This page provides an overview of social care in Rutland, 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.
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.
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 Rutland. 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
The age-standardised proportion of disabled residents in Rutland is 14.7 per cent. The England average is 17.6 per cent. This lower rate fits with the county’s profile: it is small, very rural and relatively affluent. Its mean deprivation decile is 8.5, well above the national figure of 5.9, and the 2021 population density is only 108 people per square kilometre compared with 2,469 nationally. Affluence and lower density can reduce exposure to long-term ill-health risks, so a smaller share of disabled people is credible. Nevertheless, more than one in seven residents still report a limiting condition, so the need for accessible services remains significant.
During 2024 the council recorded 320 requests for care and support from adults aged 18–64. This equals 787 requests per 100,000 working-age residents, roughly one-third lower than the national rate of 1,143. Two factors can help explain the gap. First, the underlying prevalence of disability is lower, reducing absolute demand. Second, a dispersed rural population often relies more on informal or family networks, so some need may never reach council front doors, suppressing recorded requests.
At the end of 2024, 115 working-age adults were receiving long-term care funded or arranged by the council. The rate of 283 per 100,000 is just over half of the England average of 533. Community-based offers dominate. Direct payment–only packages (35 people) and part direct payment packages (20 people) together make up nearly half of all care users. This suggests a strong culture of self-direction, which can be a natural fit for rural living where commissioned services may be harder to arrange. Residential placements account for 25 people, again below the national per-capita average, while no nursing placements are reported. Such a profile indicates that preventive and community solutions are holding people in lower-intensity settings, though it may also reflect limited local supply of specialist beds.
The 2025 figures for specific help requests are very small in absolute terms, yet the per-capita pattern is revealing. Queries about charging for services stand at 27.1 per 100,000, almost five times the national mean of 5.7. Safeguarding concerns and legal complaints are also somewhat higher than average. Rural households sometimes struggle to understand complex charging rules or feel uncertain about how to challenge decisions, so a higher rate of advice-seeking is plausible. The council may need to review how clearly it explains financial assessments and appeal routes.
Rutland’s lower prevalence of disability and lower service take-up align with its healthy, affluent profile, yet the county still supports a meaningful number of disabled adults. The strong use of direct payments suggests residents value flexibility, but it also requires robust support planning and monitoring to guard against unmet need. High enquiry rates about charging hint at possible confusion or anxiety around care costs, an issue that could be addressed through clearer written materials and outreach events in rural villages. Finally, because recorded requests are low relative to national norms, the council should remain alert to hidden need, particularly among isolated households who may find it hard to travel to assessment centres or to navigate online systems.
✨ ✅ ❌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
Rutland is small and very rural. It has about 40,000 residents and only 108 people per square kilometre, far below the England average of 2,469. It is also one of the least deprived parts of the country. Between 2019 and 2023 the share of residents aged 65 or over rose from 25.1 percent to 26.3 percent. The national share stayed around 18–19 percent. The gap is now more than seven percentage points. This growth means that one in four people in Rutland is already in later life, and the figure is still climbing.
The steep age profile feeds straight into demand for adult social care. In 2024 the council logged 1,620 requests for support from people aged 65 plus. That equals 3,986 requests per 100,000 older residents, well above the England rate of 2,438. Living in a scattered rural area may push more people to turn to the council because informal help is harder to find and services such as public transport are limited. Good levels of affluence can also bring in new retirees who do not yet have local family networks, which again raises the need for formal advice and assessment.
Yet the number of older people who go on to receive long-term council support is modest. In 2024 only 345 people were in a funded package, or 849 per 100,000. The national rate is higher at 1,003 per 100,000. This gap suggests that many Rutland residents either meet their needs without state help or pay privately.
The pattern by care setting gives more clues. Residential care is common: 369 people per 100,000 are in council-funded beds, higher than the national figure of 250. Nursing care, at 37 per 100,000, is only a third of the England rate of 122, hinting at limited local nursing capacity. Community support managed by the council, at 369 per 100,000, is also lower than the national 508. The dispersed geography may make home care costly, nudging people towards residential homes. At the same time, a sizeable self-funding market is likely, given the county’s high incomes.
Early 2025 figures show very small but telling numbers of calls for advice. The highest rate, 27 per 100,000, relates to charging. This is five times the national norm and points to confusion around who pays for what. Other topics such as assessments or safeguarding sit close to national averages.
The rising share of older residents means pressure on assessment teams will continue. High request rates but lower uptake of funded care indicate a need to guide self-funders and to widen community options so that residential care is not the default. Limited nursing capacity should be reviewed, as the present cohort will develop more complex needs. Because Rutland is fully rural, services must be planned to reach scattered villages, perhaps through mixed roles and stronger links with voluntary groups. Clear information on costs is vital to reduce the heavy flow of charging queries.
✨ ✅ ❌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 estimated number of unpaid carers in Rutland was about 320, or 7,670 for every 100,000 residents. The national rate is a little higher at 8,204 per 100,000. Given Rutland’s very small, affluent and fully rural population, the slightly lower rate is unsurprising. Older, better-off areas often have fewer heavy-duty caring roles because disability rates are lower and paid care can be bought in. The figures also remind us that small populations make every individual count: one extra family taking on a caring role moves the local rate more than it would in a large county.
Formal, personalised support seems limited. No direct payments, part-direct payments or council-managed personal budgets were recorded for 2024, whereas typical councils report between 45 and 150 carers per 100,000 in each of these categories. By contrast, 455 carers per 100,000 (around 185 people) received information, advice or other universal services, comfortably above the England average of 339. Only 13 per 100,000 (around five people) were left with no direct support at all, far below the national figure of 130. Rutland therefore appears to rely on light-touch, universal offers rather than cash or commissioned packages. In a compact rural county, quick access to advice through GP surgeries, parish networks and the voluntary sector may suit many carers, but it can leave those with intensive responsibilities without the practical help or respite they need.
About 37 carers per 100,000 (around 15 people) benefited from respite delivered to the cared-for person, roughly half the national rate. Distance to residential units and a culture of “coping alone” in rural communities may reduce take-up. The single recorded case in 2025 that triggered a high-level “Carers” intervention (2.46 per 100,000, three times the national average) hints that when breakdown does occur it can be acute, again reflecting how thin local services are spread.
Only 28.3 % of Rutland carers say they have as much social contact as they would like, just below the England average of 29.3 %. Isolation is a well-known rural risk: public transport is limited and neighbours may live several miles away. At the same time, 69 % feel it is easy to find information about support, ten percentage points above the national benchmark. Small county size, high digital connectivity and a tradition of signposting through schools, churches and community websites seem to make information visible even if hands-on help is harder to secure.
Rutland’s carers benefit from strong information channels but receive comparatively little direct, personalised support. The council may wish to:
• expand respite and personal budget options so that people who move beyond general advice can step up to more intensive help without leaving the county;
• work with parish councils and voluntary groups to create local “pop-up” hubs that tackle social isolation without long travel times; and
• monitor emergency or breakdown cases closely, because in a small system one or two crises can quickly absorb scarce resources.
Targeted investment does not need to be large in cash terms—small numbers mean that even a handful of extra personal budgets or weekend respite beds could bring Rutland’s support profile into line with national patterns while respecting its rural character.
✨ ✅ ❌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
Rutland is England’s smallest county, with about 40,600 people and only 108 persons per square kilometre. In spite of this, it has 12 community-based adult social care services and 11 residential homes. This looks low when we read the raw numbers, yet the picture changes after we adjust for the small population. Rutland has roughly 30 community services and 27 residential homes for every 100,000 residents. The England average is nearer 17 and 24 per 100,000. In other words, people in Rutland have slightly more providers close to them than the average person in England, even though distances between towns can be wide in a fully rural area.
About 17.4% of local services are rated “needs improvement” or “inadequate”, compared with 16.8% across England. The gap is small, yet it matters because the county enjoys low deprivation and a strong local economy. Residents may expect high standards, so any dip in quality can draw notice quickly. The spread-out nature of care homes may also make peer support and shared learning harder, which could explain why quality is not better than the national norm even with a favourable social profile.
Staff turnover stands at 25.5%, almost level with the national rate. However, 9% of posts are vacant and more than four in five providers say recruiting staff is now “more” or “much more” difficult. Seven in ten report the same problem with retention. These shares are both a little above the national picture. Recruiting in a rural county often means longer travel times, limited public transport and a smaller pool of workers. Pay has to compete with better-paid jobs in nearby cities, yet many carers cannot afford the extra travel. This mix may be pushing up vacancy rates and slowing efforts to lift quality grades.
A higher number of providers per head suggests good choice for residents, but it can stretch the labour market. When several small services vie for the same limited staff, each finds it harder to keep posts filled, and skills become thinly spread. This may be why quality ratings lag behind what might be expected in an area with low deprivation. The current turnover rate masks stress beneath the surface; if recruitment remains tough, turnover could soon rise because existing staff must cover gaps.
Maintaining a broad network of services is positive for client access, yet Rutland needs targeted action on workforce. Better transport links, shared training hubs and housing incentives could widen the pool of carers. Support for quality improvement, such as joint audits or peer mentoring across distant villages, may lift ratings without forcing small homes to merge. Given the county’s high rural share, digital care tools and outreach teams can also reduce travel time while keeping choice high. With early steps, Rutland can turn its above-average provider density into consistently high standards of care.
✨ ✅ ❌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.
Rutland is England’s smallest county. About 40,600 people live here, and homes are spread out. Population density is 108 people per km², far below the England figure of 2,469. Deprivation is low: the average place in Rutland sits in decile 8, while England is in decile 6. This rural and wealthy setting shapes care services and how people see them.
In November 2024, 99.3 % of patients left hospital to a care provider rated “acceptable” by the Care Quality Commission. The England figure was 89 %. This points to good planning between the council and local NHS trusts.
Delayed discharges happened in 12.9 % of cases, just above the national 12.3 %. Yet each delay lasted only 0.44 days on average, while the England mean was 0.70 days. So delays start a little more often but are solved more quickly. A small case load and short travel times in the county may help staff act fast.
Satisfaction is strong. In 2024, 78.8 % of surveyed users said they were happy with their care and support, well above the national 64.7 %. A second study showed 57 % dissatisfaction, so feelings are not the same in every survey. This mixed picture could reflect different questions or small sample sizes. High local incomes and close family links may raise satisfaction, yet long travel distances for some villages could lead others to feel let down.
Finding information also scores well. In 2024, 75.8 % of users said it was easy to learn about services, compared with 68.2 % across England. In a small area, people often know where to ask, and local staff can give personal guidance.
In 2024 the Ombudsman received and decided roughly one social-care complaint from Rutland, equal to 2.5 cases per 100,000 residents. National rates were about 4.4 received and 4.1 decided. Fewer formal complaints may mean problems are fixed early, yet it might also show that some rural residents find it hard to use the formal process.
Overall quality appears good: safe hospital discharge, quick resolution of delays, high reported satisfaction, and few complaints. The small, well-off, and tightly knit population likely supports these outcomes. Risks include the slightly higher chance of a delay starting, the mixed messages on satisfaction, and the challenge of reaching people in very rural spots. Ongoing work on early discharge planning, flexible transport, and active listening to remote households will help Rutland keep improving its already strong adult social care system.
✨ ✅ ❌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.
✨ ✅ ❌?
Rutland’s gross adult social care spend stands at £46,505 per 100,000 residents. This is only 3 % below the England average of £47,758, so the county is broadly in line with national practice. After taking account of income, net spend falls to £40,147 per 100,000, almost identical to the national figure of £40,472. In other words, the council is buying roughly the same volume and type of care as the average English authority, once population size is allowed for.
The picture looks different when the values are translated into cash terms. With a resident population of about 40,600, the gross budget is just under £19 million, and the net budget a little over £16 million. The small absolute size of the budget limits economies of scale and can make fixed costs—such as running a reablement team or commissioning specialist placements—relatively expensive. This structural issue is common to very small local authorities.
Only £6,358 per 100,000 comes from client contributions, 13 % below the national rate. Rutland is one of the least deprived areas in England, and many wealthier residents arrange and pay for care privately. Their payments never pass through the council’s books, so recorded contributions appear low even though the local population may be paying significant sums out-of-pocket.
By contrast, NHS transfers reach £14,035 per 100,000—around 80 % higher than the England mean of £7,878. The county therefore relies far more on joint funding with health partners than most areas. High NHS input may reflect effective Section 75 agreements, good relationships with the local Integrated Care Board, or a deliberate strategy to pool limited local authority funds with health money to meet rural delivery costs.
Rutland is England’s smallest upper-tier authority and 100 % rural. Population density is 107 residents per square kilometre compared with a national figure of 2,469. Travel times for domiciliary care, social work visits and ambulance call-outs are therefore long, driving up unit costs even when overall spend looks average. Low deprivation (mean decile 8.5) suggests fewer residents need intensive support linked to poverty, addictions or unstable housing, holding down demand for high-cost packages.
The population has been stable at around 40,000 for five years, so the council is not managing rapid growth. However, small changes in absolute numbers can still swing per-capita rates. A handful of additional nursing placements, for instance, will move Rutland’s figures more sharply than they would in a large city.
Maintaining average spending with a tiny tax base shows careful financial stewardship, yet it also signals vulnerability. A loss of NHS income or a single large placement could push net spend significantly above the national norm. The council may therefore wish to deepen partnership working with the NHS while also exploring regional commissioning with neighbouring authorities to share risk and secure better prices.
Lower recorded client contributions are not necessarily a warning sign but they do disguise the full scale of care purchased by local residents. A better understanding of the self-funding market could help the council shape provision and prevent price inflation for both private and council-funded clients.
Overall, Rutland’s adult social care system appears financially balanced at present, yet its small scale and rural setting mean that stability rests on continued joint funding and close monitoring of demand.
✨ ✅ ❌