How can a mode of multiple subjects providing community public service be developed?
如何构建多元化社区公共服务供给体系？

In recent years, many local governments in China have incorporated different subjects into community public service provision, which has led to the development of various modes in this regard. This case is derived from Nanshan District of Shenzhen City in Guangdong Province. Informed by its specific socio-economic development needs, the District has developed a mode by the name of “Yiheduoyuan” – meaning “one core and multiple subjects”.
近年来，各地政府不断引导不同主体参与到社区公共服务的供给之中，构建出了多样化的公共服务供给平台，形成了多种社区公共服务供给体系。深圳市南山区根据自身经济和社会发展的需求探索出了“一核多元”的社区公共服务供给新模式，可为我们提供良好的借鉴。

The mode consists of six subjects who collaborate in providing public service to local communities in Nanshan District. The main subject is that of community Party committees, which are supported by three other subjects (i.e., community management committees, community workstations, and community service centers). The two new subjects incorporated into the mode are community social organizations and those enterprises that are located within the District. The mode adopts two methods to provide community public service. One is the direct provision by the district government and its subdistrict offices, the provision that is supported by fiscal fund. The other is that the district government purchases public services from social organizations and enterprises, the purchases that have been on the rise in recent years. In 2013, the government spent 780 million RMB on more than 20 public services provided by 148 social organizations, accounting for 9 per cent of the whole district government expenditure that year. These services included but were not limited to public education, training and employment, culture and sports, public transport, social welfare, and public safety. Now 1,700 community social organizations have been established in Nanshan District partly thanks to the government’s support for them to participate in community public service provision. Registered with the government are 747 of these organizations, who provide services related to volunteering, public benefits, culture, and sports.
“一核多元”治理模式以社区综合党委员会为主，以社区管理委员会、社区工作站、社区服务中心为辅，各类型的社区社会组织和驻辖区企业事业机构等多元主体共同参与、共同治理。公共服务一是由区政府和街道办事处为社区直接提供，由区政府负责财政资金；二是政府向社会组织或公司购买间接提供。近年来，政府购买公共服务所占比重增长十分迅速，2013年，南山区政府从148个社会组织购二十多项公共服务，投资7.8亿元，占该区民生财政总支出的9%，范围包括公共教育、就业和培训、文化体育、公共交通、福利和安全等。南山区政府积极激发社会组织的活力，支持和引导各类社会组织参与社区公共服务，使服务主体由政府“单打独斗”转变为社会“全面参与”。目前，南山区有1700多个社区社会组织，其中在政府登记的有747个，涵盖志愿服务、公益服务、文化体育服务等方方面面。

Two lessons about innovation in community public service provision can be learned from this case. First, local governments are no longer the sole subject in this provision. Instead, they serve as an agent of linking and integrating various social forces and resources to provide public services to local communities. Second, government purchases of public services do not mean deregulation. Rather, local governments need to inspect and assess to what extent the services as provided to communities have met residents’ needs. Without such assessment, the chain of community public service provision would not be complete.
南山区的案例可以给我们如下启示：第一，政府不再是提供社区公共服务的唯一主体，而是整合多种社会力量和资源的平台、节点。第二，政府购买服务不意味着撒手不管，而是需要将公共服务效果的监督和评估作为社区公共服务制度化的最后一环，对公共服务是否真正满足社区居民的实际需求进行监督和评估。