declaration of independence.
SERBIA DONATES TO
THE NON-PROFIT
SECTOR

2. 2
WHAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATIONS CONSTITUTE THE NONPROFIT
SECTOR?
• The nonprofit sector in Serbia has expanded over the last ten years and includes a wide
range of associations and initiatives, including local citizen associations, private foundations,
diaspora organizations, foreign organizations, corporate foundations, informal groups, etc.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
• The geographic distribution of instances directed to nonprofits points to a huge centralization
tendency with a significant percentage of donations being given to organizations based
in Belgrade. On the other hand, there is a significant difference in the total geographic
distribution of all recorded instances showing that nonprofits from Southern and Eastern
Serbia have been more active, and thanks to the nonprofits of this region, at least a part of
the support goes to this region, traditionally one the poorest in Serbia.
WHO BENEFITS FROM DONATIONS – WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF
SUPPORT TO NONPROFITS?
• The nonprofit sector most often supports persons with heath issues, economically vulnerable
citizens, persons with disabilities and local community population. It is observed that
among other beneficiary groups to which nonprofit organizations are particularly directed
to stand out street children and youth, children without parental care and persons from
other countries, i.e. beneficiaries who live outside of Serbia, as well as single-parent families,
persons in need of palliative care and women and children victims of violence.
• It is important to highlight the fact that it was the nonprofit sector that put some beneficiary
groups, like persons in need of palliative care, street children, or migrants into the donors
focus; without the support of the nonprofit sector, these groups might have gone neglected.
KEY POINTS1

3. 3
FOR WHAT PURPOSE ARE DONATIONS MADE: WHAT THEMES ARE
SUPPORTED BY DONATIONS TO NONPROFITS?
• If we discuss the purposes of giving, nonprofits are the most active in providing support to
marginalized groups and healthcare, and to a lesser extent in addressing poverty reduction
and education.
• However, it is important to note that some themes like economic development, social
entrepreneurship, civic participation/human rights, animal care and humanitarian assistance,
would attract less attention without nonprofit support.
WHO DONATES: WHO ARE THE DONORS TO NONPROFITS?
• The analysis shows that mass individual giving is the most common donor type in giving
initiated by nonprofits. Since many polls highlight that citizens do not trust the nonprofit
sector, this data is both surprising and encouraging. We do believe that these data results
may be justified partially by the fact that organizations that receive donations have been in
the public eye for a long time and that they have earned citizens’ trust by their long presence,
their transparency and achieved results. In addition, the analysis shows that certain number
of organizations who have successfully collected citizens’ donations belong to the group
of smaller in size organizations working in their local communities and are recognized and
trusted by their fellow citizens. The most frequent donor type of mass individual is then
followed by companies while the third-ranked are mixed donors (for example, citizens,
corporate sector, individual donors, etc.).
USE OF DONATIONS: LONG-TERM VS. SHORT-TERM SUPPORT
• The use of donations indicates the percentage of strategic donations, i.e. donations with
potential to be long-term solution for some issues, instead of being a one-time solution
for urgent needs. Subsequently, it is encouraging that nonprofits do not lag behind other
recipient groups when it comes to implementing programs with potentially long-term
effects. This is particularly important, if we take into account the fact that nonprofits, unlike
state institutions, do not have a permanent and safe source of income, and therefore is more
difficult for them to create programs with long-term effects.
1 In 2017, Catalyst analyzed media reports on local, individual, and corporate donations, as well as donations
from diaspora. This brochure presents key data and main findings of the research related to nonprofit
organizations.

4. 4
WHO BENEFITS: WHO ARE THE
BENEFICIARIES OF THE SUPPORTED
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS?
There are key four beneficiary groups who benefitted from donations made to nonprofits:
persons with health issues, persons with disabilities, economically vulnerable citizens and local
community population. The percentage of instances directed to wide range of other beneficiary
groups represents slightly more than one-fourth of the total number of instances. From that
viewpoint, nonprofits do not differ from other categories of recipients.
Key Beneficiary Groups who Benefit From Support to Nonprofits
(% of the total instances directed to nonprofits)
30
20
10
0
24.4
18.8
15.6
13.8
27.4
OtherPersons with
disabilities
Economically
vulnerable persons
Local community
population
Persons with
health issues
The table below the graph above presents the distribution of other beneficiary groups. It may
be observed that street children and youth stand out among other beneficiary groups supported
by nonprofits, certainly thanks to the extremely active Center for Youth Integration, followed by
children without parental care, and persons from other countries, i.e. people living outside of Serbia.
# of instances
(in %)
Beneficiary groups
From 5 to 10%
From 3 to 5% Children and youth at risk, street children and youth, children without parental
care, persons from other countries.
/
From 1 to 3% Single-parent families, general population – youth, talented children and youth,
persons in need of palliative care, women and children victims of violence, animals.
below 1% Elderly population, homeless people, unemployed, children at risk – juvenile
delinquents, migrants, religious communities, general population, refugees
and internally displaced persons, mothers and newborns.

5. 5
EXAMPLES: WHO BENEFITS:
WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES
OF THE SUPPORTED NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS?
The Cep za hendikep association of Zrenjanin has been collecting plastic bottle caps for
recycling purposes since 2013. The caps are sold for cash to a recycler and generate funds
for purchasing of equipment that enhance life of children and adults with disabilities. Schools,
companies, nonprofit organizations and citizens throughout Serbia are active collectors of caps.
In 2017 over 2.7 million dinars were collected thanks both to small, sustained donations of the
general population and the larger one-time support of companies like Gomex and Apatinska
pivara. More than two million citizens, 1,200 educational institutions, and 600 companies have
participated in this ongoing cap collection campaign.
The Center for Youth Integration (popularly named “Drop-in Center”) regularly organizes
a number of fundraising campaigns during the year, often in cooperation with other actors.
At the end of 2017, the Center for Youth Integration and IMLEK Dairy signed a cooperation
agreement in the value of 1.1 million RSD to provide a monthly donation of 500 liters of a range
of dairy products to the Center throughout 2018. Besides great partnerships with companies,
the Drop-in Center enjoys ongoing support from citizens. In 2017, a Big Mac preparation
contest in McDonald’s restaurants offered the winning team the possibility to choose to whom
they will donate their cash awards, the second place team chose and donated their cash
award of 124,000 RSD to the Drop-in Center. A joint initiative of SMEs and the Center called
Lemonade Day has been held annually since 2015 when a young girl sold lemonade at her
homemade stand to collect funds for the Drop-in Center. Building on this initiative, the Center
now works with numerous restaurants to donate funds raised from the sale of lemonade on
one day in July. In 2017, more than 300,000 RSD was raised with more than 71 restaurants and
coffee bars participating.
BELhospice, an organization with the mission/goal to establish the very first free-of-charge
hospice for the palliative care of oncological patients in Serbia, organizes various humanitarian
campaigns every year. The goal of these campaigns and initiatives are to raise funds for the
construction of the palliative care center and to support the successful launch of its operation.
One example of such an initiative is the traditional futsal tournament, held in June 2017,
where donors from both the nonprofit and profit sectors contributed with large donations and
participated by fielding teams at the event. The donations of large-, medium- and small-size
companies, as well as donations of their employees and the general public totaled 17,500 EUR.

6. 6
There are four key causes to which donations to nonprofits are made: support to marginalized
groups, healthcare, poverty reduction, and education. Although these four themes remain the
top 4 when looking at other categories of recipients, the difference with giving to nonprofits is
in their ranking order. Support to marginalized groups ranks first when looking only at giving to
nonprofits, while healthcare is ranked first when looking at giving to all recipient groups.
Although nonprofits receive donations for a wide range of other causes beyond the top four,
the percentage directed to them is significantly smaller as reflected in the table above. In
addition to seasonal giving, other causes that stand out include sport (sport activities of
children and support to amateur sport clubs in local communities), followed by culture and
arts, and animal welfare.
Key Causes for Which Nonprofits Receive Support
(% of total number of instances directed to nonprofits)
40
30
20
10
0
Support to
marginalized groups
33.7
28.3
11.5
6.1
20.4
OtherHealth Poverty
reduction
Education
FOR WHAT PURPOSE ARE DONATIONS
MADE: WHAT ARE THE CAUSES
SUPPORTED THROUGH NONPROFITS?
# of Instances
(in %)
Theme
From 5 to 10%
From 3 to 5% Sports
Seasonal giving
From 1 to 3% Culture and arts, animal welfare
Below 1% Community development, economic development, environment, heritage, human
rights/civic participation, emergency aid, public infrastructure, religious activities,
science, social entrepreneurship

7. 7
In the area of healthcare, two of the most active nonprofits are: NURDOR (collecting funds for
the construction of children oncology ward in Nis), Budi Human (Be Human) Foundation and
Podrzi Zivot (Support Life), both which collect funds for the medical treatment of children and
adults abroad. Less known, but just as significant are organizations that support people with
health issues and raise awareness about their needs, including associations like Plavo srce 021
(Blue Heart 021), which supports children suffering from diabetes, the Association of Patients
Suffering from Parkinson Disease, or Optimistik, an association of parents of premature born
babies. These associations, as well as others, organized several events and campaigns during
2017 to gain support for their work and their beneficiaries while also raising awareness on their
core issues.
The Food Bank in Serbia is one of the best known organizations supporting economically
vulnerable citizens, but there are also a number of smaller, local associations that do their best
within their local community to ease the difficult economic situation of their most vulnerable
citizens. Tatamate from Stara Pazova is one of those associations that frequently organizes
actions to collect clothes, toys, and school equipment for children and youth coming from
economically vulnerable families in Stara Pazova. In September 2017, Tatamate organized
the “Bring, Take-away, Donate” campaign that gave citizens the option to either donate or
exchange equipment and toys for babies and children.
The Serbian Association of Beekeeper Organizations is an example of a nonprofit who has
successfully raised funds for one of the less represented causes: economic development. In
April 2017, the association launched a campaign for the construction of honey processing,
packaging and storage plant for honey collection and trading because beekeepers and their
organizations desired to improve their sustainable business practices in relationship to their
buyers. The association invited beekeeper associations, beekeeper societies and individual
entrepreneurs to donate and support the campaign for the construction of a honey warehouse
in Raca based on a suggested minimum donation of 120 dinars per beehive. During the course
of 2017, the association collected 3,762,165 dinars from 611 donors – companies, associations
and individual beekeepers resulting in successful registration of Nas med (Our Honey) Plant
Ltd to begin construction of the plant.
EXAMPLES: FOR WHAT PURPOSE
ARE DONATIONS MADE: WHAT ARE
THE CAUSES SUPPORTED THROUGH
NONPROFITS?

8. 8
The data shows that the citizens, or mass individual giving, are the most frequent donor type
to nonprofit organizations. Given that a number of public opinion polls have shown a high
level of citizen mistrust towards nonprofits, the data is both surprising and encouraging. This
data may be partially explained by the fact that organizations that have successfully raised
funds from citizens have had a longer presence in the public eye and that there success at
fundraising in gaining the trust of citizens is due to their ongoing presence, their transparency
and the results they have achieved. Analysis also shows that a second group of organizations
are smaller in size but community-based and have successfully raised funds from citizens due
to being recognized and trusted by their fellow community members.
The second most common donor type in giving to nonprofits are companies, while the
third ranked donor type is the mixed category (which includes instances where citizens and
companies have given together).
Other donor types are represented to a smaller degree, but include: known individuals (3.1%),
small and medium sized enterprises (2.5%); associations like rotary clubs (1.8%); corporate
foundations (1.5%); and, private foundations (0.2%). Political party auxiliary branches
(i.e. political party youth), which otherwise show as donors to all recipient types were not
represented, as expected, when giving to nonprofits only is analyzed.
Donations to the Nonprofit Sector by Type of Donor
(% of total number of instances directed to nonprofits)
WHO DONATES TO NONPROFITS?
Donations to the Nonprofit Sector by Type of Donor
(% of total number of instances directed to nonprofits)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
44.4
SMEs
Associations
Corporate Foundations
Other
Political Parties
Mass Individual
Companies
Mixed
Individuals
30.3
16
3.1
2.5
1.8
1.5
0.4
0

9. 9
Erste Bank of Novi Sad under its Superste project allocated over five million RSD to ten
projects of local nonprofit organizations including: CEPORA for creative workshops for children
and youth, Neostart to support the inclusion of juvenile delinquents into society after their
release from detention institutions, and the Center for Research and Promotion of Cultural
Heritage.
The Association of Support to Persons with Autism of Subotica has for many years been
supporting children and adults with autism by organizing a wide range of campaigns and
actions. Volunteers and parents work in the association and received significant support from
the local company Joviste in 2017. The company recognized the need of the association and
donated PVC windows in the value of 85 thousand dinars and volunteered instalment works
to facilitate beneficiaries’ use of the association space in winter period. The said donation will,
besides enabling continual operation and organization of instances, reduce the obstacles that
this nonprofit organization faces.
The Trojka iz bloka (Three from the Block) Foundation is well-known for organizing sports
events to collect humanitarian donations to aid families in Kosovo and Metohija. Last year, the
Foundation organized a beer pong humanitarian tournament for adults and a PES tournament
that gathered youth to compete against one another in the Pro-Evolution Soccer video game in
Loznica. Two days later, a three-point basketball shoot-out context was organized in Belgrade
entitled “Deca za decu” (Children for Children).
The Aventura Park (Adventure Park) sports association used a creative and unusual way of
raising funds through their organizations of abseil competitions, including the annual Uze
nade (Rope of Hope), where participants abseil down buildings in Belgrade. In May 2017,
the association organized a two-day event that involved abseiling down the Beogradjanka
building; with all funds collected distributed among eight nonprofits including Animal Rescue
Service (ARS).
Rotary Club members from throughout Serbia organize fundraising campaigns primarily from
among their own members and direct them to other nonprofit, individuals, and educational
programs. One significant donation was of 200,000 dinars from a Novi Sad Rotary Club
member collected during the celebration for the opening of his own company in March which
was given to the Sigurna kuca (Safe House) in that community. Thanks to volunteering of several
Rotary Club Novi Sad members in picking apples, the club also donated three tons of apples to
soup kitchens to be further distributed through meals prepared by the Red Cross of Novi Sad.
WHO DONATES?
DONATIONS BY TYPE OF DONORS
TO NONPROFITS:

10. 1 0
In the analysis of final beneficiary groups, the key groups remained the same for both the
giving through nonprofits dataset as well as the overall giving in Serbia. The above comparison
with other recipients shows that nonprofits are frequently a conduit for giving that supports
persons with disabilities, followed by economically vulnerable persons, persons with heath
issues and population of local communities. Since overall giving to nonprofits for all final
beneficiary groups is 26.9%, it is an interesting note to make that giving to nonprofits for the
benefit of both persons with disabilities and the economically vulnerable is higher than the
average, making giving to nonprofits a more significant choice for the benefit of these groups.
Final Beneficiary Groups: Nonprofits as Recipients Compared to All Other Recipients (% of
instances given through nonprofits compared to % of instances given through all other recipients)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Persons with
Disabilities
Economically
Vulnerable Persons
Persons with
Health Issues
Population of
Specific Communities
Nonprofit Organizations Other Recipients
64
36
69.5
30.5
71.8
28.2
82.6
17.4
GIVING TO NONPROFITS,
BROKEN DOWN BY FINAL
BENEFICIARY GROUPS

11. 1 1
The analysis presented above shows the types of final beneficiary groups for which, while
overall underrepresented in overall giving, nonprofits appear to be the primary conduit
through which domestic giving impacts these groups. In over 90% of instances directed to
persons in need of palliative care, support comes from nonprofit organizations; BELhospice is
the nonprofit to be credited for actually putting this theme on the giving agenda. The analysis
further shows that nonprofits have a key role in support to street children, youth and migrants
and for animal welfare.
Beneficiary Groups Among Whom Nonprofits Act as Key Service Providers
GIVING TO NONPROFITS,
BROKEN DOWN BY FINAL
BENEFICIARY GROUPS
Other Recipients 35.4%
Nonprofit Org. 64.6%
STREET
CHILDREN
Other Recipients 23.5%
Nonprofit Org. 76.5%
ANIMAL CARE
Other Recipients 28.6%
Nonprofit Org. 71.4%
MIGRANTS
Other Recipients 7.7%
Nonprofit Org. 92.3%
PERSONS IN NEED
OF PALIATIVE CARE

12. 1 2
Nonprofits, as expected, play a key role as recipients of giving related to the support to
marginalized groups. They also frequently recipients of gifts directed towards poverty
reduction and healthcare. These results coincide with the analysis of final beneficiary groups
presented in the preceding section. Significantly less, but not negligible, is the role nonprofits
play in programming funds related to education. The smaller percentage of instances for this
purpose is understandable, because a major part of support to education includes support to
educational institutions (schools and faculties) and scholarships (i.e. individuals).
Purpose of Giving: Giving to Nonprofits Compared to All Other Recipients
(% of instances to nonprofits vs. % to all other recipients, by purpose)
GIVING TO NONPROFITS,
BROKEN DOWN BY PURPOSE
OF GIVING
0 20 40 60 80 1009070503010
Healthcare
Support to
Marginalized Groups
Poverty
Reduction
Education
63.4
36.6
71.9
28.1
78.1
21.9
87.2
12.8
Nonprofit Organizations Other Recipients

13. 1 3
If we analyze several of the purposes for giving which are not high in the rank of the majority of
donors, nonprofits prove to be key actors in for funding themes like economic development, social
entrepreneurship, civic participation/human rights, animal care, and humanitarian assistance.
While it may be surprising that nonprofits are the funding conduit in 100% of giving directed to
economic development and social entrepreneurship, the rationale is quite simple. The theme of
economic development is covered by ongoing programs of a number of nonprofits, for example,
the Divac Agricultural Fund of the Divac Foundation. These are smaller-scale programs, with
smaller investments that add value to specific areas of economic development. Investments in
macro-economic development on the institutional level require significantly larger funds, which in
Serbia are not currently realized through domestic giving sources.
Where social enterprises are concerned, which by nature are not initiated by state institutions, or
other potential recipients, the majority of funds directed through domestic giving uses nonprofits
as the conduit. Individual social entrepreneurs tend to be financed through state programs or
through taking out loans from banks, rather than tapping into domestic giving flows. This
explanation does not reduce the the significance of nonprofits being successful in generating
philanthropy funds for the purpose these two purposes; global practice shows that more frequent
and higher philanthropic investments for the above themes are made worldwide than in Serbia.
GIVING TO NONPROFITS, BROKEN
DOWN BY PURPOSE OF GIVING
Other Recipients 25%
Nonprofit Org. 75%
HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
Other Recipients 0%
Nonprofit Org. 100%
DEVELOPMENT
Other Recipients 0%
Nonprofit Org. 100%
SOCIAL
ENTREPRENOURSHIP
Other Recipients 0%
Nonprofit Org. 100%
COMMUNITY/
HUMAN RIGHTS/
CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Other Recipients 23.5%
Nonprofit Org. 76.5%
ANIMAL CARE

14. 1 4
The data on the use of donations for specific types of expenditures facilitate greater insight
into whether they are directed to short-term support (humanitarian or consumable uses), or
longer-term solutions for specific issues. In line with our methodology and available data, we
may classify the use of donations into three categories: support with potentially long-term
effects, short-term support, i.e. one-time giving and giving for unknown purpose.
The comparison with the similar data on other recipients shows that nonprofit organizations
attract and use donations with potentially long-term effects in almost the same percentage
as other recipients. On the other hand, their share in one-time support is smaller than the
percentage at the level of all recorded instances in the country, as well as in comparison
with other recipients. That is partially because the percentage of instances for donations to
nonprofit organizations is not always available, data sources often do not state the precise
purpose of support, but only that the support is directed to a certain organization.2
Use of Donations in Nonprofit Sector
(% of total number of instances directed to nonprofits)
2 Long-term support include: capital investments, equipment, investments in services, scholarships (manpower
investments), research and development, raising awareness. One-term support includes humanitarian aid, seasonal
giving, medical treatment for individuals/families, material and consumable goods. It is not always possible to
determine the purpose of giving because the available data show, for example, that certain institution/organization
is being supported, but do not state the purpose of provided support.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Potential
Long-Term Effects
32.4
41.6
26.0
UnknownShort-Term
Support
USE OF DONATIONS:
LONG-TERM VS. SHORT-TERM
SUPPORT

15. 1 5
It is interesting, though expected, that the only example of establishing an endowment fund
comes from nonprofit sector. Trag Foundation established an endowment fund, and start-up
capital was also directed only through nonprofit organizations (the rationale is similar to the
rationale for economic support and social entrepreneurship - state institutions simply neither
ask for nor receive funds for these purposes).
The significant share of nonprofits as social service providers is definitely a positive surprise
(more than 86% are directed to nonprofits). Also, two-thirds of the relatively small number
of instances directed to development and research were to nonprofits, and to educational
services nonprofits were recipients of 50% of this area.
ENDOWMENT FUND
Other Recipients 0%
Nonprofit Org. 100%
Other Recipients 0%
Nonprofit Org. 100%
START-UP CAPITAL
Nonprofit Org. 86.8%
SOCIAL SERVICES
Other Recipients 13.2%
Nonprofit Org. 50%
SERVICES IN EDUCATION
Other Recipients 50%
DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
Other Recipients 33.3%
Nonprofit Org. 66.7%
USE OF DONATIONS:
LONG-TERM VS. SHORT-TERM
SUPPORT

16. 1 6
“This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the
responsibility of Trag Foundation, Catalyst Balkans and Ana and Vlade Divac Foundation
and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.”
TRAG FOUNDATION
Milesevska 5/I-6
11118 Belgrade, Serbia
filantropija@tragfondacija.org
www.tragfondacija.org
AUTHOR:
Aleksandra Vesic, Catalyst Balkans
PROOFREADER: Ivana Andric
DESIGN: Korak Studio