Policy paper

Local Outcomes Framework

Updated 12 February 2026

Foreword by the Minister of State for Local Government and Homelessness 

Each of our places, towns and cities face unique challenges arising from their own economic and social history. When local government is successful, people experience public services that are tailored to them, and every place is given the best chance of economic growth. It is in all our interests to see it succeed.  

The Local Outcomes Framework sets out the outcomes we want to see happen. For our part, we are giving greater funding security through a return to multi-year finance settlements and funding reform, fixing the broken audit and early warning system, and raising standards. We are equipping local government with the tools to achieve the best possible outcomes.  

The framework establishes a shared focus on the outcomes most important for achieving our collective aims and ultimately to raise living standards across England. The outcomes in the framework represent many of the most important responsibilities of local government underlining the essential part local government plays in achieving national priorities.  

Alongside funding consolidation and a reduction in individual grant conditions, the Local Outcomes Framework shifts the focus of central government away from micromanagement of individual activities and towards a focus on the outcomes we all care about. Focussing on shared outcomes brings central and local government together and means opportunities to promote local growth and improve the lives of local people are not lost in a mire of bureaucratic oversight as local leaders are free to take the best path forward for their place.  

By publishing outcomes data in one place the Local Outcomes Framework will bring greater transparency for residents and will mean central and local government are measuring progress through the same lens. Where outcomes are poor, we will act, but action will begin by talking to local leaders to understand how we can support self-improvement and reduce barriers to delivery.  

We need stronger local councils equipped to enable economic growth, improve public services and empower communities. With central government and local government working closely together, including through this framework, we can achieve our collective aims.

Executive summary

• This first edition of the Local Outcomes Framework (LOF or “the Framework”) enables outcomes-based performance measurement against key national priorities delivered at the local level and driven by councils as local leaders of place.

• The Framework is drawn from the Missions and Plan for Change and will strengthen the way government supports and holds councils to account for improving outcomes for their areas. The name change to Local Outcomes Framework acknowledges that local authorities work together with many local partners to deliver outcomes in a place.

• This document explains the Framework in more detail including how it was designed and how it will be used. It sets out the priority outcomes and underlying metrics, and the principles for government and local government use of the Framework to drive improvement in outcomes for their areas.

1. Introduction

1.1 The English Devolution White Paper said:

“Councils are the foundation of our state – critical to driving growth, delivering and reforming the local public services people rely on, and to our democratic system. Whether in delivering 1.5 million homes, supporting the NHS, or delivering clean energy, this government’s agenda relies on putting local authorities back on their feet.”

1.2 The Local Outcomes Framework (LOF or “the Framework”) will provide outcomes-based performance measurement against key national priorities delivered at the local level and driven by councils as local leaders of place. Alongside progress removing funding ringfences and the first multi-year Local Government Finance Settlement in nine years, the government is devolving power to local leaders so they can effect real change.

1.3 Local government, community partners and service users are best placed to drive progress on these outcomes. By adopting an outcomes-based approach, the Framework empowers local government working with their partners to make decisions that most effectively serve their communities. By setting out the key priorities and bringing transparency over local outcomes in one place the Framework will act as a central focussing tool amongst a multitude of existing outcomes frameworks and assurance regimes and means that government, local government and their local partners will all be looking at progress through the same lens.

1.4 The government expects local government to work with local partners to improve priority outcomes. Performance against the Framework will provide the starting point for a conversation about outcomes between central and local government and local partners to identify what more can be done locally and where further support or challenge is needed.

1.5 The Framework demonstrates the essential role local government - as leaders of place, working with local partners - plays in supporting the Missions and Plan for Change. The priority outcomes in the Framework are aligned with the competencies in the English Devolution White Paper to support join-up between the different levels of local government.

1.6 The Framework will support multi-agency and cross-government collaboration to better understand local performance and deliver better outcomes for citizens. The metrics in the Framework will be kept under review to make sure they enable this.

1.7 This document explains the design of the Framework and how it will be used. It details the priority outcomes and underlying metrics and sets out how and how often the Framework will be updated.

2. Framework design

2.1 The Framework is structured around the priority outcomes that represent government’s top priorities for delivering outcomes by local government working with local partners. Each priority outcome is underpinned by a set of metrics to measure progress.

Table 1. Framework priority outcomes

No.	Priority Outcome	Ambition statement
1	Housing supply	Build the homes the country needs so that everyone has access to a home they can afford
2	Housing quality and safety	Everyone has access to a decent, safe, and secure home
3	Homelessness and rough sleeping	Prevent and reduce homelessness and rough sleeping
4	Multiple disadvantage	Improve the lives of adults experiencing multiple disadvantages
5	Best start in life	Improve early child development and health through improved family support and high-quality early education to give children in every part of the country the best start in life
6	Every child achieving and thriving	Support all children and young people to achieve and thrive in school, at home and in their communities
7	Keeping children safe (children’s social care)	Keep children safe in secure and loving homes and help more families to thrive together
8	Health and wellbeing	People live healthier lives for longer and health inequalities are reduced
9	Adult social care – quality	People who draw on care and support, and their carers, experience high quality adult social care that is provided by a skilled workforce
10	Adult social care – independence, choice and control	People who draw on care and support are supported to promote their independence, where possible, and have choice and control over their support
11	Adult social care – neighbourhood health / integration	People who draw on care and support experience joined up health and social care services at a neighbourhood level
12	Neighbourhoods	People feel safe and included in their local community and are satisfied with their local area as a place to live
13	Environment, circular economy and climate change	Support a healthier, more resilient natural and built environment, including responding to the risks and impacts of climate change to the benefit of communities
14	Transport and local infrastructure	Communities are better connected with healthier, safer, and greener transport that meets the needs of all users and drives growth
15	Economic prosperity and regeneration (contextual outcome)	Foster local economic growth and prosperity
16	Child poverty (contextual outcome)	Reduce and alleviate child poverty to improve children’s lives and life chances

2.2 The government published the outcomes and metrics in draft in July 2025 and worked with local government and others over July to September 2025 on a call for feedback. The government has incorporated the feedback into this first version of the Framework, including changing the name to Local Outcomes Framework to better reflect that outcomes are the product of the work of local government along with many local partners, as well as wider factors. Other changes include the development of a public set of principles for use of the Framework, splitting out housing supply into a standalone priority outcome, and the selection of metrics under each priority outcome. For more information on the feedback received and the changes made in response please see the Annex.

2.3 The Framework includes existing published data – Official Statistics standard or similar quality, at local authority level. In some instances where data does not yet exist for a key priority that government wants to measure, a placeholder has been included to indicate ongoing development of a new data set.

2.4 The Framework draws on metrics from existing outcomes frameworks, for example, the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework, and from other existing sources. The Framework is not intended to supersede any of the existing outcomes frameworks but to bring a focussed set of metrics together to give a holistic picture of performance. As the Framework is updated it will reflect changes and updates to the wider set of outcomes frameworks it draws from.

3. Use of the Framework

3.1 The Framework will be used to understand progress across priority outcomes in local areas, to support oversight and accountability, help direct improvement support and enrich assessments of compliance with the Best Value Duty.

3.2 Local government as leaders of place will work in partnership with other local bodies and service users to deliver the best outcomes for people and communities across England. Central government will continue to hold responsibility for oversight of individual policy areas such as children’s or environmental services, with the Framework enabling more cross-cutting support and oversight for councils. Central oversight may involve challenge and improvement-focussed actions where needed.

3.3 Principles to guide use of the Framework to improve outcomes for local citizens can be found on gov.uk. Rather than replacing existing accountability mechanisms across government, the principles are designed to underpin a coherent approach to outcomes-based accountability and improvement.

3.4 As set out in the principles for use, the Framework will support local authorities’ own self-improvement activity by giving them a better understanding of their performance relative to others. It will also inform sector-wide activity. The government will work with the local government sector to understand how the Framework can support this and greater peer learning to help enhance outcomes.

3.5 Over time, central government will also use data on a local council’s performance against outcomes in the Framework to enrich comprehensive assessments of whether the Best Value Duty is being met, though no single metric will form the sole reason for action or intervention.

4. Updating the Framework

4.1 This first version of the Framework covers the Spending Review period to 2028-29 to provide certainty for local government and local partners to enable budget and business planning. The Framework will be refreshed alongside Spending Reviews.

4.2 Outside of Spending Reviews, changes to metrics may be necessary to correct errors or improve data – for example if a placeholder metric becomes available for inclusion or if new data has been developed which better aligns with the government’s policy priorities. In addition, there may be exceptional circumstances in which the government adds or removes a priority outcome in order to reflect a new or changing national priority.

4.3 If the Framework is amended, changes and potential metrics will be tested with stakeholders to make sure they are appropriate. The data in the Framework will be updated to reflect local government structural changes.

5. Public presentation

5.1 The outcomes and metrics for each local authority area will be published on gov.uk. This will improve transparency and enable the public, government, local government and local partners to have a shared view of progress.

5.2 Outcomes for each local area will be made comparable against that area’s ‘statistical neighbours’, i.e. areas most similar in terms of their context and challenges. A statistical neighbours model is being developed for this purpose. [Further information can be found here](Local Government Outcomes: Statistical Neighbours model - GOV.UK.

5.3 The presentation and methods will be tested with users, and will continue to develop through continued user research and engagement during early 2026. The government intends to launch a digital tool in 2026.

6. Priority outcomes

6.1 The priority outcomes represent government’s priorities for local delivery. They reflect the government’s Missions and Plan for Change, showing the important role local authorities play towards national priorities. They include areas of significant activity and expenditure. Some priority outcomes represent individual service areas while others are cross-cutting priorities.

6.2 Each priority outcome is underpinned by metrics drawn from existing data sources to avoid new data collection requirements. There are a limited number of placeholders for metrics that do not yet exist, but are in development, and will be included in future.

6.3 Achievement of outcomes will be influenced by local government, their local partners and wider factors. The degree to which other factors influence a priority outcome will vary for each. For example, the economic prosperity and regeneration priority outcome is influenced by factors outside of local government control much more than others. Where the data in the Framework suggests that outcomes in a local area are poor or declining, we will consider relevant contextual factors and the contributions of all relevant bodies, and seek to understand the drivers of the outcomes so appropriate action can be taken.

Housing supply

Build the homes the country needs so that everyone has access to a home they can afford.

6.4 The housing supply priority outcome reflects government’s priority of delivering a sustainable, long-term increase in housing supply including building 1.5 million new homes by 2029. It captures the role of local authorities in facilitating housing delivery through efficient planning.

Housing quality and safety

Everyone has access to a decent, safe, and secure home.

6.5 The housing quality and safety priority outcome reflects government’s priority of improving the decency of homes, ensuring that they are secure, safe, and meet decent levels of comfort. It captures the role of local authorities in enforcing standards and complying with standards as social landlords.

Homelessness and rough sleeping

Prevent and reduce homelessness and rough sleeping.

6.6 The homelessness and rough sleeping priority outcome captures the role of local authorities and their partners in government’s ambition to end homelessness. This outcome area captures key government priorities: reducing the number of families and children in temporary accommodation, driving down the worst forms of homelessness and tackling rough sleeping.

Multiple disadvantage

Improve the lives of adults experiencing multiple disadvantages.

6.7 The multiple disadvantage priority outcome focuses on the role of local authorities in working with local partners to improve the lives of adults experiencing multiple disadvantage - defined by government as adults experiencing three or more of the following five disadvantages: homelessness/rough sleeping; substance dependence; mental health issues; domestic abuse; and contact with the criminal justice system). This group experience significant trauma and additional barriers to accessing and engaging with support, causing them to cycle repeatedly around services at great cost to their wellbeing and to public services. This is a cross cutting challenge which requires a whole system response, with local authorities acting as place leaders and convening agencies around core issues.

Best start in life

Improve early child development and health through improved family support and high-quality early education to give children in every part of the country the best start in life.

6.8 The best start in life priority outcome reflects the government’s Mission to break down barriers to opportunity and give children the best start in life. It focuses on the role of local authorities in working with partners to provide and commission joined up services to support early child development and health, setting every child up to start primary school ready to learn.

6.9 The metrics in this priority outcome align with government ambition for 75% of 5-year-olds to reach a good level of development in the Early Years Foundation Stage profile assessment - which looks at children’s development across areas like language, physical, personal, social and emotional development, and maths and literacy – by 2028.

Every child achieving and thriving

Support all children and young people to achieve and thrive in school, at home and in their communities.

6.10 The every child achieving and thriving priority outcome reflects the government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and give children the best start in life. It sets out how local authorities can champion educational excellence and help every child, especially those disadvantaged or with special educational needs, to achieve and thrive at school. It also sets out the role of local authorities in supporting young people outside of formal education through youth services and activities.

Keeping children safe (children’s social care)

Keep children safe in secure and loving homes and help more families to thrive together.

6.11 The keeping children safe (children’s social care) priority outcome reflects the government’s Mission to break down barriers to opportunity and give children the best start in life. It focuses on the role of local authorities to ensure every child has a safe and loving home. Government is delivering whole-system and child-centred reform so more families thrive together, while keeping children safe from harm.

6.12 The themes and metrics in this outcome area are drawn from the Children’s Social Care National Framework. The metrics in the Framework support and align with the National Framework and Dashboard and aim to capture the themes of family support, family network, safety and stable homes as succinctly as possible, allowing for cross-cutting comparisons across priority outcome areas in the Framework.

Health and wellbeing

People live healthier lives for longer and health inequalities are reduced.

6.13 The health and wellbeing priority outcome captures the role of local authorities in driving improvements to the public’s health and reducing health inequalities by assessing and addressing public health issues alongside partners including responsibility for specific services such as drug and alcohol treatment, smoking cessation, children and young people, and sexual health services. Metrics have been primarily sourced from the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF).

Adult social care – quality

People who draw on care and support, and their carers, experience high quality adult social care provided by a skilled workforce.

6.14 The adult social care priority outcomes collectively reflect local authorities’ responsibility to provide and commission effective and efficient adult social care services. The quality priority outcome captures the role of local authorities in driving high quality care for people who draw on care and support and carers by focusing on the role of local authorities to provide and commission high quality services. It measures quality of life, satisfaction with care and support services, safeguarding, and carer continuity. The metrics are aligned with the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF).

Adult social care – independence, choice and control

People who draw on care and support are supported to promote their independence, where possible, and have choice and control over their support.

6.15 The adult social care priority outcomes collectively reflect local authorities’ responsibility to provide and commission an effective and efficient adult social care service. The independence, choice and control priority outcome focuses on the role local authorities play, working with local partners, in supporting people to have the choice over their care in the place they call home, and providing them with control over their support. It further measures people’s access to reablement and wider support, to promote people’s independence. The metrics are aligned with the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF).

Adult social care – neighbourhood health / integration

People who draw on care and support experience joined-up health and social care services at a neighbourhood level.

6.16 The adult social care priority outcomes collectively reflect local authorities’ responsibility to provide and commission an effective and efficient adult social care service. The neighbourhood health and integration priority outcome focuses on how local authorities work together with local partners to support people who draw on care and support with joined up health and social care services at a neighbourhood level, which are proactive, preventative and personalised. It measures if people are getting the right care and support, closer to home and in their community to improve their wellbeing. The metrics are aligned with the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF).

Neighbourhoods

People feel safe and included in their local community and are satisfied with their local area as a place to live.

6.17 The neighbourhoods priority outcome reflects the effect of delivery in areas that ensure citizens feel safe and included in their local community and are satisfied with their local area as a place to live. These include local authority responsibility for tackling fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour, and provision of cultural facilities. It also captures the role local authorities play as place shapers of their local communities, highlighting residents’ perceptions of pride of place, a sense of community, local cohesion, and integration.

Environment, circular economy and climate change

Support a healthier, more resilient natural and built environment, including responding to the risks and impacts of climate change to the benefit of communities.

6.18 The environment, circular economy and climate change priority outcome reflects the key role local authorities play in supporting a healthier, more resilient natural and built environment, including responding to the risks and impacts of climate change to the benefit of communities. This includes responsibility for local waste management, and reducing the environmental impact of their operations, including through reducing emissions and improving local biodiversity. Alongside statutory duties, many local authorities are going further and faster to improve the local environment through local initiatives.

Transport and local infrastructure

Communities are better connected with healthier, safer, and greener transport that meets the needs of all users and drives growth.

6.19 The transport and local infrastructure priority outcome reflects the role local authorities play in shaping local transport networks that enable the delivery of national and local ambitions, such as driving economic growth and increasing connectivity and inclusion.

6.20 Transport responsibilities are complex and evolving – particularly as more Strategic Authorities are established. In these areas, the Strategic Authorities hold the primary tools and levers over public transport. Their upper tier constituent councils retain control over local highways. While good transport relies on collaboration across all tiers of local government, users of this framework should acknowledge the greater responsibility for Strategic Authorities, where they exist, over local transport authority functions.

Economic prosperity and regeneration (contextual)

Foster local economic growth and prosperity.

6.21 The economic prosperity and regeneration priority outcome acknowledges the important role local government and local partners play in contributing towards the top priority for government, kickstarting economic growth. This priority outcome displays the scale of the challenge in a local area, for example, the existing strength of the local economy and levels of deprivation and poverty, which will impact demand for council services and support. It also indicates that almost all of the activities local government and local partners undertake will contribute to supporting local economic growth and prosperity in some way. For example, by people leading healthier happier lives with access to well-connected transport infrastructure and safe, affordable and decent housing.

6.22 This priority outcome is not intended to be viewed in isolation. The intention is for the Framework as a whole to be seen in the context of this priority outcome. Many other factors influence this priority outcome alongside local government and local partners, and this outcome is intended as aspirational and contextual rather than as something to hold local government to account for delivery.

Child poverty (contextual)

Reduce and alleviate child poverty to improve children’s lives and life chances.

6.23 The child poverty priority outcome captures a key national ambition on child poverty, recognising the central role of local government in supporting vulnerable young people. The outcome is aligned with this government’s Mission to Break Down Barriers to Opportunity and give children the best start in life.

6.24 The Framework also includes wider priority outcomes that will help tackle child poverty, such as: preventing and reducing homelessness and rough sleeping; having access to a decent, safe, secure and affordable home; fostering local growth and prosperity; and promoting health and wellbeing in children.

6.25 Many other factors influence this priority outcome alongside local government and local partners, therefore this outcome is intended to be contextual only rather than something to hold local authorities to account on.

7. Metrics by priority outcome

7.1 The Local Outcomes Framework primarily measures progress against its priority outcomes using outcome metrics. A limited number of output metrics have been included to help isolate local authority contributions towards outcome delivery where they are hard to distinguish from the outcome metric alone, or to act as a proxy where a headline outcome is difficult to measure (e.g. through a lack of suitable outcome data).

7.2 Metrics have been selected to meet the following standards:

• data already exists and is publicly available (or has already been announced as in development)
• data is reported down to the local authority area level
• data is from official statistics where possible, or of comparable quality
• data is reported frequently enough to understand trends, ideally at least annually
• data is, or can be, standardised in some way (e.g. against population) to allow for meaningful comparisons.

7.3 Although the majority of proposed metrics meet these standards, there are a few exceptions. There are a small number of metrics that are reported less frequently than annually, for example ‘Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) average score’, which is included under the Economic Prosperity and Regeneration outcome and is the accepted and well-established metric.

7.4 In a few instances placeholders have been included for metrics that do not currently exist but have already been announced as under development. These are metrics that are being developed to measure a key priority for which suitable existing data is not available. Placeholder metrics are clearly indicated under each priority outcome.

7.5 The Framework is not a mechanism to collect new data and there is no new reporting requirement or data collection for local authorities associated with the Framework, in line with the ambition to reduce burdens.

7.6 Listed below are all of the metrics in the Framework including an overview for each individual metric and a link to the primary data source. A separate page listing the metrics in the Framework is also available.

7.7 We have classified the metrics in the Framework into two types:

• outcome metrics measure the real-world results and impact of local authority activity and progress towards the overarching outcome, for example, housing affordability;
• output metrics directly measure the local authority activity that contributes to achieving the overarching outcome, for example the number of new homes built.

Housing supply

7.8 The metrics for this priority outcome, which will be confirmed in due course, will measure local government’s role in enabling housing supply, in support of the Government’s target to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. The government published a call for feedback on underlying metrics for all priority outcomes, the responses to which we continue to consider.

7.8.1 Housing supply metric(s) – metric placeholder:

Metrics to capture LA contribution to housing supply are being considered and will be confirmed publicly no later than the publication of the LOF data tool.

[Source: metrics to be determined]

Housing quality and safety

7.9 The metrics for this priority outcome have been selected to measure progress towards the overarching goal to make sure people have access to high quality, safe, and secure housing. The metrics have been selected to encourage local authorities to improve their effectiveness in enforcing quality and safety standards and complying with these standards as a social landlord.

7.9.1 Percentage of rental housing in the local authority area deemed decent – outcome metric:

This metric measures how well homes meet safety and quality standards in the local area: the proportion of occupied rental homes that are deemed decent according to the Decent Homes Standard for each local authority. This is modelled data.
[Source: English Housing Survey: local authority housing stock condition modelling - GOV.UK]

7.9.2 Percentage of local authority-owned social housing deemed decent – output metric

This metric measures progress in ensuring local authority-owned housing meets safety and quality standards. The proportion of occupied social housing that is deemed decent according to the Decent Homes Standard for each local authority.

[Source: Local Authority Housing Statistics open data - GOV.UK]

7.9.3 Percentage of homes rated EPC C and above – outcome metric:

This metric measures progress towards improving energy efficiency in homes and acts as a proxy for housing decency.

[Source: Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) Band C or above, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics]

7.9.4 Completed remediation for unique buildings – output metric:

This metric measures the proportion of residential buildings over 11 metres with unsafe cladding, which had completed remediation. This metric measures progress towards ensuring building safety.

[Source: Building Safety Remediation: monthly data release - GOV.UK]

7.9.5 Private rental sector enforcement – output metric placeholder:

This metric will measure local authority activity in enforcement of standards and tenancy rights in the private rental sector. This metric will be captured as part of the new PRS enforcement data collection, which launched on a voluntary basis in June 2025. A metric on PRS enforcement activity is expected to be included from late 2026.

[Source: data not yet available]

Homelessness and rough sleeping

7.10 This priority outcome features five metrics, with one broken down by cohort, capturing: temporary accommodation, prevention and relief duties, and rough sleeping. The aim of including these outcome metrics is to encourage local authorities to change approaches and practice that will prevent and reduce homelessness and rough sleeping in their area, with a focus on the priorities captured in the metrics below.

7.10.1 Rate of households with children in temporary accommodation per 1,000 households – outcome metric:

This metrics measures the number of households with children who are in temporary accommodation on 30 June 2025, per 1,000 households in the population. Temporary accommodation is accommodation secured by a local housing authority under their statutory homelessness functions.

[Source: Statutory homelessness in England: April to June 2025 - GOV.UK]

7.10.2 Number of families in B&B over 6 weeks – outcome metric:

This metric measures the number of families in Bed & Breakfast accommodation who have been resident for more than 6 weeks on 30 June 2025. The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 came into force on 1 May 2004. This prohibits the use of B&B accommodation for families except in an emergency and even then for no longer than six weeks.

[Source: Statutory homelessness in England: April to June 2025 - GOV.UK]

7.10.3 Percentage of duties owed where homelessness was prevented or relieved – outcome metric:

This metric measures the percentage of successful outcomes at preventing or relieving homelessness in a quarter relative to the number of new prevention or relief duties owed that quarter. This metric helps track local authority “outflow” relative to “inflow” of initial duties owed in a quarter, a higher percentage indicates a local authority is more successful at earlier prevention/relief when first approached for support.

[Source: Statutory homelessness in England: April to June 2025 - GOV.UK]

7.10.4 Percentage of duties owed where homelessness was prevented or relieved for households experiencing multiple disadvantage – outcome metric placeholder:

This metric mirrors metric 7.10.3, but for households that experience multiple disadvantage.

[Source: data not yet available]

7.10.5 Number of people sleeping rough on a single night – outcome metric:

This metric measures the number of people sleeping rough on a single night between 1 October and 30 November. People sleeping rough are defined as people sleeping, about to bed down (sitting on/in or standing next to their bedding) or bedded down in the open air (such as on the streets, in tents, doorways, parks, bus shelters or encampments) and people in buildings or other places not designed for habitation (such as stairwells, barns, sheds, car parks, cars, derelict boats, stations, or ‘bashes’ which are makeshift shelters, often comprised of cardboard boxes). The definition does not include people in hostels or shelters, people in campsites or other sites used for recreational purposes or organised protest, squatters or travellers. Bedded down means either lying down or sleeping. About to bed down includes those who are sitting in/on or near a sleeping bag or other bedding.

[Source: Rough sleeping snapshot in England: autumn 2024 - GOV.UK]

7.10.6 Number of people sleeping rough over the month who are long term – outcome metric:

This metric measures the number of people sleeping rough over the course of the month who are long term. Long term rough sleeping is defined as the number of people seen recently (within the reporting month) who have been seen sleeping rough in 3 or more months out of the last 12 months (1 year). The number of people sleeping rough over the course of the month is an estimated figure based on outreach contacts, and the same definition of sleeping rough as above is applied.

[Source: Rough sleeping data framework, April to June 2025 - GOV.UK]

Multiple disadvantage

7.11 This priority outcome aims to capture positive outcome metrics related to multiple disadvantage. However, data on overlapping needs is sparse and it is challenging to identify and measure this cohort at national or local authority level. There are no routinely published figures on the size of this cohort and very few datasets specifically identify whether an individual is experiencing multiple disadvantage, making it difficult to identify the appropriate outcome datapoints that should be captured.

7.12 The multiple disadvantage metrics captured in the Framework do not represent a final, definitive version of what government wants to measure in multiple disadvantage. Ideally the following would be captured: system level metrics that demonstrate how well local authorities and local partners are collaborating to improve the lives of adults experiencing multiple disadvantage; and service-specific metrics that can be broken down to the multiple disadvantage cohort across each of the five domains of multiple disadvantage.

7.12.1 System level metrics - The need for system level outcome metrics was a key theme in the feedback process for the multiple disadvantage outcome. To address this, research has been commissioned to explore how to quantify how effectively a local system is working to support adults experiencing multiple disadvantage. While this work is developing, ‘multiple disadvantage goals’ have been developed that indicate the evidence-based behaviours government would like local authorities to champion in their local area to manage multiple disadvantage more effectively, and how this could be demonstrated. As this work develops, the ambition is to move towards quantitative system-level metrics in a future iteration of the Framework.

7.12.2 Service specific multiple disadvantage metrics - Due to current data availability, the multiple disadvantage metrics have an over-representation of substance use treatment metrics, drawing from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System treatment progress dataset. This means there are not yet meaningful metrics for two of the five domains of multiple disadvantage – domestic abuse and mental ill health. As data improves over time, these gaps will be filled.

7.13 Given the limitations in existing multiple disadvantage data, local authorities will not be held to account on the performance of the multiple disadvantage outcome at this time. Multiple disadvantage service-specific metrics will be repeated in other priority outcome areas where relevant – e.g. repeating ‘Proportion of people in substance use treatment flagged as experiencing multiple disadvantage, achieving significant progress in treatment’ in Health and Wellbeing.

7.14 These metrics will be measured within the context of the wider priority outcome but not in the multiple disadvantage outcome specifically, where data is sparse and could risk creating siloes in delivery. Performance data will be collected against the multiple disadvantage outcome at a future iteration once confidence has increased that the outcome accurately reflects multiple disadvantage – for example, when progress has been made on developing system level metrics and addressing data gaps.

7.15 The multiple disadvantage priority outcome is a current best attempt at capturing outcomes in multiple disadvantage and sets out government’s ambition to support collaboration around this issue. This represents a starting point to prompt further conversations around improving data collection, data linking, and alternative metrics for this high priority cohort.

7.16 Multiple disadvantage goals – system level metrics.

7.16.1 Leadership and governance:

• clear responsibility and governance for coordinating responses to multiple disadvantage agreed, utilising existing or new forums and governance which include all relevant partners across the system.
• multiple disadvantage is referenced in key local strategies.
• there are clear routes between frontline delivery across key partners [should include public health and the NHS; police; probation, prisons and courts; community safety; housing support, substance misuse; adult social care; voluntary and community sector; and Jobcentre Plus] and strategic governance, driving continuous improvement to identify and support people experiencing multiple disadvantage and provide support which works to improve outcomes and prevent repeat high demand across public services.

7.16.2 Working in partnership:

• shared understanding of multiple disadvantage across partners providing a common focus and strategic direction, and demonstrable evidence of commitments and/or plans to improve collaboration.
• all key partners actively involved in plans to address multiple disadvantage, strategically and operationally. Partners routinely consider joint working barriers and opportunities around multiple disadvantage such as gaps in support, co-commissioning, shared learning and outcomes, and may participate in regular multi-agency review meetings, joint training, and/or shared practice audits.
• lived experience representatives are meaningfully involved in both operational and strategic activities.

7.16.3 Improving how we use data:

• clear objectives and purposes for data improvement activity, covered by governance which enables regular reflection on learning, barriers and opportunities as well as close collaboration between strategic decision-makers, frontline workers and data protection experts to achieve data goals.
• shared data feeds which are accessible to partners, and ideally a shared case management system across relevant agencies which allows access to ‘whole person’ data about a person in real time.
• an understanding of local need and experiences, informed by a range of data sources, is developed and used by a range of agencies to support strategic use of resources – this could be integrated into local joint strategic needs assessments.

7.17 Service specific multiple disadvantage metrics.

7.17.1 Percentage of people in substance use treatment flagged as experiencing multiple disadvantage, achieving significant progress in treatment – outcome metric placeholder:

This metric shows the percentage of individuals in substance use treatment who are identified as experiencing multiple disadvantage (having at least 3 of 5 defined characteristics) and have achieved significant progress in their treatment outcomes. Progress against this metric is demonstrated by successful completion of treatment or improved outcomes. Data is reported monthly by local authorities and presented as a rolling 12-month figure.

[Source: data not yet available]

7.17.2 Drugs and alcohol: Proportion of the opiate and/or crack prevalent population (15-64) and the proportion of alcohol dependent population (18 and over) that are not in treatment (unmet need) – output metric:

This output metric highlights where support for those dependent on drugs and/or alcohol is needed and where this is currently not being met, showing local authorities where to focus their efforts with regards to this public health issue.

[Source: NDTMS - Treatment progress]

7.17.3 Percentage of prison leavers with a substance misuse need engaged in treatment within three weeks of release – output metric:

This metric shows the percentage of people leaving prison with a continued substance misuse treatment need engaging in community substance misuse treatment within 3 weeks of release. This is necessary to successfully continue their treatment. This is a cohort suffering disadvantage and at high risk of harm and death.

[Source: Public Health Outcomes Framework - Department for Health and Social Care]

7.17.4 Percentage of duties owed where homelessness was prevented or relieved for households experiencing multiple disadvantage – outcome metric:

This metrics is also captured in the homelessness and rough sleeping priority outcome. See 7.10.4 for more information.

7.17.5 Number of people sleeping rough over the month who are long term – outcome metric:

This metric is also captured in the homelessness and rough sleeping priority outcome. See 7.10.6 for more information.

7.17.6 Number of households referred to safe accommodation services that could not be supported due to unmet needs – output metric:

This metric measures the percentage of households referred to safe accommodation service under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that could not be supported because their additional needs could not be met. These additional needs include, but are not limited to poor mental health, substance dependency and disability. This data is published annually by MHCLG at local authority level. The metric highlights the gaps in provision for victims of domestic abuse experiencing multiple disadvantage.

[Source: support in domestic abuse safe accommodation – GOV.UK]

7.17.7 Mental ill-health – future metric placeholder:

A suitable metric to measure mental health in the multiple disadvantage cohort is not currently available. Approaches to fill this data gap will be explored in a future iteration of the Framework.

[Source: data not yet available]

Best start in life

7.18 The metrics selected for this priority outcome reflect the key role local authorities play in working with partners to provide and commission early years services for parents and children.

7.18.1 Child development: Percentage of children with a good level of development at 5 years old – outcome metric:

This outcome metric aims to ensure all children have the best start in life and are prepared for school. Children are defined as having a good level of development if they are at the expected level for the 12 early learning goals within the 5 areas of learning relating to: communication and language; personal, social and emotional development; physical development; literacy; and mathematics.

[Source: Early years foundation stage profile results, Academic year 2023/24 - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.18.2 Child development: Percentage point difference between the proportion of children eligible or not eligible for Free School Meals achieving a Good Level of Development– outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage point difference between those who are known to be eligible to receive free school meals and reach a good level of development and those who are not known to be eligible and reach a GLD, within each local authority.

[Source: ‘1 Headline measures by characteristics’ from ‘Early years foundation stage profile results’, Permanent data table - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.18.3 Child health: Percentage achieving good level of development at 2-2.5 year review – outcome metric:

The 2-2 ½ year review is the only national measure of child development before school, and the last of the five health and development reviews that support parental and child health. The review supports the identification of children who are not developing as expected and/or who are in need of additional support, enabling earlier intervention where needed before children enter school. If left unsupported, these children are more likely to fail to achieve their full potential. This metric recognises the vital role local authorities play in contributing to children’s health and supports the Best Start in Life pillar of the government’s Opportunity Mission, as well as commitments to strengthen health visiting and raise the healthiest ever generation of children. This metric is also captured in the Health and Wellbeing outcome. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.18.4 Take-up rate of 2-year-old disadvantage childcare offer – output metric:

Eligible 2-year-olds whose families are receiving additional support are entitled to receive 570 hours of government-funded early years provision a year. This is taken as 15 hours a week over 38 weeks of the year, but it is also possible to take fewer hours over more weeks. Take up is calculated based on the number of children registered as receiving the entitlement and an estimate eligible population based on the number of households with 2-year-olds that are in receipt of income-related benefits or have a child receiving disability living allowance.

[Source: Funded early education and childcare, Reporting year 2025 - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.18.5 Take-up rate of the 3–4-year-old 15 hours childcare offer – output metric:

All 3 and 4-year-olds are entitled to receive 570 hours of government-funded early years provision a year. This can be taken as 15 hours a week over 38 weeks of the year, but it is also possible to take fewer hours over more weeks. The universal entitlement for all 3 and 4-year-olds aims to support child development and school readiness. Take up is calculated using the number of 3- and 4-year-olds registered for the universal entitlement and an estimate of the eligible population derived from ONS population estimates (for the 2011 to 2023 rates in this release), ONS population projections (for the 2025 rates in this release) or a combination of both (2024 rates in this release). [Source: Funded early education and childcare, Reporting year 2025 - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.18.6 Best Start Family Hubs – output metric placeholder:

This placeholder metric will measure the delivery of Best Start Family Hubs, an important intervention to meet our target of ensuring at least 75% of children reach a good level of development by age 5, once the rollout has extended to all Local Authorities and data collection is in place

[Source: data not yet available]

Every child achieving and thriving

7.19 The metrics outlined below were selected based on their effectiveness in tracking progress toward the priority outcome of every child achieving and thriving. The ultimate goal of this outcome is to support all children and young people to achieve and thrive in school, at home and in their communities.

7.19.1 School attainment: Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at Key Stage 2 for all state funded schools, local authority maintained schools and academies – outcome metric:

This outcome metric measures attainment in assessments taken by pupils at the end of year 6, when most are age 11. Pupils who meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths (combined) are those who meet the expected standard in all three subjects.

[Source: Key stage 2 attainment - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.2 School attainment: Key Stage 2 attainment “disadvantage gap”, difference in attainment between students who are known to be disadvantaged  / are not known to be disadvantaged– outcome metric:

This metric breaks down Key Stage 2 attainment to show the difference in the percentage of pupils who are disadvantaged and those who are not known to be disadvantaged who achieve the expected standards in reading, writing and maths within each local authority. This aims to highlight the “disadvantage gap” that is present within each local authority. Students known to be disadvantaged includes those who have been eligible for free-school meals at any point within the past 6 years, children looked after by a local authority or have left local authority care through adoption, a special guardianship order, a residence order or a child arrangement order.

[Source: Key stage 2 attainment - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.3 School attainment: Key Stage 4 attainment 8 data for all state funded schools, local authority maintained schools and academies – outcome metric:

This outcome metric measures the average achievement of pupils in up to 8 qualifications, including both GCSE and vocational and technical qualification (VTQ) results of pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 attending state-funded schools in England.

[Source: Key stage 4 performance - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.4 School attainment: Key Stage 4 attainment 8 “disadvantage gap”, difference in attainment between students who are known to be disadvantaged  / are not known to be disadvantaged – outcome metric:

This metric breaks down Key Stage 4  attainment to show the difference in Attainment 8 score between those who are known to be disadvantaged and those who are not known to be disadvantaged, within each local authority. This aims to highlight the “disadvantage gap” that is present within each local authority, as well as between them. Students known to be disadvantaged includes those who have been eligible for free-school meals at any point within the past 6 years, if they are recorded as having been looked after for at least one day or if they are recorded as having been adopted from care.

[Source: ‘Local authority district data’ from ‘Key stage 4 performance’, Permanent data table - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.5 NEET: Percentage of young people (16-17) not in education, employment or training – outcome metric:

Data for this outcome metric is collected using the National Client Caseload Information System (NCCIS), which draws together local databases used to support young people to engage in education and training and plan services that meet young people’s needs. This management information data can be used to provide an estimate of 16- and 17-year-olds not in education, employment or training (NEET).

[Source: Participation in education, training and NEET age 16 to 17 by local authority - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.6 Special Educational Needs (SEN): Percentage of SEN pupils meeting expected standard in reading, writing and maths at Key Stage 2 (all SEN provision, children and young people with an Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP) and SEN support without an EHCP)– outcome metric:

This outcome metric measures attainment in assessments taken by pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) at the end of Key Stage 2.  Pupils who meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths (combined) are those who meet the expected standard in all three subjects. Currently, this outcome metric focuses on SEN cohorts. However, over time we will look to move the focus of this metric towards prior attainment. Whilst we would prefer to use this metric at launch, COVID disruption to learning means that identifying pupils with low prior attainment will not be possible again until 2027.

[Source: Key stage 2 attainment - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.7 Special Educational Needs (SEN): Key Stage 4 attainment 8 data for SEN pupils (all SEN provision, children and young people with an Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP) and SEN support without an EHCP) – outcome metric:

This outcome metric measures attainment in assessments taken by pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) at the end of Key Stage 4. This outcome metric focuses on the GCSE and vocational and technical qualification (VTQ) results of pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 attending state-funded schools in England. Currently, this outcome metric focuses on SEN cohorts. However, over time we will look to move the focus of this metric towards prior attainment. Whilst we would prefer to use this metric at launch, COVID disruption to learning means that identifying pupils with low prior attainment will not be possible again until 2027.

[Source: ‘All state-funded pupil characteristics and geography data’ from ‘Key stage 4 performance’, Permanent data table - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.8 School leavers: Young people supported to move into education, employment or training – post-16 destinations including SEN breakdowns– outcome metric:

The percentage of pupils continuing to a sustained education, apprenticeship or employment destination in England in the year after completing key stage 4 study (after year 11) from state-funded mainstream and special schools. To be counted in a destination, young people must have sustained participation for a 6 month period in the destination year.

[Source: ‘Key stage 4 leavers local authority level destinations’ from ‘Key stage 4 destination measures’, Permanent data table - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.9 Absence: Absence rate – persistent and severe absence – outcome metric:

Absence rate is the total number of sessions missed due to absence for all pupils as a percentage of the total number of possible sessions for all pupils. One session is equal to half a day.  A pupil enrolment is identified as persistently absent if they miss 10% or more of their possible sessions, and severely absent if they miss 50% or more of their possible sessions.

[Source: Pupil absence in schools in England - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.19.10 Absence: Absence rate for SEN pupils (children and young people with an Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP), and SEN support without an EHCP)  – outcome metric:

The data has been collected from the school census and is focussed on absence rates for SEN pupils. The absence rate is the total number of sessions missed due to absence as a percentage of the total number of possible sessions. One session is equal to half a day. 

Source: Pupil absence in schools in England - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK

7.19.11 Children not in school – outcome metric placeholder:

‘Children not in school’ includes both children who are being electively home educated (EHE) and children missing education (CME). Children missing education are children of compulsory school age who are not registered at a school and are not otherwise in receipt of a suitable education. In support of measures being introduced through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this placeholder will measure relevant data on children who are not in school across English Local Authorities, including both those who are being electively home educated by choice and those who are not in receipt of a suitable education and are therefore CME.

[Source: data not yet available]

7.19.12 Youth offenders: First time entrants to youth justice system – outcome metric:

Rates of juveniles receiving their first conviction, caution or youth caution per 100,000 10- to 17-year-old population by area of residence. Children and young people at risk of offending or within the youth justice system often have more unmet health needs than other children. This metric is included to ensure that vulnerable children and young people (aged 10 to 17) at risk of offending, are included in mainstream planning and commissioning. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.19.13 Youth offenders: Percentage of youth offenders reoffending – outcome metric:

Youths enter the reoffending cohort if they receive a caution, a non-custodial sentence at court or were released from custody during the cohort period. Someone who entered the cohort aged 17 and reoffended aged 18 will be included in the figures.

[Source: Youth Justice Statistics: 2023 to 2024 - GOV.UK]

7.19.14 Children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing – outcome metric placeholder:

Children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing was a significant data gap that was identified during sector feedback. While there is no suitable existing metric, work is underway to develop an appropriate outcome metric for a future iteration of the Framework.

[Source: data not yet available]

7.19.15 Special Educational Needs (SEN): Percentage of SEN children supported in mainstream schools – output metric:

This output metric shows the percentage of pupils in mainstream schools, in each local authority, who are receiving SEN support or otherwise have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan.

[Source: Special Needs in England - Pupils in all schools]

7.19.16 Physical inactivity: less active (less than 30 minutes per day) – output metric:

This metric presents the levels of physical inactivity of children aged 5-16 in each local authority. Those defined as less active average less than 30 minutes of physical activity a day.

[Source: Active Lives CYP 23-24 Tables 1-6 Levels of activity.xlsx – Table 3]

7.19.17 Participation in youth services in the last 12 months (including sports, music, art or youth clubs) – output metric placeholder:

This placeholder metric will show the number of children in a local authority aged between 11 - 16 who have participated in out-of-school youth services over the prior 12 months, based on a new question in the Active Live Survey from September 2026. Potential youth services will likely include: attending an out-of-school sports club or fitness class; art or music group, course or club or music lessons; uniformed youth group; youth club or centre; any other group or club. The 11 - 16 age range has been chosen, rather than the wider statutory age range of local authorities’ duty for youth services, as it aligns with the existing Active Lives Survey design.

[Source: data not yet available]

Keeping children safe (children’s social care)

7.20 This priority outcome includes metrics selected for their ability to demonstrate progress towards the priority outcome: keep children safe in secure and loving homes and help more families to thrive together. The selected metrics are a subset of those in the Children’s Social Care National Framework and Dashboard. The Framework is intended to align with and support the aims of the Children’s Social Care National Framework. The Children’s Social Care National Framework remains a comprehensive view of this government’s priorities on children’s social care. A subset of dashboard metrics have been chosen to capture the themes of family support, family network, safety and stable homes in the Framework, to allow for cross-cutting comparisons across other priority outcome areas, as succinctly as possible.

7.20.1 Rate of children looked after per 10,000 children – outcome metric:

This metric shows the rate of children looked after on 31 March, per 10,000 children in the 0-17 population. Looked after children are presented separately for children who are unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and those who are not. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are children who have applied for asylum in their own right and are separated from both parents and/or any other responsible adult. Local authorities have a legal duty to provide accommodation for these children but, unlike with other children looked after, there is no preventative work or early help the local authority could have done to support the child to remain with their family. The rate of children looked after is an important metric as avoiding permanent placements in care is a good indicator of supporting families to remain together.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Children looked after in England including adoption]

7.20.2 Persistent absence: percentage of persistent absentees among children using children’s social care – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of persistent absentees (pupils with overall absence at 10% or more) at 31 March, for children in need only (CINO), children on child protection plans only (CPPO) and children looked after (CLA). Barriers to educational engagement can be prevalent amongst these groups of children, and children’s social care has an important role in helping to overcome those barrier.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Outcomes for children in need, including children looked after by local authorities in England]

7.20.3 Key stage 2 attainment: percentage achieving expected standard in Key stage 2 among children using children’s social care – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of year 6 pupils achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths combined at 31 March, for CINO, CPPO and CLA. Educational attainment is a key component of long-term development and wellbeing for children and young people, which affects their outcomes. Virtual School Heads have an important role in promoting the educational attainment of children known to children social care, including statutory responsibilities for children looked after and previously looked after.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Outcomes for children in need, including children looked after by local authorities in England]

7.20.4 Key stage 4 attainment: average attainment at key stage 4 among children using children’s social care– outcome metric:

This metric shows the average attainment 8 score (average achievement in up to 8 qualifications, including English Language, English literature and maths) of pupils finishing GCSEs for CINO, CPPO and CLA, at 31 March. Educational attainment is a key component of long-term development and wellbeing for children and young people, which affects their outcomes. Virtual School Heads have an important role in promoting the educational attainment of children known to children social care, including statutory responsibilities for children looked after and previously looked after.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Outcomes for children in need, including children looked after by local authorities in England]

7.20.5 Family networks: percentage of children who cease being looked after due to special guardianship order, residence order or child arrangement order – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of children who cease being looked after during the year due to moving into special guardianship order (SGO) or into residence order or child arrangements order (CAO). Moving children from care arrangements to a SGO or CAO shows that permanence outside of the care system is being prioritised.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Children looked after in England including adoption]

7.20.6 Repeat child protection plans: percentage of child protection plans which were a second or subsequent plan – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of children who have been entered into a child protection plan during the year, where this plan was at least their second. Having multiple repeat plans suggests that children and families are not receiving the help that they need to address the problems they face.

[Source: Children in need, Reporting year 2025 - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.20.7 Long period on child protection plan: percentage of child protection plans longer than 2 years– outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of children who were the subject of a child protection plan at 31 March who had been on a child protection plan (CPP) for 2 years and over. Remaining on a child protection plan for a longer period of time suggests that children and families are not receiving the help that they need to address the problems they face.

[Source: Children in need, Reporting year 2025 - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK]

7.20.8 Placement stability: percentage of children looked after with 3 or more placements during the year – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of children looked after on 31 March with three or more placements during the year. Those children who cannot remain living with families or family network should be provided with a stable home environment. Minimising changes to the number of times that children have to move home while in care is key to this ambition.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Children looked after in England including adoption]

7.20.9 Placement types: percentage of children looked after living in different placement types – outcome metric:

This metric looks at the proportion of children looked after on 31 March who were living in three different placement categories: foster placements; secure homes and children’s homes; and supported accommodation. Where possible, the aim is to support children in care to live in foster care arrangements. Prior to the 2024/25 year, the category of supported accommodation was called independent and semi-independent living arrangements/supported accommodation. From 2024/25 onwards, this data only captures children living in supported accommodation. [Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Children looked after in England including adoption]

7.20.10 Percentage of care leavers in education, employment or training for 17-18 and 19-21 age groups – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of care leavers who are in employment, education and training for the following age ranges: 17 to 18 years and 19 to 21 years. Local authorities provide information about children who were previously looked after, who turned 17 to 21 in the year, with the information provided relating to contact around the care leavers’ birthday. Care leavers should be supported to access education, employment and training that supports them and allows them to achieve their aspirations and goals.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Children looked after in England including adoption]

7.20.11 Percentage of care leavers in suitable accommodation for 17-18 and 19-21 age groups – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of care leavers who are living in suitable accommodation for the following age ranges: 17 to 18 years and 19 to 21 years. Local authorities provide information about children who were previously looked after, who turned 17 to 21 in the year, with the information provided relating to contact around the care leavers’ birthday. What is meant by ‘suitable accommodation’ is defined by Regulation 9(2) of the Care Leavers Regulations.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Children looked after in England including adoption]

7.20.12 Family Help – outcome metric placeholder:
This placeholder is included to highlight the important contribution of family help in keeping children safe and promoting family security, while suitable data is unavailable. When appropriate, published data on family help services becomes available at local authority level, it will be used to develop a metric for inclusion in the framework.

[Source: data not yet available]

7.20.13 Children looked after wellbeing: average strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) score for children looked after – outcome metric:

This metric shows the average score on the SDQ among children looked after in the local authority. The SDQ is a behavioural screening questionnaire. Its primary purpose is to give social workers and health professionals information about a child’s wellbeing. A score of 0 to 13 is considered normal, 14 to 16 is borderline, and 17 to 40 is a cause for concern. An SDQ score is required of all children looked after aged 4-16 on the date of last assessment. Date of assessment is not collected so data in this table is restricted to children aged 5 to 16 years.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Children looked after in England including adoption]

7.20.14 Distance of placements from home: percentage of looked after children placed more than 20 miles from home – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of looked after children who are living in a placement (fostering home, children’s home, etc) that is more than 20 miles from their home address. Children should be supported to remain in school placements and to retain contact with friends and family networks where this is in their best interests. As such, where possible, children should be supported to remain close to their home address. Distance is the distance in miles between the child’s home and placement. In some cases this is not known, for example UASC, or not recorded for confidentiality reasons, such as some children placed for adoption.

[Source: Statistics: looked-after children - GOV.UK, Children looked after in England including adoption]

7.20.15 Resource prioritisation between early and later intervention: share of children’s services spend not on children looked after – output metric:

This metric shows the proportion of local authority children’s services spend that is not spent on children looked after. Share of spend is calculated by taking total children’s services expenditure minus total children looked after expenditure, divided by total children’s services expenditure. Prioritising funding and resources that help families early helps children and young people thrive. This metric looks at the resource prioritisation between early and later statutory intervention.

[Source: Calculated metric presented in enablers section of the Children’s social care dashboard (Children’s Social Care - Outcomes and Enablers - intro_panel), using data from the RO3 and RSX data files from the Local authority revenue expenditure and financing England: 2024 to 2025 individual local authority data – outturn]

7.20.16 Workforce vacancy rates – output metric:

This metric shows the vacancy rate for child and family social workers. A workforce strategy should develop and maintain an effective workforce. With a well-supported workforce vacancy rates should remain low. Vacancies are redefined as any full-time equivalent child and family social worker vacancy on 30 September within a local authority’s organisational structure. It includes vacancies that are not being actively recruited for and those covered by agency workers. The rate is calculated as the number of full-time equivalent vacancies divided by the sum of full-time equivalent vacancies and full-time equivalent social workers who are in post.

[Source: Statistics: children’s social work workforce - GOV.UK]

Health and wellbeing

7.21 The metrics for this priority outcome have been selected to achieve the overarching goal of people living healthier lives for longer and reducing health inequalities.  The aim of including these outcome metrics is to encourage local authorities to adapt and improve approaches and practice that will best promote health and wellbeing in their area, with the metrics captured below reflecting their statutory duties to improve health.

7.21.1 Health life expectancy at birth (split by male and female) – outcome metric:

Healthy life expectancy shows the years a person can expect to live in good health (rather than in poor health). This outcome metric is an estimate of the average number of years a newborn baby would live in good general health if they experienced the age-specific mortality rates and prevalence of good health for that area and time period throughout their life (split by male and female). [Source: Fingertips | Department for Health and Social Care (male)  / Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care (female)]

7.21.2 Slope index of inequality in life expectancy at birth (split by male and female) – outcome metric:

This metric highlights an inequality within local authorities. It measures the inequality in life expectancy at birth and can show how much it varies with deprivation across the whole social gradient in that area. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care (male) / Fingertips | Department for Health and Social Care (female)]

7.21.3 Smoking: Percentage of those setting a quit date who successfully quit smoking – outcome metric:

This metric is an indicator of the effectiveness of local  Stop Smoking Services. It is the  percentage of people who set a quit date who successfully quit  at the 4-week follow up. [Source: Smoking Profile - Data | Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.21.4 Smoking: Percentage of local smoking population who set a quit date – output metric:

This metric is an indicator of the coverage of local Stop Smoking Services. It is the number of people who set a quit date with a local Stop Smoking Service divided by the Local Authorities’ smoking population. Smoking Profile - Data | Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care

7.21.5 Child health: Percentage achieving good level of development at 2-2.5 year review– outcome metric:

The 2-2 ½ year review is the only national measure of child development before school, and the last of the five health and development reviews that support parental and child health. The review supports the identification of children who are not developing as expected and/or who are in need of additional support, enabling earlier intervention where needed before children enter school. If left unsupported, these children are more likely to fail to achieve their full potential. This metric recognises the vital role local authorities play in contributing to children’s health and supports the Best Start in Life pillar of the government’s Opportunity Mission, as well as commitments to strengthen health visiting and raise the healthiest ever generation of children. This metric is also captured in the Best Start in Life outcome. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.21.6 Drugs and alcohol: Rate of alcohol-specific mortality (directly standardised rate per 100,000) – outcome metric:

Deaths which have been wholly caused by alcohol consumption, registered in the calendar year for all ages, directly age-standardised rate per 100,000 population (standardised to the European standard population). This outcome metric supports national ambitions to reduce alcohol harm. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.21.7 Drugs and alcohol: Proportion of the opiate and/or crack prevalent population (15-64) and the proportion of alcohol-dependent population (18+) that are not in treatment (unmet need) – output metric:

This output metric highlights where support for those dependent on drugs and/or alcohol is needed and where this is currently not being met, showing local authorities where to focus their efforts with regards to this public health issue. [Source: NDTMS - ViewIt - Adult]

7.21.8 Drugs and alcohol: Proportion of people in substance use treatment flagged as experiencing multiple disadvantage, achieving significant progress in treatment– outcome metric placeholder:

This metric is also captured in the multiple disadvantage priority outcome.

7.21.9 Obesity: Year 6 obesity prevalence – outcome metric:

Proportion of children aged 10 to 11 years classified as  living with obesity. This outcome metric captures children in the population in the clinical obesity BMI category and those who are at high risk of moving into the clinical obesity category. This helps ensure that adequate services are planned and delivered within local authorities for primary school aged children. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.21.10 Physical inactivity: Percentage of adults who are physically inactive – outcome metric:

The proportion of those aged 19 and over doing less than 30 minutes of moderate intensity  physical activity per week, in bouts of 10 minutes or more in the previous 28 days. While increasing the activity levels of all adults who are not meeting the recommendations of 150+ minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week is important, targeting those adults who are the least active (i.e. engaging in less than 30 minutes of activity per week) will produce the greatest reduction in chronic disease/deliver the greatest health benefits for the individual and NHS. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.21.11 Sexual health: Under 18 conception rates – outcome metric:

Conceptions in girls aged under 18 per 1,000 girls aged 15-17. Teenage pregnancy is associated with poorer outcomes for both young parents and their children. Teenage pregnancy is included in the Public Health Outcomes Framework as an important public health topic, hence its inclusion here. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.21.12 Sexual health: Proportion of people with PrEP need initiated or continuing PrEP – output metric:

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a drug taken by HIV-negative individuals before they have sex to stop them acquiring HIV. This output metric assesses what proportion of individuals accessing specialist sexual health services (run by local authorities) with PrEP need start or continue PrEP. This metric is aligned with the government’s ambition to end new HIV transmissions in England by 2030. Sexual and Reproductive Health Profiles - Data | Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care

7.21.13 Sexual health: STI testing rate (exclude chlamydia aged 24 years and under) per 100,000– output metric:

Testing rates and diagnosis rates are closely linked. Tests for syphilis, HIV, gonorrhoea and chlamydia (aged over 25) among people accessing sexual health services in England. Knowing where STIs rates are changing will allow for local authorities to pinpoint where health education and resources can be targeted. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.21.14 Oral health: Percentage of 5-year-olds with experience of visually obvious dental decay – outcome metric:

Oral health is an integral part of overall health; when children are not healthy this affects their ability to learn, thrive and develop. This outcome metric can be used as a proxy metric for assessing the impact and effectiveness of oral health improvement programmes delivered by local authorities and the priority national supervised toothbrushing programme. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

7.21.15 Mental health: suicide rate – outcome metric:

Suicide can be an indicator of underlying rates of mental ill-health. Local Authorities play an important role in prevention and early intervention in people’s mental ill health and suicide. Whilst rising suicide rates can signal unmet mental health needs, they should be considered alongside other indicators such as prevalence of mental health conditions, service utilisation, and self-reported wellbeing to provide a more accurate picture of population health. Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care

7.21.16 Cardiovascular disease prevention: Proportion of NHS health checks completed across the eligible population – output metric:

The NHS Health Check programme aims to help prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease. Everyone eligible between the ages of 40 and 74 (not already been diagnosed) will be invited once every five years. Uptake up of NHS Health Checks is important to identify cardiovascular risk and support users to make improvements to reduce risk, hence its inclusion as an output metric. [Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care]

Adult social care – quality

7.22 These metrics have been selected to measure progress towards the goal of people who draw on care and support and their carers experiencing high quality adult social care provided by a skilled workforce.

7.22.1 Care recipient quality of life (adjusted to account for local authority impact) – outcome metric:

This outcome gives an overarching view of the quality of life of people who draw on social care. It is based on the outcome domains of social care-related quality of life identified in the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT) taken from responses to the Adult Social Care Survey (ASCS), which is completed by people who receive local authority funded care. This outcome has been adjusted to account only for the additional impact of local authority funded social care on quality of life, removing non-service-related factors. This outcome has been adjusted to show whether local authority services have had an impact on enabling a good quality of life for care users. This outcome is an average of self-reported scores that rate the quality of life of people who receive care.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.22.2 Quality of life of carers – outcome metric:

This outcome metric measures whether local authority care services support a good quality of life for carers based on responses to the Survey of Adult Carers in England (SACE), which is completed by people who are known by their local authority to provide unpaid care. This outcome metric is an  average of self-reported scores that rate the quality of life of unpaid carers for people with care needs.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.22.3 Overall satisfaction of carers with social services (for them and the person they care for) – outcome metric:

This metric focuses on whether people who draw on care and support are satisfied with adult social care services, and whether they feel social services are providing high-quality support.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.22.4 Overall satisfaction of people who use services with their care and support – outcome metric:

This outcome metric focuses on whether people who draw on care and support are satisfied with adult social care services, and whether they feel social services are providing high-quality support.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.22.5 Proportion of section 42 safeguarding enquiries where a risk was identified, and the reported outcome was that the risk was identified, and the reported outcome was that this risk was reduced or removed – outcome metric:

Safeguarding adults is a key statutory duty for local authorities under the Care Act 2014. This metric focuses on whether local authorities are identifying and reducing/removing safeguarding risks.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.22.6 Workforce turnover: Proportion of staff in the formal care workforce leaving their role in the past 12 months – output metric:

This metric measures workforce turnover, a key factor in ensuring continuous quality of care, which is a proxy for workforce-related quality of life and is associated with  better outcomes for people who draw on care and support.

[Source: ASCOF]

Adult social care – independence, choice and control

7.23 These metrics have been selected to measure progress towards the goal of ensuring people who draw on care and support are supported to promote their independence  where possible, and have choice and control over their support.

7.23.1 Proportion of people who received reablement during the year, who were previously not receiving services, where no further request was made for ongoing support – outcome metric:

This metric  indicates whether local authorities are delivering effective reablement support, which maximises independence and reduces and prevents further care needs. This metric is an official statistic in development.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.23.2 Proportion of people who receive long-term support who live in their home or with family – outcome metric:

A measurement of whether people are being supported to live in their homes, a key enabler of independence. Measuring whether someone lives in their home is another way of measuring independence and delaying dependency on long-term residential or nursing care. This metric is an official statistic in development.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.23.3 Proportion of people who use services who report having control over their daily life – outcome metric:

A measurement of whether people who draw on care and support experience control and autonomy over their daily lives.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.23.4 Proportion of carers who report that they have been involved in discussions about the person they care for – outcome metric:

A measurement of carers’ experience of supporting care recipients’ and whether carers have been actively involved in discussions and decisions about the person they care for.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.23.5 Proportion of people and carers who user services who have found it easy to find information about services and/or support – outcome metric:

A measurement of whether sufficient information is available to carers and people who draw on care and support to make sure they are empowered to make timely and autonomous choices about their care.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.23.6 Proportion of people using social care who receive direct payments – outcome metric:

Direct payments are key to personalising care, allowing people who draw on care and support choice and control over what care best meets their needs.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.23.7 Number of people receiving local authority-provided or organised long-term adult social care support (nursing, residential, and community) per 100,000 adults, split by age (18-64, 65+) – output metric:

This metric measures the level of access people have to local authority-funded long-term care. This metric is disaggregated into two age groups to reflect that the long-term support needs of these two groups are considerably different.

[Source: DHSC]

7.23.8 Number of people receiving adult social care assessments who’ve not received local authority long-term support in the previous 12 months per 100,000 population – output metric:

A measurement of the level of access to support relative to the level of demand. [Source: DHSC]

Adult social care – neighbourhood health / integration

7.24 These metrics have been selected to measure progress towards the goal of ensuring people who draw on care and support are supported by joined up health and social care services at a neighbourhood level.

7.24.1 Proportion of people aged 65 and over discharged from hospital into reablement and who remained in the community within 12 weeks of discharge – outcome metric:

This metric measures the outcomes of people discharged from hospitals. The metric supports the integration of local health and social care services, by working together to have effective discharge and reablement processes after hospital and reducing avoidable admissions. This metric is an official statistic in development.

[Source: ASCOF]

7.24.1 Number of adults whose long-term support needs are met by admission to residential and nursing care homes per 100,000 population, split by age (18-64, 65+) – outcome metric:

This metric measures the proportion of people admitted to residential or nursing care homes. Avoiding permanent placements in residential and nursing care homes is a good indicator that systems are working together to maximise people’s independence and prevent people’s needs from escalating. This metric has been split into two age groups as the long term support needs of these two groups are considerably different. This metric is an official statistic in development.

[Source: ASCOF]

Neighbourhoods

7.25 The metrics in the neighbourhoods priority outcome have been selected to indicate whether people feel safe and included in their local community and are satisfied with their local area as a place to live. Seven of the metrics are currently sourced from the Community Life Survey, which is a nationally representative annual survey of adults (16+) with questions relating to social action and empowering communities.  From 2025/26 the Community Life Survey will be merged into the Community and Engagement Survey (CES). In 2023/24 and 2024/25, DCMS partnered with MHCLG to boost the Community Life Survey to be able to produce meaningful estimates at the local authority level. Whenever the sample is boosted in future years, the local authority level data will be reflected within the Local Outcomes Framework, to examine trends and developments. The outcome area also includes three placeholder metrics. These have been used to signal the importance of an issue while we continue to develop or gain access to appropriate, local authority level data.

7.25.1 Percentage of people who agree adults in their communities can be trusted – outcome metric:

This metric captures the percentage of people, aged 16 and over, who believe many people in the neighbourhood can be trusted. Trust among communities is an important indicator of social cohesion, and also indicates feelings of security in local neighbourhoods across the country. The data is currently drawn from the Community Life Survey, which has recently been merged into the Community and Engagement Survey (CES). Data is currently collected for ITL1 (International Territory Level), with periodic funding boosts allowing a greater breakdown of data to local authority level. DCMS aims to boost the CES as frequently as possible, this will be a matter for departmental business planning for DCMS and MHCLG.

Source: From 2025/26 - Community and Engagement Survey - GOV.UK; Previous years - Community Life Survey - GOV.UK, annual data tables, table B4c

7.25.2 Percentage of people who feel they can influence local decisions – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of people, aged 16 and over, who agreed (definitely agree or tend to agree) that you can personally influence decisions affecting the local area. Leaders should ensure that residents feel empowered within their communities, that residents have opportunities to present their views and that these are factored into decisions.

Source: From 2025/26 - Community and Engagement Survey - GOV.UK; Previous years - Community Life Survey - GOV.UK, annual data tables, table B5c

7.25.3 Percentage of people who are satisfied with community/cultural facilities in their local area – outcome metric placeholder:

The metric shows the percentage of people who are satisfied with the local services and amenities in their local area. The question is drawn from the ‘local facilities’ section of the Community Life Survey, which asks respondents questions about the following list of local facilities: grocery store, pub/bar, park, library, restaurant/cafe, community centre/hall, sports facilities, health centre/GP, chemist or pharmacy, post office, place of worship, and public transport links. This metric is currently a placeholder, from 2025/26 onwards, as part of the CES, the ‘local facilities’ section of the questionnaire has been expanded to include a fuller range of cultural assets. The satisfaction question will remain the same (How satisfied are you with the local services and amenities in your local area?). Data has not previously been published at local authority level. This can however be made available for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 years in due course, so will be included within the Local Outcomes Framework from that point.   

Source: From 2025/26 - Community and Engagement Survey - GOV.UK; Previous years – data not publicly available]

7.25.4 Percentage of people who reported in-person cultural engagement within the past 12 months – outcome metric:

This metric measures the percentage of adults (aged 16 or over) in England who report attending or participating in at least one in-person cultural activity in the past 12 months. The data is currently drawn from the Participation Survey published by DCMS, which has recently been merged into the Community and Engagement Survey (CES). This metric provides a measure of actual cultural engagement and is intended to support the “perceived” satisfaction of the “Percentage of people who are satisfied with community/cultural facilities in their local area” metric, which whilst important can be influenced by a range of subjective factors with a measure of “actual” participation.

[Source : Community and Engagement Survey - GOV.UK Previously: Participation Survey - GOV.UK and Community Life Survey - GOV.UK]

7.25.5 Percentage of people who are satisfied with their local area as a place to live – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of people, aged 16 and over, who reported being satisfied (either very satisfied or fairly satisfied) with their local area as a place to live. This broad metric can be influenced by all the key drivers of satisfaction, which we know include feelings of safety, access to facilities, cleanliness of an area, and the perceived friendliness and respect shown by people in the community. It therefore provides a useful headline metric of whether people like the place they live and provides an indication of residents feelings of pride in their local area.

Source: From 2025/26 - Community and Engagement Survey - GOV.UK; Previous years - Community Life Survey - GOV.UK, annual data tables, table B15c

7.25.6 Anti-social behaviour – outcome metric placeholder:

Anti-social behaviour is an important issue for residents, as it can negatively impact how safe they feel and their satisfaction and pride in their local area. We have included this as a placeholder to indicate it’s importance while data is not currently available at local authority level for inclusion in the Local Outcomes Framework. Data on anti-social behaviour is currently available at the level of police force areas, and therefore does not map directly onto the local authority boundaries we have used across the rest of the framework.

[Source: data not yet available]

7.25.7 Percentage of people who agree that people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of people, aged 16 and over, who agree (either definitely or tend to agree) that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together. This metric provides an indication of social cohesion in an area. 

Source: From 2025/26 - Community and Engagement Survey - GOV.UK; Previous years - Community Life Survey - GOV.UK, annual data tables, table B6c

7.25.8 Percentage of people experiencing loneliness – outcome metric:

This metric is sourced from the ‘indirect loneliness composite score’ from the Community Life Survey. These scores are calculated by combining scores from 3 questions which relate to, but to not explicitly ask about loneliness. They ask how often people: feel they lack companionship; feel left out; feel isolated from others. The composite scores range from values of 3 (indicating less frequent loneliness) to 9 (indicating more frequent loneliness). Social isolation outcomes are important for understanding social cohesion locally.

Source: From 2025/26 - Community and Engagement Survey - GOV.UK; Previous years - Community Life Survey - GOV.UK, annual data tables, table A3c

7.25.9 Percentage of people who have engaged in volunteering recently – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of people reporting that they have done any kind of volunteering at least once in the last 12 months. This captures both formal volunteering (giving unpaid help through clubs, groups or organisations) and informal volunteering (giving unpaid help to someone who is not a relative, such as babysitting or helping with household tasks). High rates of volunteering suggest an engaged and active civil society, which is an indicator of a healthy community.

Source: From 2025/26 - Community and Engagement Survey - GOV.UK; Previous years - Community Life Survey - GOV.UK, annual data tables, table C1c(f)

7.25.10 Crime in your neighbourhood – outcome metric placeholder:

Following consultation, this Framework is expected to include metric(s) that take account of the criminality affecting our communities and the important role Local Authorities play in keeping people safe, given their responsibilities under the Serious Violence Duty and through their statutory role in leading Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs).

[Source: data not yet available]

7.25.11 Rate of physical visits of people into library premises per population – output metric placeholder:

This metric is in development by DCMS, using data on physical visitors to library sites (both with and without co-location) from data collected by Arts Council England. Public libraries play a vital role as community hubs across the country, with many hosting a wide variety of community activities and events. The scope of the physical visits metric is public libraries in England including those that are co-located with or host other services, such as community centres and youth hubs etc.

[Source: data not yet available]

7.25.12 Rate of fly-tipping enforcement actions per incident – output metric:

This metric captures the total number of enforcement actions carried out by local authorities, per incident of fly-tipping. It is calculated by subtracting the number of investigation actions from the number of total enforcement actions, and then dividing this figure by the total number of incidents. Investigation actions have been removed to ensure the metric reflects enforcement outcomes. By standardising the enforcement actions per incident, the metric is able to partially account for prevention activity – as local authorities with higher levels of effective prevention activity will likely have a smaller number of incidents as the denominator value.

Enforcement powers for fly-tipping are provided by law, with clear requirements on how and when they can be exercised, with reporting guidance and training available for local authorities. Government wants to see enforcement action at the centre of local efforts to tackle fly-tipping and further guidance on fly-tipping enforcement will be published in due course. Use of any relevant power (except general investigation) will contribute to the numerator equally – this reflects that the appropriate enforcement response will depend on the circumstances. For example, a fixed penalty notice or warning might be suitable for first time offenders or minor incidents, with prosecution more suitable for repeat offenders or commercially motivated operators.

[Source: Fly-tipping statistics for England - GOV.UK]

7.25.13 Access to green and blue spaces – output metric placeholder:

This metric is in development, with the intention that it will be ready for publication within the digital tool. Access to green and blue spaces can be influential in resident’s satisfaction with their local area and has been shown to have other benefits such as to physical and mental health. Green spaces are areas such as parks, woodland, playing fields and nature reserves and blue spaces are outdoor environments that prominently feature water, such as rivers, lakes and the sea.

[Source: data not yet available]

Environment, circular economy and climate change

7.26 The metrics in the environment, circular economy and climate change priority outcome have been selected to cover the main areas of environmental impact. The three waste metrics cover a key area of statutory responsibility for local authorities, and are further supported by the fly tipping metric in the neighbourhoods priority outcome. Many local authorities play a role in flood protection as their areas lead local flood authority. Biodiversity and PM2.5 emissions are not exclusively within local authority control, but they can influence both through how they conduct their own operations, such as by setting an example, or as a by-product of measures within their control including granting planning permission and traffic control measures.

7.27 Local government plays a key role in mitigating and adapting to climate change as place leaders and many local authorities are innovative and trailblazing in taking approaches to each. A key area for future development will be to make clearer the outcomes relating to the work local authorities do in addressing climate change and progressing towards Net Zero goals; Government is also exploring options for suitable data to capture these outcomes consistently and fairly, and a placeholder has been included to signal this.

7.27.1 Deaths attributable to particulate air pollution (particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter [PM2.5]) – outcome metric:

This metric measures the number of deaths in adults attributable to long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in outdoor air. Air quality is a major determinant of public health. PM2.5 exposure is linked to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and premature deaths. The metric is calculated by DSHC through their Fingertips public health data tool. Decisions made by local authorities on transport, planning and emission control can influence air quality, making this metric a key indicator of their impact on public health.
[Source: Fingertips | Department of Health and Social Care

7.27.2 Percentage of total household waste sent for recycling, compost and reuse – outcome metric:

This metric shows the share of household waste that is diverted from disposal by incineration or landfill and is instead sent for recycling, composting, or reuse. It covers all household waste collected by local authorities, including kerbside collections and household waste recycling centres. Increases in recycling rates indicate progress toward sustainability targets, compliance with waste regulations, and reduced environmental impact.

[Source: Local authority collected waste management - annual results - GOV.UK]

7.27.3 Percentage of total household waste that is collected separately as food waste – outcome metric:

This metric tracks the percentage of total household waste collected separately as food waste. Policy around Simpler Recycling means that there is particular interest in looking at food waste separately to other metrics. Separate food waste collection is a key requirement under the Simpler Recycling policy, which aims to reduce contamination and improve recycling efficiency. Data is submitted quarterly via WasteDataFlow and financial year figures are published annually by Defra. This metric is only reported for those local authorities who collect food waste separately from garden waste. Authorities who do not do this are flagged as “N/A” in the data; this does not mean the local authority is not delivering effective and compliant food waste collections as per Simpler Recycling regulations. It means that the local authority collects food waste and garden waste together (comingled), which is allowed under Simpler Recycling. Data from comingled collections is not comparable with the data underpinning the “separate food waste” metric as garden waste inclusion would skew the tonnage.

[Source: WasteDataFlow - Local Authority waste management - data.gov.uk]

7.27.4 Residual household waste per household – outcome metric:

This metric tracks the amount of residual waste produced per household, including black bin or sack collections, material deposited at household waste recycling centres, street sweepings, bulky items and other non-recyclable materials. It includes contaminated material rejected from recycling streams. This waste is mutually exclusive to waste that is sent for recycling, composting or reuse. The metric is calculated as total residual household waste tonnage divided by the number of households in the local authority area. Data is submitted quarterly via WasteDataFlow and financial year figures are published annually by Defra.

[Source: Local authority collected waste management - annual results - GOV.UK]

7.27.5 Flood resilience – outcome metric placeholder:

This metric is in development. It would assess local flood risk management outcomes. Lead Local Flood Authorities (unitary and county councils) hold statutory responsibilities for managing local flood risk under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. They work collaboratively with partners such as the Environment Agency. For example, through strategic plans to manage flood risk which improve local resilience, understanding of local risk and provide a forum to convene local partners, business, individuals and flood action groups.

Defra are exploring setting a national long-term target for flood risk management, in line with prior recommendations made by the National Audit Office and National Infrastructure Service and Transformation Authority. A national target would use the best available information from the Environment Agency derived from the new national flood risk assessment. The long-term target should align with this outcome metric.

[Source: data not yet available]

7.27.6 Percentage of local sites in positive conservation management – output metric:

This metric shows the percentage of local sites where positive conservation management is being implemented, or has been in the last 5 years. Local sites are sites designated locally for their substantive nature conservation importance, either wildlife or geology. These sites are being managed so as to preserve their nature conservation interest. The metric is a key indicator of local delivery for nature recovery. These sites represent ecologically valuable habitats and information on how they are being managed is crucial for helping to understand progress towards our statutory biodiversity targets and other commitments like protecting 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030 (30by30). These sites will be highlighted in Local Nature Recovery Strategies as important starting points for nature recovery, helping to guide where incentives like Biodiversity Net Gain can deliver the greatest benefits.

[Source: Single Data List - local sites in positive conservation management - GOV.UK]

7.27.7 Climate change mitigation – outcome metric placeholder

Government is exploring suitable data to capture local authority contribution towards climate change mitigation and adaptation available at a local authority geography.

[Source: data not yet available]

Transport and local infrastructure

7.28 The selected metrics measure the progress of local authorities in ensuring communities are better connected by healthier, safer, and greener transport that meets the needs of all users and drives growth. The metrics cover public transport connectivity; bus network coverage; usage of buses and active travel; road condition and casualties; and access to electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

7.29 The Framework draws on metrics in the Local Transport Outcomes Framework that will form part of a new local transport accountability framework from April 2026.

7.29.1 Connectivity score for public transport to key services (DfT Connectivity Tool) – outcome metric:

Better connected places help communities thrive. This metric measures how well people in a local authority area can access key destinations – education, leisure and community, health, shopping, residential and workplaces – by walking, cycling or public transport. It is underpinned by data from the Department for Transport’s Connectivity Tool.

[Source: Connectivity Tool - GOV.UK]

7.29.2 Passenger journeys on local bus services per head by local authority (including disaggregation by concessionary pass journeys) outcome metric:

Buses are the most used form of public transport in England – there were 3.6 billion passenger journeys made in the year ending March 2024. Effective bus networks keep people connected, reduce social isolation and improve living standards. Concessionary travel is also key for enabling affordable mobility for elderly and disabled people. This is a set of two metrics. The first is the average number of bus journeys made per resident in a local authority area. The second focuses only on concessionary pass journeys, a cohort within the first metric.

[Source: Bus statistics data tables - GOV.UK]

7.29.3 Percentage of adults who engaged in active travel at least twice in the last 28 days – outcome metric:

Investment in active travel supports economic growth, health, and net zero missions by helping to revitalise high streets; enabling people to live longer, healthier lives; and helping to reduce transport emissions. This metric measures the proportion of the adult population engaging in active travel.

[Source: Active Lives Results]

7.29.4 Killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle miles – outcome metric:

This metric tracks the number of people killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle miles travelled in a local authority area.

[Source: Road safety statistics: data tables - GOV.UK]

7.29.5 Percentage of local authority motorways and A roads that should be considered for maintenance, split by road type (motorways and A roads; B and C roads; unclassified roads) – outcome metrics:

Well maintained roads are essential for safety, accessibility and reducing congestion. This metric measures the percentage of local authority managed roads where maintenance should be considered. This metric is broken down by A roads and motorways, B and C roads, and unclassified roads.

[Source: Road condition statistics: data tables (RDC) - GOV.UK]

7.29.6 Public EVSEs (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment per 100,000 population – output metric:

To support the transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030  around 300,000 public Electric Vehicle charge points will be needed. This metric measures the number of publicly accessible electric vehicle charge points per 100,000 of the population in a local authority area.

[Source: Electric vehicle public charging infrastructure statistics: January 2025 - GOV.UK]

7.29.7 Percentage change in service mileage year on year – output metric:

Effective bus networks keep people connected, reduce social isolation and improve living standards. This metric measures whether bus services are expanding or falling each year.

[Source: Bus statistics data tables - GOV.UK]

Economic prosperity and regeneration (contextual)

7.30 The metrics selected for this priority outcome are designed to reflect both the scale of the challenges facing local authorities and the importance of local growth in driving national progress. We recognise that local authorities often have limited direct influence over these outcomes, so the metrics are included primarily to provide valuable context rather than to imply sole accountability. The metrics span three key areas: people and skills, supporting businesses, and creating prosperity and reducing poverty. Local authorities play an important role in supporting people in financial crisis, including where they are dependent on emergency food parcels, for example with the Crisis and Resilience Fund, and the best way to capture this in the Framework is being explored.

7.30.1 18-24 year olds in full-time education or employment – outcome metric:

These figures reflect the transitional nature of this age group, with many moving between education, training, and early career roles. Understanding these patterns is essential for designing policies and services that support young people in accessing opportunities and contributing to local and national growth.

[Source: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ - found under the annual population survey, table T06, ‘economic activity from the age of 18’]

7.30.2 Employment for 16-64 year olds – outcome metric:

The employment rate for people aged 16 to 64 is a key indicator used by the Office for National Statistics to measure labour market participation. It represents the proportion of people in this age group who are in paid work or who have a job they are temporarily away from. This metric helps to assess the overall health of the labour market and the extent to which the working-age population is engaged in economic activity.

[Source: ONS - Employment rate (aged 16-64)]

7.30.3 Skills disparity metric - Percentage of working-age population with qualifications at Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) Level 4 or above – outcome metric:

This metric shows the percentage of the population aged 16-64 with qualifications at RQF Level 4 or above, which includes higher technical qualifications, foundation degrees, and bachelor’s degrees or higher. Skills and qualifications are fundamental to individual economic opportunity and social mobility, affecting employment prospects, earning potential and career progression. Disparities in qualification levels between areas can indicate inequalities in access to education and training opportunities, which may contribute to broader differences in economic outcomes and wellbeing across communities.

[Source: Nomis - Official Census and Labour Market Statistics, Annual Population Survey]

7.30.4 Births of new enterprises – output metric:

The number of new business births is a key indicator used to assess entrepreneurial activity and economic dynamism. It represents the count of newly registered enterprises within a given period, typically defined as businesses that have started trading and are registered for VAT and/or PAYE. Tracking enterprise births provides insight into the responsiveness of the economy to changing market conditions and policy interventions.

[Source: Business demography, UK - Office for National Statistics]

7.30.5 Deaths of enterprises – output metric:

The number of business deaths is a key indicator to monitor the stability and resilience of the economy. It refers to enterprises that have ceased trading and are no longer registered for VAT and/or PAYE. This metric helps to assess the challenges faced by businesses, the sustainability of economic activity, and the effectiveness of support mechanisms for business continuity and growth.

[Source: Business demography, UK - Office for National Statistics]

7.30.6 Business survival rate – output metric:

Business survival rate is a key indicator of economic resilience and sustainability. It measures the proportion of newly established enterprises that continue to operate for a given number of years after their initial registration.

[Source: Business demography, UK - Office for National Statistics]

7.30.7 Business density – output metric:

Business density gives the concentration of active enterprises within a geographic area. This metric helps to assess the vibrancy and saturation of the local economy, the availability of goods and services, and the potential for employment and innovation. The metric will be calculated using the number of active businesses and the estimated population within a local authority using ONS sources.

[Source: Business demography, UK - Office for National Statistics]

7.30.8 Number of high growth enterprises – output metric:

High growth enterprises are a key indicator of economic dynamism and productivity potential. Defined by the Office for National Statistics as businesses that achieve average annual growth greater than 20% over a three-year period in terms of employment or turnover, these firms play a critical role in driving innovation, job creation, and competitiveness.

[Source: Business demography, UK - Office for National Statistics]

7.30.9 Gross value added per hour worked – output metric:

Gross value added (GVA) per hour worked is a key indicator of labour productivity and economic efficiency. It measures the value of goods and services produced in the economy relative to the total hours worked by the labour force. This metric helps to assess how effectively labour inputs are being converted into economic output.

[Source: Gross Value Added (GVA) - Office for National Statistics]

7.30.10 Gross median weekly pay – output metric:

Gross median weekly pay is a key indicator of earnings and income levels across the workforce. It represents the middle point in the distribution of gross weekly earnings for employees, meaning half earn more and half earn less.

[Source: Earnings and hours worked, place of residence by local authority: ASHE Table 8 - Office for National Statistics]

7.30.11 Gross disposable household income – output metric:

Gross Disposable Household Income (GDHI) is a key indicator of the financial resources available to households after taxes and social contributions have been deducted, and after benefits have been added. It reflects the amount households have available for spending or saving and is used to assess living standards, economic wellbeing, and regional disparities in income.

[Source: Regional gross disposable household income: local authorities - Office for National Statistics]

7.30.12 Percentage of premises with gigabit-capable broadband coverage – output metric:

This metric shows the percentage of premises that have coverage from a gigabit-capable broadband service (download speeds of 1,000 Mbps or more). Access to high-speed broadband is essential for digital inclusion, enabling residents to access online services, education, employment opportunities and participate fully in the digital economy. Reliable, fast connectivity supports economic growth, remote working and ensures communities can benefit from digital innovations in public services and commerce.

Source: Connected Nations 2025

7.30.13 Percentage of area with outdoor 5G coverage from at least one provider – output metric:

This metric shows the percentage of a local authority’s geographic area which has outdoor 5G coverage from at least one mobile provider, calculated using 100m by 100m area grids. 5G connectivity represents the next generation of mobile technology, providing faster speeds, lower latency and greater capacity than previous networks. This infrastructure is crucial for supporting digital innovation, improving mobile connectivity for residents and businesses.

Source: Connected Nations 2025

7.30.14 Indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) average score – outcome metric:

Indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) average score

The English indices of deprivation measure relative deprivation in England, it measures deprivation across 7 domains (income, employment, education, skills and training, health and disability, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment).

[Source: English indices of deprivation 2025 - GOV.UK]

7.30.15 Income deprivation affecting children index (IDACI) – outcome metric:

The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) is a supplementary index created as a subset of the income deprivation domain within the indices of multiple deprivation (IMD).

[Source: English indices of deprivation 2025 - GOV.UK]

7.30.16 Income deprivation affecting older people index (IDAOPI) – outcome metric:

The Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) is a supplementary index created as a subset of the income deprivation domain within the indices of multiple deprivation (IMD).

[Source: English indices of deprivation 2025 - GOV.UK]

Child poverty (contextual)

7.31 Child poverty is a key priority of this government. This priority outcome is contextual because child poverty as measured by household income is largely driven by external factors outside of the local authorities’ control. However, local authorities play a crucial role in providing services that improve the lives of children growing up in poverty and their life chances. This outcome area will be used alongside other outcome areas to contribute to a holistic picture of the lives of children across the country.

7.31.1 Children in low-income families – outcome metric:

The children in low-income families (CiLIF) metric provides information on the number and proportion of children living in Relative low income Before Housing Costs.

[Source: children in low income families: local area statistics, Department of Work and Pensions]

8. Annex: incorporating sector feedback

8.1 The summer engagement resulted in some common themes relating to the framework’s design, the metrics within it, how it will be used, the timing of its publication and the digital products that will be produced. Below are examples of how sector feedback has been incorporated into the framework.

8.2 Feedback on framework design

Sector feedback on framework design	Actions taken/changes made
The framework should show the important contribution local authorities make to delivering national priorities.	The Framework includes priority outcomes that reflect some of the top national priorities, including supporting house building and fostering economic growth. Housing supply has been split out as a separate priority outcome to further strengthen the emphasis on its importance, and the key role local authorities play in supporting housebuilding.
The framework should have a greater focus on prevention.	By focusing on outcomes, the framework should incentivise a focus on prevention as a means of outcome improvement. Additional metrics focused on prevention have been considered following feedback even though these tend to be output, or even input, variables. However, in most cases high quality data is more readily available for local authority activities that deal with acute pressures, meaning it was not possible to expand prevention-focussed metrics in some cases. As data availability and quality improves additional prevention-focussed metrics can be considered as the Framework is updated in the future. One example of a prevention-focused metric is ‘Sexual health: Proportion of people with PrEP need initiated or continuing PrEP’. The PrEP drug is taken by HIV-negative individuals before they have sex to stop them acquiring HIV, it is aligned with the government’s ambition to end new HIV transmissions in England by 2030.
The framework should support local authorities in bringing local partners together to support delivery of national outcomes.	The Framework has been renamed to Local Outcomes Framework (previously called the Local Government Outcomes Framework) to better reflect that outcomes are the product of the work of many local partners as well as wider factors. The Framework is intended to become a key enabling device for multi-agency, cross-government cooperative working, as well as a basis for understanding local performance.
The framework should support understanding of interdependencies between outcome areas, and metrics should be included in multiple priority outcome areas where relevant.	The Framework has been designed to enable users to look across outcome areas, rather than viewing priority outcomes in isolation. Many of the metrics are relevant to other outcome areas. Options are being explored for the digital tool to allow users to select the metrics they would like to look at together. Where it is appropriate, metrics have been duplicated across multiple relevant outcome areas, such as ‘Child health: Percentage achieving good level of development at 2-2.5 year review’, which appears in both the best start in life and the health and wellbeing priority outcome areas.
Data in the multiple disadvantage outcome is incomplete and the outcome should capture the importance of partnership working for this cohort.	A tailored approach has been taken to the multiple disadvantage outcome in recognition of the importance of partnership working and the lack of data for this high-risk cohort. Alongside service-specific metrics, ‘multiple disadvantage goals’ have been included which outline the behaviours and actions government would like local partners to champion. The ambition is for these to be turned into quantitative measures in the future. Additionally, multiple disadvantage-service specific metrics have been repeated in related priority outcome areas to combat the risk of creating siloes in delivery and to make sure this cohort is prioritised within wider delivery on Health and Wellbeing and Homelessness and Rough Sleeping. The multiple disadvantage outcome will not be used as an accountability tool yet as additional data development is needed before this is possible. Service-specific metrics will be tracked within the context of the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping and Health and Wellbeing outcome areas.

Table 3 Summary of sector feedback and resulting actions relating to framework design.

8.3 Feedback on metric selection

Sector feedback on metrics	Actions taken/changes made
Several areas in the framework were perceived as having gaps, with a request that new metrics be added to address this. Where data is not yet available, but the area is of importance, additional placeholders should be added to signal this.	Metrics and placeholders have been added in numerous places in response to feedback. Some examples are: Suicide rate as an outcome metric as a way of addressing the absence of a metric measuring mental health. A placeholder metric for early help services in the keeping children safe and family security outcome area. Feedback highlighted the essential role these services play, and the placeholder is being used to indicate its importance while we wait for appropriate data to become available.
For some metrics, there were concerns relating to data quality, data timeliness, or whether they are valid proxies for what they are intended to measure.	Metrics have been added, amended, and removed based on feedback. Some examples are: A metric on residual household waste per head has been added to supplement the metric on percentage of household waste sent for recycling. This was in response to concerns that an increased proportion of recycling should only be considered positive if does not reflect or conceal a rise in overall waste. A metric on STI testing rate was added in response to feedback that the HIV testing rate was too narrow and did not reflect the wider Sexual Health Services. The metric on placement types for children looked after was expanded to also capture the number of children living in supported accommodation, as feedback indicated this was important to reflecting the wider picture, particularly for local authorities with high numbers of older children in care. The metrics in the economic prosperity and regeneration priority outcome were expanded based on feedback.
Clarity was requested around how certain metrics were calculated, or specifically which cohorts/criteria they included.	Section 7 of this publication provides detailed descriptions of each metric, the rationale for inclusion, and a link to the source data where additional methodological information can be found.
There were concerns that outcomes versus outputs were not always well differentiated, highlighting a need to emphasise outcomes as the ultimate goal.	The Framework has been designed to focus on outcomes, however a limited number of outputs and enablers have been included under priority outcomes to isolate local authority contributions towards outcome delivery or to act as a proxy where a headline outcome is difficult to measure (e.g. through a lack of suitable outcome data). We are exploring ways to distinguish between outcome and output variables in the development of the digital tool. A definition of outcome and output metrics in the Framework has been provided at para 7.7 in this document.

8.4 Feedback on use of the Framework

Sector feedback on framework use	Actions taken/changes made
Clarity sought on how the framework will be used for accountability and performance measurement, and what government will do in response to outcome performance, such as whether there will be any funding implications.	Principles to guide use of the Framework to improve outcomes for local citizens have been published on gov.uk. A summary of the principles for use of the framework can be found in section 3 of this publication.
Local authorities want to use the framework for baselining performance, benchmarking and supporting best practice, peer learning and self-improvement. With this in mind, they raised concerns about the influence of external factors and local partners on outcomes and want transparency on how contextual factors and local characteristics will be considered when interpreting outcomes and performance.	To enable useful comparisons, each local authority’s outcomes will be presented alongside those of its ‘statistical neighbours’ to allow comparison to areas that are most similar in terms of their context and challenges. Further information on this model can be found here. The Framework has been renamed to the Local Outcomes Framework (previously called the Local Government Outcomes Framework) to better reflect that outcomes are the product of the work of many local partners as well as wider factors.
Clarity wanted on how the framework aligns with other national frameworks, inspectorate, policies and strategies.	The Framework draws on metrics from existing outcomes frameworks, for example, the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework, and from other existing sources. The Framework is not intended to supersede any of the existing outcomes frameworks but to bring all of these areas together in one place at a higher level to enable consideration of holistic performance.
Clarity on how the framework will apply to different tiers of local government and will be updated to reflect local government reorganisation.	In two-tier local authority areas, outcomes will be reported at the level of the authority responsible for delivering the relevant service. For instance, data on household waste and recycling will be presented at the district authority level, while social care outcomes will be shown at the county council level. For single tier local authorities, all outcomes will be presented where data is available. As local government reorganisation will reshape the structure of many authorities in the coming years, we are exploring ways to display a logical link to newly formed unitary authorities wherever possible. This will enable changes in outcomes over time to remain traceable, even as administrative boundaries evolve.
Desire for transparency on how government will interpret and display outcome delivery and performance, highlighting the need to avoid creation of additional reporting burdens, targets or league tables.	Government recognises that local authorities have unique circumstances, and the Framework has been designed to account for this within the interpretation and display of outcomes. The use of the statistical neighbours model will allow comparison between areas that are most similar in terms of their context and challenges, making it more meaningful and useful than a league table style ranking of all local authorities. Metrics have been drawn from existing data sources so as not to create new data collection requirements. The Framework will not be used to set targets by itself, but departments may use the Framework as part of the oversight and assurance for their policy areas. Full details of the principles of use for the Framework can be found on gov.uk

8.5 Feedback on timings and the digital product

Table 5 Summary of sector feedback and resulting actions relating to framework use.

Sector feedback on timings and digital product	Actions taken/changes made
Desire for the digital tool to enable users to see the metrics all in one place, to aid in understanding progress towards top national outcomes and investigating interactions between metrics across different outcome areas.	A digital product is being developed and a way to enable metrics from across different priority outcome areas to be viewed together is being explored.
Desire for continued involvement of the sector in shaping and testing the digital product(s) and to help avoid ‘league table’ narratives.	User research is underway to test an early prototype of the digital tool with local authority users. Local government will be able to provide feedback on the methodology to identify statistical neighbours for local authorities.
The publication of the framework and the digital products should account for the pre-election period for local elections.	The digital product will not be launched during the pre-election period.

Table 6 Summary of sector feedback and resulting actions relating to timings and digital products.