Social Innovation for Filling the Resource-Needs Gap in Social Services

The innovation stream that is the focus of this chapter is the new governance of social services systems. By new governance of social services systems, we refer to the new ways of formulating and implementing policies and organising and controlling social services provision, which are becoming more decentralised and involve a network of interdependent, cooperative, and diverse actors from the different socioeconomic sectors (Hodges, 2005; Newman, 2004; Rhodes, 1997, 2007). These actors share goals and may, or may not, have formally prescribed responsibilities (Rosenau, 2000). Innovative governance of social services has appeared in the context of a generalised perception that the existing models of provision are unsustainable in the long run, given the socioeconomic and demographic changes occurring across Europe for the few last decades. The ageing of the popula tion, the integration of women in the labour market, new family models, immigration flows, new policy and regulatory frameworks and the generalised economic crisis starting in 2008 have affected both the demand and the supply of social services. In a context of escalating needs and shrinking public budgets, the gap between citizens’ needs and expectations about the scope of social services and about the role of actors in the field, on the one hand; and the actual resources, capabilities and roles of funders, providers and beneficiaries, on the other hand, has broadened (Rey-Garcia & Felguei ras, 2015a). This resource–needs gap is clearly patent in the case of social services needed by population segments that are the most vulnerable, because they depend on other people’s care and/or on technical assistance to perform basic daily-life activities (mainly dependent elders, people with dementia, dependent people with chronic illnesses, and/or dependent people with disabilities). Hence, changes are taking place in the ways the systems of social services are governed, so that such resource–needs gap may be bridged for the most vulnerable citizens, and new understandings about which services should be provided, how and by whom may be accommodated. The emergent governance of the social services system builds on: (1) a re-conceptualisation of social problems; (2) attraction of new actors, resources and capabilities to the field; (3) integration of social services with proximate fields (most nota bly health care and social inclusion); (4) personalised care; (5) market com petition; (6) cross-sector collaboration and partnerships through informal and formal networks and (7) increased participation of the beneficiaries and co-responsibility of citizens in general in configuring demand and supply (Rey-Garcia & Felgueiras, 2015b). Since these building blocks are hardly separable in the field of social service provision, they are not treated as dis tinct social innovations but together form a social innovation stream with different embodiments across different contexts. Whereas this new governance of the social services systems serves as the overarching theme for the social innovations occurring in the field of social services in the four countries included in this chapter—Spain, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom—we have decided to focus our investigation on new governance arrangements aiming to mobilise organisational resources and capabilities for the provision of social services to vulnerable segments of population. These may manifest in increasing reach by new technologies, the extension of human resources through the engagement of volunteers, or the attraction of financial resources through new financing tools. We analyse how these result from collaborations among organisations of different sectors, and specifically try to understand the extent to which citizens participate in the social innovation stream, and the roles they participate in. Two overarching research questions have guided this chapter: 1. What does the social innovation stream look like today and how has it evolved over the last decade across its country-specific manifestations or activities? 2. Which are the most important actors involved in the social innovation activities and which are their distinctive characteristics and contributions to the broader social innovation stream?