Systemic Tools for Supporting Watchdogs, Think Tanks, Public Policy and Advocacy Organizations from Public Sources in the Czech Republic with a Particular Focus on the Foundation Investment Fund

NETT, summer 2005, http://nett.aid.cz

Input

This paper deal with the situation of watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations in the Czech Republic from the point of view of systemic support of their activities from public budgets, with particular stress on the implementation and outcomes of the so called Foundation Investment Fund a.s. (hereinafter “NIF”). This is not an extensive analytical work exploring all relevant data in public budget redistribution, allocation of all resources derived therefrom or setting out a comprehensive list of all such organizations in the Czech Republic. We attempt to describe and to point at broad trends, to capture the NIF development and to conclude with a brief analytical section examining one year of grant-making from NIF proceeds in view of the addressed organizations.

What We Are Talking About?

Speaking of watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organization in the Czech context, we have to first come to grip with what we are talking about, because this type of organizations or activities has not been clearly defined, there is no shared understanding or perception on behalf of both lay and expert audiences and no common terminology. The fact that there are no regularly frequented Czech equivalents in this field may be regarded as descriptive and characteristic. And there is another significant motive. Environmental, gender, human rights, local activist and many other organizations of this type have not been perceived and described as a group of a kind also because they themselves do not wish to be seen that way, for they do not care to have to deal with the entire array of potentially negative responses on behalf of the public. In other words, one tag is more than enough so they all strive to resist receiving yet another shared one.

For purposed of this paper, NETT defined these organizations as “non-government, non-profit organizations and informal groups whose declared mission as well as principal activities involve formative work within the public space.” Formative activities of organizations can involve a wide array of focus – they may be concerned for instance with practical operation of institutions, promoting and implementing change in social practice, advocating legislation changes, developing public policies, creating background of conceptual thinking for public entities and so on and so forth. Thus, we shall be concerned with organization that do not work as agencies, but have developed and reflected their own authentic mission involving such formative public engagement. We are consciously leaving aside service providing organizations, even though a good deal of service providers (including their umbrellas and networks) are active in this respect and get a great deal of work done in their particular field of interest. But there is a difference and we regard it to be fundamental. From the point of view of funding, this difference clearly came across in course of redrafting the Civil Code of the Czech Republic in 2004, where “public benefit” was defined as “providing publicly beneficial services” and this diction was changed only under pressure during the commenting process. In accordance with the original draft, most watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations (and others) would have been practically cut from being eligible to receive state support, and even more importantly deprived of their charitable status altogether (tax breaks, grants, etc.). Proposals excluding grassroots and civic organizations from administrative proceedings are an evergreen of bills drafted in the Czech Parliament – so far, they have failed to pass as a whole, but a number of partial reductions and limitations have passed successfully. General pressure on behalf of the state – in compliance with models and attitudes of the European social state – to control NGOs through legislation and amendments, through reduced interpretation of the law and through open or hidden contracting (in particular for social services providers) cannot be overlooked. State administration strives to become the contractor of publicly beneficial services provided by NGOs, setting up a hidden third level of public administration impact within the structure of delegated jurisdiction. The 1850 transfer of some delegated jurisdiction in state administration over to local governments offers a very interesting parallel in this respect.

We do not want to draw any thick dividing lines, nor to underestimate (or to be more up-to-date “misunderestimate”) the work of service providers in any way, realizing that their work often far exceeds their focus and field of interest, being clearly marked by features of public policy and even more often advocacy work. Nevertheless, this paper focuses on a narrow circle of organizations and activist groups for whom this type of work means their daily bread, who do not do such work as a result of their reputation or position, in addition to something else or just by the way and who also have to secure funding to be able to do so.

 

Waging the Watchdog

Watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations do not have it simple and easy in the Czech Republic. Their role and appropriate activities remain unclear, generally unaccepted, there is no public awareness or fundamental shared understanding, not to mention reflection and discussion. With the exception of think tanks whose role and activities has been kept a total secrete, we would probably be best understood speaking of “activist” organizations. This term, nevertheless, maintains its pejorative connotations. On one hand, the public often links it to the media picture of protesting against anything and everything, predominantly for purposes of self-promotion and on the other hand the sentiment from the Bolshevik times – that being active means being stupid, helping the regime and being forced to do things that a normal person would never have done – lingers on. As if this was the necessary evil, somehow ensuing from democracy but not producing anything constructive, a tax we have to pay for every fool being allowed to say and do whatever they please.

Nevertheless, certain perception shift may be detected at local level, where such organizations have succeeded repeatedly in raising public awareness – through always through a single specific cause (from recent years we could mention the example of the planned highway through the natural preserve of Czech Paradise, which – thanks to well organized protests – failed to pass as part of the drafted zoning master plan and the construction lobby even negotiates with local activists whether they will or will not protest against them if the highway is constructed further north). However, even such partial recognition has to be regarded as significant from the point of view of forming the role of and expectations from these organizations. From this perspective it is clear that from the first public “activist” campaigns – such as the first protests against the highway through Prague Stromovka park or against the destruction of the 800 years old village of Libkovice because of coal mining in northern Bohemia that took place in early 90s – the situation has altered after all. Local causes are usually addressed by local organizations and it is considerably harder to accuse them of “being power-thirsty” or “manipulated by foreign agencies” since the issues concern them directly and local people know them in person. The public has generally grown more welcoming – a number of people have gained a positive personal experience, many after the disastrous floods at the turn of the millennium, the media picture of NGOs has improved, in particular in local and regional media – but at the same time more apathetic, similarly to large national media and politicians who are much better aware of what they can dare to do, refusing to perceive or accept concerned organizations otherwise than part of the struggle for power and influence. Common diction becomes rather aggressive in ever repeated statements of the most popular politician and current president of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus, for whom “NGOism” and the “ideology of a civil society” are the main enemies of freedom, democracy and national state. Nevertheless, let us not buy into the framework of this a discussion.

From time to time, someone issues a statement, even a political agenda (last in line is the current Social Democrat Government Program chaired by Jiří Paroubek) declaring general support to NGOs as the natural and important partner to the state. There was even a largely unsuccessful billboard party campaign focused on NGO support (the Freedom Union – one of current government coalition parties). Such declarative statement, however, represent for the most part a manipulative game with public opinion, a struggle for positions and efforts to score political points. They have never been followed up, causing a real change, not to mention a systemic change. Watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations and activities have never been regarded by the state administration as a specific type or group that could be of significance, that could play a specific, irreplaceable role, thereby deserving recognition, attention and perhaps even support.

Political elites and state administration representatives are not alone in struggling with categorizing such organizations. NGOs themselves strive to resolve a similar issue. Extensive study CIVICUS Civil Society Index – Tereza Vajdová: Czech Civil Society 2004 after Fifteen Years of Development (NROS and FHS UK, 2005) deal with organizations in question primarily in chapter “Influence,” which is further divided into sections “Public Policy Impact,” “Control,” “Responding to Social Change,” “Empowerment” and “Capacity to Address Social Issues.” Nevertheless, they are not addressed as a theme other than a specific type of activity, as one aspect.

In the section on “Control” we can read: “…Such activities can be generally regarded as relatively limited and unsuccessful… Outcomes from our regional questionnaire … show the marginal role of civil initiatives as watchdogs … For instance from the 12 goals of umbrella organizations, public control was regarded the least important … Furthermore we asked about seven values or role that civil society organizations can play in society and two were close to state control – fighting corruption and monitoring democratic functions. Respondents associated … these two values the least with civil society. … It can be concluded that only a minority of organizations regard their control and monitoring functions to be crucial. The public views them in a similar manner... (pg. 61).

With regard to resources we can read to following: “The development and activities of civil society organizations as watchdogs were supported in the early 90s predominately by foreign donors. Currently, in view of Czech accession to the European Union and the priorities shift of these foundations further east, we may hear of a critical point in existence of these organizations. The EU accession will bring Structural Funds resources … but monitoring and control functions are not included … in their priorities. Substantial support … (of these) organizations on behalf of the state or private corporations cannot be expected. Organizations insofar relaying on foreign support have for the most part failed to raise their own supporters and fans who would provide their funding.” (pg. 62 – quoted from Respect weekly insert, May 31 – June 6, 2004).

We said that watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations are not viewed nor regarded in a common and shared fashion by the public, by political elites and by NGOs, and that they do not identify themselves with a specific whole. It is time now to move on to the focus of this paper, i.e. to the Foundation Investment Fund and to explore its role with respect to support and funding of these organizations.

 

Foundation Investment Fund

The Foundation Investment Fund (NIF) was set up by a Czech National Council Act – still during the Czech and Slovak Federation period – in 1991 “for purposes of supporting foundations selected by the Parliament on the basis of a government proposal.” The government allocated 1 % of shares from the second wave of voucher privatization to this fund. NIF was established and administered by the National Property Fund of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the FNM). When in 1992 the NIF news went public, the Government Council on Foundations received 965 applications requesting support, some foundations were even newly set up because of NIF.

As of 1995, the FNM began selling of shares of the 485 companies, assessed to have a nominal value of CZK 2,823 million and by the end of 1998, sold shares of 410 companies produced a total profit of CZK 1,606 million which was deposited at a special FNM account.

In the course of the first NIF redistribution phase 39 foundations received CZK 500 million (one foundation refused to accept its 16 million contribution), in course of the second NIF redistribution phase in 2002, 64 foundations received CZK 849,300 million and thereafter an additional CZK 437,863 thousand. In total, selected foundations received from both NIF phases CZK 1,752 million.

NIF has not been specifically targeted towards watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations. Nonetheless, it played or could have played a certain role in this respect, because as a result a certain stable amount of funding is annually redistributed outside of direct state control. At the same time, it became evident that grant-making foundations that received a NIF contribution developed their own priorities in redistributing this funding and that only a handful of them decided to include support of socially formative organizations, perhaps with the exception of few themes such as gender and refugee issues. Let us explore now how it all came to be back then, for the NIF story, the turns of course as well as the associated phenomena beautifully document the maturing of the Czech civic sector in parallel with the formation of political and power elites in the country. The NIF story is a story of disillusionment.

 

The NIF Media Story

To illustrate the story as authentically as possible we used the archives of the Czech Press Agency (ČTK). Naturally, we picked but few of the many reports, sizing them down significantly. Nevertheless, they have not been rewritten, nor extensively commented upon in order to capture the time-specific atmosphere, to follow changes of moods and attitudes.

Government discussed the material Foundation Investment Fund and after comments expressed its agreement therewith. (ČTK/ December 10, 1992)In accordance with information provided by the Chairman of the Board of the National Property Fund Tomáš Ježek … this would be a one-off event … allocating one per cent of the capital of each joined-stock company included in the second wave of the voucher privatization to the Foundation Investment Fund. This fund would be administered by one of the banks. According to Ježek, there already is a government committee for foundation that currently convenes and evaluates applications made by individual foundations. Ježek sees the primary benefit of setting up the Foundation Investment Fund in creating a parallel financial structure to – aside from the official state budget – fund publicly beneficial purposes. He regards as similarly important that this will enrich the structure of shareholders and, perhaps even more importantly, that foundations themselves will be forced to learn to be economically effective. (ČTK/ December 11, 1992)

 

So far, approximately CZK 1.5 billion has been allocated to the Foundation Investment Fund … Upon terminating the second wave of the voucher privatization … the government will have to submit a proposal to the Parliament as how to redistribute these funds amongst nearly six thousand Czech foundations. “It is not clear whether it would be a one-off or long-term redistribution, nor whether it will involve shares or money,” remarked Němec. Upon resolving these issues, the government has not intention to deal with foundations in the future… Nevertheless, he has not ruled out that individual ministries could work with foundations in supporting various specific projects. (ČTK/ April 7, 1994)

 

... NIF... has been set up, but it has not been decided how it will be used. (ČTK May 7, 1994)

 

... redistributing funding created by administering selected shares from the second wave of the voucher privatization should constitute the mission of the National Foundation Fund, that establishment of which has been proposed in bill drafted by twelve coalition MPs headed by Tomáš Ježek (ODS) … these shares have a total nominal value of CZK 2.8 billion and they are administered by a joint-stock company Foundation Investment Fund (NIF) set up by the National Property Fund. The objective of the proposed transfer of all NIF shareholder rights to the National Foundation Fund is to ensure a permanent existence of a strong entity exposed to public control. This fond should be governed by a board of trustees whose 15 members would be appointed by the Parliament for a six year term. (ČTK/ April 23, 1995)

 

Today, government rejected the bill on National Foundation Fund during its meeting.

The Prime Minister Václav Klaus informed the journalists. The government … intents to first pass a new Act on Foundations and only then open a discussion regarding the property allocated for foundations in the course of privatization. (ČTK/ May 17, 1995)

 

The only purpose of the Council on Foundations as a temporary government body is to redistribute funding from the Foundation Investment Fund … Having completed this task … it should … be disestablished. “Most importantly, we failed to reach an agreement as to whom to allocate the funding to and whom not to,” remarked Němec … The new Act on Foundations should make … this sector … substantially more transparent. “We also anticipate a significant reduction of the number of foundations,” he added … (ČTK/ June 28, 1995)

 

Ensuring democratic and publicly controlled redistribution of funding created by administering denominated shares … should constitute the mission of the Czech National Foundation, the establishment of which is proposed in a bill submitted by twelve MPs headed by Tomáš Ježek (ODS) … (ČTK/ December 22, 1995)

 

... The government … disagrees with the bill proposed by a group of MPs regarding the Czech National Foundation which was to become the tool for redistributing funding from the Foundation Investment Fund … (ČTK/ January 10, 1996)

 

(The Chair of the National Property Fund Roman Češka) … regards the new Act on Foundations to be one of the most important bills to be passed by the Parliament, because currently more than 6,000 foundations operate in the non-regulated environment of the Czech Republic. According to him, over 2.5 billion shares are “waiting” in the Foundation Investment Fund … the proceeds of which should exceed CZK 1 billion. (ČTK/ January 29, 1997)

 

On Thursday, the Council on Foundation shall continue the discussion of designing the NIF proceeds redistribution system … So far, the Council failed to stipulate clear criteria …, deciding that the funds will be allocated into endowments … Members of the Council have agreed to segment foundations into six groups according to the focus of their activities – social issues, healthcare, culture, the environment, education and human rights … (ČTK/ February 12, 1997)

 

... as of September, funding procured by share sales … amounted to CZK 440.4 milion … (ČTK/ October 14, 1997)

 

Shares began to be sold in 1995, their sales have not been concluded and the government has not decided how the fund will be used … The tender should be opened approximately by February 1, 1998, i.e. one month after the Act on Foundations coming into effect … Minister Bratinka has proposed that the first eligibility prerequisite should be the foundation’s registration in accordance with the new Act, which has to take place at the Registry Court … It is assumed that funding shall be redistributed among grant-making foundations … Foundations will have to demonstrate that for two years prior to filing their application they made grants of at least half a million Czech Crowns each year that they have grant-making mechanism in place … Resources from the fund will be redistributed in two phases. The first would start by opening the tender in February 1998 and the second after having sold off all shares. In December 1996, 4,700 foundations operated in the Czech Republic and a majority of them will most likely not be able to reregister, because they will not be able to gather the obligatory endowment of half a million Czech Crowns. (ČTK/ October 20, 1997)

 

... the Foundation Investment Fund has CZK 500 million in cash and yet another one and a half billion in shares … The Council on Foundations met Tuesday to discuss the funding redistribution system as well as its possibly new status, transferring itself into a body that will deal not only with foundations, but also with other non-government, non-profit organizations, including those set up by churches … (ČTK/ February 18, 1998)

 

According to the Council on Foundations which is to be transformed into the Government Council for non-government, non-profit organizations, the NGO sector agreed criteria to redistribute NIF funding … (minister) Mlynář did not want to reveal what these criteria were, because the Government had to discuss them first, but he stressed that they would be strict, so that the public tender for foundations was fair and transparent. (ČTK/ April 7, 1998)

 

... today, after five years, the Government ... agreed the procedure of selecting foundations that would be allowed to apply for the half a billion Crowns from NIF … The objective … of the procedure is to support the development of adequately independent and permanent foundation sources. According to Mlynář, the state will stipulate which banks can administer this funding and foundations will have to issue an annual report detailing the use of this funding. (ČTK May 27, 1998)

 

... "The policy of restricting the civic sector which was characteristic in particular for the period 1992 to 1996 is over,” remarked … (minister) Bašta (ČSSD). He informed that by the end of June the government will submit a proposal to the Parliament to redistribute the half a billion Crowns among foundations that will have succeeded in the tender to receive a NIF contribution. The cabinet thereby indents to support the NGO sector, strengthening its financial independence on the state. According to Bašta, the Government will also improve conditions for the operation of these civic organizations be changing the unsuitable funding system and by drafting a new Association Act. (ČTK/ January 29, 1999)

 

Ninety seven foundations used the opportunity to participate in the tender … The tender was opened for foundations working in the social and humanitarian field, healthcare, culture, human rights and environmental protection, education and furthermore unspecified foundations active at local or regional level – these should represent more than a half of total applicants. (ČTK/ February 8, 1999)

 

As of Tuesday, the Council on Non-government, Non-profit Organizations … recommended twenty five foundations to the Government. The remaining CZK 95 million should be distributed among foundations working the field of human rights and the environment to be selected in an additional tender. (ČTK/ April 14, 1999)

(This additional tender was never organized and the stated CZK 95 million was distributed among foundations in the last – “unspecified” – thematic category. From the point of view of our theme, this is a rather important piece of information which, for understandable reasons, could not be found in the Czech Press Agency archives. – a NETT comment)

 

According to Březina, the Government Council is faced with two tasks. The first is to assess state subsidies allocated to the NGO sector and to standardize the evidence of this process, the second is to conclude the second phase of redistributing NIF funding. (ČTK/ June 9, 2000)

 

Due to its inactivity, the state has lost approximately CZK 1 billion from the funds that could be distributed among NGOs … In the course of the seven years of hesitation, the value of shares administered by the Government has decreased to CZK 1.8 billion … (ČTK/ February 7, 2001)

 

This year’s phase of redistributing privatization funding among NGOs shall also be the last. (ČTK/ May 7, 2001)

 

The Foundation Investment Fund will distribute among 64 foundations another CZK 1.7 billion. The Government will discuss the outcomes of the tender on Wednesday and then the Parliament will have to approve them. Successful applicants will – according to the number of scored points – receive CZK 849 million. Following the sales of shares of the strategic companies, the Fund will distribute among them approximately the same amount in accordance with the same key … Of the total of approximately 300 foundations, 89 applied to receive this funding. Twenty five foundations have been ruled out and sixty four have been evaluated by scored points. (ČTK/ October 9, 2001)

 

“Czech Republic is the only post-communist country in the CEE region to have real foundations,” remarked Petr Pithart, the Chair of the Senate, during a press conference organized to commemorate the 10thanniversary of the Foundation Investment Fund. The fund was set up in 1991 thanks to an impulse of the Czech Government headed by Pithart at the time …

Pithart, similarly to the then Privatization Minister Tomáš Ježek, was sorry that the distribution of funding had to wait for today’s government … until 1999. “Foundations could have been richer today, making more grants,” he added … A total of CZK 1.3 billion … was distributed among 73 foundations … During the first phase, 38 foundations received over CZK 476 million … They are obliged to use at least 80 % of proceeds ensuing from these funds for making grants. In the Czech Republic, there are 82,131 foundations, public benefic corporations, civic associations and other NGOs. There are 330 registered foundations … Other institutions to contribute to NGO funding include ministries, local governments and municipalities. In 1999, they distributed over CZK 3 billion in state subsidies, a year later this amount rose by CZK 300 million. (ČTK/ February 14, 2002)

 

As of May, 338 foundations operated in the Czech Republic … administering a total endowment of CZK 2.4 billion, while in the case of nearly a half of them – 138, to be precise … the endowment did not exceed the minimum amount. The greatest number of foundations (183) work in the field of education, culture is supported by 135 foundations. (ČTK/ September 30, 2002)

 

There, we can conclude the collage made from dated press releases. Following a lengthy period of time, NIF funding was finally redistributed into endowments of grant-making foundations which – also thanks to the interest raised by this sum – had been defined in legislation as property entities with limited opportunities to operate their own programs. The minimum endowment – which at the early 90s was considered to have to be sufficiently large to allow the achievement of the foundation’s purpose – was in the end set at CZK 500 thousand, no one minding this amount towards the end of 90s for all important foundations had it by this time. The original intent of setting up independent sources of support for publicly beneficial activities, which soon thereafter scared even its authors who attempted to centralize it in a single state-controlled institution, gradually turned into negotiations and money-driven political deals with a clear objective of preventing the development of too strong a group of local foundations.

 

How Foundations Support Watchdogs, Think Tanks, Public Policy and Advocacy Organizations from NIF Funding Proceeds

In exploring support of these types of organizations from NIF proceeds we first selected from the list of NIF funding recipients 27 foundations who potentially could support such organizations. We approached al of them by a personal e-mail addressed to the director or the NIF responsible program or project officer. Ten foundations responded to our enquiries. Simultaneously, we analyzed annual reports of all twenty seven selected foundations. Where possible, we compared our own outcomes with the statements issued by foundations’ representatives. On the basis of that we made another round of selection choosing 16 foundations and making a detailed analysis of their grant-making. Some numbers had to be calculated according to the average proceeds values or relatively on basis of the total amounts granted, because some foundations combine NIF proceeds with other funding sources in their grant-making programs, they do not keep NIF proceeds records separately, they do not publish a list of individual grant recipients, they received other NIF funding in the course of 2004, so the actual amount at the end of 2004 would not correspond to the amount the 2003 proceeds redistributed in the course of 2004 and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to go into great detail of technicalities and methodological solutions. Our objective was not to carry out a complex financial analysis. We were interested in approximated numbers for an approximated group of organizations.

 

In 2003 (i.e. for purposes of 2004 grant-making), sixty nine Czech foundations administered endowment received from NIF funding of a total of CZK 1.7 billion (their total endowment being CZK 600 thousand higher – predominantly thanks to various private funding sources). Total proceeds for administering NIF funding exceeded CZK 35 million, of which nearly CZK 30 million have been redistributed in grant (average overheads and operational costs exceeded 25 %, nevertheless, NIF funding administrative costs, in accordance with the contract executed with the National Property Fund, must not exceed 20 %). Watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations (about 20 organizations framed by the above working definition) were supported by ten foundations by little over CZK 2 million. Thus, concerned organizations received roughly 7 % of NIF funding proceeds redistributed in 2004.

 

In 2003, the ten foundations that supported these organizations administered an endowment of nearly CZK 300 million, redistributing in 2004 a total of CZK 6 million. The support level for watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations thereby in their case exceeds 30 %. We should add that in the case of three important foundations (in total, they received over CZK 165 million from NIF funding) their support exceeds 50 % of grants made from NIF proceeds, constituting the core funding of nearly three quarters of the total amount granted as calculated hereinabove.

 

In Conclusion

For a great number of recipient foundations, funding from NIF was rather important in increasing their endowment (in the recipient group, NIF funding amounts to nearly three quarters of the total registered endowment) and thereby – as we can often read – in ensuring their long-term sustainability. Nonetheless, in the year examined, this group of foundations made grants of about CZK 500 million raised abroad and from other types of donors, so in the overall grant-making NIF proceeds barely exceeded 5 per cent.

 

The support level of watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations from NIF funding proceeds does not exceed 10 %. Thorough examination of support of these organizations would require analysis of other grant-making of foundations, regardless of whether they did or did not receive funding from NIF. In comparison with the overall support of the NGO sector from public budgets – amounting to a total of CZK 3.8 billion in 2004, but providing marginal or no support to these organizations – it may be stated that the current 2 million Crowns from NIF funding proceeds made as grants for the examined organizations represent a relatively very little sum, however significant may this income be for these organizations.

 

The numbers stated are not a complex analysis of funding watch dogs, thinks tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations. Nonetheless, the clearly attest that – at least in this field – the assumption that the “role of a foundation increases where it responds to other needs than the state” (Müller: Economic Environment for the Civic and Non-profit Sector) failed to come true. In view of the otherwise rather cold attitudes of politicians towards the NGO sector in the Czech Republic, allocating privatization proceeds into NIF to support Czech foundations represents a very important act. Nevertheless, it is to be stated in conclusion that in terms of watchdogs, think tanks, public policy and advocacy organizations no systemic tool of support was set up thanks to NIF and that support of their activities – regardless of NIF funding – depends on strategic decision-making of a handful of important donors.

 

 

Used Bibliography:

Analysis of Annual Reposts of NIF Recipients – 2001-2003 Data, Donors Forum;

Contract on Transferring Remaining Funding Allocated by the Decree of the Parliament of the Czech Republic for Purposes of Supporting Foundations in the Course of the Second Phase Executed in Accordance with § 18, Section 2 a) 6) of Act No. 171/91 of Coll.  ;

Directory of Foundations that Received NIF Contribution in the Course of the First Phase;

INFORMATION Regarding 2004 Non-government Non-profit Organizations Subsidies from Selected Public Budgets and Grant Making Programs of Foundations – NIF Recipients, the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic, Prague 2003;

Jandová, Barbora; Novák, Martin: Case Study – the Foundation Investment Fund as the Example the NGO Impact on Decision Making, OS FHS UK in the Framework of the Civil Society Index Project (NROS);

Ježek, Tomáš: Speech during the 39thSession of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, Prague 2003;

Minutes from the Meeting of the Foundation Investment Fund Committee, the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic – June 12, 2002;

Minutes from the Meeting of the Foundation Investment Fund Committee, the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic – August 28, 2002;

Minutes from the Meeting of the Foundation Investment Fund Committee, the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic – October 15, 2002;

Minutes from the Meeting of the Foundation Investment Fund Committee, the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic – November 13, 2002.

Müller, Jiří: Economic Environment for the Civic and Non-profit Sector, Foundations and Property, May 2000;

Resolution No. 510 of July 29, 1992 on Negotiating and Approving Privatization Projects;

Summary of NIF Contribution in the I and II phases, Office of the Government of the Czech Republic, Prague 2003;

Vajdová, Tereza: Czech Civil Society 2004: After Fifteen Years of Development, NROS and FHS UK, Brno05;