The experience of ‘co-producing’ early childhood policy under the Coalition Government

Eva Lloyd, Cass

ReDS research conference 26 June 2013

Policy consultation

Consult, v. i. To seek another’s approval of a course already decided on.

(Ambrose Bierce (1911) The devil’s dictionary. Volume 7. The collected works of Ambrose Bierce. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co)

Presentation aims

• to examine the concept of ‘co-production’ as a form of participatory governance

• to describe the process of co-producing early childhood policies under the Coalition Government

• to explore whether co-production added value to recent early childhood policy developments

Focus

• English early childhood policy development led by the Department for Education 2011 – 2013 in collaboration with the Department of Health

• co-production as a process of face-to-face working meetings of groups of sector specialists, supported and informed by civil servants

• co-production as a policy consultation format most closely resembling Skelcher and Torfing’s (2010) model of ‘policy exploration through deliberative forums’

Defining co-production

There is no doubt that the idea of ‘co-production’ has arrived in the UK. Policymakers are using the term in their speeches, and it is increasingly appearing in Whitehall strategy documents and think-tank reports.

(Boyle and Harris, 2009, p.3)

Participatory governance research

• Barnes et al (2007) on New Labour’s strategies for involving ‘active citizens’ in policy making

• Skelcher and Torfing (2010) impact analysis 4 types participatory governance

• Ball and Exley (2010) on role of think tanks and ‘public intellectuals’ in influencing New Labour’s modernising public policy agenda

• Wampler and McNulty (2011) on research agenda needed to improve understanding of varied effects of participatory governance

• Fenwick et al (2012) on co-governance and ‘meta-bureaucracy’ in local partnerships

Potential benefits of participatory governance

Our view is that the involvement of citizens-as-stakeholders in and through institutional forms of participation will contribute to a responsible production of relevant policy outputs and outcomes through active engagement and democratic deliberation.

(Skelcher and Torfing, 2010, p.76)

An institutional taxonomy for participatory governance

4 broad institutional forms of citizen participation aiming at effective and democratic governance of contemporary societies

1. data gathering though public surveys

2. opinion seeking through public consultation

3. policy exploration through deliberative forums

4. interactive dialogue through governance networks

(Skelcher and Torfing,2010, p.80)

The co-production concept

• co-production is defined as a way of sharing the design/delivery of public services with service users and representative agencies

• strongly promoted by the New Economics Foundation and by NESTA, the national policy innovation charity

• seen as a revolutionary approach to public service reform – deliberative democracy

• co-produced services are claimed to be more effective for the public and more cost-effective for policymakers

(Boyle et al, 2010)

Cabinet Office definition of co-production

Co-production is a partnership between citizens and public services to achieve a valued outcome. Such partnerships empower citizens to contribute more of their own resources (time, will power, expertise and effort) and have greater control over service decisions and resources.

(Horne and Shirley, 2009, p.3)

Co-production via ‘deliberative forums’

Institutional design

• type of citizen• level of participation

• institutionalisation

• influence of actors

(Skelcher and Torfing, 2010, p.83)

for deliberative forums• individual and organised• active and committed

• considerable degree of formal and informal institutionalisation

• considerable, and with unpredictable outcomes for government as deliberative processes are difficult to control

Co-producing a new vision for the early years

• Since the beginning of 2011 a steering group has worked with the Department for Education and the Department of Health to advise on the Government vision for the foundation years

• The Government is committed to ‘co-producing’ this vision, and working collaboratively on the detailed policy and implementation questions which will follow…

• This partnership is what we are calling co-production, and we hope to see it continue and gain in strength after publication

(DFE website 2011, updated 26/04/ 12)

Children’s CentresLeaders

Reference Group

Co-production Steering Group

ACEVO EarlyYears Taskforce

Early Education Co-production

Group

Early Education and

Childcare Workforce

InformationSharing Group

(emerging)

PbR Advisory

BoardUnder 2s Special

Interest Group

Early EducationFunding Group

Co-production arrangements 1/11-07/12Groups

Task and Finish Groups

Independent Group

Co-Chair; Bernadette Duffy & Jane Haywood

Chair; Ann Crichton

Co-Chairs; Eva Lloyd & Neil Leitch

Chair: Anne Longfield

Health eg Integrated

Review DevelopmentGroup

Co-production steering group’s remit

• to champion co-production as a way of working

• to give strategic thought to big policy issues relevant to Families in the Foundation Years

• to provide some accountability to the sector by monitoring and advising on implementation issues and acting as one of several conduits for feedback from the sector

Early Education Co-production group’s work programme

Policy formation

• informing Foundation Years policy statement

• streamlining statutory guidance – 'code of practice‘

• reviewing LAs’ childcare sufficiency reporting duties 

• shaping 2 year old offer • Reviewing EY Single

Funding Formula

Policy implementation

• implementation early education vision

• drafting autumn 2011 early education consultation

• raising parental education entitlement awareness, especially for disadvantaged parents

• supporting revised EYFS implementation

Early childhood policy decisions outside co-production process

• September 2011:introduction of a single annual intake of 4 year olds into primary school reception classes (mooted under Labour)

• November 2011:doubling of the number of disadvantaged 2 year olds offered free early education by 2014/15; up to 40% of all 2 year olds, some 260.000 children

Progress with co-production

Summer 2012 DFE proposes new group model: • one co-production group as a standing group

(which acts as a critical friend to the Department and brings together independent external perspectives)

• and a series of more focused task and finish groups sitting alongside...

• membership will be on a on a personal basis, rather than as formal representatives of organisations or networks

Recent co-production developments

• September ‘12 ministerial reshuffle: Elizabeth Truss MP (Con) takes over early years portfolio from Sarah Teather MP (LibDem)

• 26 October 12 and 18 March ‘13 final meetings of reformatted co-production group; some ‘task and finish’ groups continuing

• 20 January ‘12 More Great Childcare policy document published

• 17 April ‘13 Opposition asks questions about co-production process in Commons

Response to Opposition’s question about co-production process

Ministers, special advisers and officials have had numerous bilateral and multilateral meetings with members of the Early Education Co-production group, as well as with others with an interest in early years and child care policy, in the period since January 2011 and continue to do so.

(Hansard, 17.04.2013,Column 481W-482W)

Interpreting DFE co-production process

Institutional design does not take place in a vacuum, but is an expression of wider political processes, which may generate compromises by actors or the exercise of authoritative rule by power holders.

(Skelcher and Torfing, 2010, p.88)

...co-production is sometimes blocked because it takes seriously the current political rhetoric about ‘devolving power’ and ‘empowering communities’ …

(Boyle et al, 2010, p.3)

Democratic challenges

Not only are instruments such as governance networks difficult to initiate, sustain and terminate, but it is also difficult to ensure the participation of citizens who are not organized in formal associations or civil society organizations…in addition, governance networks often suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability

(Skelcher and Torfing, 2010, p.82)

The state through policy asymmetries retains a powerful role” (Fenwick et al, 2012, p.417)

Added value of early childhood co-production?

• quality of co-produced early childhood policy documents better ?

• greater awareness created in early years sector of influencing mechanisms beyond internet consultation

• intensive process is costly to stakeholders involved

• curtailing of political support may breed public cynicism about value participatory governance processes

A researcher’s role in co-production

• supping with the devil?• commitment to evidence-based policy making,

informed by robust research findings• co-production processes may further civil

servants’ understanding of potential/actual policy impacts and absorption of research knowledge

(Ouimet et al, 2009)

“Applied social research is political”

(Byrne, 2011, p.195)

ReferencesBall, S.J. and Exley, S. (2010) ‘Making policy with ‘good

ideas’: policy networks and the ‘intellectuals’ of New Labour,’ Journal of Education Policy, 25 (2), pp.151–169

Barnes, M., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H. (2007) Power, participation and political renewal: case studies in public participation. Bristol: The Policy Press

Boyle, D. and Harris, M. (2009) The challenge of co-production. London: NESTA

 Boyle, D., Slay, J. and Stephens, L. (2010) Public services inside out - Putting co-production into practice. London: NEF, The Lab and NESTA

Byrne, D. (2011) Applying social science. Bristol: The Policy Press

References

Fenwick, J., Johnston Miller, K. and McTavish, D. (2012) ‘Co-governance or meta-bureaucracy? Perspectives of local governance ‘partnership’ in England and Scotland,’

Policy & Politics, 40 (3), pp. 405-422

Horne, M. and Shirley, T. (2009) ‘Co-production in public services: a new partnership with citizens’. London: Cabinet Office

Ouimet, M., Landry, R., Ziam, S. and Bédard, P-O. (2009) ‘The absorption of research knowledge by public civil servants,’ Evidence & Policy, 5 (4), pp. 331 – 350

References

Skelcher, C. and Torfing, J. (2010) ‘Improving democratic governance through institutional design: civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe’, Regulation & Governance, 4 (1), pp. 71- 91

Wampler, B. and McNulty, S.L. (2011) Does participatory governance matter? Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars