{"title":"Co-production in syringe service programs: Implementation in a changing organisational field","authors":"THERESA ANASTI","doi":"10.1177/02610183231199667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Co-production in the human services is a way of working that includes the expertise of service users in service implementation. While co-production is often considered a net positive for the co-producing organisation, this can depend on how, with whom, and to what extent co-production is conducted. This study uses qualitative interview data from 26 employees at syringe service programs (SSPs) in a midwestern US state to examine how SSPs implement co-production, and how this challenges or maintains current power dynamics. As the structure of SSPs has been changing from a grassroots, peer-based model to one that includes the expertise of professional medical staff, it is important to consider what these changes might mean for co-production in the field. SSPs have a rich history of being peer-led, and this project uses interviews with SSP staff to determine how the transition into professional and bureaucratic organisations has affected co-production, and in turn, organisational power dynamics. Findings show that respondents reiterate the importance of co-producing services, although there are significant challenges in implementing co-production in an equitable and liberatory way. Staff (both peer providers and non-peer providers alike) remain enthusiastic about the role that peers play in the organisation and are able to acknowledge barriers in collaborative efforts. Implications for the use of co-production in rapidly changing fields is discussed.","PeriodicalId":47685,"journal":{"name":"Critical Social Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183231199667","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Co-production in the human services is a way of working that includes the expertise of service users in service implementation. While co-production is often considered a net positive for the co-producing organisation, this can depend on how, with whom, and to what extent co-production is conducted. This study uses qualitative interview data from 26 employees at syringe service programs (SSPs) in a midwestern US state to examine how SSPs implement co-production, and how this challenges or maintains current power dynamics. As the structure of SSPs has been changing from a grassroots, peer-based model to one that includes the expertise of professional medical staff, it is important to consider what these changes might mean for co-production in the field. SSPs have a rich history of being peer-led, and this project uses interviews with SSP staff to determine how the transition into professional and bureaucratic organisations has affected co-production, and in turn, organisational power dynamics. Findings show that respondents reiterate the importance of co-producing services, although there are significant challenges in implementing co-production in an equitable and liberatory way. Staff (both peer providers and non-peer providers alike) remain enthusiastic about the role that peers play in the organisation and are able to acknowledge barriers in collaborative efforts. Implications for the use of co-production in rapidly changing fields is discussed.
期刊介绍:
Critical Social Policy provides a forum for advocacy, analysis and debate on social policy issues. We publish critical perspectives which: ·acknowledge and reflect upon differences in political, economic, social and cultural power and upon the diversity of cultures and movements shaping social policy; ·re-think conventional approaches to securing rights, meeting needs and challenging inequalities and injustices; ·include perspectives, analyses and concerns of people and groups whose voices are unheard or underrepresented in policy-making; ·reflect lived experiences of users of existing benefits and services;