过去的10年里，艾滋病非政府组织发展的速度超乎想象。但是，多数非政府组织（尤其是艾滋病领域的以社区为基础的组织）仍然为没有法律地位的草根机构，并呈现以下特征：
n 大多数非政府组织的活动，限于为社群提供低端服务。
n 虽然政府公开承认非政府组织的作用，但非政府组织的生存环境至今没有得到根本性改变。
目前，随着国际资金的陆续撤出，艾滋病领域内的非政府组织面临的挑战呈现出多样化趋势。如何突破一系列的制度瓶颈，并建构起符合自身发展需要的制度框架，使得组织自身能够通过获得本地资源得以可持续发展，这是非政府组织们面临的最现实的问题。
中国的非政府组织相关制度规范体系依然是不健全、不完善的，立法的层级也比较低。大体来说，由以下四部条例构成该法律体系的核心部分：
1、《社会团体登记管理条例》 （1998）
社团是中国公民自愿组成，为实现会员共同意愿，按照其章程开展活动的非营利性社会组织；依照规定，社团至少需要50个个人成员/30个单位成员，或者至少50个单位/个人混合成员；社团的活动经费在国家级需要10万人民币；地方级为3万人民币；在多数地方，依然由业务主管单位批准后，进入登记注册程序。
2、《民办非企业单位登记管理暂行条例》（1998）
n 民办非企业单位是指企业事业单位、社会团体和其他社会力量以及公民个人利用非国有资产举办的，从事非营利性社会服务活动的社会组织。（非党派/非政府）
n 非盈利；社会服务；初始资金为非国有资产；
n 工作领域无实质性限制：科教文卫共9个部类，另外还有兜底条款——包括其他领域；
n 业务主管单位批准（政府部门或政府授权机构）后，进入登记注册程序。
3、《事业单位登记管理暂行条例》（1998年）
n 由国家机关举办或者其他组织利用国有资产举办
n 为了社会公益目的
n 从事教育、科技、文化、卫生等活动社会服务组织
n GONGO（政府NGO）的法律基础
4、《基金会管理条例》（2004）
n 由个人，法人或其他组织捐赠而成；
n 非盈利；特殊的公益目的；
n 公墓基金和非公墓基金；初始货币原始资金：全国性公募基金会不低于800万元人民币，地方性公募基金会不低于400万元人民币，非公募基金会不低于200万元人民币；原始基金必须为到账货币资金；
n 组织架构：5-25位理事；理事会主席为法人代表，并不得担任其他机构的法人代表；不可在政府部门工作；
n 公墓和原始资金出资中国大陆的非公墓基金会的法人代表应来自中国大陆；
n 比照有关法律法规享受企业税收优惠。
随着国际捐助方纷纷从中国撤离，中国政府承诺提供资金。这一转变对于中国的艾滋病非政府组织有着重要意义。通过社会服务外包（SSO）项目，政府将首次成为该领域的主要资源提供方。但是，其制度框架的基础和可操作的具体细节如何规定，依然有待于在实践中予以回答。
社会服务外包的支持性政策文件：
n 国民经济与社会发展第12个五年规划（2011－15）
将社会服务外包的概念引入艾滋病领域反映出了中国在社会管理创新中的一个趋势。国民经济与社会发展第12个五年规划（2011－15）（十二五规划）为扩大社会外包购买服务设定了方向，将服务多元化，并鼓励多种社会资本参与这一进程。十二五规划设定了一系列的原则，包括坚持多方参与、共同治理的机制，形成社会管理和服务的合力，加强城乡社区自治和社区提供服务功能，以及加强社会组织建设等等。
十二五规划关于社会服务外包的一系列建议是建立在许许多多的试点基础上的。中国自90年代起就开始做社会服务外包的实验。一些领域和地区，尤其是城市地区（如北京、上海、广州、深圳）就社区服务（比如为老年人和流动人口提供的服务，救灾扶贫等等）、专业服务、行政服务（如研究、评估、针对社会组织的技术支持和培训、其他组织的管理等）的社会服务外包做了试点。一份2009年亚洲开发银行关于中国社会服务外包的报告总结指出，经过多年的试点和尝试中国已经步入了综合推进社会服务外包政策的阶段。事实上，中国最近的政策发展表明社会服务外包已经被广泛而迅速地接纳为一个重要的治理机制。比如2012年早些时候民政部发起了一个全国范围内总资助额度为2亿人民币的社会服务外包项目，覆盖了诸多社会服务领域。2012年5月，广东省政府发布了《政府采购社会组织条例》，这也是第一个省级层面的相关立法，对已经在广东省内广泛存在的社会服务外包进行了详细规定。随着十二五规划逐渐转变为政策和实践，出现了两种不同的趋势。一方面，非政府组织或者社会组织的空间扩大了，地方政府开始意识到社会组织的价值，并为其提供了增长空间，使得非政府领域得以合法化、多元和有效，并成为政府的合作伙伴。以此为契机，地方和中央出现了一系列的推进社会管理的新方式，如探索社会组织注册，以及规范和增加社会组织和政府进行合作的方式等。民政部则宣称，期待已久的关于民间社会立法的修订很快将会展开。
然而另一方面，社会组织工作的空间依然受到逐步增加的审核。扩大社会组织外包服务将标志着国家第一次在如此的规模上和第三部门进行合作，这也要求社会组织在一定程度上脱离政府部门。如果社会组织想成为政府社会服务外包的正式合作伙伴，他们间的关系将需要被转变，当局则对于他们自己能否在新形势下管理好第三部门心存疑虑。所以相应地，在强调实施上述新的社会管理模式的同时，同时也就强调加强政府对于社会组织的进一步控制。通过不同的地方试点，当局正在一步步尝试新的治理结构安排，以使得社会组织有足够的自治空间来进行社会外包服务工作，同时确保充分的政府监管。
n 艾滋病防治行动计划
在艾滋病领域政策层面，中国《十二五期间艾滋病防控行动计划》（艾滋防控计划）依据十二五规划的指引，指出要“积极发挥人民团体和社会团体以及基金会，民办非企业单位，艾滋病专业防治协会等社会组织……在工作中的作用”，“充分发挥社区组织在艾滋病防治的重要作用”，并促进艾滋病领域社会组织的法律注册问题。在艾滋病领域中发展社会管理的创新之路，要考虑到该领域的现实问题，比如社区组织数量众多（一种说法是800余个，也有人为加上其他各种组织总共超过1500个）。当前，艾滋病领域已经有了一些零星的社会服务外包的经验，政府和社会组织也通过参与和管理全球基金艾滋病项目获取了重要的经验，2010年，大约有44，320，000人民币被分配给了1245个社会组织以购买服务。但全球基金项目不同于政府项目，因而规则和要求都有所不同。
所谓社会服务外包，即政府向社会组织购买服务，是一种治理机制，通过该机制政府提供公共资金去资助非赢利组织或者商业组织，以换取公共产品和服务。原则上，社会服务外包是建立在两个不同角色结成的伙伴关系上：政府和实施单位（非赢利或者商业机构）。社会服务外包要求两者互相依存，实施单位独立做出决定，运营并对工作承担责任。政府则扮演者规制者的角色，它建立一个法律框架，监督服务条款，评估项目实施绩效。全球范围内来说，政府公共资金资助的社会服务外包十分广泛，涵盖了不同政治、社会和经济制度的国家。
引进社会服务外包并不必然保证服务质量的提升。对于社会服务外包来说，有观点认为，下述6个关键点影响着社会服务外包的成功
1. 非政府组织缺少支持性的社会环境，以能够承担社会服务外包的职责；
2. 非政府组织需要基本的财务稳定性，从而能够成为政府的良好的合作伙伴并提供有质量的服务；
3. 非政府组织能够平等、公正地对接到SSO项目管理架构和程序是关键。如果能够公平地获得SSO项目，而且绩效良好的非政府组织能够因为他们的项目成就获得相应的回报，那就需要建立起新的制度体系，并确保透明度和责任制（transparency and accountability）；
4. SSO项目在多大程度上认可和利用非政府组织的独特性和多样性的能力，以应对艾滋病挑战，是确定项成功与否的一个重要决定因素；
5. 能力建设项务是否以及在多大程度上能够有效地嵌入社会服务外包计划将影响到项目的可持续性；
6. 成功的SSO项目将依赖于对在绩效考评、督导评估和学习型架构体系方面的投入。政府和其他的利害相关方能够在多大程度上合作创造产生知识，从SSO项目中学习以期逐步完善之。
几点建议：
n 在省级和中央层面倡导制定SSO项目在艾滋病领域中实施的指南；
n 推动艾滋病领域的非政府组织注册，顺应非政府组织的需求和社会服务外包项目的要求；
n 确保非政府组织能够通过社会服务外包项目弥补核心的成本；
n 在国家，省／市级层面建立起艾滋病领域的社会服务外包示范项目；
n 通过开放，竞争性和包容性的选择程序，确保所有的非政府组织都能够公平地去竞争社会服务外包项目；
n 确保招投标程序，社会服务外包管理及其结果的透明度；
n 对于SSO的管理者能力建设进行投资；
n 使得非政府组织能够在SSO项目中人尽其才物尽其用；
n 鼓励可持续型的社区建设建立起一些模范型能力建设培训中心提供各种量身定做的、长期可持续的培训服务，以促进非政府组织的职业化进程；
n 制定绩效评估工具和程序，以及促进艾滋病服务外包和能力提升以及运用这些工具的能力；
n 允许有试验性和学习期间，评估不同方法的社会服务外包的有效性，探询各种有效的模式；
n 建立有意义的机制，以提供咨询并向所有的利害相关方开放，包容地分享学习经验；
（公共卫生治理项目首席执行官 贾平；
部分内容摘译自USAID和中美艾滋病政策项目的报告
《云南省艾滋病领域政府采购社会组织服务》, Marta Jagusztyn执笔）
Survival, Development and Government Procurement: Some Issues Concerning
The development of Chinese AIDS NGO/CBOs (here the NGO/CBOs is equal to the term of Social Organization--SOs) is a magnificent one in terms of its number growing speed. But the NGO/CBOs is still lack of legal status with characters below:
n Most NGO/CBOs’ activities is limited to low level service providing to the community;
n Although the government accepts the contribution/function of NGO/Cos, the social environment for their survival does not changes fundamentally till now.
The withdrawing of international funding indicates the severe challenges faced by AIDS NGO/CBOs. How to break-though the regulatory and institutional bottle-neck, build a proper mechanism to achieve sustainable development will be a most realistic challenge for Chinese NGO/CBOs.
I. Mass Organization registration and management regulation (1998)
Mass organization is a kind of non-for-profit organization consists of citizens voluntarily and based on their charter to achieve their objective. According to the regulation, Mass regulation needs 50 individual members or 30 unit members, or 50 unit plus individual members. The national level Mass organization need at 100,000RMB activity fund to initiate their work and the criteria for the local level mass organization is 30,000RMB.In most places, mass organizations need a supervisor unit before they enter into registration process.
II. Private non-enterprise unit registration and management temporary regulation (1998）
n Set up by enterprise, Shi Ye Unit, other social entities and individuals (non state/non partisan)
n Non-profit; Social service; Non state-owned initiative property
n No limitations on working fields: science, education, culture, health, etc. Total 9 categories and others
n Approved by supervisor (government departments or agencies authorized by government) entity which in charge of it, then enter into registration process (register in the civil department)
III. Shi Ye units registration and management temporary regulation（1998年）
n Set up by state department or initiated by state-owned property by other organization
n To achieve social public interests by state
n Major in social services such as science, education, health, etc.
n Legal basis for Government-NGOs
IV．Foundation management regulation （2004）
n Use the property Donated by Individuals, legal man, other organizations
n Non-profit, special public interests goal;
n Public(open) and closed foundation; Original currency fund: National public/8 million Yuan; Local public/4 million; Closed/2 million Yuan ($1=6Yuan)
n Organizational structure: 5-25 board member; Chairman of the board is legal representative of the foundation; Should not be other organizations legal representative; should not work in government;
n Public and closed (which original fund from
n Limited Tax advantage, similar with private enterprise
Chinese made commitment to provide funding to fill the gap of withdrawing of international funding. This is a very much meaningful transformation for Chinese AIDS NGOs. Through Social Service Outsourcing (SSO), the government will for the first time become the main resource provider in the area. But the regulatory framework and the feasibility in more details are still need to be improved in the practice.
Supportive Policy documents for the SSO:
n The 12th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development 2011-2015 (The 12th Five-Year Plan)
n The
Introduction of SSO to HIV sector reflects a wider trend of innovating social management in
The 12th Five-Year Plan recommendations on outsourcing social services are based on experience generated through numerous pilots.
As principles set forward in the 12th Five-Year Plan are gradually translated into policies and practice, two seemingly contradictory trends have emerged. On the one hand, the space for SOs’ work has been expanding. Local governments have started to recognize the non-profit organizations more and provide space for their growth so that the non-profit sector can become legitimate, effective, and diversified, turning into a partner government can outsource services to. Reflecting this need, local-level experimentation with new forms of social management has intensified, with local governments testing different approaches to promote SO registration, as well as to regulate and scale up collaboration between SOs and the state. At the central level, the Ministry of Civil Affairs has also indicated that the long-awaited revision of the national legal framework for civil society is likely to happen soon.
However, on the other hand, the space of SOs’ work has also been facing increased scrutiny. Scale-up of government outsourcing of services to SOs will mark the first time when the state cooperates officially on such a scale with the third sector in an arrangement which, by design, requires SOs to have a degree of separation from the state apparatus. If SOs are to become government’s official partners under SSO, this relationship will need to be transformed, and authorities are cautious about their ability to manage the third sector in the new situation.
Consequently, the policy emphasis in implementing this new social management structure is equally placed on strengthening government control over SOs. Through various local pilots, authorities are testing governance arrangements that will allow SOs enough autonomy for SSO relationships to work but at the same time ensure full government supervision.
n The
In the HIV sector, at the policy level, The China Action Plan to Prevent and Control AIDS during the 12th Five-Year Plan Period (AIDS Action Plan) follows the strategic direction of the 12th Five-Year Plan and calls for expanding the role of social groups and social organizations and giving full play to the role of community based organizations, as well as promotion of legal registration of SOs in the HIV sector. Developing innovative ways of social management in the HIV sector requires addressing the same contradictions present in other sectors, but it is especially challenging because of the size of the third sector involved in HIV response (estimated at 1,500 organizations---among which more than 800 CBOs), the diversity of the sector, and the already relatively complex history of involvement in the HIV response.
Currently, some experience exists with SSO programs in the HIV sector, but it is fragmentary. Governments and SOs gained a significant amount of experience in managing nationwide HIV programs with SOs participation under the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) program (an internationally funded, not an SSO program), through which RMB 44.32 million was passed to 1,245 SOs in 2010 to deliver services. However, GFATM differed from SSO programs in that the funding did not come from the government’s budget, and thus it came with a different set of rules, regulations, and requirements.
Social Services Outsourcing
SSO is a governance mechanism through which the government provides public funds to a non-profit organization or a business to provide public goods and services. In principle, SSO is based on a partnership between two distinctive actors: the government and the implementing organization (a non-profit or a business). The SSO relationship requires that the actors be independent of each other. The implementing organization independently makes decisions, operates, and assumes responsibility for the work. The government assumes a regulatory role: it establishes a legal framework, supervises the provision of services, and evaluates the performance of the implementing partner. Globally, the practice of SSO for government-funded social services is widespread, covering countries with different political, social, and economic contexts.
The introduction of SSO does not automatically guarantee better quality services. The following six likely determinants of SSO program success in the HIV sector are identified:
1. First, the legal situation of many SOs and the lack of a supportive environment for their growth make it impossible for organizations to assume responsibilities under SSO programs.
2. SOs need basic financial stability if they are to become well-functioning partners of the government and deliver quality results.
3. Outcomes of SSO programs will be determined by the extent to which SSO management structures and procedures ensure equal and fair access for SOs. If fair access is to be ensured to SSO programs and if well performing SOs are to be rewarded for their programmatic achievements, new mechanisms are needed for ensuring transparency and accountability.
4. The extent to which SSO programs recognize and make use of SOs’ unique and varied capacities to contribute to HIV response is an important determiner of success.
5. Whether and to what degree capacity building programs are incorporated into SSO schemes will contribute to program sustainability.
6. Lastly, success of SSO programs will depend on investments made into performance review, evaluation and learning mechanisms, and the extent to which the government and SO stakeholders can collaboratively generate knowledge, learn from SSO programs, and gradually improve them.
The following recommendations are made for consideration of main stakeholders of SSO programs:
n Advocate for provincial or central level guidance on roll-out of SSO programs in the HIV sector.
n Promote registration of SOs in the HIV sector in a way that responds to SOs’ needs and to the requirements of SSO programs.
n Ensure that SOs can recover core costs through SSO programs.
n Establish complementary SSO programs in the HIV sector at national, provincial, and sub-provincial levels.
n Ensure fair access to SSO to all SOs through open, competitive, and inclusive selection procedures.
n Ensure transparency of the bidding processes, SSO management, and results.
n Invest in developing capacity of officials who manage SSO programs.
n Enable SOs to utilize their strengths and capacities in SSO programs.
n Encourage sustainable approaches to community construction.
n Set up a model capacity building center on provincial level providing structured, tailored, long-term capacity building programs for HIV sector nonprofits to further professionalization of SOs.
n Develop performance measurement tools and processes for outsourced HIV services and capacity to use these tools.
n Allow for an initial piloting and learning period for SSO programs and evaluate the effectiveness of SSO as a service delivery method, including different SSO approaches and models.
n Establish meaningful mechanisms for consultation and shared learning that are inclusive of all stakeholders.
（By Health Governance Initiative’s CEO JIA Ping;
Part of the content summarized from USAID and Health Policy Initiative’s Report Social Services Outsourcing to Social Organizations in the HIV Sector in Yunnan Province，prepared by Marta Jagusztyn）
0
推荐
京公网安备 11010502034662号 