What are you interested in?

Is the centre for administrative services really more effective and convenient for citizens?

Administrative services

Kyiv, June 2015: The analytical report to compare two models of the administrative service provision was issued in framework of the UNDP/EU project “Smart Practices for Oversight by Non-State Actors on Administrative Service Provision”. In this report, the NGO “Centre for Political and Legal Reforms” serving as the Resource Centre for the civil society organisations on the issues of administrative services reform has compared the one-stop-shop centres for administrative service provision vs their provision by the offices of various central bodies of state authorities. Check out the report to find out which model is more effective.

  The purpose of the report is to help find the answer to the question which model of the administrative service provision is more convenient for the users and more cost-effective for the citizens and the state – through the integrated offices (centres for administrative service provision) or through the offices of various central bodies of state authorities.

The importance of such analysis has grown significantly, since, from one side, in 2012 the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Services” was adopted obliging the oblast-subordinated cities and the district state administrations to create the one-stop-shop centres for administrative service provision (hereinafter – CASP). From the other side, the majority of the basic and most necessary administrative services in Ukraine are still provided not through CASPs but through the territorial bodies and units of various ministries and other central bodies of executive power (services, agencies).

Besides, the new governmental initiatives are being developed (e.g. the draft laws of the Ministry of Justice on the “competitiveness” in the sphere of the administrative services on business and real estate registration, the draft law of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the “service centres of the MIA”, separate passport offices of the State Migration Service etc), which create additional complications on the way of CASPs’ creation and even put the whole idea into question.

The report analyzes the issue as it relates to the members of the Government responsible for elaboration of the state policy in the area of administrative service provision (first of all, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the Regional Development), representatives of other central bodies of executive authorities (e.g. State Migration Service, State Agency on Land Issues), heads of the bodies of the local self-government and district state administrations responsible for CASPs creation as well as the civic activists, ordinary citizens and economic agents which are users of the administrative services.

The analysis shows the obvious benefits of the integrated service provision. For the service users (citizens and business) it is the possibility for apply for different services in relation with their life situations or facts at a time (e.g. birth of a child, change of residence etc). In case of the second model of service provision (through the institutional offices) more time and efforts of a person are needed.
From the point of view of the public resources, the integrated service provision is also more cost-effective, since for equal comfort conditions more resources are needed for creation of multiple separate institutional offices rather than for one integrated office.

The possible temporary comparative advantage of the institutional offices, at least during the period of creation of the integrated offices, is a higher qualification of the personnel due to their narrow specialization. Also, the logistical challenges may occur in case of the integrated offices (e.g. with the documents’ delivery to and from the service providers) and the control and quality assuarance, if the front-office and back-office are institutionally separated. It is the last problem which is still actual for Ukrainian CASPs today, since most of the centres are responsible for collecting citizens’ applications and issuance of results (documents) whereas the actual processing of documents and the actual service is provided by other authorities.

As the report states, the Ukraine needs the state policy clearly focused on creation of the integrated offices (CASPs) with a special focus on basic administrative services. This policy is closely linked to the decentralization.

To read more details on this subject in the report