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

1. Co-production, local
government and the
potential contribution of
online neighbourhood
networks
Tony Bovaird
TSRC/INLOGOV November 2010

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. REAL Value for Money is
about the wider supply
chain through to outcomes

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. (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. (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. •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.  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.  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.  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. 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. Case 6: Co-Assess (complaints management,
LB of Camden)

17. Listening and responding

18. Listening and responding

19. Listening and responding

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. 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. 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. Contact
T.Bovaird@bham.ac.uk