Which NGOs receive U.S. or EU grants for LGBTQ work in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Albania?

1. Where the records go quiet: No transparent roll-call of local grantees

The material repeatedly emphasizes absence of detailed recipient lists for U.S. or EU grants to LGBTQ organizations in the six Western Balkans countries. Multiple source analyses state they could not locate enumerations of NGOs receiving U.S. or EU funding for LGBTQ work, with the Balkan Trust for Democracy referenced as a regional grantmaker but without LGBTQ-specific recipient details ^[1]. Arcus Foundation appears in the corpus as a funder of social justice and LGBTQ programs, yet the provided summary lacks named grantees in the listed countries ^[2]. Separate items flag that reporting and public documentation are fragmentary, leaving a gap between donor program descriptions and an accessible list of country-level implementers ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Regional implementers and capacity-builders show up in the data

ERA-LGBTI is the most consistently named regional actor connected to LGBTQ work across the Western Balkans, cited as receiving and channeling grants and partnering to provide capacity development to local organizations in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Albania ^[3]. This suggests donors often route funds through regional organizations rather than disbursing directly to small local NGOs. The analysis implies fund flows may be intermediated by regional entities or coalitions, which complicates a direct mapping of donor-to-local NGO relationships in public records ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Donor landscape: Big funders named, but not granular recipient data

One analysis aggregates funding patterns for LGBTI causes in the broader Eastern Europe/Central Asia region and lists major donor sources — including the Government of Sweden, EEA and Norway Grants, and the Sigrid Rausing Trust — with $42 million cited for 2021–2022 and a note that 71% of funding went to grantees based in the region ^[4]. That report gives a sense of scale and donor priorities (human rights, health, community strengthening) but does not translate into a line-by-line record of which local NGOs in each Western Balkan country got U.S. or EU grants, leaving the recipient question unresolved at the granular level ^[4].

4. Program-level initiatives exist, but national beneficiary lists are sparse

Other program mentions include the Act Together for Inclusion Fund (ACTIF) and USAID-related projects; these point to mechanisms for bilateral or multilateral support for LGBTQ work but lack named beneficiary NGOs in the six countries ^{[5] [8]}. Reporting about USAID suspensions and wider U.S. foreign-aid shifts underscores that even when donors are active, funding flows can be disrupted or opaque, and public-facing documents may not list local implementing partners or may omit LGBTQ-specific allocations ^{[8] [7]}.

5. How to close the gap: where to look and the limits of current evidence

The provided analyses indicate two practical inferences: first, to identify specific NGO recipients you must consult donor project databases, grant award announcements, or the websites of regional implementers (because many funds appear to be channeled through entities like ERA-LGBTI or regional trusts) ^{[3] [1]}. Second, the current evidence warns that public reporting is uneven, and that aggregate funding tallies (e.g., the $42 million figure) offer scale but not recipient transparency ^[4]. The material also flags potential agendas: foundations and state donors may emphasize human-rights framing, while regional intermediaries promote capacity building, which affects how grants are announced and to whom they are visible ^{[4] [3]}.