Government–Nonprofit Relations in Russia’s Regions: An Exploratory Analysis

Civic Participation in a Hybrid Regime: Limited Pluralism in Policymaking and Delivery in Contemporary Russia

“…Russia’s ongoing financial crisis has also led to major cutbacks in the number of individual charitable donations and is likely to lead to significant shortfalls in funding available from local authorities 8 . Even when an organization is successful in obtaining local government funding, this tends to be available for only a year at a time before another funding application has to be made, making it difficult for organizations to plan ahead, and making them much more reliant on other funding sources, such as individual and corporate donations and social enterprise (Bogdanova and Bindman 2016; Krasnopolskaya et al 2015). At present, only 16 per cent of all Russian NGOs receive municipal or regional government funding, and only 10 per cent receive any federal financial support (Krasnopolskaya et al 2015).…”

“…Even when an organization is successful in obtaining local government funding, this tends to be available for only a year at a time before another funding application has to be made, making it difficult for organizations to plan ahead, and making them much more reliant on other funding sources, such as individual and corporate donations and social enterprise (Bogdanova and Bindman 2016; Krasnopolskaya et al 2015). At present, only 16 per cent of all Russian NGOs receive municipal or regional government funding, and only 10 per cent receive any federal financial support (Krasnopolskaya et al 2015). As a result, they have welcomed the recent legislative changes theoretically enabling SONGOs to join a formal register of organizations through which they can compete for government tenders to become direct providers of social services.…”

The hybridisation of Russian non-profit organisations

“…This 'stick and carrot' approach to the management of third sector agents has been termed (by Daucé, 2015) the 'duality of coercion'. On the one hand the state used regulatory powers to suppress NPO activity -in particular (horizontal) domestic or international cooperation for advocacy or protest purposes and for holding the state to account -and, on the other, simultaneously encouraged NPOs to contribute to what is presented as the amelioration of social ills (Krasnopolskaya et al, 2015;Salamon et al, 2015). Having been ignored by the state in the 1990s, NPOs were now taking up the more recent opportunities for interacting with the state and had become reliant on ties with ruling and governing elites to access resources and help to navigate this complex environment.…”

Социальное Обслуживание Пожилых: Реализация Федерального Закона № 442 И Дальнейшие Перспективы

“…Таким образом, при наличии профессионализма, опыта оказания социальных услуг и экспертного опыта НКО трудно конкурировать с госучреждениями и коммерческими организациями на этом рынке по ФЗ-442 (который выдвигает жесткие требования по тарифам, условиям возмещения и другим параметрам) ввиду неравных стартовых условий и доступа к оборотным, инфраструктурным и денежным средствам. Закон не изменил ситуацию, зафиксированную исследователями в 2015 г.: в российских регионах государственный сектор и НКО взаимодействуют, И. А. Григорьева, И. Л. Сизова, А. Ю. Москвина ГОСУДАРСТВО И ОБЩЕСТВО однако регионы, как правило, не рассматривают сектор НКО как равного партнера в предоставлении услуг [Krasnopolskaya, Skokova, 2015]. НКО и госучреждения объединяет (в отличие от коммерческих организаций (ООО) и ИП -негосударственных поставщиков услуг) нехватка рыночного, «бизнесподхода» при выходе на рынок социальных услуг (отсюда и страхи руководителей госучреждений): необходимость выделения и формулировки услуги, расчет услуги, расчет окупаемости услуги при тех или иных объемах предоставления услуг и их соответствия мощностям организации.…”