No implementation vehicle bridging Casey phase 1 (2026) and the final report (2028)

The Casey Commission's terms of reference confine phase 1 to existing resources and defer fundamental reform to 2028. The government's response to the Health and Social Care Committee's 'cost of inaction' report names no delivery body or bridging fund for the interim; it points to existing local authority structures, Better Care Fund reform and ad hoc responses (e.g. the National Safeguarding Board agreed in March 2026 after Casey's interim letter). No unit is tasked or funded to implement phase 1 recommendations before the final report lands.

A two-year interregnum risks phase 1 recommendations landing on a system with no owner. Provider exits, the DoLS backlog and Fair Pay Agreement preparation all require coordination now, and precedent (Dilnot, 2011) shows unimplemented commission recommendations decay fast.

A Social Care Reform Delivery Unit jointly owned by DHSC and MHCLG with LGA/ADASS, formally tasked with implementing phase 1 recommendations, plus a bridging transformation fund secured at the 2027 Spending Review. Casey herself could recommend the unit in the 2026 report; DHSC could establish it administratively within months.

// State-led: Instrument: DHSC/MHCLG delivery unit established administratively plus 2027 Spending Review bridging fund; a government decision outsiders cannot ship.

The Casey phase 1 report lands in 2026 with no body or bridging fund to own its recommendations, and the 2011 Dilnot precedent shows unimplemented reform decays fast.