This page provides an overview of social care in Surrey, 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: Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley, Woking
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: Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley, Woking
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 Surrey. 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 rate of disability in Surrey is 13.8 per cent. England as a whole stands at 17.6 per cent. This gap is large and tells us that, after we allow for age, fewer residents in Surrey say they are disabled. Surrey is a wealthy county with low deprivation (mean Index of Multiple Deprivation decile about 8.7, far above the England mean of 5.9). Better housing, education and work can all delay or reduce ill health, so the lower disability rate fits the wider picture of advantage. Another reason may be that people with high care needs move to areas where housing costs are lower or where specialist services are close by.
In 2024, 14,260 working-age adults asked the council for care and support. This equals 1,161 requests per 100,000 residents, a little above the national rate of 1,143. The figure is striking because the county has fewer disabled people overall. The pattern suggests that the disabled population in Surrey is confident in approaching the council, or that growing numbers need help to stay independent as housing, transport and the cost of living rise. Population growth matters too: Surrey has gained about 36,000 residents since 2019 and demand usually climbs with population.
Only 5,045 working-age adults were actually receiving council-funded long-term care in 2024. The rate is 411 per 100,000, well below the England mean of 533. When we compare requests and services together, a gap appears: more people ask for help than the national norm, yet fewer go on to receive a package. Some of those people may be judged ineligible because their needs are lower. Others may choose to pay privately; high household incomes in Surrey make this likely. The county therefore has to plan for a mixed market in which the council arranges care for a smaller share of residents.
The breakdown of the 5,045 packages shows another local pattern. Rates for nursing care (13.0 per 100,000) and residential care (63.9) match or slightly exceed the national picture. By contrast, most forms of community support are well below the England mean: direct payment only (79.4 vs 122.2), part direct payment (33.0 vs 48.0) and council-managed personal budgets (164.4 vs 266.7). A service model weighted towards buildings-based care is less flexible and often more expensive over time. With a growing population and pressure on budgets, Surrey may wish to expand community options, especially self-directed support, to keep people at home for longer.
In 2025 the council logged only 15 working-age requests for help with assessments, care plans, charging, safeguarding and related advice. Rates are far below national averages. Very low numbers can mean good early information that stops formal enquiries, but they can also signal under-recording or barriers to access. A quick audit of front-door systems would check that people always receive and that staff always record first-contact advice.
Surrey’s low disability rate is a positive sign, yet requests for help are already slightly above average and will rise as the population grows. At the same time a smaller share of disabled adults receive council-funded support, and those who do are more likely to be in residential settings. To keep care sustainable the council may need to:
– widen the range of community support and personal budgets;
– make sure people who ask for help but are found ineligible still get clear advice;
– monitor the flow of self-funders to ensure market capacity and quality.
These steps fit a county that is both affluent and expanding, but which still has a duty to meet care needs fairly and efficiently.
✨ ✅ ❌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
Surrey has a large and growing population, rising from about 1.19 million in 2019 to 1.23 million in 2023. Population density is 724 people per km², much lower than the England average of 2 469, so services must reach people spread across towns and rural areas. Surrey is also one of the least deprived places in England, with an average deprivation decile close to 9. This mix of wealth and space shapes how older residents seek and receive care.
The share of residents aged 65 plus has edged up every year, from 18.8 per cent in 2019 to 19.1 per cent in 2023. This is a slow but steady rise and has kept Surrey above the national average in every year. A larger, growing older group means demand for support is likely to keep rising, even if need per person stays the same.
In 2024 the council logged 26 615 requests for support from people aged 65 plus. That equals 2 166 requests per 100 000 older residents, below the England rate of 2 438. The lower rate may reflect Surrey’s relative affluence: many people can buy private help and may not approach the council. Still, the raw number is high, simply because the county has so many older residents. Even a modest rate therefore creates a large workload for the front door of adult social care.
Surrey supports 9 660 older people in long-term care, or 786 per 100 000. The national rate is 1 003, so council-funded care is less common. Again, higher private funding is a likely reason. However, the picture changes when we look at care type.
Nursing placements stand out. Surrey funds 185 per 100 000 older people in nursing homes, well above the national figure of 122. By contrast, council-funded residential care is lower than average (170 versus 250). This suggests that when Surrey does fund a placement it is often for people with high medical need, while people needing lighter residential support may pay privately.
The rate for direct payment only (63 per 100 000) is a little higher than England, showing some appetite for personalised control. Yet council-managed personal budgets and commissioned community support are far below the national norm. Together, these data imply that many Surrey residents either self-fund community services or rely on informal help. Lower use of publicly managed community support could mask hidden need, because not everyone can arrange or pay for help alone.
Very few queries were recorded under detailed categories such as “People requesting help with Assessments”. Rates sit near 0.08 per 100 000, far below national levels. Such tiny numbers are unlikely to be real and probably point to a recording gap rather than to a sudden fall in concern. Accurate data capture will be vital for planning.
Surrey’s older population is rising, yet council-funded care rates remain below national levels. High use of nursing care indicates complex need among those who do seek help. The council should:
• monitor growth in the oldest age bands, as this will drive future nursing demand;
• review access to community support, ensuring that people who are less able to self-fund are not missed;
• improve data recording on advice and assessment contacts to spot emerging issues early.
Surrey’s relative wealth offers opportunities for partnership with the private sector, but the authority must still secure fair access for people of modest means, especially in rural areas where choice is limited.
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 Surrey had about 90,000 unpaid carers. This is worked out from a rate of 7,504 carers for every 100,000 residents and a mid-year population of 1.21 million. The national rate was higher at 8,204 per 100,000. The lower rate does not mean that caring is rare. Surrey simply has a large, fast-growing and mostly healthy population, so the share of people who care for family or friends is spread across more residents. Good health and relative affluence may also let some households buy private care, so they do not record themselves as unpaid carers.
Formal support that brings money or services to the carer is limited. In 2024 only about 230 carers (19 per 100,000) received a direct payment from the council, compared with an England average of 150 per 100,000. Personal budgets managed by the council and council-commissioned services were even rarer, reaching roughly 25 and 10 carers respectively. By contrast, nearly 2,900 carers (234 per 100,000) got information or advice, which is closer to, but still below, the national rate of 339 per 100,000. Around 760 carers benefited when help was given to the person they care for, such as respite. Three-quarters of carers therefore rely mainly on signposting or informal help, and many receive no direct help at all.
Only 27 % of Surrey carers said they enjoy as much social contact as they would like; England as a whole scores 29.3 %. Feelings about finding information are also slightly below average (57.7 % find it easy, versus 59.3 % nationally). These modest gaps matter because Surrey is not a deprived area. Low deprivation (average Index of Multiple Deprivation decile of about 8) might raise expectations for support. When expectations are not met, satisfaction falls.
Affluence brings choice. Some families purchase private care and do not seek council help. This can mask demand, so statutory services may plan for smaller numbers. Surrey also has pockets of rurality: in some districts more than half the land is rural. Carers in villages can find it harder to attend groups or assessments, which reduces take-up of council offers. Finally, the council may have chosen to invest in “light-touch” support such as advice lines rather than costlier personal budgets, keeping spending within budget but leaving some needs unmet.
The population is growing by roughly 1 % a year, so the absolute number of carers will rise even if the rate stays the same. Carer isolation and limited direct help could increase demand for health and social care if carers burn out. The council may wish to:
• widen eligibility for direct payments and respite
• link rural carers to digital peer groups and outreach visits
• work with voluntary groups to create regular social events
• track hidden carers, for example through GP registers, so support reaches them early.
By shifting a small share of its carer budget from information-only services to practical support, Surrey could raise both contact and satisfaction levels and help carers stay well in their 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
Surrey has a very large care sector. In 2024 there are 232 community-based adult social care services and 341 residential services. With a population of about 1.23 million, this works out at around 18.9 community services and 27.8 residential services for every 100,000 residents. The typical local authority in England has about 16.9 and 24.1 providers per 100,000 people. Surrey therefore offers more places and more choice than most areas.
The high supply fits the county’s growing and fairly wealthy population; numbers of residents have risen by 3 % since 2019 and deprivation levels are among the lowest in England. Relatively strong household incomes make privately funded care common, so the market is attractive to providers.
Only 13.6 % of Surrey providers are rated “requires improvement” or “inadequate”, compared with 16.8 % nationally. A larger, competitive market can push up standards, and providers may also have more scope to invest because fee income is often higher in affluent areas. Good transport links to London mean regulators and improvement partners can reach services easily, adding another check on quality.
Despite good quality, keeping enough staff is hard. Turnover is 26.7 %, almost identical to the England figure, yet 72.4 % of providers say retaining staff is now “more” or “much more” difficult (England 68.1 %). Vacancy rates stand at 10.0 % versus 8.4 % nationally, and 82.9 % report serious problems recruiting (England 79.8 %).
Several local factors help explain this. Living costs and house prices in Surrey are some of the highest in the country, so care wages struggle to compete with other sectors. The county’s low overall deprivation means fewer workers see social care as the only option, and many people can commute to higher-paid jobs in London. A dense road network and moderate population density (724 residents per km², far below the England urban average) also mean home-care staff spend extra, unpaid time travelling between clients.
Surrey’s residents enjoy a wide choice of generally good-quality care, but the labour market is fragile. If recruitment and vacancy pressures continue, providers may cap new admissions or leave the market, threatening the current high standards.
To protect capacity, commissioners could explore:
– career pathways with local colleges to bring new workers into care;
– support for affordable housing or travel costs for frontline staff;
– joint recruitment campaigns across health and care to raise the profile of the sector.
Given the county’s relatively low deprivation, a targeted approach to the few pockets of need is also vital. Maintaining the current provider mix while population grows will require careful fee-setting and continued monitoring of quality so that Surrey’s strong position is not lost.
✨ ✅ ❌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.
Surrey’s overall CQC local authority rating for 2024/25 is 70, comfortably above the England mean of 64.7 and classified as “Good”. This signals that, taken together, leadership, safety and person-centred practice are meeting a high standard. The county therefore starts from a favourable position when planning the next phase of improvement.
Discharge performance is mixed. Only 77.0 % of people leave hospital to an “acceptable” setting, twelve percentage points below the national benchmark of 89 %. A greater share of Surrey residents then wait too long: 15.3 % of discharges are delayed compared with 12.3 % across England. Where delay occurs, people wait on average 1.18 days, again longer than the national 0.7 days. These findings suggest bottlenecks at the interface between the large acute trusts serving Surrey and community-based services. The county’s population has grown steadily to almost 1.23 million, more than triple the mean local authority size. Even a small rise in admission rates therefore places sizeable absolute pressure on re-ablement, home care and placement finding. Parts of Surrey are rural, while others are urban and congested; arranging transport or equipment across such a varied geography can add friction to discharge processes.
Despite the discharge challenge, people report a positive day-to-day experience. In 2024, 68.5 % of respondents said they were satisfied with the care and support they receive, four points above the national average. A larger majority, 73.6 %, feel it is easy to find information about services, also above the England figure of 68.2 %. Surrey’s high mean deprivation decile (around 8 on a 1–10 scale) indicates relative affluence and higher health literacy. Residents may therefore be more able to navigate the system and articulate their needs, contributing to higher satisfaction scores.
Even so, an alternative survey by NatCen records that 57 % feel dissatisfied. The existence of two divergent sources hints at uneven performance: many people enjoy good support, yet a substantial minority do not. Audit of local survey design and sample may help clarify this gap.
Ombudsman activity sits close to national norms. In 2024 the service received 4.23 cases per 100 000 residents (England 4.45) and issued decisions on 4.64 per 100 000 (England 4.12). The broadly average caseload, despite Surrey’s affluent and well-educated population, suggests complaints handling at earlier stages is largely effective. The slightly higher decision rate may simply reflect the county’s large population; in raw terms, around fifty more cases reach determination each year compared with an average authority.
The latest data confirm that Surrey delivers good-quality adult social care in most settings and enjoys higher than average user satisfaction. The notable outlier is hospital discharge. A population that is both sizeable and ageing is likely to intensify demand for timely step-down care. Strengthening community capacity, expanding trusted assessor schemes and improving digital information flows between trusts and community teams could shorten waits and lift the acceptable discharge rate. Because residents are generally well informed, any visible improvement here is likely to be reflected quickly in survey results and CQC assessments. Maintaining present strengths while unblocking the discharge pathway should therefore be central to Surrey’s quality improvement plan.
✨ ✅ ❌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.
✨ ✅ ❌?
In 2024 Surrey spent about £478 million for every 100,000 residents on adult social care. This is a little above the England rate of £477 million. When we scale the figure to Surrey’s population of roughly 1.23 million people, total gross spending comes to around £587 million. Net spending, after taking off income, is close to £512 million, again a small step above the national norm. The figures show that Surrey is willing to keep spending slightly above the average even though it is a large county with more than triple the typical county population.
Only part of the bill is met by service users or the NHS. Client contributions are £6.1 million for every 100,000 people, lower than the England level of £7.3 million. The same pattern is seen for NHS money, which is £6.0 million per 100,000, well below the national £7.9 million. In cash terms Surrey receives about £75 million from clients and £73 million from the NHS, leaving the council to fund a larger share of costs from its own budget.
Surrey is one of the least deprived areas in England. Its average deprivation score sits in the top three deciles, whereas the country as a whole averages around decile six. Many residents therefore hold more assets and may fund care privately. Private self-funders do not appear in council income figures, so client contributions recorded by the council seem low. A high level of self-funding can also reduce the amount the local NHS pays, because joint packages are agreed only for people the council supports. The net result is that the council’s own purse carries proportionally more cost even though the area is affluent.
Population growth adds further strain. Surrey has gained about 36,000 people since 2019 and now stands at nearly 1.23 million. Density is 724 residents per square kilometre, higher than most shire counties but far below the national urban average. People live longer in affluent areas, so the share of older adults with care needs is likely to keep rising. Rural districts such as Mole Valley and Waverley face extra travel time for home-care staff, pushing up costs, while dense towns like Woking present different challenges such as housing pressure and shortages of care workers.
The data suggest three priorities. First, Surrey must protect its own revenue base, because external money from clients and the NHS covers a smaller share than elsewhere. Second, planners should watch growth in older populations, especially in rural pockets, and adjust home-care contracts to meet travel costs. Third, closer joint commissioning with the NHS could bring in extra health funding and reduce the current imbalance.
No information is available on planned budget cuts, yet the present spending pattern shows the council already goes beyond the national average. Continued growth in need, together with limited external income, means the authority may soon have to choose between raising council tax, finding further efficiencies, or reducing the scope of care it offers.
✨ ✅ ❌