Co-Production and Homelessness Solutions

Introduction:

Homelessness is a major concern in society nowadays. Majority of the people in society are homeless due to lack of jobs, income, education and social opportunities. The assignment is going to demonstrate the co-production and partnership working in terms of identifying the social issues and solving this issue in an effective manner. Moreover, this report will also highlight the management and development of the professional partnership, in order to maintain the sharing of power and responsibilities among the professional and users. Finally, it will discuss the social exclusion due to inequalities and the issue of exclusion can be resolved.

Demonstrating the roles of Co-production partnership in addressing the issues of inequality:

Co-production:

In the context of the public service, co-production is the process which facilitates the public with proper service and facilities in order to make positive social changes (Voorberg et al. 2015). It enables people to receive and provides effective service in order to share their responsibilities amend power in order to work together for promoting the equal reciprocal and caring relations among one another. Co-production assists the public to receive the high-quality service when they need this and contribute their best effort to promote the positive social changes.

Principles of the co-production:

There are five principles of coproduction which are as follows:

Value all the participants and focuses on building their strength, knowledge and abilities

Develop a strong network of support which would assist the professional to build strong relations among one another in order to promote the synergistic working approaches.

Identify the actual reason behind people’s involvement in this co-production process

Develop a trustworthy relationship among the public and professionals.

The public service organisations who conduct the co-production process enable people as the change makers in order to represent the overall c\positive changes and improvement in society.

Roles of co-production in addressing issues inequalities:

In order to promote equal rights, facilities and opportunities for the society people, public service professionals conduct the co-production process (Moran and Lavalette, 2016). This process is associated with performing the following roles, which is important for the equal rights and facilities in the society.

Co-production promotes the equal and reciprocal relationship among the professional, users who receive the service and their family members.

Through this co-production process, public sectors and professionals are able to use the social resources in a well-organised manner and distribute these resources in the society in terms of eliminating the chances of social e\inequalities.

Co-production is not just a concept or process, it is a share solution of different social issues. Through synergistic working, shared decisions and discussion, professional can solve the different social issues such as social exclusion and inequalities.

Co-production in handling social wicked issues:

Wicked issues are the problems that can be solved easily, in order to solve these issues, it is important to develop effective strategies and ideas to finding out a better solution. In the public service context, the co-production process is associated with dealing with different wicked issues in the society such as social exclusion, social inequalities and lack of access to social rights. As stated by Howarth and Monasterolo (2017), the co-production process deals with complicated and complex social issues, which need proper discussion in order to resolve. Through developing effective strategies such as education, better healthcare facilities to the society people. As stated by Poocharoen and Ting (2015), there are different categories of issues in society such as complex, complicated and simple issues, complicated issues are the problems that have been executed by the former professional but bit important solution of the issues can b found out. On the other hand, the complexes issues are not been executed by any professions previously, simple issues are the common social issues such as poverty, lack of education and poor health care facilities to the people belonging the lower socio-economic level in society. Co-production enables professions to discuss these issues in a well-organised manner and solve them accordingly with using the relevant strategies and smart tactics.

The Professional Gift Model:

This model is relevant in order to discuss the roles of co-production in order to address social inequalities (Moran and Lavalette, 2016). There are four aspects in this model such as community, government, providers and persons. Co-production process is associated with maintaining the reciprocal relations among all four aspects of this model. The first aspect so community, which is important for the process of co-production, in which the public service professions address the social issues on the community in order to solve the issue and make a positive transformation in the society. The second aspect is government, which is associated with setting effective rules and legislation for the community welfare and maintaining equalities in society. Co-production process emphasizes on sharing of power and responsibilities by the professions in order to assist the public to abide by the governmental rules and get the proper governmental facilities. The provider is the third aspect of this model. In the public service context, the service providers or public service professional would determine how they deliver them effectively in order to meet the needs of the public. The fourth aspect of this model is persons, which receive the service from public service professions. Persons would be provided with high service that would meet their social, emotional, and physical needs.

Different legislations associated with the co-production process:

Co-production process is not only associated with maintaining the effective and reciprocal relationship among people but also it focuses on implementing the governmental legislation in order to make proper improvement of the entire society (Poocharoen and Ting, 2015). Public service professionals follow different legislations maintaining equal rights, facilities and legal opportunities in society. In order to promote the co-production process public service professionals focus on the following aspects:

Health and social care:

National outcomes Framework (2016)

Social Service and Wellbeing Act (Wales) 2014

Prudent Healthcare Principles (2015)

A healthier Wales (2018)

Making Choice Together (Choosing widely): changing the clinical conversation

Wellbeing and sustainability:

The wellbeing of Future Generation (Wales) Act 2015

Vibrant and Viable Places: New Regeneration Framework

Through focusing on these legislations and principles, public service professionals focus on the individual needs of people in society and take effective strategies to meet these needs in order to achieve positive outcomes. As stead by Howarth and Monasterolo (2017), through implementing the relevant legislation, public service professions put the individual needs at the centre to reach the expected outcomes in order to promote the wellbeing of people. Through measuring the success of the care process, public service providers can evaluate whether they are able to achieve the wellbeing and welfare of the society people. Through providing the [preventative service, professionals are able to minimise the critical needs in society, such as by using strategies in distributing the social resources in an equal manner in the society in order to reduce the social inequality and social exclusion.

Social services and wellbeing Act:

Under these act public service professions need to follow the four principles which are as follows:

People: Public service professionals need to put the individual and their need at the centre of their work in order to achieve the expected outcomes (Buffel, 2018). For example, in order to make a positive transformation in society, public service professional execute the actual needs of society people and set struggles to meet these needs.

Wellbeing: Professions assist public in order to measure their own wellbeing by determining the effectiveness of care and facilities that they receive from society (Jung and Valero, 2016).

Earlier intervention: Professionals need to increase the level of preventable services that are important for reducing the social issues such as social inequalities, income inequalities, poor healthcare facilities and social exclusions (Fitzpatrick et al. 2018).

Collaboration, partnership and interrelation: Through co-production, professions are able to form the reciprocal relationship among the service providers and public, through building the trustworthy relationship among them in order to play partnership working between agencies and organisations.

Social service and wellbeing through Coproduction Public service:

Co-production principles: Public service agencies and organisations need to follow the codes of conducts in order to provide proper service to the public in order to meet their needs and promote the positive transformation of society.

Co-produced commissioning: it is associated with maintaining the healthy partnership among staffs, service recipient and wider community (Bremer and Meisch, 2017). Through building a trustworthy relationship among professions, the public who receives the service and wider community, it is possible to conduct the synergistic working. In order to deal with different social issues in society, the public service professional can develop and set effective strategies in order to deal with the issues.

Co-produced assessment: Through co-production assessment process, the public service professions and agencies can evaluate the service delivery process and type of care are useful for meeting the needs of society people (Voorberg et al. 2015). Through the assessment of needs and outcomes, the public service agencies and organisation would be able to understand whether the services are able to achieve the expected outcomes or not.

Co-produced evaluation: In order to evaluate the usefulness of service that has been delivered to the service users, the professions would link the services with the National Outcomes Framework (Poocharoen and Ting, 2015). If the services successfully meet each criterion of this framework then it is proved that professions are able to meet the needs of society by providing this service.

Partnership:

Definition to partnership working:

In public service context, partnership working is the synergistic process of working, in which professionals work with the service recipient, their family and neighbours, in order to agree their own values, idea and thoughts in term of executing and meeting needs of service recipients. According to Voorberg et al. (2015), partnership working assist organisational and agencies to enable professionals to provide proper respect to one another in order to maintain a well-disciplined collaborative working process. In public service context, the partnership working is associated with role divisions, accountability, right to information, sharing power and responsibilities, developing the competence of ensure team and assisting each other's skill enhancement.

Partnership working in addressing the Homelessness:

In public service context, the partnership working focuses on different social issues such as homelessness, poverty, inequality, lack of education, unequal income distribution in society. For example, there is increasing rates of homelessness in Canada and California. From the statistical database it is seen that in California, 2000,000 young people under the age of 18 and thousands of people with age group 18-24 are homeless. The reason behind this homelessness is poor economic status, poor family income, lack of education and poor housing facilities. As stead by Voorberg et al. (2015), public service p[professional needs to work synergistically to address this social issue in order to improve the living condition of society people. In Canada, the National Youth Homeless Survey 2016 shows the fact that more than 30,000-40,000 young people are homeless which not only effect their physical health and wellbeing but also affect their psychological health. Through partnership working, public service organisations and agencies focus on different social aspects. As stated by Buffel (2018), members of the public service agencies and organisation work in a synergistic manner in order to solve the social issues and reduce the inequalities in society.

Central roles of community members:

Partnership working assists the local community members who work in public service agencies to rectify the social, physical, economic and psychological needs of the society members (Moran and Lavalette, 2016). The members work collaboratively with the other public service officials in order to provide government support and allocation to the needy people in society. For example, community member and public service officials in Minneapolis, work together in order to provide the voluntary host homes to the LGBT youths.

Central roles of business and private sectors:

Public service professionals work in association with the local officials in order to provide proper facilities to the women in the society regarding improving their living standard, health, education and living standard. For example, in Calgary, the public service organisation and agencies focus on providing the casework and roommates support to women in order to offer them a secure living and housing facility.

Roles of coalition and alliance:

Coalition partners work together in order to support the communities in implementing and planning solutions as well as engage government. As mentioned by Howarth and Monasterolo (2017), through coalition it is possible for organisation and agencies to work synergistically with\ the government ad general; public in order to promote healthy lives and wellbeing of society people. For example, A Way Home’s Visions is conducted in the Canada government in association with eth public service agencies and association in order to provide the proper housing facilities to the homeless people in the society. Through this strategy, public service officials’ work in partnership with the family’s of homeless people in order to understand their needs, preference and issues.

Development and management of the professional partnership:

Successful partnership plans involve all the key partners it takes the proper action plan in order to set the key strategies ad millstones for implementing the overall planning. As stated by Whiteford and Simpson (2015), through partnership working, public service agencies and organisation focus on developing projects in order to benefit the society people and improve their overall status. Through proper development and management of partnership working, the local, regional and national agencies work together on identifying the social issues such as inequality, lack of social support and education, inequality birth in income and power distribution and poor healthcare facilities.

Impact of partnership working on Homelessness and social innovation:

Through proper development and management of partnership working, different public service organisations work synergistically with the national and local government in order to deal with homelessness and social innovation. According to Turner et al. (2017), homelessness is a major social issues that can be seen in different countries across the world. In many developed countries such as Canada, California, Los Angeles and Wales, majority of the young population suffers from the harmlessness and poor living conduction which not only affect their physical health but also affect their emotional and psychological wellbeing. In California, more than 200,000 young people with age group 18-20, suffer from homelessness. They face poor living condition which spreads severe infections, disease and inflammation. On the other hand in Wales, over 7000 young people under the age of 24 are homeless. In Los Angeles, the population of homeless people are 6000 in 2017.

Partnership working to reduce homelessness and promote social innovation:

Through proper management and development of partnership working, organisation and agencies work synergistically with the local and national government to provide the proper support and care to the society people. Public service professions and agencies have already taken different strategies such as community engagement, offering housing facilities and income generation for the young population. Majority of the young population in Canada, California and Wales are homeless because of their poor economic status, lack of job opportunities and severe conflict with family members. As mentioned by Tucker et al. (2017), with co-production and coalition, the local and national agencies offer the housing facilities to these homeless people, in order to improve their living condition. Through social innovation, members of the public service organisation, it is possible to offer education, job opportunities, skilled development and knowledge enhancement of the community people, in order to make them, independent to find out proper income source that will reduce the rising number of homelessness in the society.

Community engagement through developing partnership working:

In order to promote the community engagement different agencies and public service organisation work together with such as Communities of Youth Service Organisation, geographical communities and communities of allies (Tsai et al. 2017). These organisations work collaboratively in order to perform different community roles such as advocacy, informing, volunteering, and fundraising, educating and providing housing facilities. Through developing this process, it is possible for the professionals to maintain the overall improvement of the community in terms of getting proper housing facilities, education, skill development opportunities, income opportunities and suitable jobs and healthy living condition.

Adverse childhood’s experience:

Partnership working is associated with improving the adverse childhood experiences such as molestation, discrimination, bias, tormented family condition and poor support from the family members as well as from the parents. As stead by Simpson (2015), there are several; NGOs and public service organisation that work for children’s rights and their protection. Childcare Committee in the UK works on children's freedom, education and their rights in order to protect them from any kind of abuse and maltreatment. Members of the Childcare association and committees work in association with the local and national government in order to implement the childcare policies into practice (Jung and Valero, 2016). This assists the members to work synergistically on addressing different childcare issues such as adverse childhood experience, lack of family support and lack of education. Moreover professionals of the childcare organisation work in association with the family members and parent of children, in order to provide proper knowledge about how they can support and care their children in order to improve their health and wellbeing. UK based childcare committees and the organisation follow different regulations such as the Childcare Act 2006 and UK Children Care Legislations, in order to ensure that every child would get proper education and social support in the society.

Partnership working in healthcare housing and social care context:

In health and social care context, partnership working is most important aspects which assist the organisational members to work synergistically in terms of addressing and meeting the community needs (Munthe-Kaas et al. 2016). Through collaborative working, the public service organisation work several community issues such as issues regarding education, housing facilities and community improvement. Professionals of a public service organisation in Wales follows the Wellbeing and Future Generation Act, which assist them, to address the issues regarding health and wellbeing of society people. Under this act, the public service professions focus on offering the proper healthcare facilities, proper social support, housing facilities, sanitation, hygiene and free health check-up for poor people. In health and social care context, the public health organisation provide proper health care facilities, regular health checkups and effective medicines to the poor people, especially the women and pregnant mothers in order to maintain their proper health and wellbeing (Jung and Valero, 2016). Moreover, Health care executives (HSE), are also the public health professions who work collaboratively as a team in order to provide the health education to poor villagers and rural people in order to keep them up-to-date with recent medical facilities and allocation that are announced by government for improvement of health and wellbeing of poor people.

Conclusion:

From the above-mentioned discussion, it can be concluded that homelessness is the common aspects that have been reported to be seen in most of the countries. The major reason behind this rising homelessness in urban areas is inequalities and uneven social support. Majority of the people residing in the urban areas suffers from severe poverty and scarcity of jobs due to unequal distribution of power and income. Homelessness is a common situation in Wales, Los Angeles and Canada where the majority of the young population are homeless due to lack of family and social support and scarcity of suitable jobs. Different public service organisations work on these social issues in order to provide proper housing facilities to these homeless people. The professionals work in partnership with the local and national government in order to address the social issues and promote proper social innovation that would offer the community people healthy living condition and wellbeing.

Reference list:

Abramovich, A., 2016. Preventing, reducing and ending LGBTQ2S youth homelessness: The need for targeted strategies. Social Inclusion, 4(4), pp.86-96.

Adams, E.N., Clark, H.M., Galano, M.M., Stein, S.F., Grogan-Kaylor, A. and Graham-Bermann, S., 2018. Predictors of housing instability in women who have experienced intimate partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, p.0886260518777001.

Beaton, L. and Freeman, R., 2016. Oral health promotion and homelessness: A theory-based approach to understanding processes of implementation and adoption. Health Education Journal, 75(2), pp.184-197.

Bremer, S. and Meisch, S., 2017. Co‐production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(6), p.e482.Buffel, T., 2018. Social research and co-production with older people: Developing age-friendly communities. Journal of aging studies, 44, pp.52-60.

Dorney-Smith, S., Hewett, N., Khan, Z. and Smith, R., 2016. Integrating health care for homeless people: experiences of the KHP pathway homeless team. British Journal of Healthcare Management, 22(4), pp.215-224.

Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Bramley, G., Wilcox, S., Watts, B. and Wood, J., 2018. The homelessness monitor: England 2018. London: Crisis.

Howarth, C. and Monasterolo, I., 2017. Opportunities for knowledge co-production across the energy-food-water nexus: Making interdisciplinary approaches work for better climate decision making. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, pp.103-110.

Jayasundara, D.S., Legerski, E.M., Danis, F.S. and Ruddell, R., 2018. Oil development and intimate partner violence: Implementation of Section 8 housing policies in the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana. Journal of interpersonal violence, 33(21), pp.3388-3416.

Jung, K. and Valero, J.N., 2016. Assessing the evolutionary structure of homeless network: social media use, keywords, and influential stakeholders. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, pp.51-60.

Kennedy, A.C., Bybee, D. and Greeson, M.R., 2015. Intimate partner violence and homelessness as mediators of the effects of cumulative childhood victimization clusters on adolescent mothers’ depression symptoms. Journal of family violence, 30(5), pp.579-590.

Moran, R. and Lavalette, M., 2016. Co-production: workers, volunteers and people seeking asylum–‘popular social work’in action in Britain. Social Work in a Diverse Society: Transformative Practice with Black and Minority Ethnic Individuals and Communities, p.109.

Munthe-Kaas, H., Berg, R.C. and Blaasvaer, N., 2016. Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Homelessness: A Systematic Review.

Neideck, G., Siu, P. and Waters, A., 2015. Meeting national information needs on homelessness: Partnerships in developing, collecting and reporting homelessness services statistics. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 31(2), pp.277-284.

Pavlakis, A.E., 2018. Reaching all families: Family, school, and community partnerships amid homelessness and high mobility in an urban district. Urban Education, 53(8), pp.1043-1073.

Simpson, J., 2015. Police and homeless outreach worker partnerships: Policing of homeless individuals with mental illness in Washington, DC. Human Organization, 74(2), p.125.

Sullivan, C.M., Bomsta, H.D. and Hacskaylo, M.A., 2016. Flexible funding as a promising strategy to prevent homelessness for survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, p.0886260516664318.

Tsai, J., Middleton, M., Villegas, J., Johnson, C., Retkin, R., Seidman, A., Sherman, S. and Rosenheck, R.A., 2017. Medical-legal partnerships at Veterans Affairs medical centers improved housing and psychosocial outcomes for vets. Health Affairs, 36(12), pp.2195-2203.

Tucker, J.S., D'Amico, E.J., Ewing, B.A., Miles, J.N. and Pedersen, E.R., 2017. A group-based motivational interviewing brief intervention to reduce substance use and sexual risk behavior among homeless young adults. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 76, pp.20-27.

Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J. and Tummers, L.G., 2015. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), pp.1333-1357.

Walsh, C.A., Lorenzetti, L., St-Denis, N., Murwisi, P. and Lewis, T., 2016. Community Voices: Insights on social and human services from people with lived experiences of homelessness. Review of Social Sciences, 1(2), pp.27-41.

Whiteford, M. and Simpson, G., 2015. A codex of care: assessing the Liverpool Hospital Admission and Discharge Protocol for Homeless People. International Journal of Care Coordination, 18(2-3), pp.51-56.