Being kept there [in hospital] when I was ready to move on became a hindrance. This pattern stopped when I found out about Shared Lives. I took the information to my consultant, used my voice, and told her: ‘This is what I want’. And that is what I got: an amazing Shared Lives home with a brilliant carer, Hayley, who encouraged me to speak up, express myself and stand up for what I believe in. My confidence increased massively. I’m pretty sure that without Shared Lives I’d have given up, and probably wouldn’t be here at all. Shared Lives really has saved my life.
Blog authors
The team behind the film ‘John’s Fight for Freedom’, which is launched officially during Co-Production Week 2023, explains how the idea came about and how fruitful their co-productive approach was in the making of the film: SCIE Co-Production Steering Group member John Evans OBE, telling his story of being a Disability Rights campaigner; filmmakers Sybil Ah-Mane and Russell Hall from Flexible Films; Jana Bleckmann-Evans, John’s wife, who filmed some additional footage and features in parts of the film; and Laura Able, who instigated the entire project.
Sybil
Laura got in touch with us and John after visiting the exhibition about the “Nothing About Us Without Us” Movement, currently on display in the People’s History Museum in Manchester. She told us about how proud she was to see this exhibition take place, and how pleased she was to see a photo of John in there. Soon the idea unfolded to create a whole film about John and his life and work.
We immediately loved that idea. We had met John in 2004 and have filmed him for lots of SCIE and TLAP projects. John’s story is so inspiring, as it is full of challenges and breakthroughs.
Laura
I feel that John’s story is very important. He and his colleagues of “Project 81” not only paved the way for Independent Living in the UK; they are also still crucial in keeping the boat afloat, working tirelessly to ensure that the situation doesn’t worsen among austerity measures, Brexit effects, the implications of the Covid pandemic and other obstacles.
To now watch and hear John telling his story is as exciting as it is necessary – especially for younger generations, as the message John and his fellow fighters have been sending out over the years is so relevant.
Russ
The beauty of this project is that John’s story is basically one of co-production – and the film itself is a perfect example of what co-production can achieve. As Sybil and I usually work co-productively, it was natural for us to involve John and Jana in the production from the very beginning.
Sybil
We decided on the key messages together and John and Jana were part of the editing. When we realised that we needed more visuals, Jana was happy to film them after a training session with us. Both Russ and I strongly believe in the power of co-production, and the final film proves the point: it is informative, authentic and heartfelt, and I can say we are very pleased with the way it turned out.
John
I was quite taken by the idea of producing this film with “Flexible Films”, as Jana and I had been talking about a film on my life’s journey for a while, so the time felt right with Sybil, Russ and Laura on board. We knew we could do it as a trustful collaboration, so I agreed immediately to go ahead. It felt that they were the right filmmakers for the job.
Jana
What has been most impressive to me is how natural the making of the film has felt from the word “go”. I think it has to do with the fact that it was co-produced as well as with Sybil and Russ’ unique personalities. They have the ability of making you feel comfortable and relaxed with the filming situation almost instantly, despite all the gear they put up around you, so it is easy to open up and tell your story.
John
I was in control of pace, content and the editing of the interview. To me, the positive effects of this approach shine through the entire final film. As Sybil told us, this does not come naturally to filmmakers, for they often have a vision of what the film should look like and seek control. To hand control over to me meant setting the tone for what I think is a unique account of my life and work, rather than their idea of what it must have been like.
More information
As someone who has got co-production wrong on many occasions, here’s five traps to try to avoid when co-producing in the real world:
1. Co-producing something that is already agreed
This is a classic: You’re launching a new service when you realise you haven’t engaged with any service users. You quickly plan a ‘co-production’ session to ask people about something that is already decided. People aren’t daft and will soon work this one out. If you are consulting on something rather than co-producing, then say so. Be clear on the purpose and what can and can’t be influenced.
2. Don’t wander from the path!
It is worth remembering that co-production involves people, and people don’t always stick to your carefully outlined session plan. It can be tempting to shut people down. Here are a few ways to counter this:
- Build-in time for people to ‘vent’, particularly if the subject is emotive
- Have a flipchart for ‘parked subjects’, to discuss at a later time
- Scrap your session plan and see where the discussion takes you. This is where unexpected learning can happen.
3. The tokenistic service user
I’m just leaving this one here: inviting one service user to a meeting full of professionals is not co-producing. If you want to meaningfully engage, then really think about the power dynamics of who is in the room.
4. Blank flip chart syndrome
Most co-production sessions go something like this… here’s some information on a topic, discuss in groups, write on a flip chart, feedback group-by-group…
This is not the way to inspire new thinking on a subject. Be as creative as you can with things like images to stimulate conversation and get people drawing or walking around the room. A useful resource is below.
5. Off into the sunset, never to be seen again
Finally, a good co-production session will get people passionate about a topic, but too often they never hear from the facilitators again. If you value people’s input, then make sure you get in touch afterwards to feedback on how you have used their input.
Sheffield Flourish is a charity that works collaboratively on innovative digital and community projects, recognising the untapped strengths of people who’ve experienced mental health challenges.
I want to see as many people with lived experience as possible included in the development of social care support and services, as this is the best way of maximising the chances that people will receive the support they want and need, rather than receiving what other people have determined is best for them (if they’re lucky). Support providers often fail to provide meaningful opportunities for people with lived experience to shape their work, and they sometimes justify this approach by claiming that the people who want to become involved are not representative of the groups that services are provided for. It’s true that individuals can’t routinely represent groups, but this applies to individual workers as well as people who access care and support. In other fields, experience is highly valued and signifies expertise; in the field of co-production, it can be reduced to dismissing people as ‘the usual suspects’, failing to acknowledge that these ‘usual suspects’ include individuals who have worked to improve the lives of marginalised groups for many years and learned to operate in alienating systems, sometimes at great cost to their emotional wellbeing.
If social care organisations want to engage with communities and people who access care and support, they need to do the work that will enable this to happen. They need to talk to people in language that they understand, meet with people in ways that allow them to be heard, and act on what people tell them. They should be reaching out to Disabled People’s Organisations and working alongside them on the basis of equality. They should actively seek out the views and opinions of ‘the usual suspects’ and implement their learning. They should be willing to respond to what people say they want, and trying to provide it, rather than dismissing people’s hard won points of view because it is easier to do that than it is to rise to the challenge of making a meaningful response.
This group has found the project so helpful and enjoyable to be part of, they named themselves the ‘SCIE Fliers’. Made up of a group of experienced self-advocates, their insights and experiences were pivotal to the ‘Am I invisible’ resources that were produced earlier this year. This blog gives an insight into what they faced during the pandemic and the way things can be improved now. The SCIE Fliers have recently been talking about making telephone calls to get important information, about your health, benefits, energy supplies or travel plans. It is often said that it can be very hard just to get through to where you are trying to call for the information that you need. It may take a long time before the phone is answered. Some of the staff are really nice to talk to, others not so much.
You can also find yourself on hold for even longer, which can prove very expensive for you or whoever is helping you to make the call. Trying to work out which option you require from the menu of choices you are faced with, can often mean that you forget which option you need.
Talking straight for everyone
We discussed what the organisations that we communicate with need to do to make this whole process more accessible, clear and friendly. Some of them may have a list with the names of people who are flagged in order to alert their staff that this individual has additional needs which can be helpful, although we felt that ‘talking straight for everyone’ should be in the system.
On balance, we did not feel that we should have to say that we have a learning disability in order to get a more effective service. However, one person was told after some time on the call “you should have said that at the start, Mr …”
If you have a bad experience on the phone with someone that is impatient and rude, it may put you off from accessing services that you really need. Having to go over your story again because they haven’t read the notes is also very frustrating, even more so if you have a speech impediment.
We feel that the telephone staff need further training from people with learning disabilities and autism, so that they do their jobs better for all customers, especially older and disabled people.
It should be how they treat everyone.
My daughter is in Year Ten, midway through her GCSEs. Her school arranged for them all to have a careers talk with a career advisor. I wasn’t present but my daughter reported home on this interaction. The careers advisor is a professional in her field and I am not a qualified careers advisor. She told my daughter the following: “Should you be doing so many GCSEs, you don’t want to burn out?” “You’ll find it very hard to get work experience in environmental work.” “If you do Further Maths at A Level, you might drop it because it is too hard.” “You don’t want to do medicine do you, because it is very competitive.”
Overall, my daughter felt the experience was mostly pointless, she made one useful suggestion about work experience and that it wasn’t a beneficial experience.
Luckily for my daughter, she isn’t overly vulnerable to other people’s opinions, and she has a family who will support and encourage her. However, we cannot say the same for all 15-year-olds. We can’t say the same for all those who draw on social care services either.
This caused me to reflect. How much power can a professional have and are we using that power thoughtfully and meaningfully.
I am sure the careers advisor felt she was being wise and bringing her experience to the room and educating the 15-year-old in front of her. But did she recognise that she had never seen my daughter’s educational performance and wasn’t well enough informed to comment on her ability to do GCSEs? Did she know whether that specific child was likely to continue with Maths or not? Did she recognise that girls might struggle in STEM subjects and maybe it is because they find the system discourages girls more than boys?
In social care, do we do the same? Do we find out enough about the person to know whether they, individually, are capable? Do we tell people what’s hard rather than what is possible? Are we so concerned about the risk of failure that we don’t plan for success? Do we encourage people to a lesser version of their ambitions and safe certainty?
Obviously, my hope is that we are the more robust, personalised and ambitious version of this story in children and adult’s social care. Actually, I hope that is true across all of the public and care sectors. And I truly believe that strengths-based approaches are a powerful vehicle for realising this ambition.
At the heart of strengths-based approaches is the belief that we can harness people’s own strengths and powers, and that we are using our professional power to enhance the position of these strengths. To help, not to inhibit.
One of the themes SCIE is exploring in our Showcase Webinar series is strengths-based approaches. We have a wonderful webinar up already and we will be bringing you more across the year. Join us to think about how you can drive forward aspiration with your own strengths-based approaches and sign up to the SCIE webinars. Onwards and upwards.
In recognition of Women’s Pay Day and in the wake of Women’s History month, I’d like to take stock of where we are in terms of gender equity in social care. It’s important to recognise the gender pay gap that still exists for women working in paid roles, whilst also acknowledging the burden that falls on women, who shoulder most unpaid home and caring responsibilities. Through the lens of gender equity, we can better understand and tackle the social and economic challenges facing the care workforce. 23 April, 114 days into 2023, was the last Women’s Pay Day across sectors . Women’s Pay Day, or Equal Pay Day as it is also known, is the number of days the average woman works for free to equal the additional pay their male counterparts receive. This day changes based on profession and demographic. For the health and social care sector, “the gender pay gap is 14%, [and] the average woman works for free for 51 days until Monday 20 February 2023” .
Working in the social care sector, I’ve noticed we neglect to acknowledge that our workforce is composed of 82% women. Our overworked and underpaid care workforce affects more than one million women across the UK, and this workforce has been especially vulnerable to the cost-of-living crisis in the wider economy.
Throughout this particularly harsh winter, the British public experienced the heightened effects of the cost-of-living crisis . Gas and food prices have risen to unprecedented levels. Inflation continues to rise but salaries have not been able to keep up, especially in the health and care sectors.
The squeeze continues
One sector that is particularly hurting from the cost-of-living crisis is social care. The workforce is already in crisis due to staffing shortages, burnout rates, and lack of support for employees. Vacancy rates are up 52% in the past year in England . Also, the social care sector has failed to keep up with the rising wages of other sectors and continue to lose workers to higher paying jobs.
Beyond recruitment and retention issues, the cost-of-living crisis disproportionately affects the social care workforce because it is predominantly women working in the sector. The demographics are instructive. About half of the social care workforce is comprised of part-time or zero-contract hour employees. Part-time workers are more likely to live in poverty than full-time workers. Disabled people, which make up 24% of the social care workforce , are also overly burdened by the cost-of-living crisis.
Overall, much of the social care workforce is very near, at, or below the poverty line . Food insecurity for care workers and their families is a very real and current problem. The hardships faced by the workforce are only heightened by the cost-of-living crisis. We call on more robust data investigating the effects of the cost-of-living crisis on the social care workforce, particularly women carers, as we anticipate the repercussions, such as potentially lowering retention rates, to be significant.
- October 2022: The state of the adult social care sector and workforce in England
- The cost of caring: Poverty and deprivation
Capturing evidence
It is important to consider the cost-of-living crisis that is disproportionately affecting the social care workforce as a matter of gender equity. With over one million women working in this sector, we should be capturing evidence about their experiences and how this affects their decisions to remain in, or leave, the workforce.
These are every day women and families who are doing the important jobs of caring for and supporting our loved ones and ourselves in times of need. We need to continue to fight to ensure they are well cared for, too.
I believe that in order for co-production to work you first need to identify the need. For me this included the needs of my children and their schooling and I did this with the help of a newly qualified social worker who was open to new ways of thinking. Little acorns grow into big trees. As a recently separated disabled mother of two children at primary and nursery school, I had to independently get them to their daily activities on time every day. Not being a driver, this was a problem as the children’s father objected to me taking them to school on my mobility scooter, even getting an injunction to stop me doing this.
Money was tight so I developed a plan with the help of my social worker to cycle to school on a tricycle, supervising my children on their own bikes. To find out where to borrow a tricycle I contacted Disability Sheffield, who gave me Cycling UK’s local development officer’s contact details. His name was Steve and together, we co-produced a plan which involved road safety and me building up stamina and the provision of a tricycle.
New project named
My children are now grown up, but I continue to cycle for health benefits and to access shops, doctors and my own activities. Working with Cycling UK’s development officer we identified a need for a Sheffield based disability cycling service as we had to source my trike and support from around the country. We called our new project Sheffield Cycling4All and it has grown enormously since the first early days.
This is an excellent example of how good co-production can work for people like me as well as the organisations involved. Although I was a founder partner in the beginning and helped run the sessions for 10 years, carrying the Olympic torch on behalf of disabled people in the group, I have since stepped back from the day to day organisation and am now much more involved in the National Co-production Advisory Group.
Shared Lives care creates the best outcomes for people who need support and allows them to live the life they choose. At Shared Lives Plus we are committed to growing Shared Lives and transforming the adult social care landscape, allowing more people to access better-quality, person-centred care. Megan Lewis, who was in hospital for four years with mental ill-health has described the impact of Shared Lives on her life:
Late last year, Shared Lives Plus published a guide to growing Shared Lives for local authorities. In it, we discussed two big barriers to growth – the lack of awareness and knowledge amongst social workers in Shared Lives, and the challenge of recruiting Shared Lives Carers.
Funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) – and in partnership with the Social Care Institute for Excellence – we have developed two online resources libraries to help local authorities tackle these two challenges.
To attract a high calibre of Shared Lives carers we’ve created a directory to support Shared Lives schemes with carer recruitment, this includes animations/videos, social media graphics and printed collateral. As well as this we’ve developed free training courses for social workers to better inform them about Shared Lives care and assist them to make good referrals to Shared Lives.
These two new directories are a huge step forward in relation to growing Shared Lives and we are now calling on leaders across adult social care to join us in developing a positive vision for the future and to commit to growing Shared Lives.
When talking with Lyn Romeo Chief Social Worker for Adults at the Department for Health and Social Care about the new resources for social workers, she said:
I am really pleased that Department of Health and Social care was able to support Shared Lives Plus – the national charity which supports Shared Lives – and the Social Care Institute for Excellence to develop these new Shared Lives resources for social workers. I am a huge supporter of Shared Lives – it delivers excellent support to people and enables people to live good lives in a loving family home. As a social worker, I know however, that we have a huge role to play in supporting Shared Lives to flourish, and that we need to encourage more referrals into Shared Lives. These new resources were designed to raise the awareness, knowledge, and skills of social workers of Shared Lives and support social care professionals to make good referrals and provide ongoing support.
How do we ensure that people who are unable to make decisions about their care or accommodation arrangements aren’t arbitrarily removed of their Right to Liberty? With the announcement of a further delay to the implementation of Liberty Protection Safeguards, or LPS, I want to reflect (as a previous MCA DoLS lead, and continued social justice and Human Rights advocate) on where this may leave people and health and social care authorities, currently experiencing and managing significant ‘backlogs’ for Deprivation of their Liberty authorisations. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) has long been criticised for being overly complicated and bureaucratic. The challenges being apparently compounded with the Supreme Court decision in the case of P v Cheshire West & Chester Council & another; (2) P & Q v Surrey County Council in 2014, which lead to the number of referrals increasing dramatically due to the revised criteria for people being identified as Deprived of their liberty.
While the perceived simplification of criteria may have been welcomed from a practice development perspective, it has been an ongoing challenge for authorities to meet the fast and ever-increasing demands through referrals for Deprivation of Liberty Authorisations.
LPS has pointed to an opportunity and acceptance of the position that authorities faced in meeting this demand, and looked at opportunities to streamline the current process, making this part of the assessment processes currently in place.
Ultimately, however – this was an opportunity for anyone who provided care for, a person who was unable to make a decision about their care or accommodation arrangements to experience a more streamlined process to accessing their Safeguards, including access to a judge to hear their case and an advocate to monitor and review the arrangements in place.
…what it means to be deprived of liberty must be the same for everyone, whether or not they have physical or mental disabilities. If it would be a deprivation of my liberty to be obliged to live in a particular place, subject to constant monitoring and control, only allowed out with close supervision, and unable to move away without permission even if such an opportunity became available, then it must also be a deprivation of the liberty of a disabled person.Lady Hale, retired President of the Supreme Court
The proposed update of the Codes of Practice had mostly been widely welcomed, owing to the significant updates provided by case law. The consultation on the draft Codes of Practice had also raised many questions, including the interactions between children’s and adult’s legislation and Deprivation of Liberty, and the need to support families to understand what a Deprivation of Liberty is.
The largest concern for me remains: How do we ensure that people who are unable to make decisions about their care or accommodation arrangements aren’t arbitrarily removed of their Right to Liberty?
I spent time over the Easter period reflecting on the issues for Autistic people, and people with learning disabilities who continue to be detained in hospitals, (in some cases for decades) contact with families restricted and usually under the Mental Health Act. There are occasions where individuals are deemed no longer in need of Mental Health treatment, but are determined as unable to consent to a continued stay in the hospital, awaiting a community placement, and may therefore continue to be detained using the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
There remains an outstanding question about where a further delay to LPS implementation, will leave Autistic people and people with learning disabilities with the proposed Mental Health Act reforms, where they fall outside of it’s scope and Safeguards and may therefore fall under the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards criteria? Without reform to both areas, where will that leave people who are taken to Assessment and Treatment units and have nowhere else to go? (Dr Lucy Series explains this further in her blog
The importance and relevance of reforms required in this area were also highlighted in a research project by The University of Birmingham and Changing Our Lives: ‘Why Are We Stuck in Hospital?’. Over 2000 Autistic people or people with learning disabilities remain stuck in mental health units, some for decades, and without a legal framework in place, their legal right to challenge may become more difficult. The risk of abuse in these settings further highlights the need for urgent reform (see our Whorlton Hall report) for people who may need legal frameworks to ensure they can challenge arbitrary detentions.
My plea to the sector for now is: Do not forget that Deprivation of Liberty, is rooted in The Mental Capacity Act, and the requirements under the Human Rights Act remains. LPS discussions highlighted the continuation of poor understanding and implementation, across health and social care as well the continued reports of poor MCA practice leading to the premature deaths of people (as with Laura Booth). People subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are also likely to form part of the new CQC assurance framework and need close monitoring.
We must not forget the need to continue to embed good practice, good Human Rights based practice is never more needed and remains central to good social care and social work practice. We need to continue reviewing implementation and improving, with these improvements led by people who draw on social care. Alex Ruck Keene and Tim Spencer Lane have both, helpfully, detailed actions that leadership and practitioners should continue to take to support individuals under the Mental Capacity Act:
- Deprivation of liberty and the Mental Capacity Act – the way forward – Community Care
- LPS on the shelf – what to do now: video – Mental Capacity Law and Policy
SCIE provides support to local authorities to review their approach to MCA and DoLS, including to backlogs. We ensure practice is legally compliant and based in human rights based approaches and offer support you to improve. In addition, SCIE provides training to teams on MCA and DoLS, as well as hosting the MCA directory which is a single place for information to support implementation of the Mental Capacity Act.
Just over 3 years on from the first Covid-19 lockdown in the UK, care homes across England have shared their experiences of the pandemic, in order to inform future responses to crises. Over 200 people from 34 care homes shared insights into what support they received during the pandemic which they felt was valuable. These have been compiled into a new report ‘Rebuilding Together’. The report also explores what support care homes need right now, knowing that, for many, COVID-19 has not gone away; both in terms of infection and the long-term trauma it has left behind.
Individuals shared that, throughout the pandemic, teamwork, loyalty, resilience, commitment and connection to one another, were all critical for people living and working in care homes. When support was absent, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic, this led to people feeling alone and sometimes very scared. The contributing care home managers expressed a desire to be recognised, supported and appreciated (on par with NHS colleagues), and for guidance and policy to be clear, consistent and timely. They also identified a desire to sustain some of the positive changes experienced during the pandemic, for example greater knowledge of IT systems, infection control procedures and different forms of communication with families and community links.
These insights remind us of the commitment, care, courage and connections that exist in care homes. There is a vital need for care providers, the wider health and social care system and local communities to invest in the wellbeing of care teams, to actively engage in open conversations with people living and working in care homes and to explore what would help them now and into the future.
‘Rebuilding Together’ is authored by Oluwafunmilayo Vaughn, who has a research interest in frontline care staff, including developing and evaluating initiatives to improve wellbeing at work. She is an associate of My Home Life England, part of City, University of London. My Home Life England promotes quality of life and positive practice in care homes and other care settings.
I was intrigued to read the latest publication of County Lines data recently by the Home Office. County Lines has been a transformative concept in safeguarding terms, it has brought together numerous agencies and ideologies to focus on a substantial threat to children, young people and the vulnerable in our society. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) definition:
The 2018 Home Office Serious Crime Strategy states the NPCC definition of a County Line is a term used to describe gangs and organised criminal networks involved in exporting illegal drugs into one or more importing areas [within the UK], using dedicated mobile phone lines or other form of “deal line”. They are likely to exploit children and vulnerable adults to move [and store] the drugs and money and they will often use coercion, intimidation, violence (including sexual violence) and weapons.
I think I speak for many in children’s social care when I say that this endeavour was enthusiastically welcomed for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that it moves from a victim blaming focus towards a more systemic understanding of the problem of criminally exploited children, young people and their families.
I also feel that data never actually tells a story, we have to read data in combination with our own experience and context. Asking a series of questions to understand what the data could mean. So what has the Home Office said?
The figures show that since the County Lines Programme launched in 2019:
- 3,588 county lines have been closed
- 10,209 people have been arrested
- 5,727 individuals have been referred by police to safeguarding.
These sound like huge numbers and my first response was delight. What an enormous number of children made safer, what an important amount of control smashed, what a lot of people prevented from harming others.
Then I tried to stop and think a little more. Over ten thousand lines closed. The detail provided by the Home Office suggests that this combines two categories of lines. Phone lines disconnected (type 2) and phone lines reviewed and showed not to be usable for drug trafficking (type 1.) So, we would need to understand a little bit more to know what this data means. And does the public understand a line closure to mean a literal phone line, or would we have the greater expectation that a line closure really means the network disrupted and disbanded. The channel for harm taken away.
Similarly, the relationship to the numbers interested me. For each line closed, we have 2 (and a bit) people arrested. For each line closed we have 1 (not quite 2) people referred by the police to safeguarding.
Is this the right balance? Should each line closed result in multiple arrests, the whole network facing prosecution? Or do, in fact, the arrests show the extent of the impact that our work to prevent child criminal exploitation is achieving? How do we show the level of disruption? How do we measure childhood safety?
These figures do not tell the whole story, data needs narrative and we need to know whether we are making it so that exploitation is reducing. Is our community becoming safer? Will fewer people lose out? The only way we will get to this is a fully systemic response. And this is where SCIE comes in. SCIE seeks to support change, and this means focussing on people’s stories. We need to hear the voices of people to accompany this data to make sure we know what really counts. To find out more about SCIE’s support to safeguarding everywhere.
Depending on your professional background, lived experience of accessing services, where you work and engage with services, your perception of what co-production is will differ. When I worked in youth services, I hadn’t heard of the term co-production. I would consult young people on their views on strategies and programmes. Then, we would deliver the programme ourselves and discuss the outcomes with the same group of young people, covering what went well and what would be better to do next time to keep improving the service. There wasn’t wider engagement with others who took part in activities and programmes, and thinking about it now, I wonder how I would have done things if I knew co-production was a thing.
Since joining SCIE I’ve heard the term co-production being used a lot and was quite intrigued in the beginning. At SCIE: “We acknowledge there is no single perfect definition of co-production, but we use the following as a good starting point. We see co-production as a process that involves people who use services being consulted, included, and working together from the start to the end of any project that affects them. When co-production works best, people who use services and carers are valued by organisations as equal partners, can share power and have influence over decisions made”.
I was present at SCIE’s panel event during co-production week in 2022 (read my blog post below) and spoke to people from various professional backgrounds and with lived experience of accessing different services. Since then, there has been some keen interest on what the practice means to different people, what other terms are used in different settings, and what barriers may exist in its implementation.
To understand this, we have launched a survey for adult social care professionals and people with lived experience of adult social care services, to look at how familiar people are with the term co-production and its principles. The survey is not to test anyone’s knowledge, but to explore differences in language, opportunities, challenges and barriers. The survey will close on Tuesday 4th April 2023, and the findings of the survey will be reported between co-production week from Monday 3 July 2023 to Friday 7 July.
Ready for Social Work Week, we have launched a survey for adult social care professionals and people who draw on services, to share their thoughts and experiences on co-production. The survey will close on Tuesday 4 April, and its findings will be reported between National Co-production Week from Monday 3 to Friday 7 July.