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.

Training Objectives /
  • 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 / BrankaPavlović, freelance consultant and
Milena Banović, Office for Cooperation with Civil Society
Training Monitoring / JelenaAvramović, USAID Program Coordinator;
ZoricaRašković, TACSO Serbia Resident Advisor;
TACSO Serbia Resource Centre representatives (3 persons);
Marina Babović, OSCE Serbia Technical Support to Roma Inclusion Program representative
Training Implementation Support / Members of the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society team: JovanaTimotijević, Civil Society Enabling Environment Project Coordinator, Maja Saveski, Vladimir Pašajlić and MehdijaMedović, intern,

Review of Training Sessions

Table 1: Number of seminars, dates and local self-government/government participants

No.
of
seminar / Date: / Local self-governments/governments, seminar participants
1. / January 29-30, 2015 / Ada, Apatin, Čoka, Kanjiža, Kikinda, MaliIdjos, Nova Crnja, Novi Bečej, Novi Kneževac, Odžaci, Sečanj, Senta, Sombor, Subotica, Žitište and Zrenjanin
2. / February 5-6, 2015 / Bač, BačkaPalanka, BačkiPetrovac, Bečej, Beočin, Irig, Novi Sad, Šid, Srbobran, SremskaMitrovica, SremskiKarlovci, StaraPazova, Temerin, Titel, Vrbas and Žabalj
3. / February 12-13, 2015 / City Municipalities: Barajevo, Grocka, Lazarevac, Mladenovac, Obrenovac, Indjija, Kovačica, Pančevo and Plandište
4. / February 19-20, 2015 / City Municipalities: Čukarica, Novi Beograd, SavskiVenac, 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
5. / February 26-27, 2015 / Bogatić, Koceljeva, Lajkovac, Ljig, Ljubovija, Mionica, Osečina and Šabac
6. / March 5-6, 2015 / SmederevskaPalanka, Velika Plana, Golubac, Kučevo, MaloCrniće, PetrovacnaMlavi, VelikoGradište, Žagubica, Kragujevac, Rača, Topola and Žabari
7. / March 12-13, 2015 / Krupanj, Jagodina and Paracin
8. / March 19-20, 2015 / Nova Varoš,Priboj, Prijepolje, Sjenica, Užice, Čačak, GornjiMilanovac, Lučani, Novi Pazar, Raška, Tutin, Vrnjačka Banja and Novi Pazar
9. / March 26-27, 2015 / Aleksandrovac, Brus, Kruševac, Trstenik, Varvarin, Aleksinac, Gadžin Han, Niš, Blace, Kuršumlija, Prokuplje, Ivanjica
10. / April 2-3, 2015 / Kosjerić, BelaPalanka, Pirot, Lebane, Medvedja, Vlasotince, Bosilegrad, Bujanovac, Presevo, Trgoviste, Vranje, Loznica

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 Belgrade / 101
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 / Date: / Number of participants
Total / F / M
1. / January 29-30, 2015 / 24 / 16 / 8
2. / February 5-6, 2015 / 28 / 16 / 12
3. / February 12-13, 2015 / 16 / 9 / 7
4. / February 19-20, 2015 / 30 / 21 / 9
5. / February 26-27, 2015 / 20 / 7 / 13
6. / March 5-6, 2015 / 21 / 18 / 3
7. / March 12-13, 2015 / 6 / 5 / 1
8. / March 19-20, 2015 / 23 / 9 / 14
9. / March 26-27, 2015 / 21 / 13 / 8
10. / April 2-3, 2015 / 22 / 10 / 12
Total / 211 / 124 / 87

Chart 1: Structure of participants according to gender

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 / M
President of the municipality / 3 / - / 3
Deputy or Assistant President of municipality / 7 / 3 / 4
Member of the city/municipal council / 19 / 7 / 12
Head of city/municipal administration / 10 / 5 / 5
Head of department of city/municipal administration / 30 / 20 / 10
Secretary / deputy of the municipal assembly / 6 / 4 / 2
Head of department/office in the city/municipal administration or deputy/assistant / 27 / 15 / 12
Associate in the department/office of the city/municipal administration / 73 / 53 / 20
Associate in the city/municipal administration in charge of cooperation with CSOs / 10 / 7 / 3
Other (civil servants at various positions) / 26 / 10 / 16
Total / 211 / 124 / 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

Short description of the seminar

ThePromotion of Cooperation between Local Self-Governments and Civil Society Organizations and Transparent Budget Finding of Their Activities Seminarincluded 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 self-government/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

Ratings
(1 - insufficient; 5 - completely)
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
1. / Seminar objectives met / 0% / 0.42% / 4.36% / 28.94% / 66.28%
2. / Seminar content was in line with my needs and expectations / 0% / 2.46% / 9.01% / 23.57% / 64.96%
3. / Methods of work at the seminar contributed to meeting the seminar objectives / 0% / 1.89% / 6.19% / 23.73% / 68.19%

Chart 3: Content and method of working at the seminar rating

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 / 4 / 5
1. / Facilitators demonstrated competence in all areas of work at the seminar / 0% / 0% / 2.21% / 7.09% / 90.7%
2. / Facilitators encouraged interaction - participation and asking questions / 0% / 0% / 0.96% / 8.9% / 90.68%
3. / Overall duration of seminar was well-planned / 0% / 0.42% / 3.19% / 15.37% / 81.02%

Chart 4: Seminar quality rating

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

Ratings
(1 - insufficiently; 5 - completely)
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
1. / My level of information and knowledge on topics that were covered were broadened after this seminar / 0% / 1.33% / 9.19% / 34.98% / 54.5%
2. / Knowledge acquired at this seminar will be applicable in practice and it will promote my participation in cooperation with CSOs / 0% / 0.42% / 6.42% / 45.91% / 47.26%

Chart 5: Scope and applicability of acquired knowledge

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.

Table 8: The most useful at the seminar

Category / Examples of typical answers
Methods and manner of working /
  • 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 /
  • 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

Good practices /
  • 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

Specific knowledge and topics at the seminar /
  • 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 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

Knowledge on concept, role and significance of CSOs and the civil society /
  • 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

Recommendations and advice obtained during the seminar /
  • 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

Facilitators quality of work /
  • Competence of lecturers
  • Vast experience of facilitators passed onto us

Everything at the seminar /
  • 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.

Table 9: Less useful at the seminar

Category / Examples of typical answers
Methods and manner of working /
  • 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

Specific topics at the seminar /
  • 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

No such issue/everything is useful /
  • 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.