Development of strategy and governance frameworks

This report is designed to offer practical guidance for councils on designing effective strategies and governance frameworks to meet their Care Act 2014 duties. It has been produced following work undertaken by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, supported by Partners in Care and Health (PCH), to create and embed a robust strategy and governance framework in adult social care. Key findings highlight the importance of clear architecture, dynamic risk and assurance, and transparent performance and engagement in achieving measurable improvements for adults.

The evidence and methodology for this report follows a three phase approach:

• 1. Research and case study identification: This incorporated desk-based research and analysis of strategy and governance frameworks including identifying best practice from local authorities recognised for excellence. The focus of this stage was to identify innovative practices, and essential success factors aligned with principles such as accountability, co-production, localism, cost-effectiveness, and statutory compliance.
• 2. Stakeholder engagement and roundtable: The Director of Adult Social Services (DASS) at Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council convened a national roundtable with South Tyneside, Blackpool, Middlesbrough and Leicester City to test learning, identify key actions and challenges through guided discussion and co develop design options.
• 3. Reporting and publication: Findings across the previous 2 phases were analysed and integrated to form a model framework for strategy and governance. The shared aim was to distil practical, plain English guidance that any council can adopt and adapt.

The report identifies common factors contributing to underperformance, including static or ineffective risk and assurance processes, poor data quality and delayed insights, inconsistent audit and quality assurance practices, unclear lines of accountability, insufficient strategic planning and follow-through, and limited co-production. In response, this framework offers a structured, step-by-step approach, decision-making tools to determine when a strategy is necessary (and when it isn’t), and practical resources to maintain a clear “golden thread” from corporate priorities to service plans and ultimately to improved outcomes for adults.

What ‘good’ looks like is consistent across the sector: it includes strong political and executive leadership, open and transparent decision-making, a dynamic approach to risk and assurance aligned with Care Quality Commission (CQC) requirements, robust data and actionable insights, and a commitment to equity throughout the strategy’s lifecycle—from initial scoping to final delivery. When these elements are combined with clearly defined roles and decision-making authority, strategy becomes more than a document—it becomes a living, accountable framework for driving real change.

The report provides a concise list of why strategies in Adult Social Care often fail—alongside practical solutions for addressing each issue. These resources are designed to reduce duplication, concentrate efforts on a small number of high-impact priorities, and establish a structured implementation and assurance cycle.

Who this is for: Director’s of Adult Social Services, Assistant Directors, Heads of Service, Commissioning and Quality Assurance leads, Performance and Insight teams, and Scrutiny. 

How to use this guide: Start with the ‘When do we need a strategy?’ prompts. Then use the ‘Why do strategies fail?’ section as a checklist. Ensure the tools are in place to consistently apply the ‘Core Principles in Strategy Development, Implementation and Governance’. Then follow the ‘10 Step Method’ to build or refresh your strategy—embedding governance, data, and assurance to deliver better outcomes. 

These prompts help assess whether a strategy is the right approach for the issue or goal. They offer a clear method for deciding if the challenge needs strategic direction or can be handled through existing plans, policies, or operational improvements.

Gaps in direction or delivery

• A strategy is necessary when there is no existing document that provides a clear, long-term vision or priorities, and operational plans alone are insufficient.
• No new strategy is needed if the area is stable, with no planned transformation or significant gap in direction, then an additional strategy is not needed.

Clear purpose and outcomes

• A strategy should only be developed where there is a specific, measurable improvement goal that cannot be achieved through existing plans or frameworks.
• No new strategy is needed if the existing strategy or plan already covers it. A new strategy is not required if the aims, priorities, and outcomes are already addressed within another existing strategy, plan, or framework.

Statutory or national requirement

• A strategy is required where there is a legal duty or mandated national policy expectation such as those outlined in the Care Act or Care Quality Commission (CQC) assurance framework
• No new strategy is needed if the statutory or regulatory requirement is already met. There is no need to create duplicate strategies to satisfy the same legal or national expectations that are already being met. 

Crosscutting, multi-agency need

• A strategy is appropriate when complex, system-wide issues require a shared vision and coordinated action across multiple partners.
• No new strategy is needed if the operational or service plan is sufficient. If the issue can be effectively addressed through team-level or service-level planning, there is no need for a higher-level strategic document. 

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)/Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) measures alignment

• New strategies should only be developed if they add value and complement existing KPIs and ASCOF measures.
• No new strategy is needed if there is duplication of Key Performance Indicators (KPI)/Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) measures. If a new strategy would result in the repetition or confusion of performance monitoring already captured elsewhere, it should not be pursued.

After applying the decision test above, use this executive-level checklist to identify and avoid common pitfalls that undermine strategy success. This ensures the strategy is grounded in clarity, realism, and accountability from the outset.

Why strategies fail and recommended actions

These principles guide every stage of strategy development, implementation, and governance. Applying them consistently ensures the strategy is inclusive, transparent, aligned with organisational priorities, and capable of delivering meaningful change for the adults we support.

1. Visible leadership and coproduction

Political and executive leaders actively sponsor the strategy and share decision-making power with people who draw on care and support. Co-production is embedded from the outset, ensuring lived experience shapes both design and delivery with a clear co-production methodology in place. (See Step 1 and 2 of the 10-Step method)

2. Transparency

All decisions, data, and trade-offs are communicated in plain language. Feedback loops such as “you said, we did” are used to build trust and demonstrate responsiveness.

3. Golden thread

There is a clear and traceable line of sight from the corporate plan, through the Adult Social Care strategy, into team-level service plans, and ultimately to measurable outcomes for people. (See Step 7 of the 10-Step method)

4. Dynamic risk and assurance

Risks, mitigations, and assurance sources are kept live and regularly updated. They are explicitly linked to CQC quality statements to ensure regulatory alignment and accountability.

5. Equity and inclusion

An inclusion lens is applied from the initial scoping stage through to delivery. Strategies actively identify and address disproportionalities, ensuring that seldom-heard groups are represented and supported.

This is the starting point for developing any strategy. It ensures there is a shared understanding of the issue, opportunity, or policy intent driving the work— such as unmet needs, legal duties or system-wide change. It secures the necessary political and executive sponsorship (e.g. DASS, Portfolio Holder, or Corporate Director) to proceed with confidence and authority.

Key elements to strategic scoping and mandate

• Scoping workshops with leaders, staff, people living in the community, carers, and providers to gather insights and set expectations.
• Define strategy parameters including scope, timeframe, resources and links to other strategies and plans.
• Produce a strategy scoping paper outlining:
  • title and sponsor
  • issue/opportunity
  • rationale- Why a strategy (not a service plan)?
  • scope, exclusions and timeframe
  • strategic alignment with relevant frameworks such as the Care Act, Integrated Care Systems (ICS) priorities and the corporate plan.
  • evidence needs
  • proposed governance for developing the strategy
  • risks, constraints and dependencies
  • resources and budget envelope
  • success definition and benefits.
• Produce a strategy on a page outlining:
  • vision [one sentence]
  • principles [three to five bullet points]
  • priorities linked to Corporate Priorities (next two to three years) [maximum of five]
  • what will change for people (three testable statements)
  • how we’ll know: [top six measures including an equity measure]
  • how to get involved (contact and resident panel dates).

This step ensures the strategy is shaped by meaningful, inclusive engagement from the outset. It identifies key stakeholders—especially underrepresented voices—and sets out a clear co-production approach that builds trust, shares power and embeds lived experience into both design and governance.

Key elements of a stakeholder mapping and coproduction plan

• Identify internal, external, and community stakeholders, including underrepresented voices.
• Develop a co-production ladder approach:
  • use a deliberate co-production ladder, not just consultation (View the ladder of production: Inform → Consult → Involve → Co-produce → Empower)
  • use appropriate engagement depending on the ladder level
  • inform (share information): Easy‑read summary; short video; translations.
  • consult (gather views): survey + pop‑ups at carer cafés; publish what we heard.
  • involve (work together): codesign workshops on priorities and measures.
  • co‑produce (co-create solutions): residents co‑write the strategy summary and sit on the Strategy Board.
  • empower (enable leadership): Micro‑grants for community‑led pilots aligned to the strategy (where appropriate).
• Set up or use existing co-production forums, resident and carer panels, co-chaired by lived experience representatives.
• Target under-represented groups, accessible materials and clear feedback mechanisms.
• Set up or use partnership boards for co-production, for example, a Health and Wellbeing Board
• Produce a stakeholder and coproduction plan outlining:
  • purpose and objectives
  • stakeholder mapping/matrix
  • co-production ladder approach
  • engagement channels (surveys, forums, digital platforms)
  • accessibility measures
  • planned activities and timescales
  • feedback mechanisms (“you said, we did”).

Next, build a strong and objective foundation or baseline for the strategy by drawing on local and national data, lived experience, and best practice research. This step ensures the strategy is evidence-backed, aligned with local needs, and shaped by both quantitative insights and qualitative understanding, while also considering future trends and projections.

Key elements to evidence and insight generation

• produce a Strategic Evidence Pack consolidating needs, demand, system gaps, and future pressures.
• use quantitative analysis for demand modelling, demographic projections, market sustainability data, financial baseline
• example quantitative data sources include:
  • demographic data including projections: Office of National Statistics (ONS) population projections, English Indices of Deprivation 2019, Projecting Older People Population Information (POPPI), Projecting Adult Needs and Service Information (PANSI), Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) StatXplore, Public Health Fingertips, DHSC SHAPE
  • service usage data: Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF), local performance dashboards
  • Financial information: Budget reports, grant or funding availability and opportunities
  • market sustainability data: Provider capacity, pricing, workforce availability
  • health and care system data (hospital discharge rates, delayed transfers of care, reablement outcomes)
  • equity data (outcomes broken down by ethnicity, deprivation, disability, gender, etc.)
• gather qualitative insight from:
  • lived experience panels (feedback from people who draw on care and support)
  • carer forums: Insights into unpaid care and support needs
  • frontline staff workshops (operational challenges and innovation ideas) (provider engagement: market challenges, quality concerns, partnership opportunities)
  • resident surveys and consultations broader community perspectives, satisfaction surveys)
• research best practice including:
  • SCIE (Social Care Institute for Excellence): Evidence-based models and guidance
  • NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence): Clinical and care standards
  • DHSC policy guidance: national priorities and expectations
  • CQC Assurance Framework
  • benchmarking with other councils: Comparative performance and innovation, LGA Inform
  • academic research (studies on social care models, outcomes, and system design; utilise tools like OpenAthens)
• use regulatory and assurance sources including:
  • CQC quality statements and inspection reports
  • internal audit findings
  • peer reviews and sector-led improvement reports
  • scrutiny committee recommendations
• show alignment to strategic sources:
• Corporate Plan and council strategies (housing, public health, poverty, climate
  • Local Joint Strategic Needs Assessments
  • ICS strategies: joint commissioning, population health
  • national frameworks: Care Act 2014, CQC, NHS England mandates
• Complete Equality Impact Scoping highlighting disproportionalities and potential risks to inclusion include:
• background and context
• rationale and supporting evidence focusing on:
  • human rights
  • equality: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion of belief, sex, sexual orientation.
  • Other: poverty, social inclusion,(QUESTION: SHOULD THIS BE EXCLUSION? environmental, rurality, carer status, health inequalities, care Leavers, digital inclusion (SAME AS ABOVE)
• impact before and after mitigations
• monitoring and evaluation
• DASS or senior sign-off
   

Building on the baseline established in Step 3, this step is designed to develop a clear and agreed structure for the strategy. It defines the key elements that will guide the development of the strategies content. It also ensures alignment with wider local, regional, and national plans. 

Key elements to strategy architecture and alignment

• produce and agree a Strategic Framework Blueprint approved by governance arrangements to guide drafting (for example:  Vision → Mission → Values → Principles → Strategic Priorities → Objectives → Actions.
• identify cross-cutting themes (for example equity, integration, digital, sustainability) relevant across all sub-strategies.
• map dependencies and alignment with:
  • council strategies (housing, public health, poverty, climate)
  • ICS strategies and joint commissioning plans
  • national policy drivers (Care Act, CQC Assurance, NHS England mandates).

This step focuses on building the substance of the strategy with people, not for them. Through inclusive workshops and priority-setting sessions, it makes sure the strategy reflects real experiences, is practical to deliver, and includes clear, measurable actions written in straightforward, strengths-based language. 

Key elements to codesigned strategy content

• visioning workshops with lived experience groups and staff to agree long term aspirations.
• priority-setting sessions with providers, communities, and elected members to balance ambition and deliverability.
• develop SMART objectives linked to:
  • outcomes for people
  • performance indicators (ASCOF, local measures)
  • cost-effectiveness and sustainability.
• identify key actions and delivery mechanisms, including prevention, market shaping and innovation pilots
• collate all the information and use to develop a draft strategy document with co-produced priorities and objectives, written in accessible, strengths-based language.

This step makes sure the strategy can be delivered effectively and is not only well-designed but well-managed. It encourages shared ownership, clear decision-making, and strong risk management and keeps delivery on track and accountable. Wherever possible, existing governance structures should be used to avoid duplication and make the most of current systems. 

Key elements to governance and accountability framework design

• a strategic governance board: a central board chaired by the DASS or a Corporate Director with community representation, senior leaders and partners reporting to Scrutiny. This board approves the strategic direction, monitors risks, and resolves cross-cutting issues.
• delivery oversight groups: specific groups for individual strategies (e.g., commissioning, poverty, prevention, carers, workforce), reporting upwards to the Strategic Governance Board. These groups meet regularly to track progress, manage risks, and report to the main board.
• decision-making protocols: clear protocols guide how decisions are made, including criteria for prioritising actions. Forums involving elected members and community partners help ensure decisions are transparent and inclusive.
• define the terms of reference, include:
  • the purpose of the governance structure—ensuring strategic direction, oversight, and assurance
  • who has authority to make decisions, approve priorities, and escalate issues when needed.
  • who needs to be present for decisions to be valid (quorum), ensuring balanced representation including lived experience
  • what information the group will use to make decisions, such as performance data, risk logs, and engagement feedback.
  • what outcomes are expected from each meeting, including decisions, actions, and public-facing updates to maintain transparency.
• example meeting schedules:
  • monthly: delivery oversight groups review progress, manage risks and monitor the effectiveness of mitigations
  • bi‑monthly: strategic governance board reviews the performance pack and makes key decisions to guide implementation
  • quarterly: Public dashboard is published, and a joint session is held with a resident and carer panel
  • annually: Whole‑system learning event takes place and a refresh of the implementation plan to reflect new insights and priorities.
• risk and assurance framework: a live, dynamic risk register is used to track issues and actions ensuring that:
  • risks are linked to quality standards (e.g. CQC statements)
  • risk statements are framed as cause → event → impact and have a corresponding owner, current rating and target rating with clear escalation
  • mitigations are owned, time‑bound, and co‑produced where relevant
  • assurance is gathered from performance data, audits, peer reviews, and feedback from residents.

This step ensures strategic priorities and actions are part of our day-to-day operations. By linking team service plans with the strategy, it aligns the resources, activities and performance measures. It creates a clear line of sight from strategy to delivery—making it easier to track progress, report consistently, and make improvements across the directorate—enhancing the ‘Golden Thread’.

Key elements to integration of service plans:

• use service plan templates if not already in place highlighting:
  • strategic and operational alignment, highlight link to specific priority and objective
  • local needs data e.g. data and lived experience
  • planned interventions and KPIs
  • measures and targets e.g. ASCOF and local measures
  • resource implications and dependencies e.g. workforce, digital, ICS
  • coproduction evidence
  • risks and mitigations
  • quarterly updates include narrative and numbers including 'you said, we did'.
• incorporate the strategy into team-level service plans across the directorate, ensuring alignment and relevance to day-to-day operations.
• refresh service plans annually to reflect evolving priorities, learning, and feedback.
• use service plans as the core tool for tracking delivery and reporting progress—both to governance boards and to residents—through quarterly updates.
• data reporting and insights: build a single, short decision pack blending outcomes, flow, equity, market and finance; fix the source data, not just spreadsheets and include:
  • people’s outcomes (ASCOF + local)
  • flow and timeliness across the pathway
  • experience ('you said, we did')
  • equity lens with disproportionalities
  • market health and provider sustainability
  • finance snapshot and benefits realisation
  • data quality routine: use completeness, timeliness, accuracy and consistency; publish a data quality scorecard with owners and deadlines.

This step ensures the draft strategy is tested, challenged, and refined through inclusive consultation and formal scrutiny. It validates the strategy’s relevance, accessibility, and feasibility—incorporating feedback from the public, elected members, and system partners before final sign-off.

Key elements to consultation, testing, and refinement

• a public consultation period is held to gather feedback from a wide range of residents and stakeholders. Materials are provided in accessible formats, and targeted outreach is carried out to engage seldom-heard groups, ensuring inclusivity and diverse perspectives
• formal scrutiny of the draft strategy by elected members, the Health and Wellbeing Board, and relevant partnership boards. This process helps test the strategy’s relevance, feasibility, and alignment with broader system priorities
• iterative amendments based on feedback from consultation and independent challenge. This may include peer reviews or external checks by organisations such as ADASS or the Local Government Association (LGA), helping to strengthen the strategy’s credibility and effectiveness before final sign-off.

This step is about getting final approval and launching the strategy. It confirms political and executive support, clearly communicates the strategy to everyone involved, and marks the shift from planning to action. It also highlights the co-production journey, sets out the first priorities, and explains how people can stay involved as the strategy is delivered and monitored.

Key elements to finalisation, approval and launch

• secure formal political and executive approval to confirm the strategy is ready for implementation. This includes sign-off from elected members and senior leaders, ensuring full organisational backing
• create accessible summary documents that clearly explain the strategy to different audiences, including residents, frontline staff, and partners. These should use plain language and be available in formats that meet diverse needs
• launch the strategy using multiple communication channels, such as newsletters, websites, social media, and community events. The launch should:
  • share the co-production journey, recognising the contributions of people with lived experience and partners
  • highlight immediate priorities and next steps, so everyone knows what will happen first.
  • explain how people can stay involved, including opportunities to support delivery, give feedback, and take part in ongoing monitoring and review.

This final step ensures the strategy moves from paper to practice through structured delivery actions and plans, transparent performance monitoring, and a culture of continuous learning. It embeds audit, assurance, and feedback mechanisms that keep the strategy dynamic, responsive, and focused on what matters most to people.

Key elements

• develop an implementation plan with milestones, owners and resources
• begin with a 90-day starter plan and stand up the delivery oversight group, include:
  • a one-page implementation plan for each strategic priority
  • publish the first performance pack and the risk and assurance log
  • host a resident and carer panel to explore “what good looks like” and co-design two quick-win pilot projects
  • review capacity, unblock dependencies (e.g., workforce, digital, finance), and make necessary adjustments.
• performance dashboards: establish performance monitoring and reports that are reviewed quarterly and shared publicly. These dashboards help track progress, identify issues early, and maintain transparency
• agree on proportionate monitoring mechanisms and use a tiered approach to monitoring, for example:
  • weekly: delivery huddles to address blockers and check data quality
  • monthly: delivery oversight groups report to the strategic governance board
  • quarterly: publish a public dashboard and hold a resident learning session
  • mid-term: conduct a formal strategy review and refresh priorities as needed.
• embed audit and quality assurance and use a range of quality assurance tools to support continuous improvement, for example:
  • conduct monthly practice dip-samples aligned with CQC quality statements and share findings with the Delivery Oversight Group
  • carry out bi-annual internal audits on key pathways, such as safeguarding timeliness.
  • integrate provider quality and peoples lived experiences into the same improvement conversations
  • track all scrutiny recommendations through to closure using the strategic governance board’s action log
  • plan for annual learning and long-term renewal. Hold annual learning events with people who draw on care, carers, and staff. These events are opportunities to review progress, share innovations, and agree on any necessary changes. Plan for a mid-term review and eventual renewal of the strategy, ensuring lessons learned are carried forward.