Quality of public services. Complete selection of articles. System for assessing the quality of provision of state and municipal services Assessment of the quality of public services article

Yuri Kozlov. Algorithm for assessing the quality of public services // STATE SERVICE,

2015, №4 (96)

Yuri Kozlov, postgraduate student of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (119606, Moscow, Vernadsky Avenue, 84). Email: [email protected]
Annotation: The quality of public services provided by executive authorities is the main problem of service development in this area. The purpose of the study is to develop specific practical recommendations for improving the quality and efficiency of the public service delivery system.
The work used methods of a systems approach, mathematical modeling, sociological research, as well as various methods of graphical interpretation of information.
A well-constructed quality management system will allow not only to monitor the activities of bodies implementing law enforcement practice, but also to provide the feedback necessary for a sustainable and development-capable executive power system.
Keywords: executive authorities, public services, quality assessment.

The main indicator of the effectiveness of executive authorities is the quality of public services.

The importance of quality analysis cannot be overestimated. The results obtained can be the basis for developing policy directions for improving the public administration system. The results of the analysis will allow us to determine the effectiveness of decisions made and measures implemented.

The author's research in the field of existing methods for assessing the quality of public services made it possible to identify the main problems that impede the increase in the efficiency of executive authorities: a lack of legislative standards in this area, the lack of general rules for assessing the quality of public services, insufficient legal support, etc.

A review of the main areas of activity aimed at achieving an effective state shows that one of the most difficult tasks is to identify the optimal parameters for assessing the activities being carried out. The effectiveness of the state must have clear evaluation criteria and appropriate methods that would stimulate the desire to improve the quality of state and municipal management [Bartsits, 2011. P. 9].

Modern realities dictate the need to search for new methods of quality assessment, which, in accordance with the principles of the systems approach, would allow us to consider the complex process of providing public services from the point of view of an inextricable relationship with its components.

Figure 1 proposes a universal algorithm for determining the level of quality of the administrative and legal process, based on the use of modern standards and calculation of deviations relative to the expected level of indicators. The author proposes to determine the quality of a service through consumer perception, that is, the feeling after receiving a public service, how much it coincides with expectations before contacting the executive authorities.

Picture 1. A universal three-dimensional algorithm for assessing the quality of public services

An important advantage of the proposed algorithm is the possibility of three-dimensional construction of the administrative and legal process, that is, assessing its quality in three interrelated aspects. Thus, the algorithm was based on the methodology proposed by K. Mabey and D. Pugh, which was called the “data collection cube” and allows one to visually present a comprehensive picture of the quality of the legal process by constructing a cube in a three-dimensional coordinate system. When conducting the analysis, various factors that determine the structure of the process of providing public services are taken into account. It becomes possible to visualize what the final result is made of, to note strengths and weaknesses, and also to quantitatively express the complex social component of the administrative and legal process. The use of mathematical methods makes it possible to transform complex administrative and legal issues into mathematical form.

It is advisable to consider the final clarity regarding the practical use of the proposed algorithm using the example of the implementation of State registration of vehicles by the State Traffic Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. The object of study and the subject area for the practical example were not chosen by chance. Today, as part of the administrative reform, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia is being reformed, which is currently the leader in the number of government services converted into electronic form (36 services). This ministry is not only an active provider of information through the system of interdepartmental electronic interaction (over the nine months of 2014, more than 37.8 million interdepartmental electronic requests were processed), but also a consumer of information (2.3 million interdepartmental electronic requests were sent). A special contribution to achieving these indicators was made by the Main Directorate for Road Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

It is also worth noting the work carried out by the department to improve the quality of public services, within the framework of which instructions were developed for organizing monitoring of applicants’ satisfaction. A survey form has been introduced containing criteria such as:

• awareness of the procedure for providing government services electronically;
• efficiency and waiting time in line;
• the competence of the internal affairs officer interacting with the applicant;
• comfort of indoor conditions;
• assessment of the availability of information about the procedure for providing services.

However, the proposed quality criteria do not fully reflect the complex structure of the process, since there is no comprehensive characteristic of the system for providing public services. The obtained estimates cannot be compared with the results of other executive authorities, which once again indicates the need to develop a unified standard for the quality of public services and a universal algorithm that allows us to display the multifaceted administrative and legal process of providing public services. So, using the example of the State Traffic Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, we will consider the algorithm developed by the author step by step.

The first stage is the creation of a working group. Particularly noteworthy is the importance of the performers themselves participating in the work on assessing the quality of the administrative and legal process. Civil servants exercising powers in areas directly related to the process of providing public services have high-quality, reliable information obtained during direct work. By analyzing the parameters of the administrative and legal process, workers can already monitor the necessary moments in the formation of a future policy for the quality of public services during the implementation of law enforcement practice.

The second stage is the construction of a pyramid of efficiency of the system of public services of the executive branch. To solve the problem of developing a system for providing public services, it is necessary to formulate goals in all areas of activity, that is, to build a so-called efficiency pyramid. Here it should be taken into account that goals are passed down, and indicators are collected from the bottom up, along the organizational hierarchy of the executive authority (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Efficiency pyramid of the system of public services of the executive branch

In order to ensure the successful implementation of measures aimed at improving the quality of the administrative and legal process, it is necessary to develop a strategic map that displays all key goals. The main function of the map is the cause-and-effect display of goals in the process of implementing a quality strategy (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Strategic map of the executive authority

The third stage is the identification of key aspects that determine the state of the system and its assessment from the perspective of quality standards. Executive authorities, like other enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership, must rely on modern quality standards when working and, accordingly, evaluate their activities from their position. Thus, the basis for assessing the quality of public services should be a standard containing a range of quality indicators. Due to the absence of such a specific list of indicators, it is proposed to use the criteria given in the standard of the Russian Federation - GOST R 52113-2003. However, it is not focused on the activities of executive authorities; accordingly, the given criteria do not fully reflect the specificity of public services. In our example, the author proposes to assess the level of quality of the state vehicle registration service in the following three areas:

• level of quality of the executive authority;
• leadership abilities – knowledge and compliance with legislation;
• knowledge and adherence to professional ethics of conduct.

These criteria must be entered into the evaluation table (Table 1) and assessed in three blocks:

• expectations of consumers of a public service before its provision;
• perception, that is, the opinion of a citizen or organization regarding the compliance of the executive authority providing the service with the listed criteria;
• importance, that is, determining the significance of each criterion for the quality organization of the process of providing state or municipal services.

Table 1. Assessing the quality of the process of providing the state service of vehicle registration in the Russian Federation

During the analysis, 42 registration and examination units of the State Traffic Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation were examined. Thus, questionnaires were distributed to consumers of this service in various registration departments, and as a result, an assessment was made according to the criteria of interest to us. To determine the average score, each indicator was assessed on a five-point scale, then indices were calculated. For commercial organizations offering a wide range of services, at 0.60 ≤ Qi ≤ 0.79 – the state of the aspect is considered satisfactory, however, taking into account the specificity of the activities of executive authorities, the state of the process of providing public services with such indicators can be considered good.

A visual display of the state of the system is possible by constructing a service quality assessment cube, where the axes of the coordinate system are the selected aspects of the service (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Cube for assessing the quality of the state service of vehicle registration in the Russian Federation

The position of the cube characterizes the system as follows: 1st, 2nd and 3rd row - unsatisfactory, satisfactory and good state of the aspect, respectively. The calculation of the general index of compliance of service quality with consumer needs is carried out as follows:

where β *, β **, β *** are, respectively, indicators of the degree of importance of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd aspects of the service for the researcher [Sekerin, Sekerin, 1997. pp. 43–53]:

where k is the significance rank of each aspect of the service assigned by the researcher (or experts).

Thus, both the graphical display of the state of the system under study and the calculation of the general index of compliance of service quality with consumer demands indicate that the process of providing public services for vehicle registration in the Russian Federation is sufficiently responsive to consumer requirements.

However, the position of the quality assessment cube indicates that this executive body has minor problems with maintaining professional ethical conduct. Despite the fact that the majority of consumers of the public service under study admitted that this aspect is the least important for them, it should be noted the low ability of this executive body to create an atmosphere of hospitality.

Another, larger-scale example is the assessment of the activities of the Main Directorate for Ensuring Road Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation in achieving socially significant goals (Table 2).

Table 2. Assessment of the activities of the Main Directorate for Ensuring Road Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation in achieving socially significant goals

The data presented in the table were subjected to expert assessments, during which such values ​​as “perception” and “expectations” were quantified (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Expectations and perceptions of experts

The basis of comparison when calculating relative indicators in this case is the actual, achieved level of the process, that is, the “perception” of experts. Graphically, the state of the system under study is displayed in Figure 6. The central position of the cube (level “2” along all coordinate axes), as well as the quantitative expression of the calculated relative values, indicates that for the period from 2013–2014, the Main Directorate for Support Road safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation has carried out serious work. The average level of development of the process has been reached, which is a good indicator, and the low value of the summary index is explained by the fact that the final achievement of the goal is scheduled for 2018.

Figure 6. Graphic display of the state of internal processes of the State Traffic Inspectorate

The fourth stage is the development of instructions for managing the quality of the system. At the moment, the role of instructions for managing the quality of the process of providing a public service can be an administrative regulation regulating the procedure for performing a public function, containing a flowchart of the entire process of providing a public service.

In the future, technological schemes for the provision of public services will act as instructions. The Department of State Regulation of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, together with the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of Russia, has developed a draft of methodological recommendations for their formation and approval. This project is already being discussed with executive authorities.

It is also necessary to develop a procedure for the continuous review of regulations in order to timely identify legislative gaps.

The fifth stage is the choice of a system for monitoring the state of the process of providing public services. To manage the quality of the system for the provision of public services by executive authorities, continuous legal monitoring of activities is necessary in order to determine the variation of the process over time. Of course, any process must be in a state of control, that is, be predictable and manageable. Taking into account the specifics of the public services provided by the Main Directorate for Road Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to use a control system with two threshold quality levels (Figure 7).

Figure 7. A system for monitoring the quality of the state of the public services system with two threshold levels.

In the course of the study, cases were identified when the created favorable conditions were a prerequisite for the development of such a concept as “consumer extremism,” which required the definition of restrictive measures at the legislative level. A dangerous trend is also the state of the system when its parameters fall below the established minimum level of quality. Such conditions give rise to consumer dissatisfaction, which leads to a conflict of interest.

If the quality parameters of the public service delivery process have reached one of the threshold values, it is necessary to conduct a gap analysis and apply pre-developed corrective actions. The parameters of a well-managed process must be within established limits; it is such a process that is capable of providing a high-quality public service.

The sixth stage is the logistics of providing public services, which largely determines the final quality of the service itself.

The seventh stage is interaction with the consumer. Activities related to managing communications with the public are necessary for the successful operation of all government agencies. This is a management function, within the framework of which the public opinion and image of public administration as a whole that is necessary for government institutions is formed, and the principles of democratic management are implemented. Through competent management of public relations, trust, mutual understanding is created and public support for executive authorities is ensured, which is the basis for the stability of the state.

It should be noted that the testing of this algorithm for assessing the compliance of public services with consumer demands showed that the presented methodology may well serve as a tool for depicting a comprehensive picture of service quality. Further author's research confirmed the fact that the scope of application of this algorithm, with its slight modification, can be used to assess the quality of various processes in the activities of executive authorities. The proposed methodology must be enshrined in legal acts, as well as instructions for its implementation in the activities of executive authorities must be developed.

Literature

Bartsits I.N. System of state and municipal management: training course: in 2 volumes. T. 2. M.: Publishing house RAGS, 2011.

Sekerin V., Sekerin D. Consumer requirements and marketing // Marketing. 1997. No. 4.

Yuzhakov V.N. Quality of state and municipal services: efforts and results of administrative reform // Issues of state and municipal management. 2014. No. 1.

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 7, 2012 No. 601 “On the main directions for improving the public administration system.”

The introduction of a system for assessing the quality and accessibility of public services provided by consumers is an effective method of studying the current state of affairs in the field of service provision and developing ways to further improve these services, taking into account the needs and expectations of the service recipients themselves. The monitoring may be based on the system of indicators proposed below, detailing the criteria for the quality and accessibility of public services.

Indicators, distributed according to criteria characterizing the quality and comfort of public services can be divided into two main groups: 1) general; 2) specific.

The composition of the general indicators is compulsory for all services, as it reflects the main problems faced by consumers of public services. In addition to general indicators, specific indicators should also be developed that reflect the specific features of the process of providing a particular type of service. Specific indicators for each type of service are determined individually, based on its specific features and problems encountered in the process of provision.

Indicators for assessing the quality and accessibility of government (municipal) services:

1. Timeliness and efficiency

In general, timeliness represents the time spent by the consumer to receive the service from the moment of request.

Timeliness ensures that authorized bodies, institutions and individual officials fulfill their obligations to provide services and carry out related procedures within the time limits established by regulatory legal acts.

Composition of general indicators:

% (share) of cases of provision of services within the prescribed period from the date of submission of documents. The indicator is defined as the ratio of the number of cases of service provision on time to the total number of consumers served for a specific service X100%.

% (share) of consumers who waited in line for service for no more than 40 minutes. The indicator is defined as the ratio of the number of cases of waiting in line for no more than 40 minutes to the total number of consumers served for a specific service X100%.

Examples of specific indicators used in world practice: 1) % (share) of applications for determining the amount of pension benefits considered within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application; 2) % (share) of visitors received within the established 20 minutes from their assigned reception time; 3) % (share) of benefit payments within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the application; 4) % (proportion) of cases of emergency medical assistance arriving within 15 minutes from the moment of the call.

2. Quality of provision of public services

Indicators of service quality, depending on the nature of the service provided, may include: indicators of accuracy of data processing, correctness of paperwork, quality of the service process.

Composition of general indicators.

% (share) of consumers satisfied with the quality of the service provision process. The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of consumers satisfied with the quality of the service provision process (the number of ratings is good and very good) to the total number of clients served for a specific service X100%.

% (share) of cases of correctly executed documents (correctly made accruals, calculations, etc.) - The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of cases of correctly executed documents to the total number of documents issued for a specific service X 100.

Examples of specific indicators used in world practice: 1)% (share) of cases of accurate calculation of pension accruals; 4) % (share) of correctly issued passports; 3) % (share) of consumers satisfied with the waiting conditions; 4) % (share) of compliance with sanitary standards.

3. Availability of government services

Accessibility consists of assessing the simplicity and rationality of the process of providing a service, the clarity and quality of information explaining the order and procedures for providing services. In world practice, accessibility is determined by the quality of documents regulating the process of providing services and the effectiveness of the current information system, creating conditions for people with disabilities. Availability is determined by various spatiotemporal parameters. The main indicators that allow us to evaluate it are: the number and distance of public service points, work schedule.

Composition of general indicators.

% (share) of consumers satisfied with the quality of information about the procedure for providing the service. The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of consumers satisfied with the quality of information about the procedure for providing a service (the number of ratings is good and very good) to the total number of clients served for a specific service X100%.

% (share) of cases of documents filled out correctly by the consumer and submitted the first time. The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of cases of documents correctly filled out by the consumer and submitted the first time, to the total number of clients served for a specific service X100%.

% (share) of services information about which is available via the Internet. The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of services, information about which is available via the Internet, to the total number of services provided X100%.

Examples of specific indicators used in world practice: 1) %(proportion) of applications for services filled out correctly upon first application; 2) % (share) of services for which it is possible to fill out an application via the Internet or send it by mail; 3) average distance of consumers from the place of service provision.

4. Appeal process

An important role in the process of serving the population belongs to clear and well-established procedures for appealing against actions (inaction) of officials who are in direct contact with consumers. To evaluate their actions and provide feedback, it is necessary to provide appropriate indicators characterizing: the effectiveness and efficiency of the process for considering and resolving complaints, the level of consumer satisfaction with the existing procedure and timing of complaints.

Composition of general indicators.

% (share) of justified complaints to the total number of consumers served for this type of service. The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of justified complaints to the total number of consumers served for a given type of service X 100%.

% (share) of justified complaints reviewed and satisfied within the established time frame. The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of cases of consideration of a complaint within a specified period to the total number of complaints filed X100%.

% (share) of consumers satisfied with the existing appeal procedure. The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of consumers satisfied with the existing complaint procedure (the number of ratings is good and very good) to the total number of clients who filed complaints X 100%.

% (share) of consumers satisfied with the terms of appeal. The indicator is determined as the ratio of the number of consumers satisfied with the established deadlines for appealing (the number of ratings is good and very good) to the total number of surveyed consumers who filed complaints X 100%.

1) % (share) of complaints reviewed and satisfied within 10 days; 2) % (share) of justified complaints, based on the results of consideration of which measures were taken, and service recipients were informed; 3) % (share) of complaints that, after consideration, were found to be unfounded.

5. Service culture

Politeness reflects consumer satisfaction with the attitude of staff in the process of providing a service, and willingness to provide effective assistance when difficulties arise.

Composition of general indicators.

%(share) of consumers satisfied with the politeness of the staff. The indicator is defined as the ratio of the number of consumers satisfied with the politeness of the staff (the number of ratings is good and very good) to the total number of consumers surveyed X 100%.

Examples of specific indicators used in world practice:% (share) of consumers who noted the rude attitude of the staff of a government body or institution.

A systematic understanding of quality reflects the definition given in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: “Quality is the essential certainty of an object or process, appearing in its properties and characterizing the fact that this object or process appears in given conditions, in connection and interaction with other given objects and processes " The above definition shows that quality is the essence of a thing, the basis of all its properties, and the “set of properties” is manifested in the relationship of a given thing with other things.

Currently, the Russian Federation has a number of state and international standards regulating the concept of quality. A comparative analysis of the terminology established in the listed standards shows that there are certain differences both in methodological approaches to quality and in the interpretation of basic concepts. Table 1 shows the main definitions of quality.

An integral understanding of quality, focusing on a synthetic, holistic coverage of all its aspects, became possible with the development of market relations. Today, when we talk about quality, we mean the general consumer assessment of the properties of goods or services, which includes all the factors that influence the choice of a supplier of goods or services by the consumer, and, therefore, implies an expanded interpretation of the concept of “quality.”

Internationally recognized expert in the field of quality E. Deming writes: “The consumer is the most important link in the production line. Quality must be aimed at meeting its needs - present and future."

Table 1 – Basic definitions of the concept “Quality”

* Requirement - a need or expectation that is stated, usually assumed, or required. Requirements may be made by various stakeholders.

State (municipal) services are services that are provided to individuals and organizations at their request by federal executive authorities, executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, management bodies of state extra-budgetary funds of the Russian Federation or local administrations within the framework of their competence.

Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated July 27, 2010 N 210-FZ “On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services” regulates relations arising in connection with the provision of state and municipal services, respectively, by federal executive authorities, bodies of state extra-budgetary funds, executive authorities of state power subjects of the Russian Federation, as well as local administrations and other local government bodies exercising executive and administrative powers.

According to this law, a public service provided by a federal executive body, a body of a state extra-budgetary fund, an executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as a local government body in the exercise of certain state powers delegated by federal laws and laws of constituent entities of the Russian Federation is an implementation activity functions, respectively, of a federal executive body, a state extra-budgetary fund, an executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as a local government body in the exercise of certain state powers delegated by federal laws and laws of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which is carried out at the request of applicants within the limits established by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and regulatory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation powers of bodies providing public services.

Municipal service, provided by a local government body - activities to implement the functions of a local government body, which is carried out at the request of applicants within the powers of the body providing municipal services to resolve issues of local importance established in accordance with Federal Law of October 6, 2003 N 131-FZ " On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation" and the charters of municipalities.

Administrative regulation is a normative legal act that establishes the procedure for the provision of state or municipal services and the standard for the provision of state or municipal services.

A multifunctional center for the provision of state and municipal services is a Russian organization, regardless of its legal form, authorized to organize the provision of state and municipal services, including in electronic form, according to the “one window” principle.

Provision of state and municipal services in electronic form - provision of state and municipal services using information and telecommunication technologies, including using the portal of state and municipal services, multifunctional centers, universal electronic card and other means, including the implementation of electronic interaction within the framework of such provision between state bodies, local governments, organizations and applicants.

Portal of state and municipal services - a state information system that ensures the provision of state and municipal services in electronic form, as well as access of applicants to information about state and municipal services intended for distribution using the information and telecommunications network "Internet" and posted in state and municipal information systems that ensure the maintenance of registers of state and municipal services.

Along with the term “public services”, you can often find another one - “public services”, and often both of these terms are used in the same context, in relation to the same situations. As a result, the concept of public services, which is already not entirely clear due to its novelty, further loses its contours, merging with public services. To a certain extent, translations of foreign materials on these issues are also to blame for this, when “public service” is translated both as “public” and “state” services. If we add to this series “social” services, which are also part of our lives, then a situation arises when it is difficult to distinguish between state, public and social services.

It seems that it would be wrong to confuse these concepts, since they have different contents and characterize the services provided from different angles. At the same time, it would also be wrong to oppose them. In some cases, the same service can be state, public, and social. A public service, first of all, characterizes the entity providing the service: these are always government bodies. Local government bodies can provide similar public services, but, strictly speaking, such services cannot be considered as government services, based on the constitutional status of local government bodies.

The basic principles for the provision of state and municipal services are:

1) the legality of the provision of state and municipal services by bodies providing state services and bodies providing municipal services, as well as the provision of services that are necessary and mandatory for the provision of state and municipal services and are provided by organizations specified in part 2 of Article 1 N 210- Federal Law "On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services";

2) the application procedure for applying for the provision of state and municipal services;

3) the legality of collecting from applicants a state fee for the provision of state and municipal services, fees for the provision of state and municipal services, fees for the provision of services that are necessary and mandatory for the provision of state and municipal services;

4) openness of the activities of bodies providing public services and bodies providing municipal services, as well as organizations involved in the provision of state and municipal services;

5) accessibility of applying for the provision of state and municipal services and the provision of state and municipal services, including for persons with disabilities;

6) the possibility of receiving state and municipal services in electronic form, unless prohibited by law, as well as in other forms provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, at the choice of the applicant.

When receiving state and municipal services, applicants have the right to:

1) receipt of state or municipal services in a timely manner and in accordance with the standard for the provision of state or municipal services;

2) obtaining complete, up-to-date and reliable information on the procedure for providing state and municipal services, including in electronic form;

3) receiving state and municipal services in electronic form, unless prohibited by law, as well as in other forms provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, at the choice of the applicant;

4) pre-trial (out-of-court) consideration of complaints (claims) in the process of receiving state and municipal services;

5) receipt of state and municipal services in a multifunctional center in accordance with agreements concluded between the multifunctional center and bodies providing public services, and agreements concluded between the multifunctional center and bodies providing municipal services, from the moment the relevant interaction agreement comes into force.

Responsibilities of bodies providing public services, bodies providing municipal services, and organizations subordinate to state bodies or local governments:

1. Bodies providing public services and bodies providing municipal services are obliged to:

1) provide state or municipal services in accordance with administrative regulations;

2) ensure the opportunity for the applicant to receive state or municipal services in electronic form, unless prohibited by law, as well as in other forms provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, at the choice of the applicant;

3) provide to other bodies providing public services, bodies providing municipal services, to organizations subordinate to state bodies or local self-government bodies involved in the provision of state and municipal services provided for by law, upon interdepartmental requests of such bodies and organizations, documents and information necessary for provision of state and municipal services;

4) perform other duties in accordance with the requirements of administrative regulations and other regulatory legal acts governing relations arising in connection with the provision of state and municipal services.

2. Organizations subordinate to state bodies or local self-government bodies participating in the provision of state and municipal services are obliged to:

1) provide to bodies providing state services and bodies providing municipal services, at interdepartmental requests of such bodies, documents and information necessary for the provision of state and municipal services, as well as receive from bodies providing public services, bodies providing municipal services, other state bodies, local governments such documents and information;

2) perform other duties in accordance with the requirements of N 210-FZ “On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services” and other regulatory legal acts governing relations arising in connection with the provision of public services.

The provision of state and municipal services is carried out in accordance with administrative regulations.

The structure of administrative regulations must contain sections establishing:

1. General Provisions;

2) standard for the provision of public services;

3) composition, sequence and timing of administrative procedures, requirements for the procedure for their implementation, including features of the implementation of administrative procedures in electronic form;

4) forms of control over the implementation of administrative regulations;

5) pre-trial (out-of-court) procedure for appealing decisions and actions (inaction) of a body providing a public service, a body providing a municipal service, as well as officials, state or municipal employees.

The standard for the provision of state or municipal services provides for:

1) name of the state or municipal service;

2) the name of the body providing the public service or the body providing the municipal service;

3) the result of providing a public service;

4) the period for providing state or municipal services;

5) legal grounds for the provision of state or municipal services;

6) an exhaustive list of documents required in accordance with legislative or other regulatory legal acts for the provision of state or municipal services, divided into documents and information that the applicant must submit independently, and documents that the applicant has the right to submit on his own initiative, since they are subject to representation within the framework of interdepartmental information interaction;

7) an exhaustive list of grounds for refusal to accept documents necessary for the provision of state or municipal services;

8) an exhaustive list of grounds for refusal to provide state or municipal services;

9) the amount of fees charged to the applicant for the provision of state or municipal services, and the methods of collection in cases provided for by federal laws, adopted in accordance with them by other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, regulatory legal acts of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipal legal acts;

10) the maximum waiting period in line when submitting a request for the provision of a state or municipal service and upon receiving the result of the provision of a state or municipal service;

11) the deadline for registering the applicant’s request for the provision of state or municipal services;

12) requirements for the premises in which state and municipal services are provided, for the waiting room, places for filling out requests for the provision of state or municipal services, information stands with samples of their completion and a list of documents required for the provision of each state or municipal service;

13) indicators of accessibility and quality of state and municipal services;

14) other requirements, including those taking into account the specifics of the provision of state and municipal services in multifunctional centers.

Public services are classified according to the following criteria:

- organizational and legal status of the public service provider;

- organizational and legal status of the consumer of public services;

- form of provision.

According to the organizational and legal status of the public service provider, the following groups are distinguished:

Services provided to consumers directly by government agencies;

Services provided to consumers by government agencies that are not government agencies, whose activities are financed from the state budget;

Services provided to consumers by public and private organizations that have won public procurement tenders for their targeted implementation.

According to the organizational and legal status of the consumer of public services, the following groups are distinguished:

Services provided to individuals;

Services provided to legal entities.

According to the form of provision, the services provided are distinguished:

On paper;

Through information and communication means;

On an electronic storage medium;

Orally in direct contact.

Picture 1 -

Figure 7 - Components of an objective indicator of the quality of provision of public services

Indicators of accessibility and quality of public services are determined to evaluate and monitor the activities of both public service providers in general and individual officials. Common indicators for all services are accuracy and timeliness of execution, accessibility, costs of their implementation, and the presence of justified complaints. The composition of accessibility and quality indicators is divided into two main groups: quantitative and qualitative.

The group of quantitative indicators of accessibility, which are characterized by measurable indicators that make it possible to objectively evaluate the activities of public service providers, includes:

Service waiting time; the institution's work schedule;

Location of the institution providing the services;

Number of documents required to receive the service;

Cost of the final result of the service (for paid services);

Availability of benefits for certain categories of service consumers.

Qualitative indicators of the availability of services provided include: the degree of complexity of the requirements that must be met to receive the service; reliability of information about the services provided; availability of various channels for obtaining services; simplicity and clarity of information and instructional documents.

The group of quantitative indicators for assessing the quality of services provided includes: compliance with the deadlines for the provision of services; number of justified complaints.

Qualitative indicators include: accuracy of fulfilled obligations towards the consumer; service culture (politeness, aesthetics); quality of staff work results (professional excellence).

Both in our country and abroad, the provision of public services is closely associated with the public service. And this is no coincidence, because the state provides services through a special apparatus - civil servants. Already in the Concept of reforming the civil service system of the Russian Federation, approved by the President of the Russian Federation on August 15, 2001, it was established that interaction between the civil service and civil society is carried out on the basis of compliance, in particular, with the principle of legality and legal regulation of the activities of government bodies and civil servants, eliminating the possibility manifestations of subjectivity and avoidance of arbitrariness when civil servants provide public services and make decisions.

To determine the gap in the existing Russian experience in developing public service standards, it is useful to compare this experience with the best global practices. The Marianne Charter (France) was used as an object of comparison, which contains not only the standard of public services itself, but also recommendations for its implementation. The document is a methodological guide intended for persons whose responsibilities include the application and monitoring of compliance with service standards. The charter is aimed at improving the quality of service and reception of the population in government institutions.

The Marianna Charter, in contrast to the Russian experience, contains not only the parameters of the minimum acceptable quality, but also a process of continuous improvement, which makes it much more consistent with the approach of the ISO-9000 series standards.

Russian standards are more similar in style to instructions, although attempts to develop a different style are made by all developers of the standards considered. The unity of the Charter made it possible to devote a significant place in its implementation to the exchange of experience, including between bodies providing completely different public services (different ministries). In Russia, the diversity of approaches, including simply due to different functional terminology and originality of stylistics, complicates the conditions for the exchange and dissemination of OIV experience.

The unity of the Charter is potentially convenient for recipients of services, since the unity of the structure makes it easy to navigate and find the necessary information in the standard of any service.

Russian standards are not yet so focused on service recipients; there are even proposals to create special adapted versions of standards for distribution.

The Charter consists of mandatory, additional and special conditions. Mandatory conditions must be fulfilled by everyone, but the form of execution may vary. To do this, the Marianna Charter has specially marked places for filling out specific compliance forms (templates), for example: “We inform you of our opening hours: (must be specified).” Additional conditions are not mandatory, they are a kind of recommendation for improvements. Government agencies may adopt other additional requirements appropriate to the nature of the service. In Russian practice, an approach with different levels of requirements was found only in one case. The existing domestic experience does not yet contain a focus on continuous improvements. In fact, standards are intended to set the level that needs to be achieved, and this is where the improvement process ends. The charter is written in the form of a template. The studied Russian experience also contains preferences for the formulation of a basic text with a unified structure, with further adaptation of the standard to the specifics of individual services.

An analysis of regional experience in standardizing the services of executive authorities suggests that the issue of correlating the processes of standardization and regulation of government bodies is currently unresolved. In fact, the regions have not yet begun to implement measures to develop administrative regulations. In a very limited number of cases, for example in the program of the Samara region, there is an indication of the formation of administrative regulations as a mechanism for changes in the activities of executive authorities.

At the same time, the regulatory framework of the Russian Federation regarding certain aspects of administrative reform determines the connection between administrative regulations and standards of public services, as, for example, in Government Decree No. 679 of November 11, 2005 “On the procedure for the development and approval of administrative regulations for the performance of public functions and administrative regulations for the provision of public services.” The process of regulating the activities of executive authorities includes:

Requirements for the procedure for providing public services, as part of the administrative regulations;

Mandatory independent examination and public discussion of administrative regulations;

Conducting surveys of recipients of public services as part of the technological chain for developing standards.

The connection between service standards and administrative regulations for the activities of executive authorities has been explicitly discovered in the practice of the activities of executive authorities in Tatarstan.

The Republic of Tatarstan uses the approach of including public service standards into a set of administrative regulations.

The Center for Economic and Social Research of the Republic of Tatarstan developed and submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan a draft resolution “On the development of a system of administrative regulations for the provision of public services by executive bodies of state power.”

In accordance with this approach, an administrative regulation is a normative legal act that establishes the procedure for the implementation by an executive authority of a state function related to the provision of public services. Part of the administrative regulations of the state function related to the provision of public services is the public service standard.

A public service is understood as the activity of an executive authority to fulfill the request or requirement of citizens and organizations for the recognition, establishment, change or termination of their rights, as well as obtaining material and financial resources for their implementation in the case and in the manner prescribed by law, establishing legal facts, or providing information on issues within the competence of the executive body of state power and included in the register of public services.

The standard of a public service refers to mandatory rules that establish, in the interests of the recipient of a public service, requirements for the provision of a public service, including characteristics of the process, form, content and result of the provision of this public service.

There are various models for classifying the functions and powers of government organizations, adopted in countries such as the USA, Canada, Germany and a number of other countries.

Canada has adopted a model of government activity, The Government of Canada Strategic Reference Model (GSRM), which divides government services not only into areas (areas), such as healthcare, education, and so on, but also into types in terms of the final results of service delivery. This is a fairly useful classification from the point of view of implementing e-government information systems, since the type of final result largely determines the nature and specificity of the technologies required for implementation.

The 19 types are listed below according to the Canadian classification of service outcomes:

funds: receiving or providing funds;

(Units of) resources: provision of goods, equipment, premises;

transportation: people and other objects;

consulting;

matching detection, referrals and connection discovery;

new knowledge: performing research;

protection and stimulation;

recreational and cultural opportunities;

education and training;

rehabilitation and care;

period of validity of the agreement: reaching agreements, resolving disputes;

period of validity of the permit: regulation, licensing, issuance of permits, certificates, etc.;

period of protection: monitoring, prevention, elimination of threats, risk reduction;

intervention: responding to threats and emergencies, providing assistance, restoring order;

compliance with rules and court decisions;

fines and sanction periods;

rules (laws, rules, strategies, plans, standards);

implementation of changes (organizations, work rules, systems).

In turn, the activities of the state are divided into 22 areas, which are divided into two large groups:

public services and functions of the state (Public Program Types) - 12 types of functions;

providing public services (Provider Program Type) – 10 types of functions.

Public services include the following categories:

socio-economic development;

science and knowledge generation;

Natural resources;

environment protection;

healthcare;

lawmaking, democratic and human rights;

social sphere;

culture;

education;

security and law and order;

judicial branch;

national security and defense.

The following areas of state activity include:

rule-making (public regulation), planning and management;

administrative and economic management;

human resources (personnel) management;

financial management;

information and technology management;

management of assets, funds, buildings, etc.;

communications management;

procurement and supply management;

administrative services;

professional services.

As a result, the model for the provision of public services in Canada can be presented as follows (Fig. 8).

Line of business (functions) describe the authority to achieve results in a specific area. The description of the government's activities includes:

target group;

needs of the target group (addressed through program implementation);

regulatory support (scope and level of authority granted to achieve results);

performance results and their impact (desired trend in the level of fulfillment of needs and the consequences of this);

efficiency and effectiveness indicators;

strategy model;

responsibility for implementation.

Descriptions of business lines provide the context for service delivery.

Areas of activity can be grouped according to the principles of serving similar target groups and similar needs.

Classification of services by areas of activity and types of results allows us to build a matrix “areas of activity (functions) – types of services,” as shown in the figure below. At the intersection, the number of public services that relate to this direction and type is indicated.

Figure 8 - Canada's public service delivery model

Of interest is the model for classifying public services, which was proposed by the consulting company “Booze, Allen, Hamilton” and which was accepted with minor changes in Germany. This classification has proven its usefulness. The German Federal Government has identified approximately 400 services.

The classification proposed in Germany takes into account two criteria:

the first criterion is the “depth” of coverage by the service of the “added value chain”: information service – communications – transactions. This is a well known and widely used scheme. It is estimated that approximately one third of services are primarily informational in nature, however, in many cases these services include some additional functionality beyond simply publishing information on the Web. Another third are procedures for processing various applications, which generally require the implementation of complex processes and regulations and contain transaction execution components;

the second criterion is the content of the service.

It is interesting that almost 3/4 of all services of the German Federal Government (73%) belong to services of types 1, 2, 6 and 7: “Collection, processing and provision of general and specialized information”, “General procedures for processing applications received by government departments” ", "Procedures for providing assistance and assistance."

This classification of public services makes it possible to analyze to a greater extent what kind of technical solutions and IT infrastructure are required to provide them, and to reuse elements of these solutions.

Figure 9 - Classification of public services proposed by Booze, Allen, Hamilton, adopted in Germany

It is very important to set the right priorities in the sequence of implementation of public services. It is obvious that it will take time and resources to implement all the services provided to citizens and businesses, of which there are usually about 1,000 in the country. Therefore, it is necessary to set appropriate priorities, giving preference to those services that simultaneously require a long cycle and large labor costs for authorities to provide, and at the same time for which citizens and legal entities apply most often.

In accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 12, 2012 No. 1284 “On citizens’ assessment of the effectiveness of the activities of heads of territorial bodies of federal executive bodies (their structural divisions) and territorial bodies of state extra-budgetary funds (their regional branches), taking into account the quality of their provision of state services, as well as on the use of the results of this assessment as the basis for making decisions on the early termination of the performance of their official duties by the relevant managers,” citizens are given the opportunity to evaluate the quality of the provision of public services by migration departments.
Citizens who have received a public service can evaluate the quality of its provision by sending SMS messages, answering a telephone survey, leaving ratings through electronic terminals in multifunctional centers, government agencies, extra-budgetary funds and on Internet sites.

The assessment of the quality of public services is carried out according to the following criteria:
1. time of provision of public services;
2. waiting time in line when receiving government services;
3. politeness and competence of the employee interacting with the applicant in the provision of public services;
4. comfortable conditions in the premises in which public services are provided;
5. Availability of information on the procedure for providing public services.

The assessment is carried out on a five-point scale. In this case, 4 or 5 points are considered as a positive assessment, and from 1 to 3 points as a negative assessment.

WAYS TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES PROVISION:
1. Using the services of the Internet project “YOUR CONTROL”.
2. Using cellular communication.
3. On the official website of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.
4. By filling out a survey form when receiving a government service at a personal reception during a direct visit to a police department.

The procedure for assessing the quality of public services using the services of the Internet project “YOUR CONTROL”.

The electronic Internet service of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia "Your Control" provides citizens and organizations with the opportunity to leave ratings, reviews and opinions on the quality of public services based on the results of their submission by the relevant territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
Thanks to the site, government leaders have the opportunity to see their work through the eyes of recipients of public services, compare themselves with others - and on this basis make specific decisions to improve their work.
Since November 2017, registration on the “Your Control” website is possible only through the all-Russian portal of public services http://gosuslugi.ru (using Unified Identification and Autonomy). That is, in order to be able to leave feedback on the quality of service provision, a citizen must have an account on the gosuslugi.ru portal.

In order to leave feedback on the quality of government services provided, you must:
1. Register and log into the site using the Unified Identification and Identification Number (ESIA)
2. Find the department where the service was received.
If you received a service at the MFC, then you need to find the agency responsible for providing this service in your region.
3. Leave your review and your ratings according to the criteria. If you received the service at the MFC, check the box “Received the service at the MFC”, and in the text indicate in which particular MFC.
4. If you want to receive a response to your request, check the “Response required” checkbox.
After sending feedback on the quality of public services, the feedback will be checked and sent to the department of the department whose work you evaluated.
Please note that reviews left on the “Your Control” website do not include requests for information, interpretation of current legislation, etc. Such questions that are not an assessment of the quality of government services will be rejected by the moderator.

The procedure for assessing the quality of public services using cellular communications.

1. The migration department that provided the public service transfers the contact information of the applicant (with his consent), necessary to identify the citizen’s opinion on the quality of public services, to the operator of the automated information system “Federal telephone center for collecting citizens’ opinions on the quality of public services.”
2. After receiving government services, the federal call center sends a short text message to the citizen with an offer to evaluate the quality of government services.
3. A citizen communicates his opinion on the quality of government services by sending a reply short text message to a number determined by the operator of the federal call center; sending a short telephone message is free for citizens.
4. An employee of the federal call center can call the citizen back and conduct a survey based on all of the above criteria.
The assessment results are sent by the federal call center to the information system for monitoring public services;
5. A citizen who has expressed a desire to participate in assessing the quality of the public service provided to him, who has left his contact information, but has not responded to a short telephone message, can be interviewed by an employee of the federal call center according to all of the above criteria, in accordance with the Methodological Recommendations.

The procedure for assessing the quality of public services on the official website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.

1. To assess the quality of provision of public services, you must go to the Internet page at:
https://Ministry of Internal Affairs.rf/Deljatelnost/emvd/quality_form
2. Fill in the required fields using reference books.
3. If available, indicate proposals for improving the quality of public services provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
4. Write your Last Name First Name Patronymic.
5. Pass a computer test used to determine whether the system user is a human or a computer.
6. Click the “Submit” button.

The procedure for assessing the quality of public services by filling out a written survey form during a direct visit to a police department.

A paper survey form is offered for completion to applicants who have received a public service from the migration department.
A survey form filled out on paper is taken into account only if it is filled out by applicants in their own hand.
In order to reduce the survey time and ensure the convenience of citizens when filling out the survey form, employees, federal civil servants and employees of internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation involved in the provision of public services are given the right to fill out the fields of the survey form:
- name of the territorial body of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia;
- address of the structural unit in which the public service is directly provided;
- name of the public service.
When filling out the survey form, only one is marked
from the proposed answer options according to the criteria:
- assessment of the efficiency of provision of public services;
- assessment of waiting time in line when receiving public services;
- assessment of the competence of an employee of the internal affairs body of the Russian Federation interacting with the applicant in the provision of public services;
- assessment of the comfort of conditions in the premises in which public services are provided.

If available, it is possible to note proposals to improve the quality of public services provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

All fields (except for proposals to improve the quality of government services) are required. If there is no assessment for at least one criterion, the survey form will not be taken into account.

The identified indicators for assessing the quality of public services are used by departments responsible for monitoring the quality of public services and by managers in order to improve the quality of public services.

Currently, it is difficult to identify several conceptual models for increasing the efficiency of the state bureaucracy and state institutions that link efficiency with certain factors.

1. An approach based on the concept of leadership. Representatives of this direction (R. Stogdill, R. Mann, K. Levin, R. Likert, Blake, Mouton, R. House, P. Hersey, K. Blanchard, Schidt.) link the effectiveness of an organization with leadership skills, management style, individual characteristics and qualities of heads of ministries and departments, systems for their selection, assessment of task performance, motivation and professional development.

2. An approach that develops the theory of Weber’s rational bureaucracy, within which attention is focused on the division of administration and hierarchical structure, functional specialization, clear work rules, strict regulation of the professional activities of civil servants, separation from property, which creates the necessary prerequisites for effective work (M. Weber, K. Seyfarth, M. Sprondel, G. Schmidt)

3. Another approach to operational efficiency is the life cycle theory. The main idea of ​​this school (P. Hersey, C. Blanchard, F. Modigliani, I. Adizesi, etc.) is the relationship between the effective work of government departments and the influence of constantly and cyclically formed coalitions or groups within the organization. This determines the process and nature of decision-making in bureaucratic structures, which, in turn, is associated with the life cycle of the organization’s development.

4. Within the framework of the concept of professionalism (G. Becker, E. Durkheim, M. Weber, T. Parsons, Millerson, Abrahamson, etc.), effective activity is directly dependent on the professionalization of public authorities, the presence of career (professional) officials , on the level of their professionalism and competence.

5. The concept of economic responsibility (models of Hart - Shleifer - Vishny, John Stuart Mill, D. North) is based on the economic approach, which proves that increasing the efficiency of government agencies is associated with the presence of a mechanism of competition among departments, a system for introducing innovations, as well as political accountability of government bodies, primarily to taxpayers.

An important component of all concepts is improving the quality of the public administration system. Quality assessment usually has objective and subjective components. On the one hand, this is compliance with certain standards and regulations, and on the other hand, meeting the needs of social groups, organizations or individuals. The task set to improve the level of quality of management and services requires identifying the most important factors that influence the work of public authorities, which allows for further targeted management and regulation of this process.

The list of factors influencing the quality of work of government agencies can be clearly presented in the form of a diagram (Figure 1)

Figure 1 – Factors influencing the quality of work of government agencies

Assessing the effectiveness of management in social systems also depends on understanding the essence and criteria of development, ways of relating it to processes in the political sphere. Many works are devoted to various aspects of the general problem of development, including problems of social development. The theory of political development has also established itself in political science, without, however, providing unambiguous and convincing criteria for assessing the effectiveness of political management.

In systems that form and develop naturally, management arises as a mechanism that ensures the preservation of order that arises as a result of self-organization, and on this basis, their further development. In the absence of control, the spontaneously emerging order is unstable to the extent that its appearance conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics. By thus selecting the most stable forms, nature ensures the improvement of control mechanisms, the raison d'être of which is to ensure the stability and development of systems.

Study of issues related to the creation of organizational structures capable of effectively producing the desired results; the ability to make effective management decisions in bureaucratic structures and measure the results of such decisions; The study of organizational factors and political forces that shape administrative behavior, and, finally, whether it is possible to ensure that behavior is accountable to politically responsible government officials, involves the formation of certain theoretical concepts that take into account both the diverse world experience in this area and domestic traditions.

In different fields of activity, the understanding of efficiency has its own characteristics. Thus, in politics, “efficiency” is considered as something positive and desirable and therefore receives the meaning of a value characteristic of the organization’s activities. In relation to the work of government bodies, this term has become “a very effective political symbol”, capable of organizing public opinion in support of certain proposals. Under the influence of organized public opinion, efficiency becomes the goal of management activities of government bodies and the criterion for external evaluation of this activity.

In the most general case, efficiency is the result of a system’s action or activity normalized to resource costs over a certain time interval (the ratio of the effect to the resource spent, the difference between them, the effect with a limited resource, functionality that takes into account the effect and the resource spent).

Effectiveness can only be determined in relation to a specific purpose. In other words, there is no abstract “performance system”; performance assessment should only be carried out in the context of specific activities.

The effectiveness of an organization's activities can be considered both as a goal and as a motivating factor, and as a criterion for evaluating management processes and results. Under the influence of public opinion, efficiency becomes the goal of management activities of government bodies and the criterion for external evaluation of these activities. The essence of management, its functions and specificity are determined, on the one hand, by the tasks that it solves, and on the other, by the content of the “simple” moments of the process of managerial work, that is, its subject, means and the work itself.

The main goal of management as such is the creation of the necessary conditions (organizational, technical, social, psychological and others) for the implementation of the organization’s tasks, “establishing harmony” between individual labor processes, coordination and coordination of the joint activities of workers in order to achieve specific planned results. Thus, management is, first of all, working with people, and their work activity serves as the object of management influence.

The concept of "efficiency" of government activities is often identified with its concept of "productivity". Efficiency in the field of public administration is understood as conditional productivity, expressed by the ability of labor to produce the appropriate work per unit of time and at the same time ensure efficiency, reliability and optimality of production management.

Despite all the discrepancies, most authors understand productivity as the performance of work with the least amount of labor, time and materials. With this understanding, the effectiveness of managerial or administrative work is assessed by determining the relationship between the result obtained and the resources expended.

However, in relation to public authorities, many researchers insist on including in this concept an assessment of the effectiveness and quality of services, and not just the relationship between results and costs. Moreover, productivity is defined by such terms as “costs”, “work”, “output” and “efficiency”. At the same time, due attention was not always paid to results and outcomes. It was taken for granted that the higher the efficiency of an institution, the better the results and outcomes of its activities. According to G. Bukhart, the term “productivity” covers concepts such as “planning-programming, budgeting”, “management by objectives”, as well as “zero-based budgeting”, savings, effectiveness and efficiency.

Productivity, according to American management experts, is characterized not only by appropriate efficiency, but also by a correctly set goal and methods of achieving it, which cannot always be expressed quantitatively. Labor productivity, for example, of managers is proposed to be considered from the point of view of goals, in the methods of determining and achieving which lies the general concept of productivity and efficiency of managerial work.

The approach to government efficiency is characterized by two main aspects. Firstly, the position of public authorities in the public administration system is analyzed. Secondly, all attention is directed to the results of activities, with little or no consideration of the issue of efficiency. Both approaches emphasize the importance of clearly describing costs. However, the method of assessing efficiency by measuring the level of costs does not, by definition, take into account productivity. At the same time, it is necessary to note such an important fact that the ultimate goal of providing government services is not these services themselves as such, but the extent to which they are able to satisfy the interests and needs of citizens or consumers.

In economics and management studies, there are two approaches to assessing efficiency. The first is associated with the assessment of technical efficiency, the second - economic efficiency. Indicators of technical efficiency reflect the nature of the activity being assessed: it indicates that “the right things are being done.”

Indicators of economic efficiency characterize how the assessed activity is implemented, how productively the expended resources are used, that is, how “correctly these things are done.”

Some scientists, when assessing the effectiveness of managerial or administrative work, focus on comparing the resources used and the income received. On the other hand, they looked at the problem differently: “the costs of human labor were analyzed, as well as the corresponding employee satisfaction and the results obtained.” J. Burke understands efficiency quite broadly: he considers the costs incurred (costs), the work performed (workload/output) and the results obtained (output). Although this definition includes inputs (costs), output (work completed) and outputs (results), the main focus is on the input-output cycle: organizational norms, management methods, specifications, work performed, units costs and needs that need to be satisfied.

An analysis of theoretical and methodological approaches to determining the effectiveness of the activities of public authorities allows us to conclude that, as a rule, economic efficiency of the activities of public authorities is distinguished and social.

The independence of these types of efficiency is, of course, relative, since they are in close unity and interconnection. In terms of their role in ensuring harmonious functioning in society, they are not equivalent: social efficiency as generalizing, final, and in this sense the main one; economic – as primary, initial, and in this sense basic. At the present stage, the criterion of economic efficiency of government activities has received the greatest development, since it allows quantitative measurement of efficiency in the labor sphere. But the social effect is also of great importance. Its significance in the type of activity under consideration is very great, but has no quantitative measures. The qualitative side of the obtained result (effect) is usually denoted by the term “criterion”, and the quantitative side by the term “performance indicator”. The term "criterion" is used in this case in its generally accepted sense - a sign on the basis of which a fact, definition, classification, measure is assessed.

Following the statement of G.V. Atamanchuk, a fundamentally important place for all state life should be given to the social effect that society receives during and ultimately the entire life cycle of a product, service, or idea. The main thing here is a technological organization that ensures high quality products and services. The essence of the social effect also lies in the fact that it must be sustainable, reproducing, progressive, contain not only the result, but also the source and means for subsequent development, act as a constant and strong link in the chain of continuous reproduction of social life.

G.V. Atamanchuk divides the social efficiency of public administration in general, and the activities of public authorities, in particular, into three types:

1. General social efficiency. It reveals the results of the functioning of the public administration system (that is, the totality of government bodies and the objects they manage).

2. Special social efficiency. It characterizes the state of organization and functioning of the state itself as a subject of managing social processes. The criteria for this type include:

a) The expediency and purposefulness of the organization and functioning of the state management system, its large subsystems and other organizational structures, which is determined through the degree of compliance of their control actions with goals objectively based on their position and role in society. It is necessary to establish legislatively what goals each government body should implement and, based on their achievement, to evaluate the relevant managers and officials;

b) Standards for time spent on solving management issues, on developing and passing through any management information;

c) The style of functioning of the state apparatus - regulations, technologies, standards that every manager and civil servant must follow;

d) The complexity of the organization of the state apparatus, resulting from its “fragmentation”, multi-stage nature and abundance of managerial interdependencies;

e) Costs of maintaining and ensuring the functioning of the state apparatus.

3. Specific social efficiency. It reflects the activities of each management body and official, each individual management decision, action, and relationship.

Among the criteria we can highlight such as the degree of compliance of the directions, content and results of the management activities of bodies and officials with those parameters that are indicated in the legal status (and competence) of the body and public position; the legality of decisions and actions of state authorities and local self-government, as well as their officials; reality of control actions.

In my opinion, the statement of X. Rainey is important that in order to determine the degree of social effect, social procedures are needed that would be sustainable, necessarily exist and influence government bodies.

When analyzing the effectiveness of government agencies, it is necessary to highlight the main models, aspects, mechanisms and technologies of assessment. Currently, several efficiency models are distinguished: system-resource, target, participant satisfaction model, complex model containing contradictions. The general characteristics of efficiency models make it possible to discover a complex complex, the components of which are targets and the external environment, organizational activities and structure, management technologies and methods for assessing efficiency. The system-resource model is based on an analysis of the “organization-environment” relationship. Efficiency in this model is the ability of an organization to exploit its environment to acquire rare and valuable resources in order to maintain its functioning. From the perspective of the goal model, an organization is effective to the extent that it achieves its goal.

The participant satisfaction model is based on individual or group assessments of the quality of the organization's activities by its members. The organization is seen as a cooperative incentive-distributive mechanism, designed to obtain returns from its members by providing decent compensation for their work.

The complex model considers efficiency as an integral and structured characteristic of an organization's activities. It includes assessment of economy, efficiency, productivity, product or service quality, effectiveness, profitability, quality of working life and innovation. The contradictory model assumes that effective organizations do not exist. They can be effective to varying degrees because:

1) face multiple and contradictory environmental constraints;

2) have multiple and conflicting goals;

3) have multiple and contradictory internal and external “voices” (sources of assessments);

4) have multiple and conflicting time frames.

Analysis of various efficiency models allows us to conclude that each of them has its own advantages and, at the same time, limitations.

Various approaches to the organization, its activities and results are manifested in structured complexes - aspects of organizational effectiveness: functional, structural, organizational, subject-specific. Moreover, in different types of organizations (state, commercial, non-profit), the relationship of these elements has a certain configuration, determined by the goals and characteristics of the activity. Thus, several approaches to efficiency and productivity can be distinguished. The effects approach emphasizes replacing indicators with performance measures. K. Ridley believes that it is possible to improve the performance of government bodies through policy changes (personnel training, strengthening discipline, improving equipment, improving management). “Evaluation should be based on the results obtained, not the methods used or the work performed, the results are measurable.” “Management effectiveness is determined by the relationship between the results actually obtained with available resources and the maximum results that could be obtained with their help.”

Any approaches to assessing the effectiveness of government agencies require the formulation of the uncertainty of the task. To differentiate between different degrees of task uncertainty means to differentiate between different assessment styles, different types of assessments, and different management and control styles.

Thus, from the point of view of effectiveness, any aspect (side) or characteristic of the activities of public authorities, considered as a social integrity and system, can be assessed. The characteristics of the effectiveness of public authorities are multidimensional and depend on the goals formulated by the subject of assessment. At the same time, when using one or another technology for assessing effectiveness, it is necessary to clearly highlight:

The subject of assessment (his position, target and value guidelines);

The object of assessment (it can be the entire management system or its individual element, for example: field of activity - process, result or consequences; structural and institutional aspect, personnel);

Efficiency tools (models, aspects, types and technologies for assessing effectiveness).

To evaluate the activities of public authorities, it is necessary to identify specific ones from the general criteria (economy, efficiency and effectiveness). This point is fundamental in preparing for the assessment.

Some flexibility is needed in developing evaluation criteria. Among the main requirements for assessment criteria, it can be noted that, firstly, the criteria must lead to the implementation of assessment tasks and cover all identified problems; secondly, the criteria must be sufficiently specific so that the assessment can be carried out in practice; thirdly, the criteria must be supported by appropriate arguments and/or come from authoritative sources. In addition, the criteria used to evaluate performance must be consistent with each other and with those used in previous evaluations.

The analysis of the essence of the concepts of “efficiency” and “productivity” of the activities of government bodies allows us to draw a number of conclusions. In some models, the concepts of “efficiency” and “productivity” of the activities of public authorities are identified, in others these concepts are interpreted either very narrowly or too broadly.

Assessment of the quality of public services provided by authorities

One of the main tasks of public administration is the formation of a sustainable technology for organizing and conducting research on the quality of performance of regulated government functions (provision of public services), which would allow monitoring the implementation of administrative regulations on a regular basis. In the context of constant changes in the regulatory framework, law enforcement practice, issues of the system and structure of executive authorities, the formalization of indicators of the quality of the provision of public services (execution of government functions) takes first place among the factors that allow monitoring on a regular basis. The development of a unified list of indicators for studying the quality of performance of government functions (provision of public services) allows us to formalize the analysis process.

In this case, the variable part remains the development of sampling quota criteria for conducting the field stage of research and analysis of the quality of performance of government functions (provision of public services), determining the monitoring area (administrative regulations, executive authorities, types of applicants, experts, etc.) and the variable part of the sociological tools relating to the specifics of the government functions themselves included in the selected monitoring zone.

The main factor determining the research design strategy is the choice of monitoring area, in our case, administrative regulations. Obviously, at the second and third stages of monitoring, the list of regulations according to which monitoring is carried out must be updated. However, already at the first stage of organizing the research, it is necessary to construct a typology of administrative regulations from the point of view of the subject of law enforcement, subjects of interaction, the sphere of competence of authorized executive authorities, and the coverage of real life situations of citizens and organizations by regulated services.

The main questions that need to be answered in developing a methodology for researching and analyzing the quality of performance of government functions (provision of public services) by federal executive authorities and executive authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation are:

How informed is the population about administrative regulations? How to increase awareness?

What is the degree of compliance of the actual procedure for the provision of public services with the prescribed procedure for the provision of services in administrative regulations?

How to increase the efficiency of using the results of providing public services? What factors influence the ineffective implementation of administrative regulations from the point of view of recipients of public services?

Are there interregional differences in the implementation of approved administrative regulations at the federal and regional levels?

How satisfied are citizens and organizations with the implementation of administrative regulations: how much has the situation changed for recipients of public services? Has it become easier and more convenient to receive government services?

How easy/difficult it is to work as a civil servant in accordance with the introduced regulations. Have their functions been simplified? How important is the role of resource provision?

How to organize a regular effective feedback channel from interested civil society structures to responsible executive authorities?

The effectiveness of the implementation of a system of administrative regulations and the quality of the provision of public services are determined by many factors: cultural values, the legacy of past experience, the degree of bureaucratization, corruption and behavioral strategies of the administrative and managerial personnel of public institutions for the provision of public services. In order to fully study the problem of the effectiveness of implementation and quality of provision of public services, it is necessary to analyze all aspects of the process of providing public services, namely from the recipients, from the “sellers” of public services and from third parties - representatives of public opinion and experts. Such an integrated approach involves the use of several sociological methods of collecting and analyzing data, both quantitative and qualitative, to analyze information received from consumers of public services, from those who provide these services, experts and representatives of public organizations.

The main parameter studied in this study is the quality of public service delivery in the broadest sense. I propose to measure the quality of public service provision in two ways:

Firstly, it is an objective indicator of the quality of the effectiveness of the implementation of regulations and the execution of the procedure for providing public services in accordance with the regulations. This is a complex collective indicator consisting of a set of more detailed indicators and indices that reflect the compliance of the process of providing public services with accepted administrative regulations at the federal and regional levels.

Secondly, this is a subjective indicator of quality, which is based solely on value judgments and opinions of service consumers and representatives of public organizations. This quality indicator is also complex and fractional.

All initiatives aimed at measuring quality, efficiency and effectiveness face a standard set of limitations, which can be clearly seen in Figure (10).

Figure 10 – A set of restrictions that prevents the measurement of the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery

Based on the above limitations, a basic requirement for the quality of systems of indicators of the quality of public service provision can be formulated: such a system must be comprehensive (i.e., include indicators of different types), and also to the maximum extent based on proven pairwise correlations of each of the included indicators into it.

I). An objective quality indicator consists of a set of the following indicators:

Compliance of the standard for the provision of public services with the prescribed procedure and requirements for the standard of provision of the service.

Expert assessment of the quality of infrastructure related to the provision of public services

Expert assessment of the work (competence, level of service) of employees of government agencies providing public services

Expert assessment of the optimal organization of the procedure for obtaining public services.

To assess objective indicators of the quality of public services provided, the following methods of collecting and analyzing information are used:

1. The method of participant observation at the point of provision of public services (will allow assessing the compliance of the process of providing public services with the prescribed standard for the provision of public services in the regulations).

2. Test purchase method (will allow in a real situation to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the process of providing public services).

3. Questionnaire survey of the population and entrepreneurs at the point of provision of public services (will allow an expert analysis of the quality of infrastructure and the optimal procedure for obtaining public services).

4. The method of group interviews with government officials (will allow you to assess the quality of work of employees of government agencies in the provision of public services). (see Figure 11)

Figure 11 – Methods for collecting and analyzing information to assess objective indicators of the quality of public services provided

II). The quality of the process of providing public services significantly affects the assessment by citizens and organizations of the activities of government institutions. It is assumed that consumers of public services themselves will evaluate the quality of services provided by government agencies according to several parameters. Thus, the subjective quality indicator includes:

Consumer assessment of the quality of infrastructure associated with receiving the service

Consumer assessment of the quality of interaction with a public service provider

Assessment of optimality and satisfaction with the procedure for obtaining a service (see Figure 12)

Figure 12 – Components of a subjective indicator of the quality of provision of public services

To assess subjective indicators during the study, the following methods of collecting information should be used:

1. Questionnaire survey of consumers of public services at the point of provision of public services (allows you to collect and analyze information about respondents’ value judgments about the quality of public services, problems of interaction with public servants and satisfaction with the process of providing public services in general).

2. Public opinion poll (allows you to track changes in the attitude of consumers of public services to public institutions, changes in the degree of awareness of the population on the problems of providing public services, as well as obtain an assessment of the quality of work of public institutions on a wide range of issues of the quality of execution of public functions and the provision of public services).

3. The method of group discussions (focus groups) with representatives of public organizations (allows you to collect information about the opinions of representatives of public organizations on the problems of implementing administrative regulations, track their assessment and assess the degree of readiness to participate in discussions of both the administrative regulations themselves and the problems which consumers of public services most often encounter, as well as identify proposals for establishing a process for regular monitoring of the quality of public services). (see Figure 13)

Figure 13 - Methods for collecting information to assess subjective indicators of the quality of public services provided

Below are the following systems of indicators for assessing the quality of provision of public services and the procedure for implementing administrative regulations, which can be examined in detail in the figures: 14,15,16

Figure 14 – Indicators of compliance of the actual standard of provision of public services with the provisions of approved administrative regulations

Figure 15 – Indicators for informing applicants

Figure 16 – Indicators of feedback from consumers

Methods for assessing the effectiveness of government bodies

The experience of the governments of many countries has confirmed a new trend in public administration - the replacement of vertical administrative structures with a horizontal network of government organizations performing specific tasks. At the same time, new mechanisms will be introduced into management practice, such as contract management, internal and external audit, exchange funds.

The problem of qualitative changes and management, the transformation of the management system is inextricably linked with the development of a mechanism for coordinating the interests of the managed and the managers, which should be based in legislation, in the public consciousness and political culture of civil servants, politicians and citizens. The objective needs of social development at the present stage are organically connected with the need to form a new type of public administration, to develop a new strategy for relations between the state and society, built on the basis of dialogue and partnership relations.

An important aspect is to improve public financial and budget management, introduce a top-down budget development mechanism; introducing financial management practices applicable to the private sector; greater use of mid-term indicators and estimates in budget development. In the modernization of the public administration system, information and telecommunication technologies play a special role, contributing to the increase and transparency of the activities of public authorities as a whole and its individual units.

If at the initial stage the task of informatization of government bodies and provision of equipment was solved, now the emphasis is shifting to increasing the return on investment in information technology, which is linked to the process of improving organizational structures, increasing the communicative competence of civil servants, and developing an information and communication culture in government bodies.

At the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st century, most countries of the world carried out large-scale reforms aimed at radically transforming public administration systems. The main reason for implementing these reforms was the need to solve the following problems:

1) increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the work of public authorities;

2) strengthening trust in the state from the population and business community;

Administrative reform in most countries refers to seemingly similar and interconnected, but still different transformations in individual areas of public administration. We can identify at least several typical ideas about the content of administrative reform:

1) modernization of state power, including reform of the legislative, executive and judicial powers:

2) reform of the administrative-territorial structure of the state;

3) delimitation of powers and jurisdiction between federal, regional and municipal authorities;

4) civil service reform:

5) reform of the functions and structure of the executive branch.

The first two reforms are not included in the content of administrative reform. They are not aimed at a radical revision of the functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, and relate, in particular, to improving the procedures for implementing the existing functions of the judiciary, bringing the judicial system into line with them, and for the legislative branch they are more related to changing the procedure for forming representative bodies authorities - the election of members of the Federation Council or the formation of the State Duma and regional representative bodies of power on a mixed basis (proportional and majoritarian principles).

The development of administrative regulations and, on their basis, the establishment of specific criteria and performance indicators for civil servants in their job regulations can be a significant step towards building a comprehensive system for assessing the effectiveness of government bodies in the Russian Federation.

The main purpose of an evaluation is to collect and analyze information about outcomes or outputs, identify changes and the current state of the art, estimate benefits and costs, identify areas for future policy improvement, and then use this data to inform future policy objectives. .

In general, efficiency can be defined as the ratio of results achieved and resources spent on it. Accordingly, in order to evaluate efficiency, it is necessary to evaluate the results using pre-selected criteria and indicators (for example, in the private sector of the economy - profit), then - the resources spent on this, and only then correlate them.

However, in relation to the activities of public authorities, this scheme, which “ideally” works in the private sector, cannot be fully applied due to the specifics of management activities in the public sphere. The resources spent to obtain a managerial result can be material, organizational, or informational. As a rule, most of the expenses of public authorities are labor costs, but currently there is a tendency to increase costs associated with the use of information resources. Cost estimation is the simplest method for assessing effectiveness. However, cost estimation methods are also the most inaccurate, since they do not allow obtaining any objective information about the state and changes of the control object that is significant for the subject of management. This is a formal method that is used in developed countries mainly to evaluate intra-organizational performance.

In relation to assessing the activities of government bodies and civil servants, cost assessment methods are practically not used and are gradually being replaced by results-based assessment methods. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the result of management is not only not expressed by profit, but also does not manifest itself directly and, moreover, can appear in forms that are very difficult to evaluate in relation to the resources expended (for example, the result can be not only economic, but also social, political, socio-psychological).

It is important to take into account external “indirect” results, such as improving the quality of life of citizens, mortality rates, birth rates, real incomes of the population, the normal development of management objects (commercial and non-profit organizations), the moral and ideological influence of management activities on the “external” environment, on the object management. In this regard, certain problems arise due to the fact that this group of results also includes the preventative activities of government bodies and civil servants.

As a rule, it is impossible to evaluate these results in the current perspective (the final result of such activities is manifested only in the long term). In addition, internal “indirect” results can be identified (professional development, retraining of personnel, equipment repair, creation of a creative atmosphere in the team, computer network upgrades) which can have a significant, although indirect, impact on business performance.

It is almost impossible to fully evaluate external “indirect” results in relation to a specific civil servant (unlike, say, a government body or its division), therefore, in this case, the object of assessment will be the goals set for the civil servant in accordance with his competence and job responsibilities, established in the job regulations.

It is advisable to evaluate “indirect” results according to the criteria of technical efficiency. Technical efficiency is associated with the end result - progress towards the desired goals - and is determined by the degree to which the goals of the civil servant’s activities are achieved in relation to the resources spent on achieving them. Thus, when assessing economic efficiency, “internal factors”, the civil servant’s own activities, are taken into account, while when assessing technical efficiency, the compliance of this activity with the requirements of the external environment is analyzed, taking into account the impact that the activity of the civil servant has on the object of management. There is also a broader definition of technical efficiency, in which the goals are understood primarily as “public goals”, and the main criterion of efficiency is the compliance of activities with the needs and desires of the client, user or consumer of public services and, ultimately, the entire society. The broad understanding of technical efficiency practically coincides with the third type of efficiency, often identified in the scientific literature - social efficiency.

Specialists in the field of public administration use it to take into account external “indirect” results of performance. A separate complex and complex problem is the relationship between quantitative and qualitative indicators of the activities of public authorities and their assessment. In recent years, quality has become the main characteristic of the activities of not only the private but also the public sector in a number of foreign countries. The problems of transition from quantitative criteria when assessing the performance of civil servants to qualitative ones were actively studied in the 70s in the USA. For this purpose, it was proposed to evaluate not so much the “output” of products/services, but rather the results of performance activities. In addition, the researchers came to the conclusion that although assessing the qualitative parameters of activity based on economic efficiency criteria is possible in some cases, it is preferable and cheaper to carry out this assessment based on program-targeted methods in close connection with assessing the satisfaction and opinions of “clients” (objects of management , consumers of government services). The main criterion for effectiveness, as already stated, is the achievement of pre-established, clearly defined and realistic goals. This criterion makes it possible to evaluate not only any “indirect” results, but also “direct results” (if it is necessary to evaluate their social effect or quality level).

The choice of one or another assessment method at the level of individual government bodies is inextricably linked with the choice of methods for assessing the effectiveness of public administration as a whole. Today, it seems that the most effective among evaluation methods is the management by objectives method. It has been found to be most consistent with modern trends in efficiency assessment in foreign countries, allows for an objective assessment of not only economic, but also managerial and social efficiency, and, unlike many other methods, can be applied not only at the level of individual government bodies, but also throughout the country as a whole.

Materials from sociological research indicate that the institutional and structural changes that have occurred in recent years in the field of administrative management and the political system of Russian society have had a significant impact on the self-identification of civil servants as the main implementers of the modernization of the public administration system, on the assessments and attitudes of a significant part of the population related to the role of states in society, and finally, on the political culture of society as a whole.

Assessing the process of implementation and the results of the activities of public authorities allows us to determine to what extent the activities of existing government institutions correspond to the declared goals and national interests, how public authorities cope with the performance of their functions and powers. The applied aspect of the assessment is that, on the basis of the obtained analytical information, proposals and recommendations are developed to improve public financial management, optimize the mechanism for implementing target programs, and the quality of public services. Ultimately, the assessment provides the basis for making optimal policy and management decisions.

Thus, the main task of this management tool is to assess: a) the activities of government agencies; b) the content of the policies being pursued or programs being implemented; c) the results and consequences of the policy for target groups and/or society as a whole.

The assessment is given to the work of government bodies on implementation, the emphasis shifts towards studying the processes of functioning of organizational structures. In practice, the choice of assessment model and methods for conducting assessment studies is usually related to a specific situation and depends on the following factors:

Goals and objectives of the assessment;

Interests of an organization, individual groups or individuals;

Political conditions;

Availability of necessary resources and time to carry it out.

In addition, evaluation can be carried out at different levels, depending on the scale of the work and the amount of resources used. As a rule, at the macro level, this is an assessment of government policy in a particular public area or in solving a major socio-economic problem. For example, an assessment is made of the results of government policy in the field of combating economic crime, eradicating poverty or migration policy in the country. Another, average (meso) level is associated with the assessment of government programs, when the results of specific actions of state or regional authorities to implement a target program are analyzed. At the micro level, projects aimed at solving fairly narrow, local problems are assessed. Projects for the introduction of new information technologies for collecting taxes from business entities and the use of a unified state exam for schoolchildren in certain regions can be evaluated. The assessment is carried out based on such indicators as quality, time cycle, productivity, costs.

We emphasize that planning and carrying out work to assess the performance of public authorities requires an answer to a number of complex methodological questions, among which are the choice of indicators and criteria, the feasibility of using quantitative and qualitative assessments, ensuring the accuracy and objectivity of assessments, the use of assessment research results, influence of political and other factors.

In general, conducting assessment studies involves the development of a special program and consists of several successive stages.

1. Planning an assessment study:

Selecting the government program/policy or legislation to be assessed in a particular area;

Determination of programmatic research goals and evaluation indicators;

Choosing a research strategy, methods and assessment tools;

Preparation of technical specifications and assessment plan (goals, problems, methods of collection and analysis, schedule, cost estimate, composition of experts, report outline).

2. Preparation of an assessment study:

Clarification of technical specifications;

Development of questions and indicators;

Identification of information sources.

3. Database preparation:

Measuring results;

Collection and processing of information.

4. Analyze and evaluate the results of the program or policy

5. Preparation of an information or analytical report

One of the methods for improving the quality of work is also the use of standards - appropriate methods and models for achieving “Best Values ​​in the Civil Service”. The philosophy of this concept means the responsibility of the authorities to provide quality services to all citizens in accordance with standards in the most economical and efficient way. Standardization covers various aspects, but the main areas are:

Standards of services provided by executive authorities to citizens and organizations;

Management and document management standards;

Standards for training and advanced training of civil servants;

Standards of ethical behavior for state and municipal managers and employees.

Discussion of service standards should take place between different categories and groups, namely: politicians and citizens; citizens and government officials; politicians and officials; representatives of central and local authorities. From the point of view of clients, the quality of services is usually assessed by such indicators as the time of services, their compliance with the needs of citizens, the right to appeal, and the impact on service providers. One of the tools is regular surveys of the population to assess the level of satisfaction with services - the quality of services, their implementation, cost, variety.

Standardization of the quality of services makes it possible to convey to the consumer of public services information about what the quality of the service paid for by him should be, thereby creating the basis for assessing the effectiveness of each civil servant. Indicators for assessing the quality of services are necessary to assess the performance of government bodies and their subordinate institutions over time (quarterly, annual). At the same time, indicators serve as the basis for making management decisions about areas of application of efforts of the system as a whole, and help to identify areas of ineffective activity.

In the context of the problem under consideration regarding the effectiveness of public authorities, assessing the quality of public services is of fundamental importance. Providing quality services to the population is one of the most pressing problems of reforming public administration in Russia, since citizens evaluate the work of public authorities based on their level and quality.

An important aspect is the reduction of administrative barriers for citizens. One of the effective means to reduce the time and costs of the population to receive services is the “one-stop shop” or “one-stop shop” system. This system is used in many countries and is designed to help citizens using the services of government agencies. The essence of this popular system is that citizens can receive various types of services or information about them in one place (one window). The "One stop" system can be of two types: real, when a person comes to a certain place to receive services or information; virtual when using the telephone or the Internet.

This technology leads to a more efficient use of resources by those who provide services, and also reduces the number of costs for the population when receiving public services, and helps to reduce bureaucracy in the government apparatus. One of the indicators of the quality of public services is their ease of use by end consumers, how suitable they are for the user to solve a specific problem. There was even a special term - usability, that is, a set of certain properties that affect the effectiveness of their use.

One of the modern and significant technologies for assessing the effectiveness of government agencies is management audit, which is a tool that helps increase the openness of the public administration system, while openness is considered as the ability of government bodies to make changes aimed at obtaining a greater social effect. Any public authority has a certain management potential and, accordingly, greater or lesser ability to ensure the implementation of the declared policy, the achievement of related goals, and the fulfillment of all contractual obligations and legal requirements. The existence of a correspondence between the existing potential and the amount of responsibility assumed is an object for audit.

A management audit may be intended to clarify the actual model of organization of the administration’s activities; obtaining objective evidence of the need for improvements in certain areas; assessing the presence and effectiveness of organizational procedures; identifying what improvements are needed to existing procedures and processes to better utilize resources.

An audit of efficiency factors can be divided into parts corresponding to aspects that directly depend on management and affect the efficiency of public authorities:

Organizational structure;

Organizational procedures;

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of provided public services (to external clients);

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of mutual services within the organization (internal clients);

Estimation of costs, both related and not related to the provision of services.

In my opinion, it is important to note that technologies for assessing the effectiveness of government agencies cannot be presented only as a set of methods and procedures used to control and improve the organization of government work. The basis for the use of these technologies is an understanding of the essence, content and role of government bodies as a special type of organization. The use of technologies for assessing performance will be effective to the extent that the meaning and functions of organizational effectiveness are understood.

In our opinion, improving the quality of services provided by public authorities is inextricably linked with improving the management and control system. In this regard, it is necessary:

1. Introduction of a systematic approach. Focus on continuous improvement of the entire policy development system or government activities, rather than individual parts or divisions.

2. Use of assessment methods at all levels of government. The main task is to determine the final result indicators and service standards.

3. Creating conditions for the provision of services at lower levels of management, introducing innovative technologies into management practice, for example, “one-stop shop”.

4. Obtaining objective information at all levels of management