Sub-area 3.3: Collaboration in service provision | Standards

Sub-area 3.3: Collaboration in service provision

Principle: The environment is supportive for CSO involvement in service provision


CSOs are engaged in different services
and compete for state contracts on
an equal basis to other providers


1. Existing legislation allows CSOs to provide services in various areas, such
as education, healthcare, social services.
2. CSOs have no barriers to providing services that are not defined by law
(“additional” services).
3. Existing legislation does not add additional burdensome requirements on
CSOs that do not exist for other service providers.
1. CSOs are able to obtain contracts in competition with other providers and
are engaged in various services (e.g., education, health, research, and
2. CSOs are included in all stages of developing and providing services
(needs assessment, determining the services that best address the needs,
monitoring and evaluation).
3. When prior registration/licensing is required, the procedure for obtaining it
is not overly burdensome.


The state has committed to
funding services and the funding
is predictable and available over
a longer-term period


1. The budget provides funding for various types of services which could be
provided by CSOs including multi-year funding.
2. There are no legal barriers to CSOs receiving public funding for the provision
of different services (either through procurement or through another
contracting or grants mechanism).
3. CSOs can sign long-term contracts for provision of services.
1. CSOs are recipients of funding for services.
2. CSOs receive sufficient funding to cover the basic costs of the services they
are contracted to provide, including proportionate institutional (overhead)
3. There are no delays in payments and the funding is flexible with the aim of
providing the best quality of services.


The state has clearly defined
procedures for contracting
services which allow for
transparent selection of
service providers, including CSOs


1. There is a clear and transparent procedure through which the funding for
services is distributed among providers.
2. Price is not the lead criterion for selection of service providers and best
value is determined by both service quality and a financial assessment of
3. There are clear guidelines on how to ensure transparency and avoid conflicts
of interests.
4. There is a right to appeal against competition results.
1. Many services are contracted to CSOs.
2. Competitions are considered fair and conflicts of interest are avoided.
3. State officials have sufficient capacity to organize the procedures.


There is a clear system of
accountability, monitoring and
evaluation of service provision


1. There is legal possibility for monitoring both spending and the quality of
service providers.
2. There are clear quality standards and monitoring procedures for services.
1. CSOs are not subject to excessive control.
2. Monitoring is performed on a regular basis according to pre-announced
procedures and criteria.
3. Regular evaluation of quality and effects/impact of services provided is
carried out and publicly available.