The findings of an evaluation of the Accelerating Reform Fund (ARF) have now been published

DHSC has now published the findings from the Evaluation of the Accelerating Reform Fund. This includes a main report, a synthesis of local impact assessments and case studies of individual projects.

Accelerating Reform Fund

The Fund allocated £42.6 million over 2 years (financial years 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025) to support local authorities in England to reform and improve their adult social care services through innovation projects. The fund was distributed to 42 consortia (Integrated Care Systems) covering 148 local authorities to fund 122 innovation projects. In a context of rising demand for support, changing needs in the population and an intention to make person-centred care and support a reality, the fund was designed to support local systems to:

• effectively overcome barriers to adopting and scaling innovations
• support contributions to the evidence base for what interventions lead to better outcomes
• build on the evidence base for effective implementation of interventions in local places.

The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) support offer was commissioned by DHSC to provide delivery support to local systems and maximise engagement with the fund.

The Evaluation

Ipsos carried out the process and impact evaluation with advisory input from Professor Sara Shaw. It focussed on these questions:

• has the fund supported local areas to create the conditions for the embedding and scaling of innovations in adult social care?
• has the fund and/or SCIE's support offer helped local areas to overcome barriers and to embed and scale innovation in adult social care?
• what are the impacts of embedding and scaling innovative approaches to delivering care and supporting unpaid carers?
   

Key findings 

The analysis was completed in May 2025 and reflects the progress of ARF funded projects at that time.

Implementation and delivery

As of May 2025, over 50% of projects were being meaningfully delivered, with another 11% showing emerging evidence of impact. There was variation in projects’ progress, related to the type of activities being delivered. Community-based care models and Shared Lives projects have taken longest to reach full delivery, while those setting up digital platforms and supporting unpaid carers have been fastest.  

The evaluation showed that enablers to project delivery include: 

• strong governance
• strong collaboration
• drawing upon wider expertise and peer learning
• sufficient staffing/resources
• co-production.

Barriers and challenges to project delivery include:

• funding instability (including a significant delay in committing funds related to the timing of the 2024 General Election) and sufficiency of resources
• procurement
• data governance
• risk aversion
• a lack of collaboration
• low service engagement or uptake.

ARF design and support

The ARF's funding model was seen by most systems as fostering collaboration between local authorities, leading to joint projects and shared learning. The 12 national priorities set by DHSC helped provide strategic direction and a focus on unpaid carers. 

SCIE's support offer included workshops, communities of practice (CoPs), one-to-one targeted support and broad-ranging communications. The targeted support and CoPs were generally well received, as they facilitated peer learning and provided valuable expertise. One-to-one support led to tangible progress in several systems. SCIE have published their own report about their experience of delivering support.

Outcomes and impact

By May 2025 around one in 10 (11%) projects were evidencing short-term outcomes, based on analysis of end-of-grant reports, with many more reporting that they have systems in place to measure changes in the future. 

The most commonly observed outcomes for individual projects so far include:

• increased carer identification and support
• improved access to information and services
• enhanced digital support
• better assessment and discharge processes
• the development of community-based care models. 

Projects focused on more complex delivery that required greater collaboration across local systems (including with the NHS and voluntary, community, and social enterprise (VCSE)), such as hospital discharge or setting up new community-based care models, may prove to have greater impact in time.

The ARF has enabled systems to focus more on collaboration, longer-term innovation and addressing systematic barriers to innovation, potentially facilitating further innovation beyond the ARF projects themselves.

The evaluation report includes a range of recommendations for DHSC and local systems to support future scaling and embedding of innovation.

Technical details 

The methodology for the evaluation of the support programme reflects that it was a process evaluation with elements of impact measurement at the local system level. For example, case studies detail the wide range of impacts of the projects funded by the fund across particular systems. 

The methods included:

• Scoping and evaluation design involving:
  • Document review: engagement and communication plans, local consortia expression of interests, policy and strategy documents, and support programme plans
  • Scoping interviews: 6 scoping interviews with representatives from DHSC and SCIE
  • Theory of Change co-design workshops with DHSC and SCIE
• Three waves of a survey with:
  • Consortia representatives
  • Project leads
  • Delivery partners
• Three waves of qualitative interviews with:
  • Consortia representatives
  • Project leads
  • SCIE representatives
• One wave of qualitative interviews with:
  • Innovation partners
  • Unpaid carers and adults drawing on care and support who had accessed services funded by ARF
• Review of documents and evidence from the individual consortia:
  • Mid grant reports
  • End of grant reports
  • Local impact assessments

During the evaluation Ipsos offered consortia evaluation support including:

• Workshops on preparing local impact assessments
• One to one support with preparing a local theory of change and impact assessment

The report includes results from the second and third waves of fieldwork.  Data tables for findings from Wave 2 (W2) and Wave 3 (W3) presented in the report are provided here for reference.