Assessing the impact of co-production on pathways to outcomes in public services: the case of policing and criminal justice

Loeffler, Elke; Bovaird, Tony

doi:10.1080/10967494.2019.1668895

Cited by 51 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Vanleene, Verschuere, and Voets (2015), the outcomes of coproduction can be divided into different clusters. Building on this idea, the following five rationales are identified by the present study as overall outcomes that represent the logic for adopting co-production as an organisational recipe (Mortensen, forthcoming): 'realisation of innovation potential' (Pestoff and Brandsen 2010;Osborne, McLaughlin, and Chew 2008;Lindsay, Osborne, and Bond 2014;Osborne, Radnor, and Strokosch 2016), 'better individual well-being and citizen empowerment' (Jo and Nabatchi 2018;Needham 2008;Bovaird and Loeffler 2012), 'increased effectiveness and efficiency' (Vanleene, Verschuere, and Voets 2015), 'mobilisation of resources' (Bovaird 2007;Loeffler and Bovaird, forthcoming), and 'increased democracy' (Verschuere et al 2018;Pestoff 2009; Vanleene, Verschuere, and Voets 2015). These rationales do not represent a comprehensive list but draw on the different theoretical arguments for co-production in the public sector (Pestoff 2019).…”

Section: Co-production Definitions and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Proposed outcomes of co-production: five rationales Scant empirical studies have reported on the outcomes of co-production (Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015;Loeffler and Bovaird, forthcoming). A review by Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers (2015) determined that 80% of the studies labelling themselves as addressing co-production did not focus on the outcomes of co-production.…”

Section: Co-production Definitions and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government

Brix

Krogstrup

Mortensen

2019

Local Government Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New Public Governance assumes that co-production leads to beneficial outcomes, such as increased efficiency and better citizen well-being. However, few empirical studies have documented these outcomes, and some have demonstrated that the assumed outcomes do not emerge. This study establishes that co-production is a complex, social phenomenon, which implies that there cannot be a clear cause-effect relationship between co-production activities and their outcomes. To qualify and enable further empirical investigation of the outcomes of co-production, the study proposes that contribution analysis should be applied as an appropriate evaluation paradigm to theoretically reduce complexity and define a generic programme theory for co-production. The study also discusses how the creation and operationalisation of a local coproduction programme theory can take place to evaluate the relationship between co-production initiatives and outcomes on a localised level. Finally, directions are provided for how the outcomes of co-production can be coevaluated with citizens.

show abstract

Section: Co-production Definitions and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Co-production Definitions and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government

Brix

Krogstrup

Mortensen

2019

Local Government Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rst group comprises antecedents that limit the effectiveness of the 'interactional process' due to the lack of resources by consumers and/or providers. This group includes consumers the lack of technical information [16], knowledge of users' needs and expectations [19], transparency and understanding of each other parties' roles and responsibilities [15], trust [37] and public investment [25]. The second group of antecedents of co-destruction consists of limitations related to the context of analysis such as rigidities of the public service organizations [19].…”

Section: Co-destruction In the Public Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The last group comprises antecedents that encourage misbehaviours in participants during and after the interaction process. This group includes misbehaviour by participants such as corruption, infringement of privacy, discrimination [25], listlessness and denial [6,19].…”

Section: Co-destruction In the Public Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Potential Pitfalls of Co-production: An Overview on the Co-design of Public Services with and for Family Caregivers Living in Rural and Remote Area

Gheduzzi

Masella

Morelli

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Co-production has been widely recognized as a plausible solution to reduce users’ dissatisfactions, service providers’ inefficacy and to diminish conflicts in relations between users and providers. However, this enhancement of co-production has started to be query: co-production is not always a panacea and its effects may not be always fruitful. To understand and prevent unsuccessful users and providers’ collaboration, the recent literature has stated to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates the possible factors that may facilitate the shifting of a co-production process applied to family caregivers of older patients living in rural and remote area, into a co-destruction process by looking at the whole service network. Methods: To investigate this open topic, we performed a single case study by looking at a longitudinal project (Place4Carers) that aimed at co-producing a new public service with and for family caregivers of older patients living in rural and remote area. We organised collaborative workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the perspectives of family caregivers and service providers on the co-production process. As part of the research team that participated at the co-production process, the authors joined the reflections with a reflexive approach. Results: Results confirmed the occurrence of some causes of co-destruction suggested by Jarvi’s model during the co-production process: insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to change from caregivers and inability to serve from providers. Moreover, they identified the difficulty of creating a cohesive partnership between research members as a possible pitfall of co-production. However, all these causes did not imply an inevitable process of co-destruction. Conclusions: Our article suggests that pitfalls identified by Jarvi and the cultural differences within research members can actually influence co-production but do not inevitably lead to co-destruction. Moreover, we argued that co-creation and co-destruction processes might coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent and recover from co-destruction effects. To this ends, conviviality could be a powerful tool to avoid lack of trust and create a successful co-production.Plain English SummaryCo-production, defined as ‘the provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized service providers and service users or other members of the community, where all parties make substantial resource contributions’[1], has been widely recognized as a plausible solution to reduce users’ dissatisfaction, providers’ service inefficacy and to diminish conflicts in relations between users and providers. However, the effectiveness of co-production has started to be queried. This paper investigated the possible factors that may facilitate the shifting of a co-production process into a co-destruction process by looking at all the actors of the service network. To this end, we performed a single case study by investigating the co-production of new public service with family caregivers of elderly people living in rural and remote area, a local home care agency and researchers. Participants were interviewed about pro and cons of the co-production process. The results highlighted that the effectiveness of co-production was limited by some pitfalls: insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to change and inability to serve. Moreover, a difficulty of creating a cohesive partnership between research members has been highlighted as a challenging factor in the co-production process. However, all these factors did not imply an inevitable process of co-destruction. Indeed, the process of co-production resulted to have both pitfalls and benefits. Therefore, researchers and service providers should facilitate the shifting from negative toward positive effects of co-production. To this ends, conviviality could be a powerful tool to avoid lack of trust and create a successful co-production.

show abstract

Co-delivering Public Services and Public Outcomes

Loeffler

2020

The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the impact of co-production on pathways to outcomes in public services: the case of policing and criminal justice

Cited by 51 publications

References 44 publications

Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government

Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government

The Potential Pitfalls of Co-production: An Overview on the Co-design of Public Services with and for Family Caregivers Living in Rural and Remote Area

Co-delivering Public Services and Public Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About