Annual Report on the State of Philanthropy - Serbia 2015

SERBIA
2015
ANNUAL REPORT
Research
ON THE STATE OF
PHILANTHROPY

Catalyst Balkans
Seat: Mileta Jakšića 1, Belgrade, Serbia
Offices: Makedonska 21, Belgrade, Serbia
Prepared by:
Aleksandra Vesić Antić
Editors:
Nathan Koeshall
Aleksandra Vesić Antić
Translation:
Dragana Stevanović Kolaković
Proofreading:
Julia Stanton
Graphic Design:
Tatjana Negić Paunović
Belgrade, 2016.
The 2015 Annual Report on the State of Philanthropy in Serbia is part of a broader initiative to
promote and stmulate philanthropy in Serbia and the region carried out by the Trag Foundation
and Catalyst Balkans. The underlying research and this publication were created by Catalyst
Balkans in cooperation with Trag Foundation, and with the generous support of the C.S.Mott
Foundation, Balkan Trust for Democracy (BTD) and United States Agency for International
Development (USAID).
The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the
views of USAID or the Government of the United States of America.

1. General Overview
2. Overview of the
Key Indicators
Related to
Philanthropy
in Serbia
3. Annexes
4
6 Terminology Used in Report
7
11 Level of Philanthropic Activity in Serbia
12 Geographic Distribution of Giving
2.1 DONORS
15 Value of Donations
15 Donations by Type of Donor
19 Profiles of the Most Common Types of Donors
2.2 FOR WHAT PURPOSE ARE DONATIONS
MADE IN SERBIA?
22 What Themes Are Important to Donors in Serbia?
23 Use of Donations
2.3 WHO IS SUPPORTED BY DONORS IN SERBIA?
25 Who Are Trusted as Recipients of Donations?
29 Who Benefits from Donations?
2.4 HOW IS GIVING DONE IN SERBIA?
32 What Is Donated?
34 Ways of Fundraising
36 Media Coverage
38 Annex 1: Methodology
39 Factors and Indicators Showing the Degree of
Philanthropy Development
40 Annex 2: Changes In Legal-Fiscal Framework
Table of Contents
Foreword
Summary

4
2015 Annual Report on the State of Philanthropy in Serbia
Dear friends,
Catalyst Balkans and Trag Foundation are pleased to present to you the 2015
Annual Report on the State of Philanthropy in Serbia. Just as 2014 was marked
by floods, 2015 was marked by a refugee crisis, resulting from a massive
influx of refugees from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries who
passed through Serbia in their efforts to escape war-torn countries and seek
asylum in other countries.
Although the level of giving directed to this popuation was significantly lower
than the giving directed to flood relief in 2014, the response to the refugee
crisis demonstrated the solidarity of Serbian citizens with people of other
religions and nationalities. Individuals in communities through which the
refugees passed, nonprofit organizations, foundations and the corporate
sector all offered their support. We can therefore be proud of the way we
responded as a society to this challenge.
At the same time, we can be proud of the fact that the overall level of giving
in Serbia has increased in comparison to 2014, both in terms of the number
of instances of giving and the value of donations. Estimations suggest that in
2015 the number of instances of giving exceeded 3,000, with over 22 million
EUR donated for a wide range of themes, recipients and beneficiary groups.
As in previous years, the report presents data for 2015 and, wherever
possible, indicates the trends in giving for certain indicators. We hope that
this data will be both useful and of interest to you as additional information
on the levels of giving and on the development of philanthropy in Serbia.
Finally, something about how the report was prepared: it was prepared using
the GivingBalkans database, which was developed by Catalyst in 2013 and
which we continue to upgrade. It is with great pleasure that we note that our
database is currently the most reliable data source1
on voluntary donations
in Serbia, as well as in the region.
In the absence of official data2
, for the data processed by GivingBalkans,
Catalyst used alternative methods of gathering data, primarily media
reports and then other available data sources2
. This methodology3
has
certain limitations, one of which is that the media does not always record
all donations given for charitable purposes. However, we believe that our
research provides insight into the most important aspects of voluntary giving
because the figures obtained, although not comprehensive, do provide
minimal relevant indicators that can be used as indicators of the degree of
philanthropy development in the country.
1
Although a potentially more reliable data source would be the Tax Office (because there
are certain tax benefits for legal entities in Serbia), it was not possible to obtain data related
to corporate sector donations for several reasons. According to the Law on Corporate Income
Tax of the Republic of Serbia (Article 15), the right to tax relief in Serbia is granted if donations
to the public benefit causes stipulated by law are recognized as expenditures in the amount
up to a maximum of 5% of total income. Since the amounts are deducted as expenditures,
and legal entities submit Profit and Loss Accounts to the Tax Administration instead of balance
sheets, from the forms currently used by the Tax Administration, it is not possible to obtain
data on the donations of legal entities disaggregated by specific purpose.
2
Reports of organizations that received donations, and companies’ reports on donations.
3
Detailed information on our methodology is provided in Section 3.1
Foreword

5
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
The data in this report was collected by monitoring the electronic, print
and on-line media on the local, regional and national levels in Serbia from
January 1 through December 31, 2015. Over this period, 8,551 entries related
to voluntary giving by all types of donors were processed, of which 3,218
were unique recorded instances. The total number of entries differs from
the number of unique donations because several media reported on on the
same donation. In addition, this year more entries were received directly
from companies and nonprofit organizations.
Generally speaking, the positive trends of 2014 continued, including a larger
number of instances and higher value of donations. 2015 was also marked
by somewhat higher investments in education, a slow but steady increase in
the nonprofit sector as the beneficiary institution, no decrease in the range
of themes and final beneficiary groups and an increase in the transparency
of donated sums.
In spite of these positive trends, there is still great room for improvement,
particularly with regard to strategic investments, increased cooperation
between sectors, the inclusion of new actors such as academia, as well as
in strengthening strategic cooperation with the media in the promotion of
giving. In cooperation with Trag Foundation and other organizations engaged
in the field of philanthropy, Catalyst will continue to closely monitor and
report on shifts and trends in philanthropy both in Serbia and the region.
We believe that measuring philanthropy and presenting data, trends and
positive examples may contribute to positive shifts in various forms of giving
and consequently help realize the potential of philanthropy.
We would like to thank all of you who have helped us prepare this report:
those of you who took part in philanthropy, those who have donated
funds and time, and those whose contributions have facilitated the further
development of both our method and methodology in collecting the data. We
would also like to thank all of the companies and organizations that shared
data with us that was not available through the media. Finally, we would like
to thank the Catalyst Balkans and Trag Foundation employees who assisted
with data entry and the processing of data and whose efforts helped greatly
in completing this report.
Our best regards until the 2016 report is published,
Catalyst Balkans and Trag Foundation

6
For easier understanding of the report, herein below are short descriptions
of the terminology used in the report.
Terminology Used in Report
Instance Unique verified events/examples of collecting donations. May contain
several donations (for example, an instance could be a campaign in which
individuals collect cash for someone’s medical treatment).
Donors Persons and/or legal entities donating cash, time, services, goods. They are
divided into types of donors to facilitate the monitoring of trends.
Donors
Mass Individual
Large number of individuals who could not be identified by name.
Donors
Mixed
Cases in which it is not possible to classify the donors, i.e. several types of
donors were involved in the instance.
Donors
Individuals
The donors can be identified as individuals.
Donors
Corporate Sector
Includes companies (with over 50 employees), corporate foundations and
small and medium sized enterprises (with less than 50 employees).
Donors
Private Foundations
Foundations established by private individuals or a combination of both
private and legal entities.
Donation A case of unique giving, without compensation (in money, goods, services or
time) being given in return.
Extrapolation A statistical method that uses the percentage of known data to calculate data
that would be valid if 100% of the data was known. Extrapolation provides an
estimate and not absolute values.
Philanthropy Giving for a good cause, i.e. the voluntary giving of money, goods, time, or
services in order to help the needy and advance social welfare.
Final Beneficiaries Target groups that benefit from a donation. For example, if a school is the
recipient of a donation, the beneficiaries are the children attending the
school.
Themes for Giving Themes or purposes for which donations are given, such as health, education,
etc.
Recipients of
Donations
Private and/or legal entities receiving a donation from a donor. In most cases
this donation is then passed on to others.
Corporate Sector The term corporate sector includes companies (with over 50 employees),
corporate foundations and small and medium size enterprises (with less
than 50 employees).
Use of Donations Indicates how a donation has been used, for example for capital investment,
the purchase of equipment, for the rendering of services, provision of
material and consumer goods and the like.
Symbol Meaning
Increase as compared with the previous year
Decrease as compared with the previous year
No change as compared with the previous year
Change is 1%, or less as compared to the previous year and is thus statistically
negligible.

7
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
GENERAL OVERVIEW
A general overview of philanthropy data between 2014 and 2015
definitely highlights three positive shifts.
The available data show that over 22 million EUR was given for
philanthropic purposes in Serbia in 2015.
The number of instances also increased from 154 (in 2014) to
268 (in 2015) per month.
The average donation per citizen in Serbia also increased from
2.59 Euros in 2014 to 3.14 Euros in 2015.
In the next section, we provide a brief overview of some of
the most important indicators that together paint a picture of
philanthropy in Serbia.
PHILANTHROPY IN 2015
MOST ACTIVE DONORS
In 2015, mass individual giving continued to be the most active
donor category by percentage of recorded instances, the
corporate sector increased their activity and became the second
most active donor type, while individual persons ranked third.
A comparison with 2014 shows a drop in the percentage of
instances of the participation of mass individuals, but at the
same time, shows an increase in the percentage of instances of
donations from the corporate sector.
VALUE OF DONATIONS BY TYPE OF DONOR
When we rank donors according to recorded value of their
donations, the picture changes. The corporate sector is then
rated first, followed by individuals and then the mass individual
category.
As compared with 2014, the value of donations increased across
all major donor types.
Summary
TOP 3 DONOR TYPES
(by # of Instances)
Mass Individual: 41.7%
Corporate Sector: 26.8%
Individuals: 19.3%
KEY STATISTICS: 2014 → 2015
Est. Total Value: 22.322 mil. €
21.8% increase from 2014
# of Recorded Instances: 3,218
Avg. Donation Per Citizen: 3.14 €
TOP 3 DONOR TYPES
(by Value of Donations)
Corporate Sector: 51.6%
Individuals: 16.4%
Mass Individual: 15.2%
In the next section, we provide a brief overview of some of the most important indicators that together
paint a picture of philanthropy in Serbia.

8
KEY THEMES FOR DONATIONS
The four key themes that saw continued support included
healthcare, support to marginalized groups, poverty reduction
and education, with over three-fourths (78.1%) of the total
instances directed to these themes. No significant changes were
found in the range of themes benefiting from donations.
Although the ranking of themes by number of instances has
remained the same for three years, we have seen an ongoing
slight drop in interest in healthcare and poverty reduction, as
well as increased interest in education. Support to marginalized
groups has remained at the same level.

USE OF DONATIONS
Although the highest percentage of instances in Serbia is
directed to one-off support (humanitarian aid, assistance for the
medical treatment of individuals, most frequently children, and
material and consumables necessary for the work of institutions
and organizations), a positive change in comparison with 2014
is reflected in the slight drop in number of these instances,
combined with a slight increase in support that may produce
long-term effects (equipment, capital investments, research,
raising awareness and the like).
The corporate sector is still in the lead in terms of the provision
of long-term support.
RECIPIENT ENTITIES
The ranking of the types of recipient entities by percentage of
recorded instances did not change when compared to 2014.
While experiencing a slight drop in numbers, individuals/families
are still in the lead, followed by institutions, which saw a slight
increase, and finally nonprofit organizations, with approximately
the same percentage of instances. Over 92% of recorded
instances were directed to the aforementioned three types of
recipients. In addition to these recipients, we can identify local/
national governments as donation recipients.
When the value of donations is consisdered (in relation to
the recorded sum), institutions were in the lead, followed by
nonprofit organizations, and individuals/families dropped to
third place.
In comparison with previous years, both interest in and the
amounts of cash directed to individuals decreased. Although
the percentage of donations in cash to nonprofit organizations
has decreased in comparison with 2014, the absolute amount of
cash they received was higher.
Data also showed a continuing trend of an increased number
of organizations that the media recognizes as having received
multiple donations.
Long-Term Support: 29.6%
One-Off Support: 56.6%
USE OF DONATIONS
TOP 4 RECIPIENTS OF DONATIONS
(by # of Instances):
Individuals / Families: 45.0%
Institutions: 31.2%
Nonprofit Organizations: 16.3%
Local / National Governments: 2.7%
TOP 4 RECIPIENTS OF DONATIONS
(by Value of Donations)
Institutions: 51.6%
Nonprofit Organizations: 15.6%
Individuals / Families: 10.8%
Local / National Governments: 11.0%
TOP 4 THEMES FOR GIVING
Healthcare: 32.6%
Support To Marginalized Groups:
24.3%
Poverty Reduction: 13.6%
Education: 7.6%

9
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
THE STATE AS RECIPIENT
OF DONATIONS
% of Recorded Instances: 33.9%
% of Value of Donations: 62.6%
THE STATE AS RECIPIENT
State recipients included local and/or national government as
well as institutions.
After last year’s drop both in the percentage of instances and in
the percentage of donated cash per recorded sum of donations,
the data for 2015 shows that both indicators are on the increase:
there was a slight increase of 3.5% in the number of instances
and an increase of 12% in the value of donations.
FINAL BENEFICIARIES
When we examined the categories of final beneficiaries, we
observed that people with health issues, although still ranked
at the top of the list, have seen a further drop in instances. On
the other hand, beneficiaries from specific local communities
“jumped” into second place, as well as persons with disabilities
who saw an increase of percentage of instances.
Although a significant percentage of instances was directed to
these three groups of beneficiaries, the range of beneficiaries
remained very wide: all groups of beneficiaries identified in 2014
are still present.
TOP 3 FINAL BENEFICIARY GROUPS
People with Health Issues:
21.5%
People from Specific Communities:
17.0%
Persons with Disabilities:
15.1%

10

Key Characteristics of Philanthropy in Serbia in 2015:
★ In spite of the economic crisis and a drop in GDP per capita in the period from 2013 to 2015,
both the number of instances and value of donations have increased.
★ When examining types of donors, the corporate sector stands out with continuous increase
in donations, as well as with more frequent strategic investments and giving through open
competitions. Compared to 2014, the role of corporate foundations has increased.
★ When we examine the diaspora, we see that the percentage of instances remained almost
the same as last year – close to 18% -although the value of donations increased
significantly, from approximately 5.3% to slightly over 17%. This will require further
observation to determine whether it represents a trend, or merely a one-year fluctuation.
★ The nonprofit sector is slowly but steadily strengthening its role: a greater level of funding is
being invested in these organizations, more organizations are partnering with the corporate
sector in announcing and implementing competitions/calls for applications, receiving multiple
donations, and are being mentioned by name in the media.
★ Related to themes of giving, an encouraging trend is the increase in the percentage of
instances of donations for education. Although donations for health and poverty reduction
remained far ahead of education, a decrease in the percentage of instances for
these two themes may indicate that a shift toward a more even distribution is likely to
continue. Support to marginalized groups remained at the same level, which is also a positive
trend.
★ Support for the state (institutions and local and national government) is, after the drop
recorded in 2014, on the increase both in terms of percentage of instances and,
even more so, in terms of the value of donations. These facts continue to provide a
strong argument in discussions with state representatives on the importance of
establishing significant tax benefits and revising the complicated procedures required
for their implementation.
★ While the group of key final beneficiary groups remained unchanged with a large number
of instances of giving directed to them. It is likewise positive that not a single
beneficiary group “disappeared” from the list. It is also noteworthy that over 5%
of instances were intended for refugees, and that the percentage of instances of
giving for women victims of violence has been slightly, but constantly, increasing since 2013.
★ Finally, the transparency of the data is better in 2015 than in 2014. The percentage of media
reports indicating the value of a donation increased from 30.8% in 2014 to 35.8% in 2015.

Overall, we can conclude that developments and changes in 2015 are of a positive nature as
compared with 2014.

11
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
1 General Overview
1.1 Level of Philanthropic Activities in Serbia
212january
february
march
april
may
june
july
august
september
october
november
december
134
166
261
329
273
192
238
267
365
284
497
total # of instances in 2015: 3,218
average # of instances per month: 268
100
0
200
300
400
500
There were 3,218 recorded instances of philanthropy in Serbia in 2015..
In this regard, the first trend to be highlighted is the increase in the number
of recorded instances in comparison with 2014. A statistical overview shows
that there were an average of 268 instances per month, which represents
a huge jump from the 154 recorded in 2014. The number of instances per
month shows a expected seasonal distribution, with an increase in April and
May, a drop over the summer holidays, an increase again in the fall and the
largest number of instances in December.
AVERAGE # OF INSTANCES PER MONTH (2013 - 2015)
150 154 268
2013 2014 2015
# OF INSTANCES OF PHILANTHROPY, BY MONTH

12
The trend of donations being most frequently sent to the Belgrade region (28.8%) continued in 2015.
Belgrade was followed in terms of percentage by Sumadija and Western Serbia (24.3%), Vojvodina
(23.5%). The difference between the latter two regions is too small to indicate to any significant trend.
The percentage of instances for Southern and Eastern Serbia decreased in comparison with 2014,
returning to the level of previous years. Therefore, it can be concluded that last year’s jump in the
percentageofinstancesforthatregionwasdirectlyrelatedtothefloods.Althoughthequotedpercentage
did not include instances directly related to flood, it appears that it was the floods that attracted more
donors. Unfortunately, as this region is the poorest, this attention was short-lived.
4.5% of donations in 2015 were directed either on a borad national level or covered several of the
regions, which have been grouped together in the category Throughout Serbia, 2.2% were sent Outside
of Serbia: to Bosnia and Herzegovina (both Republic Srpska and the Bosnian Federation), Kosovo,
Montenegro, Macedonia, and, surprisingly, one donation apiece was recorded as going to Albania,
Ukraine and the USA).
Donations were directed to over 250 different local communities across 130 municipalities. Besides
Belgrade, the municipalities that led in receiving donations were Novi Sad, Vranje, Novi Pazar, Zrenjanin
and Niš.
Looking at the geographic distribution by region over the past three years, we see that Belgrade remained
the region with the majority of instances, Vojvodina has been relatively stable with the percentage
varying between 23-25%, and Southern and Eastern Serbia have remained in the range of 14-17%. The
only significant change recorded in 2015 was in Šumadija and Western Serbia, but it remains to be seen
whether this represents an ongoing trend. The percentage of instances in the categories Throughout
Serbia and Outside of Serbia vary, but not to an extent that would signal ongoing trend.
Belgrade 34.9 % 27.8 % 28.8 %
Vojvodina 25.1 % 24.8 % 23.5 %
Southern and Eastern
Serbia
14.8 % 21.3 % 16.7 %
Šumadija and Western
Serbia
18.8 % 18.0 % 24.3 %
Throughout Serbia 3.4 % 6.4 % 4.5 %
Outside of Serbia 3.0 % 1.7 % 2.2 %
2013 2014 2015TRENDS IN GEOGRAPHIC
DISTRIBUTION OF GIVING
(% of Instances)
1.2 Geographic Distribution of Giving

13
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
Šumadija and
Western Serbia
24.3%
Southern and
Eastern Serbia
16.7%
2.2 % Outside
Serbia
4.5 % Throughout
Serbia
Vojvodina
23.5%
Belgrade
28.8%
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF GIVING BY REGION
(% of Instances)
Kosovo's designation in this map is without prejudice to position on status, and is in line
with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independance.

14
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF GIVING, BY RECIPIENT MUNICIPALITY
(% of Instances)
893 Belgrade
121
Vranje
108
Novi Pazar
76
Niš
72Valjevo
66Čačak
61
Subotica
110
Zrenjanin
Novi Sad218
64 Pančevo
Kosovo's designation in this map is without prejudice to position on status, and is in line
with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independance.
> 10%
of instances
5 - 9%
of instances
2 - 5%
of instances
1 - 2%
of instances
no recorded
instances
> 300200 - 30060 - 19930 - 59
0 - 1%
of instances
1 - 27

15
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
Of the 3,218 donations (calls, instances, reports and similar) indexed, 35.8% of them had a monetary
value associated with them, which is a slight increase compared to the 30.8% recorded in 2014. The
total value of donations reported upon by the media, and which could be verified using other sources,
is slightly over 10.645 million Euros1
.
Only somewhat more than one third of recorded data contained the actual value of the donations.
However, using extrapolation a cautious estimate can be made that the value of donations for charitable
purposes in Serbia in 2015 was at least 22.323 million Euros. The graph below shows the recorded and
verified value of donations in Euros, as well as the estimated value based on extrapolation from the
recorded sums.
With regard to the aforementioned values, it is important to note that they include primarily donations
in cash, since the estimated value of in-kind donations and pro-bono services is more difficult to
extrapolate. Similarly, although the number of stakeholders willing to share data on the value of
donations is increasing, it remains difficult to obtain a higher percentage of specific data2
. Consequently,
it is reasonable to assume that the total value of donations was significantly higher, even higher than
the estimated sum quoted herein.

There are two ways to examine the donations provided by various types of donors: by the number of
instances and by the recorded sum of donations in cash.
If we look into donations by the number of instances, the data shows that the most numerous are still
those provided by the mass individual category (i.e. donations during campaigns and responses to
appeals for support/aid), followed by giving by individuals (individual giving where the donor can be
identified) and then companies. Participation by other types of donors is less than 15% of instances.
However, the picture changes once we rank donors by percentage of their recorded donated sum.
In this case, the corporate sector takes the lead, followed by individuals, mass individual and private
foundations. Other types of donors provided less than 12% of the total recorded amount.
1
The sums were recorded in different currencies. The sum thus represents the annual median exchange rate for different
currencies.
2
Neither donors nor recipients exhibited significant readiness to share information on donated sums. Consequently,
increased efforts should be made to educate all stakeholders about the importance of transparency regarding donated sums.
18.000 mil. € 1.8% 18.329 mil. € 21.8% 22.323 mil. €
2013 2014 2015
2 Overview of the Key Indicators
Related to Philanthropy in Serbia
2.1 Donors
2.1.1 Value of Donations
2.1.2 Donations by Type of Donors
TRENDS IN ESTIMATED VALUE OF DONATIONS
(mil €) - 2013 to 2015
estimated sum
recorded sum
VALUE OF DONATIONS (€)
10,645,716
22,322,708

16
Looking back at three types of donors in the last three years: mass individuals, the corporate sector
and individuals, we notice that despite some fluctuations, the mass individual donor remained the
most active (with the largest number of instances), and that there was increasing participation by
both individuals and the corporate sector. With respect to the recorded donated sum, we see that the
corporate sector continued to invest more funds, while the value of donations given by mass individual
category and individuals fluctuated.
The changes visible in the percentage of instances and the recorded value of donations are not such
as to suggest a clear conclusion or trend, but do confirm an ongoing increase in donations from the
corporate sector.
DONATIONS BY TYPE OF DONORS
(% of instances vs. % of recorded sum)
Individuals
19.3
16.4
Private Foundations
2.4
5.5
Mixed
1.5
3.3
Other 8.0
8.3
Corporate Sector
26.8
51.6
Mass Individual
41.7
15.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
% of instances
% of recorded sum

17
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
2013 2014 2015
BY % OF INSTANCES
Mass Individual 31.5 % 46.0 % 41.7 %
Corporate Sector 19.5 % 18.0 % 26.8 %
Individuals 6.0 % 18.8 % 19.3 %
2013 2014 2015
BY % OF RECORDED SUM
Mass Individual 17.7 % 12.7 % 15.2 %
Corporate Sector 29.0 % 34.4 % 51.6 %
Individuals 25.4 % 13.0 % 16.4 %
DONATIONS FROM THE DIASPORA
In 2015, giving from the diaspora increased. Some of the more active diaspora
organizations include Srbi za Srbe (Serbs for Serbs), Udruzenje srpskih penzionera
iz Ciriha (Association of Serbian Pensioners from Zurich), Kolo srpskih sestara
(CircleofSerbianSisters)andseveralorganizationsinCanada.Theseorganizations
mainly collected aid for individuals and families.
However, this year was marked by significant donations from individuals from
the diaspora, significant both in amount and in their strategic orientation. One of
the biggest donors was Mr. Milomir Glavčić, who received a VIRTUS award for his
contribution. Among his many donations, we can certainly highlight the donation
of a 500,000 Euros which facilitated the purchase of an MRI machine in Kraljevo.
Marija and Milos Trojančević, a married couple, likewise donated equipment
worth over 100,000 Swiss Francs to the Gornji MIlanovac Hospital.
Bearing in mind that donations for culture and art are scarce, we would also like
to highlight the example of Mr. Dragan Dugalić, an artist living between New York
and Belgrade, who donated 10.000 USD to five independent cultural associations/
institutions (Seecult, Remont, Led Art, Matrijaršija Kolektiv, and Internet Society
Serbia).
KEY TRENDS IN TYPES OF DONORS - 2013 to 2015

18
LONG-TERM DEDICATION TO GIVING
When considering long-term dedication to giving in 2015, we must by all means
mention the ongoing efforts of Mr. Hido Muratović of Novi Pazar. Mr. Muratović
has supported Sandžak families both with cash and in-kind donations over years.
Besides investing his own funds, Mr. Muratović actively encourages other donors
to give.
Another example that must be highlighted is the Ljilja and Mika Mijatov
Humanitarian Fund. The Fund was established in 2006, on Mr Mijatov’s initiative
and with his funds, to honor the memory of his late wife and daughter. The Fund
awards scholarships each year to the six most successful students in Zrenjanin.
Radio Zrenjanin and the Žarko Zrenjanin Town Library later also joined the Fund.
INNOVATIVE WAYS OF GIVING
A very interesting example of awarding donations comes from Erste Bank a.d.
Novi Sad. During 2015, Erste Bank, in cooperation with Dokukino, ran both the
Centrifuga and Club Superste programs. Centrifuga funds both registered and
informal organizations to help them achieve their entrepreneurial, scientific or
artistic ideas. Club Superste focuses on individuals with leadership abilities and
innovative ideas that may contribute to development of community or society.
In 2015, both programs offered open calls for applications with several stages to
the decision-making process. Following submission, applications were presented
on the superste.net platform, where the audience/citizens were asked to vote
for their favorite projects. Those applications that received the most votes were
provided with mentors with relevant expertise to enhance their knowledge in
various fields such as planning, branding, project management, fundraising,
presentation skills, etc. This involved two levels of support: a project clinic that
offered the possibility to ask concrete questions over a longer period of time,
and personal contact with mentors. A two-day event called the “Ideodrome” was
also organized. During the first day, organizations were given a chance to pose
questions to mentors during sessions and lectures and receive advice. The second
day of “Ideodrome” was reserved for organizations to present their ideas to a jury,
which made the final decision regarding a donation.
In total, the programs supported 10 projects and 10 individuals and two projects
received special awards from the public. The total amount of direct support was
slightly over 60,000 Euros. What makes this program particularly innovative is
its significant investment in enhancing organizations’ and individuals’ knowledge
which, regardless of whether they received support or not from these programs,
served as a “springboard” for many in seeking and receiving support from other
donors.

19
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
2.1.3 Profiles of the Most Common Types of Donors
14.9%
Individuals /
Families
22.3%
Nonprofit
Organizations
51.0%
Institutions
TOP 3
RECIPIENT ENTITITES
Healthcare
14.8%23.8%25.9%
Support to
Marginalized
Groups
TOP 3
THEMES FOR GIVING
Education
8.2%
People with
Health Issues
12.9%
People with
Disabilities
33.0%
People from
Specific
Communities
TOP 3
FINAL BENEFICIARY GROUPS
CORPORATE SECTOR
MASS INDIVIDUAL
12.2%
Economically
Vulnerable
20.4%
People with
Disabilities
32.5%
People with
Health Issues
TOP 3
FINAL BENEFICIARY GROUPS
19.8%
Nonprofit
Organizations
23.9%
Institutions
Individuals /
Families
TOP 3
RECIPIENT ENTITITES 49.2%
Support to
Marg. Groups
Healthcare
TOP 3
THEMES FOR GIVING
Poverty
Reduction
11.9%25.5%43.4%

20
EXAMPLES OF CORPORATE SECTOR DONATIONS
An example of dedication to a long term approach to resolving the issue of
economically vulnerable residents comes from the Delhaize company which, in
cooperation with a Food Bank, initiated a campaign called “Pomažemo da imaju
i oni koji nemaju” (Let’s Help Those That Don’t Have to Have). Bearing in mind that
over 26% of Serbia’s citizens live below the poverty line, through this campaign,
Delhaize (owners of the Maxi and Tempo supermarket chains) provided daily
donations of over 1,800 kg of vegetables and fruit, equivalent to 40 tons of food
per month.
Zdravlje Actavis, Leskovac is an example of how companies invest in the community
in which they work. Over the course of 2015, the company provided two vehicles
to the Leskovac General Hospital, donated a mammogram to the Health Center
and invested over 20,000 Euros in the construction of a skate-park in Leskovac’s
Dubočica settlement. The Actavis company additionally supported a series of
smaller scale activities, such as a carnival and the Life Festival.
Hemofarm Foundation stands out as an example of corporate sector giving
through corporate foundations. Through the “Svim srcem” (With the Whole Heart)
campaign, the Hemofarm Foundation donated numerous valuable diagnostic
and patient care devices and equipments to several health institutes in Serbia
including the Clinical Center Serbia, the Clinical Centers in Kragujevac and Niš,
the Institute for Cardio-Vascular Diseases in Belgrade, the Institute for Pulmonary
Diseases of Vojvodina, the Clinical Center Dr. Dragiša Mišović, and the University
Children’s Clinic Dr. Vukan Čupić.
Nordeus d.o.o. stood out among small and medium size enterprises in 2015. In
addition to other donations, through the Fund B92 campaign entitled “Bitka za
porodilišta” (Battle for Maternity Wards), Nordeus donated equipment worth over
270,000 Euros to the Clinical Centers in Niš and Vranje. Nordeus d.o.o. received
the 2015 special VIRTUS award for small and medium size enterprises.
Although smaller in terms of the value of the donation, but by all means an
example of excellence is Giros Plus in Belgrade (another small and medium size
enterprise) through their “Utorak je dan za giros” (Tuesday Is Giros Day). This
enterprise has been a member of the Donors Circle for Svratiste (Children’s Drop-
In Center) for two years and has repeatedly donated its products to children who
either live or work on the street. Giros d.o.o. also received the 2015 special VIRTUS
award for small and medium size enterprises.
A nice example of giving to fellow-residents comes from the Grujić Bakery in
Ub whose owners decided to donate their products to Ub residents older than
70, pregnant women, Roma living in Ub and to the members of Ub’s Cultural
Association and Football Club.
The Arena 2 Bakery from Subotica has a little different approach: during the
whole year, the bakery has been donating free meals for 90 pupils and students
of Žarko Zrenjanin Primary and Secondary School from Subotica.

21
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
CAUSE RELATED MARKETING
The trend of so called “cause related marketing”, i.e. donating a part of a
company’s income from the sale of products, continued in 2015. The companies
MOL, Jana and DM have all maintained cause-related marketing campaigns that
they initiated last year.
There are some distinguished new instances. Diopta, an optical shop, organized
two instances. In one, the proceeds of a one-day sale of glasses were donated to
assist with the medical treatment of a 12-year-old girl. In the second instance,
10% of each product sold over a weekend was donated to the Eye Clinic of the
Clinical Center Serbia.
The wholesale and retail trading company Gomex d.o.o. Zrenjanin organized
two similar instances. In one, 10% of the proceeds of each Gillete and Head &
Shoulders product sold was donated to the Podrži život (Support Life) Foundation
for the medical treatment of children. The other action was even more interesting:
over the period of one month, 10% of each product sold from among four brands
(Blend-a-med toothpaste, Head & Shoulders shampoo, Pampers diapers and
Always sanitar pads) was donated to the Vojvodina SOS Network Against Violence
Against Women, a network of five organizations that provide SOS telephone
services to women and children victims of violence and are members of the
network.
KEY POINTS:
● The overall value of donations increased by almost 21.8% from 2014
to 2015.
● In 2015, the most active donor types were mass individual
(41.7%), followed by the corporate sector (26.8%) and
individuals (19.3%). However, it is important to note that
the rise in instances of giving by the corporate sector is partially
the result of the greater engagement of corporate foundations.
● If we look into the value of donations, the picture changes: the
corporate sector takes the lead with a 51.6% share in the total
recorded amount, followed by individuals with a share of 16.4%, and
citizens with the almost equal share of 15.2%. The participation of
private foundations and mixed donors has decreased compared to
2014.
● If we analyze giving by the diaspora, the percentage of instances was
similar to last year’s percentage, almost 18%, while the recorded
value of donations increased significantly, from approximately 5.3%
to slightly over 17%. It remains to be seen whether this is a trend or
merely a one-year fluctuation.
● On the whole, mass individual donors continued to have the
strongest presence, while the engagement of the corporate
sector (companies, corporate foundations and small and medium
enterprises) increased.

22
The four key themes to which donations were directed in 2015 continued to be health, support to
marginalized groups, poverty reduction and education.
The ranking of themes by number of instances remains the same as in previous years, with health in
the lead and education rounding out the bottom four. The differences in percentages are minimal and
do not suggest significant changes in donors’ interest in themes.
Moreover, the range of themes remained very broad and includes culture, sport, cultural heritage,
economic development, religious activities, public infrastructure, science, environment, assistance in
emergencies, social entrepreneurship, animal welfare and seasonal giving.

KEY THEMES OF GIVING
(% of Instances)
This year, the percentage of instances for all themes other the than the top 4 was slightly higher than
usual at 20%. One of the reasons for this was certainly due to the refugee crisis, namely support for
management of this emergency. Although we have separated out this type of giving, it is worth noting
that mass individuals and the corporate sector in Serbia exhibited exceptional solidarity and provided
cash and in-kind donations for refugees in spite of a very difficult economic situation. We believe
furthermore that the assistance was significantly higher than what was recorded by the media or what
was possible to verify using other sources.

2.2 For What Purpose Are Donations Made in Serbia?
2.2.1 What Themes Are Important to Donors in Serbia?
7.6%
13.6%
20.0%
26.2%
32.6%
Support to
Marginalized
Groups
Other
Poverty
Reduction
Education
Healthcare
TRENDS IN KEY THEMES
FOR GIVING - 2013 to 2015
(by % of Instances)
Healthcare 39.5 % 34.8 % 32.6 %
Support to
Marginalized Groups
24.3 % 24.3 % 26.2 %
Poverty Reduction 22.4 % 20.1 % 13.6 %
Education 5.0% 6.3% 7.6 %
2013 2014 2015
Less than 0.5%
• Economic
Development
• Religious Activities
• Science
• Social
Entrepreneurship
0.5 - 1%
• Animal Welfare
• Community
Development
• Environment
• Public Infrastructure
• Heritage
1 - 3%
• Culture and Arts
• Sport
More than 5%
• Emergency
Management
• Seasonal Giving
BREAKDOWN OF OTHER THEMES (by % of Instances)

23
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
KEY POINTS:
● The four key themes supported were: support to marginalized
groups, health, education, and poverty reduction. The instances
directed to these themes add up to 80%, more than three-
fourths of recorded instances.
● In comparison to the previous year, social entrepreneurship
emerged as a new theme, while media support did not register on
the list.
● The ranking of themes by number of instances did not change
in comparison with 2014. Nevertheless, changes in percentage
of instances indicate that interest in health continues to
decrease and that education as a theme is still increasing slightly
after a large drop between 2011 and 2013. Changes worth noting
are the slight increase in percentage of instances of giving for
marginalized groups and the significant drop (of over 6%) in
instances of giving for poverty reduction.
The data on how donations have been
used facilitates deeper insight into whether
they are provided as one-off support
(humanitarian assistance) or are intended
to assist in pursuing longer-term solutions
to specific problems.
In line with the methodology and recorded
data, we divide the use of donations into
three categories: long-term support, one-
off support and donations for unknown
purposes. An overview of donation
categories is presented in the graph below

2.2.2 Use of Donations
Long-Term Support
One-Off Support
Unknown
29.6%
56.6%
13.3%
USE OF DONATIONS
(by % of Instances)

24
TRENDS IN USE OF
DONATIONS – 2013 to 2015
(by % of Instances)
Long-Term Support 29.1 % 23.3 % 29.6 %
One-Off Support 59.2 % 59.7 % 56.6 %
Unknown 11.7 % 17.0 % 13.8 %
2013 2014 2015
LONG-TERM SUPPORT
When we examine strategic investments in Serbia, the most frequent continue to
be investments in equipment and/or the reconstruction of buildings.
However, in 2015, the Delta Foundation stood out as an example of another way
to make strategic investments with long-term results.
Delta Foundation, in cooperation with Trag Foundation, created the program
Zasad za budućnost (Seedlings For the Future) that awarded grants to six
organizations in total value of 60,000 Euros.
The program is strategic in many ways: it stimulates agricultural production,
offers the possibility to assist marginalized groups in trading in these products,
and facilitates the generation of stable and sustainable income for organizations
working with these groups.
Lastly, the Zasad za budućnost is a long-term program which will continue in
2016. Delta Foundation received a VIRTUS award for 2015.
KEY POINTS:
● The highest percentage of instances in Serbia remains directed
to one-off support. The corporate sector continues to be
more oriented to strategic investments than other type of donors.
● The most common long-term investments by far are instances
of the purchase of equipment, followed by capital investments and,
surprisingly this year, scholarships, and finally services.
● The most frequent one-off donations are for surgeries, materials
and consumable goods and humanitarian assistance.
● When we examine changes in the period from 2013 to 2015, we
see that the level of long-term investment has “returned” to its
2013 level (after a drop in 2014), while one-off investments
show a slight drop. This change may be explained by the
fact that 2014 was “the year of floods”. Even though in last
year’s report we separated out instances of flood relief, a certain
number of the one-off instances were most probably related to the
floods.

25
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
Recipient entities (often also referred to as partners) show how donors
choose to channel their donations, thus indirectly revealing whom they trust3
.
In 2015, the principal recipients were, as in previous years, individuals /
families, followed by institutions and nonprofit organizations (associations
and foundations). The Other category included religious communities and
unknown recipients.
3
Donation recipients/partners generally further distribute support to beneficiaries, that is,
they use them for the benefit of particular target groups.
2.3 Who Are Supported by Donors in Serbia?
2.3.1 Who Are Trusted as Recipients of Donations?
Institutions
Nonprofit
Organizations
Other
Local / National
Governments
Individuals /
Families
2.7%
4.8%
16.3%
31.2%
45.0%
Individuals / Families 43.5 % 49.3 % 45.0 %
Institutions 32.7 % 27.9 % 31.2 %
Nonprofit Organizations 17.0 % 15.4 % 16.3 %
Local / National
Governments
3.6 % 2.5 % 2.7 %
2013 2014 2015TRENDS IN TYPE OF RECIPIENT
ENTITIES - 2013 to 2015
(by % of Instances)
TYPE OF RECIPIENT ENTITIES
(% of Instances)

26
TRENDS IN TYPE OF RECIPIENT
ENTITIES - 2013 to 2015
(by % of Recorded Sum)
Individuals / Families 9.7 % 21.9 % 10.8 %
Institutions 44.3 % 30.5 % 51.6 %
Nonprofit Organizations 13.7 % 21.0 % 15.6 %
Local / National
Governments
29.2 % 20.1 % 11.0 %
2013 2014 2015
KEY POINTS:
● In 2015, the top three types of recipient entities by % of instances
were individuals / families (45.0%), institutions (31.2%), and finally
nonprofit organizations (16.3%).
● Viewing it from the perspective of the value of donations, the
leading position goes to institutions, followed by nonprofit
organizations, individuals/families, and local / national governments.
● If we combine the data for institutions and local / national
governments, with both categories under the control of the state,
we reach the conclusion that 33.9% by number of instances and
62.6% by value of donations were, in fact, donated the state.
● When reflecting on the last three years (for which we have data),
we notice that the percentage of instances directed to each of
the four main types of recipient entities has not changed
significantly. Fluctuations are below 5%, which suggests no
significant changes or trends. In other words, it appears that donors
are relatively stable in their selection of recipients.
● When we look for trends in the percentage of value of donations,
we see that 2014 was an exception and that the breakdown by
percentage, with minor fluctuations, has returned to its 2013
level. The exceptions to this is the category local and national
governments where the data for the past three years shows an
ongoing decrease in the value of donations.
● Over the same three-year period, non-profit organizations, remained
in third position by # of instances and third by value of donations,
except in 2015 when they improved and moved to second position.
The key role here appears to have been played by private
foundations, which, since 2013, show an increase both in activities
and in their ability to attract the attention of donors.
● It is likewise important to note that the number/percentage of
organizations that have received donations from multiple sources
has increased each year.

27
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS IN 2015
The category of nonprofit organizations consists of local civil society associations,
foreign organizations, such as UNICEF, and private foundations.
The percentage of instances of giving to nonprofit organizations slightly increased
in 2015, after a constant decrease over the previous years. Nevertheless, the
fluctuations in percentages over the past three years have been relatively small,
varying between between 15 and 17%.
The percentage of the recorded value of donations to nonprofit organizations
decreased from 21% in 2014 to 15.1% in 2015. However, if we look into absolute
figures and bear in mind that the overall value of donations has increased, the
amount of cash donations received by nonprofit organizations is a bit higher than
in 2014.
The very positive trend of an increased number of organizations and foundations
receivingmultipledonationsfromvariousdonorscontinuedin2015.Organizations
that received multiple donations in 2015 are NURDOR, Svratište za decu (Drop-
In Center), BelHospice, Banatska asocijacija paraplegičara (Banat Association of
Persons with Paraplegia), Banka hrane (Food Bank), Sigurna kuća (Safe House)
Belgrade, Beli štap (White Stick), Plavi krug (Blue Circle) – Association of Diabetes
Patients, Debra (Association of Persons with Epidermolysis Bullosa), Special
Olympics Serbia, etc.
Among private foundations, the most frequently mentioned are Ana and Vlade
Divac Foundation, Support Life Foundation, Novak Djoković Foundation, New
Belgrade Humanitarian Foundation and the recently established Nataša Kovačević
Foundation.
This year, the largest number of donations to nonprofit organizations came from
the corporate sector, followed by mass individual donations. The percentage of
donations from small and medium sized enterprises to nonprofit organizations is
increasing, something which represents another positive trend.
The themes that are most frequently supported by nonprofit organizations are
support to marginalized groups, health, poverty reduction, animal welfare, but
also education, sports, culture, community development. In 2015, nonprofit
organizations were supported to assist with emergency management of the
refugee crisis.
The range of final beneficiary groups for which organizations received support
remained very broad. It included primarily adults and children with disabilities
(both physical and learning disabilities), people with health issues, people from
specific communities, as well as economically vulnerable people. Other notable
beneficiary groups included children/youth at risk and children without parental
care. Moreover, the number of instances of giving in support of women victims of
violence has continued to increase. By the end of the year, refugees were very well
represented as a beneficiary group.

28
In terms of fundraising and cooperation with donors, it seems that the BelHospice
organization was one of the most successful in 2015. Program PULS was initiated
in 2015 together with GlaxosmithKline Ltd. Company. Through the program,
company employees are allowed to spend six months of their working time in
BelHospice. The results of this partnership in 2015 included the development of
a strategic plan to initiate a capital campaign for construction of the first ever
hospice in Serbia, as well as a strategy for implementation of palliative care in
towns throughout Serbia through the establishment of satellite programs similar
to the BelHospice Center.
Another successful BelHospice instance in 2015 was the annual charity gala and
auction held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel during which the organization collected
the record-breaking amount of approximately 75,000 Euros for the construction
of the first hospice. BelHospice also organized a series of smaller-scale fundraising
events such as participation in the Belgrade Marathon, a tennis tournament and
an evening with the music Vasil Hadžimanov.

29
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
2013 2014 2015
32.7%
2.3.2 Who Benefits from Donations?
When we looked into the final beneficiaries in 2015, the four key groups that
emerged were people (adults, youth and children) with health issues, the
economically vulnerable, people with disabilities and people from specific
local communities.
TRENDS IN KEY FINAL
BENEFICIARY GROUPS
– 2013 to 2015
(by % of Instances)
People with Health Issues 30.7 % 29.1 % 21.5 %
Economically Vunerable 20.4 % 17.4 % 13.7 %
People with Disabilities 9.8 % 12.9 % 15.1 %
People from Specific
Communities
5.8 % 11.4 % 17.0 %
21.5%
KEY FINAL BENEFICIARY GROUPS
(by % of Instances)
People From Specific
Communities
People with Disabilities
Economically Vulnerable
People with Health Issues
Other Groups
0 - 1%
• Refugees and
Displaced Persons
• Homeless
• Unemployed
• People from
Minority
Communities
1 - 2%
• Elderly
• Children and Youth
At Risk
• Women and
Children Victims of
Violence
2 - 4%
• General Population
• Talented Children
and Youth
• Mothers and
Newborns
4 - 5%
• Refugees from
Other Countries
• Single Parents
• Children Without
Parental Care
BREAKDOWN OF OTHER FINAL BENEFICIARY GROUPS (by % of Instances)
17.0%
15.1%
13.7%

30
KEY POINTS:
● The top 4 final beneficiary groups (people with health issues,
economically vulnerable, people from specific communities, and
people with disabilities) comprised 67% of the overall number of
instances of giving in 2015.
● Although the percentage of instances benefitting the other the 12
beneficiary groups increased in 2015, the total of these groups
amounts to a bit less than 1/3 of all instances.
● Over the past three years we have seen an ongoing drop in
the percentage of instances benefiting people with health
issues and economically vulnerable people. At the same time,
the percentages of instances for the benefit of people from a specific
community and for people with disabilities has continuously
increased.
● Finally, it is worth noting that the percentage of instances intended
for women and children victims of violence, while not significant, has
been steadily increasing.
SUPPORT TO REFUGEES
As reflected in the above-mentioned data, a wide range of beneficiary groups
were supported in 2015 and donors assisted children and youth and the adult
population in almost equal measure.
In 2015, we must by all means highlight the assistance provided to refugees not
only because this is a new beneficiary group, but because the support provided
demonstrated in an extraordinary way the solidarity of Serbian citizens with
an extremely vulnerable category of people who were only passing through
Serbia. In addition, support to refugees motivated various types of donors: from
ordinary citizens to the corporate sector to nonprofit organizations, which, either
independently or in collaboration, assisted large numbers of people.
The Imlek, Bambi, Knjaz Miloš, Carnex, Coca-Cola HBC, Jaffa, Podravka, Color
Press Group, Crvenka, MCG Group, Lomax d.o.o., Dexy Co, Veterni, Delta Holding
companies, and many others, donated their products to refugees.
Telenor Serbia established several wireless internet zones in areas where refugees
were accommodated. Microsoft Serbia donated software designed to facilitate
efficient collection, storage and distribution of aid collected by the Serbian Red
Cross and Beko Balkans Serbia donated washing machines to the Miksalište
refugee assistance center.

31
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
Proctor and Gamble donated 50,000 USD to the Ana and Vlade Divac Foundation to
equip six mobile units with equipment and personnel. These mobile units provided
medical examinations, distributed aid and gave temporary accommodation
to refugees and their families. In addition to offering tangible assistance, the
advantage of mobile units was that they were able to provide assistance in the
different places in Serbia through which refugees passed on their way to Belgrade
or to a border with another country.
Nonprofit organizations formed an informal coalition, which grew into an
organization called Refugee Aid Serbia. The coalition consisted of several
organizations (Mikser House, ADRA Serbia, Keep Babies Safe, Ped Medic, Divac
Foundation, Catayst, GivingBack Serbia) and the number of organizations
involved increased with the persistence of the refugee crisis. These organizations
gathered a large number of volunteers who helped in collecting and distributing
food, drink, footwear and clothes, getting in touch with families, and in providing
information and practical assistance with transportation to the borders.
Among the nonprofit initiatives we must mention the InfoPark, a joint initiative of
Fund B92 and Trag Foundation. The InfoPark operates in Belgrade, Dimitrovgrad,
and Preševo with the main idea of providing information and assistance during
the stay of refugees in these towns, as well as practical support in reaching other
shelters in Serbia and the borders with neighboring countries. Individuals like
Sanjin Pejaković, who collected in-cash donations from his colleagues in Sweden,
used InfoPark to channel aid to those in need, as did Dusan Masic from London
who donated cell-phone chargers. Trag Foundation received over 8,400 Euros in
donations from Delta Holding, DIAGEO and numerous individuals and used these
funds to supply and distribute needed goods.
Large numbers of citizens made both in-cash and in-kind donations and some
put their flats at the disposal of refugees to make their stay more comfortable
giveni low, winter temperatures. Among individuals we must highlight are Gordan
Paunović and his wife Susanne Simon-Paunović who, in addition to providing
direct assistance, played a large role in creating and organizing events that
gathered all those who were ready to help.

32
2.4 How Is Giving Done in Serbia?
2.4.1 What Is Donated?
It is evident that donors prefer to provide cash donations, followed by
donations of in-kind goods, mixed donations (cash and in-kind), and pro-
bono services.
The percentage of instances involving volunteering remained small.
in-kind goods /
materials
cash and in-kind
volunteer time
pro-bono services
cash
0.8%1.1% 2.5%
12.5%
83.1%
WHAT IS DONATED? (by % of Instances)
OTHER WAYS TO DONATE
Apart from the traditional direct cash and in-kind donations, in 2015 we noted
several interesting examples of donations of pro-bono services or other types of
donations.
Eurobank EFG demonstrated through several instances other ways of supporting
good causes. This company purchased books from the NURDOR organization and
donated those books to the Home for Children without Parental Care Dragutin
Filipovic Jusa and the Home for Children and Youth with Development Disorders
in Sremcica. The bank also signed an agreement with the Lice Ulice organization
which permited the sale of the Lice Ulice magazine in all of the bank’s branch
offices. Income from sales of the magazine was directed to the homeless.
Credit Agricole Bank and its employees continued their “Usvojimo školu” (Let’s
Adopt a School) program. In 2015, 120 bank employees ran in the Belgrade
Marathon, with the bank contributing 5€ for each kilometer the employees ran,
resulting in a donation of 3,000 Euros to the Dušan Dugalić School for Children
with Development Disorders.
UNICEF, in cooperation with the Banking Association of Serbia initiated a direct
debit action which in a very simple way stimulated individuals to become regular
donors: they fill-in an authorization form for a given amount of cash to be
transferred at regular intervals and free from any bank charges to the UNICEF
account.

33
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
KNOWLEDGE AS A DONATION
In 2015, several companies donated knowledge. Over 6000 students attended
lectures and wer mentored by Coca-Cola employees in the fields of management,
marketing, finance, human resources and logistics.
The second interesting example came from VIP Mobile whose employees held
seven free five-day VIP digital workshops for the elderly in five Serbian towns and
that drew over 150 pensioners.
KEY POINTS:
● Cash donations were the most frequent (83.1%) and in-kind goods
appeared in a far smaller percentage (12.5%).
● When comparing the most active types of donors (mass individuals
and corporate sector), we see that the corporate sector donated
cash in a slightly lesser percentage (72.0%) and donated a higher
percentage of in-kind goods or materials (22.3%). As in past years,
over 85% of mass individual was donated in cash.
● The small percentage of volunteering instances does not reflect
the real picture because of the media’s hesitation
to report on volunteering (it is less attractive than concrete
donations) and because companies fail to report on their often
frequent volunteering instances, because volunteering activities
are seen as part of their employee strategy. We believe that
the percentage should be similar to that of pro-bono services.

34
For easier analysis, the ways of fundraising have been divided into four
categories: direct donations (cases in which donors selected the final
beneficiary), campaigns/appeals, giving during events, and calls for
applications.
The available data shows that direct donations were the most frequent
way of giving, followed by campaigns/appeals, events and, finally, calls for
applications.
2.4.2 Ways of Fundraising
TRENDS IN WAYS OF
FUNDRAISING– 2013 to 2015
(by % of Instances)
Direct Donations 48.3 % 45.1 % 43.8 %
Campaigns / Appeals 14.0 % 23.9 % 29.2 %
Events 37.6 % 30.2 % 23.6 %
Calls for Applications 0.1 % 0.8 % 3.4 %
2013 2014 2015
Campaigns /
Appeals
Events
Calls for
Applications
Direct Donations
WAYS OF FUNDRAISING (by % of Instances)
3.4%
23.6%
29.2%
43.8%

35
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
CALLS FOR APPLICATIONS - A WAY TO DONATE
The use of competitive calls for applications as a method for donating significantly
increased in 2015, with a larger number of companies organizing calls for
applications in partnership with nonprofit foundations.
For example, through the “Zajednici zajedno” (“Together to Community”)
competition, the NIS company and Trag Foundation awarded over 150 donations
to small local organizations for development of their communities.
The Carlsberg company, in cooperation with the Dundjerski Foundation, awarded
donations to organizations from Vojvodina for the preservation of cultural
heritage and environmental protection.
UniCredit Bank, in cooperation with the Ana and Vlade Divac Foundation, held a
competition called “Ideas for a Better Tomorrow” through which it supported seven
projects of nonprofit organizations and small enterprises for the development of
social entrepreneurship or development or expansion of their current activities.
NURDOR CAMPAIGN
In 2015, NURDOR partnered with a team of two energetic college students who
initiated an extremely interesting campaign involving the participation of a large
number of Serbian individuals. The campaign, called “Kilometar kose” (“Kilometer
of Hair”) collected hair to produce wigs for children with cancer who had suffered
hair loss after chemotherapy.
This very specific and unusual campaign not only achieved its immediate goal
but will certainly contribute to the organization’s visibility and attract new donors
who will most likely support NURDOR in other ways and in other campaigns.
KEY POINTS:
● Despite showing a continuous slight decrease, direct donations
remain the most represented method of giving – close to half of the
total number of instances.
● Campaigns / Appeals, as well as events vary more over the years.
However, since 2013 we have observed an increase in the number of
campaigns and a continuing decrease in the number of events.
● Competitions also show a continuous slight increase. Competitions
are mainly announced by the corporate sector. The assumption
is also that the number of competitions is actually higher, but
their occurrence has not been well-reported, particularly where
foundations are concerned, because the media rarely recognizes this
sort of competition as philanthropy.

36
2.4.3 Media Coverage
As shown in the graphs below, almost half of the reports of donations were
published in the print media (52.6%), followed by the web media (29.8%). The
smallest percentage was published in the electronic media. In comparison
with 2014, we observe increased reporting in electronic and web media.
With regard to territorial coverage, the majority of reports were recorded
in national and then in local media. It is worth noting that there was an
increased level of reporting in the regional media. The majority of reports
were published in daily media.
It is also noteworthy that in 2015 some reports on donations in Serbia were
printed in the foreign media, i.e. in the media of other countries in the
region, something that has not happened before. Of the total number of
media reports, slightly over 4% were reported by media registered in other
countries.
Web
Electronic
Print
29.8 % 17.6 %
52.6 %
10.3%
14.5%
75.1% Bi-Monthly/
Monthly/Other
Weekly
Daily
MEDIA COVERAGE
(by % of Instances)
Regional
Local
Regional within
Serbia
National
10.8 %6.9 %
71.9 %
10.4 %
MEDIA TYPE
(by % of Instances)
MEDIA REPORTS BY FREQUENCY
(by % of Instances)

37
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
Radio Television Serbia, RTV Studio B and Radio Novi Sad stand out as the electronic media that presented
the largest number of reports. In the print media field, Blic clearly led in its coverage of giving, followed
by Večernje novosti, Naše novine, and Kurir. The web media that printed the most reports were Blic.rs
and B92.net.
In the analysis of media coverage, it is interesting to look at the placement of and time allocated to the
reports, because both indicate the importance given to philanthropy.
The data from 2015 shows that with regard to the placement chosen for the report, in printed media,
only 13.7% were placed on one of the first five pages. The next 13.2% were found between the fifth and
tenth pages, while over two thirds of reports were placed after page ten. The situation is similar with the
electronic media: 78.7% of reports were broadcast before 19:00, and only one fifth of all reports were
broadcast during prime time (after 19:00).
A similar result is found concerning the duration of reports: “small” (less than one fourth of a page)
reports characterized 70% of all reports and over 77% of reports in the electronic media lasted less than
three minutes.
This suggests that philanthropy as a theme is still not viewed as important, and that the majority of
media consider philanthropy a side topic. Reports were often scanty or incomplete, making it was very
difficult to understand who had made the donation, for what purpose or to which type of beneficiary
(or, in other words, how the donation would be used).
Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that, compared to the rest of the region, the media in Serbia is
extremely active where reporting on philanthropy is concerned and that Serbia has been leading for
years in the total number of reports produced. In addition, the media in Serbia has taken a very active
role: most of the media does not merely report on philanthropy. Some media outlets have established
their own foundations (Fund B92, Blic, Večernje novosti). Others quite regularly organize their own
campaigns and events, or actively cooperate with other actors. As a consequence, the media appears
both in the role of donor and in the role of intermediary, thereby contributing directly to strengthening
philanthropy.
Finally, the data of the past three years demonstrates that the media has become more transparent in
relation to its presentation of sums: while small, there has been a continuous increase in the percentage
of reports in which the sum of the donation is recorded - from 28.4% in 2013 to 35.8% in 2015.
KEY POINTS:
● The majority of reports on philanthropy were published in printed
media (52.6%), followed by the web media (29.8%), while the
electronic media remained far behind the other two in the number
of reports broadcast.
● The national media, with over 70% of reports, continued to hold the
lead in the number of reports, with the local and regional media
trailing far behind with approximately 10%.
● The data on the time and spot devoted to reports in the media
points to the fact that philanthropy is still considered a side topic. In
addition, published reports were generally incomplete in terms of
providing details of the donation.
● On the other hand, the media in Serbia was the most active in the
region where the number of reports is concerned. They often took
on an active role by establishing their own foundations and/or
initiating campaigns independently or together with other actors.
● Finally, the percentage of reports which indicatedthe sum of the
donation has seen a constant, though slight, increase over the past
three years: from 28.4% in 2013 to 35.8% in 2015.

38
The methodology for this report was inevitably conditioned by the viable
options for collecting data. Research on this topic worldwide shows that the
only completely reliable source of information on level of giving for charitable
purposes is collected by tax authorities. For many reasons it was not possible
to use this source of information in any of Western Balkans countries.
As mentioned previously, Catalyst has opted for alternative ways of collecting
data, using primarily media data as well as other available data sources.
Concretely, the data used as the basis for this report was gathered by
monitoring the electronic, printed and on-line media on the local, regional
and national levels in the period from January 1 through December 31, 2015
There are three key limitations to this methodology. First, this method does
not provide comprehensive data because the media does not report on all
charitable instances and giving. Second, media reports often do not provideall
data of importance in following the development of philanthropy (most often
the media does not publish the amount donated and/or collected). Third,
there is a potential limitation in the credibility of data published by the media.
The first limitation cannot be overcome at this time. Where the second and
third limitations are concerned, Catalyst seeks to overcome them by cross-
analyzing various media84
, and then conducting additional research, for
example by checking the reporting by companies’ and nonprofit organizations
(if available to the public). The acknowedlged limitations nonwithstanding,
we feel that there are two facts that justify our analysis:
— Our figure, although not comprehensive, provides a minimum value
of relevant indicators. If, for example, we discuss the number of
charitable instances, we can state with certainty that the number
that we show is the minimal number of instances that have taken
place and that the actual figure is certain to be higher. The same
is true for cash amounts, actors and the like. Hence, this
data may be used as indicators of the minimal degree of
philanthropy development in a specific country.
— Continued observation will show a rise and/or drop in numbers
and change in data related to our selected indicators. Therefore,
continued monitoring over years will point out trends
in philanthropy development as well as trends in media reporting
on the subject.
Catalyst will continue to enhance this methodology. Catalyst also plans to
establish contacts with state authorities (tax authorities, and other offices
with relevant statistical data) to discuss the importance of this data and
explore ways of increasing the number of reliable data sources. Under
current conditions, we are of the opinion that the methodology allows for
preliminary insight into philanthropy in Serbia.
4
Various media report on the same donations, and by comparing data from several media
reports, we are able to obtain more accurate and thorough data.
3 Annexes
3.1 Annex 1: Methodology

39
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
It is difficult to estimate the degree of philanthropy development in an environment in which precise data is
not collected and continuous monitoring is not done. Catalyst has thus created an initial list of factors that
may help elucidate various aspects of giving: instances/initiatives for charitable giving; methods of collecting
cash donations; the themes of giving; donation recipients and beneficiaries5
; donors; actors6
; and media
coverage.
In order to use the data collected for comparative analysis (both across the countries and within a certain
country over multiple years) and given the factors identified above, it was necessary to define quantitative
and qualitative indicators for each factor. The indicators we used are presented in the following table:
Factor Indicator
Instances of
charitable giving
• Number of instances of charitable giving in one-year period;
• Geographic distribution (% of instances per region in relation to the total number of instances);
• % of instances of cash donations in relation to the total number of instances;
• % of instances of in-kind donations/services in relation to the total number of instances.
Methods of
collecting cash
donations
• Different groups (types) of methods of fundraising for donations in cash;
• % of representation of different types of methods;
• Emergence of new methods for fundraising/donations in cash.
Purpose of
charitable giving
instances
• Theme or Purpose of the support;
• Number (in %) of instances per purpose;
• Emergence of new themes;
• Use of donations per theme.
Donation
recipients and
beneficiaries
• Types of donation recipients;
• Number of instances involving recipients inthe state sector (% in relation to the total number);
• Number of instances involving recipients in the civil sector (% in relation to the total number);
Number of instances involving recipients from other groups (% in relation to the total number);
• Types of beneficiaries;
• Number of instances directed to different groups of beneficiaries (% in relation to the total
number of instances);
• Emergence and number of new beneficiary groups.
Donors • Number of instances per type of donor (% in relation to the total number of instances);
• Number of instances per different recipients and per type of donor;
• Number of instances per theme and per type of donor;
• Number of instances per beneficiary groups and per type of donor.
Value of
donations
for charitable
purposes
• Total value of charitable donations;
• % of instances with a recorded sum of donation;
• % of donated amount per type of donor;
• % of donated amount per type of recipient;
• % of donated amount per theme.
Actors • Type and number of different actors;
• Emergence of new actors.
Media • Total number of media reports;
• Number (in %) of media reports per media type;
• Number (in %) per territorial coverage (national, regional, local);
• Number of reports treated as substantial per media type (printed, electronic).
It is likely that during preparation of the research, which we hope will continue for several years, some of the
factors we analyze will change or come into sharper focus, and it is possible that new factors may emerge.
For the time being, we believe that the factors listed above offer a solid starting point in determining the
state of charitable giving in each of the countries that we monitor.
5
While these two categories may seem the same, theyvery often differ in practice. Donation recipients are usually registered legal entities
(such as institutions, nonprofit organizations, local governments, etc.) that seek support for a particular purpose. Recipients may also be
individuals or. families. Beneficiaries on the other hand, may be various groups for whose benefit the support is requested. For example, if the
recipient of a donation recipient is a local hospital, the beneficiaries are people of that local community. If the donation recipient is a school,
the beneficiaries are children/youth of a certain age who attend that school. If the donation recipient is a nonprofit organization that works
with people with disabilities, the beneficiaries are people with disabilities, etc. Insights into the recipients of donations shows public perception
of who “deserves” support and whom they trust. The range of beneficiaries show which groups are considered to be vulnerable (in any way)
by the public and over time will indicate how much public awareness of the issue has changed.
6
Under actors we understand not only donors, but also those who appeal for assistance and those who, in any way, take part/participate
in philanthropy..As a rule of thumb , an increase in the number of actors leads is understood to advance public awareness of the importance
and role of charitable giving in the society
3.1.1 Factors and Indicators Showing the Degree
of Philanthropy Development

40
3.2 Annex 2: Changes in the Legal-Fiscal Framework
Over the course of 2015, there were no changes in the legal-fiscal framework
for giving in Serbia. Consequently, we only provide herein a a summarized
overview of remaining tax issues. This overview has been derived from the
publication “Tax regulations of importance to development of philanthropy
in South-East European countries”, prepared by Dr. Dragan Golubovic for
the needs of the SIGN Network. In this Annex we only provide information
related to Serbia. The full publication is available at:
http://www.sign-network.org/activities/advocacy-for-policy-changes
SUMMARIZED OVERVIEW OF OPEN TAX BENEFIT ISSUES IN SERBIA
LAW ON PROFIT TAX FOR LEGAL ENTITIES/
LAW ON PROPERTY FOR LEGAL ENTITIES
LAW ON PERSONAL INCOME TAX:
Law on Profit Tax:
• Narrowly defined and exhausting list of
general benefit purposes and uses in
the Law on Profit Tax (not harmonized
with status-legal regulations for CSOs);
• An amendment to the Law in 2012
partially shifted focus from the nature
of activities for public benefit to status-
legal forms in which those activities are
performed;
• Some tax offices only acknowledge
donations in cash.
Law on Property Tax:
• According to the Ministry of Finance’s
interpretation of the Law, CSOs must
submit an application/request for tax
relief for each gift from an individual
donor which is higher than 100.000 RSD
in the calendar year;
• The Law does not stipulate the
tax status of donations which are
transferred in the next tax period;
• The Law does not explicitly define the
status of so called institutional grants;
• Some tax offices tax the part of the
donation used to cover administrative
expenses.
• The Law does not stipulate for
tax benefits for donations of
individuals/tax-payers.

41
Catalyst Balkans
& Trag Foundation
Catalyst Balkans
Seat: Milete Jakšića 1
Offices: Makedonska 21
Belgrade, Serbia
www.catalystbalkans.org
Research Conducted By:

Research Conducted By:
Program Partner:
Research Supported By:

Annual Report on the State of Philanthropy - Serbia 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to Annual Report on the State of Philanthropy - Serbia 2015

Similar to Annual Report on the State of Philanthropy - Serbia 2015 (20)

More from Catalyst Balkans

More from Catalyst Balkans (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Annual Report on the State of Philanthropy - Serbia 2015