Co-production
From P2P Foundation
Co-production = "the means by which the beneficiaries of charity, philanthropy services or public services are instrumental in the design , planning and delivery of specific services or broader social outcomes as a way of improving the service or activity and rebuilding the local community"
See the book on co-production below.
Contents |
Description
From: http://wicc.newport.ac.uk/coproductionexplained.htm
"Co-production describes the means by which the beneficiaries of charity, philanthropy services or public services are instrumental in the design , planning and delivery of specific services or broader social outcomes as a way of improving the service or activity and rebuilding the local community" (Sarah Burns (2004), "Exploring co-production- an overview of past, present and future", Unpublished paper, NEF.)
'Participation' by beneficiaries of a service or a public good is not a new idea, and the forms it can take and value it adds has been debated across the world. Co-production is one form of participation but moves one step further in that it's ideal lies on the far end of the spectrum of participation.
The idea has been developed through the work of the American Civil Rights Lawyer Dr Edgar Cahn, who regards co-production as the central principle in successful professional practice. The underlying rationale is based on the suggestion that more positive social outcomes are the result of not only community led initiatives both at a community and project level but also across traditionally state led services such as health and education.
As an approach, it is trying to reframe the debate around how things are currently structured and as such it 'has developed into a practical agenda for system change and the development of social capital' (Burns 2004, p 3, quoting Cahn, 1986 and 2001). It also aims to redefine people's assumptions as to what 'work' is, and how we value the more informal work done in the community. As such, co-production neatly links to time accreditation, a one form of putting value to the vital work that people do in their communities.
On an individual level, co-production is about moving away from the idea of the undervalued and passive individual, to an approach which focuses on the value people can bring to the development of a community. The rationale is that public service are often failing at the point of delivery as they are not reflective of what the public think is relevant for their communities, because of a concern that the fabric of communities unravelling, because of a concern that active citizenship is weakening (Burns p 1-2). A 'partnership' with professional providers or a process of generating these goods or services on a more mutual basis, co -producing with each other in the community seems to be the answer. This also requires different ways of working, including assumptions as to what is possible, on the part of professional within both statutory and voluntary sectors." (http://wicc.newport.ac.uk/coproductionexplained.htm)
Characteristics
"The core values which underpin the co-production approach can be drawn upon to produce different models which are appropriate for different contexts towards an optimal social solution. These values include:
- Assets - every human can be a contributor, there should be 'no more throw away people'
- Redefining work - to include whatever it takes to rear healthy children, preserve families , make neighbourhoods safer
- Reciprocity - we need each other, stop creating dependencies or devaluing people
- Social capital - look social infrastructures, invest in them as thy are essential to positive development of communities
(No More Throw-Away People, Edgar S. Cahn p 23 and 29)" (http://wicc.newport.ac.uk/coproductionexplained.htm)
History
"The term isn't new. It emerged at the University of Indiana in the 1970s, when a professor, Elinor Ostrom, was asked to explain to the Chicago police why the crime rate went up when they exchanged the beat for patrol cars. Coproduction was the missing ingredient to crime fighting that only the public could provide.
It was brought to the UK by Anna Coote at the King's Fund health thinktank to explain how doctors also need patients. It was then developed and deepened by Edgar Cahn, the Washington civil rights lawyer behind time banking, who used it to explain the importance of neighbourhood-level support systems - families and communities - and how they can be rebuilt." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/16/longtermcare)
Discussion
Co-production vs. the Consumer Care model=
From the Guardian:
"That's why the New Economics Foundation has just published a report explaining that co-production means something very specific. It means the equal partnership between professionals and clients - not to consult them more, or get them to sit on boards, but to use their skills to deliver services. ... The difficulty is that co-production is an awkward term and is used increasingly loosely by policy wonks to cover almost everything from being a bit nicer to patients to the current catch-all solution, personal budgets.
Of course, clients often know best what priorities they have and how the money allocated to them should be spent. But if all public services do is give clients a budget and tell them to get on with it, it flies in the face of the basic ideas behind co-production - that people need to be rooted in mutual support networks, and that not everything can be bought."
"The charity In Control makes a similar distinction between individual budgets and what they call "self-directed support", in which money is just one asset that people can draw on. It is vital, but it isn't enough. Those who advocate only individual budgets risk flinging clients into a world of isolation, where they can be alone with their budget, where they might be forced, for example, to spend some of that scarce money on buying people to keep them company - like the engineer Mike Hammond, who advertised in April for someone to take his father to the pub twice a week at £7 an hour.
If there was some kind of genuine co-production infrastructure in place, Hammond's father could have got the companionship he needed and kept the money for something else. Using a time banking approach, he would also be encouraged to identify how others in his community could use his skills and support. Personal budgets were never intended to cover every aspect of people's lives, to replace relationships with market transactions. But when they are used by policymakers instead of rebuilding social networks, this can be the outcome: the recipients will have less money and less confidence than before.
By themselves, the budgets entrench the ineffectiveness of the consumer model of care, encouraging users to "buy solutions" rather than have an active stake in delivering their own. If public service modernisation is about "efficient" professionals delivering narrow units of help to passive clients, or just gives people budgets and sends them away to fix themselves, it is hardly surprising that demand mounts and costs spiral out of control.
If, on the other hand, we can redefine public service clients as assets who have skills that are vital to the delivery of successful services, then we have a way that public services can start to rebuild the neighbourhoods around them. The point is that there are some services, like friendship, which friends provide very much better than professionals. Co-production is about broadening public services so that these human needs can be met. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/16/longtermcare)
Examples
In the UK:
"Some of this co-production infrastructure does seem to be emerging. The Rushey Green Time Bank in Catford, south London, recently won the London Health Commission award for partnership working with the NHS. GPs there confirmed that it had "a proven record at improving mental and physical wellbeing among our patients by supporting people in their environment, targeting unmet needs, and creating a partnership between patients themselves, health professionals and allied workers".
The Newcastle upon Tyne group KeyRing has put mutual support at the heart of their work with people with learning difficulties, and is experimenting with helping people with personal budgets to club together to get a better deal." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/16/longtermcare)
Key Book to Read
- No More Throw-Away People: the co-production imperative. Edgar S. Cahn. Essential Books, 2000
- David Boyle is a fellow of the New Economics Foundation. The pamphlet, Co-production: A Manifesto for Growing the Core Economy, is available at neweconomics.org.uk (http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?pid=257)
Categories: Encyclopedia | Policy | Governance | Books
