Co-producing the future Tony Bovaird INLOGOV TSRC Governance - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Co-producing the future

Tony Bovaird INLOGOV TSRC Governance International November 2014

Public sector

• utputs

Private and third sector market outputs

Informal economy outputs

Formal volunteering and informal social value-adding outputs

Whose activities are adding value for our citizens?

Public agencies, partners and citizens all contribute to improved outcomes

“Co-production of public services means professionals and citizens making better use of each other's assets, resources and contributions to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency”.

Source: Governance International www.govint.org

“It takes ‘two’ – professionals and communities.”

What co-production is about?

Why ‘co-production’?

• We now realise that service users know things that many

professionals don’t know … (‘users as thinking people’)

• ... and can make a service more effective by the extent to

which they go along with its requirements (‘users as critical success factors’)

• ... and have time and energy that they are willing to put into

helping others (‘users as resource-banks and asset-holders’)

• AND SIMILARLY WITH COMMUNITIES

… and there are lots of different types of co-production

• Co-planning of policy – e.g. deliberative participation, Planning

for Real, Open Space

• Co-design of services – e.g. user consultation, Smart Houses
• Co-commissioning services – e.g. Community Chest,

participatory budgeting

• Co-financing services – fundraising, charges, agreement to tax

increases

• Co-managing services – leisure centre trusts, ULOs
• Co-delivery of services – expert patients, volunteer firefighters,

Neighbourhood Watch

• Co-monitoring and co-evaluation of services

Co-production in practice: the Four Co’s

• prioritisation of public policies in austerity
• multi-channel interface for suggestions and voting
• co-production offers from citizens

Case 1: Co-commission (Berlin-Lichtenberg, Germany)

Source: Governance International Case Study Section at http://bit.ly/sUU0F7

What do partially-sighted people need most?

What public sector staff think partially-sighted people need most: 1) More information about public services available to them (64%) 2) More information about support in case elderly people need help (54%) 3) Want to know more people and develop friendships (36%) 4) Want to talk with somebody about personal issues (18%) What partially-sighted people really want: 1) Want to know more people and develop friendships (91%) 2) Want to talk with somebody about personal issues (62%) 3) More information about public services available to them (53%) 4) More information about support in case elderly people need help (47%) Source: Martin Willis and Eileen Dunstan, University of Birmingham, 2009

• The most popular section
• 1,000 monthly hits / 20 e-mails with Qs per day
• Regional “Young Space Consultants” Coordination
• Counselling about road and safety
• Advice about driving licences
• Information about drugs/new substances
• Regional coordination centres about drug & alcohol abuse
• Counselling about jobs by trade unions
• Particularly about “unusual jobs”
• Cooperation with Informagiovani ensures the

accuracy and updating of infomation on study

• pportunities, leisure activities, rights and duties,

travel www.stradanove.net

Case 2: Co-design (Modena City)

Case 3: Co-design (Stockport Council social care)

Working with service users, carers, partners and staff to design a website that ...

• service users can understand,
• puts them in touch with people who can help.

Results:

• 67,000 website visits,
• Calls at contact centre reduced,

higher quality calls,

• Estimated saving of £300,000 p.a.
• Other councils eager to learn

from this best practice.

http://www.mycaremychoice.org.uk/

Source: Governance International Case Study Section at http://bit.ly/sUU0F7

Case study 4: Co-deliver a better environment (Solihull Council)

Environment champions working with the local council and its partners to:

• improve local ‘sore sights’,
• reduce environmental crime that can spill-over

to more serious crime and loss of social capital. Results:

• volunteers quadrupled,
• 100+ projects (targeting problem areas, creating

community capacity, large scale projects – Gardeners World + community hub),

• Projects have resulted in council savings of over

£200,000.

Source: Governance International Case Study Section at http://bit.ly/sUU0F7

Case 5: Co-deliver (South Somerset)

• Local residents work with police

to fight against speeding cars

• 40% reduction in vehicles

exceeding the speed limit since monitoring began in July 2007

• Local councillors mobilised local

people to join up the patrols …

• … but must also ensure that local

groups do not turn into ‘vigilantes’

Case 6: Co-Assess (Complaints management, LB of Camden)

Listening and responding

Listening and responding

Source: Governance International Interview Section at http://bit.ly/wvs7Px

Co-production indicators (in rank order)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ask police for safety advice Participate in public safety group Participate in environmental group Participate in health group Reported community safety problem Reported crime to police Intervented to stop anti-social behavior Tell others not to drop rubbish Take care of sick family or friends See doctor for health check Ask neighbors to w atch your home Keep an eye on neighbor's home Try to exercise Change to a more healthy diet Walk, cycle, or use public transport Try to save w ate/electricity at home Try to recycle household rubbish Take care to lock doors, w indow s Percent often (yes)

Total level of co-production in community safety, local environment and health issues

Index of co-production

33 45 52 61 100 Safety (crime reporting) Safety (crime prevention) Health improvement Environmental improvement None Maximum

The index is a min-max (0-100) scale, with 0 representing minimum co-production (answering "never" to all the co-production questions) and 100 representing maximum (answering "often" to all the co-production questions).

The potential of co-production

Willing to do more a few hours a week

• r more

28% Willing to do more a few hours a month 43% Not willing to do more at all 29%

Potential benefits of co-production

For Users

• Improved outcomes and quality of life.
• Higher quality, more realistic and sustainable public services as a result of

bringing in the expertise of users and their networks.

For Citizens

• Increasing social capital and social cohesion.
• Offering reassurance about availability and quality of services for the future.

For Frontline Staff

• More responsibility and job satisfaction from working with satisfied service

users.

For Top Managers

• Limiting demands on the services.
• Making services more efficient.

For Politicians

• More votes through more satisfied service users.
• Less need for public funding and therefore lower taxes.

Example of benefits

• Recommissioning of Services for Young People in Surrey CC from

2012 onwards, based on co-production and partnerships with third sector

• Saved £4.5 m, reducing cost of service by 25% without reducing any

frontline services

• By the end of the commissioning exercise, more professionals

working directly with vulnerable young people than in 2009.

• 60% decrease in NEETs, 90% decrease in first time entrants to the

criminal justice system and a 30% increase in young people starting apprenticeships.

Where does that leave the ‘jaws of doom’?

• Rising demand, falling grant, unwilling local

taxpayers = DOOM

• But … 10 extra years of life for all citizens?
• Very old have different health costs? But

also different asset levels?

• 75 yr-olds of future with as much energy as

65 yr-olds of past? And could be mobilised?

• Main cause of health & social care costs in

public sector is isolation, loneliness, lack of social life – move to ‘Wellbeing Society’ instead of the ‘Welfare Society’?

Empty Britain – the hidden resources

• Many of our assets are empty or half-empty (our

homes, our high streets, our public buildings, our leisure and community centres, our mini-buses)

• Most of our people are not at work (29m in work, 21m
• f them full-time)
• Matching of citizens’ assets to potential users is the

dream ‘app’

• CO-PRODUCTION needs CO-ORDINATION

Potential limitations

• Not everyone WANTS to co-produce, not

everyone CAN co-produce – we need a variety of service models.

• Co-production is generally not ‘free’ – it requires

resources and investment for its full potential to be realised.

• Isn’t co-production risky?

Putting it into practice: Five step change model in the Co-Production Star

28

Co-Production Toolkit

www.govint.org

• Map it!
• with our Explorer
• Focus us!
• with our Business Case Generator
• People it!
• with our Capabilities Assessment
• Market it!
• with our Training Package
• Grow it!
• With our Gear Changer

Step 6: Just do it!

CONTACT Tony Bovaird Web: www.inlogov.bham.ac.uk Email: T.Bovaird@bham.ac.uk Twitter: @inlogov Governance International Web: www.govint.org Email: info@govint.org Phone: 0121 698 8743 Twitter: @govint.org