New national focus on support for unpaid carers
- Jenny Hewitt
- Jul 15
- 24 min read
Updated: Jul 16
Two significant national updates have put renewed attention on unpaid carers:
the publication of a major Care Quality Commission report and the launch of the government’s first cross-government action plan for carers. Together, they highlight the need for earlier recognition, better access to support and stronger action across health and social care.
National Updates
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has published a report that includes significant findings and recommendations relating to unpaid carers.
The Department of Health and Social Care has launched an Unpaid Carers Action Plan, designed to help millions of people across England by improving recognition, referral routes and access to support.
As the Department of Health and Social Care states: “Our plan will mean unpaid carers are better recognised, referred to support and helped to reach their full potential.”
This article summarises the key national developments, the local picture in Worcestershire, and where unpaid carers can go for advice, assessment and practical support.
CQC Report
The CQC report, Local Authority Assessments 2023–2026: Emerging Themes and Findings, brings together the key findings from our assessment programme of all 153 local authorities in England with adult social care responsibilities.
Summary of the key points, which features unpaid carers are:
CQC –“In 2022, CQC was given new responsibilities to assess how local authorities exercise their regulated care functions under Part 1 of the Care Act (2014). We have now completed the baselining programme and have published 143 assessment reports.
We met a range of people who are hugely committed, values-driven and passionate about improving the outcomes and experiences of local people. Strong leadership and commissioning are powerful levers in adult social care systems to drive quality, equity and sustainability of care and support for people.
Overall, nationally local authorities are performing well in the face of significant challenges. The majority of local authorities were rated as good (60%), and about a third were rated as requires improvement (35%). Only 4 local authorities were rated as ‘outstanding’ and 3 were rated as ‘inadequate’.
While the majority of local authorities were rated ‘good’, there were still areas that required improvement causing most ratings to be at the lower end of the scoring threshold for ‘good’, suggesting they are still relatively far away from ‘outstanding’.
Over three-quarters of local authorities achieved the lower scores of 1 or 2 for how they assess needs, mainly because of the delays that people, including unpaid carers, experienced in receiving an initial assessment and timely review.
There is no statistically significant relationship between the average Index of Multiple Deprivation scores for local authorities and their overall ratings.
We have highlighted a number of key themes throughout this report, drawn from our analysis and experiences throughout the baseline assessment activity.”
Prevention
Local authorities broadly understood the value of an effective and consistent preventative approach, but were not always able to show how they were implementing this approach and the impact on people.
There was limited evidence of how local authorities were using outcome tracking or population‑level evaluation to monitor the impact of preventative activity.
Partnership working, particularly with voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise organisations was key to shaping and delivering preventative approaches.
Gaps in the provision of enablement and reablement services have a significant impact on peoples’ outcomes and mean that people are not always supported to regain or maintain their independence.
Poorly designed prevention pathways risk widening inequality, particularly where they disproportionately exclude people least able to navigate services.
Prevention is often framed through the lens of hospital discharge in local authorities, rather than through proactive, community‑based early intervention.
We saw early but limited use of technology as a prevention tool.
Mental health prevention is far less developed than prevention for physical health.
Safeguarding
We found systemic weaknesses in governance, oversight and assurance of safeguarding.
Local authorities’ understanding of safeguarding concerns and whether a concern met the threshold for a section 42 enquiry varied.
Low waiting times did not automatically indicate quality. Where meeting the 28-day threshold for safeguarding enquiries was prioritised over rigorousness, the quality of investigations could be poor. This could lead to poorer outcomes for people.
Where low waiting times were considered credible and indicative of positive outcomes for people, enabling factors included skilled front door decision making, effective multidisciplinary working and clear escalation routes.
Where there were effective partnership arrangements for safeguarding, local authorities were able to carry out enquires promptly and sensitive to individual needs, wishes and best interests.
The effectiveness of multi-agency working varied, with particular issues around sharing information with partners on the outcomes of safeguarding referrals.
While some people felt listened to and involved in the safeguarding process, this was not the case for everyone.
Increases in demand and challenges in workforce recruitment caused delays in the processing of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications. Staff knowledge and understanding of DoLS and community deprivation of liberty orders was identified as an area for improvement.
Safeguarding Adult Reviews were underutilised as system assurance tools. Without greater consistency and external scrutiny, their ability to prevent recurrence remained limited.
Transitions from children’s to adult services
Transitions from children to adult services were consistently identified as one of the most challenging areas and a persistent area of risk.
People’s experience and the quality of care when moving from child to adult services varied across, and even within, local authorities.
Planning for transition should start by school year 9 (aged 13 to 14 years). While some authorities achieved this goal, in other local authorities planning did not start at the recommended age.
Poor transition planning has a negative impact on young people and their families. It can also be a safeguarding risk, with the lack of early contact and unclear accountability, contributing to crisis driven referrals and poorer outcomes for young adults and their families.
Clear communication and ensuring that young people and their families and carers knew what to expect when moving out of child services was essential to a successful transition. This involved supporting families through the process of moving from a focus on the families’ ability to provide care, to supporting a young adult to be independent. However, communications about transitions varied, with young people and families raising concerns about the quality of communications.
The transition process ran more smoothly when local authority teams worked well together both within the local authority and with partners. However, many inspectors described siloed working between children’s and adult services, with unclear lines of responsibility and limited shared ownership.
Unpaid carers
Unpaid carers are less satisfied with the services and support they receive than the wider cohort of people using services.
Uneven identification of carers, and inconsistent access to support emerged as a persistent and systemic issue. Identification was highlighted as the biggest issue, as carers are often only seen in crisis.
Language was highlighted as a significant barrier to identification and access. Terms such as “hidden carer”, “respite”, and “eligible needs” were described as masking risk, normalising burnout and implicitly placing responsibility on individuals rather than on systems.
Many carers do not recognise themselves within the language used by the system, because they are not paid or they may feel that it is their ‘duty’ to care for their family member.
Some unpaid carers valued local authorities tailoring their approach to support their needs. However, some authorities failed to assess and monitor distinct carers’ needs, and there was an enduring cultural tendence to view carers “as extensions of the person receiving care and support”, rather than individuals with needs in their own right.
Strong practice was highlighted where carers were supported through well‑commissioned voluntary and community services. Partnerships with the voluntary and community sector are a vital way of identifying carers.
Access to carer assessments varied – carers often described long delays, with some not being offered an assessment at all, and feeling “forgotten about”.
Contingency support planning for unpaid carers was noted as a critical weakness in many systems. Planning was often described as “reactive, with a lack of responsiveness during moments of urgent need”. As well as consequences for individual carers, the people they care for and their families, this has implications for the system in relation to escalation of risk, and unplanned demand on both social care and health services.
Equity in experience and outcomes
We found strong intent around equality, diversity and inclusion within local authorities, but weaker evidence of strategic action or measurable impact.
Local authorities that were managing equalities well, understood their communities and had well-resourced co-produced strategies and action plans on how they could tackle inequality.
Data was not consistently used in an evidence-based way to tackle risks and inequalities or improve performance and outcomes.
There was often a failure to use knowledge of people whose voices are seldom heard and people with intersecting needs to drive effective commissioning to reduce inequalities
Local authority staff involved in carrying out Care Act duties had varied levels of understanding of people’s needs.
There was not always equality of provision and access. We saw disparities in waiting times and access to support for people with a learning disability, autistic people, people with complex mental health needs and people with sensory needs. These were often accepted as operational realities rather than recognised as equity issues.
There were inconsistencies across local authorities in how people’s experiences and their protected characteristics were incorporated into their care assessments and planning.
Co-production
Co-production was either deeply embedded across systems or fragmented across different areas of the local authority and at the very early stages on the co-production ladder.
Where co-production is embedded and aligned with decision-making, it leads to clear and measurable improvements.
Strong co‑production was typically evident where leadership, commissioning and funding decisions in local authorities were driven by input from people with lived experience.
Partnerships with voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise organisations supported more effective co‑production, particularly in reaching groups whose voices are seldom heard.
Co‑production was most effective when people with lived experience clearly inform what is commissioned, how resources are allocated and how services are delivered.
Commissioning
We found significant variation in commissioning practice across England, which has been reinforced by system partners.
There is a strong link between commissioning quality and leadership culture.
Inconsistent fee‑setting, failure to account for workforce pressures and weak provider engagement directly constrains quality and sustainability, particularly in carers’ and preventative services.
We found wide variation in access criteria, shaped by financial or political considerations rather than assessed need.
Specialist sensory provision was often not commissioned locally or fragmented across providers, resulting in people travelling significant distances for basic support and inequalities remaining.
Carers’ support commissioned through trusted voluntary and community sector partners was more tailored, preventative and responsive.
Unpaid carers, a more in-depth look into the report from CQC:
For unpaid carers, there is detailed information within the report about the essential role they play and that Local Authorities “must be proactive in identifying unpaid carers and undertaking carers assessments with them.”
Unpaid carers play an essential role as partners across the whole system of care and health. Local authorities have a statutory duty to assess, support and promote the wellbeing of unpaid carers, ensuring their needs are met and their role is recognised. They must be proactive in identifying unpaid carers and undertaking a carer assessment with them.
As the population of England continues to age, and people live longer with multiple care and support needs, the number of unpaid carers will increase across the country. Ensuring growing numbers of unpaid carers have access to support at an early stage can allow early intervention, preventing escalation of needs and crisis situations by managing risk.
The Survey of Adult Carers in England, 2023-24 shows that unpaid carers are less satisfied with the services and support they receive than the wider cohort of people using services (65% of people using services reported that they were very or extremely satisfied with the care and support they received, compared with just 37% of carers). According to the survey, only 30% of unpaid carers reported that they had as much social contact as they wanted with people they liked, suggesting that local authorities in England have more to do to develop support that helps carers to reduce their isolation and loneliness.
While we found examples of good support to carers, it was not always sufficient, or easy to access, and there were areas of unmet need and significant gaps in proactive identification of carers. Inspectors consistently described unpaid carers as a group whose legal rights and needs are widely recognised in principle but inconsistently realised in practice. Inspectors consistently highlighted that the words and phrases used across policy, assessments and commissioning often act as barriers rather than enablers of support, for example describing unpaid carers as “hidden” or “unseen” by adult social care systems.
Identifying unpaid carers and recognising their needs
According to research by The King's Fund, the 7.9 billion hours of care provided annually by family members and friends (unpaid carers) in England is the equivalent of 4 million full-time paid care workers in the social care system, stating that “Without them, the system would collapse.”
Inspectors highlighted identification of unpaid carers as the most significant issue, with carers often only being seen in crisis. A large cohort of carers, particularly those supporting older people, self‑funders or relatives living at a distance, have no contact with local authorities until something goes wrong. Reliance on crisis, breakdown or statutory thresholds to trigger support undermines prevention and increases safeguarding risk.
Language was repeatedly highlighted as a significant barrier to identification, assessments and access to support for unpaid carers. Terms such as “hidden carer”, “respite”, and “eligible needs” were described as masking risk, normalising burnout and implicitly placing responsibility on individuals rather than on systems. Inspectors reflected that many unpaid carers never come into contact with services because they do not recognise themselves within the language used by the system. This was particularly evident for people caring for partners, parents or children, who often understand their role or ‘duty’ as part of a relationship rather than a defined caring identity.
Self-identification as an unpaid carer was also linked to equity, as unpaid carers within strongly family‑oriented communities, where caring is viewed as a moral or relational responsibility rather than a service‑linked identity, were particularly unlikely to come forward. Reliance on self‑identification and crisis thresholds therefore disproportionately delays support, and this reliance is reflected in decisions around how services are commissioned, designed and triggered without prioritising early identification and support of carers.
Addressing challenges in identifying carers was sometimes a focus of local authorities’ carer’s strategies or one of the local authority’s priorities. Some local authorities told us how the nature of this challenge was affected by changing population demographics in the local area. For example, we heard that the leaders in a local authority “recognised the expected population growth for carers in the county in line with the ageing population” and emphasised the importance of all unpaid carers having access to support in this context.
Identifying unpaid carers was often done at the same time as carrying out an assessment for a person with care needs. However, this should not be the only method, and we saw other measures in place to identify unpaid carers, such as during hospital stays or at the point of discharge. This sometimes involved having teams embedded in hospitals, whose role was to identify and provide support to unpaid carers. This included one local authority creating a “Carers Discharge Support officer” role to increase the numbers of carers identified and supported at the point of hospital discharge of the person they were caring for. In another authority, a commissioned partner ran a carers hospital liaison service, which oversaw a 400% increase in the number of carers identified at a local hospital.
Partnerships with the voluntary and community sector were also seen as a vital way of identifying carers. Inspectors described strong practice where carers were supported through well‑commissioned voluntary sector services. Effective approaches included separate carer assessments, culturally targeted support, and flexible or alternative short break options. Inspectors described seeing effective carers centres that tailored support to specific communities and geographies rather than offering a single generic model. For example, one local authority:
focused on building on relationships with voluntary and community organisations to enhance communication. For example, staff were able to provide unpaid carers who were previously unknown to adult social care services with information about the resources and assistance they could access.
Access to carer assessments
Inspectors found that access to carer assessments and the length of time carers had to wait for an assessment varied. Some reports described access positively – for example, in one local authority we heard that the carer assessments were routinely offered during social care assessments or when referred, and were carried out by practitioners across hospital, locality, learning disability, and mental health teams. This approach across different care settings increased the availability of timely assessments, therefore enabling carers to be supported more quickly. However, inspectors often reported feedback from carers that described how they felt frustrated due to long waits for assessment, and feeling unsupported in their caring role, or “forgotten about”. Inspectors reflected that in some local authorities, even obtaining a carer assessment remains difficult, with limited proactive engagement and poor visibility of carers’ rights.
As well as commenting on delays, some reports noted that unpaid carers had failed to be offered assessments at all. One, for example, noted that some unpaid carers who cared for their adult children with complex needs had not received carer assessments, which left them feeling “increasingly isolated and under pressure, particularly during unexpected events”. Without providing access to effective carer assessments for all those who need them, local authorities won’t be able to understand, monitor and cater for the full extent of carers’ needs in their area.
Several of our assessment reports showed how local authorities understood their responsibilities to treat unpaid carers’ needs as distinct from the needs of the people they supported. Feedback from some unpaid carers showed they valued when local authorities tailored their approach to support their needs, saying, for example, that “staff were accessible and demonstrated awareness of people’s individual circumstances and protected characteristics.”
However, we also saw examples of local authorities failing to assess and monitor distinct carers’ needs and, as stated in one assessment report, treated the needs of unpaid carers “as extensions of the person receiving care and support”. Inspectors noted that an enduring cultural tendency to frame carers as secondary to the person they support, rather than as individuals with needs in their own right, constrains strategic prioritisation and investment in carers’ support.
Failure to provide support that appropriately accommodates their individual circumstances, characteristics and preferences can also result in these carers disengaging from the local authority’s support altogether. For example, in one local authority some unpaid carers told us that, although they were aware of the services their local authority offered, “they did not have enough time to attend support groups or felt that the support available did not suit their needs”, highlighting current gaps in arrangement and provision of carers’ breaks, as explored further in ‘Support for Unpaid Carers’. Inspectors found that these negative factors around access to assessments were often compounded by a lack of clear and accessible information about the process from local authorities. For example, across several local authorities, carers were not aware of their right to request an assessment or reassessment, which showed that further improvements in communication and outreach were required.
Inspectors highlighted concerns about bureaucratic terminology in carer assessments and eligibility decisions. Phrases such as “eligible needs”, “self‑sufficiency” and “resilience” were described as masking sustained caring effort and transferring responsibility back onto families. Rather than recognising that risks to carers’ health and wellbeing can increase, this language often signals that carers are expected to continue coping unless they can evidence failure. The use of terms such as “service user” or “client” was also discussed as contributing to emotional distance and dehumanisation. This can obscure the relational nature of caring, where support is given to someone a carer loves rather than a transactional recipient of services.
In one local authority, we saw the impact of delays and a lack of communication following carer assessments, was that they contributed to carers feeling “like they were carrying the burden of caring alone and did not always feel listened to.”
By contrast, in another authority, feedback from carers described their assessment as providing them with knowledge, guidance and support, with one person feeling “valued in the process”. Another report described carer assessments as being part of a “whole-family approach” to support. These examples indicate that these local authorities understood the importance of collecting information that enabled person-centred, effective and responsive support. This in turn enables carers to support the people they are caring for and maintain their own quality of life.
For assessments to be accessible it is important that a carer is offered flexibility and choice. This might include choice over who conducts the assessments, when or where they take place, what type of information is collected and how this information informs a choice of support. In some cases carers could choose to either have their assessments alongside the person being cared for, or to have them performed on a separate occasion. One report described how a local authority offered carers flexibility in when their assessment took place while maintaining the holistic understanding of how the carer’s and person’s needs intersect with one another:
The process for carer assessments was closely aligned with the cared for person’s needs assessment and were jointly recorded in the care and support plan. However, staff acknowledged that carers should always be offered the opportunity of an assessment of their own, either because they wanted to discuss things they may not have wanted to say in front of the cared for person, or because they wanted a more structured discussion.
By comparison, a carer at another local authority had not been given a choice about having a separate assessment, which meant they “did not always feel able to talk freely, and the carers’ unique needs may have been missed or not recognised."
Support for unpaid carers
Once a carer’s needs are assessed and recognised, local authorities are required to put appropriate support in place for them.
One of the most common forms of support noted across our assessments was support with carers’ breaks. This involves temporary care being provided for a person either in their own home or in a residential setting. The accessibility of breaks for unpaid carers varied between local authorities. We saw that it worked well when authorities were able to maintain a flexible approach to delivery – for example, flexibility around times, or adapting to a carer’s change of circumstances.
Some reports also described local authorities supporting people to employ personal assistants, sometimes funded through direct payments . We were told an example where a personal assistant was recruited, which could enable a person with dementia to attend a dementia choir, giving their unpaid carer a break. However, we also heard of issues with systems for accessing direct payments, which carers said were “slow and confusing” and others highlighting it being “time-consuming.
Some local authorities used technology and equipment to ease caring responsibilities. This included support to access technology that allowed carers to leave home for short periods by helping them to manage risks to the person being cared for. Also, we saw funding allocated to purchase household appliances to reduce physical strain, which “gave carers more choice and control while improving resilience and wellbeing”.
We saw evidence of limited access to carers’ breaks. For example, in one local authority some unpaid carers told us that they “did not feel they had time to engage in activities and interests that enriched their own lives”. In one authority a staff member said there were difficulties in sourcing breaks for carers, which was confirmed by a partner organisation who told us they were aware of carers waiting over 6 months to hear about support. We also saw insufficient allocation of time for carers’ breaks – for example, during one local authority assessment some unpaid carers told us they had as little as 3 hours of support per week through a direct payment which they described as “insufficient to support their role” as it did not enable time for themselves, with this time often used for domestic tasks.
Inspectors consistently described language linked to carers’ breaks and support as problematic. They felt that terms such as “respite” and “emergency respite” reinforce a reactive, crisis‑led model of support. Inspectors reflected that breaks are often only available once a carer reaches breaking point or becomes unwell, rather than being part of planned, preventative support. This framing risks normalising burnout as an expected step before help is offered. Several inspectors noted that many local authorities are actively moving away from the term “respite”, reflecting its dictionary definition as “a short period of rest or relief from something difficult or unpleasant”, and instead adopting the term “short breaks”. We observed that the language used by staff and in policy documents often revealed the underlying culture and maturity of an authority’s approach to carers.
Initiatives such as dementia cafés and support groups are often run by the voluntary sector, and in some cases local authorities provide funding for these initiatives. For instance, in one authority carers were said to have consistently praised the carers’ groups they attended, with one describing the group as having “saved them, describing the value of meeting others in similar situations, sharing laughter and tears, and even receiving a hug when needed”. At the same authority, days out organised for carers were described as a “godsend”, especially as the carer had not opened up to friends before attending. We also saw examples where unpaid carers were unable to use such groups and initiatives, despite being aware of them, because they didn’t have time away from their caring responsibilities.
An area of weakness identified in our assessments was how local authorities planned in either the short or long term with unpaid carers for any potential changes of circumstances that may affect their ability to provide effective care and support in the future. The ADASS Spring Survey July 2025 reported an increase in carer breakdown, with carer burnout cited by directors as the number one reason. Individual contingency support planning for unpaid carers was identified as a critical weakness in many systems. For example, unpaid carers in a local authority told us contingency planning was often “reactive, with a lack of responsiveness during moments of urgent need”, which meant they relied on support from family members. At another we heard from a carer who felt worried about how they will manage their caring role in the future and another having concerns about continuity of support and whether future arrangements would be sufficient to meet the needs of the person being cared for. Poor future planning with unpaid carers is an issue that has wider implications for the system as a whole, with unplanned hospital admissions placing high demand on stretched health services, as well as impacting wellbeing outcomes for the people admitted to hospital and unpaid carers.
Local authority staff described widespread reliance on unsafe or minimal guidance, such as advising unpaid carers to contact emergency duty teams in the absence of any commissioned emergency replacement care. Where caring arrangements broke down, risk was frequently placed onto families rather than managed through planned support. Although less common, some assessment reports contained positive examples of contingency planning and effective support in unplanned situations. For example, we heard from an unpaid carer who told us about the support they received from the local authority while they were managing their own health issues following time in hospital. In this case their social worker extended the stay in a residential care service for the person being cared for until a new day service opened.
We noted that unpaid carers’ positive accounts of contingency measures tended to be about the actual response of their local authority at a time of crisis, rather than positive accounts of proactive contingency planning prior to such occurrences. This may also speak to the low expectations of carers. We heard about commissioned emergency card schemes and automatic crisis response for carers admitted to hospital, which were cited as examples of how commissioning can actively mitigate risk and prevent sudden breakdown. This demonstrates the importance of having a person-centred approach to contingency planning where unpaid carers and the people they care for play an active and collaborative role in shaping those plans alongside the local authority.
Inspectors told us that where unpaid carers were supported through effectively commissioned voluntary and community services, outcomes were markedly stronger. Commissioned models in some local authorities were described as enabling more flexible, preventative and personalised support, including tailored direct payments and ongoing advice, rather than one‑off statutory intervention. Local authority staff noted that these arrangements reduced pressure on social work teams and enabled earlier engagement with carers, before crisis or breakdown. In one local authority, more flexible and personalised carers’ support moved beyond traditional short breaks to include peer support and tailored options. This contrasted with more rigid, process‑led models.”
Read the full report here:
SCIE has responded to the CQC report here:
“Stark variation has become a hallmark of social care in England. It is indefensible that some people receive timely, personalised support that enables independence and dignity, while others receive support that fails to meet even their basic needs.
This report provides further evidence that too many people continue to be let down by weaknesses in the social care system. The findings on safeguarding, assessments and reviews, and transitions from children’s to adult services highlight areas where people can be exposed to significant harm.
The report also highlights, however, what good care should look like. Where local authorities understand their communities, invest in proactive, preventive care, and commit to genuine co-production, people experience better outcomes.
Embedding best practice across the whole system now is mission-critical. SCIE’s work on national standards of care sets out a practical framework for this.
Our new research, ‘Understanding People’s Experiences of Inequities in Social Care’, provides additional evidence for tackling the variation described in the CQCs report – but with a focus on equity as the driver for change.
Geography may shape what services are available locally, but our research shows that people’s choices and control over their lives are unevenly experienced. These wider patterns of unfairness are personal, and they appear to be baked into the design of local care systems – from how care is accessed and organised to how support is delivered.
Gerard Crofton-Martin
Interim Chief Executive of the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE)
Read more from SCIE and TLAP here:
The Department for Health and Social Care Action Plan for Unpaid Carers
The Action Plan being launched by The Department for Health and Social Care is the first ever cross-government action plan to support unpaid carers and has been published with the aim that ‘millions of unpaid carers (will) get recognition and support earlier.’
The Department for Health and Social Care says:
· Unpaid carers will be identified earlier and connected to support sooner under a new action plan
· Cross-government plan will improve recognition of unpaid carers, referring them to services and helping them access health services and employment and education support
· The government is building a system that recognises and supports unpaid carers, as a crucial part of its plans for a national care service
Millions of unpaid carers in England will be better recognised, referred to support and helped to reach their full potential, under a new cross-government action plan published today (14 July 2026).
Nearly one in 10 people in England is an unpaid carer - providing an invaluable service in society looking after family members, friends or loved ones.
However, unpaid carers can experience challenges with keeping up careers or education, looking after their own health - including loneliness and isolation - and difficulties in taking breaks away from caring.
The action plan is underpinned by 3 central pillars:
· recognising our carers
· referring them to services
· helping them reach their potential
Recognising includes making sure they are identified early, particularly young carers.
Unpaid carers can then be referred to the support they need whether it’s financial (such as the Carer’s Allowance), employment support (such as Carer’s Leave and flexible working) or health and social care services. Support also includes helping them to reach their potential or remain in work or education, so they can have fulfilling lives beyond their caring responsibilities.
Minister of State for Care, Stephen Kinnock, said:
"Unpaid carers make an extraordinary contribution in our communities, caring for loved ones, often putting the needs of others before their own, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for all they do.
But too many still go unseen, struggle to find support or feel caring has held back their own health, education, work or retirement.
Our action plan is addressing some of these challenges and is focused on helping carers reach their potential in education or work. To all unpaid and young carers across the country - this government values your contribution and is committed to building a system that recognises and supports you."
The government’s Unpaid carers action plan: recognise, refer, reach contains 42 clear actions and sets out practical steps across health, social care, education, employment and social security to improve support for unpaid carers.
The main measures of the plan include:
· unpaid carers registering their role on the NHS App so health professionals can clearly see they are a carer and involving them in care planning and referring them to the right support
· the single patient record will mean all health and care providers will have the same information for a person - meaning unpaid carers will no longer need to repeat the same information about the person they care for, while helping them manage appointments and prescriptions
· unpaid carers information page on GOV.UK putting clear guidance from health, social care, employment and benefits in one place for the first time - launching this summer
· a ‘carers’ charter’ to be published, setting out the carer’s rights and entitlements
· the government will require employers with more than 250 workers to improve the support for unpaid carers from spring 2027 so they can continue in their careers while carrying out their caring responsibilities
· carers to be central to hospital discharge planning, under reforms to the Better Care Fund
· young carers will be identified quicker and better supported so they can stay in education without falling behind at school. Schools will be held accountable by data on young carers’ attendances alongside secure information sharing about young carers across services, so they are supported
Kirsty McHugh, CEO, Carers Trust, said:
"This action plan has the right aims - to make it easier for carers to be identified, get support, and ensure carers are properly considered across health, education and employment. All too often carers continue caring without support, despite the impact on their wellbeing, finances and future opportunities.
The plan is a positive step as we await the Casey Commission on social care reform, and it must lead to tangible change for carers. That means ensuring help is available when they need it, sustained investment in the services that support them, and a long-term strategic approach that tackles the pressures carers face every day."
Emily Holzhausen CBE, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, Carers UK, said:
"This is a positive step forwards for unpaid carers, recognising that all too often they face fragmented services, barriers to support and a lack of recognition for the essential role they play looking after family and friends.
Carers’ lives do not fit neatly within the remit of a single department. The challenges they face span health, social care, employment, education, housing and welfare. Carers UK is encouraged to see a more joined-up approach, bringing government departments together to prioritise carers’ needs, outline who is responsible and how progress can be tracked."
The action plan follows the steps the government has already taken to support unpaid carers including raising the Carer’s Allowance earnings limit by more than £2,750 in 2 years, the largest increase since the 1970s. Alongside this, Universal Credit and Pension Credit provide an additional £2,500 a year to 1.1 million unpaid carers through the carer element and carer addition.
The Department for Business and Trade has also launched a consultation on employment rights and carer’s leave, with proposals to introduce paid carer’s leave and a right to return to work following a period of intensive caring.
Baroness Casey’s independent commission on adult social care is underway, which includes exploring the needs of unpaid carers, as part of our first steps towards a national care service. The commission’s initial recommendations are due this year.
You can find all the information about the action plan for unpaid carers on the gov.uk website here:
The Local Picture
As trusted voluntary and community sector partners we are able to provide tailored, preventative and responsive support. The Carers Hub, funded by Worcestershire County Council and run by Carers & Communities, helps to raise awareness and co-ordinate support for adult carers across Worcestershire.
Support is provided in many areas including:
If you need either of the following:
Discuss what support might be available to you as a carer
Request an assessment of your needs as a Carer to get support
You can self-refer to the Carers Hub online using the Worcestershire Adults Portal or through the Ask for Support self-referral form.
Alternatively, you can call the Carers Hub helpline on 0300 012 4272.
You are welcome to email mail@carersandcommunities.org.uk or use the webchat facility, to get in touch discreetly or at a time to suit you and a member of the Carers Hub team will come back as soon as possible, within opening hours.
For a professional referral, you can follow this link to complete the Professional Referral form or contact us on 01905751340 for general enquiries.
Comments