This page provides an overview of social care in Kent, along with key metrics that could affect social care. Understanding these metrics is important because they help contextualise the challenges with social care provision in each local authority. These statistics are important to keep in mind when reviewing the other pages.
Why are these metrics important? Population size and density can affect the demand for social care services. For example, if a local authority has a high population (relative to other areas), it may need to allocate more resources to meet care needs. Similarly, areas with high population density may require more care services due to the increased number of people living in close proximity. Inversely, areas with a low population density may have fewer care needs, but residents may face challenges accessing services due to the distance between them. Lastly, people in rural areas might live further away from services, which can impact their ability to access care, or make it more expensive to provide.
Understanding these metrics can help local authorities plan and allocate resources effectively.
Deprivation decile is a measure of the level of deprivation in a local authority. It is calculated by ranking areas in England from 1 (most deprived) to 10 (least deprived) based on factors such as income, employment, education, and health. A higher decile indicates lower levels of deprivation, while a lower decile suggests higher levels of deprivation. Understanding deprivation levels can help local authorities identify areas that may require additional support and resources to address social care needs.
IMD 2019 for the Lower Tier Local Authorities: Ashford, Canterbury, Dartford, Dover, Gravesham, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Folkestone and Hythe, Swale, Thanet, Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells
Deprivation rank is a measure of the relative deprivation of a local authority compared to other areas in England. It is calculated by ranking areas from 1 (most deprived) to 32,844 (least deprived) Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOA), which can be thought of as “small areas”. This rank is based on factors such as income, employment, education, and health. A lower rank indicates higher levels of deprivation, while a higher rank suggests lower levels of deprivation. Understanding deprivation ranks can help local authorities identify areas that may require additional support and resources to address social care needs.
IMD 2019 for the Lower Tier Local Authorities: Ashford, Canterbury, Dartford, Dover, Gravesham, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Folkestone and Hythe, Swale, Thanet, Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells
Many people want care, some receive care, but a significant number go without. What types of care are being requested? What care is actually provided? This section explores the gap between need and provision, the types of care available, and how our own data contributes to the understanding of these challenges.
Access Social Care and other Helplines providers are working to bridge this gap by providing free legal support to people who are struggling to access social care services. This first chart illustrates the types of calls we are getting.
The rest of this page distingushes between the different types of care provided to Working Age People and Older People, as we are able to disaggregate at a greater level of granularity.
Note: these values are a work in progress… expect these numbers to go up
This plot shows a breakdown of the types of requests for assistance received by Access Social Care and other helplines. Understanding the themes of these calls can identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of calls related to housing may indicate a need for more affordable housing options, while a high number of calls related to social care assessments may suggest a need for improved access to care services. The request types are:
Assessments: An assessment is a meeting or form to find out what help someone needs with daily tasks.
Care Plan: A care plan is a written agreement that lists the support you’ll get and who to contact if things change.
Carers: Carers are people who help a disabled or ill person with daily tasks.
Charging: Charging refers to checking if you can afford to pay for some of your care based on your savings.
Information Seeking: Information seeking means getting advice about available care options.
Legal Issues and Complaints: Legal issues and complaints involve reporting problems with your care to the council or an ombudsman.
Safeguarding: Safeguarding is protecting people from abuse or neglect.
Of course, high numbers also mean that people know where to call, and this number can be impacted by advocacy efforts. As a counterpoint, areas with low numbers may indicate a lack of awareness of available services or a need for more outreach to connect people with support.
To protect privacy, our minimum bin size is 5, which means that if we field 1-5 queries on a topic, we display 5.
Are you a helpline and would like to combine data resources? Let us know!
Access Social Care casework, AccessAva data, and helpline partner submissions
Working Age People
Knowing how many people are requesting social care, how many people are recieving care and what percent of people are disabled helps understand need and social care provision at a top level. For example, a high number of people requesting care may indicate a need for additional resources or services, while a low number of people receiving care may suggest a gap in service provision. Understanding these metrics can help identify areas where additional support may be needed.
MW was diagnosed with Functional Chronic Pain, she cannot walk without support, she holds on to her furniture to move around the house. She uses a wheelchair, especially when she goes out, with support from friends and family. She lives on second floor with 5 flights because of the way the building is designed and there is no lift. She never goes out because of the difficulties she experiences with the stairs. She needs help with cooking, cleaning, shopping and showering. She relies on friends and her mum who has knee replacement.
She was referred by the Social Prescriber who referred her onto also referred her to Croydon Adult Support, they told her they are short of staff to allocate her a social worker, so she was placed on a long waiting list. MW case still hadn’t progressed until the Social Prescriber, who had been recently trained on the Care Act, referred her to Access Social Care’s free legal Chatbot letter clinic.
The legal clinic volunteer completed a letter to Croydon Council with MW within a week which was sent to Adult Social Services. Access Social Care then called her after two weeks to complete a follow up survey. MW informed them that she had had an assessment and was waiting to hear back from Croydon following the panel meeting. Social Services has now done the assessment after which the panel offered MW 9 hours of social care support.
This case study is based on real data from Croydon. Have a story to tell? Let us know, and we might display it here!
This plot shows the types of care provided to working-age people in Kent. Understanding the types of care available can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of people receiving personal care may indicate a need for more support with daily living activities, while a high number of people receiving respite care may suggest a need for additional support for carers.
ASCFR and SALT Data Tables 2023-24 Sheet T34
In 2024 an age-standardised 17.7 % of Kent residents were disabled. The England mean was 17.6 %. The gap is small, yet, because Kent’s population is large (about 1.61 million in 2023), this tenth of a percent equals roughly 1,600 extra disabled residents when compared with an average county. Kent must therefore plan for a very high absolute number of people who may ask for help.
\n\nKent logged 13,970 requests from 18–64 year olds in 2024. This is 868 requests for every 100,000 residents of that age, well below the national mean of 1,143. The lower rate may point to several factors. Kent is a little less deprived than the England average, and parts of the county are quite rural. Families in rural or better-off areas may rely more on informal care, or may find formal routes harder to reach. A lower request rate can also hide unmet need, so careful local listening is important.
\n\nBy contrast, 8,585 working-age adults already receive long-term support, almost exactly in line with the England per-capita figure (533 per 100,000 versus 533 nationwide). The mix of support is, however, different:
\n\n• Residential care is used more often. Kent supports 1,295 working-age adults in residential homes (80 per 100,000) against a national mean of 61.
\n• Nursing home use is low: only 65 people (4 per 100,000) versus 14 nationally.
\n• Direct payments and part direct payments match the national picture, suggesting that many service users choose to organise some support themselves.
\n• CASSS-commissioned community support is much lower (22 per 100,000 versus 58). This hints that Kent leans on residential settings instead of council-commissioned home or day services.
Higher residential use may reflect the county’s supply of medium-sized care homes in coastal and rural towns. It could also show gaps in community provision, transport, or therapy services that make home-based packages harder to put in place.
\n\nIn 2025 Kent recorded very small numbers of citizens seeking specialist advice (for example, only 3 people asked for help with assessments, and 6 raised safeguarding issues). The per-capita rates for every advice topic sit well below national means. Because the figures are so low, it is unlikely that need has vanished; it is more probable that awareness, signposting, or recording processes differ. Strengthening front-door advice could help people earlier and may prevent later resort to residential care.
\n\nKent’s disabled population is only slightly above average in percentage terms, yet the county must serve one of the largest absolute groups in England. Demand for formal support appears muted at the point of request but rises to average levels once care is in place, with a clear tilt towards residential solutions. In a county that is partly rural, improving reach of community services, transport and digital access could let more disabled residents stay at home and reduce long-term costs. Monitoring future request rates will show whether current low figures signal success in prevention or, instead, unmet need that will surface later with greater complexity.
✨ ✅ ❌Older People
Just like with Working Age people, knowing how many older people are requesting social care, how many people are recieving care and what percent of the population is 65+ helps understand need and social care provision at a top level.
Jamaican female, blind and in her 40s. She was in an emergency Bed & Breakfast with her Niece, who acts as her unofficial carer, she is unable to work but would like to go to University. She is receiving PIP but not the Daily Living Allowance which she applied for in June 2021. She is vulnerable and has a history of self harm so was assigned a rehab Support Worker. Vanessa supported her using the Chatbot to chase up her PIP Daily Living allowance application, after waiting for several months and they received a reply within a week but was awarded the lower rate.
Another Chatbot letter was sent to request an urgent assessment due to her vulnerability and this was action quickly by the LA. Vanessa also supported her to use the chatbot and ask the Social worker to be moved to a place that supports her needs and rights. As she was having to use a shared bathroom, toilet and kitchen in a place with drug/alcohol abusers and being blind with no carer, this left her vulnerable. The Chatbot was used again to raise this issue and after a few weeks she was successfully moved to a private property in another area.
This case study is based on real data from Croydon. Have a story to tell? Let us know, and we might display it here!
As above, it is important to see what type of care older people are being provided because it can help explain where additional work is needed.
ASCFR and SALT Data Tables 2023-24 Sheet T34
The share of residents who are 65 or over rose each year, from 20.2 % in 2019 to 20.5 % in 2023. Kent stayed about two points above the England mean all through the period. At the same time the total population grew by about 47 000 people. Taken together, this means there are now more older people in both percentage and head-count terms. Kent is less dense than most urban areas (445 residents per km²) and has a large rural share. Older people in rural places often need to travel farther for care, so growth in this age group can stretch services even when numbers look moderate.
\n\nIn 2024 the council recorded 28 860 requests for support from people aged 65+. This works out at 1 792 requests per 100 000 older residents, well below the national rate of 2 438. Two main factors may sit behind the gap. First, many older people in Kent live in villages or small towns and may find it harder to contact the council. Second, parts of the county are relatively less deprived, so a higher share of people can buy care privately and never appear in council data.
\n\nAround 12 970 older residents were getting long-term support at the start of 2024 (805 per 100 000), again below the England mean of 1 003. The mix of care shows an interesting split. Nursing home use is slightly above average (101 vs 122 per 100 000), while residential care is a little lower. Community-based help shows bigger gaps: council-managed personal budgets stand at 400 per 100 000 against a national 508, and part direct payments are only half the England rate. The data suggest that when Kent does step in, it is more likely to do so in settings with higher needs (nursing) or to leave people to manage their own package. Fewer prison-linked cases simply reflect small prison populations.
\n\nNewer figures for 2025 list small numbers of older people asking for advice on topics such as assessments or safeguarding. All rates are far below national comparators (for instance, 0.19 per 100 000 for assessment advice versus 1.72 across England). Low counts may point to good early support, but they could also mean that people do not know how to seek help or choose other routes.
\n\nKent already has an older age profile and it is still rising. Even though per-capita demand looks low today, the absolute numbers are large and will grow. The rural setting can hide unmet need, and the tilt towards nursing care hints that people may present late, with higher complexity. The council may wish to:
\n• strengthen outreach in rural areas so that older residents know about community options;
\n• review why council-managed personal budgets lag behind national levels, as expanding them could delay entry to costly bed-based care;
\n• plan for extra capacity in both home care and nursing homes, because population growth alone will lift case numbers even if rates stay flat.
Keeping sight of both raw counts and per-capita rates will help balance resources fairly across the county.
✨ ✅ ❌When government support falls short, unpaid carers step in to provide care. However, many struggle with burnout, financial pressure, lack of social contact, and a lack of support. This section explores the number of unpaid carers, their increasing workload, and what forms of support are available.
Carers play a vital role in supporting vulnerable adults, often stepping in to provide care when professional services are unavailable or insufficient. The percentage of carers receiving direct payments highlights financial empowerment, the number of carers accessing services reflects local authority outreach, and the number turning to charities underscores unmet needs. Together, these data points reveal systemic strengths and weaknesses: low direct payment uptake may push carers toward charities, while effective services can reduce dependence on charitable support. Understanding these metrics enables targeted interventions to ensure carers receive the recognition and resources they deserve.
Unpaid carers play a crucial role in supporting vulnerable adults, often stepping in to provide care when professional services are unavailable or insufficient. Understanding the number of unpaid carers in a local authority can be complicated. On the one hand, a relatively high proportion might be indicative of not enough being done by the local authority, and/or a strong community. On the other hand, a relatively lower number can mean good service provision, lower need, lower availability to look after family, or a problem with reporting.
Still, understanding the number of unpaid carers is a baseline number that must be considered.
NOMIS NM_2213_1
These values are widely considered to be an underestimate. See this report from Carers UK for more information.
August 2021 - Patient with dementia who lives in a shared lives setting. Carer had been requesting respite from the council since September 2020. Croydon Social Prescriber helped with a referral to the local authority in March 2021. Assessment conducted, with the promise they would come back with support, which did not happen. 25 August, social prescriber used the chatbot to find the right legal wording for the situation. The email was sent at 4.52pm that day. At 5.12pm the council contacted the carer to discuss the respite. This was the impact of one letter, addressed to a senior team.
This case study is based on real data from Croydon. Have a story to tell? Let us know, and we might display it here!
Social contact is important for carers’ well-being, as it can help reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness. Understanding the level of social contact that carers have can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a low level of social contact may indicate a need for more social activities or support groups for carers, while a high level of social contact may suggest that carers have a strong support network.
Survey of Adult Carers in England (SACE) - question 11
The type of support available to carers can vary significantly, impacting their ability to provide care effectively. Understanding the types of support available can help identify areas where additional resources may be needed. For example, a high number of carers receiving respite care may indicate a need for more support with caregiving responsibilities, while a low number of carers receiving financial support may suggest a need for additional financial assistance.
ASCFR/SALT Sheet T47
Access to information is crucial for carers to navigate the social care system effectively. Understanding how easy it is for carers to get information can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of carers finding it difficult to get information may indicate a need for improved communication and support services, while a low number of carers finding it difficult to get information may suggest that existing services are effective.
Would you like social care information? Try our Chatbot!
Survey of Adult Carers in England (SACE) - question 17
Note: these values are a work in progress… expect these numbers to go up
Access Social Care and other Helplines help people with information, advice, and support related to social care. Understanding the types of calls received by carers can highlight areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of calls related to financial support may indicate a need for more financial assistance for carers, while a high number of calls related to respite care may suggest a need for additional support with caregiving responsibilities.
It is important to note that, just as in the previous section, low numbers of requests might indicate that people don’t know where to get help, don’t feel they can get (or deserve) help, or other outreach problems. This is particularly important because we often work with people where the role of a carer is not recognised, or where the carer themselves does not recognise their role.
Access Social Care casework, AccessAva data, and helpline partner submissions
In 2021 Kent had about 8,609 unpaid carers for every 100,000 residents. With a mid-year population of roughly 1.58 million, this equals around 136,000 people who give regular, unpaid help. The rate is slightly above the England average of 8,204 per 100,000, so caring is a little more common in Kent than elsewhere. One possible reason is the county’s age and settlement pattern. Kent is large (four times the size of a typical local authority) and 43 per cent of its residents live in rural areas. Distance from formal services often pushes families to rely on informal help, raising the share of unpaid carers.
\n\nOnly 17 per cent of Kent carers in the 2024 survey said they have as much social contact as they would like, compared with 29 per cent nationally. This gap suggests significant isolation. Rural travel times, lower population density (445 residents per km² against an England mean of 2,469) and the practical demands of long-distance caring can all limit opportunities to meet friends, attend support groups or take breaks.
\n\nFinding information appears less of a barrier. About 60.5 per cent felt it is easy to get advice on services, marginally better than the national figure of 59.3 per cent. Local signposting therefore works reasonably well, yet good information alone is not translating into better wellbeing, hinting that the issue is not awareness but the amount and type of support on offer.
\n\nKent records 38.5 direct payments to carers per 100,000 residents, far below the England rate of 149.9. Part-direct payments are almost absent (0.9 per 100,000 versus 44.8 nationally) and no activity is logged for managed personal budgets or for council-commissioned support packages. Universal offers such as information, advice or signposting are more frequent (250 per 100,000) but still sit beneath the England average of 339. Respite provided through the cared-for person reaches 17.4 per 100,000, only a quarter of the national rate.
\n\nThe pattern points to a service model that relies heavily on light-touch guidance rather than on funded, personalised assistance. That choice may reflect budget pressures or the logistical challenges of delivering formal care across a dispersed, partly rural county. However, the very low proportion of carers who feel socially connected suggests that current support is not meeting need. Without direct payments or structured breaks, carers have fewer chances to step away from their role and rebuild social ties.
\n\nKent’s moderate deprivation profile (average decile around 5.7) means material hardship is not uniquely high, yet geography makes service reach more difficult. Increasing the use of direct payments and flexible respite, perhaps delivered through community hubs in market towns and larger villages, could ease isolation. Better transport or digital solutions may also help carers in the most rural areas maintain contact with peers.
\n\nKent’s large absolute number of carers (more than 135,000) amplifies the impact of any shortfall in support. Even small improvements in coverage could benefit thousands of households and reduce future demand for costly statutory services if carers feel able to continue in their role.
\n\nThe small number of recent safeguarding or quality alerts involving carers (0.12 per 100,000 in 2025, compared with 0.75 nationally) offers no sign of widespread crisis. Nevertheless, the low social-contact score is an early warning. A strategic shift towards more personalised, practical help would likely improve carers’ wellbeing and sustain the informal care that underpins Kent’s wider health and social care system.
✨ ✅ ❌Care providers are essential for delivering social care services, including home care agencies and care homes. The quality of care they provide can vary significantly, impacting the well-being of service users. This section examines the number and types of care providers, their quality ratings, and some of the difficulties of maintaining high standards. Understanding these metrics is crucial for ensuring that vulnerable individuals receive high-quality care.
The number and types of care providers in a local authority can impact the availability and quality of social care services. Understanding the distribution of care providers directly influences people’s ability to get the care they need.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) rates care providers based on their quality of care, safety, and effectiveness. Understanding the quality ratings of care providers can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of care providers with low ratings may indicate a need for improved training and support, while a high number of care providers with high ratings may suggest that existing services are effective.
Framework rates are the agreed prices that local authorities pay care providers for social care services, such as home care and residential care. These rates are crucial because they determine the affordability, availability, and quality of care in a city. If rates are too low, providers may struggle to sustain services, leading to workforce shortages, poor care quality, and limited access for those relying on council-funded care.
Understanding framework rates helps assess whether local authorities are adequately funding social care, ensuring fair pay for care workers, and maintaining a sustainable care market that meets residents’ needs.
?
Several providers are finding it increasingly difficult to stay in business, and sometimes several providers collapse at once. For example, when pay rises are approved without consultation and effective immediately, providers may not be able to afford to pay their staff. This can cause a chain-effect which leads to collapse in the market, and a lack of care for those who need it.
?
Workforce turnover rate is a measure of the number of staff leaving a care provider over a specific period. High turnover rates can indicate issues with staff retention, such as low pay, poor working conditions, or lack of training and support. Understanding workforce turnover rates can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed to improve staff retention and ensure high-quality care services.
NOTE: This data series is based on regional data
Staff retention is crucial for maintaining high-quality care services. Understanding the challenges faced by care providers in retaining staff can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of care providers struggling to retain staff may indicate a need for improved training and support, while a low number of care providers facing retention challenges may suggest that existing services are effective.
This dataset describes the results of a survey asking care providers about their challenges in retaining staff.
NOTE: This data series is based on regional data
Workforce_survey_data_tables, Tab 6_2
Vacancy rate is a measure of the number of unfilled positions within a care provider over a specific period. High vacancy rates can indicate issues with staff recruitment, such as low pay, poor working conditions, or lack of training and support. Understanding vacancy rates can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed to improve staff recruitment and ensure high-quality care services.
Recruiting staff is essential for maintaining high-quality care services, and for backfilling staff when they leave. Understanding the challenges faced by care providers in recruiting staff can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of care providers struggling to recruit staff may indicate a need for improved training and support, or can point to a systemic problem, such as low pay, poor working conditions, or not enough people interested in this job type.
Staff recruitment is important as it’s one of the areas that have levers to pull outside of social care, for example, by changing how many visas are awarded to social care workers.
NOTE: This data series is based on regional data
Workforce_survey_data_tables, Tab 6_2
Kent supports 251 community-based adult social care services and 472 residential care services. The county’s population is around 1.61 million, more than four times the average local authority in England. When the figures are set against population size, Kent has about 15.6 community services and 29.3 residential services for every 100,000 people. The national pattern is roughly 17.4 and 24.8 per 100,000. This shows that Kent runs a larger total market, yet the spread favours residential settings more than is usual elsewhere.
\n\nThe lower rate of community services per head may reflect Kent’s geography. Around 43 percent of residents live in rural areas. Longer travel times and smaller villages can make home-care runs costly, so providers may prefer block contracts in care homes. At the same time, the county’s older coastal towns create steady demand for beds. The higher residential rate therefore seems to meet need, but it also hints that people who wish to stay at home might find fewer options than in other parts of England.
\n\nAbout 18.3 percent of Kent providers are rated “requires improvement” or “inadequate”, slightly above the national figure of 16.8 percent. The gap is modest, yet with nearly 723 services in total it means around 130 settings need to raise standards. A busy market can stretch inspection support and training, so targeted quality work will be important, especially in areas with high deprivation such as some coastal districts.
\n\nStaff turnover in Kent stands at 26.7 percent, almost identical to the national average. Vacancy rates follow the same pattern at 8.1 percent. On the surface the workforce is no less stable than in other places. However, 82.9 percent of providers say recruiting staff is “more” or “much more” difficult and 72.4 percent say the same about retention, both above national sentiment. Rural travel, housing costs in commuter towns and competition from retail and tourism may lie behind these worries. If the labour market tightens further, Kent could struggle to expand community services.
\n\nSettings that cannot keep or attract staff may rely on agency cover, raising costs and risking breaks in care. This can feed into poorer inspection grades. The slightly higher proportion of low-rated services in Kent fits this pattern. Supporting providers with recruitment campaigns, transport solutions and career paths could lift both staffing and quality.
\n\nPopulation growth of about 46,000 people since 2021, together with an ageing profile, will pressurise services. Kent may wish to:
\n• Expand home-care capacity so that per-capita access matches national levels.
\n• Focus improvement resources on the 18 percent of services below “good”.
\n• Work with training bodies and colleges to grow a local workforce, paying attention to rural travel and housing barriers.
By shifting some future demand away from care homes and into well-staffed community services, Kent can offer residents more choice, hold down costs linked to residential care and support people to live independently for longer.
✨ ✅ ❌Historically, hospital delays have been due in large part, to the inability to discharge patients into social care. We no longer have DTOC data, but we can still look at the number of hospital delays and the number of facilities requiring improvement.
CQC, as the regulator of health and social care services in England, is beginning to rate Local Authorities on their social care provision. Understanding the CQC rating of a local authority should be used as the most official evaluation of service care provision. For example, a low rating may indicate a need for improved service delivery, while a high rating may suggest that existing services are effective.
Hospital delays can have a significant impact on patient care and outcomes, and are in large part the result of not having invested sufficiently in social care. Understanding the number of hospital delays in a local authority can be a sympthom of a poorly working social care sector. For example, a high number of hospital delays may indicate a need for improved discharge planning and coordination, not enough places to discharge people to, lack of sufficient staff to assess patients, or a lack of care providers.
Discharge-Ready-Date-monthly-data-webfile-November-2024, Tab UTLA Acceptable
This metric illustrates how long patients are delayed in hospital before being discharged. Higher average delays mean that patients are spending more time in hospital than necessary, which can lead to increased costs, reduced bed availability, and poorer patient outcomes. This also means that the beds are not available for people that might desperately need them for life-saving procedures.
Discharge-Ready-Date-monthly-data-webfile-November-2024, Tab UTLA Acceptable
Delayed Transfer of Care (DTOC) refers to the time between a patient being declared medically fit for discharge and actually leaving the hospital. Understanding the number of DTOCs in a local authority can help identify precisely where the social care system is failing.
Unfortunately, this dataset is no longer being generated.
Reablement is a short-term service that helps people regain independence and confidence after a period of illness or injury. Understanding the number of people receiving reablement services can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of people receiving reablement services may indicate a need for more support with daily living activities, while a low number of people receiving reablement services may suggest that existing services are effective.
Coming soon!
Service user satisfaction is a key indicator of the quality of social care services. Understanding service user satisfaction can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a low level of service user satisfaction may indicate a need for improved service delivery, while a high level of service user satisfaction may suggest that existing services are effective.
It is important to note that the people surveyed are already receiving service care. Notably absent are all the people that are not yet lucky enough to be receiving care.
Personal Social Services Adult Social Care Survey, question 1
Access to information is crucial for people using social care services to navigate the system effectively. Understanding how easy it is for people to get information can help local authorities identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed. For example, a high number of people finding it difficult to get information may indicate a need for improved communication and support services, while a low number of people finding it difficult to get information may suggest that existing services are effective.
Would you like social care information? Try our Chatbot!
Personal Social Services Adult Social Care Survey, question 13
An ombudsman is a person who has been appointed to look into complaints about companies and organisations. The number of cases received and decided by the Ombudsman is important because it provides insight into the volume of complaints about a local authority’s social care services and how effectively these complaints are being addressed. The number of cases received indicates the level of dissatisfaction or systemic issues within a council’s care provision, while the number of cases decided shows how efficiently the Ombudsman is processing and resolving complaints. A large gap between the two may suggest delays in complaint handling, leaving individuals waiting.
It is important to note that contacting the Ombudsman is widely considered a last resort, often discouraged, and sometimes penalised.
Kent is a large county with about 1.61 million residents, four times the average local authority size in England. Only 445 people live in each square kilometre, and more than two-fifths of the area is rural. Deprivation is close to the national midpoint. The combination of a growing, partly dispersed population and moderate deprivation shapes both demand for care and the way services must be delivered.
\n\nNinety-nine per cent of Kent’s hospital discharges in November 2024 came from trusts the Care Quality Commission rates as “acceptable”, ten percentage points above the England figure. This suggests strong clinical safety and good joint working with NHS partners.
\nYet 20.4 per cent of all discharges were delayed, compared with 12.3 per cent nationally, and the average delay was 1.1 days against 0.7 days. For a county of Kent’s size this translates into many additional bed-days lost each week. Rural travel times, limited home-care capacity and a larger-than-average older population in some districts are likely contributors. The contrast between safe discharge destinations and slow discharge processes indicates that quality is achieved but efficiency remains a challenge.
\n\nIn 2024, 67 per cent of adult social care respondents said they were satisfied with their support, slightly higher than the national mean of 64.7 per cent. Satisfaction is therefore broadly positive, aligning with the high proportion of safe discharges. However, a separate NatCen survey found that 57 per cent of people expressed dissatisfaction. This gap implies that experience may vary by survey method or service group, and points to underlying pressures not captured in the main statutory survey.
\nFinding information about services appears neither a strength nor a weakness: 68.4 per cent of users said it was easy, effectively the same as the 68.2 per cent national average. Maintaining clear digital and face-to-face advice channels is important in a county where rural internet coverage can be patchy.
\n\nThe Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman received 4.4 cases per 100,000 residents in 2024, marginally below the national rate of 4.45. It decided 4.66 cases per 100,000, slightly above the England figure of 4.12. Kent therefore handles a fairly typical volume of complaints for its population size, but a greater share progresses to a formal decision. This may reflect complex cases linked to delayed discharge or service availability in remote areas.
\n\nKent provides care that is generally safe and, for many people, satisfactory. The main quality risk lies in hospital exit and community follow-up. Population growth and rural dispersion are stretching domiciliary care and re-ablement capacity, leading to avoidable waits. Reducing delays would release acute beds and improve user experience further.
\nPriority actions include expanding rural home-care provision, strengthening integrated discharge teams, and making information channels more responsive for carers who need rapid support. Close monitoring of complaint themes can guide targeted training and policy adjustments.
\nIf these steps are taken, Kent is well placed to sustain high safety standards while closing the efficiency gap that now marks its discharge pathway.
✨ ✅ ❌We need to understand how much money is being spent on social care, and what this provides. First, let’s look at values reported by local authorities.
Gross Current Expenditure (2023-24) captures the total operational cost of services, indicating overall demand and financial commitment. This includes spending on residential and non-residential care, direct payments, and other social care services. Understanding gross expenditure helps assess the scale of social care provision and financial pressures on local authorities.
ASCFR/SALT Sheet T3
This figure reflects the net cost of social care provision to the local authority, indicating the extent of financial support required to meet service demands. Understanding net expenditure helps assess the financial sustainability of social care services and the commitment level of the local authority.
ASCFR/SALT Sheet T3
Client Contributions, otherwise known as “Charging”, show the extent to which service users offset costs. Understanding client contributions helps assess the financial burden on individuals and the local authority, highlighting the need for fair and equitable funding mechanisms.
It is important to note that not all local authorities charge for social care services, and that charging can be a barrier to accessing care for some individuals.
ASCFR/SALT Sheet T3
Income from NHS reflects external funding and collaboration with the health sector. Understanding NHS contributions helps understand the level of integration between health and social care.
ASCFR/SALT Sheet T3
Budget Cuts indicate financial constraints and potential service reductions. Sometimes, budget cuts are explicit, but other times, they aren’t mentioned directly, making tracking this information difficult to access.
As such, this data is not consistently available for all local authorities.
Access Social Care have made a series of Freedom of Information requests about the government’s own assessment of sufficiency of social care funding. The social care sector is in crisis, yet the government refuses to disclose how it determines funding sufficiency. Without transparency, there is little accountability, no independent scrutiny to improve decision-making, and government trust heavily impacted. Evidence from across the sector indicates a severe funding gap, but without open data, meaningful reform remains impossible. True solutions require honesty about the scale of the problem to then work towards a fair and equitable funding model.
The government appears to know how much money is required for social care, and yet they are not making that known.
✨ ✅ ❌?
Kent spends about £786 million on adult and children’s social care in 2024. This is the gross figure and equals £48,841 for every 100,000 residents. The national mean is £47,758 per 100,000. Kent therefore invests a little more than the typical council. After income is taken away, the net cost to the county is roughly £672 million, or £41,730 per 100,000 people, again a touch above the national mean of £40,472.
\n\nOnly a small share of Kent’s care budget is met by other partners. Client charges bring in about £115 million (£7,112 per 100,000). This is slightly below the national mean, which may point to lower average wealth among service users or to a charging policy that is more generous than in many areas. Contributions from the NHS are far lower: roughly £62 million, or £3,832 per 100,000, against a national mean of £7,878. Kent is therefore having to depend more on its own funds than most councils. Limited NHS support may reflect the local pattern of joint-funded packages, the balance between community and hospital care, or delays in pooled-budget agreements.
\n\nKent is one of the largest shire authorities, with around 1.61 million residents, over four times the mean population of an English upper-tier council. Its density is 445 people per square kilometre, well below the England mean of 2,469, and 43 % of the county is rural. Providing home care and re-ablement across a wide area can raise travel time, staffing and fuel costs, which helps to explain why per-capita spending sits above the national figure even though median deprivation is close to average.
\n\nThe county’s overall deprivation score is mid-range, but the spread is wide. Some districts sit in decile 3–4, while others reach decile 7–8. Such variation creates mixed patterns of need: pockets of poorer, often coastal, communities with high ill-health sit next to affluent commuter towns. Services must therefore be flexible. Higher need in deprived areas can push up demand for residential care and intensive home support, adding pressure on budgets even when the headline deprivation average looks moderate.
\n\nKent is spending slightly above the national norm per head, yet it receives less outside income. The county is shouldering the extra cost of a large, dispersed population and diverse levels of need. The low NHS contribution may leave preventive and community services at risk if local government finances tighten. Without better joint funding, the council could face hard choices on eligibility or service scope. At the same time, below-average client charges limit scope to raise extra income. Careful planning with the Integrated Care Board, and a stronger focus on early help in rural and coastal districts, would help to protect residents while keeping future costs under control.
✨ ✅ ❌