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

Co-producing the future Tony Bovaird INLOGOV TSRC Governance International November 2014 1

Private and third sector market outputs Public sector outputs Whose Informal economy outputs activities are adding value for our Formal volunteering and informal citizens? social value-adding outputs

Public agencies, partners and citizens all contribute to improved outcomes

What co-production is about? “It takes ‘two’ – professionals and communities.” “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

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

Case 1: Co-commission (Berlin-Lichtenberg, Germany)  prioritisation of public policies in austerity  multi-channel interface for suggestions and voting  co-production offers from citizens 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

Case 2: Co-design (Modena City) • The most popular section • 1,000 monthly hits / 20 e-mails with Qs per day •Regional “Young Space Consultants” Coordination • Information about drugs/new substances • Regional coordination centres about drug & alcohol abuse • Counselling about road and safety www.stradanove.net • Advice about driving licences • Counselling about jobs by trade unions •Particularly about “unusual jobs” • Cooperation with Informagiovani ensures the accuracy and updating of infomation on study opportunities, leisure activities, rights and duties, travel

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) Take care to lock doors, w indow s Try to recycle household rubbish Try to save w ate/electricity at home Walk, cycle, or use public transport Change to a more healthy diet Try to exercise Keep an eye on neighbor's home Ask neighbors to w atch your home See doctor for health check Take care of sick family or friends Tell others not to drop rubbish Intervented to stop anti-social behavior Reported crime to police Reported community safety problem Participate in health group Participate in environmental group Participate in public safety group Ask police for safety advice 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent often (yes)

Total level of co-production in community safety, local environment and health issues Index of co-production Environmental 61 improvement Health 52 improvement Safety (crime 45 prevention) Safety (crime 33 reporting) 0 100 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 Willing to do more a few more a few hours a month hours a week 43% or more 28% 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 of 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

Co-Production Toolkit • 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 www.govint.org 28

Step 6: Just do it!