Co-production Critical Friends
29th January 2013
JRF, Caledonia House, 5th Floor, 223 Pentonville Road, London, N1 9NG
10.30am-12.30pm
Present:
Andrew Cousins
Emma Stone
Sue Bott
Michael Turner
Shahana Ramsden
Pete Fleischmann
Julia Slay
Helen Sharp
Daniel Hutt
Tony Bovaird
Adrian Barker
Tim Hughes
David Boyle
James Angel
Action points
· JULIA to send round final definition and principles (included in these notes)
· ADRIAN to send round diagram (included in these notes)
· SARAH to approach critical friends for recommendations on which APPGs we might approach about co-production, and any personal introductions which could be made.
· EVERYONE to send round what they know about co-production groups and networks for the mapping project to SARAH.
Next meeting
· Wednesday 10th April, 10.30-12.30, Venue tbc
· Focus: influencing government policy.
Updates
Last meeting
This was in October 2012. At the meeting, those present discussed what can be done together. There was a strong sense that there should be a focus on practical things. One idea was a definition of quality in co-production. This could be an aspirational definition used to challenge the idea that, for instance, local authorities are doing co-production already through minor pieces of consultation work. Another idea was that the group could sponsor awards to reward best practice. It was also suggested that there could be a drive to build up the evidence base. There was a discussion of how the group could influence policy. One idea put forward was an APPG. It was decided that today’s meeting would focus on the question of the definition of co-production.
New digital resource, SCIE
SCIE are developing a new digital resource on co-production. They don’t want it to just be used for their own work, they want other organisations to present their resources on it as well.
Influencing government policy
Following these updates, the discussion from October’s meeting about influencing policy was continued. Since October’s meeting, Sarah Lyall had a discussion with the nef Well-being team who set up a well-being APPG. They said that there are advantages to going down this route, however it’s an inefficient way to contact MPs as it’s a huge challenge to get them to the meetings. Instead, they recommended holding Critical Friends events at existing APPGs. People agreed with this idea and agreed to make inquiries to APPGs they have links with about whether they would host Critical Friends events.
Other ways of influencing policy were also discussed. People expressed an interest in the Welsh model, where the network asked people to sign an open letter to the government asking them to embed principles of co-production in policy. The potential for exploring open policy making in government was also raised – Involve currently coordinate a civil society network on open government. It was noted that the DCLG, as a result of cuts to staff, are open to collaborative networks setting policy as has happened in their neighbourhood community budgeting unit. The DCLG also have a sub-group on co-production.
All agreed that the next meeting should focus on the question of influencing government policy.
Service-user participation and mapping coproduction activity
It was raised that although we have a practitioners’ network, it is just as important to think about how people who use services feel about co-production and what works for them. Service-users don’t have access to the resources that practitioners do, so how can we hear their voice? It is crucial that we do and contradictory for our group working on co-production to get this wrong. This is a dilemma for an unfunded network – although the practitioners’ network does include a number of people who have experience of services, both historical and current.
One idea to increase the number of people with lived experience within the practitioners’ network was to approach existing service-users who are supported by local authorities or user led groups and could become more active within the practitioners’ network.
It was raised that it would be helpful to be able to map all of the different networks and groups working on co-production. All agreed to feed in what they know of this to provide the foundations for the map.
Defining co-production
Discussion then turned to the main agenda item of coming up with a definition of quality in co-production. People had sent in their own definitions ahead of the meeting and a word cloud was produced showing the most used words that came up.
The first question to be answered was what our objectives might be. It was suggested that the definition should be in simple, plain English and work across all programmes without discipline-specific jargon. The definition ought to give an idea about principles, behaviours – an idea of what promotes or hinders co-production – and manifestations – instances of co-production in practice.
It was noted that there might be two questions here. Firstly, the question of what we can say to someone new to co-production to help them gain a basic understanding of what it is about. Secondly, for those already familiar with co-production, there is a more complicated question about how quite complex concepts relate to each other.
A worry was then raised with the project of defining co-production: we need to avoid being ‘imperialistic’ with our definition and imposing our ideas on other people as there is real benefit in people taking local ownership of the ideas and coming up with their own definitions. There was broad agreement about this. It was suggested that, instead of a definition, maybe we ought to come up with a set of principles or questions, or a diagram (Adrian has one already) that people could take on board when offering their own definitions.
Despite this, there was still a sense that people wanted to be able to offer some sort of answer to a room full of people when they ask what co-production is. Further, it would be helpful to have a definition to use when Local Authorities say that they’re doing co-production when they are only doing a partial job, to make clear to them that co-production is more than consultation.
This latter point provoked a discussion on the relationship between co-production and consultation. It was suggested that consultation can actually be a vital part of co-production, it’s just that co-production in full means more than this. In general, we should keep in mind that our definition is not about what is real co-production but, rather, what is full co-production. When LAs tell us they’re doing co-production because they’re doing consultation, our response shouldn’t be to tell them that what they’re doing isn’t really consultation. They are doing a small bit of co-production through this; the point is that they are missing a lot as well.
People agreed to the idea that a short definition should be given, in conjunction with a set of principles and questions, and a diagram as well. As a compromise between the tension of needing an explanatory definition, but without wanting to impose one as the ‘sole’ definition, we agreed to introduce the definition with some text explaining our position.
Explanatory text (to be agreed by the group)
The national Co-production Critical Friends Group suggests the following definition of co-production as one which describes the transformative and radical potential of co-production.
Co-production is a relationship where professionals and citizens share power to plan and deliver support together, recognising that both sides have vital contributions to make in order to improve quality of life for people and communities.
We hope this definition is a clear description of the concept for those who are new to the term. If you are thinking of taking on co-production yourself, we would recommend creating a local definition (see more below).
To go alongside the Critical Friends’ definition, we have also suggested some values and principles below, which we think show how quality and depth of co-production can be achieved.
• Sharing power;
• Equality and partnership;
• Changing the way the whole system works;
• Being accessible and inclusive: this might include paying people for their time, or valuing their contributions in another way;
• Encouraging reciprocity and mutual support between people;
• Using assets and resources, and recognising what people already contribute;
• Being open and transparent.
Creating a local definition
If you are developing co-production within your own organisation, project or group, one of the most important steps is to discuss and agree a local definition of co-production. The process of discussing what co-production might look like locally, and what values and principles people feel are important is essential to building a shared understanding, ideally with everyone who will be involved.
Appendix 1: Definition of Co-Production, Adrian Barker
It is important to start by considering the purpose and role of a definition.
There is no ‘right answer’ of what co-production means, waiting to be discovered, out there in the world. ‘We’ can decide what concept the word relates to. While a definition agreed by the Critical Friends Group would help communication within the group, it would obviously have more significance if adopted more widely.
There are two imperatives for a definition, pulling in opposite directions:
· simplicity, especially for those for whom co-production is not central
· nuance, so that those who are intimately involved with it can speak with more clarity and precision.
It may be possible to satisfy these requirements by identifying a simple (but powerful) definition which is widely propagated, but at the same time mapping a range of concepts with clear nomenclature to aid communication between ‘specialists’.
However, there is a third factor. This may be thought of as:
· safeguarding ‘the brand’, protecting it from misuse and being brought into disrepute.
However it may go further than this. Words have non-neutral value connotations. Different definitions may encourage supporters or opponents of the concept. So as well as a technical role, a definition has a (small ‘p’) political function. The risk is that recruiting the word for particular purposes privileges some meanings and tries to eclipse others rather than using words to provide clarity and then applying arguments and value judgements to the concepts.
There are a number of existing definitions of co-production, which seem to do the job quite well and are worth revisiting before considering new ones.
The original definition of co-production was
“process through which inputs used to produce a good or service are contributed by individuals who are not ‘in’ the same organisation”
(From the work of Elinor Ostrom and colleagues, Quoted in Boyle and Harris, 2009, p.13.)
The definition devised at the start of the nef-NESTA work on co-production remains valid:
“Co-production means delivering public services in an equal and reciprocal relationship between professionals, people using services, their families and their neighbours.”
(Boyle and Harris 2009)
However, this emphasises the qualitative aspect of the concept to the exclusion of others, as did the further work which prioritised:
· recognising people as assets
· building on people’s existing capabilities
· mutuality and reciprocity
· peer support networks
· blurring distinctions
· facilitating rather than delivering (Boyle et al 2010).
One of the great strengths of this approach is get across the qualitative change involved in co-production. This is not just a technical change in the way things are produced: it involves a change of attitude and approach.
However, that is perhaps best applied as a qualifier – that is co-production done well.
The Governance International distinction (Loeffler et al 2012, pp.9-10) between:
· co-commissioning
· co-design
· co-delivery
· co-assessing
is helpful in recognising that co-production can apply to different stages of the ‘production’ process.
Their definition is:
“the public sector and citizens making better use of each other’s assets, resources and contributions to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency.” (p.9)
Another issue is what range of services we want the term to be able to apply to, potentially in the private as well as the public sector. At the very least, we need to be aware whether we are talking only about the public sector, and only some parts of it, e.g. health and social care.
Alford (2009) uses a broader definition:
“Co-production is any active behaviour by anyone outside the government agency which:
· is conjoint with agency production, or is independent of it but prompted by some action of the agency;
· is at least partly voluntary; and
· either intentionally or unintentionally creates private and/or public value, in the form of either outputs or outcomes.” (Alford, 2009, p.23).
There are a number of dimensions which can help define an array of concepts within co-production.
· Personal – collective (user vs citizen involvement). Whether an individual’s contribution is to benefit themselves (e.g. personal budgets); to support specific others, (often with a personal connection e.g. those cared for); to provide peer support (e.g. a service users’ support group); contributes to collective benefit (e.g. neighbourhood litter collection); or some combination.
· Additive vs substitutive – whether part of the service is transferred from the professional to the public or whether support from the professional allows the public to do more.
· Relational or transactional. Whether there is direct engagement between the service provider and the member of the public.
· Obligatory or voluntary. Co-production is generally considered to be a voluntary activity, but Alford (2009, p.22) notes that even in highly coercive institutions such as prisons, there is an element of voluntary compliance. He suggests, therefore that it should include activity which is at least partly voluntary.
· Formal or informal. The same result may be produced from different settings. For instance, a doctor may prescribe going to a gym regularly; the doctor may mention in passing during a consultation; or the ‘patient’ may just decide that it would be a good idea to join a gym.
· Active or passive. This is not a clear cut distinction. Taking one’s medication or following a prescription may be felt to be playing an active part in the process or it could be considered as passive compliance. At the extreme end of the continuum, it may mean not doing anything at all. Could not to do something, e.g. not dropping litter be considered ‘co-production’? This risks including too much – e.g. I am contributing to community safety by not robbing a bank. One the other hand, excluding such things could miss out important action – I am choosing not to smoke, leading to improved health for me and a reduction in cost to the public purse.