Abstract
Governments worldwide are increasingly engaging service users to reform public policies and services and enhance public value. Survivors of gender-based violence (GBV) are one group seeking to be heard by governments and gradually being engaged to improve policy outcomes. However, the history of the victims’ rights movement and feminist scholarship on political institutions indicate significant risks for survivors in these engagements with the state. This article examines the nature of these risks and how they are experienced and challenged, through a case study analysis of the implementation of the Australian state of Victoria’s Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council. Analysing government reports and interviews with survivors and policymakers, the article investigates how the state asserts control over survivors under the guise of co-production, inadvertently compromising public value creation. Informed by a feminist institutionalist lens, our analysis finds that efforts to address the power imbalances and gendered norms reflected in the informal rules of co-production are likely to better realise public value in terms of improved outcomes for all members of society, especially those experiencing GBV. The co-production risks we highlight and the ways to mitigate them we suggest are also relevant to other areas of co-production with other marginalised service users.
Key messages
As a site of gendered power, the state struggles to provide a safe space for marginalised groups to be heard.
Co-production with state agencies presents specific risks for survivors of gender-based violence.
The risks of co-production may be addressed through meaningfully challenging and transforming the informal rules of policymaking.
‘There is a perception you should be subordinate.’ (Interview participant and survivor advocate Rosie Batty AO)
Recent policy interventions to address gender-based violence (GBV) globally have sought to engage survivors of GBV in the co-production of reforms to improve responses, services and violence prevention. This development reflects the adoption of co-production practices in other social policy sectors, predominantly healthcare and education (Voorberg et al, 2015). However, as the epigraph from Australian of the Year and family violence lived experience advocate Rosie Batty AO suggests, major tensions and significant power imbalances may be unaddressed in efforts to undertake the co-production of policy.1 In this article, we examine the risks and challenges of co-producing policy reform on GBV and how they are experienced by survivors in particular, through a case study analysis of the implementation of the Australian state of Victoria’s Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC).
While there is little consistency in the definition of co-production, and it is often used interchangeably with terms including ‘co-design’ and ‘co-creation’ (Cluley and Radnor, 2020), it is generally understood as the active involvement of service users in the production process (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000; Voorberg et al, 2015). For clarity, the term ‘co-production’ is used in this article. Much has been written about the importance of co-producing government policies and services with those who use them to ensure their needs are met (see for example, Ostrom, 1990; Alford, 2009). At a macro level, co-production promises to democratise welfare services through increased citizen engagement, thereby superseding an overextended liberal representative democracy (Walzer, 1988; Hirst, 1994). Co-production is also a key strategy for policymakers to address persistent or wicked policy problems (see Caneva, 2013) and improve public value: value consumed collectively by citizens beyond individual needs/interests (Alford, 2009; Loeffler and Bovaird, 2020). In these ways, co-production has been seen to have enormous promise but remains difficult to evaluate.
While some have noted a lack of empirical evidence on co-production outcomes (Voorberg et al, 2015; Loeffler and Bovaird, 2016) and others contend that there cannot be a cause-and-effect relationship between co-production activities and their outcomes (Allen et al, 2019; Brix et al, 2020), there is a burgeoning body of work regarding outcomes, especially in areas of social service provision (see, for example, Flemig and Osborne, 2019; Cluley et al, 2021a; Wallin et al, 2021), with the perspectives of service users/co-producers being included in assessments (Musekiwa and Needham, 2021).
GBV survivors, including family members, frequently ask to be heard in public policy development, often so that no one must go through what they have experienced (Wheildon et al, 2022). Survivors are also increasingly being engaged in and conducting research (see, for example, Hounmenou, 2018 and Lockyer, 2020), with identified benefits including an increased likelihood of acceptance and circulation of research findings. The benefits of survivors sharing lived experiences regarding what needs to change and creating the social and political momentum for change seem clear; the risks are less established. However, an emerging body of literature (Voorberg et al, 2015; Bevir et al, 2019; Dudau et al, 2019) asserts that the risks and limitations associated with co-production can outweigh the public value delivered. This is especially likely where power imbalances exist between service users and the state, and supposedly inclusive processes may, in practice, exclude (Steen et al, 2018; Cluley and Radnor, 2020). According to this view, co-production is just as likely to result in the co-destruction of public value as it is in its co-creation (Plé and Cáceres, 2010; Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Osborne et al, 2018). Recognising this risk, Cluley et al (2021b) have proposed expanding the public value lexicon to include ‘dis/value’.
These risks are pertinent to the engagement of GBV survivors in co-producing public value. Survivors are often marginalised by their lived experiences (for example, by gendered stereotypes and social norms, such as the ideal victim and victim-blaming) and intersecting factors, such as poverty and colonisation.2 This article critically examines the risks and public value creation of co-production with survivors through an in-depth case study of VSAC.
VSAC was established following the 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence and its recommendation that the government develop mechanisms to ensure survivors’ voices shape policy development and service delivery (State of Victoria, 2016). Its establishment was the first of its kind in Australia, attracting international interest. Batty, a prominent survivor advocate, was appointed inaugural Chair (Premier of Victoria, 2016).
Focusing on the first three years of VSAC, this article examines the relevance of the co-production risks identified by Steen et al (2018) and others. It reinterprets these risks through the lens of feminist institutionalism, specifically Lowndes’ model (2020), which identifies the mechanisms through which political institutions are gendered. These mechanisms help us more deeply understand co-production risks, how they arise through formal and informal rules, and how they might be resisted. The article also identifies potential benefits linked to the dimensions of public value proposed by Faulkner and Kaufman (2018).
Our argument results from a thematic analysis of government reports, including the Valuing the Lived Experience report (hereafter ‘VLE report’), which examined the establishment of VSAC through interviews with stakeholders involved in or with an interest in its foundation (FSV, 2019). It is further informed by eight semi-structured interviews with GBV policymakers and an in-depth interview with Batty.
The article begins by synthesising relevant literature on co-production before examining the gendered nature of institutions and the role of formal and informal institutional rules in reinforcing gendered power relations. Next, it outlines the methodology and findings. Ultimately, we contend that co-production presents particular risks for GBV survivors that, unless addressed, will likely compromise public value benefits. We conclude by reflecting on the state as a site of gendered power that struggles to provide a safe space for marginalised groups to be heard and on the importance of reform and resistance.
The potential and the risks of co-production
Lived experience is commonly understood to refer to the experiences of people on whom a social issue, or combination of issues, has had a direct personal impact (Sandhu, 2017). The importance of lived experience to policy development has been documented across disciplines, including as an essential addition to quantitative crime data and mass victimisation surveys (McGarry and Walklate, 2015; Pemberton et al, 2019). The importance of lived experience narratives as testimony, and a form of sensemaking and cathartic release is also well documented (for example, Kearney, 2007; Henry, 2009). Recently, the influence of GBV survivors speaking publicly has been evident through movements and campaigns such as #metoo, naming laws (Megan’s Law, Clare’s Law) and the bestowing of awards, including the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize to sexual violence advocate Nadia Murad. Political scientists have established the key role feminist activism and campaigns play in challenging social norms and compelling governments to make policy change (Weldon and Htun, 2013; True, 2020).
Political scientists have also noted how policy entrepreneurs set new reform agendas precisely because they are outside the regular policymaking context (Roberts and King, 1991; McCaffrey and Salerno, 2011; Davies and True, 2017). Studies have shown how survivor advocates, and their stories of lived experience, can act as policy entrepreneurs and become central to policy reform (Walklate et al, 2019; Wheildon et al, 2022), moving beyond creating momentum for change to shaping it (Crow and Jones, 2018).
Emerging evidence, primarily from the areas of disability, mental health and social care, on the impacts of policies and services co-produced with, and in some cases delivered by, those with lived experience reveals significant benefits for participants, including improved feelings of hope, self-esteem, understanding, connection and empowerment, and health benefits (Nelson et al, 2006; Boyle et al, 2006; Needham and Carr, 2009). As participants in the Piri Pono project, a peer-led, community-based acute residential service for people with mental health conditions in Aotearoa New Zealand, have said: ‘Having someone to talk to, cry with, laugh with, but always feeling safe and cared for. Most of all, never judged.’ And ‘For the first time I wasn’t the only one with an illness in the room, for the first time I was understood, listened to and respected, for the first time I realised that I can possibly have a worthwhile life’ (State of Victoria, 2018–19). Other reported benefits include value for money, improved services (that better reflect service users’ needs), the development of new skills and increased social capital (through new networks and self-confidence) (Needham and Carr, 2009).
Of particular relevance to VSAC is that some of this scholarship also establishes the importance of training those working with citizens in co-production efforts to understand the benefits of sharing power and accepting lived expertise (Gannon and Lawson, 2008; Needham and Carr, 2009). Service users and providers must be empowered, and staff should be ‘supported in positive risk-taking and encouraged to identify new opportunities for collaboration with people who use services’ (Needham and Carr, 2009). According to Bovaird (2007): ‘the service user has to trust professional advice and support, but the professional has to be prepared to trust the decisions and behaviors of service users and the communities in which they live rather than dictate them’ (p 856).
While prioritising service users’ voices is intuitively and empirically a positive development, a rhetoric–reality gap appears in some cases between the promise of co-production theory and what is delivered. Accordingly, scholars have questioned the risks of co-production, particularly for marginalised groups. In their systematic literature review, Voorberg et al (2015) declare co-production to be a ‘magic’, vague concept, meaning it can signify or justify whatever people want. Bevir et al (2019) label it an ‘elite narrative’, out of touch with the realities of public servants working with communities. Dudau et al (2019) call for ‘constructive disenchantment’ with co-production, arguing the ‘co-’ paradigm is seen as part of the solution to a range of citizen concerns about public sector organisations, including declining trust in government, questions of value for money and concurrently, public sector austerity.
Steen et al (2018) contend that co-production may be used to diminish or relinquish government responsibilities, particularly in the context of neoliberalism and small government. They identify this ‘deliberate rejection of responsibility’ as the first of seven risks of co-production. Steen et al propose that the second risk, ‘failing accountability’, arises due to no clear roles and responsibilities among actors involved in co-production (see also Bovaird, 2007). They also identify failing accountability as a cause of partnership fatigue and decreased engagement. The third risk is ‘rising transaction costs’; while there are many obvious costs associated with co-production, there are also hidden costs. Steen et al maintain that co-production can also lead to a ‘loss of democracy’, the fourth risk, through institutionalising system users and reducing their likelihood of speaking out. They point to Bovaird’s (2007) observation that co-production can challenge the balance between representative democracy, participatory democracy and professional expertise.
Cluley et al (2021b) reason similarly that public sector attempts at inclusivity, such as co-production, are often exclusive because the experiences of ‘non-typical service users’ and issues such as socio-economic status and lived experience are overlooked. This contention reflects Steen et al’s fifth risk, ‘reinforced inequalities’, that unequal power positions pose barriers to collaboration, leading to more privileged service users dominating co-production efforts due to their ‘superior social and cultural capital’ (p 287). The authors point to Hastings (2009), who found that residents of better-off urban neighbourhoods benefited more from co-production than residents of poor neighbourhoods, thereby intensifying disadvantage. Steen et al suggest that the sixth risk, ‘implicit demands’, arises when there are power imbalances in co-production relationships, leading parties with less power to feel indebted to more powerful parties. The seventh risk, ‘co-destruction of public value’, reflects that wicked problems do not have easy solutions, yet co-production (at least in isolation) is a simple solution. Steen et al also contend that co-destruction may go beyond missed opportunities to deliberate misuse of user input. Thus, a body of literature is emerging to suggest the risks associated with co-production can undermine the public value delivered. The authors hypothesise that these risks may be particularly acute for GBV survivors due to the gendered stereotypes and social norms they are likely to encounter and the gendered nature of state institutions.
Gender and power
Early feminist analyses saw state institutions as ‘inherently and uniformly patriarchal’ (Krook and Mackay, 2011). However, in the 1980s–1990s, with the emergence of the feminist bureaucrat or ‘femocrat’ (Eisenstein, 1991), women began to develop the ‘bureaucratic machinery’ to achieve their goals and their experiences of working with, or within, state institutions led to more nuanced understandings of power dynamics (Sawer, 1990). Feminist scholars began to consider the complexity of the role of institutions and gender (Franzway et al, 1989; Chappell, 1999). Reinelt described the state as ‘a site of active contestation over the construction of gender inequalities and power’ (Reinelt et al, 1995: 87), while Htun and Weldon conceptualised it as both ‘a cause of, and a remedy for, human suffering’ (2017: 158). Feminist institutionalism as a body of scholarship initially focused on what works to bring about institutional change toward greater gender equality. More recently, scholars have considered why more than two decades of gender mainstreaming efforts have been ineffective, and how institutions resist change and reproduce patriarchal power imbalances (Miller, 2009; Mackay, 2014; Thomson, 2018).
Feminist institutionalism provides a framework for understanding institutional dynamics, gendered power and inequality that is critical to understanding the potential risks of co-production, particularly between the state and survivors of GBV. Lowndes (2020) identifies four ways political institutions are gendered: (i) rules about gender, (ii) rules with gendered effects (but not specifically about gender), (iii) gendered actors working with rules and (iv) gendered outcomes of action shaped by rules. Lowndes also identifies how these mechanisms are disrupted through resistance and reform. Examples of informal, gendered social norms likely to be reinforced within institutions and particularly relevant to GBV survivors are the practice of ‘victim blaming’ (Taylor, 2020) and the ‘ideal victim’ stereotype (Christie, 1986). These norms help explain how some victims are blamed and silenced for the violence they experience, while others attract public compassion and support. However, Christie also argues that ideal victims must be compliant and avoid threatening powerful interests. Christie’s contention is supported by the history of the victims’ rights movement, which demonstrates how victims have been used to promote agendas not always in their interests (Walklate, 2012). These insights are particularly relevant to this study.
Assessing public value
Public value has been a remarkably appealing and durable concept, especially for public managers. Moore (1995), considered the theory’s originator, was motivated by the observation that while the value (profits) created by private managers is clear, the value created by public managers is less so. Thus, public value theory was developed to help public managers articulate the value created through policies and services (Kelly et al, 2002). Until recently, there was no clear framework for defining and measuring public value, and no way of systematically testing it. Faulkner and Kaufman’s (2018) four-dimensional framework was developed to address this gap, conceptualising the aspects of public value so that they can be assessed and measured. It includes (a) outcome achievement, (b) trust and legitimacy, (c) service delivery and quality and (d) efficiency. The concept and measurement of public value have relevance to efforts to include service users in policymaking since their contribution is expected to improve the effectiveness and outcomes of policies and services. Applying the framework for measuring public value may help assess institutional mechanisms involving survivors in the co-production of policy.
Methodology
This article is based on eight semi-structured interviews (approximately 50 minutes each) with senior policymakers and an in-depth 90-minute interview with survivor advocate and VSAC Chair Batty. Policymakers were sourced through GBV sector networks. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in Melbourne in 2019. The interviews focused on Batty’s influence in reforming the family violence system in Australia. VSAC’s role and the co-production of reforms with survivors emerged as significant themes. Policymakers are referred to by non-gendered identifiers (that is, P1, P2). Batty consented to be identified due to the recognisable nature of her story and public profile as VSAC Chair.
Interview data is supplemented by primary data analysis of six government reports, including the VLE report on VSAC’s establishment, which is based on 31 interviews with current and former VSAC members, public servants and GBV sector representatives (FSV, 2019). The other reports are from the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (2020) and Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor (FVRIM) (2018; 2019; 2020; 2021), established to hold the Victorian government accountable for implementing family violence system reform. These reports allow for the comparison of narratives from the interviews and the VLE report, thus triangulating the findings.
Informed by Lowndes’ (2020) model depicting how gender impacts political institutions, an inductive, thematic analysis using NVivo focused on formal and informal gendered rules, gender stereotypes and power dynamics. The data was further analysed against the potential risks of co-production (Steen et al, 2018) and Faulkner and Kaufman’s (2018) dimensions of public value measurement.
Findings
Survivor advocates involved in VSAC have played a critical role. VSAC has raised awareness within the Victorian government, and more broadly, of problems in responses to GBV and changes needed. However, the policymakers interviewed expressed concern that VSAC was not achieving its full potential and there was more that the government had got wrong than right.
Lack of role clarity
A dominant finding from the interviews was the lack of clarity regarding VSAC’s and its survivor members’ roles. This issue was a significant concern and source of tension among participants. The VLE report similarly found one of VSAC’s growing pains was ‘its ever-expanding role’, which included a range of responsibilities from internal behaviour change and building better relationships across the system, to challenging assumptions about victims and improved policy outcomes (FSV, 2019: 5).
Policymakers held divergent views about VSAC’s role. P5 said VSAC was high-level and strategic: ‘getting into the detail is problematic… It’s not their job; it’s our job’. In contrast, P6 argued that VSAC’s role should not be high level and that when ‘it’s about the bigger sort of policy and design and things, I think that’s challenging’. P2 and P6 identified VSAC’s most successful work as being more detailed; for example, providing advice about engaging with other survivors. P2 also felt VSAC had a crucial role in driving internal cultural change: ‘as a motivation to keep working… as a reminder of why we actually do this’. P7 felt VSAC members should not share their lived experiences but focus on ‘feeding back to government things that were working and things that weren’t’. While P1 believed members should raise awareness of family violence by sharing their experiences.
Attempting to explain this confusion around VSAC’s role, the VLE report found the recruitment of VSAC survivors was rushed due to ambitious timelines set by the government, meaning that some survivors were unclear about VSAC and their role. This issue was evident in our interview with Batty: ‘What I would say now is if only we knew what we now know, we could have set it up differently, structured it differently, trained people beforehand, but it was all like BANG!’
This lack of role clarity did not appear to be addressed over the three-year period we examined and was exacerbated by an absence of formal induction and training. We found members had different ideas about their roles and that of VSAC, and they did not understand the operating environment within which they were working. P3 recounted members being asked to provide feedback on a family violence initiative without being provided with any context: ‘You can see them getting really anxious… and I said, “how can they provide feedback when they don’t even know what’s supposed to happen in there?”’ P3 emphasised that views can be dismissed without clarity regarding what members can and cannot influence. Ultimately, this lack of role clarity made it challenging to identify responsibilities, assign accountability, and measure the extent to which VSAC delivered outcomes and public value. P1 felt that this was an abrogation of responsibility, ‘[The] government just needed to make decisions, change the legislation, fix the service system. You don’t have to co-design it; just do it. It’s the government’s responsibility.’
Trauma
Another key theme was the trauma experienced by VSAC members and the Secretariat team supporting them. Policymakers expressed that they were unprepared for the trauma which survivors continued to experience. As P5 observed: ‘There’s just an incredibly significant traumatisation exposure there that we all underestimated.’ The VLE report likewise found that the government was unprepared for the emotions of VSAC members: ‘Some would see people in Government “panic” when members experienced upset as a result of sharing their stories or hearing the stories of others’ (FSV, 2019: 29).
‘You can see the expression of helplessness and sense of being controlled that plays out and people having power over others and dominating voices in the conversations. There’s also people who express being totally unheard, being controlled, not being allowed to be in control of their own lives.’ (FSV, 2019: 26)
These dynamics appear to have played out both within VSAC and between members, the Secretariat, other public servants and the government.
Batty reinforced that inequalities and power imbalances caused much of the trauma experienced. She expressed concern that VSAC members were always one step away from saying something they would regret: ‘Every one of us in this group wants to hold our own and be treated as equals, and… there is a perception you should be subordinate’. She also explained that for GBV survivors: ‘that sense of powerlessness or being shut down or not having your voice heard can really trigger people’.
A tangible example of how power imbalances were reinforced was VSAC’s first meeting, which was called with 24 hours’ notice. This incident was raised in several interviews and the VLE report. Many aspects of the meeting reinforced hierarchies, including the room layout and how people introduced themselves. The report notes that this was unfortunate, ‘particularly in a context… seeking to reframe this balance of power … and establish a genuine partnership’ (FSV, 2019: 25).
‘I had a current lived experience that is very common for victims of family violence, being a single mum with little kids and having to work.… The structure of VSAC meant that most [women like me]… weren’t able to be present because they couldn’t take half a day off work once a month. So, even though I was so tired, I was determined to bring my voice to the table no matter what.’ (FSV, 2019: 22)
‘Due to members being suited for specific activities (i.e. LGBTIQ, CALD [culturally and linguistically diverse], seniors community events; or topic events – courts, police etc), at different times some members had greater opportunity to participate and engage in activities than others. Because of this, the division of opportunities amongst members at times had the appearance of being unfair.’ (FSV, 2019: 24)
Although unintentional, this issue made some survivors feel that they were being excluded and further, the money earned through additional opportunities was critical, particularly for those who were unemployed or underemployed. Again, those most likely to be negatively impacted were women (Chambers et al, 2021). This issue reflects how institutional rules can have gendered effects.
Another factor identified as exacerbating the trauma experienced by members was that some survivors had only recently left an abusive relationship or lost a loved one to GBV and were still grieving and readily triggered by conversations about GBV. As the VLE report stated: ‘The recruitment process left people wondering if an ethical or trauma-informed approach had been given to all members, and if there was a unanimous understanding of the required stage of the recovery journey of the people being recruited’ (FSV, 2019: 24).
It is also apparent that while survivors were eventually provided with access to a specialised GBV trauma service, few survivors accessed the service, with some reporting that they needed more personalised support (FSV, 2019: 29). This issue had flow-on effects for VSAC Secretariat members who were not only impacted by witnessing survivors’ trauma but were affected by having to provide informal debriefing to VSAC members, despite none of them being trained counsellors (FSV, 2019: 29). Unsurprisingly, the Secretariat expressed the need for access to support services themselves.
The Secretariat also appears to have spent considerable time battling internal bureaucracy for adequate support, including allowances and reimbursements for VSAC members: ‘Secretariat staff persisted, despite the strict Government processes, to ensure that any supports which enabled full participation were provided and paid for’ (FSV, 2019: 2). None of this work was foreseen, nor was it included in the high-level position descriptions contained in the VLE report. It can be easy to dismiss the importance of this kind of administrative work. However, as Lowndes (2020) writes: ‘Power does not just lie in the active enforcement of rules, but also in the everyday contests over their interpretation, and in the context of struggles to adapt or change rules in favour of greater equality’ (p. 557). In other words, institutions are dynamic, and change is possible when actors interpret, resist, reform or adapt rules.
Nonetheless, P3 felt that the reinforcement of power imbalances experienced by VSAC members resulted from the government wanting power over the survivors because there was so much at stake. P4 likewise felt that government was not accustomed to sharing power: ‘Working well with people with lived experience means sharing power or even relinquishing power… in a way that government and government bodies… aren’t accustomed to doing’. Ultimately, the trauma and distress caused to VSAC members and those supporting them by power imbalances, gendered social norms and stereotypes led to delays and rising transaction costs and compromised VSAC’s efficiency.
Excluding other voices
The exclusion of other survivors’ voices was another key emerging theme. Several policymakers identified limitations in developing policy in response to individual lived experiences alone. As P8 said, policymakers have ‘always got to be careful with individual accounts that you don’t then create policy around one story’. In the 2019 FVRIM report, it was recognised that VSAC was not a representative body: ‘VSAC is a small group… it cannot be representative of the breadth of experience of victim survivors… Additional approaches and mechanisms for receiving feedback from victim survivors need to be embedded’ (FVRIM, 2019: 36).
The 2021 FVRIM report showed a lack of progress in developing additional mechanisms for engaging survivors continued to be a concern (FVRIM, 2021: 107). This exclusion of survivors’ lived experiences, beyond the VSAC members, reflects the loss of democracy identified by Steen et al (2018) as a risk of co-production and has ramifications for the delivery of effective services and the creation of public value.
Discussion: the risks of government and survivors co-producing public value
The lack of clarity regarding VSAC’s role was the most consistent and outstanding finding. Many survivors did not understand their role, nor the operating environment they were working within. This issue reflected several of Steen et al’s (2018) risks of co-production, including: the rejection of responsibility and failing accountability, due to not having clear roles and responsibilities; rising transaction costs resulting from the difficulty of getting things done; and the co-destruction of public value through a lack of efficiency, missed opportunities and the government potentially using VSAC for its own agenda. This issue was inextricable from the trauma experienced by VSAC members and those supporting them, adding a new dimension of harm to Steen et al’s potential risks.
All of the risks identified by Steen et al (2018) are evident in the case study, including: loss of democracy through the exclusion of the breadth of survivor experiences; reinforced inequalities through formal and informal institutional rules, and gendered stereotypes and social norms; and implicit demands, which placed the needs of government above survivors. The case study confirms Steen et al’s expectation of significant risks and potential harms for marginalised service users who engage in co-production with state institutions.
By adding a feminist institutionalist lens using Lowndes’ (2020) model, the study expands on Steen et al’s risks by highlighting how they are enacted and can be challenged in practice. Feminist institutionalists recognise that gendered informal as well as formal rules, such as those regarding the most valued type of expertise, shape policymaking institutions and institutional innovation (Krook and Mackay, 2011; Thomson, 2018). The VSAC case study underscores the importance of these informal rules and how gendered knowledge hierarchies are inscribed within institutions. By doing so, it highlights the importance of acts of day-to-day reform and resistance in initiating change. As Georgina Waylen (2011) argues, the institutional context affects the strategy of change agents such as GBV policy change advocates. Subversives within institutions can adopt a ‘layering’ strategy by adding new institutions and rules alongside existing ones, as in the VSAC case. However, we contend that profound and intractable issues still occur with such ‘layering” of new institutions.
For instance, while the VLE report attributes most of the problems it identifies to the pace of reform, a feminist institutionalist lens highlights issues of power and how institutions reinforce and reproduce gendered power imbalances. These underlying dynamics require careful consideration in co-production initiatives. While some problems may have been resolved with more time, others are unlikely to have been avoided without explicit recognition of the informal rules in policy settings that relegate experiential knowledge and a commitment to a transformative approach to doing government differently. Such an approach would include: a preparedness to share power and decision-making with those who have lived experience; encouraging policymakers and service providers to take positive risks and challenge barriers; prioritising how the work is done, not just what is delivered; providing co-production training for policymakers and service-providers; providing training and thorough induction for service users engaged in co-production efforts; prioritising marginalised communities in co-production efforts through tailored engagement mechanisms; and supporting independent survivor networks.
Another implication from the case study is the importance of the positioning of co-production efforts and their proximity to political power. VSAC was initially established within the Department of Premier and Cabinet, a central coordinating department within the Victorian government and an area unaccustomed to delivering services and working with service users. This location was non-ideal and required specific change strategies within a highly political, gendered institutional context. Co-production efforts will likely be most successful when conducted by service delivery institutions and those accustomed to working and sharing power with service users.
By further drawing on Faulkner and Kaufman’s (2018) public value framework, the study extends existing theory and underscores the complexities and limitations of attempts to evaluate co-production initiatives and assess public value. While it is reasonable to assume VSAC helped increase trust and legitimacy in the government, it is difficult to find publicly available indicators of trust in government, and to link such indicators directly to one initiative is fraught. Further, while service delivery and quality should have improved with the input of VSAC members, the FVRIM and Auditor-General’s reports indicate that data regarding service delivery was patchy or non-existent, so it could not be assessed. It is even harder to evaluate VSAC’s performance on outcome achievement and efficiency, again reflecting the lack of clarity on VSAC’s role, which makes it challenging to identify what sort of outcome measures and performance measures might be appropriate to analyse.
Considering our findings, it is impossible to overlook the costs or public dis/value of the harms experienced by VSAC members in assessing its public value. Indeed, the case study shows that public value creation will be compromised if risks to marginalised service users are not addressed. Accordingly, Faulkner and Kaufman’s framework is limited in its practical application to a complex, evolving public policy area. Qualitative data, which prioritises the voices of service users and frontline staff, such as that in the VLE report, is beneficial to more in-depth and comprehensive assessments of public value creation. Our analysis also provides support for the call from Cluley et al (2020) to reposition public value ‘as a changeable and heterogenous assemblage’ that accounts for experiences of dis/value. Rather than improving policy and services that deliver public value, poorly planned co-production efforts may engender public dis/value.
Through applying a feminist institutionalist lens, this study also reveals the importance of acts of resistance and reform that often go unnoticed in evaluation efforts. In adapting processes and finding ways around institutional barriers, the VSAC Secretariat took on the work of institutional change. The acts of defiance from survivors who recognised barriers and resistance but persisted in speaking out is the work of disruption and loosening the hold of patriarchal rules. When it comes to eliminating GBV, this is precisely the work required, and as such, it should count and be encouraged. Although informed by a single case study, these empirical insights underscore the importance of policymakers explicitly addressing power imbalances, especially with regard to gendered inequality and experiences, in any public policy effort to engage with marginalised public service users.
Conclusion
In considering the role of co-production in GBV policy reform, the VSAC case study provides stark confirmation of the risks and limitations. It corroborates the importance of role clarity, induction and training (for service users and providers) and ensuring a breadth of service users are heard. It also emphasises the crucial importance of a trauma-informed approach. What is important is that it demonstrates the significance of focusing on how co-production is done and the need for institutional reform, particularly within state institutions. It further reveals the importance of addressing power imbalances and encouraging change agents within policymaking and service provision institutions to resist and reform rules reinforcing and reproducing inequalities. Finally, it identifies how the public value delivered through co-production efforts can be compromised when the need for this work is not recognised or done.
Our findings also confirm that, as feminist scholars have long known, the state is a contested site of power. When civil society groups, such as GBV survivors, challenge the state by making claims concerning universal rights and practical needs, state institutions may co-opt actors and attempt to universalise some claims (for example, those of ideal survivors) while undermining others (for example, non-ideal survivors), to maximise legitimacy and control. As a site of gendered power, the state struggles to provide a safe space for marginalised communities to be heard, but it is through that struggle that change can occur. As Solnit (2016) observes, how social transformations, uprisings and revolutions happen is rarely remembered; they do not happen on ‘centre stage’ because ‘less visible long-term organising and groundwork – or underground work – often laid the foundations’ (p xii–xiv). If policymakers are serious about resolving wicked social problems like GBV, engaging with marginalised communities, including survivors, is a valuable strategy. But to maximise public value creation, state entities must be prepared to relinquish and share power and provide service users with the support needed to encourage critical, independent input.
Notes
‘Family violence’ is the dominant terminology used in policy in Victoria, where its Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC) operates. It includes violent, threatening, coercive or controlling behaviour in current or past family, domestic or intimate relationships.
The term ‘marginalised’ is used as we believe it most accurately reflects the acts of discrimination and disadvantage imposed upon individuals and communities by social structures. Other similar words, such as vulnerable, do not adequately reflect that this is something done to people and can be stigmatising.
Funding
This work was supported by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS); Industry Partner PhD Scholarship; Australian Government; Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship. (It has no grant number.)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Rosie Batty AO for her generous and ongoing contribution to this study. We would also like to thank both anonymised reviewers for their valuable comments.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Alford, J. (2009) Public value from co-production by clients, Public Sector (Wellington), 32(4): 11–12, doi: 10.3316/informit.252794502674020.
Allen, K., Needham, C., Hall, K. and Tanner, D. (2019) Participatory research meets validated outcome measures, Social Policy and Administration, 53: 311–25, doi: 10.1111/spol.12468.
Bevir, M., Needham, C. and Waring, J. (2019) Inside co-production, Social Policy & Administration, 53(2): 197–202, doi: 10.1111/spol.12483.
Bovaird, T. (2007) Beyond engagement and participation, Public Administration Review, 67(5): 846–60, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x.
Boyle, D., Clark, S. and Burns, S. (2006) Co-production by People outside Paid Employment, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/co-production-people-outside-paid-employment.
Brix, J., Krogstrup, H.K. and Mortensen, N.M. (2020) Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government, Local Government Studies, 46(2): 169–85, doi: 10.1080/03003930.2019.1702530.
Caneva, L. (2013) Tackling ‘wicked’ problems: a public policy perspective, Pro Bono Australia, https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2013/07/tackling-wicked-problems-a-public-policy-perspective/.
Chambers, M., Chapman, B. and Rogerson, E. (2021) Underemployment in the Australian Labour Market. Bulletin, Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia, https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2021/jun/underemployment-in-the-australian-labour-market.html.
Chappell, L.A. (1999) Gendering Government, Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=3411993.
Christie, N. (1986) The ideal victim, in E.A. Fattah (ed) From Crime Policy to Victim Policy, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp 17–30, doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-08305-3_2.
Cluley, V. and Radnor, Z. (2020) Progressing the conceptualisation of value co-creation in public service organizations, Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(3): 211–21, doi: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvz024.
Cluley, V., Gale, N. and Radnor, Z. (2021a) Using situated interviews to engage frail older people in the co-production of improved emergency healthcare, International Journal of Public Administration, 44(9): 767–77, doi: 10.1080/01900692.2021.1912088.
Cluley, V., Parker, S. and Radnor, Z. (2021b) Expanding public service value to include dis/value, Public Money & Management, 41(8): 656–59, doi: 10.1080/09540962.2020.1737392.
Crow, D. and Jones, M. (2018) Narratives as tools for influencing policy change, Policy and Politics, 46(2): 217–34, doi: 10.1332/030557318X15230061022899.
Davies, S.E. and True, J. (2017) Norm entrepreneurship in foreign policy: William Hague and the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, Foreign Policy Analysis, 13(3): 701–21, doi: 10.1093/fpa/orw065.
Dudau, A., Glennon, R. and Verschuere, B. (2019) Following the yellow brick road?, Public Management Review, 21(11): 1577–94, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1653604.
Echeverri, P. and Skålén, P. (2011) Co-creation and co-destruction, Marketing Theory, 11(3): 351–73, doi: 10.1177/1470593111408181.
Eisenstein, H. (1991) Gender Shock: Practising Feminism on Two Continents, North Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Faulkner, N. and Kaufman, S. (2018) Avoiding theoretical stagnation, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(1): 69–86, doi: 10.1111/1467–8500.12251.
Flemig, S.S. and Osborne, S. (2019) The dynamics of co-production in the context of social care personalisation, Journal of Social Policy, 48(4): 671–97, doi: 10.1017/S0047279418000776.
Franzway, S., Court, D. and Connell, R. (1989) Staking a Claim, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
FSV (Family Safety Victoria) (2019) Valuing the Lived Experience, Report, Melbourne: Family Safety Victoria.
FVRIM (Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor) (2018) Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, Melbourne: FVRIM, https://www.fvrim.vic.gov.au/first-report-parliament-1-november-2017.
FVRIM (Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor) (2019) Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, Second Report, Melbourne: FVRIM, https://www.fvrim.vic.gov.au/second-report-parliament-1-november-2018.
FVRIM (Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor) (2020) Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, Melbourne: FVRIM, https://www.fvrim.vic.gov.au/third-report-parliament-1-november-2019.
FVRIM (Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor) (2021) Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, Fourth Report, Melbourne: FVRIM, https://www.fvrim.vic.gov.au/fourth-report-parliament-1-november-2020-tabled-may-2021.
Gannon, Z. and Lawson, N. (2008) Co-production, London: Compass, https://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/co-production-the-modernisation-of-public-services-by-staff-and-users/.
Hastings, A. (2009) Neighbourhood environmental services and neighbourhood ‘effects’, Housing Studies, 24(4): 503–24, doi: 10.1080/02673030902938389.
Henry, N. (2009) Witness to rape, International Journal of Transitional Justice, 3(1): 114–34, doi: 10.1093/ijtj/ijn036.
Hirst, P. (1994) Associative Democracy, Bristol: Polity Press, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=1584055.
Hounmenou, C. (2018) Engaging anti-human trafficking stakeholders in the research process, Journal of Human Trafficking, 6(1): 30–49, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322705.2018.1512284. doi: 10.1080/23322705.2018.1512284
Htun, M. and Weldon, S.L. (2017) States and gender justice, in The Many Hands of the State: Theorizing Political Authority and Social Control, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 158–77. doi: 10.1017/9781316471586.007
Kearney, R. (2007) Narrating pain, Paragraph (Modern Critical Theory Group), 30(1): 51–66, doi: 10.3366/prg.2007.0013.
Kelly, G., Mulgan, G. and Muers, S. (2002) Creating Public Value, London: Cabinet Office, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100407164622/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/seminars/public_value.aspx.
Krook, M.L. and Mackay, F. (2011) Gender, Politics and Institutions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, doi: 10.1057/9780230303911.
Lockyer, S. (2020) Beyond inclusion, Journal of Human Trafficking, 8(2): 135–56, doi: 10.1080/23322705.2020.1756122.
Loeffler, E. and Bovaird, T. (2016) User and community co-production of public services, International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13): 1006–19, doi: 10.1080/01900692.2016.1250559.
Loeffler, E. and Bovaird, T. (2020) User and community co-production of public value, in E. Loeffler and T. Bovaird (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes, New York: Springer International Publishing AG. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-53705-0_2
Lowndes, V. (2020) How are political institutions gendered?, Political Studies, 68(3): 543–64, doi: 10.1177/0032321719867667.
Mackay, F. (2014) Nested newness, institutional innovation, and the gendered limits of change, Politics & Gender, 10(4): 549–71, doi: 10.1017/S1743923X14000415.
McCaffrey, M. and Salerno, J.T. (2011) Theory of political entrepreneurship, Modern Economy, 2(4): 552–60, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2487134. doi: 10.4236/me.2011.24061
McGarry, R. and Walklate, S. (2015) Victims, Abingdon: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9780203727379.
Miller, K. (2009) Public policy dilemma – gender equality mainstreaming in UK policy formulation, Public Money & Management, 29(1): 43–50, doi: 10.1080/09540960802617350.
Moore, M. (1995) Creating Public Value, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Musekiwa, E. and Needham, C. (2021) Co-commissioning at the Micro-Level, in E. Loeffler and T. Bovaird (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes, New York: Springer International Publishing, pp 249–63, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-53705-0_13.
Needham, C. and Carr, S. (2009) SCIE Research briefing 31: Co-production, Egham: Social Care Institute for Excellence, http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/briefing31/.
Nelson, G., Ochocka, J., Janzen, R. and Trainor, J. (2006) A longitudinal study of mental health consumer/survivor initiatives, Journal of Community Psychology, 34(3): 247–60, doi: 10.1002/jcop.20097.
Osborne, S.P., Strokosch, K. and Radnor, Z. (2018) Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services, in T. Brandsen, B. Verschuere and T. Steen (eds) Co-Production and Co-Creation, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 18–26, doi: 10.4324/9781315204956.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316423936.
Pemberton, A., Mulder, E. and Aarten, P.G.M. (2019) Stories of injustice, European Journal of Criminology, 16(4): 391–412, doi: 10.1177/1477370818770843.
Plé, L. and Cáceres, R.C. (2010) Not always co-creation, The Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6): 430–37, doi: 10.1108/08876041011072546.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000) Co-opting customer competence, Harvard Business Review, 78(1): 79–79, Harvard Business School Press, https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=00178012&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA59023943&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs.
Premier of Victoria (2016) We will put family violence survivors at centre of reform, 22 March, https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/we-will-put-family-violence-survivors-centre-reform.
Reinelt, C., Ferree, M.M. and Martin, P.Y. (1995) Moving onto the terrain of the state, Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women’s Movement, 105: 84–104.
Roberts, N.C. and King, P.J. (1991) Policy entrepreneurs, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(2): 147–75, doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037081.
Sandhu, B. (2017) The value of lived experience in social change, http://thelivedexperience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Lived-Experience-Baljeet-Sandhu-VLE-full-report.pdf.
Sawer, M. (1990) Sisters in Suits, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Solnit, R. (2016) Hope in the Dark: Untold Hisotries, Wild Possibilities, Edinburgh: Canongate.
State of Victoria (2016) Royal Commission into Family Violence: Summary and Recommendations, Parl Paper No. 132, http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Reports/RCFV_Full_Report_Interactive.pdf.
State of Victoria (2018–19) Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, Interim Report, Parl Paper No. 87, http://rcvmhs.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/interim-report.html.
Steen, T., Brandsen, T. and Verschuere, B. (2018) The dark side of co-creation and co-production, in T. Brandsen, B. Verschuere and T. Steen (eds) Co-production and Co-creation, Abingdon: Routledge.
Taylor, J. (2020) Why Women are Blamed for Everything, Derby: VictimFocus.
Thomson, J. (2018) Resisting gendered change, International Political Science Review, 39(2): 178–91, doi: 10.1177/0192512116677844.
True, J. (2020) Violence Against Women, Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=6352027.
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (2020) Managing support and safety hubs, https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/managing-support-and-safety-hubs.
Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J.J.M. and Tummers, L.G. (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production, Public Management Review, 17(9): 1333–57, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
Walklate, S. (2012) Courting compassion, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 51(2): 109–21, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00698.x.
Walklate, S., Maher, J., McCulloch, J., Fitz-Gibbon, K. and Beavis, K. (2019) Victim stories and victim policy, Crime, Media, Culture, 15(2): 199–215, doi: 10.1177/1741659018760105.
Wallin, P., Nordin, A., Petersson, C. and Josefsson, K.A. (2021) Exploring co-production in residences with special services for children and adolescents with intellectual disability in Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 23(1): 247–60, doi: 10.16993/sjdr.789.
Walzer, M. (1988) Socialising the Welfare State, in A. Gutmann (ed) Democracy and the Welfare State, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp 13–26, doi: 10.1515/9780691217956-004.
Waylen, G. (2011) Gendered institutionalist analysis, in M.L. Krook and F. Mackay (eds) Gender, Politics and Institutions, London: Palgrave Macmillan, doi: 10.1057/9780230303911_9.
Weldon, S.L. and Htun, M. (2013) Feminist mobilisation and progressive policy change, Gender & Development, 21(2): 231–47, doi: 10.1080/13552074.2013.802158.
Wheildon, L.J., True, J., Flynn, A. and Wild, A. (2022) The Batty effect: victim-survivors and domestic and family violence policy change, Violence Against Women, 28(6–7): 1684–707, doi: 10.1177/10778012211024266.
