Co‐production as a route to employability: Lessons from services with lone parents

Abstract

Policy‐makers claim to support personalized approaches to improving the employability of disadvantaged groups. Yet, in liberal welfare states, mainstream activation programmes targeting these groups often deliver standardized, low‐quality services. Such failures may be related to a governance and management regime that uses tightly defined contracting and performance targets to incentivize (mainly for‐profit) service providers to move people into any job as quickly as possible. This article draws on evidence from third sector/public sector‐led services in Scotland to discuss an alternative approach. These services co‐produced personalized support in partnership with disadvantaged service users (in this case vulnerable lone parents). We suggest that, in this case, street‐level co‐production and personalization were facilitated by co‐governance and co‐management in the design and organization of provision. We conclude by identifying lessons for future employability services.

Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-Creation

“…Finally, we need to mention co-governance and co-management as additional concepts that (could) add to the conceptual ambiguity and confusion around the terms of co-production and co-creation. In the context of creation of innovative, personalised public services, co-governance, and co-management are referred to as the framework that (dis)enables the synergy of different actors' knowledge and resources (Lindsay et al 2018). According to Lindsay et al (2018), co-governance and co-management both serve as important facilitators of co-production.…”

“…In the context of creation of innovative, personalised public services, co-governance, and co-management are referred to as the framework that (dis)enables the synergy of different actors' knowledge and resources (Lindsay et al 2018). According to Lindsay et al (2018), co-governance and co-management both serve as important facilitators of co-production. While co-governance features the level of definition of broad programme aims and priorities, co-management refers to the operational level, where materialisation of such broader aims occurs through joint management of resources, design, and delivery of public services.…”

Co‐production and social innovation in street‐level employability services: Lessons from services with lone parents in Scotland

“…Brandsen and Pestoff () and Pestoff () have differentiated between “co‐production” at the frontline, where users produce and shape their own services in collaboration with street‐level workers, and two potential facilitating mechanisms: “co‐governance”, in which different stakeholders participate actively in the design and planning of services on the basis of shared decision‐making and responsibility; and “co‐management”, referring to collaboration across stakeholders in resourcing and delivery, based on the idea that services will be more effective where resources and expertise are pooled among different organizations and stakeholder groups. These inter‐connected concepts of co‐production, co‐governance and co‐management have been deployed to explore the design and delivery of personalised services for vulnerable groups such as the long‐term unemployed (Pestoff, ) and lone parents experiencing poverty (Lindsay et al, ).…”

Research approaches to networked employment services: A systematic review

“…This agenda is also focused on examining collaboration opportunities and barriers in addition to scrutinising how collaboration efforts are organised. The most significant issues include how networks link central and local government (Diamond, 2008), public services and users (Lindsay, Pearson, Batty, Cullen, & Eadson, 2018), employers (Klimplova, 2011), third sector organisations (Lindsay, Osborne, & Bond, 2014) and health services (Lindsay & Dutton, 2010).…”