PROMOTION OF COOPERATION BETWEEN LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENTS
AND CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS AND TRANSPARENT BUDGETARY
FUNDING OF THEIR ACTIVITIES
Summary Report on Seminars
Introduction
This is the report on training sessions for representatives of 1 local self-governments and local
governments that the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society of the Government of the
Republic of Serbia implemented as a part of the Civil Society Enabling Environment Project,
supported by USAID, in partnership with TACSO Serbia implemented by SIPU
International, supported by the EU. The overall objective of the Civil Society Enabling
Environment Project is to contribute to enabling environment for the development and
sustainability of civil society in Serbia and its harmonization with European standards.
The following documents also represent basis for developing of this Seminar: Guidelines for
inclusion of civil society organizations in regulation adoption process adopted by the
Government decision of August 26, 2014 (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No
90/14); Annual Summary Report for the Government on funding as support to program
activities that was provided and disbursed to associations and other civil society
organizations from the Republic of Serbia Budget, Decree on program funding or shortfall of
funds for funding programs of public interest, as well as Guide to transparent financing of
associations and other civil society organizations from funds of local self-governments
developed during 2013, through cooperation of the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society
and TACSO Serbia, promoted throughout Serbia and distributed to local self-governments.
1All
the terms in this report listed in masculine gender refer to feminine gender as well.

Broaden knowledge on importance and modalities of cooperation
between public administration (primarily local self-governments
and local governments) and civil society organizations (CSOs).
 Promote understanding of the process of transparent financing of
CSOs form budgets of the local self-governments and local
governments
 Become acquainted with good practices in cooperation between
public administration and CSOs and funding of CSOs from
budgets of local self-governments and local governments
Training Facilitators Branka Pavlović, freelance consultant and
Milena Banović, Office for Cooperation with Civil Society
Training Monitoring Jelena Avramović, USAID Program Coordinator;
Zorica Rašković, TACSO Serbia Resident Advisor;
TACSO Serbia Resource Centre representatives (3 persons);
Marina Babović, OSCE Serbia Technical Support to Roma Inclusion
Program representative
Members of the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society team:
Training
Jovana Timotijević, Civil Society Enabling Environment Project
Implementation
Coordinator, Maja Saveski, Vladimir Pašajlić and Mehdija Medović,
Support
intern,
Training Objectives
Review of Training Sessions
Table 1: Number of seminars, dates and local self-government/government participants
No.
of
seminar
1.
2.
Date:
Local self-governments/governments, seminar participants
January 29-30, 2015
Ada, Apatin, Čoka, Kanjiža, Kikinda, Mali Idjos, Nova Crnja,
Novi Bečej, Novi Kneževac, Odžaci, Sečanj, Senta, Sombor,
Subotica, Žitište and Zrenjanin
Bač, Bačka Palanka, Bački Petrovac, Bečej, Beočin, Irig, Novi
Sad, Šid, Srbobran, Sremska Mitrovica, Sremski Karlovci,
Stara Pazova, Temerin, Titel, Vrbas and Žabalj
City Municipalities: Barajevo, Grocka, Lazarevac, Mladenovac,
Obrenovac, Indjija, Kovačica, Pančevo and Plandište
City Municipalities: Čukarica, Novi Beograd, Savski Venac,
Surčin, Zemun, Zvezdara; City Secretariats: Secretariat for
Energy, Secretariat for Inspections, Secretariat for Culture,
Secretariat for Education and Child Protection, Secretariat for
Transport, Secretariat for Environmental Protection, Secretariat
for Health and Office for Youth and Cooperation with
Associations
Bogatić, Koceljeva, Lajkovac, Ljig, Ljubovija, Mionica,
Osečina and Šabac
Smederevska Palanka, Velika Plana, Golubac, Kučevo, Malo
Crniće, Petrovac na Mlavi, Veliko Gradište, Žagubica,
Kragujevac, Rača, Topola and Žabari
Krupanj, Jagodina and Paracin
Nova Varoš, Priboj, Prijepolje, Sjenica, Užice, Čačak, Gornji
Milanovac, Lučani, Novi Pazar, Raška, Tutin, Vrnjačka Banja
and Novi Pazar
Aleksandrovac, Brus, Kruševac, Trstenik, Varvarin, Aleksinac,
Gadžin Han, Niš, Blace, Kuršumlija, Prokuplje, Ivanjica
Kosjerić, Bela Palanka, Pirot, Lebane, Medvedja, Vlasotince,
Bosilegrad, Bujanovac, Presevo, Trgoviste, Vranje, Loznica
February 5-6, 2015
3.
February 12-13, 2015
4.
February 19-20, 2015
5.
February 26-27, 2015
6.
March 5-6, 2015
7.
8.
March 12-13, 2015
March 19-20, 2015
9.
March 26-27, 2015
10.
April 2-3, 2015
Table 2: Total number of local self-governments/governments and local self-government
bodies attending the seminars
Number of local self-governments in Serbia outside of
101
Belgrade
Number of City Municipalities of the City of Belgrade
6
Number of City Secretariats of the City of Belgrade
5
Out of 140 local self-government units from the territory of Serbia that were invited, about
73%2, or about three quarters of LSG participated, which may be regarded as a very high
level of participation, indicating the recognized need of local self-government units and local
government units for promotion of knowledge and practices in the field of cooperation with
civil society and process of transparent financing of their activities.
Table 3: Number and structure of participants according to gender
No.
of
seminar
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
2The
Date:
January 29-30, 2015
February 5-6, 2015
February 12-13, 2015
February 19-20, 2015
February 26-27, 2015
March 5-6, 2015
March 12-13, 2015
March 19-20, 2015
March 26-27, 2015
April 2-3, 2015
Total
Number of participants
Total
F
M
24
28
16
30
20
21
6
23
21
22
211
16
16
9
21
7
18
5
9
13
10
124
stated percentage includes the City of Belgrade as well, as one of the local self-government units.
8
12
7
9
13
3
1
14
8
12
87
Chart 1: Structure of participants according to gender
Structure of participants according to
gender
Women (59%)
Men (41%)
As presented in Table 3 and Chart 1, 124 women (59%) and 87 men (41%) attended the
seminars, corresponding to actual gender structure of LSG employees.
Table 4: Structure of participants according to function/position
Function/position
Total
F
President of the municipality
3
Deputy or Assistant President of municipality
7
3
Member of the city/municipal council
19
7
Head of city/municipal administration
10
5
Head of department of city/municipal administration
30
20
Secretary / deputy of the municipal assembly
6
4
Head of department/office in the city/municipal
27
15
administration or deputy/assistant
Associate in the department/office of the
73
53
city/municipal administration
Associate in the city/municipal administration in
10
7
charge of cooperation with CSOs
Other (civil servants at various positions)
26
10
Total
211
124
M
3
4
12
5
10
2
12
20
3
16
87
As presented in Table 4 and Chart 2 (on the next page), 39 (18%) of senior
executives/decision makers (presidents of municipalities, deputy or assistant presidents of
municipalities, members of city/municipal councils) participated in the training sessions
along with 63 (30%) of middle management representatives (heads of departments of
city/municipal administration, municipal assembly secretaries, heads of departments/offices
in the city/municipal administration). Executives/managers represented about 48% of
participants. This is a very high level of participation of decision makers in a seminar related
to relationship between LSG/public administration and CSOs. Such a high percentage of
executives indicates that the importance of this topic is recognized. Participation of decision
makers is very important for understanding the role and significance of cooperation of local
institutions and civil society organizations, as well as implementation of positive legislation
in this field, and certain solutions discussed during the seminar. Such a high level of their
participation represents one of the key positive achievements of this seminar.
Since most of the participants, in their application forms, replied to the question on the
manner of cooperation between municipalities and CSOs by stating that the cooperation is
recognized through funding and co-funding of their activities, and that a large number of
participants were persons working in the field of finances, it could be stated that such a high
interest of the decision makers reflects a recognized need for promotion of cooperation and
procedure of financing the civil society organizations.
Chart 2: Structure of participants according to function/position at the local self-government
Structure of participants according to function/position at the local
self-government
Structure of participants according to position at the local self-government
40
34.6
35
30
25
20
14.22
15
0
12.32
9
10
5
12.8
1.42
3.32
4.74
2.84
4.74
Short description of the seminar
The Promotion of Cooperation between Local Self-Governments and Civil Society
Organizations and Transparent Budget Finding of Their Activities Seminar included the
following units: introduction (introduction of organizers, facilitators, participants, seminar
objectives and “entrance” knowledge quiz); interactive activities regarding the seminar topic
and the final part (summing up the activities, “exit” knowledge quiz and evaluation by the
participants).
The seminar topics were:
a) Day 1,
 Presentation of scope of work of the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society;
 Presentation of the Guidelines on inclusion of civil society organizations in the regulation
adoption process;
 Principles of good cooperation between the CSOs and LSG/LG units - examples from
practice;
 Levels and mechanisms of cooperation between LSG/LG units and CSOs;
 Presentation of Handbook on implementation of Guidelines on inclusion of CSOs in the
regulation adoption process;
 Identifying recommendations for establishing the mandatory cooperation between LSG
and CSOs.
b) Day 2,
 Good practices in transparent funding of CSOs from the public funds - European and
regional practices;
 Transparent funding of CSOs from the public funds - basic principles and rules;
 Review of the legal framework and practices of CSO funding from local selfgovernment/local government budgets;
 Review of the most frequent issues with implementing the process of transparent budget
funding of CSOs and proposals of possible solutions;
 Mapping the issues with realization of public tenders for CSO funding;
 Status overview and recommendations for harmonizing the LSG regulations for CSO
funding with the Decree on program funding or shortfall of funds for funding the
programs of public interest;
 Importance of monitoring of supported projects and evaluation of the tender cycle
Participants were motivated to actively participate in the seminar. The discussions focused on
the topic, with numerous questions and proposals. Participants presented their ideas and
asked for clarification, and they also stated examples from their own practice and discussed
possible solutions for overcoming the issues. They also wanted to hear about ways in which
these problems were resolved in other LSG units, in order to apply the proposed solutions.
All the participants were given materials such as documents, proposals and solutions for
better understanding of the seminar topics:
 Guidelines on inclusion of CSOs in the regulation adoption process;
 Guide for transparent funding of associations and other civil society organizations
from the local self-government funds;
 Guide through potential domestic and international sources of funding, for projects of
CSOs, local self-governments, SMEs, entrepreneurs and individuals in Serbia (2014);
 Informative leaflets on Europe for Citizens program;
 Review of methods used at various levels of CSO participation in the regulation
adoption process;
 Review of possible duties of persons in charge of cooperation with CSOs;
 Excerpts from the Law on LSG Units of significance for cooperation between LSGUs
and CSOs.
Participant evaluation of training sessions
A) Evaluation questionnaire results
The seminar participants had the chance to perform direct, final evaluation of the Seminar at
the end of the second day. The evaluation questionnaire included questions with evaluation
scale from 1 to 5 and open-ended questions. The questionnaire included numerous aspects of
satisfaction of participants with the seminar: content and methods of working at the seminar;
quality of the seminar; scope and applicability of the acquired knowledge; the most useful
elements of the seminar; less useful elements of the seminar; suggestions for promoting the
concept of seminar and types of additional support that the participants might need in order to
organize an even better cooperation with CSOs. 174 participants, or 82.5% of the total
number, filled in the questionnaire, as a result of the lower number of participants at certain
seminars at the end of the second day due to emergencies at work and similar unforeseen
circumstances.
Table 5: Content and method of working at the seminar rating
1.
2.
Seminar objectives met
Seminar content was in line with
my needs and expectations
Methods of work at the seminar
contributed to meeting the
seminar objectives
3.
1
0%
0%
Ratings
(1 - insufficient; 5 - completely)
2
3
4
0.42%
4.36%
28.94%
2.46%
9.01%
23.57%
5
66.28%
64.96%
0%
1.89%
68.19%
6.19%
23.73%
Chart 3: Content and method of working at the seminar rating
Content and method of working at the seminar rating
100
90
80
Seminar objectives met
66
70
68
65
60
Seminar content was in line with
my needs and expectations
50
40
Methods of work at the seminar
contributed to meeting the
seminar objectives
29
30
2424
20
10
0 0 0
0 2 2
1
2
4
9
6
0
3
4
5
As stated in Table 5 and Chart 3, the highest percentage - in average, more than 66% of
participants, rated the content and method of working with 5, and about 25% with 4, meaning
that more than 90% of participants expressed a very high level of satisfaction with this aspect
of the seminar.
Table 6: Seminar quality rating
Ratings
(1 - insufficiently; 5 - completely)
1.
2.
3.
Facilitators demonstrated
competence in all areas of work
at the seminar
Facilitators encouraged
interaction - participation and
asking questions
Overall duration of seminar was
well-planned
1
0%
2
0%
3
2.21%
4
7.09%
5
90.7%
0%
0%
0.96%
8.9%
90.68%
0%
0.42%
3.19%
15.37%
81.02%
Chart 4: Seminar quality rating
Seminar quality rating
100
91 91
90
81
80
Facilitators demonstrated
competence in all areas of
work at the seminar
70
60
Facilitators encouraged
interaction - participation and
asking questions
50
40
Overall duration of seminar
was well-planned
30
15
20
10
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 1 3
1
2
3
7 9
0
4
5
Table 6 and Chart 4 indicate that the satisfaction with the quality of the seminar is even
higher - more than 90% of participants rated the competence of facilitators and their
interaction with participants with 5, and the overall quality of the seminar was rated with 5 by
more than 87% of participants.
Table 7: Scope and applicability of acquired knowledge
1.
My level of information and
knowledge on topics that
were covered were broadened
after this seminar
Knowledge acquired at this
seminar will be applicable in
practice and it will promote
my participation in
cooperation with CSOs
2.
1
0%
Ratings
(1 - insufficiently; 5 - completely)
2
3
4
1.33%
9.19%
34.98%
5
54.5%
0%
0.42%
47.26%
6.42%
45.91%
Chart 5: Scope and applicability of acquired knowledge
Scope and applicability of acquired knowledge
100
90
80
70
60
55
46
50
47
Knowledge acquired at this
seminar will be applicable in
practice and it will promote my
participation in cooperation
with CSOs
35
40
30
20
10
9
0 0
1 0
1
2
My level of information and
knowledge on topics that were
covered were broadened after
this seminar
6
0
3
4
5
One of the key measures of participant satisfaction with the seminar - scope and applicability
of the acquired knowledge - was also rated very high, with 5 (more than 50%) and 4 (more
than 40%). Taken as a whole, more than 90% of respondent gave these ratings. This may be
considered as an exceptionally good, as the rating of applicability of the acquired knowledge
is usually lower than the other aspects of satisfaction of participants with the seminar, since
as a rule, the participants have difficulties to evaluate the applicability of acquired knowledge
in everyday work immediately after completion of the seminar, as they will return to their
jobs after the seminar.
Category
Methods and manner of
working
Experience sharing
Table 8: The most useful at the seminar
Examples of typical answers













Good practices











Specific knowledge and
topics at the seminar







Workshop
Practice and interaction
Group work, interaction
Manner of working
Exercises
Numerous practical solutions put forward by the facilitators, to
solve the statutory concerns
Inclusion of all the participants in workshops
Answers of lecturers to questions of training participants
Systematic material presenting
Presentations of lecturers
Obtained material
Experience sharing and insight into solving of challenges and
problems in other LG
Communication with colleagues from other municipalities and
towns/cities
Opinion sharing and the possibility to make comments
Concerns from practice clarified
Practical experience in realization of the public tender
Manner of CSO project funding
Comparative practice
Good practices
Examples of other municipalities and towns/cities in
cooperation with CSOs
Good practices
Experiences of other city and municipal administrations
Actual cases from municipalities
Practices and experience sharing with colleagues from other
LSGs
Information on legislative amendments and obligation to
implement the Decree
Introduction to importance of procedures in awarding the LSG
budget funding to CSOs
Introduction to legal framework
Information on the existing models of training sessions
available at the website of the Office
Tendering procedures
The part relating to development of the Rulebook for public
tenders
Introduction to activities of the Office for Cooperation with











Knowledge on concept, role
and significance of CSOs and
the civil society
Recommendations and
advice obtained during the
seminar
Facilitators quality of work
Everything at the seminar





















Civil Society
Funding of fees
Transparent funding of CSOs
Certain procedures of CSO funding
Comprehensiveness of question of CSO funding from the
public funds
Summary recap of legal and institutional framework in which
the civil sector is financed
Tendering procedures
Monitoring of funded projects of CSOs
Clarification of legislation
Levels and mechanisms of cooperation between municipalities
and CSOs, legal framework review, problem mapping, new
proposals
Handbook on transparent funding of CSOs
Information on when and how to obtain additional information
and apply the gained experience
CSO meaning and civil society scope of activity (what it does)
Broadening the knowledge on CSOs
Information on the importance of CSOs
How to act with CSOs, according to the Law
Obtaining the additional information and explanations on CSO
functioning, as well as the legal framework
Information on possibilities of CSOs
Obtained recommendations advice, ideas
Advice on how to promote cooperation between LSGs and
CSOs
Guidelines for further activities and cooperation with CSOs
Status overview and recommendations
Establishing the contact with the Office for Cooperation with
Civil Society
Knowledge on where to find certain information
Options to apply certain ideas in practice
Competence of lecturers
Vast experience of facilitators passed onto us
Everything
The whole seminar was exceptionally educational
Introduction to the matter - better understanding of concepts
and manner of implementation
Overall lecture broadened my level of knowledge
Absolutely everything, particularly verification that what we
have been doing so far is going in a good direction
Acquisition of new knowledge and the consultation
Participants indicated numerous issues as the most useful at the seminar, and those issues
were grouped into the following categories during the answer processing: Methods and
manner of working; Experience sharing; Good practices; Specific knowledge and topics at
the seminar; Knowledge on concept, role and significance of CSOs and the civil society;
Recommendations and advice obtained during the seminar; Facilitators quality of work and
Everything at the seminar (see Table 8). According to typical answers within each category, it
may be noted that the participants regard the following as the most useful for them:
interactive methods and techniques of working, sharing of information and experiences with
other LSGs, specific good practices from various LSGs, information on implementation of
legislation for CSOs (particularly in the field of funding), recommendations and advice
obtained at the seminar, as well as knowledge on concept, role and significance of CSOs and
the civil society. The latter indicates the relatively low level of prior knowledge in this field,
as well as the lack of opportunities to broaden that knowledge during the everyday job at
public administration.
Category
Methods and manner of
working
Specific topics at the seminar
No such issue/everything is
useful
Table 9: Less useful at the seminar
Examples of typical answers

















Professional lectures on Day 1
Lack of specific examples
Workshops
Listening to presentations of participants which have not been
closely related to the topic
Theoretical part
Group work
Games
Quiz
Introduction of the seminar participants
Seminar Day 1
Introductory remarks on CSOs
Debate on rulebooks
Monitoring
Examples of Croatia and Montenegro
Review of the manner in which funding is allocated to CSOs
in the region and other countries
Information on the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society
Everything is equally useful
Participants singled out a modest number of issues that were less useful at the seminar (see
Table 9). Some of them refer to group work and interactive approach (indicating the lack of
information on this kind of work by some participants and their resistance to something they
are not familiar with), and a part relates to specific topics of the seminar. Only the topics
directly regarding the CSO funding have not been singled out as less useful. It substantiates
the observation that a large number of participants primarily sees it as a key form of
cooperation between LSGs and CSOs.
Table 10: Suggestions for promotion of the seminar concept
Category
Examples of typical answers
 More specific examples and exercises in groups for the whole
Methods and manner of
process of a specific example
working












Content / topics of the
seminar






Seminar venue and duration






More of the dynamics
Participants should be motivated more
Possibly include another exercise for group work, during the
second day
The acquired knowledge should be upgraded, or elevated to a
higher level, at a following seminar
Maybe a video clip, a presentation
Pay more attention to the specific topic and simplify analyses
The only objection is constant moving/relocation of
participants, maybe another type of dynamics changing would
be better
Concretize the procedure on one example of a tender
All the discussions should be plenary, no need for group work
Include CSOs in joint activities with LSGUs at the seminar
Include discussion of participants as much as possible
Use less foreign words and new coinages less from foreign
abbreviations
Cut out the introduction (the first day) and deal with specific
questions
More seminars should be organized, as we are in the stage of
implementing projects with CSOs
Exercises regarding tender implementation and preparation
Legislation monitoring, launching initiatives
Present current good practices
More analyses of specific cases from practice, good and bad
sides
Shorter time between sessions
Work till lunch
Venue - too far for the south municipalities
More frequent seminars and workshops of this kind
Organize training sessions in districts
More frequent seminars
The manner of organizing the
seminar







Seminars should last for at least three days
Organize the schedule in a different manner as it is tiring
Mandatory attendance by local self-governments
It would be good to find the model for funding seminars like
this at which more LSG representatives could be present
Inclusion of other levels of authority in the concept of the
seminar itself, presence of other members of LSGs at the
seminar
Invite presidents of municipalities
Repeat this in order to share new information and experiences
Suggestions for promotion of the seminar concept, grouped in descriptive categories, are
presented in Table 10. Key suggestions relate to: higher dynamics of the seminar, more
exercises, introduction of more contemporary audio-visual techniques, joint seminars with
CSOs, shorter hours, but more days of the seminar, organizing this seminar in various
districts and LSGs, inclusion of local decision-makers at a high level, inclusion of other
levels of authority, etc. The suggestion to cut out the first day related to participation of CSOs
in the regulation adoption process and Guidelines stipulating it is particularly prominent. This
kind of suggestion indicates that the participants who have written it down obviously do not
recognize the importance of including CSOs in the decision-making processes at the local
level.
Table 11: Type of additional support the seminar participants need to organize an even better
cooperation with CSOs
Category
Examples of typical answers
 Contact with the Office, advice, remarks, suggestions and
Communication with the
information
Office for Cooperation with

Consultations with the Office and guidelines in projects
Civil Society
 Continuation of cooperation
 Distribution of Handbook
 Following the website in order to improve working and
cooperation with CSOs will be quite enough
 Sending e-mails to municipalities, along with all tenders
regarding CSOs
 Constant reporting on changes in the field dealing with CSOs
 Developing instructions with good practices
 Options for e-mail communication when needed
 Technical support - periodical consultations regarding concerns
in the process
Better introduction to
regulations
 Additional information on regulation and procedure
amendments
 Introduction to new regulations
Sources of information on
various issues
Communication and
exchange with other LSGs
Additional training
Financial support by the
Office
Other
 More textbooks/references
 Printed or electronic versions of materials presented at the
seminar
 Better contact with other local self-governments and
experience sharing
 Introduction to good practices
 Training on the manner of organizing the info sessions with
CSOs
 Maybe after some time a similar conference could be
organized, so that I could participate in it even more actively
 Training for monitoring
 Implementation of new regulations to be adopted - legislation
and subordinate legislation
 CSO training
 Organizing the seminar for both LSGUs and CSOs
 Organize seminars like this once every 2-3 years
 Seminars in municipalities
 All the decision-makers should attend this seminar
 Refer president of the municipality and head of municipal
administration to mandatory training
 Co-funding of projects/programs of associations and other
CSOs by the Government Office
 Creating a working position at the local self-government unit
 Hiring staff
 Assistance in organization
 Someone should explain all this to presidents of municipalities
 Support for developing of single legislation
Participants listed several types of additional support they would need after the seminar.
During the data processing, we grouped the types of additional support into several
categories: Communication with the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society; Better
introduction to regulations; Sources of information on various issues; Communication and
exchange with other LSGs; Additional training; Financial support by the Office and Other,
with various answers, as may be seen in Table 11.
b) Quiz of knowledge
In order to directly evaluate the upgrading of basic knowledge on the seminar topics, a very
simple quiz, consisting of ten closed-ended questions, was developed and used. The
participants have completed the same quiz individually before the beginning and at the end of
the seminar. The quiz was anonymous and the participants were instructed to mark both
“entrance” and “exit” quizzes with the same personal code or mark. Results of knowledge
upgrade on the seminar topics are expressed by the total percentage of correct and incorrect
answers at the “entrance” and “exit” quizzes (Chart 6 and Chart 7 and Table 12).
Chart 6: Answers to the “entrance” quiz
Answers to the “entrance” quiz
Correct answers
(67.16%)
Incorrect answers
(32.84%)
Chart 7: Answers to the “exit” quiz
Answers to the “exit” quiz
Correct answers
(74.97%)
Incorrect answers
(25.03%)
Table 12: Answers to the “entrance” and “exit” quizzes
Quiz
Type of answers
Correct (%)
Incorrect (%)
“Exit” quiz
74.97%
25.03%
“Entrance” quiz
67.16%
32.84%
“Entrance” - “exit” difference
+7.81%
+7.81%
The knowledge quiz indicates the increased scope of knowledge of participants for about 8%,
which is a mild increase compared to the initial level, which may be attributed to the seminar.
We should have in mind that this is a simple quiz of basic awareness on CSOs and
cooperation with the public sector (so that numerous participants already had a significant
level of knowledge on the topic), and that the quiz itself was an easy one, as it consisted of
questions requiring basic knowledge.
The results of the overall evaluation indicate that the seminar has met the planned objectives,
that the level of participant satisfaction was very high and that a mild progress in their
knowledge on the seminar topics has been achieved.
“Lessons learned” and recommendations for future activities
“Lessons learned”
“Lessons learned” were grouped into three categories: The level of interest in the seminar;
Understanding and development of various aspects of cooperation and participation of CSOs
in decision making and Transparent funding of projects and programs of CSOs from the LSG
budgets and non-financial support to CSOs.


1. The level of interest in the seminar
High level of attendance, about 73% of the invited municipalities from all over Serbia
attended
 Participant structure - high number of decision-makers, or heads of organizational units in
institutions in charge of cooperation and/or funding of civil society organizations,
 Majority of participants are in charge of affairs that the seminar topic is relevant for,
whereas a lower number of participants belongs to a group of those whose affairs are not
related to the seminar topic
2. Understanding and development of various aspects of cooperation and participation
of CSOs in decision making
 Most of participants understand the collaboration between CSOs and LSGs as funding of
programs and projects of CSOs from the local budget; at the same time, it is the most
frequent form of cooperation.






Differences among regions participating in the seminar were noted in terms of the level of
development of transparent CSO funding procedures from the local budgets, as well as
other forms of cooperation with civil society organizations - LSGs from the north of
Vojvodina are the most advanced in both establishing (and developing) cooperation and
implementation in practice.
Smaller LGs from all over Serbia seem to include CSO representatives in the decisionmaking processes more than the bigger LSGs - this tendency may be explained by the
lack of human resources of high quality and smaller communities respect all the ones with
certain competences, regardless of the sector they belong to.
A low number of LSGs has a working position for cooperation with CSOs through the act
on job classification; in most cases, LSGs have one or more persons from the sector of
social affairs and/or members of local councils in charge for cooperation with CSOs,
among other duties.
Belgrade has a newly established Youth Office (Office for Youth and Cooperation with
Associations, formed in January 2015), and its representatives expressed the need for
additional support and transfer of experiences in the field of cooperation with CSOs and
the Republic of Serbia Government Office for Cooperation with Civil Society and other
institutions in the system.
Large LSGs - cities: Belgrade, Novi Sad, Kragujevac, Nis are at different levels of
development of solutions for CSO participation - in Belgrade, Nis and partially in
Kragujevac these solutions are at a relatively high level; some Belgrade municipalities
and certain city secretariats have developed procedures and mechanisms that could be
examples of good practices.
As far as the individual levels of cooperation between LSGs and CSOs are concerned, the
following was observed:
o Informing is at the highest level of development, in particular regarding various
procedures of informing on announced tenders for funding (for example,
information is shared even by sms);
o Shortcomings in the process of counselling and average of public hearing
implementation, or only formal implementation of those;
o A rather developed inclusion into working groups, the most frequent form of
inclusion being inclusion into the process of local strategic documents and action
plans development; however, LSGs do not have procedures and mechanisms and
criteria for CSO inclusion (into working groups, committees, etc.) developed, but
it takes place according to freely estimated need and ad hoc.
o The partnership is almost exclusively related to projects; during the discussion, the
participants mentioned only two types of partnership in which a LSGU delegated
certain tasks to a CSO - one is the example of the City of Belgrade Secretariat for
Environmental Protection that tasks a CSO with management of a protected
natural area in Zemun, and another is the example of Valjevo that has selected a
CSO, and not a public institution, from the field of sport to conduct swimming
training for children, as the CSO offered better terms.
3. Transparent funding of projects and programs of CSOs from the LSG budgets and
non-financial support to CSOs
 Procedures of transparent funding are the most developed ones, although certain
improvements are required in that area, too, particularly having in mind the fact that there
are big differences among practices of different LSGs.
 Only few copies of the Handbook on transparent funding of CSOs that have officially
been sent to LSGs have reached persons in charge of cooperation with LSGs; some of the
persons in charge of cooperation with CSOs obtained the Handbook during the Office and
TASCO presentations in certain Serbian towns.
 All the participants who are already familiar with the Handbook content think that it
assisted them in solving of practical issues of CSO transparent funding considerably, and
some of them used it as assistance in promoting the CSO funding procedures and
development of municipal Rulebooks, or other internal acts governing the procedure of
civil society organizations funding.
 Almost all the municipalities grant the non-financial support to civil society
organizations, most frequently in the form of premises (offices) for work, that are, in most
cases, granted for free, or in some cases rented at a very low, non market price, then
through covering of utility costs for organizations, providing venues for meetings,
providing transport for beneficiaries - usually athletes. This kind of support is significant
both in value and in kind, and it is most frequently extended to organizations existing for
a long time, or organizations of persons with disabilities. Non-existence of criteria for
granting this kind of support has also been observed.
 However, this kind of support does not seem to be recognized as support of LSGUs to
organizations, regardless of its importance, particularly for the aspect of sustainability of
activities of civil society organizations,
 Funding of sport CSOs is, as a rule, resolved in all the LSGs in the best way, and the
largest portion of funds is allocated to them.
 Open issues in the process of transparent funding and non-financial support to CSOs:
o Project evaluation criteria, particularly the weighting of those criteria. Current
criteria are general and mostly do not mention the number of points for evaluation,
so there is no clear scoring of the criteria fulfilment Sometimes criteria do not
represent an integral part of the public call, or tendering documentation;
o Inclusion of CSO representatives in the decision-making committees (selection
criteria and solving the conflict of interest issue are usually not resolved
appropriately);
o Fees: salaries for secretaries of associations of persons with disabilities that are,
based on the annual programs, funded by LSG budgets (in particular,
associations/municipal organizations and intermunicipal organizations of deaf and
hearing impaired persons and blind and visually impaired persons);
o Defining the priorities of tender for funding the CSO projects/programs - the
strategic approach is missing;
o Cooperation/consultation with CSOs about defining the tender priorities in order
to consider the realistic capacities of CSOs;
o Significant lack of knowledge on monitoring (apart from financial monitoring and
monitoring of projects based on reports) and evaluation of the tender cycle - one
of key topics for further development of LSGs, as well as CSOs (importance,
justification, requirements, etc.). Possible engagement of a CSO or an independent
expert to perform monitoring for LSGs.
o Lack of a broadly developed notion on what a job description of a person dealing
with cooperation with CSOs should include, along with their positioning within
LSG.
o Poor knowledge on methods of counselling inclusion, partnership;
o Some LSGs have poorly developed, or none at all, procedures for transparent
funding and practices of CSO inclusion in decision-making processes: Gornji
Milanovac, Cacak, Lucani, Golubac, Zagubica, Medvedja, Bujanovac, Presevo an additional analysis is required in order to identify the reasons for that situation;
o Lack of criteria for granting the non-financial assistance to organizations business premises for CSOs, municipal premises for public events, vehicles for
the transport of beneficiaries, etc.
Recommendations for future activities
1) Informing the public on training sessions and their results
 Presentation of results of all the training sessions - short overview prepared to be easily
adjusted to a certain requirement.
 Summary feedback submitted to participants.
2) Activities at the local level
 Training sessions/workshops at the local level for LSGs selected based on the public call,
to be participated by both representatives of LSGs and CSOs, related to the following
topics:
o Establishing procedures for CSO participation in the decision-making processes, in
accordance with Guidelines and development of the Rulebook for CSO inclusion in
decision-making processes.





o Solving the specific open issues of transparent funding.
o Importance of monitoring and evaluation, development of the format for monitoring
and evaluation of the funded CSO projects and programs and promotion of municipal
acts governing the CSO funding (by introducing the obligation for monitoring and
evaluation of programs and projects funded from the LSG budgets).
Promotion of the Handbook on Implementation of Guidelines at the local level and in the
City of Belgrade.
Working with LSGs that do not have transparent funding procedures set in place, on their
establishing and developing and adoption of the Rulebook governing the transparent
funding of CSOs process.
Harmonization of the local rulebooks on CSO funding with the Decree on program
funding or shortfall of funds for funding the programs of public interest implemented by
associations,
Formalizing the status of persons in charge of cooperation with CSOs through adoption of
the new rulebooks on job classification in which the working position for cooperation
with CSOs would be clearly classified, along with the corresponding job description.
Prior to adoption of the local rulebooks on CSO participation in decision-making
processes, it is important to correct the LSG statutes according to the future Law on LSG,
in terms of the manner and mechanisms for inclusion of the citizens in the decisionmaking process and the process of development of general acts adopted by the
municipality, as well as an mandatory public hearings and their detailed regulating.
3) Activities at the national level
 Adoption of a special act at the Government level on the mandatory monitoring and
evaluation and development of procedures for monitoring and evaluation of the
financially supported projects and programs.
 Development of M&E handbooks by the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society
 Developed of a new, updated edition of the Handbook for transparent funding of civil
society organizations from budget funds, that would consider the recent amendments in
legislation pertaining to CSO funding and promotion of implementation of the CSO
funding process and tender documentation, and its distribution and promotion.
Report prepared by,
Branka Pavlović
and
Milena Banović
Report Appendices:
Appendix 1. List of all the participants of the training sessions
Appendix 2. Products of activities of training participants
Appendix 3. Photos from the seminar