Care Where We Live: Local government's role in adult social care reform

Reasons for hope

For too many years, adult social care has been discussed primarily through the language of crisis, pressure and failure. Of course, the pressures facing councils, providers, unpaid carers and the workforce are very real and should not be understated – as are the consequences of those pressures on people drawing on care and support. 

But framing the issues in only those terms does a serious disservice to the millions of people who draw on care and support, sustain the system as unpaid family carers, and make up its dedicated workforce. As important, it also does nothing to inspire interest, confidence and ambition among a public who, according to polling and research, neither fully understand adult social care nor prioritise it.

This relentlessly bleak and often fatalistic underpinning attitude, along with the perennially thorny issue of how to pay for social care, may partly explain why the momentum behind countless commissions, reviews and inquiries into the future of adult social care have stalled before any change could take hold and why associated policy papers now litter the long grass. For everyone connected to adult social care, the frustration is deep. We know from our experience that, at its best, adult social care is one of the foundations of a good society. And we also know that as our population changes and expectations rightly evolve, its importance to all of us will only continue to grow. 

This time – and this is said this with requisite caution given the years of false dawns – feels different. So, why the optimism? Because there is a sense, however embryonic, that the conditions may finally exist to build a broader and more lasting consensus for change. Leadership, including political leadership across parties, is a key part of this. 

The work being led by Baroness Louise Casey carries weight and credibility across local and national government, as well as the adult social care sector. Her reputation for confronting difficult issues honestly, building alliances across institutional boundaries and driving reform through complex environments matters enormously. So too does the early accent she has placed on people drawing on care and support as both expert diagnosticians of the issues facing the service and expert identifiers of solutions that would make a tangible difference. Her emphasis on cross-party talks – not as an afterthought at the end of the process but embedded throughout it – is also welcome and a likely key enabler of progress. At a time when public trust in institutions feels fragile, that willingness to engage across party lines and focus on the long-term national interest is both important and encouraging. 

We also see valued leadership in other areas of adult social care. The work done by local government, government departments, care providers and trade unions in the development of the Fair Pay Agreement for the care workforce is one such example. As is the work over recent years across CQC, DHSC, MHCLG, ADASS and the LGA to develop and co-design a framework for the regulator’s new assessment of councils against their Care Act Part One duties. The partnerships that have formed around the ADASS ‘Time to Act’ reform proposals, Skills for Care’s workforce strategy, and Social Care Future’s work to ‘change the story’ about adult social care are further examples of effective, collaborative leadership that widen the tent for more diverse voices to be heard.

This moment is also bigger than any one review or commission on adult social care or one strand of policy development and implementation, however. There is a wider debate about the future of public services (in which social care reform sits) and their role in helping create the kind of country we want to be. Local government and the LGA as the sector’s membership body has real leadership to offer on this, too. 

Councils, working closely with numerous partners, live and breathe the mechanics of designing and delivering services that improve people’s lives and the communities in which they live. Their deep and wide experience of public services is well attuned to pan-government growing recognition that systems designed primarily around crisis response are neither delivering the outcomes people want, nor are financially sustainable. 

Engagement response:

"In my local council you are already talked to as if you are a human being, there is good communication with people who draw on care and support and there is a 'compact or agreement' between local people and the council which sets the tone of how to work together in partnership. We should celebrate and spread good practice where we see it.”

The shifts from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention, from fragmentation to place-based partnership, and from dependency to independence and wellbeing, are now shaping a debate beyond just adult social care and it is a debate local government is well versed in. Councils understand the interconnections across multiple other services and systems – about benefits, housing, the built environment, employment and skills – inside out. While we might not yet be pushing at an open door, it does feel like there are fewer obstacles behind it.

Recognition of the potential importance of this moment, and the expertise councils can bring to bear, was why the LGA wanted to offer its leadership to the process. Through our Care Where We Live engagement, we set out to explore a question that sits at the heart of the reform debate: what should the role of local government be in a future, reformed system of adult social care? Bringing together professionals, people who draw on care, unpaid carers, partners and wider stakeholders, the programme was designed not simply to gather views, but to help inform and enrich the national conversation. 

At a time when there is renewed momentum behind reform, our engagement process has provided an opportunity to test ideas, surface difficult questions, and ensure that the perspectives of local government, communities and people with lived experience are reflected in the debate about what comes next. Just as importantly, it has helped identify areas of emerging consensus at a time when consensus itself may be one of the most valuable ingredients for successful reform. Indeed, this may be one of the most important lessons from the engagement; that there is far more shared ground than is sometimes assumed.

This is not to say that the path to reform will be easy. There will, inevitably, be difficult questions ahead; questions about funding and taxation, accountability, integration, workforce reform and its operational reality, and the respective roles of national and local government. Reasonable people will disagree on some of the answers as they will disagree on some of the trade-offs that will likely arise as the shape of reform becomes clear.

When those difficult questions and trade-offs surface and the momentum for change may feel more fragile, it will be important to remember that people are not asking for perfection. They are asking for a system built more clearly around humanity, dignity, independence and connection. They are asking for families to be better supported, so that they may continue to care and live the fullness of their lives, including work. They are asking for public services that work together more effectively around people’s lives. And they are asking for political leadership capable of looking beyond immediate pressures and short-term political success, and towards long-term reform.

Respondent quote:

"The best part is when professionals actually listen. When they take time to understand our family situation things run much more smoothly. This small act of kindness makes such a huge difference.”

The opportunity now exists to take a different path: one grounded in partnership, shared responsibility and a broader understanding of what adult social care makes possible in people’s lives and communities. When all of those lives are considered together – those people drawing on care and support now and those people that might need to in the future – it is also a path towards helping our country to think about how we can age well and live well; how we individually and collectively plan for that, and what that looks and feels like in practice. The challenge for all of us is whether we are prepared to seize it and we hope this publication plays a part in enabling us all to do so.

Cllr Louise Gittins, Chair, Local Government Association

Cllr Dr Wendy Taylor MBE, Chair, LGA Health and Wellbeing Committee

Why this matters: the value of great adult social care to all of us

In a modern world that increasingly experiences rapid change, uncertainty and disharmony, it feels more important than ever to be rooted in, and able to enjoy, the things we love. Those things are innumerable and unique to each of us. But take a step back and they can perhaps be grouped under the broad headings of ‘people’ (family, friends and other loved ones), ‘places’ (our home, community, destinations of interest) and ‘passions’ (hobbies, interests and activities). 

People, places and passions: a good life, lived well

Many of us will take for granted our ability to connect to those things. So, what if you found yourself unable to do so? You would want, and rightly expect, support to reconnect you to those things. 

This is what we would all want and it is why the debate about the future of care and support is about ‘all of us’, not ‘them and us’. 4 in 5 people will need adult social care in their lifetime and 3 in 5 people will be unpaid carers at some point in their lives.

For people who have reason to draw on it, ‘adult social care’ is that support to connect to people, places and passions; not as an end in itself, but rather the means by which people can continue doing the things that matter most to them. The level and type of support will of course vary from person to person, but ultimately adult social care is an important means by which we can safely and securely attach to what gives us meaning. 

At its best, this connecting function works well. People who work in adult social care go about their jobs – meaningfully and relationally – with people who draw on services and support to build a full picture of the person’s life and the life they want to lead. They will, together, create a plan for care and support that gives the person agency and best enables them to benefit from the love and joy that comes from the fullness and richness of their life. In this way, people drawing on care and support feel – and are – in control; authentically seen and heard as the best expert on what constitutes a good life for them. Their people, places and passions.

Respondent quote:

Social workers spend their working lives with people implementing policy, local and national, and using the legislative framework in a way that impacts real lives...Social work - and social workers - deserve to be more central to the thinking about the future of adult social care than they are.”

Supporting people to live the lives they want to lead is the ultimate objective of adult social care and support. Yet its value extends beyond just individual citizens:

• It connects families and relationships, whether that is helping unpaid carers stay in or return to work, education or community life, or enabling families to stay nearby in their own communities rather than being separated by distant or out-of-area placements. 
• It strengthens communities, helping people stay connected to local groups, volunteering, faith, arts, sport and neighbourhood life, while also building more inclusive and age-friendly communities in which people remain active citizens.
• It supports local economies, through creating jobs rooted in place, and fostering social enterprises, cooperatives and other community-led organisations.
• It sustains wider public services, particularly the NHS, by preventing crises, avoiding unnecessary admissions, supporting timely discharge, and helping people remain well and independent at home for longer. 
• It underpins prevention and resilience, reducing loneliness and isolation, strengthening informal networks of support, and helping communities respond earlier before needs escalate into crisis. 

Through all of this, adult social care is fundamentally about improving social justice and human rights, enabling disabled people, older people unpaid carers and others drawing on support to exercise choice, maintain dignity and independence, participate fully in society, and live lives equal in value and opportunity to everybody else. 

It is national infrastructure, scaffolding, glue, and a connector; it is the way in which we have inclusive, stronger communities.

Councils play a proud role in this pursuit and it is why many of us – as either elected Members or council officers – entered local government. By extension, the LGA is equally proud to play its part in championing a brighter future for adult social care.

"Ultimately, good social care is personalised, empowering, and built on trusting relationships. It’s about seeing people as individuals with strengths and preferences, not problems to be solved.”

As the Government, Parliament and the Casey Commission consider the future of adult social care, the Local Government Association launched Care Where We Live to explore a simple but important question: what should the role of local government be in a future, reformed system of adult social care?

Between February and June 2026, more than 600 people contributed to the engagement through an online platform, workshops, stakeholder discussions and committee sessions. Participants included people drawing on care and support, unpaid carers, councillors, social workers, providers, voluntary organisations, academics and wider partners.

While opinions differed on some issues, a striking degree of consensus emerged.

Participants consistently described a future system that is more person-centred, preventative, relational and community-rooted. They want support organised around people's lives rather than organisational boundaries, with a stronger emphasis on independence, wellbeing, housing, prevention, community connection and support for unpaid carers.

Respondent quote:

"Care, at its heart, is about connection, purpose, dignity, and belonging. These are fundamentals that cut across generations. In an ideal system, we would actively bring together different sectors education, community groups, housing, voluntary organisations, and health and care services to build stronger intergenerational relationships and make better use of the strengths already within our communities.”

There was widespread agreement that reform must go beyond services alone. Participants repeatedly described adult social care as part of a wider ecosystem of housing, public health, communities, employment, voluntary action and neighbourhood support. The future model people described was therefore not simply a care model; it was a place-based model.

This finding helps explain another clear message from the engagement: local government should remain central to the future of adult social care.

Participants consistently identified councils' democratic legitimacy, local place perspective, convening power and deep understanding of local communities as essential strengths. There was little evidence of support for removing adult social care from local government's responsibility. Instead, respondents favoured a clearer settlement in which local government retains responsibility for local stewardship, safeguarding, commissioning and delivery, while national government, through the initial form of a National Care Service, takes greater responsibility for funding, workforce policy, standards, rights, accountability and infrastructure.

The engagement also highlighted a number of wider priorities for reform. Participants called for a more sustainable national funding settlement, stronger investment in prevention and housing, improved workforce conditions, better support for unpaid carers, greater public understanding of adult social care, stronger accountability for integration, and a more transparent and sustainable care market.

At the heart of these findings sits a broader challenge. For many years, adult social care has been discussed primarily through the language of crisis, pressure and failure. Participants argued strongly for a different conversation: one that recognises adult social care as fundamental social and economic infrastructure, essential to inclusion, independence and community wellbeing, and relevant to every one of us.

The engagement suggests there is more agreement about the direction of travel than is often assumed. People want a system that is more preventative, more personalised, more community-based and more consistent. They want stronger national leadership, but not at the expense of local democratic accountability. They want reform that improves people's lives rather than simply reorganising institutions.

The opportunity to achieve that reform may not come again for some time. The Casey Commission, wider health reform agenda and broader debate about public service reform together create a rare moment in which long-standing questions about the future of adult social care can be addressed.

This report sets out the findings from the Care Where We Live engagement, alongside the LGA's conclusions and recommendations for how that opportunity can be seized. Central to those recommendations is a simple proposition: successful reform will require a new partnership between national government, local government and citizens. National government must provide the funding, standards and infrastructure that only it can provide. Local government must be empowered to bring together services, communities and partners around the lives of local people. And citizens, including people drawing on care and support and unpaid carers, must be active participants in shaping the future system.

The prize is significant: an adult social care system that helps people live the lives they want to lead, strengthens communities, supports wider public service reform and enables people to remain connected to the people, places and passions that matter most.

The Care Where We Live engagement strongly reinforces many of the issues the LGA has long sought to influence, whilst also helping shape and sharpen emerging thinking around the future direction of adult social care reform. Taken together, the engagement suggests several broad conclusions, from which flow positions and recommendations.

At a headline level, the ten themes and conclusions are as follows:

Care Where We Live is the latest prominent contribution the LGA has made on the debate about the future of care and support, which includes for instance, the organisation’s 2018 green paper, ‘The lives we want to lead’, and follow up publications under that banner, the 2024 paper, ‘The Care Act: 10 years on from Royal Assent’, and the 2024 paper on the case for prevention, ‘earlier action and support’.

While many of the challenges facing adult social care remain the same as those explored in 2018, the context in which social care and health operate has changed considerably. 

• First, the LGA in common with many organisations, and often with those organisations working collaboratively together (for instance, the Time To Act Reform Board ), has pushed harder for a more person-centred approach to care and support. 
• Second, the Government’s 2026 policy paper, ‘Adult social care priorities for local authorities’ , along with the reintroduction of inspection and regulation of councils’ performance against the Care Act Part One duties, and proposals to reform the workforce through pay and standards, has provided the initial shape of a National Care Service and a locus for thinking about the future. 
• Third, the 10 Year Health Plan for England and much subsequent related activity has put in place a framework for local working between health and social care which requires councils to ‘step up’ locally. 
• Fourth, the Government's emphasis on prevention creates an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between adult social care and public health. Both are ultimately concerned with helping people maintain independence, wellbeing and connection to their communities for as long as possible. Reform should therefore be viewed not simply through the lens of care services, but through the wider contribution councils make to prevention and population wellbeing.
• Finally, developments in Artificial Intelligence, digital and technology, plus information and data sharing for casework and anticipatory work on prevention, alongside linking up national and local systems, all offer an opportunity to work very differently. That opportunity extends to local government, with a chance for councils’ vast experience and skillset to be brought to bear on issues such as quality, choice and control, and integration. 
  In addition to the policy and political environment described above, the issue of ‘funding’ of course remains a central challenge. 

The Care Act came into force at a time of significant financial pressure for local government and since its introduction in 2015 councils have faced rising demand for care and support while operating within a challenging fiscal environment in which available resources have not always kept pace with population growth, demographic change and increasing complexity of need. 

Over the last 10+ years, councils have managed to prioritise and protect adult social care, reflecting both statutory responsibilities and councils' commitment to supporting people to live independent and fulfilling lives. Of course, this has often required difficult decisions elsewhere across local government and has been at the expense of substantial reductions in spending on many other local services.

Recent years have seen greater stability in adult social care funding as targeted grants and short-term funding have been made available and helped avoid a return to the more severe pressures experienced during the first half of the last decade. However, the underlying challenges facing the system remain unresolved. Rising demand, increasing complexity of need and inflationary pressures continue to challenge available resources and councils have exhausted many of the options previously available to them to absorb these pressures.

The implications of this year-on-year growth in pressures combined with the gradual reduction in savings options in other service areas are now becoming clear. In February 2026 the Government announced that 33 social care councils would be given Exceptional Financial Support, in the form of a capitalisation direction, to ensure that they were able to set a balanced budget for 2026/27.  This means that more than one in five (22 per cent) of English councils with social care responsibilities were dependent on a significant one-off relaxation of the financial framework in order to ensure that they were able to provide vital services for their local residents. Of particular concern is that the number of social care councils in this position is growing year-on-year – up from six (3.9 per cent) of these councils in 2022/23 to 33 in 2026/27.

A funding model in which an ever-growing number of councils are propped up on a year-to-year basis by selling their assets or by taking on debt is clearly not a sustainable basis for funding adult social care. Sufficient, sustained and predictable funding remains essential if councils are to meet growing demand, deliver on the ambitions of the Care Act, and support people to live the lives they want to lead .

Greater investment in service provision combined with a sustainable funding will also allow councils to engage in long-term planning and service transformation. This creates the opportunity to switch to a greater focus on preventative spending within their services. This will allow provision to move from the current focus on acute pressures and hospital discharges, to a model requiring less formal support and fewer hospital admissions.

While reform is not beyond us, experience reminds us how quickly the impetus for change can break down. We should therefore also be honest about the risks of failing to seize this moment for people, local government, the wider public and voluntary sectors, and society. If reform once again becomes trapped in short-termism, institutional defensiveness or narrow debates about cost alone, we risk not only deepening pressure on councils, the NHS, unpaid carers and providers, but also missing the opportunity to build something better for future generations. We risk reinforcing public fatalism that meaningful change is impossible. And we risk continuing to ask people to navigate systems that too often feel fragmented, transactional and crisis-driven rather than relational, preventative and human.

It is also important to address a common misconception about local government's historic position on adult social care reform. Councils have not opposed charging reform outright or sought to frustrate efforts to create a fairer system for people drawing on care and support. Rather, the concern repeatedly expressed by local government has been that successive governments attempted to pursue major reform against a backdrop of significant financial pressure on the existing system.

At various points, councils have argued that, where resources were limited, priority should first be given to stabilising frontline services and addressing growing unmet and under-met need before introducing reforms that would create substantial additional costs for local authorities. This has never been an argument against reform itself, but a recognition that reform and sustainability cannot be separated. Similarly, when councils raised concerns about implementation timetables, the issue was rarely one of willingness or capability. Instead, local government consistently argued for government to learn from early adopters, test new arrangements properly and ensure reforms were operationally deliverable before national rollout.

As the debate moves forward, it is important that these lessons are understood. Successful reform will require both ambition and realism: ambition about the future system we wish to create, and realism about the resources, implementation challenges and transitional arrangements needed to make that system work in practice.

The LGA launched Care Where We Live on 9 February 2026 to explore the role of local government in a future, reformed system of adult social care and to ensure that local government, people with lived experience, unpaid carers and wider partners could have their say. 

The main channel for the Care Where We Live engagement was the online platform Safe Spaces. 427 people registered for the platform, generating 420 different ideas, well over 200 comments and 2,069 votes in support of people’s ideas. There were two distinct audiences for the work: sector professionals and councillors; and people with lived experience and the public. The engagement also included a series of online and in-person events attended by more than 200 people. Separate, one-off, sessions with a further 100 colleagues were also held with a range of partners and stakeholders to discuss specific or specialised aspects of social care. The LGA’s Health and Wellbeing Committee met twice during the process, hearing from external policy experts and people with lived and living experience.

While this publication sets out the key findings from the Care Where We Live engagement process and LGA’s thinking on subsequent conclusions and recommendations, it is not the end point of the LGA’s work on this subject. Rather, it is a foundation – informed by the views gathered during engagement – from which to develop further work and thinking over.

The following is a summary of the main findings from the engagement process, including contributions via the online platform as well as associated events and meetings.

Good care is person-centred, relational and built around people rather than services

Across both the professional engagement and the consultation with the public, people drawing on care and support and unpaid carers, the strongest and most consistent message was that adult social care should be built around people rather than services.

Among professionals, placing people at the centre of care was the single most frequently cited theme when participants were asked what good adult social care looks like. This idea also generated the most ‘likes’ among participants. Respondents consistently argued that support should enable people to live the lives they choose, with dignity, autonomy and meaningful community connection. Rather than seeing people as passive recipients of services, participants described individuals as active partners with their own strengths, aspirations and goals.

Both professionals and people drawing on social care emphasised the importance of co-designing support with people rather than doing things to or for them. Contributors highlighted the value of trusted relationships, continuity of support, culturally competent practice and whole-person approaches that recognise the importance of family, friendships, employment, housing and community participation alongside more traditional care needs.

The public and unpaid carers engagement reinforced these themes through examples of what already works well within the current system. More than half of participants discussing successful aspects of adult social care highlighted the transformative impact of personal budgets and direct payments in providing genuine choice, control and independence. Almost half pointed to the difference made by high-quality professionals who listen, build relationships and go beyond transactional approaches.

Engagement response:

"Good adult social care should enable people to live the life they choose, not simply receive a set of services. It should be preventative rather than reactive, joined up with health and housing, and flexible enough to adapt as people’s needs change over time. At its best, it combines dignity and consistency, people knowing who is coming to support them, feeling safe in their own home, and not having to repeat their story to multiple agencies. For some, “good” is about independence and minimal intervention; for others, it is about reliable, compassionate daily support."

Taken together, the engagement suggests that people do not primarily judge adult social care by organisational structures or processes. They judge it by whether it helps them live a good life, maintain relationships, retain independence and remain connected to the people, places and things that matter most to them.

Participants suggested a range of practical ideas to strengthen person-centred support, including co-designed care planning, person-owned care records, greater continuity of staff, whole-person assessments with genuine inclusion of family unpaid carers in all planning and decision-making, and wider use of personal budgets and direct payments alongside professionals celebrated for their empathetic, compassionate and non-judgemental practice.

Prevention and early intervention are central, but remain underfunded

One of the clearest findings from the engagement was the importance participants place on prevention and early intervention. Among professionals, prevention and timely support emerged as the second most prominent single theme when describing what good adult social care looks like. Across both engagement strands, participants repeatedly argued that reform will struggle to succeed unless prevention is embedded more firmly within funding arrangements, commissioning frameworks, care pathways and wider policy.

Participants described prevention not as a single service, but as a broad range of support that helps people remain independent, connected and well before needs escalate. Examples highlighted throughout the engagement included carer support, rapid response services, reablement, Meals on Wheels, occupational therapy, housing adaptations, community equipment, social prescribing, local area coordination and proactive outreach to people who may otherwise struggle to access support.

Professionals were particularly likely to emphasise the role prevention can play in reducing avoidable demand on health services and helping people remain independent for longer. Many highlighted concerns that preventative services are often among the first areas to face budget reductions despite widespread recognition of their value.

The public and unpaid carers engagement echoed these concerns, frequently describing the frustration of navigating systems that intervene only once needs have become acute. Contributors argued that earlier support, better information and stronger community-based services could prevent crises, reduce distress and improve outcomes for individuals and families.

A consistent concern throughout the engagement was that prevention is widely supported in principle but insufficiently reflected in funding decisions, commissioning arrangements and accountability frameworks. The evidence suggests that participants see prevention not as a desirable addition to adult social care, but as one of the foundations upon which a sustainable future system must be built.

Participants suggested practical measures including dedicated prevention funding, protected investment in community-based services, stronger support for unpaid carers, wider access to reablement and rapid response services, and formal requirements for prevention to be reflected within commissioning and funding decisions.

Reform requires a genuinely joined-up system, but not one in which social care is subordinate to health

Across both engagement strands, participants frequently described the current system as fragmented, difficult to navigate and overly focused on organisational boundaries rather than people's lives.

Among professionals, integrated and person-centred systems accounted for around one in seven responses when describing what good adult social care looks like. Participants highlighted structural barriers between health, social care, housing and wider public services, including siloed working, fragmented data systems, unclear accountability, policy misalignment, inconsistent information sharing and disputes over funding responsibilities. Many argued that these issues create inefficiencies for organisations whilst simultaneously placing unnecessary burdens on people drawing on care and support and their families.

There was strong support for more joined-up approaches, including pooled budgets, shared assessments, integrated planning, interoperable digital systems and clearer accountability arrangements. Many respondents also advocated for simpler access arrangements, including single points of contact that reduce the need for people to navigate multiple organisations and repeatedly tell their story.

However, an important nuance emerged, particularly within the public and unpaid carers engagement. Whilst many contributors supported closer collaboration between health and social care, there was considerably less enthusiasm for full structural integration. Some participants argued that previous attempts at integration have focused too heavily on organisational change and insufficiently on improving people's experiences.

Engagement response:

"This is an opportunity to reinforce and make the case for local government as being at the heart of local communities, providing local services, convening local communities and organisations to use collective resource to improve outcomes for local people within a clear framework of local and national accountability. DO NOT allow a nationally funded service, within a clear national framework (the Care Act) to mean a nationally managed service (i.e. the NHS). Be radical and ambitious.”

Instead, a consistent principle running through both engagement strands was that social care should be treated as an equal strategic partner within local systems, rather than being viewed primarily through the lens of supporting the NHS. Housing also emerged repeatedly as central to reform, with many participants arguing that health, housing and care should be planned together rather than treated as separate policy domains.

Participants suggested a range of practical reforms including pooled budgets, shared assessments, integrated digital infrastructure, restoration of stronger partnership arrangements between councils and the NHS, single points of contact and clearer national guidance on shared responsibilities such as Continuing Healthcare and Section 117 funding.

Local government is seen as central to reform

Of all the structural questions explored through the engagement, perhaps the clearest consensus related to the future role of local government.

Among professionals, almost three-quarters of responses discussing the role of local government coalesced around two closely related themes: local government as a place-based steward and convenor and a model of local delivery operating within stronger national frameworks.

Participants repeatedly described councils as uniquely positioned because of their democratic legitimacy, whole-place perspective, local relationships and ability to bring together partners across health, housing, public health, voluntary organisations and communities. Respondents argued that many of the outcomes people value most – prevention, community connection, housing, safeguarding and support for unpaid carers – are inherently local and therefore require strong local leadership.

At the same time, the engagement does not suggest support for local government being left to address these challenges alone. Both professionals and members of the public repeatedly argued for a clearer division of responsibilities between national and local government, with national government taking greater responsibility for funding, workforce policy, standards, infrastructure and wider system reform.

There was little evidence within either engagement strand of support for removing adult social care from local government's purview. Instead, respondents consistently pointed towards a future model in which councils retain leadership of assessment, safeguarding, commissioning and local stewardship whilst operating within stronger national frameworks and with greater support from central government.

Participants suggested practical measures including clearer divisions of responsibility between national and local government, stronger place-based leadership arrangements, greater local flexibility within national frameworks, and wider use of local convening models that bring together people with lived experience, providers and public services.

Funding reform is essential

Funding reform emerged as one of the most prominent themes across both engagement exercises.

Among professionals, the most frequently cited funding theme was the need for a sustainable national funding model, accounting for almost three in ten responses. A further one in five explicitly argued that council tax and the adult social care precept should be replaced by nationally coordinated funding arrangements.

"A sustainable funding solution for adult social care must address the fundamental mismatch between local need and the revenue generated through property-based taxation. Council tax and business rates do not reflect differences in age profile, rurality, deprivation, housing conditions or labour market dynamics.” 

The public engagement reached similar conclusions. When discussing future funding options, the two most frequently cited themes were National Insurance and taxation-based approaches and nationally funded models with fair local delivery. Across both groups, there was broad agreement that the current funding model is fragmented, difficult to understand and increasingly unable to support the ambitions people hold for adult social care.

Many participants described council tax and the adult social care precept as inadequate mechanisms for funding what are, in effect, national responsibilities. Contributors frequently argued that reliance on local taxation contributes to geographical variation in resources and creates challenges for long-term planning.

Although respondents proposed a range of potential alternatives – including general taxation, National Insurance, social insurance approaches and other nationally coordinated models – there was no single consensus on the preferred mechanism. There was, however, a strong degree of consensus around the principle that adult social care requires a more sustainable, nationally supported funding settlement.

The engagement also surfaced wider concerns about how money flows through the system. Participants raised questions about short-term funding arrangements, inconsistent charging approaches, limited transparency regarding how public resources ultimately reach frontline care and support, and the complexity of funding arrangements for individuals and families trying to navigate the system.

Specific suggestions included nationally funded and ring-fenced settlements, National Insurance or taxation-based approaches, a national entitlement floor, integration of funding streams, stronger cost analysis, greater transparency over funding flows and, in some cases, consolidation of funding streams such as healthcare, attendance allowance, carers allowance and other care-related funding mechanisms.

Commissioning, market shaping and workforce reform are central to making reform real

Participants consistently argued that structural reform alone will not deliver better outcomes unless accompanied by changes to commissioning, market shaping and workforce policy.

Among professionals, commissioning reform and market sustainability emerged as one of the most prominent themes when discussing what will help or hinder reform alongside digital infrastructure and workforce pay and sustainability. Many argued that current commissioning arrangements contribute to instability by prioritising short-term purchasing and activity-based models over long-term outcomes, prevention and independence.

There was considerable support for more strategic approaches to market shaping, including longer-term partnerships with providers, greater emphasis on outcomes and prevention, stronger public value principles and improved support for community-based provision. A significant minority of respondents also raised questions about the role of large provider groups, the transparency of ownership structures, the presence and role of private equity, and the need for stronger market oversight arrangements.

Workforce issues emerged strongly across both engagement strands. Participants consistently highlighted the importance of fair pay, career progression, professional development and stronger recognition of social care as skilled work. Many professionals supported workforce reforms that provide clearer national standards and greater consistency, whilst public respondents frequently linked workforce conditions to continuity of care and the quality of relationships people experience.

 We need to value our social care workforce more highly, create better employment conditions and build awareness as to the important work they do. It should be seen in line with the status given to roles within the NHS. Social care isn’t unskilled work; providing good quality social care is as important as focussing on physical health care."

Unpaid carers also featured prominently throughout the engagement. Both professionals and members of the public argued that unpaid carers make an enormous contribution to the care and support system yet are too often treated as an invisible resource. Many respondents called for stronger recognition, improved support and more proactive identification of carers as part of any future reform programme.

Participants suggested a range of reforms including evidence-based fee setting, public value commissioning, stronger support for voluntary and community organisations, greater transparency over ownership structures, expanded market oversight arrangements, implementation of workforce strategies, national pay frameworks and clearer career pathways. Some participants also advocated bringing more services back in-house or reducing reliance on large for-profit providers.

Carers, housing, and rights are central to reform

The engagement repeatedly highlighted a number of issues that are sometimes treated as peripheral to adult social care reform but which participants clearly viewed as central to a better future system.

Support for unpaid carers emerged throughout both engagement strands. Within the public engagement, support for unpaid carers accounted for around one in six responses when participants were asked to imagine ideal care. Contributors frequently described carers as essential partners in care and highlighted the need for better identification, improved information and advice, respite opportunities and more proactive support.

Housing also featured prominently. Within the public engagement, choice and independence accounted for almost one in five responses ) when participants described ideal care. Many argued that housing-with-care options, accessible housing, home adaptations and lifetime adaptable design should be viewed as core components of adult social care rather than separate policy issues. Contributors repeatedly linked housing to independence, prevention and wellbeing.

Alongside this, respondents highlighted the importance of stronger rights, clearer accountability and systems that are easier to navigate. Rights and accountability accounted for more than one in five responses within the public engagement on ideal care. Public respondents frequently described the challenge of securing information, understanding entitlements and accessing support without resorting to complaints processes, ombudsman referrals or legal challenge.

Finally, both engagement strands highlighted the need for a broader shift in public understanding. Many participants argued that adult social care continues to be poorly understood by the wider public and is too often discussed only in the context of crisis, ageing or pressure on the NHS. Respondents instead described social care as a vital contributor to independence, inclusion, community resilience and wellbeing, and called for greater public awareness of its purpose, value and relevance throughout people's lives.

"Any new national system of funding ought to consider stronger defined legal rights for people receiving support. The system (social care, health, welfare benefits system) is overcomplicated and ought to be brought together."

Participants suggested practical measures including carers registers, stronger respite provision, housing-with-care models, lifetime adaptable housing standards, single points of contact, stronger legal rights and entitlements, better transitions between children's and adult services, and simplified access to information and advice.

Public understanding and the narrative around adult social care must change

A final and striking finding from the engagement was the strength of feeling around how adult social care is understood and discussed publicly.

Professionals repeatedly argued that adult social care continues to be poorly understood by the wider public and too often discussed only in terms of crisis, ageing or pressure on the NHS. Many contributors challenged the language used within the sector itself and called for a more positive and accurate description of what adult social care enables people to achieve.

Participants consistently described social care not as a service of last resort but as a means of enabling people to live with independence, purpose, dignity and connection. Many argued that successful reform will depend not only on policy change but also on building wider public understanding of what social care is, who it is for and why it matters.

"In an ideal system of care and support, we would actively encourage people to think ahead preparing not just for today, but for a future where mobility, vision, or hearing may decline. Planning early would become a normal and supported part of life, rather than something triggered by crisis."

Participants suggested practical measures including a national public awareness campaign, clearer and less stigmatising language, public engagement on the future of social care, stronger communication of rights and entitlements, and the development of a new public narrative that presents social care as a valued national asset in its own right rather than primarily as a pressure valve for the NHS.

The Care Where We Live engagement was established to explore a simple but important question: what should the role of local government be in a future, reformed system of adult social care? The answer that emerges from the engagement is both clear and nuanced.

Participants do not want a continuation of the status quo. They recognise the need for significant reform, stronger national leadership, more sustainable funding, improved workforce arrangements, clearer rights and entitlements, and greater consistency of experience. 

But neither do they see the future of adult social care as one in which local government's role is diminished or replaced. Local government is therefore not simply a stakeholder in care and support reform; rather its expertise and experience are conditions for successful reform.

Instead, the engagement points towards a rebalancing of the settlement between national government, local government and citizens. In this future model, national government would provide the funding, rights, standards, frameworks and – potentially – some aspects of delivery that only it can provide. Local government would act as the place-based and accountable steward, bringing together services, communities and partners around the needs of local people. Citizens would not be seen as passive recipients of care, but as active participants whose strengths, relationships, experiences and aspirations would help shape both individual support and the wider system itself.

Good care should recognise that progress is not always linear and should allow people to pause, step back and move forward again without losing support. To make that real, the system must not force one-size-fits-all solutions. National consistency is important, but care must still be locally shaped and tailored to the individual."

Throughout the engagement, people repeatedly described adult social care not simply as a collection of services, but as something much more fundamental: the support that enables people to remain connected to the people, places and passions that matter most in their lives.

They spoke about family and relationships, home and community, purpose and independence. They highlighted the importance of prevention, housing, unpaid carers, neighbourhood support, community capacity and joined-up public services. They consistently described a future system organised around people's lives rather than organisational boundaries. The significance of this is profound. The future model we should move toward must not simply be a care model; it should be a place-based model grounded in lived and living experience.

That is why local government emerges so strongly throughout the engagement. Participants repeatedly identified councils' democratic legitimacy, whole-place perspective, convening power and deep understanding of local communities as essential strengths. They see local government not simply as the current custodian of adult social care, but as the institution best placed to bring together housing, health, public health, communities, voluntary organisations and wider local services around the needs and aspirations of local people.

The engagement therefore suggests that the key question is not whether adult social care should remain within local government, but how local government can be best enabled to fulfil its role. This means moving beyond a model in which councils are primarily managing scarcity and responding to crisis, towards one in which they can act as genuine stewards of local wellbeing, independence and community resilience.

At the same time, participants are equally clear that local leadership alone will not be sufficient. The engagement points towards a stronger national role in funding, infrastructure, rights, accountability and long-term reform. Taken together, the findings suggest a future in which national government does more of what only national government can do, while local government is enabled to do more of what only local government can do. The future system described through Care Where We Live is therefore not one in which responsibility shifts from one part of government to another, but one in which both national and local government are empowered to do what each is best placed to do.

This matters because adult social care reform is ultimately about far more than adult social care itself. It is about the kind of country we want to be. It is about whether people can live with dignity, purpose and connection throughout their lives. And it is about whether public services are organised around institutions or around people.

The opportunity presented by the Casey Commission, wider health reform and the Government's public service reform agenda may not come again for some time. The engagement suggests there is more consensus about the broad direction of travel than is often assumed. The challenge now is to turn that consensus into action.

The LGA believes it has an important role to play in that endeavour. As the national voice of local government, and as a uniquely cross-party organisation, the LGA is well placed to help bring together national and local government, people drawing on care and support, unpaid carers, providers, partners and communities around a shared vision for reform. Just as importantly, local government will be central to translating any future reforms into meaningful change in people's lives and communities.

Ultimately, if reform is to succeed, it cannot simply be something that is designed nationally and implemented locally. Reform must be shaped through partnership, rooted in place and built around people. That, more than anything else, is the message that emerges from Care Where We Live.

The future of adult social care will not ultimately be decided by organisational charts, funding formulas or institutional reform alone. It will be judged by whether people are better able to remain connected to the people, places and passions that matter most in their lives. That is the test against which all reform should be measured.