Leicester City Council’s case study showcases the co-production of information and guidance and the implementation of changes to the council’s charging policy for non-residential care services. The council expanded its existing co-production approach to include operational finance and the approach made changes to the policy more transparent to service users. By listening to the concerns of people who draw on care and support, improvements were made to communication relating to financial matters and disability related expenditure (DRE).
‘Nothing about us with us’ is a political slogan that has been used in disability rights activism since at least the 1990s. Co-production in adult social care is a tool to ensure that people who draw on care and support can influence the development of policies that are likely to impact them. Think Local Act Personal and the Social Care Institute for Excellence have helpful resources on how to successfully implement co-production in your organisation.
The challenge
Leicester City Council’s adult social care (ASC) budget savings programme developed a series of proposals to deliver a sustainable budget position in the context of increasing demand and diminishing resources.
A decision was taken in 2023 to consult on implementing changes to the council’s charging policy for non-residential care services. These changes would introduce the inclusion of the full rate of disability benefits in the financial assessment process as permitted by the Care Act 2014 and introduce a weekly charge for the provision of appointee services. These changes would increase income from individuals receiving ASC support.
The treatment of disability benefits had been consulted on previously, but a decision to implement the changes was deferred, as this coincided with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and there were wider concerns about financial impacts on the citizens of Leicester.
Due to the amount of time that passed, a further consultation was required. Leicester City Council is committed to ‘making it real’ in ASC. Therefore, we seek to co-produce any changes – in practice or in strategy and policy – that may impact on people who draw on ASC support or their carers. Co-production is fairly mature in Leicester City Council. We co-produced the implementation of the changes and some associated issues that were raised during the consultation process.
The action
Leicester City Council engaged with its active co-production forums including a group called Making it Real. This forum is made up of individuals drawing on ASC, carers and staff in Leicester City Council. While co-production is well established in ASC, it was less so within the supporting function of operational finance, who were a key stakeholder in the charging policy revisions and implementation. We expanded our approach to co-production by including operational finance as a key stakeholder in co-produced charging policy revisions and implementations.
Following the consultation, a decision was made in early 2024 to implement changes as follows:
- To include the full rate of disability benefits in the financial assessment process.
- To introduce a weekly charge for people receiving appointee services where they have savings above £1,000.
Our Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission report detailed proposed changes to Leicester’s charging policy.
The changes outlined above were not welcomed by people drawing on support, as they were concerned about the impact on their financial wellbeing. During the consultation, people also raised concerns about the lack of clear information about disability related expenditure (DRE) (what can be claimed and how claims are assessed) and the communication they received about financial matters.
Work was already underway to review (through co-production) the letters sent to people by the finance teams. This was expanded to include co-production of the DRE claim form, DRE guidance and letters to people about the changes made. The terminology used in the charging policy, in practice when asking people about how they used their benefits, and in supporting staff guidance was also developed in co-production with the Making it Real group, as well as staff from across the department.
The outcome
The charging policy was revised in April 2025 and is now live.
The co-production approach enabled people affected by the change to feel more confident that their financial assessment would properly take account of DRE, which was intrinsically linked to how people felt they utilised the benefits that we would include in the revised policy.
The financial profile is for an additional £250k per annum in contributions from people towards their non-residential ASC services. This is a modest forecast within the budget-setting process; the potential additional income value was £1.86m, but there were considerable uncertainties due to estimations using DWP data on the numbers of people receiving higher-rate benefits and the need to consider situations where the council would not seek to include the higher rates for good reason.
An additional £260k per annum is forecast from the introduction of an appointee charge of £15 per week.
Success measures:
- The charging policy revisions have been implemented. It is early days in terms of income, but we do not expect the financial benefit to be lower than the forecast income.
- The preparation for implementation has considered the views and needs of people who draw on support. We expect this to reduce the volume of queries about the new process, as information is clear and accessible.
- The new DRE form and guidance are well received by people who draw on support and carers; they are also welcomed by staff who have conversations with the people they are supporting and feel this is clearer for them too.
- The principles of transparency in our processes have been supported, reducing the risk of successful complaints and legal challenges.
Reflection
The process of co-producing the implementation of the charging policy revisions had benefits to ASC and the wider council, as well as to people drawing on support.
Co-producers identified linked gaps in our information that were adding to their concerns about charging and which could be addressed by us. DRE was one example.
The conversations needed to establish how people were spending their benefits and in particular addressing night-time needs were causing some anxiety for staff. Due to the processes for financial assessments, social work staff have limited dialogue with people they are working with about their finances, so this was a significant change in their practice. Co-producing the terminology has reduced anxiety, as staff and citizens have created language that is readily understood and which resonates with the social work role.
Bringing corporate colleagues into the co-production agenda has had wider benefits in bringing our commitments and the impact of co-production to life through people sharing their stories and experiences.
The commitment to work in co-production allayed anxieties about how well the implementation would be managed by ASC, as past successes could be pointed to where the subject matter was challenging but the outcome had been positive.
A lesson learned was that this takes time. All those involved must be committed to listening and acting on what they hear from co-producers; there needs to be confidence that co-production is a genuinely equal relationship.
7 July 2025
Contact information
Laurence Jones
Strategic Director, Social Care and Education
Laurence.Jones@leicester.gov.uk
