In the implementation of social policy, the most common practice in foreign countries is the payment of a part of the cost of the service by the recipients of social services. However, this decision raises some doubts. After all, these services are for members of the public who are unable to take care of themselves and generally cannot earn a living. On the other hand, when the state bears the costs, there is a risk of overconsumption. The decision on the extent to which a beneficiary of a social care service should share in the costs of social services depends on a variety of factors: criteria for social justice in the country and perceptions of social justice (for example, public opinion about whether unpaid social care services should be provided to all or only the poor), from a group of people in need of social care (social care services for children from social risk groups, especially for people with severe disabilities, are usually free of charge), from the economic ability of the state to provide free social services, etc. The purpose is to study the positive foreign experience in the provision of social services in modern conditions. Determine the role of the state as the dominant body in the implementation of social policy. The study is based on the principles of a systematic approach. Also, when writing the article, the dialectical method of cognition, the methods of scientific generalization and classification, the method of comparative analysis were used. Systematization and generalization of foreign experience in the provision of social services, taking into account the definition of its main goals and objectives, show that the changes taking place in the field of social protection in developed countries over the past two decades already indicate that the model of organizing social assistance, based on the dominance of market relations, operates in many countries. Under the hierarchical model, the organization of social services is based on a vertical division of responsibility and state functions, and the state has a monopoly on providing social care services and funding state or non-state care institutions. However, in recent decades, social assistance services have already been purchased from market participants and funded not by the state, but by the person in need of social assistance. However, such a market is not pure, since the state is involved in both the purchase and pricing of the service.