Service Provider Registries in the Social Sector as Tools for the Competitive Selection of Providers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2025.1.2551Keywords:
government social contracting, registry of service providers, consumer choice, social service providers, social servicesAbstract
The article presents the results of a study on the role of service provider registries in the social sector in ensuring competitive selection of providers within the framework of the experiment on the implementation of government social contracting. The experiment’s objectives are to improve the quality and accessibility of social services for citizens by involving non-governmental providers, including through direct citizen participation in their selection. Under the conditions of the experiment, citizens can only choose providers from registries of service providers, which are formed by the authorized bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This condition makes the registries a mandatory tool for selecting providers and suggests that, to some extent, they should disclose information about the services and providers to citizens. Based on this assumption, the research question was formulated: do the existing registries provide citizens with a competitive selection of providers, and do the authorized bodies see such a role for the registries? In the article, competitive selection refers to the process of finding a suitable provider based on the ability to evaluate and compare information about services and providers. The focus on the perspectives of authorized bodies is due to their key role in defining the objectives for creating the registries. To answer the research question, three tasks were undertaken: 1) an assessment of how well the registries disclose the necessary information about services and providers from the perspective of consumer rights; 2) an examination of the formats in which the registries are made available to users online, as well as the presence of tools for searching and comparing services and providers; 3) a summary of the experiences of using the registries, based on semi-structured interviews with representatives of authorized bodies, including the objectives they pursued when creating the registries. The theoretical basis of the study is the principles of information disclosure for consumers outlined within the concept of “soft” regulation of citizen behavior, as well as research examining the role of such registries in provider selection. The conclusion is that the existing registries do not provide citizens with the ability to compare services and evaluate providers. This is because the authorized bodies did not set such a goal when creating the registries. The registries are mainly used for recording providers authorized to participate in government social contracting. However, the authorized bodies do not rule out the possibility of using the registries as tools for selecting providers if tasked with such a goal.
Acknowledgments. The study was commissioned by the Faculty of Social Sciences of HSE University (within the framework of the project “Register of Performers of Services in the Social Sphere as a Tool for the Implementation of the State Social Order”).
References
Горбунова В. В. Государственно-общественное партнерство как перспективное направление повышения качества социальных услуг // Барейко С. Н., Горбунова В. В., Журавлева Н. А. Экономика, социум, человек: проблемы и перспективы развития в условиях социальных изменений. Смоленск: НОВАЛЕНСО, 2017. С. 45―65.
Gorbunova V. V. (2017) Public-Private Partnership as a Promising Direction for Improving the Quality of Social Services. In: Bareyko S. N., Gorbunova V. V., Zhuravleva N. A. Economy. Society, Human: Problems and Prospects for Development in Conditions of Social Change. Smolensk: NOVALENSO. P. 45―65.
Григорьева И., Парфенова О. Социально ориентированные НКО и социальные предприятия как драйверы разгосударствления социального обслуживания: барьеры и возможности // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2021. Т. 19. № 1. С. 7―22. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2021-19-1-7-22.
Grigoryeva I., Parfenova O. (2021) Socially-Oriented NPOs and Social Enterprises as Drivers of Denationalization in Social Services: Barriers and Opportunities. The Journal of Social Policy Studies. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 7―22. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2021-19-1-7-22. (In Russ.)
Гришина Е. Е., Цацура Е. А. Развитие негосударственных социальных услуг для пожилых: барьеры и пути их преодоления // Экономика труда. 2019. Т. 6. № 4. С. 1475―1490. https://doi.org/10.18334/et.6.4.41209.
Grishina E. E., Tsatsura E. A. (2019) Development of Non-Governmental Social Services for the Elderly: Barriers and Ways to Overcome Them. Russian Journal of Labour Economics. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 1475―1490. https://doi.org/10.18334/et.6.4.41209. (In Russ.)
Дмитриева Н. Е., Минченко О. С., Рыльских Е. В. Цифровые платформы как субъект и объект регулирования, или как платформы изменяют систему госуправления // Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления. 2022. № 2. C. 60―84. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2022-0-2-60-84.
Dmitrieva N. E., Minchenko O. S., Rylskikh E. V. (2022) Digital Platforms as a Regulator and the Regulated Subject, or How Platforms Change the System of Public Administration. Public Administration Issues. No. 2. P. 60―84. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2022-0-2-60-84. (In Russ.)
Ларионов А. В. Функции государственных реестров НКО в развитии третьего сектора // Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления. 2021. № 4. С. 90―113. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2021-0-4-90-113.
Larionov A. V. (2021) Functions of State Registries of NPOS in the Development of the Third Sector: Russian Experience. Public Administration Issues. No. 4. P. 90―113. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2021-0-4-90-113. (In Russ.)
Мерсиянова И. В., Беневоленский И. Б. НКО как поставщики социальных услуг: верификация слабых сторон // Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления. 2017. № 2. С. 83―104. (In Russ.)
Mersiyanova I. V., Benevolensky I. B. (2017) NPOs as Social Services Providers: Organizational Weaknesses Verifying. Public Administration Issues. No. 2. P. 83―104. (In Russ.)
Романова В. В., Мацкевич А. В. Анализ введенных субъектами РФ механизмов преференций для некоммерческих организаций как исполнителей общественно полезных услуг // Регион: экономика и социология. 2019. № 4. С. 117―136. https://doi.org/10.15372/REG20190406.
Romanova V. V., Matskevich A. V. (2019) Preferential Mechanisms Introduced by the Federal Subjects of Russia for Non-Profit Organizations as Socially Beneficial Services Providers. Region: Economics and Sociology. No. 4. P. 117―136. https://doi.org/10.15372/REG20190406. (In Russ.)
Старшинова А.В., Бородкина О.И. Деятельность НКО в сфере социальных услуг: общественные ожидания и региональные практики // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2020. № Т. 18. № 3. С. 411—428. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2020-18-3-411-428
Starshinova A.V., Borodkina O.I. (2020). NGOs’ Activities in Social Services: Public Expectations and Regional Practices. Journal of Social Policy Studies. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 411—428. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2020-18-3-411-428. (In Russ.)
Appe S. (2011) Civil Society Mappings by Government. Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 2. No. 7. P. 157―178.
Appe S. (2012) What about “Who is Mapping” and its Implications? Comments on Brent Never’s “The Case for Better Maps of Social Service Provision”. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. No. 23. P. 204―212.
Appe S. (2015) Government Mapping of the Third Sector: A Government Innovation for Regulation and Coordination? Perspectives From the Third Sector. International Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 38. No. 10. P. 724―733.
De Vries M. S., Nemec J. (2018) Contextualizing Alternative Service Delivery Arrangements. In: Nemec J., Potier V., de Vries M. S. (eds.) Alternative Delivery Service. P. 10―17.
Leonard T.C., Thaler R. H., Sunstein C. R. (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Constitutional Political Economy. No. 19. P. 356―360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9056-2.
Never B. (2011) The Case for Better Maps of Social Service Provision: Using the Holy Cross Dispute to Illustrate More Effective Mapping. Voluntas. Vol. 1. No. 22. P. 174―188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9123-y.
Pestoff V. (2012) Co-Production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Concepts and Evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 1102―1118.
Salamon L. M. (2002) The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Salamon L. M., Toepler S. (2015) Government-Nonprofit Cooperation: Anomaly or Necessity? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 26. No. 6. P. 2155―2177.
Smith J. (2010) Evaluating a Vital Dimension of Self-Regulation of Nonprofits: The Relationship between the Iowa Register of Accountability and Voluntary Website Disclosure. PhD Thesis. University of Iowa.
Sunstein C. R. (2014) Nudges.Gov: Behaviorally Informed Regulation. In: Zamir E., Teichman D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. P. 719―747. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199945474.013.0028.
Weinmann M., Schneider C., vom Brocke J. (2016) Digital Nudging. Business & Information Systems Engineering. Vol. 58. P. 433―436 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-016-0453-1.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
