This page provides an overview of social care in Richmond upon Thames, 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: Richmond upon Thames
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: Richmond upon Thames
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 Richmond upon Thames. 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
An age-standardised disability rate of 12.9 per cent sits well below the England average of 17.6 per cent. The figure already allows for Richmond’s age profile, so the gap is unlikely to be caused only by a younger population. High life expectancy, good housing and low deprivation – the borough is in decile 8 of the Index of Multiple Deprivation – probably reduce the risk of long-term limiting illness. The dense, fully urban setting (3 402 residents per km²) means shops, transport and health facilities are close by, helping many residents to stay independent without formal support.
In 2024, 1 400 working-age adults asked the council for social care. This is 716 requests per 100 000 residents, roughly two-thirds of the national rate of 1 143. Fewer requests may reflect the smaller pool of disabled people, but it can also mean that family and community networks are absorbing some need before it reaches the council. Low deprivation often brings higher self-funding, which can keep local authority contact down.
Yet the type of help sought gives another view. In 2025, requests for information about charging reached 14.3 per 100 000, more than double the national figure. This suggests that when residents do approach the council, cost and eligibility are key concerns. Enquiries about assessments are also above average, hinting that people prefer to test entitlement before committing to paid care.
Eight hundred and fifteen working-age adults were receiving long-term care in 2024. That is 417 people per 100 000, again below the England norm of 533. Community-based support is the main offer, but the pattern differs from the national mix. Direct payments alone run at 113 per 100 000, slightly below England’s 122, and part-direct payments are lower still. Council-managed personal budgets in the community are markedly lower than average (194 versus 267 per 100 000). On the other hand, residential placements are a touch higher than the England mean (64 versus 61 per 100 000). Nursing home use is small in absolute terms – only 15 clients – yet still proportionally half the national rate.
The relatively low use of direct payments may point to limited take-up rather than limited offer. Affluent service users may prefer to top up care privately rather than manage a public personal budget. Slightly higher residential use could be linked to high local housing costs; remaining at home with hourly support is more expensive here, so placement can become the cost-effective route once needs rise. The borough’s tight urban footprint also restricts the supply of accessible housing, again nudging some people toward placements.
Because overall disability and demand are low, Richmond starts from a position of relative strength. However, high numbers seeking advice on charges reveal uncertainty about how the system works. Clearer, early financial information may help people plan and delay entry to formal care. Strengthening the direct payment support offer could widen choice for those who do require council help. Finally, the slight reliance on residential care suggests value in expanding extra-care housing or supported living schemes, letting disabled adults remain in the community without incurring very high home-care costs.
Low disability prevalence and low demand mean pressures are lighter than elsewhere, but focused work on financial advice, housing options and direct payment uptake could further improve outcomes for disabled residents.
✨ ✅ ❌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
Richmond upon Thames is a dense, mainly urban borough. In 2021 it had about 3,402 usual residents per square kilometre, well above the England figure of 2,469. The area is also relatively wealthy; its average Index of Multiple Deprivation decile is 8.3, compared with the national mean of 5.9. The share of residents aged 65 and over has been rising every year, from 15.5 per cent in 2019 to 16.8 per cent in 2023. Even so, the borough still has a smaller older-age population than England as a whole, where the rate remains near 18.5 per cent. This means Richmond is ageing, but it starts from a younger base.
In 2024 the council recorded 4,755 requests for support from people aged 65 plus. This equals 2,432 requests for every 100,000 residents, almost identical to the national rate of 2,438. The figure is striking because the borough has fewer older residents; it suggests that each older person is as likely as their peers elsewhere to contact the council. Some will be new to the care system, while others may be seeking better information or short-term help.
By 2025 many older people were still approaching the council with practical questions. Enquiries about care plans (14.3 per 100,000) and information-seeking more generally (3.6 per 100,000) are both well above national averages. This pattern points to a local population that is engaged but perhaps unsure how to navigate a mixed market of public, private and voluntary providers.
Only 1,230 older residents were receiving ongoing council-funded care in 2024, a rate of 629 per 100,000. The England average is 1,003 per 100,000, so Richmond supports far fewer people through long-term packages. The gap is widest for community services commissioned and managed by the council (276 per 100,000 locally against 508 nationally). In contrast, nursing home use is broadly in line with England, while direct-payment-only packages are slightly higher.
Several factors may explain this pattern. Affluent households can often pay for their own home care or residential places, reducing reliance on council budgets. A compact urban layout also makes it easier for families, neighbours and voluntary groups to provide informal help. At the same time, the stable level of requests implies that need still exists; it is simply met in different ways once the initial contact has been made.
The steady growth in the older population means demand will rise further, even if Richmond remains younger than most areas. Commissioners should plan for more complex cases moving straight to nursing care, as this setting already mirrors national rates. Lower uptake of council-managed community support may signal effective self-funding, but it could also mask unmet need among people of moderate means. Clear advice services—already heavily used—will continue to be vital.
Because density is high and deprivation is low, the borough is well placed to promote preventive work: local transport, accessible leisure, and housing adaptations could all help keep older residents independent. Monitoring the gap between requests and long-term packages will show whether current approaches succeed or whether extra council provision becomes necessary as the cohort grows older.
✨ ✅ ❌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 the borough had about 13,000 unpaid carers. This equals 6,731 carers for every 100,000 residents, while the England rate is 8,204. A lower rate may reflect the local picture. Richmond is one of the least deprived areas in the country (average deprivation decile 8.3). Many families can pay for formal care, so fewer relatives step in as unpaid carers. The population is also slightly younger and healthier than in many places, which can reduce caring need.
Fewer carers does not always mean lower pressure on services. When the care load is shared by a smaller group, each carer may do more hours. It is therefore important to look at the quality of support they receive.
Only 32.3 % of local carers said they have as much social contact as they would like. This is a little better than the national figure of 29.3 %, yet two out of three carers still feel lonely or cut off at times. Richmond is a dense urban borough (3,402 residents per km²), so social opportunities are close by, but caring tasks and high living costs can make it hard to take part in community life. Reducing isolation remains a clear need.
Seven out of ten carers (70.7 %) find it easy to get information about support. The England average is 59.3 %. Strong digital access and a well-educated population may help carers search online or speak up for help. This positive result suggests that local advice lines, websites and voluntary organisations are working well. Keeping these channels simple and up to date should stay a priority.
The pattern of formal support is different from the national mix.
• Direct payments reach about 220 carers (113 per 100,000). The England rate would give roughly 290 carers. Lower use may mean that carers in Richmond prefer council-arranged services or that they find the paperwork for direct payments hard.
• Information, advice and simple sign-posting are offered to around 560 carers (284 per 100,000), below the England rate of 339 per 100,000. This sits awkwardly with the high score for “easy to find information”. It could be that many carers get what they need informally, so they do not enter the official count.
• Only about 20 carers (10 per 100,000) receive no direct support at all, far lower than the national figure of 130 per 100,000. This is encouraging: the council seems to reach almost every carer in some way.
• Respite or other breaks delivered to the cared-for person are given to roughly 315 carers (161 per 100,000), over twice the national rate of 70 per 100,000. The borough appears to favour giving carers time off rather than cash. This fits an area where wages and care costs are high; a short break can be worth more than a small payment.
Richmond upon Thames supports most carers and helps them find information, yet loneliness is still common. Future plans could:
• Expand local peer groups and low-cost leisure offers so carers can use their breaks for social contact.
• Review direct payment processes to check they are simple and attractive.
• Keep investing in respite services, as carers clearly value them.
By balancing practical help with stronger social links, the borough can keep carers healthy and able to carry on their vital role.
✨ ✅ ❌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
In 2024 the borough has 17 community-based adult social care providers and 43 residential care providers. Richmond’s population is about 195,500, roughly one half of the average local authority population in England. When the numbers are set against the population, there are around 8.7 community providers and 22 residential care providers per 100,000 residents. Nationally the averages are about 16.9 and 24.1 per 100,000. This shows a marked gap in community provision and a small gap in residential places. The high cost of premises and competition for space in an affluent, very dense and fully urban area may limit the entry of new domiciliary providers. Residents who can pay for home care may also choose agencies based in neighbouring boroughs, so some supply sits just outside the boundary and is not counted here.
Only 10 percent of providers in Richmond are rated “needs improvement” or “inadequate”, compared with 16.8 percent in England. The borough’s good performance may reflect the local economy. Deprivation is low (average decile 8.3), households are more able to pay for care, and providers can invest in training and facilities. A smaller, more competitive market can also raise quality because poor performers struggle to survive.
Staff turnover in London, at 19.0 percent, matches the national figure, while the vacancy rate is lower (6.6 percent against 8.4 percent). Even so, more than half of managers still say retaining staff is “more challenging” and more than two-thirds say the same about recruiting. Living and travel costs in south-west London remain barriers, and the pool of overseas workers has tightened. Richmond’s relatively low vacancy rate may be helped by short travel distances and good public transport, but the market must still work hard to stay stable.
The key concern is the shortfall in community-based providers. Demand for care at home is likely to rise as the population ages, yet supply is already lean. If people cannot get support at home they may enter residential care sooner or rely on unpaid carers, shifting pressure to families and health services. The strong quality ratings mean that the providers who are active are performing well, but their capacity may not stretch far enough during winter peaks or hospital discharge surges.
Commissioners may wish to encourage new or neighbouring domiciliary agencies to operate in Richmond, perhaps through flexible commissioning zones or shared contracts across borough boundaries. Support with business space, digital scheduling tools and brokerage of travel subsidies could help providers overcome high operating costs. Workforce initiatives—such as affordable housing schemes for care workers or closer links with local colleges—could also ease future recruitment strain. Maintaining high quality while expanding the community sector will be vital to keep hospital admissions low and allow residents to live well at home.
✨ ✅ ❌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.
Richmond upon Thames is a small and very urban borough with about 195,000 people. Density is high at 3,402 residents per square kilometre, and deprivation is low (mean decile 8.3). These factors shape service demand. Most people live close to hospitals and community teams, and many have high expectations of quick, good-quality care.
Hospital discharge is a strong point. In November 2024, 98 percent of patients left hospital to an “acceptable” provider, well above the England figure of 89 percent. This suggests close links between the council, the main trusts and local care homes. It also implies that step-down beds and home-care packages are usually ready on time.
Even so, 15.2 percent of discharges were delayed, higher than the national 12.3 percent. The average delay was only 0.70 days, almost identical to England. In other words, more people experience a short wait rather than a few people facing a long one. Pressure may come from the borough’s tight housing market; arranging suitable accommodation or home adaptations can take a day or two.
Sixty-five percent of survey respondents said they were satisfied with their care and support, slightly above the national 64.7 percent. A separate NatCen question found 57 percent reporting dissatisfaction. The mix of high satisfaction and notable dissatisfaction hints at polarised views: many residents receive very good care, yet a sizeable minority feel let down. Affluence may raise expectations, so even small lapses are noticed.
Finding information appears easier in Richmond. Seventy-percent of people using services said it was easy to get information, two points above the England average. High digital literacy and compact geography probably help residents locate advice quickly.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman received 3.1 cases per 100,000 residents, below the national 4.45. Decisions made by the Ombudsman stand at 4.1 per 100,000, very close to England. Fewer complaints reach the Ombudsman, suggesting early resolution within local procedures or fewer serious failings.
Performance is generally strong. Discharge pathways work well, information is accessible, and complaint rates are low. Short, frequent discharge delays are the main operational issue and could point to limited short-term care capacity or housing challenges rather than process failure.
Maintaining current discharge success will require continued joint planning with NHS trusts and investment in rapid-response home-care. Reducing the proportion of delayed discharges may depend on expanding reablement teams and speeding up equipment or housing adaptations.
The split between satisfied and dissatisfied residents underlines the need for consistent quality across providers. Targeted audits of providers with lower ratings and clearer communication about what services can and cannot deliver may narrow this gap.
Finally, the borough’s low deprivation and high digital skills offer a strong base for further self-service information tools, which could ease staff workload and keep complaint numbers low.
✨ ✅ ❌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.
✨ ✅ ❌?
Richmond upon Thames spent about £80 million on adult social care in 2024. This figure comes from a gross spend of £40,984 for every 100,000 residents and a mid-year population close to 195,000. After taking income into account, net spend falls to roughly £70 million, or £35,589 per 100,000 people.
Both gross and net spending per head sit below the national picture. The council spends around 14 percent less than the England mean on a gross basis and 12 percent less on a net basis. Income streams also trail the norm. Client contributions reach £5,395 per 100,000 people against an England figure of £7,286, while NHS contributions stand at £7,019 per 100,000 compared with £7,878 nationally.
Several local features help to explain the gap. First, Richmond is one of the least deprived areas in England, with a mean deprivation decile of 8.3 versus 5.9 nationally. Lower deprivation often links to better health, later onset of disability and stronger informal care networks, all of which can depress demand on council budgets. Second, many residents have higher incomes and housing wealth, so a larger share of people may arrange and pay for care without council support. This will reduce both council expenditure and the recorded level of client contributions, because fees are paid direct to providers rather than channelled through the local authority. Third, the borough’s very high population density (3,402 people per km²) allows services such as home care and re-ablement to be delivered with shorter travel times, trimming unit costs.
The council draws a smaller share of funding from clients and from the NHS than the average area. Lower client income, in part driven by self-funders, places more weight on core council budgets. NHS support is also modestly lower, which may reflect local commissioning choices or tight health budgets. Together, these patterns suggest that, while total spending is lower, Richmond cannot rely on external income growth to close any future funding gap.
Current spending levels appear broadly in line with local need, given the borough’s healthy and affluent profile. Nonetheless, small pockets of deprivation remain, and the standard deviation of deprivation within Richmond (1.85) shows some variation between wards. People in these areas may struggle to access self-funded care and will rely on the council. A slight rise in demand, for example from an ageing cohort or from hidden carers reaching breaking point, could therefore place pressure on a budget that already sits below national norms.
Maintaining flexible, preventative services is key. Investment in early support may keep overall costs low while protecting vulnerable groups. The council should also monitor local self-funders; if market prices rise faster than incomes, more residents could fall back on council help, quickly eroding the current spending cushion. Finally, transparent discussions with central government about the true cost of care, hinted at in recent commentary, will be important to ensure that Richmond can meet future duties without sudden cuts to other services.
✨ ✅ ❌