About the Co-producing Innovation in Social Care Survey

This survey was co-produced with people with lived experience, who co-designed survey questions, contributed to the analysis, writing of the final report and formulating of the findings and recommendations. Over 800 people across the UK took part, including people who draw on care and support, unpaid carers, family members, friends and professionals working in social care.

The findings reflect a wide range of views about how innovation happens and what makes it meaningful.

Key findings

Co-production fuels new ideas and keeps innovation people-focused

Respondents across all groups agreed that co-producing services and solutions brings in fresh ideas from real experience and helps focus on what really matters to people. However, each group valued different things. People with lived experience emphasised fairness and drawing on real-life expertise, family members and friends prioritised outcomes, and professionals focused on person-centred practice and collaboration.

Shared challenges hinder genuine co-production

All groups identified common barriers such as limited funding, unequal power dynamics, and co-production being treated as a ‘tick-box’ exercise (just for show). This builds on findings from SCIE’s ‘Embracing change: scaling innovation in care in practice’ report, published after the main support phase for the DHSC’s Accelerating Reform Fund. Different perspectives revealed the following distinct concerns.

• People with lived experience pointed to fragmented services and rigid rules blocking true involvement (average rating 3.32 out of 4, where 4 represents a significant challenge).
• Family and friends were most concerned about rushed decisions and a lack of time or practical support (3.42/4).
• Professionals rated bureaucracy and inflexible processes as the biggest barriers (3.54/4).

These factors make meaningful co-production harder to achieve.

There was strong agreement about what makes co-production work

Trust and respect are vital; everyone needs to feel heard and valued. Support from leaders in social care is also key: when leaders actively listen, involve people equally, and follow through on what’s agreed, co-production feels genuine. It’s essential to value people’s contributions (acknowledging time and input, acting on feedback, and giving something back) and to include people with lived experience from the very start as equal partners, a key recommendation from the ‘Embracing change: scaling innovation in care in practice’ report. Respondents agreed that co-production works best when it is inclusive, well-supported and everyone’s input is valued.

Mixed views on the impact and process of co-production

Survey results showed differing opinions on whether co-production is leading to improved services, and concerns about how it is carried out in practice. Most professionals have seen positive change (around 72% said co-production has led to improvement), but only about half of people with lived experience and roughly 1 in 4 family members or friends agreed.

Qualitative feedback revealed a shared frustration across all groups that involvement often had no visible outcome. Many participants described experiences where co-production felt superficial or tokenistic, with ideas not acted on and little feedback given. This lack of follow-through left people feeling their time and input didn’t matter, undermining trust in the process.

Calls for genuine commitment and visible change

Across all groups, there was a clear call for co-production to be taken seriously and done properly. Respondents urged decision-makers to fully support co-production with the right resources, to share power honestly, and to treat people’s input with respect, not as a token gesture. A strong message was that co-production must lead to real, tangible changes. Participants stressed the need to “close the loop” by showing clearly how people’s ideas have influenced decisions, what has changed as a result, and by being accountable for acting on co-produced ideas. Without genuine commitment and follow-through, co-production risks being seen as empty talk rather than a driver of innovation.