From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value (original) (raw)

User and community co-production of public services: Fad or fact, nuisance or necessity?

2008

This Research Briefing reports research in the area of co-production which is developmental. It sets out to explore the differing theoretical strands which contribute to current thinking on user and community co-production. It shows that some of these strands predict very different roles – and outcomes – from coproduction. In particular, theories of coproduction predict that it can deliver either individualised benefits from the design and operation of public services or more collective benefits which result from the external effects created by each co-producing user for other actual and potential users. However, the empirical evidence from our recent survey of citizens in five EU countries suggests that the practice of co-production is dominated by individualised co-production.

We’re all in this together: User and community co-production of public outcomes

We're all in this together: User and community co-production of public outcomes Tony Bovaird (INLOGOV and TSRC, University of Birmingham) and Elke Loeffler (Governance International) Department of Health (2010), "Practical approaches to co-production: Building effective partnerships with people using services, carers, families and citizens", London.

User and Community Co-Production of Public Services: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?

International Journal of Public Administration, 2016

Much of the current discussion of user and community co-production makes strong claims for its potential to improve outcomes. How much is actually known about the level, drivers, and potential effects of co-production? In this article, some of the key claims made for co-production are examined and an assessment is made of how they stack up against the empirical evidence. In particular, some areas are identified in which practice must be cautious about the potential contribution of co-production, and where further research is needed.

User and community co-production of public services: what influences citizens to co-produce?

Public Administration and the Modern State: Assessing Trends, and Impact (Palgrave Macmillan), 2014

Previous research has suggested that citizens are more likely to engage in co-production of public services and social outcomes with public agencies when the actions involved are relatively easy and can be carried out individually rather than in groups (Loeffler et al, 2008). Since much of the potential pay-off from co-production has been identified as coming from group-based activities, this is a potentially serious barrier. The research in this chapter has explored how individuals can be influenced to extend their co-production activities into collective action, participating in more complex governance activities.

Activating Citizens to Participate in Collective Co-Production of Public Services

Journal of Social Policy, 2014

User and community co-production of public services first became topical in the late 1970s, both in private and public sectors. Recent interest has been triggered by recognition that the outcomes for which public agencies strive rely on multiple stakeholders, particularly service users and the communities in which they live. Extra salience has been given to the potential of co-production due to fiscal pressures facing governments since 2008. However, there has been little quantitative empirical research on citizen co-production behaviours. The authors therefore undertook a large-sample survey in five European countries to fill this gap. This article examines an especially significant finding from this research – the major gulf between current levels of collective co-production and individual co-production. It explores the drivers of these large differences and examines what the social policy implications would be if, given the potential benefits, the government wishes to encourage g...

Innovation in public engagement and co-production of services

2008

The most basic long-standing method of citizen engagement in public sector decision making is the opportunity to vote at elections although at local level this sometimes only occurs once every four years. However, this mechanism is not enough either for citizens to communicate their wishes to the local authority or to hold the local authority to account. In the last two decades, many other mechanisms have emerged to allow citizens to engage with public sector organisations (Leach et al., 2005). This policy paper explores the innovative methods used by some local authorities for engaging and communicating with their local electorate and stakeholders. It focuses in particular on efforts to move beyond engagement and participation to more intensive processes – including those labelled ‘co-production’ - where the public have a direct influence over policy and service delivery. It provides a theoretical and conceptual framework for understanding the importance of this shift in the relationship between the public and the public sector. The paper draws upon three types of evidence; research conducted by the various Communities and Local Government (CLG) funded evaluations of policies associated with the 1998 and 2001 Local Government White Papers; primary research by the meta-evaluation team and a wide range of literature on public engagement and co-production. It complements the recent meta-evaluation reports on the ‘State of Governance of Places’ (Sullivan, 2008) and the ‘State of Local Democracy’ (Cowell et al, 2008). This policy paper therefore: • Explores the need for innovation by local authorities and local partners in engaging and communicating with local citizens. • Provides a theoretical and conceptual framework for understanding the role of co-production in public services • Identifies some negative and unintended impacts of increased involvement of users and other citizens. • Highlights the scope for more innovative methods based upon current experience. • Considers the learning opportunities from co-production (drawing upon national and international practice). • Highlights some illustrative examples of good practice which can be disseminated across local government and local strategic partnerships. • Draws out the lessons for policy makers.