Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:21:22.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Street-Level Practice, Personalisation and Co-Production in Employability: Insights from Local Services with Lone Parents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2019

Colin Lindsay ,
Sarah Pearson ,
Elaine Batty ,
Anne Marie Cullen  and
Will Eadson
Colin Lindsay
Affiliation:
Department of Work, Employment and Organisation, University of Strathclyde E-mail: [email protected]
Sarah Pearson
Affiliation:
Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University E-mail: [email protected]
Elaine Batty
Affiliation:
Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University E-mail: [email protected]
Anne Marie Cullen
Affiliation:
Scottish Centre for Employment Research, University of Strathclyde E-mail: [email protected]
Will Eadson
Affiliation:
Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policymakers in the UK have promised to deliver personalised employability services for vulnerable jobseekers. However, unemployed people often describe their engagement with state-funded services as defined by: the offer of low cost, standardised job search services; and pressure to accept any job, irrespective of quality or appropriateness. This article argues that more progressive, co-produced alternatives are possible. We draw on an evaluation of local, third sector-led services targeting lone parents (LPs) in five local government areas in Scotland. Our research involved more than 100 in-depth interviews with both service providers and LPs. We find that partnership-oriented co-governance mechanisms facilitated collaborative approaches to the management of services and processes of co-production. LPs expressed positive views of the personalised services that were co-produced. We conclude that a commitment to collaboration and co-production may be more effective in promoting personalised services that are responsive to the needs of vulnerable groups.

Keywords

Employabilityco-governanceco-managementco-productionactivation
Type
Themed Section: Rethinking Welfare-to-Work for the Long-Term Unemployed
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 647 - 658
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Batty, E., Dayson, C., Eadson, W., Pearson, S., Sanderson, E., Lindsay, C. and Cullen, A. M. (2017) Making it Work: Final Evaluation Report, Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University, https://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/ourexpertise/making-it-work-evaluation [accessed 01.12.2019].Google Scholar
Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. (2006) ‘Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services’, Public Management Review, 8, 4, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, H. (2013) ‘Assets for health’, in Löffler, E., Power, G., Bovaird, T. and Hine-Hughes, F. (eds.), Co-production of Health and Wellbeing in Scotland, Edinburgh: Governance International, 28–33.Google Scholar
Considine, M., O’sullivan, S. and Nguyen, P. (2018) ‘The policymaker’s dilemma: the risks and benefits of a ‘black box’ approach to commissioning active labour market programmes’, Social Policy and Administration, 52, 1, 229–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, A. (2018) ‘Inside co-production: stakeholder meaning and situated practice’, Social Policy and Administration, 53, 2, 219–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuertes, V. and Lindsay, C. (2016) ‘Personalization and street-level practice in activation: the case of the UK Work Programme’, Public Administration, 94, 2, 526–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson-Sharp, N., Munro-Lott, N., Rolfe, H. and Runge, J. (2018) The Impact Of Welfare Reform and Welfare-To-Work Programmes, Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.Google Scholar
Johnsen, S. and Blenkinsopp, J. (2018) Final Findings: Lone Parents. (Welfare Conditionality: Final Findings Reports), York: University of York.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C., Pearson, S., Batty, E., Cullen, A. M. and Eadson, W. (2018a) ‘Street-level practice and the co-production of third sector-led employability services’, Policy and Politics, 46, 4, 517–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, C., Pearson, S., Batty, E., Cullen, A. M. and Eadson, W. (2018b) ‘Co-production as a route to employability: lessons from services with lone parents’, Public Administration, 96, 2, 318–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, C., Pearson, S., Batty, E., Cullen, A. M. and Eadson, W. (2018c) ‘Co-production and social innovation in street-level employability services: lessons from services with lone parents in Scotland’, International Social Security Review, 71, 4, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löffler, E. (2016) ‘Co-production of public services and outcomes’, in Bovaird, T. and Löffler, E. (eds.), Public Management and Governance, Abingdon: Routledge, 318–36.Google Scholar
Löffler, E. and Bovaird, T. (2018) ‘From participation to co-production: widening and deepening the contributions of citizens to public services and outcomes’, in Ongaro, E. and Van , S.Thiel (eds.), Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 403–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, M. and Crosse, R. (2018) ‘Lone activation in Ireland: putting the cart before the horses?’, Social Policy and Administration, 52, 1, 111–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z. and Strokosch, K. (2016) ‘Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?’, Public Management Review, 18, 5, 639–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestoff, V. (2012) ‘New public governance, co-production and third sector social services in Europe: crowding in and crowding out’, in Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. and Verschuere, B. (eds.), New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production, London: Routledge, 361–81.Google Scholar
Rafferty, A. and Wiggan, J. (2017) ‘The time-related under-employment of LPs during welfare reform, recession and austerity: a challenge to in-work conditionality’, Social Policy and Administration, 51, 5, 511–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skills Network (2014) What’s Our Story? Mothers in Lambeth Share Their Experiences and Perceptions of Jobcentre Plus, London: Skills Network.Google Scholar
Stack, R. and Meredith, A. (2018) ‘The impact of financial hardship on single parents: an exploration of the journey from social distress to seeking help’, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39, 2, 233–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strokosch, K. and Osborne, S. (2017) ‘Co-producing across organisational boundaries: promoting asylum seeker integration in Scotland’, Voluntas, 28, 5, 1881–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. (2012) ‘Co-production: the state of the art in research and the future agenda’, Voluntas, 23, 4, 1083–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar