Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Co-production, local
government and the
potential contribution of
online neighbourhood
networks
Tony Bovaird
TSRC/INLOGOV ...
Topics
 Value for money 2010
 Self-organising and self-help
 Co-production in theory
 Some examples
 Potential of on-...
REAL Value for Money is
about the wider supply
chain through to outcomes
Self-organising in the Big Society
 Big Society is not new …
 … and society is not broken
– … about 35% of people gave h...
Co-production
 Our definition
– User and community co-production is …
“The involvement of citizens in the delivery of
pub...
Why ‘co-production’?
 We now realise that service users know things that many
professionals don’t know … (‘users as think...
Different types of co-production
 Co-planning of policy – e.g. deliberative participation,
Planning for Real, Open Space
...
Levels of co-production in Europe
Level of User-Involvement in Europe
(environment, health, community safety)
48
51
52
53
...
(5) Many citizens are willing to do
MORE co-production in future
Willing to do
more a few
hours a week
or more
28%
Willing...
(3) Levels of co-production differ
greatly between activities
Co-production indicators (in rank order)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60...
•The most popular section
•1,000 monthly hits / 20 e-mails with Qs per day
•Regional “Young Space Consultants” Coordinatio...
 multi-channel interface for suggestions and voting
 priorisatisation of public policies in austerity
 co-production of...
 In rural villages in the East of France
 Two host families look after 3 elderly people each,
as part of family life but...
 Since 2002, over 250 young people aged 14 to 19 trained
as peer educators on topic of teenage pregnancy
 Have led hundr...
Case 5: Co-deliver (South Somerset)
 Local residents work
with police to fight
against speeding cars
 40% reduction in
v...
Case 6: Co-Assess (complaints management,
LB of Camden)
Listening and responding
Listening and responding
Listening and responding
Potential strategies for activating the positive
synergies which could make user and community co-
production more cost-ef...
Public interventions to promote internet-
enabled collective co-production
 Co-planning of policy – e.g. South Bristol Di...
Conclusions
 Huge latent willingness of citizens to become more
involved …
 … but only if they feel they can play a wort...
Contact
T.Bovaird@bham.ac.uk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Online Neighbourhoods Networks Conference, "Co-productiuon & Neighbourhood Networks", Prof Tony Bovair d

686 views

Published on

The Online neighbourhood networks conference was the launch event for the Online neighbourhood networks research by the Networked Neighbourhood Group.

The research can be downloaded at http://networkedneighbourhoods.com/?page_id=409

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Online Neighbourhoods Networks Conference, "Co-productiuon & Neighbourhood Networks", Prof Tony Bovair d

  1. 1. Co-production, local government and the potential contribution of online neighbourhood networks Tony Bovaird TSRC/INLOGOV November 2010
  2. 2. Topics  Value for money 2010  Self-organising and self-help  Co-production in theory  Some examples  Potential of on-line networks for increasing collective co-production
  3. 3. REAL Value for Money is about the wider supply chain through to outcomes
  4. 4. Self-organising in the Big Society  Big Society is not new …  … and society is not broken – … about 35% of people gave help to non-relatives at least once a month during the last year (and 62% at least once during the year) – … 4% say they are already involved in local services, 5% say they want to be more actively involved, 24% want to have more of a say and 47% want to be more informed  But social action could indeed be much more systematic and effective …  … and the state could help in this? – by keeping out where it’s working – by shaping it where it’s partly working – by supporting it where it’s not working yet
  5. 5. Co-production  Our definition – User and community co-production is … “The involvement of citizens in the delivery of public services to achieve outcomes, which depend at least partly on their own behaviour and the assets and resources they bring”  Been around a long time
  6. 6. 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 COMMUNITIES are similarly an important part of the ‘co-production’ process of the service
  7. 7. 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, Innovation Labs  Co-commissioning services – e.g. devolved grant systems, Community Chest  Co-financing services – fundraising, charges, agreement to tax increases  Co-managing services – leisure centre trusts, community management of public assets, school governors  Co-delivery of services – expert patients (peer support groups), meals-on-wheels, Neighbourhood Watch  Co-monitoring and co-evaluation of services – tenant inspectors, user on-line ratings
  8. 8. Levels of co-production in Europe Level of User-Involvement in Europe (environment, health, community safety) 48 51 52 53 56 0 100 Denmark France Czech Republic Germany UK 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). Source: Governance International 2008
  9. 9. (5) Many citizens are willing to do MORE co-production in future Willing to do more a few hours a week or more 28% Willing to do more a few hours a month 43% Not willing to do more at all 29% • More than 70% of citizens are already willing to do more • Many people who actively co-produce in health or community safety or the local environment have little interest in the other fields.
  10. 10. (3) Levels of co-production differ greatly between activities Co-production indicators (in rank order) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ask police for safety advice Participate in public safety group Participate in environm ental group Participate in health group Reported com munity safety problem Reported crim e to police Intervented to stop anti-social behavior Tell others not to drop rubbish Take care of sick fam ily or friends See doctor for health check Ask neighbors to w atch your hom e Keep an eye on neighbor's hom e Try to exercise Change to a more healthy diet Walk, cycle, or use public transport Try to save w ate/electricity at hom e Try to recycle household rubbish Take care to lock doors, w indow s Percent often (yes)
  11. 11. •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 opportunities, leisure activities, rights and duties, travel www.stradanove.net Case 1: Co-design (Modena, Italy)
  12. 12.  multi-channel interface for suggestions and voting  priorisatisation of public policies in austerity  co-production offers by citizens (e.g. public library) Case 2: Co-commission (Berlin-Lichtenberg, Germany)
  13. 13.  In rural villages in the East of France  Two host families look after 3 elderly people each, as part of family life but with some privacy and independence  Elderly residents are the employer, PPP (chaired by mayor) runs the 'project' Case 3: Co-manage (Villa Family, France)
  14. 14.  Since 2002, over 250 young people aged 14 to 19 trained as peer educators on topic of teenage pregnancy  Have led hundreds of workshops each year in local schools and colleges.  Rates of teenage pregnancy have fallen faster than elsewhere in London  Peer educators have developed valuable skills and confidence. Case 4: Co-deliver (LB of Lambeth)
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. Case 6: Co-Assess (complaints management, LB of Camden)
  17. 17. Listening and responding
  18. 18. Listening and responding
  19. 19. Listening and responding
  20. 20. Potential strategies for activating the positive synergies which could make user and community co- production more cost-effective  Increasing the incentives for collective behaviour  Decreasing the disincentives for collective behaviour  Increasing the connectivity of those giving rise to positive synergies in collective behaviour  LATTER STRATEGY AROUND CONNECTIVITY DEPEND ON: – strength of the connectivity – degree of synergy achieved through connectivity  SOCIAL MEDIA PARTICULARLY STRONG IN ACHIEVING STRONG SOCIAL CONNECTIVITY WHICH RIPPLES OUT
  21. 21. Public interventions to promote internet- enabled collective co-production  Co-planning of policy – e.g. South Bristol Digital Neighbourhoods has been working with Bristol City Council to provide local residents with ICT training, encouraging them to use the internet and showing them how they can use the council’s consultation site www.askbristol.com, which is part of an EU e-participation project called Citizenscape  Co-design of services – e.g. Smart Houses, Digital Birmingham’s 'Open City' project to create new digital resources for developing an online community that allows people to influence service planning and delivery  Co-commissioning services – e.g. in internet-based participatory budgeting (Berlin- Lichtenberg, Köln)  Co-managing services – ‘Smart Community’ is a neighbourhood where the residents are better connected to each other and to the businesses and agencies that serve them, including local TV channels and local information and online services, with specialist provision for those who need it.  Co-delivery of services – Cheltenham Council 'flood blog‘ in 2007 provided a responsive and fast service to residents  Co-monitoring and co-evaluation of services – HelpMeInvestigate and Access Bromley
  22. 22. Conclusions  Huge latent willingness of citizens to become more involved …  … but only if they feel they can play a worthwhile role  Must not waste time and energy of co-producing citizens – must be clearer when it IS and when NOT appropriate to co-produce  Behaviour of citizens is more likely to lead to individual co-production, collective co-production needs ‘nudges’ …  … but collective co-production may bring bigger impacts  Web-enabled technologies can make collective co- production easier and more likely.  This will cost resources – ‘’co-production’ and ‘community contributions ’ are not ‘free’
  23. 23. Contact T.Bovaird@bham.ac.uk

×