The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable populations, underscoring the need for resilient service delivery systems. Co-production, involving collaboration between government and citizens, is an effective approach to enhance service resilience during disasters. However, different types of co-production exist, including individual, group, and collective co-production. This study explores the interplay between collective and group co-production in the context of service provision for people with disabilities in Shanghai during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research question centers on how these different forms of co-production interacted, particularly focusing on the unintended consequences of collective measures and the role of self-organized groups in mitigating these effects. Understanding this interaction is crucial for improving emergency management and ensuring the welfare of vulnerable groups during crises. The study's importance lies in its potential to inform policy and practice by demonstrating the valuable role of self-organized groups in maintaining service resilience during emergencies.

The literature on co-production offers varied definitions, with debates surrounding the level of citizen participation required (voluntary versus mandated). Several typologies of co-production have been proposed, notably Brudney and England's (1983) categorization into individual, group, and collective co-production, based on the scale of beneficiaries. While research exists on co-production during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on compliance with regulations and service delivery, the interaction between collective and group co-production remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by examining the relationship between these two forms of co-production within a specific context, providing a nuanced understanding of their interplay and potential tensions.

This study employs a case study approach, focusing on W District in Shanghai, selected due to its proactive approach to collaborative governance and well-developed network of self-organized groups for people with disabilities. Data collection involved multiple methods: interviews with formal nonprofit organization leaders (12 government-organized NGOs, 1 infrastructure nonprofit, and 5 independent NGOs), three government officials, and 70 semi-structured interviews with leaders/key members of self-organized groups (approximately 22% of the total in W District). Additionally, data was gathered from the Disabled Persons' Federation's website and quarterly reports. The interviews explored the establishment and activities of self-organized groups, services provided during the pandemic, member interaction, and pandemic-related activities. The analysis examines the changes in service provision before and after the pandemic, focusing on the unintended consequences of collective co-production (lockdown measures) and the compensatory role of group co-production through self-organized groups. The research team had pre-existing relationships with the local Disabled Persons' Federation and nonprofit organizations, facilitating access and data collection. Ethical approval was exempted due to the absence of an established ethical committee at the researchers' institution, though informed consent was obtained from all participants.

The study reveals a significant tension between collective and group co-production. City-wide lockdown measures (collective co-production) resulted in the closure of formal service providers (government-organized and independent NGOs), disrupting essential services for people with disabilities. However, pre-existing self-organized groups for people with disabilities (group co-production) stepped in, providing vital services. These self-organized groups, often operating for over a decade, maintained a network of mutual support and demonstrated remarkable resilience. Four main service types were identified: 1) Meeting basic needs and contributing to epidemic control (77%), 2) Providing specialized assistance (medicine, psychological counseling) (79%), 3) Delivering food and meals (26%), and 4) Donating money and goods (31%). Services were delivered via both online (90%) and offline (56%) methods, adapting to the varying needs and digital literacy levels of different disability groups. The self-organized groups in J sub-district, a particularly active area, showed a higher proportion (80.4%) of leaders with disabilities compared to the district average (45%), highlighting the importance of leadership within the community. The study demonstrates that group co-production can effectively mitigate the negative impacts of collective co-production, ensuring service resilience during crises. The success of self-organized groups is linked to their pre-existing relationships and understanding of local context.

The findings directly address the research question by demonstrating the critical role of group co-production in compensating for the disruption caused by collective co-production. The study shows that a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach (collective co-production) can have unintended negative consequences for vulnerable groups. In contrast, flexible, community-based initiatives (group co-production) demonstrate adaptability and effectiveness in delivering essential services. This challenges the notion that co-production must solely involve active and voluntary participation, showing that mandated compliance can coexist with voluntary support to achieve resilience. The study contributes to the literature by highlighting the interaction between different types of nonprofits (formal vs. informal) in co-production, emphasizing the crucial role of the informal sector. The findings offer a potential solution to the paradox of vulnerable group participation in co-production, suggesting that differentiating co-production types (collective vs. group) is crucial for maximizing both equity and effectiveness.

This study makes significant contributions to the understanding of co-production and service resilience. It highlights the tension between collective and group co-production and demonstrates how community-based initiatives (group co-production) can mitigate the negative impacts of top-down measures (collective co-production) during crises. The findings underscore the critical role of self-organized groups, particularly those with established networks and community embeddedness, in enhancing service resilience. Future research could explore the generalizability of these findings to other contexts, examine the long-term impacts of such initiatives, and investigate the factors that contribute to the sustainability of self-organized groups.

This study is limited by its single-case study design, focusing solely on W District in Shanghai. While informative, the findings might not be fully generalizable to other contexts. Further research is needed to explore the applicability of these findings in different geographic settings and cultural contexts. The study also primarily focuses on the interaction between collective and group co-production, while other types of co-production (e.g., individual) might also play significant roles in other situations. Additionally, a comprehensive exploration of the factors driving the observed mitigating effect of group co-production would require additional investigation.