Developing a universal definition of care experience: consultation analysis
An analysis of views shared in our consultation on the need for a universal definition of ‘care experience’ and the language of care.
1. Introduction
Background
Since Scotland’s Independent Care Review published The Promise in February 2020, the Scottish Government has committed to ensuring that all of Scotland’s children grow up safe, loved and respected in order to reach their full potential. The Promise highlighted that the term ‘care experience’ means different things to different people and recommended creating a universal definition of ‘care experience’.
A public consultation on Developing a Universal Definition of ‘Care Experience’ was held between 9 October 2024 and 31 January 2025. Across 10 questions, the consultation sought views on the need for a universal definition of ‘care experience’ and about any potential impacts. It also asked for opinions on the language currently used to speak about care experience and how it can be improved. Alongside other consultations and engagement events held in 2024, this consultation is one step in progressing recommendations to keep the Promise.
The consultation paper describes the definition as a ‘collective understanding of the meaning of a word or phrase,’ and a universal definition would provide a single description of the care experience that everyone understands. It suggests that a universal definition may provide a sense of identity, may reduce stigma surrounding care, and could help more people understand and identify with the varied experiences of care.
The Promise also notes that a universal definition of ‘care experience’ will provide those who have spent time in care with a clear understanding of any benefits and assistance available, and the eligibility for which, as the consultation notes, is not currently connected by a consistent definition. It suggests that any definition must be accessible and universal to allow stakeholders to understand rights and entitlements.
Respondent profile
In total, 142 consultation responses were received[1]. Most were submitted via Citizen Space, an online consultation platform. Those received in an alternative format, such as an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.
Individuals provided 71 responses to the consultation and the remaining 71 were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped by the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.
Of the organisational respondents, 41 (58%) had duties as corporate parents under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which equates to 29% of all respondents. Scottish public bodies defined as corporate parents include local authorities, health boards, and post-16 education bodies for further and higher education, to name a few.
Table 1: Respondent profile
| Respondent type | Number of respondents | % of total sample |
|---|---|---|
| Individual | 71 | 50% |
| Organisation | 71 | 50% |
| Policy / Advocacy / Support | 20 | 14% |
| Local Authority | 19 | 13% |
| Education | 12 | 8% |
| HSCP (Health and Social Care Partnership)/Health | 8 | 6% |
| Social work / youth justice | 7 | 5% |
| Other Public Body | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
The Scottish Government also held eight stakeholder events from November 2024 to January 2025. Attendees included local authorities, health boards, third-sector organisations, membership bodies, and higher and further education organisations.
Respondents were not asked directly about the involvement of young people in preparing their responses. However, 11 organisations provided information highlighting the contribution of young people or people with lived experience. For example, Falkirk Council’s Champions Board Under 16s group held a focus group and South Ayrshire Council’s response was informed by questionnaires completed by 31 individuals who identified as care experienced and 14 young people who took part in four focus groups. The Care Inspectorate spoke with care experience who volunteer with them, MCR Pathways received input from young people with care experience who are part of their Young Talent Programme and Young National Advisory Board, and the Scottish Youth Parliament also held focus groups. While other respondents may have engaged with young people or people with lived experience, they did not provide any details within their responses.
Similarly, a few individual respondents referenced their own lived experience. However, as there was no question to record this information consistently it is not possible to say exactly how many respondents had lived experience.
Analysis approach
The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed and, where possible, using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.
Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.
Quantitative analysis
The consultation included two closed questions. The tables in this report present the results of the closed questions based on all respondents and show:
- The percentage of all 142 respondents who selected each response.
- The percentage results are broken down by individual and organisation responses and by type of organisation.
- The sample size column notes how many respondents within each audience answered each question.
Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Qualitative analysis
Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged. In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment around the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
In addition to analysing Citizen Space responses, notes from the consultation events were reviewed to explore whether the discussions reflected the themes evident in the Citizen Space responses, and included any differences in opinion or new themes. The themes raised at the events typically aligned with the Citizen Space responses; however, any additional or unique perspectives are noted in this report.
Where appropriate, quotes from a range of 142 consultation responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.
When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:
- Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.
- Qualitative questions are included in the consultation to allow respondents to elaborate on their views. However, not all respondents chose to comment, with those who commented providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis is, therefore, based on the information provided by those who commented.
- Where differences between the views of individuals and organisations, or by type of organisation were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted, then a mix of respondents raised a theme.
- If respondents raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition.
Weight of opinion
This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.
Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.
Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:
- Many respondents, 30 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
- Several respondents, between 15 and 29 respondents, a recurring theme.
- Some respondents, between 5 and 14 respondents, another theme.
- A few / a small number, fewer than 5 respondents, a less commonly mentioned theme.
- Two/one respondent; a singular comment or a view identified in only one or two responses.