Scaling innovations

Since the formal conclusion of SCIE’s main support to local authorities on 31 March 2025, a small number of local authorities have continued to receive targeted guidance in a ‘scaling innovation’ project following discussions with DHSC. These authorities are looking ahead—building on the insights, themes and effective practices that first emerged through the ARF—to embed long-term sustainability and maintain momentum in their innovation journeys. By taking a focused, partnership-driven approach, we’re supporting these local authorities to turn strategic priorities into tangible progress that strengthens systems and delivers real impact for people and communities.

So far, our collaborative themes have included:

• embedding sustainability and scalability within innovation programmes
• strengthening organisational culture to support and embed new ways of working
• translating policies and procedures into meaningful practice
• facilitating reflective community discussions to foster growth in local neighbourhood networks and better support individuals in need
• developing contingency plans for unpaid carers, ensuring resilience and continuity of care during times of crisis
• embedding co-production learning throughout project lifecycles to shape sustainable growth based on the lived experiences of those who draw on services
• supporting local authorities that have implemented Shared Lives models, helping them to strengthen preventative approaches and develop long-term plans for embedding and expanding these services sustainably
• enabling local authorities to better connect with health professionals, including GPs and wider health networks, to raise awareness of unpaid carer support and reinforce the vital role that health partners play in identifying and supporting carers.

Through this work, SCIE is helping local authorities transform learning into lasting impact, creating the conditions for innovation to thrive sustainably. 

The National Children and Adult Services Conference (NCASC) and next steps

We will shortly be announcing dates for our upcoming Communities of Practice webinars, where we will share the emerging insights with our scaling innovation projects and celebrate how collaborative innovation is shaping the future of support for unpaid carers.

We also reflected on the learnings from our work at NCASC 2025. Our focus was ‘digital innovation’—exploring how technology can support better outcomes and drive meaningful change in social care. We shared insights and showcased great examples of digital innovation, which are improving the efficiency of service delivery while enhancing the experience of those receiving care; many of the ARF projects have the potential to drive productivity through early-support schemes and preventative systems, using digital tools to innovate in hospital discharge, carer-identification and support for unpaid carers. 

The learning from the ARF and our scaling innovation projects reminds us that meaningful reform is both iterative and collaborative, a process of ongoing reflection, adaptation, and commitment to better outcomes for people who draw on care and support unpaid carers. The challenge now is to support and grow this across the system.

If you would like advice, guidance or simply an exploratory chat on digital innovation or other challenges you face and how we can help support you, please contact us here.

Yet current systems often prioritise risk management and compliance over human-centred factors and people’s choices. Today, people navigate fragmented pathways, repeating their story multiple times, while integrated care and support, as currently conceived, often adds complexity rather than removing it.

National standards of care must change this dynamic. They must organise care and support around people’s lives, not institutional boundaries. Done well, they can drive cultural change, incentivise collaboration and protect rights. Done badly, they risk reinforcing silos and stifling innovation. The question is not whether we need standards, but what kind of standards we choose to create and who we involve in creating them.

Co-production as a non-negotiable principle for developing care standards

Roundtable participants were unequivocal: co-production must be genuine, not tokenistic. Too often, the term is diluted into consultation or engagement exercises that leave power untouched. When people say co-production, they must mean co-production – sharing decisions, shaping priorities and holding influence throughout design, implementation and monitoring.

Lived experience must be at the heart of developing standards, and engagement must be meaningful, not box-ticking. This means including diverse voices – particularly those often unheard, such as people with dementia, learning disabilities or complex needs – alongside those most confident in speaking up.

Values-based standards

If national standards are to make a meaningful difference, they must be anchored in values rather than reduced to technical outputs or compliance checklists. Values are the compass that guides decisions when systems are under pressure, when resources are stretched, and when complexity threatens to overwhelm clarity. They tell us not only what we measure, but why it matters. Without a clear articulation of values, standards risk becoming hollow instruments – rules without purpose, processes without meaning.

The roundtable discussions made this point powerfully. People do not experience care and support as a series of transactions; they experience it as part of their life, built on trust and relationships. Standards must therefore express what we collectively value in those lives: dignity, autonomy, connection, and fairness. These values are not abstract ideals; they are practical principles that shape the experience of care and support. They determine whether someone feels heard and respected when planning their support, whether they can maintain relationships and hobbies, whether they have real choice and control over who supports them, when and how.

Making it Real offers a strong foundation for this values-based approach. Its “I” and “We” statements are not technical specifications; they are expressions of shared values.  These statements capture what matters most and translate values into lived experience. They are already embedded in regulation and co-produced with people who draw on care and support. Rather than reinventing the wheel, national standards should build on this work, using these statements as a common language across systems.

The need for a common language across systems

Indeed, one of the most striking themes from the discussion was the absence of a common language across health, social care and support, housing and community systems. Each part of the system speaks its own dialect – activity levels in the NHS, outcomes in social care, compliance in regulation – and these languages rarely translate. Without a shared vocabulary, it’s easier for professionals to work in silos, where people hit barriers or fall through the gaps.

National standards must help create this common language. It should be simple, human and focused on what matters to people. It should enable conversations across boundaries, particularly at key touchpoints such as hospital discharge or transitions into adulthood, where fragmentation is most acute. A shared language is not just a technical fix; it is a cultural one. It signals that success is measured by the lived experience of people, as well as by organisational metrics. It allows different parts of the system to see themselves as part of one team around one person. Without it, integration will remain an aspiration rather than a reality.

Tools like TLAP’s Language resources and tools show what this can look like and explore how language shapes culture and power. If we want integration to succeed, we need language that is clear, human and free from jargon – language that signals purpose, not process.

A foundation for fairness and flexibility

Equity emerged as a central principle in the roundtable discussions. Participants agreed that national standards must set a baseline of rights and expectations to tackle postcode lotteries and other care inequities, ensuring that protected characteristics or where you live do not determine the quality or availability of care and support.

Equity is not just about equal access; it is about equal dignity and opportunity. It means recognising that people’s lives differ and that local flexibility is vital to respond to those differences. A national framework should guarantee fundamental rights while enabling local partners to innovate and personalise support. This balance is delicate but necessary. One of the acknowledged tensions is between standardisation and personalisation. An overly prescriptive approach to care standards would risk stifling creativity, perpetuating inequalities and limiting personalisation of care.

“I can choose who supports me, and how, when and where my care and support is provided.” (Making it Real)

Where do we go next?

National standards must be anchored in co-produced values, not technical specifications. Specifically for integration, standards could focus on improving care at the key touchpoints where fragmentation hurts most. They must mandate meaningful co-production and inclusion of diverse voices. Metrics should align with lived experience, not solely institutional convenience. They must protect choice and flexibility as non-negotiable rights. Importantly, these care standards must address structural barriers that interfere with the benefits from integration – pooled budgets, aligned incentives and cultural change. They must make data sharing work for people, not just systems, and they must create a common language that unites different parts of the system around a single purpose: supporting people to live the lives they choose.

Integration begins and ends with people. Standards are not an end in themselves. They are a lever for change – a way to build care around life, not life around care.

As a not-for-profit charity, SCIE supports the development of innovative solutions to address challenges faced by children and families, helping ensure high quality, co-produced, ethical and evidence-based practice.

Creating solutions

With the use of digital tools and technology becoming more commonplace within the social care sector, development and implementation must be strategic and principled. Technology itself is not a panacea; its value is directly tied to how well it is embedded in systems, cultures and relationships. If it is removed from the realities of people’s experiences, it risks solving the wrong problems or creating new ones.

That’s why co-production must be at the heart of digital innovation. Creating solutions in equal partnership with people who draw on care and support, carers, families and the workforce means they reflect care as it is experienced—not how it is planned—and are driven by more than top-down targets.

Local innovation

Examples are emerging all over the country that demonstrate how digital innovation can be harnessed to address specific challenges in social care. Many of the Department of Health and Social Care’s projects supported by SCIE through the Accelerating Reform Fund (ARF), for example, have the potential to drive productivity through early-support schemes and preventative systems, using digital tools to innovate in hospital discharge, carer-identification and support for unpaid carers.

For instance, in Peterborough, the Bridgit AI chatbot has been introduced to support carers, offering a one-stop platform for information, advice and links to relevant organisations. Developed by the Caring Together Charity in partnership with local councils, the platform provides carers with instant answers to their questions and personalised guidance. In Kent, Kent County Council have joined up with Kirklees Council to co-produce a digital self-assessment tool, enabling carers to identify needs and connect to support at their own pace.

The National Children and Adult Services Conference (NCASC) 2025

We’ll be discussing these and other ARF projects in more detail at NCASC—alongside the wider work we’ve been doing with local authorities to explore and embed digital innovation across adult and children’s services and the findings from our new report, ‘Shaping change together: co-producing innovation in social care‘. The report, launched on Monday 24 November, has been informed by a national survey undertaken as part of Co-production Week 2025.

We are excited to host an exclusive reception and panel discussion on the future of tech-enabled social care with leader in lifestyle monitoring technology, Lilli. The session will share insights from Bromley’s digital transformation programme, including productivity and efficiency gains, and from Lilli’s work with Medway to support more people to live safely and independently at home. There’ll be a strong balance between national learning, local context and lived experience—supporting debate and peer learning among council leaders, practitioners and people who draw on care.

Alongside our focus on digital innovation, we will provide a wealth of evidence-based resources and practical information around best practice.  For example, we will host a workshop designed to help local authorities and partners ensure the best possible outcomes for children and young people when using the Mental Capacity Act:

Thursday 27 November, 09:30 – Getting the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty right for children and young people 

Use of the Mental Capacity Act for children and young people has grown over the last 12 years and is now a significant feature of children’s services practice. The workshop will take an in-depth look at how we can best adapt our systems to uphold the rights of children and young people, exploring how practice and our workers are most effectively supported. 

We’re looking forward to connecting, sharing ideas and learning together. If you would like advice, guidance or simply an exploratory chat on digital innovation or other challenges you face and how we can help support you, please do contact us or come and speak to us at our Exhibition Stand C30.

As a not-for-profit charity, SCIE supports the development of innovative solutions to address challenges faced by children and families, helping ensure high quality, co-produced, ethical and evidence-based practice.

Transitional safeguarding

Transitional safeguarding is an evidence-informed approach that seeks to bridge these divides—not just move people from children’s to adult’s services. It recognises that risk doesn’t change abruptly when a child becomes an adult, and that we must think more broadly about our responsibilities to support their needs.

For practitioners, this means they must navigate grey areas of responsibility, challenge age-based thresholds and provide relationship-based, trauma-informed support to young people.

To work effectively within this framework, practitioners first need a strong understanding of what transitional safeguarding is and how it applies in practice. This includes recognising the particular risks and vulnerabilities that young people face as they move into adulthood. These risks often intersect, creating complex circumstances that require sensitive, joined-up and sustained responses.

A clear grasp of the legislative, policy and guidance landscape is also essential. Practitioners must be confident in how the Children Act 1989 and the Care Act 2014 interact, and how these frameworks can be used to support young people as they move between services. Understanding the boundaries and overlaps of these laws helps ensure that care and protection remain consistent during this critical period.

Transitional safeguarding relies on effective partnerships between children’s and adults’ safeguarding teams, and with colleagues in health, education, housing, criminal justice and the voluntary sector. Practitioners need to be able to share information appropriately, plan together and coordinate interventions that reflect the whole person rather than the service they sit within.

Central to all of this is a commitment to empowering young people to participate meaningfully in decisions about their lives. Practitioners must ensure that their voices are heard, their rights are respected and their perspectives shape the support they receive. 

SCIE’s work

SCIE’s transitional safeguarding course helps practitioners build the knowledge, confidence and skills needed to put these principles into practice. 

Our first course brought together practitioners from a wide range of localities and organisations, each bringing experience, commitment and a determination to make change happen. Participants explored the challenges inherent in working across this age span and began to identify ways of bridging divides in systems and services. The session fostered open, constructive discussion about ethics, equity and engagement, highlighting how collaboration and shared purpose can drive progress in transitional safeguarding practice.

What’s next?

We will be running more transitional safeguarding open courses in the new year. If you would like to join us or learn more about the course, please visit: https://www.scie.org.uk/training/safeguarding/transitional-safeguarding-strengthening-practice-across-adolescence-to-adulthood/. We want this conversation to be open and creative; a conversation that explores the art of the possible and prioritises progress. And we will walk in step with our partners to make this happen.

SCIE will also be joining other sector leaders in Bournemouth from 26 to 28 November at the National Children and Adult Services Conference (NCASC), where we will be available to continue this conversation with you. We have also launched our first safeguarding newsletter.  So, if you want to find out more about how we can help you, through our consultancy or training offer, or if you want to receive our newsletter, have a contribution to make, a story to tell or a solution to share, please join us at our exhibition stand, C30, or contact us.

As a not-for-profit charity, SCIE supports the development of innovative solutions to address challenges faced by children and families, helping ensure high quality, co-produced, ethical and evidence-based practice.

The issues are not simply about technical infrastructure—but about power, trust and agency. Several participants emphasised that whilst we frequently use the language of “empowerment,” what people actually need is agency: the space, resources and trust to exercise control over their own information and care.

During the discussions, several critical elements were identified for building the right infrastructure:

Trust and transparency through co-production. People need to understand not just that their data is being collected, but why, how it will be used and what benefits it will bring—both to them individually and to the wider care system. As one participant observed, we need “informed consent, not just consent”—people must understand what they’re agreeing to.

Interoperability and expanding the use of shared care records. Despite years of effort, we still have situations where different departments in the same hospital can’t share patient information, let alone achieve seamless data flow between health and social care. Minimum standards for interoperability are still required. Yet participants shared examples of progress: when care providers demonstrated the value of shared data through tangible insights, reluctant organisations suddenly became eager to participate.

Collecting the right data to balances the need for regulatory consistency with operational innovation. As one participant noted, “We need regulation, but we don’t want to create an industry where suddenly it becomes over-regulated and kills innovation.” The solution may lie in what several called “standards light”—clear minimum requirements that leave room for innovation above the baseline.

A new model of data governance with user involvement. Participants discussed innovative approaches, including data commons where communities collectively own and benefit from their data, and trusted research environments where data can be used for the public good whilst maintaining privacy. The key is ensuring people who draw on care and support are genuinely involved in governance, not just consulted after decisions are made.

Financial sustainability to underpin local technology choices and infrastructure. Local authorities facing budget crises struggle to invest in preventative technology that might save money in five years’ time. Without addressing this fundamental challenge, even the best technical infrastructure will fail to deliver its potential.

Technology as a partner, not a replacement to care

Perhaps the most passionate discussions centred on ensuring technology enhances rather than replaces human connections in care. We heard concerning examples of care workers feeling “dictated by this thing in their hand,” rushing through visits because their electronic monitoring system tells them they’re running late for the next appointment.

Yet we also heard inspiring examples of technology creating time for what matters. AI-powered note-taking can free care workers from paperwork to focus on relationship building. Predictive analytics can identify people at risk of falls before they happen. Wearable devices can provide reassurance to families while maintaining independence for individuals.

The key insight? Technology works best when it’s designed with and for the people who will use it—not just managers or commissioners, but care workers and, crucially, people receiving care themselves.

Measuring what matters: outcomes, not outputs

A recurring theme throughout our discussions was the fundamental mismatch between what we measure and what actually matters.

This fixation on outputs—counting tasks completed, forms filled, systems implemented—actively works against the personalised, relationship-based care everyone agrees we need. Several participants shared frustrating examples: local authorities celebrating that care visits happened on time whilst missing that people felt rushed and unheard; providers ticking boxes for “activities delivered” while failing to ask whether those activities helped someone achieve their goals.

The shift we need is fundamental: from measuring what the system does to measuring what difference it makes to people’s lives.

Critically, this isn’t about collecting more data—it’s about collecting the right data. As one participant observed: “There is no accountability mechanism to say social workers input data because they want to get packages commissioned, the NHS inputs data because they’re scheduled. None of it is really about the person.”

The challenge for national standards is clear: how do we create frameworks that incentivise and measure what truly matters—whether people are living the lives they choose—whilst avoiding the trap of reducing complex human experiences to simplified metrics? The answer, participants suggested, lies in co-production at every level, ensuring those who draw on care and support don’t just receive services but actively shape how success is defined and measured.

How can the right technology infrastructure and data governance support national standards?

Three priority areas emerged for developing meaningful national standards around data and technology:

• First, we must establish infrastructure that gives people genuine control over their data. This means implementing the practical solutions identified: portable care records controlled by individuals, annual data reviews where people can correct their information and governance structures like local data ethics boards with lived experience members as decision-makers, not advisors. As participants emphasised, this is about creating agency, not just talking about empowerment.
• Second, we must shift from measuring outputs to measuring outcomes that matter. National standards should require providers and commissioners to track progress towards personal goals, not just task completion. This means embedding frameworks like ASCOT as requirements, linking payment to outcome achievement and ensuring people who draw on care and support define what success looks like for them personally. Technology can enable this shift—but only if we fundamentally change what we choose to measure.
• Third, technology must enhance rather than replace human connection. Standards should ensure technology creates time for relationship-building, not just efficiency gains. This means designing systems that prompt care workers with personal preferences before visits, using AI to free professionals from paperwork so they can focus on people and always preserving choice about how people interact with technology. As one participant stated clearly: the technology should be “as simple as an ATM machine” whilst preserving the irreplaceable value of human care.

These priorities aren’t separate initiatives but interconnected requirements for a care system that is both digitally enabled and deeply human.

The path ahead

As we prepare for our third roundtable on integration and system alignment across health and care, one message rings clear: technology and data are not ends in themselves but tools that should serve a greater purpose—enabling people to live the lives they choose, with the support they need, in the places they call home.

The challenge isn’t primarily technical. We have the technology. We increasingly have the data. What we need now is the collective will to redesign our systems around people rather than processes, to invest in relationships rather than just infrastructure and to ensure that in our rush to digitise, we don’t lose sight of what makes care truly caring.

In this rapidly evolving digital landscape, perhaps our greatest challenge—and opportunity— is to harness the power of technology whilst holding fast to the irreplaceable value of human connections. The care standards we develop must reflect both imperatives, creating a future care system that is digitally enabled while remaining deeply human.

Sector stakeholders were approached to participate in this roundtable series in August. The series has now hit capacity. If you are interested in joining the waiting list for this series, please contact George Appleton, Head of External Affairs at george.appleton@scie.org.uk

About SCIE

The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) improves the lives of people of all ages by co-producing, sharing, and supporting the use of the best available knowledge and evidence about what works in practice. We are a leading social independent charity working with organisations that support adults, families and children across the UK.

About The Access Group

Access Health, Support and Care, part of The Access Group, is a leading provider of health and care management software, trusted by over 14,000 registered care locations, over 25 NHS Trusts and more than 200 local authorities across the UK. For more information, please visit: https://www.theaccessgroup.com/en-gb/health-social-care/

If you have any questions regarding this submission, please do not hesitate to contact Molly Pennington, Press and Media Relations Officer, at molly.pennington@scie.org.uk

More recently, social care policy in England has focused on embedding principles of wellbeing, independence and choice. The Care Act 2014 established these as legal duties as well as an ambition, and frameworks such as Think Local Act Personal’s Making It Real statements translate them into lived experience outcomes “I” statements. These are not national standards in themselves, but they express the values any system of standards should seek to uphold, ensuring that people who draw on care and support have voice, control and meaningful choice in their lives. They also provide a useful benchmark for assessing the quality of individual experiences, services and local systems.

At the same time, regulatory reform is underway. The Care Quality Commission’s (CQC’s) Single Assessment Framework introduces a more consistent, data-informed approach to quality and improvement across services and systems. It also incorporates “I” statements from Making It Real, linking performance assessment more closely to people’s lived experiences. The CQC also uses “We” statements: quality statements that care providers, commissioners and system leaders should live up to for delivering high-quality, person-centred care.

Generating fresh ideas about the purpose and role of national care standards

Over the four roundtables, we will start to develop ideas about the purpose and role of national standards in a future care system.  One insight from the first roundtable was that care standards must balance three interdependent aims:

• People’s experiences of care and support—ensuring voice, dignity and personal outcomes.
• Quality and safety of care and support—fostering effective, safe and compassionate practice.
• Care system performance—driving improvement, accountability and integration across services.

While there is broad consensus about the vision for social care—as captured by Social Care Future’s call for everyone to live “in the place we call home, with the people and things we love”—achieving it in England depends on how we use the tools already at our disposal. Fully realising the ambitions of the Care Act and embedding the Making It Real statements across the sector may provide the strongest foundation for developing meaningful, person-centred national standards.

This is where the roundtable discussions began. Together, the participants expressed different views about the purpose of national care standards, what problems they might help us address, and what difference they will make to people who draw on care and support, as well as care providers, professionals and local systems. Three themes stood out from the discussions: a focus on core principles or values, embedding co-production and reframing the purpose of social care itself.

Values

Participants agreed that national standards should promote fairness and consistency so that the availability and quality of care and support are not determined by where someone lives or how their care is funded.They should empower people to understand their rights, navigate the system with confidence and have clarity about what they can reasonably expect from services.

Participants also agreed that national standards should underpin individual-centred care and prioritise outcomes that matter to the people who draw on care and support—rather than focusing on top-down, organisational processes—and should support people to make meaningful choices about their own lives and care.

Co-production

Participants stressed that the development and implementation of national standards must be co-produced with people who draw on care and support—as well as their families and carers. The co-production process must be meaningful, sharing power and giving people real influence over how standards are designed, applied and reviewed. Only by reflecting the priorities, needs and aspirations of the people they will impact the most can care standards drive real improvement and shift care provision from transactional to relationship-based. By focusing on what matters to people, we can also improve the efficiency of care services and stimulate innovation in technology and models of care.

Reframing social care

The roundtable discussions suggested that a framework for care standards could help shift the narrative around social care from crisis and deficit to one that recognises it as essential infrastructure—vital to how communities function and enabling people to live with dignity, connection and purpose. Conceptualising care in this way holds implications for the workforce, whose roles and skills will be better valued.

Looking ahead

Defining what national standards of care should be, and, crucially, what they are for, is not a straightforward task. The first roundtable surfaced important questions that remain unresolved. These include:

1. Flexibility. How can national standards provide clear guidance while allowing local adaptation and innovation?
2. Aspirations. Should standards define minimum protections or strive for excellence?
3. Responsibility. Who should be accountable for implementing, monitoring and maintaining standards?
4. Reach. Who are the standards for—the people who draw on care, providers, commissioners, regulators, or all of these?
5. Technology. How can and should digital tools and systems be used to support the delivery, monitoring and improvement of national standards while maintaining choice and human connection?

The first roundtable demonstrated the real value of open, cross-sector conversation. It surfaced the principles that must underpin any credible answer to our inquiry. Key points emerging from the deliberations were that national standards will only succeed if they are grounded in shared values, shaped through genuine co-production and supported by partnership across people, places and professions. What emerged was not a fixed blueprint for care standards, but an initial set of conceptual building blocks for what care standards can and should aim to achieve: fairness, trust and equity in our social care system, with a prominent focus on care experiences.

As we continue this roundtable series, we will draw these insights together, exploring the practical options available to government and the Casey Commission as they seek to translate the ambition for care standards into practical approaches and actions.

The second roundtable will explore how data and technology can underpin national care standards that are measurable, person-centred, and future-ready.

Sector stakeholders were approached to participate in this roundtable series in August. The series has now hit capacity. If you are interested in joining the waiting list for this series, please contact George Appleton, Head of External Affairs at george.appleton@scie.org.uk

About SCIE

The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) improves the lives of people of all ages by co-producing, sharing, and supporting the use of the best available knowledge and evidence about what works in practice. We are a leading social independent charity working with organisations that support adults, families and children across the UK.

About The Access Group

Access Health, Support and Care, part of The Access Group, is a leading provider of health and care management software, trusted by over 14,000 registered care locations, over 25 NHS Trusts and more than 200 local authorities across the UK. For more information, please visit: https://www.theaccessgroup.com/en-gb/health-social-care/

If you have any questions regarding this submission, please do not hesitate to contact Molly Pennington, Press and Media Relations Officer, at molly.pennington@scie.org.uk

Why strength-based leadership makes a difference

Too often, the starting point in mental health and care services is to ask, “What’s wrong?” or “What’s missing?” But a strength-based approach turns this on its head. It begins with the question: “What’s strong here, and how can we build on it?”

Recognising people’s existing skills, resilience, and networks isn’t just a nice idea, it works. By focusing on what people already bring, we can help build confidence, independence and purpose. Practice and research increasingly show that when services adopt this approach meaningfully, people feel more in control, recover better and often need less long-term support.

But this isn’t just about individual outcomes. Strength-based leadership changes how teams work, too:  empowering staff, encouraging collaboration and creating cultures where innovation and compassion thrive.

Co-production: more than a buzzword

If we want services that truly work for people, we have to go beyond consultation and commit to co-production, working in genuine partnership with those who draw on care and support.

Co-production means sharing power, listening deeply and building services together from the ground up. It’s a principle that runs through the Care Act 2014, and it’s one that many in the sector, including SCIE, are helping to turn into everyday practice.

With reforms ahead, including the forthcoming Mental Health Bill, we have a real opportunity to move beyond supportive language and towards clearer legal and policy expectations around co-production. That means embedding participation not just as an option, but as a right.

And the evidence backs this up. Our research, ‘Developing our understanding of the difference co-production makes in social care’, found co-production has a range of benefits. These include an increase in self-confidence, self-esteem and sense of empowerment, better health and wellbeing, increased engagement and trust and higher levels of satisfaction with and awareness of services.

Local success stories like the Wigans Deal, a transformation program by Wigan Council to move away from traditional top-down service delivery, and the Lambeth Living Well Collaborative, a group of commissioners, practitioners and people with lived experience that works to improve the mental health and wellbeing of Lambeth’s residents, also show what’s possible. These are examples where co-production has helped build trust, improve outcomes and reduce reliance on crisis services. They remind us that when people help shape the decisions that affect them, services become more sustainable, and communities more connected.

The theme of this year’s World Mental Health Day is ‘access to services – mental health in catastrophes and emergencies’. Co-production helps build services that are more resilient because they are shaped by the people who draw on and deliver them. This means they’re more grounded in real needs, better able to adapt quickly and more trusted by communities. When catastrophes and emergencies hit, these strengths help ensure services stay accessible, relevant and effective. For example, our research into the COVID-19 Pandemic found that areas with strong co-production were closer to understanding what was working for people and ensuring citizens shaped the response.

SCIE’s role in mental health reform

At SCIE, we’re passionate about supporting organisations to put these values into action. Through our consultancy, training, insights and resources offers, we help local authorities, providers and care leaders embed strength-based leadership and build co-production into how they work.

With mental health reform on the horizon, we’re already identifying where support is needed most, and we’re investing in new capacity, including recruiting a dedicated Mental Health Practice Lead. This role will offer expert advice and hands-on support to help local systems translate new legislation and policy into real, meaningful change.

Looking ahead

This World Mental Health Day, let’s commit to more than just raising awareness. Let’s take action.

By investing in strength-based leadership, embedding co-production and listening, really listening, to the voices of people and communities, we can build services that don’t just treat problems but nurture potential. Services that empower people. And systems where everyone feels heard, seen and valued.

To find out more about how we can help you in mental health practice, contact us.

To learn more about World Mental Health Day and how you can get involved, visit the Mental Health Foundation’s website.

As a not-for-profit charity, SCIE supports the development of innovative solutions to address challenges faced by children and families, helping ensure high quality, co-produced, ethical and evidence-based practice.

Purpose and scope

What is missing at present is a shared understanding of what national standards will mean in practice. Should they act as baseline guarantees that safeguard against poor practice, aspirational goals that drive continuous improvement or a combination? Should they be defined in terms of behaviours, processes or outcomes?

This uncertainty also means it’s unclear what areas of care the standards should cover, how detailed they should be and whether they should apply in the same way across different types of services.

Without clarity on these points, it will be impossible to establish consistent expectations or ensure a common understanding of safety and quality. By bringing people from across the sector together, our roundtables will examine these gaps and the values, purpose and outcomes that national standards should deliver. In doing so, they will provide a foundation for a system that aspires to excellence.

Technology and data

National standards should be measurable, transparent and future ready. Yet fragmented systems and underdeveloped infrastructure mean data in social care often fails to capture what matters most to people. There are also unresolved questions about how digital tools such as AI and real-time analytics can be used responsibly, how to guarantee digital inclusion, and how issues of consent and the ethical use of personal data should be addressed.

The Access Group’s expertise will allow us to explore how digital tools, real-time analytics and data governance can strengthen accountability, transparency and continuous improvement—while ensuring that digital innovation reflects lived experience, not just system metrics.

Integration

Social care does not operate in isolation. National standards must align with housing, health, workforce and community services to create a joined-up system that supports people’s lives, not just service delivery. 

The current gaps across the health and care system mean that people often experience fragmented services and varying outcomes. Drawing on diverse perspectives from across the sectors, the roundtables will examine the mechanisms, partnerships and approaches needed to ensure standards can support a more coordinated and cohesive system of care. This includes looking at how standards might align with current reform efforts in the NHS and housing sectors, promote shared outcomes across systems, and strengthen collaboration between local government, the NHS and voluntary and community services at the local level.

Accountability

Current accountability and assessment arrangements in the sector rely heavily on compliance and regulatory inspection, which can identify failings but do not always promote learning or improvement. A further gap lies in defining what accountability should mean in practice: whether it is about assurance for government, confidence for people who draw on care, or support for providers to improve.

Within the context of national standards of care, there is no clear agreement on who should own and evolve the standards over time, and how responsibility might be shared in a way that keeps the system responsive to the people it serves; standards must evolve iteratively and inclusively, responding to demographic change, evidence and feedback from people who draw on care.

We hope our framework will create a fresh vision that ensures accountability doesn’t default to narrow inspection processes and tick-box exercises—instead becoming a driver of trust and sector-wide development.

This is an opportunity to co-create a lasting framework for adult social care reform with those who know social care best—a framework that bridges the gap between ambition and practical, actionable proposals and reflects outcomes that matter to people, such as independence and emotional wellbeing, not just compliance with procedures.

Ultimately, the aim is a social care system where people experience consistent quality, dignity and empowerment no matter where they live or what type of support they require. SCIE and The Access Group look forward to working with partners from across the sector to realise this vision.

Environmental demands and culture change

This kind of change can be one of the most complex to navigate, as it rarely happens in a uniform or linear way, making it all the more important that change programmes are designed to flex with emerging realities while maintaining a clear focus on improvement.

The COVID-19 pandemic remains a striking example. Things that had previously been sacred changed almost overnight: services were delivered remotely, visits were conducted on doorsteps and teams adapted to working from home. Many of these adjustments were temporary, but some have endured, permanently altering aspects of practice and expectations.

Importantly, the pandemic didn’t just force short-term adaptations; it accelerated wider trends. One of the most significant has been the sector’s rapid adoption of digital tools and technologies. What might have taken a decade happened in just a few years. This is therefore an exciting period of change, and one that demands that we keep pace with technological developments while continuing to ask critical questions to safeguard human rights as we navigate this new terrain.

SCIE is supporting many local authorities on their journeys of digital adoption and AI innovation. For example, in 2024/25, SCIE worked with three pathfinder local authorities to examine how emerging technologies could better support care delivery. This collaboration, delivered in partnership with the Department of Health and Social Care, Partners in Care and Health, and sector colleagues, focused on practical applications such as assistive technology, data-driven approaches and digital tools for frontline workers.

One of the most striking aspects of this work is the need to reimagine traditional partnerships. Collaboration within children’s social care has primarily focused on foster carers, the NHS and the police – now, in this emerging AI landscape, local authorities must also build effective partnerships with technology companies and developers. This is a shift in culture as much as in capability, and it sets the stage for how environmental change interacts with, and sometimes drives, policy and legal developments.

New policy and legislative direction

Policy and legislation are perhaps the most recognised formal drivers of change. However, navigating them is rarely straightforward, particularly when they intersect with rapid environmental shifts such as those seen during COVID-19 and the digital transformation that followed.

Currently, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is progressing through Parliament; the Families first for children pathfinder is driving changes in organisational structures and practice; and the policy for whole-system reform is set out in Keeping children safe, helping families thrive. Each of these will create both opportunities and challenges that must be carefully considered.

Alongside these statutory levers, there are influential, but less directive, mechanisms such as Select Committee reports, sector reviews and independent inquiries. These can shape thinking and galvanise momentum, even without a statutory mandate. For example, the Education Committee’s report How to fix children’s social care and restore care leavers’ life chances, which highlights rising demand, shortages of suitable local placements and the need to prioritise family-based support, was broadly welcomed across the sector. It echoed calls that have been made for many years and reflected the lived experiences of children, young people and families.

Identifying what needs to improve is only part of the challenge. Turning ambition into impact requires a clear route to delivery, supported by the right conditions, capacity and leadership. This is often one of the most demanding aspects of designing and delivering improvement programmes, especially when the landscape is already being reshaped by cultural and technological change.

Case law, appeals and interpretations

Changes arising from case law, appeals and legal interpretation can be more radical and impactful than is commonly recognised, and they often interact with both policy and environmental factors.

One notable example is the complex legal case In the matter of X and Y (Children Adoption Order: Setting Aside). This case concerns the application and subsequent appeals by an adoptive mother to revoke an Adoption Order regarding two children, X and Y. The proceedings began in February 2023, when the Local Authority initiated care proceedings to establish an order reflecting the children’s living arrangements. Two further courts rejected the applications to revoke the Adoption Orders, and on 28 July, the Supreme Court granted permission for the appeal to be heard.

While this may appear to be a matter of legal technicalities, it has the potential to fundamentally alter the legal framework surrounding adoption. Questions arise regarding the permanence of Adoption Orders: if they can be revoked or appealed, what implications does this have for the security and stability these orders are intended to provide? Moreover, could this affect individuals’ willingness to adopt if adoption no longer guarantees permanence?

The systemic impacts could be substantial. A weakening of adoption as a form of permanence may influence kinship care arrangements, fostering, and broader care planning decisions. The ripple effects of such a change could reverberate throughout the entire children’s social care system. That is why interpreting these developments through the lens of lived experience is essential to safeguard the dignity, stability and wellbeing of children and families.

A holistic approach

These three sources of change – environmental and cultural shifts, policy and legislative developments, and legal developments – rarely occur in isolation. More often, they influence each other in ways that create both opportunities and risks. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated how environmental shocks can accelerate technological change, which in turn can drive policy adjustments and spark legal questions.

For those designing and delivering improvement programmes, it is essential to consider all three perspectives in parallel. This requires balancing a broad, strategic outlook with a focused, detailed approach, grounded in the voices of people with lived experience, a deep understanding of local contexts and rigorous attention to practical evidence. This combination creates a tested approach that supports the translation of overarching narratives into effective day-to-day practice and sustainable change.

As a not-for-profit charity, SCIE supports the development of innovative solutions to address challenges faced by children and families, helping ensure high quality, co-produced, ethical and evidence-based practice.

Supporting parents and carers

I particularly welcome the recommendation that calls for a right to advocacy for parents attempting to navigate the children’s disability system. I come to this opinion because of my years of experience talking to people with lived experience of social care. I know how hard they have had to fight to get their voices heard, and how they often need to fight to secure the right support, with this process taking a heavy toll. These missed opportunities to support families can result in difficulties becoming more entrenched or lead to crisis situations. As we all know that entrenched and crisis situations are harder to resolve.  

SCIE has a training programme available for local authority staff on Parent Carer Assessments. The aim of this programme is to support the attendees to understand that improving practice in the assessment and the development of support plans for parents can reduce the harms caused by the system. It is my hope that these recommendations from the Law Commission will bring this practice improvement to the fore, but in the meantime, Local Authorities and practitioners may want to look at our training programmes.  

Making systems simpler  

Another important theme is simplicity. As participants in our training and consultancy programmes often highlight, fragmented assessments and disconnected funding streams make it difficult to connect families to their support.  

We support Local Authorities on this subject as part of our consultancy; we deliver system reviews to understand whether the design of services supports efficient and effective delivery and outcomes. When we review these services, SCIE always ensures that the voice of lived experience is embedded, so that the service design meets the needs and delivers outcomes for the children, young people and families who draw on them.  

Preparing for adulthood

Finally, the Commission’s focus on transition to adult social care and the preparation to adulthood is crucial. Too many young people and families still describe the ‘cliff edge’ between children’s and adults’ services. SCIE is proud to be supporting children, young people and their families with this transition to adult social care. Our approach is to equip and empower people with the skills, information and energy to navigate the system well. And of course, because we deliver this support in a group format, people empower each other. The power of peer support, combined with system information, is formidable.  

Turning ambition into action  

We are pleased that the recommendations of the Law Commission echo what real people have been telling us and that the lived experience of care systems is being heard. 

While we wait to see how these recommendations will be taken up by government and turned into policy, SCIE is here to help and work with the sector on making changes real in our communities.  

Conversations that shape innovation

At SCIE, we’ve seen how conversations need to sit at the heart of innovation. Our Insights to Empower project, part of the Longitude Prize on Dementia, is a good example of that.

The technology uses discreet sensors in the home to notice changes in daily routines. That’s powerful in itself; it can help carers spot signs of restlessness, confusion or distress earlier, and provide reassurance out of hours. But what made the project meaningful was not just the technology—it was the conversations with people living with a dementia and their families. They told us what they wanted technology to do, what felt supportive and what felt intrusive. That dialogue shaped the design and the way the insights were generated. The result was not simply a set of devices, but a tool grounded in real lives—one that helps people stay independent and live in a place of their choosing for longer.

Co-production is built on dialogue

Co-production with people with lived experience of social care underpins and informs everything we do at SCIE, enabling us to recommend best practice in social care.

Our Insights to Empower project highlights what co-production really means: not delivering solutions to people, but building them together. And it starts with conversations.

When we ask people with lived experience about their needs, hopes and goals, we uncover ideas and perspectives that professionals alone might miss. During Co-production Week 2025, we heard how important it is that technologies shouldn’t be designed in isolation. They need to be designed through conversations with the people who use them.

Without that back-and-forth, innovation risks missing the mark. With it, we can create something that is practical, respectful and empowering.

This emphasis on co-production was also at the core of the Department of Health and Social Care’s Accelerating Reform Fund (ARF), which SCIE supported. The ARF supported local projects across England that are testing new approaches in adult social care. What stands out from many of these projects is how co-production has been central, with councils, providers and communities working directly with people who draw on care and support. Those conversations have shaped priorities, helped test new models, and made sure that services and future innovation reflect what people actually want and need.

Conversations about equity

Another conversation we need to have is about equity.

Equity in dementia care doesn’t mean everyone gets treated the same. It means recognising that people have different needs and barriers to accessing support. For some, language or cultural stigma gets in the way. For others, it’s geography, income or digital exclusion. If we treat everyone the same, we risk leaving some people behind.

At SCIE, we’re exploring this through our forthcoming Equity Evidence Hub, due to launch later this year. The Hub will bring together evidence and lived experience to show where barriers exist and what can be done to reduce them. The aim is to highlight practical steps for creating a fairer system that responds to people’s varied circumstances.

Conversations will be at the centre of this. Asking people about the obstacles they face helps us see what support should look like in practice. Listening carefully to those voices allows us to design care and services that are not just equal, but equitable.

This approach is embedded in the work of the EquaDem Network Plus, of which SCIE is a partner. This research collaborative focuses on tackling inequities in dementia care and support. The network’s research aims to influence policy, improve care delivery, and ultimately enhance the well-being of those affected by dementia and their caregivers.

Without those conversations, inequities persist. With them, we can move towards a system where support is fair, responsive and accessible to all.

What policymakers need to hear

For policymakers, the message this World Alzheimer’s Month is clear. Conversations are not ‘nice to haves’, they are the foundation of good policy.

• Ask people with lived experience what matters most to them.
• Listen to what they say, even if it challenges existing plans.
• Act by embedding co-production in dementia care and support, making sure services and policies are inclusive and equitable.

Keep asking

So this September, let’s remember the power of conversations. Ask about dementia. Ask about Alzheimer’s. Ask people living with dementia what they need, what they hope for and what they want from the support around them.

Every question sparks a dialogue. Every dialogue shapes better care. And those conversations, repeated across homes, communities and services, can change the way we innovate and support people living with dementia for the better.

To find out more about the campaign and how you can get involved, visit Alzheimer’s Disease International’s website.

You can also learn more about EquaDem here.

And if you would like to find out how we can help support you with co-production, contact us here: sciebusdevelopmentteam@org.uk.

A sector under strain

When Covid-19 arrived, adult social care was already living with long-standing pressures. For decades, the sector has operated in the shadow of the NHS; vital to the nation’s wellbeing, but chronically underfunded and undervalued.

Funding for social care is a patchwork of public and private sources. Local authorities are legally responsible for meeting eligible needs, but their budgets have been squeezed for years. In many places, funding has been held at 2011–12 eligibility thresholds, meaning more people now fall outside the scope for publicly funded support. This has led to a growing reliance on unpaid family carers and on people’s own resources, further deepening inequalities.

The sector’s structure adds to the challenge. Unlike the NHS, which is a single, national entity, social care is delivered by more than 18,500 mostly private or voluntary providers in England alone, offering a wide mix of residential care, home care, supported living, and day services. This diversity is a strength when it allows for tailored local solutions, but it can become a weakness in a national emergency when decisions are taken without understanding how the system actually functions.

Successive governments have acknowledged problems such as the “postcode lottery” in access to care and the bottlenecks in hospital discharge caused by limited community care capacity. Numerous commissions, including the Dilnot Commission in 2011, have set out solutions, but political consensus on funding reform has never been reached. Instead, we have relied on short-term crisis funding, which cannot provide the stable foundation the sector needs.

The pandemic

As such, the pandemic struck a system already under strain. The specific challenges posed by Covid-19 – its speed of transmission, the need for infection control in people’s homes and communal settings, the risks to an already stretched workforce – were not fully anticipated by public health experts responsible for pandemic planning.

In the early months, decisions were made at pace, often with unintended consequences for those who draw on care and support. Rapid hospital discharges, in some cases without adequate testing or preparation, led to harm. Suspension of parts of the Care Act reduced statutory protections. Restrictions on visiting severed vital social connections. For some, this meant months of isolation, confusion, and fear.

Public understanding of social care often reduces it to care homes for older people. This narrow view risks leaving out the millions of people supported in their own homes or in supported living. It also underestimates the sector’s role in preventing hospital admissions, maintaining independence, and supporting people to live fulfilling lives. The Inquiry heard evidence that early decision-making did not adequately consider this broader scope.

Despite the challenges, the sector responded with ingenuity and determination. Local leaders cut through bureaucracy to make rapid changes. Social workers and care providers embraced technology for virtual assessments and contact with families. Community networks stepped in to provide companionship and practical support.

SCIE’s role

While SCIE was not responsible for setting government policy, we recognised that the sector needed accessible, trusted guidance and resources. In March 2020, we established a Covid-19 information hub to address the absence of a centralised source of social care-specific advice. Throughout the pandemic, we expanded the hub’s content, disseminated a variety of practical resources, and offered a popular series of learning webinars. These efforts helped the sector implement both government policies and best practices, many of which emerged from the sector itself.

We worked with sector partners to translate complex, rapidly changing government guidance into “Quick Guides” that could be used by care workers, managers, and commissioners. These were practical, concise, and grounded in evidence-based good practice. Many were developed directly in response to questions from the frontline.

Our SCIEline newsletter and online resources reached thousands of people across the UK, including local authority staff, private and voluntary sector providers, NHS colleagues, and social workers. We also contributed to the Government’s Social Care Sector Covid-19 Support Taskforce, ensuring that the sector’s needs and realities were represented at the national level.

By summer 2020, we launched Beyond COVID: New Thinking on the Future of Adult Social Care, a programme of research, sector engagement, and policy recommendations. Our key messages then remain relevant today:

• Workforce reform: improve pay, conditions, and career progression to achieve parity of esteem with the NHS.
• Sustainable funding: move from short-term crisis injections to long-term stability.
• Prevention and early support: invest in housing, technology, and community-based care to reduce demand for crisis intervention.

Applying the lessons: the 10 Year Health Plan

The newly published 10 Year Health Plan offers a real chance to embed these lessons into future policy. SCIE’s experience during the pandemic reinforces several of its priorities:

• Integration must be real, not rhetorical, when delivering the Neighbourhood Health Service. Health and social care are interdependent; lessons from the pandemic reflect that reality.
• Social care is critical to the NHS’s prevention ambition. SCIE’s ‘Supporting engagement with reablement: a practice guidance resource for reablement services’ highlights how preventative approaches can reduce long-term dependency and improve outcomes for people post-discharge, while also relieving NHS pressures.
• To truly move from hospital to community, a sustainable workforce is the bedrock of this ambition. For neighbourhood services to succeed, social care workers must have pay, conditions, and professional status that reflect their vital role.

Applying the lessons: the Casey Commission

Module 6 of the Public Inquiry has confirmed what the sector has been saying for years: the vulnerabilities that shaped the pandemic response were not created by Covid-19, they were the product of decades of underfunding and piecemeal reform. Many of the systemic weaknesses exposed during the crisis are the very issues identified as far back as the Dilnot Commission in 2011. They remain unresolved today.

The Casey Commission has the potential to break this cycle, but only if it avoids the incrementalism and fragmentation that have characterised past reform efforts. SCIE’s vision is for the Commission to adopt design thinking as its guiding method: an approach grounded in co-production, system integration, and radical collaboration. This is not just about producing another report; it is about setting a bold, shared North Star for a care system that enables people to live “gloriously ordinary lives,” and then charting a realistic, staged pathway to get there.

The Inquiry has shown how, in a crisis, the absence of consensus on these fundamental questions can cost lives and limit the effectiveness of the response. That is why the Commission’s “moonshot” must directly confront the historical sticking points:

• How do we fund the social care system sustainably?
• What are fair and reasonable eligibility criteria for publicly funded care?
• How do we end the postcode lottery in access and quality?

By framing these as system co-design challenges, the Commission can test solutions locally, working with people who draw on care, their families, and those who provide it, before scaling what works nationally. This collaborative, iterative process offers the best chance of building the public and political consensus needed to implement lasting reform. In this way, the Casey Commission can not only respond to the lessons of the pandemic but also help ensure those lessons are never forgotten.

A call to action

The Public Inquiry has shone a light on what happens when social care is treated as an afterthought. Another pandemic, or any large-scale public health emergency, would expose the same weaknesses, unless we act now.

Whilst we await the final recommendations of the Inquiry, the 10 Year Health Plan and Casey Commission are rare opportunities to put social care on a sustainable footing. Social care is not simply a service; it is the infrastructure that enables millions to live the lives they choose. The pandemic showed us the cost of neglect; the challenge now is to show the value of investment.

Module 6 of the Inquiry may have concluded its hearings, but for all of us in the sector, the work of reform is just beginning.