Official Statistics

Adult social care activity report 2024 to 2025: data quality statement

Published 23 October 2025

Applies to England

Introduction

This document describes the quality of statistics published in the activity report in October 2025 against the principles in the Code of Practice for Statistics. It covers the data and methods used to create the statistics with a particular focus on comparisons to measures from the previous activity data set, the short and long term (SALT) collection, last published in the 2023 to 2024 adult social care activity and finance report.

This document includes analysis using CLD returns also for the same year, when there was a period of ‘dual running’ with both sets of data being collected. CLD became mandatory for local authorities to return in 2023 to 2024 and, while it was not the first year CLD was ever collected nationally, we do observe that the data published for the year 2024 to 2025 is of higher quality in a number of areas.

Quarterly CLD statistics have been published by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) since March 2024 as part of the Monthly statistics for adult social care (England).

The statistics in the activity report have been produced using adult social care client level data (CLD), a quarterly event-level data collection from all 153 councils with adult social services responsibilities (CASSRs). CASSRs will be referred to as local authorities throughout this report.

Statistics have been developed to closely match the measures previously collected through SALT, with input from the CLD local authority reference group, made up of a representative group of analysts who are consulted on decisions regarding the CLD collection and its uses. However, moving from aggregated, year-end SALT reporting to central calculation of measures from CLD event records has required new methods and some changes to definitions.

The activity report is classified as official statistics in development because the methods are newly developed and the resulting statistics are published for the first time in the activity report. The statistics in the activity report are also designed to align with outcome statistics published as part of the adult social care outcomes framework (ASCOF). Details can be found in the ‘Methodology for deriving ASCOF measures from CLD’ document in the ‘Using the data’ section of the AGEM CLD information pages for local authorities.

Adult social care client level data collection

The CLD collection is the first national collection of social care records, covering requests for support, assessments, reviews and services provided or arranged by local authorities as part of their duties under the Care Act 2014. CLD is administrative data, drawn from records held on local authorities’ case management systems for their own operational purposes.

The aim of the new CLD collection is to improve knowledge about the care and support provided or arranged by local authorities for adults. From 1 April 2024, CLD replaced the existing SALT data collection as the primary source of information about local authority adult social care activity. The transition from annual aggregate to quarterly client level returns also enables more timely and flexible analysis of adult social care data and of linking it at person level to health or other data that includes NHS numbers, enabling much broader analysis.

The CLD project was developed from a data linkage pilot in North West England that ran between 2015 and 2017. The pilot involved local authorities and clinical commissioning groups in partnership with NHS Arden and Greater East Midlands Commissioning Support Unit (AGEM CSU) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The national voluntary collection was established in 2018 and the CLD data specification was developed by DHSC in consultation with the CLD local authority reference group of analysts representing all regions. The ‘CLD data specification’ is in the ‘ASC CLD specification’ section of the AGEM CLD information pages for local authorities.

In line with directions given by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, CLD became mandatory from 1 April 2023 and local authorities have been required to submit records to NHS England on a quarterly basis since July 2023. The national data collection is operated by AGEM CSU, acting as a regional data processor for NHS England.

DHSC continues to work with partners in AGEM CSU and NHS England to deliver CLD centrally, engaging with local authorities through the CLD reference group, Local Government Association (LGA) and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS). CLD is ultimately overseen by the Data and Outcomes Board, as are all adult social care local authority data collections. See contact information for the Adult Social Care - Data Outcomes Board in annex B of the ‘The Single Data List: a guide’ on the Single Data List page.

Further details about the collection, can be found on the AGEM CLD information pages for local authorities. The following documents on the AGEM page are referenced in this data quality statement:

• in the ‘ASC CLD specification’ tab:
  • CLD collection guidance
  • CLD data specification
• in the ‘Submitting ASC CLD Data’ tab:
  • Submission timetable
• in the ‘Using the data’ tab:
  • ​Methodology for deriving ASCOF measures from CLD

Client level data coverage

Through CLD, local authorities provide individual records of activity undertaken to support adults and their unpaid carers as part of their duties under the Care Act 2014. It includes most local authority activity under part 1 of the Care Act to provide information, advice and support to adults (18 and older) and their unpaid carers, except for safeguarding. It excludes:

• self-funders who also arrange their care independently, meaning they do not request or take up any offer of support planning or care management (for example, regular reviews) offered by the local authority. Self-funders are people who pay the full cost of the care they receive
• children’s social care activity
• deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments and activity covered by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (and amendments to it)
• assessments and activity under the Mental Health Act 1983
• housing and homelessness services provided under the relevant legislation:
  • Housing Act 1996
  • Homelessness Act 2002
  • Homelessness Reduction Act 2017
  • Domestic Abuse Act 2021
• services that are wholly funded by the NHS under section 256 of the 2006 NHS Act (formerly section 28(a)). This includes arrangements put in place by the local authority on behalf of the NHS and/or where the costs are recharged to the NHS

Note on self-funders: CLD should include support provided to people who do take up the offer of support planning or care management from the local authority under section 18(3) of the Care Act 2014, referred to in the previous SALT activity data collection as ‘full cost clients’. Self-funders could also be included in statistics on requests or non-chargeable short-term support, for example reablement.

Local authorities have informed us of gaps in coverage for specific areas of activity that should be included in CLD. These typically arise where individual records are not held on their local case management systems and are not easily retrievable from external systems or partners.

There are known gaps in coverage of:

• unpaid carer support, especially where support is commissioned externally and delivered through block contracts. Statistics on unpaid carer support have been excluded from this year’s activity report due to incomplete coverage
• jointly funded reablement services provided by external NHS partners, where data sharing arrangements are yet to be established

CLD is based on administrative data from local authority case management systems, which are primarily designed for service delivery. As such, while the data collection is intended to collect gender, and has a gender field (which is defined in the CLD collection guidance as ‘the gender the individual considers themselves to be’ which gives ‘male’, ‘female’ and ‘other’ options), recording practices for sex and gender can vary across councils.

Using client level data

CLD is still a relatively new collection of administrative data, with expected data quality issues and other complexities. It is the first national collection of individual records in adult social care and has also involved a shift from year-end reporting to quarterly submission of records extracted from live case management systems. Consequently, it has involved a change in approach to data collection and quality assurance.

Through engagement with local authorities, DHSC is aware of implementation challenges and of variation in how services are organised and recorded locally. In line with the Office for Statistics Regulation’s standard for administrative data, we work with local authorities to develop and improve the CLD collection guidance and to improve consistency in interpretation and data quality.

DHSC works with local authorities through the CLD reference group, LGA and ADASS to understand how local authorities’ operational and commissioning practices differ. This work aims to produce insights into the common activities carried out by local authorities and to develop methods that generate comparable figures. When developing statistics for publication, DHSC assesses the data against the core dimensions of data quality set out in the government’s data quality framework and against the dimensions of quality set out by the Government Statistical Service for statistical outputs.

LGA and the CLD local authority reference group have been consulted in the development of these published statistics. Local authorities have been able to view summaries of their activity data from CLD since November 2023 through the DHSC CLD dashboard and have been able to view their ASCOF figures for 2024 to 2025, although not all of the statistics published in this activity report.

To find out more about how DHSC uses CLD, see:

• DHSC’s transparency statement for local authorities, which explains DHSC’s approach to using the data (published as annex D to the Care data matters publication)
• the CLD privacy notice

Comparability and coherence of statistics

While SALT collected annual aggregated activity data, CLD involves the collection of individual event records quarterly that are processed and aggregated centrally. Statistics in this activity report were designed to align with SALT measures published in the 2023 to 2024 activity and finance report.

However, statistics may differ due to:

• incomplete CLD submissions - as outlined in the ‘Client level data coverage’ section above, some local authorities have not submitted all relevant person level records of activity and submissions may only partially cover certain services or events such as short-term reablement support that is jointly NHS-funded or delivered
• missing or invalid data in CLD fields - many of these statistics rely on particular data fields being complete and accurate. If required fields (such as event dates or client type) are incomplete or incorrect, it may not be possible to correctly identify, deduplicate and link records for inclusion in the statistics. This is summarised in the ‘Client level data quality’ section below, but issues directly affecting comparability are outlined for each metric in this section
• changes in definitions - the shift from retrospective SALT reporting to centrally calculated CLD-based statistics has required some changes in definitions. DHSC has worked with local authority analysts and users to balance comparability with the adoption of consistent, pragmatic methods. In some cases, definitions intentionally diverge from SALT to improve the accuracy, coherence and usefulness of the statistics. See the accompanying methodology on the Adult social care activity report, England: 2024 to 2025 page for full details.

In addition, variation in local authority operational and recording practices affect comparability. While SALT provided guidance for calculating measures locally, some aspects were open to interpretation. This flexibility allowed authorities to adapt definitions to local processes but also introduced inconsistencies, making it harder to compare figures between some local authorities. For example, SALT did not specify a time frame for identifying sequels to events (‘what happened next’), whereas defined time frames have been adopted for each measure using CLD submissions. Although developed in consultation with the local authority reference group, applying these common rules to all CLD records is likely to differ from previous interpretations and processing rules applied to the information used to produce SALT data locally.

In this context, although the shift to CLD introduces greater transparency and consistency overall, the process of creating CLD returns from local authority systems also leads to potential inaccuracies and differences from SALT figures, including:

• loss of local context - the CLD data specification does not include all information that is available to local authorities to help understand and correctly categorise activity
• introduction of inaccuracies - when converting local case management system records to the CLD format, records may be altered where local definitions and systems do not match perfectly with the CLD data specification. There are also opportunities for additional errors to occur in this process

Requests for support (STS001)

Requests for support data is not comparable with historic data published from SALT. This is because of significant methodological changes that have been made to adapt methods to suit a live event-level data collection. For example, the method for identifying ‘new clients’, defined as those who did not receive long-term support in the previous 91 days (see the accompanying methodology on the Adult social care activity report, England: 2024 to 2025 page).

Furthermore, the change in the method of collection and reporting means that some local authorities will report fewer requests through CLD. Historically, request data collection and reporting through SALT differed between local authorities and made some local authority comparisons difficult. There is both over and underestimation of requests for social care in SALT and CLD, including:

• overestimation when contact records from case management systems are incorrectly counted as adult social care requests, especially when received centrally and non-social care contacts are hard to separate. This impacts both CLD and SALT and may affect the proportion of ‘no further action’ cases. The extent is unknown, although the impact of a change in case management system in one authority has been very large
• overestimation when there is incomplete deduplication of contact records corresponding to the same request for support. CLD data collection guidance states only one event record should be provided per request, with follow-ups excluded unless separation is difficult. Centrally, requests within 7 days of each other are treated as one event for requests for support (STS001). The extent of deduplication by local authorities for SALT reporting is unknown. In CLD, it reduces the counts by nearly 15% overall
• underestimation in CLD due to requirement for record-level reporting. Some requests and referrals - such as those from hospital discharge teams or prisons - may not be recorded as contacts on case management systems by all authorities. This is evident from CLD short-term support to maximise independence (ST-Max), where 29% of new ST-Max episodes had no prior request record, although one was expected. For SALT reporting of requests for support (STS001), some authorities have said that a new request would historically have been inferred in these cases

One example of how CLD data processing affects figures: nearly 9,500 request records were submitted by one local authority for 2024 to 2025. After grouping records with event dates within 7 days, this reduced to 7,600 events, and further to 5,000 after excluding requests from people who received long-term support in the previous 91 days. It’s unclear what processing was historically applied in SALT to identify distinct events and new clients.

There are also differences between SALT and CLD in how the request route of access and sequels are identified. In CLD, the route of access is missing in some records and can also vary across multiple records apparently relating to the same request, whereas in SALT it was determined case-by-case by local analysts and collated before reporting. For sequels in SALT, local analysts considered a person’s full care journey, whereas standard hierarchies are applied centrally to live event records from CLD. This shift brings greater consistency and transparency in processing, but there is also a loss of local context and additional information that could historically have been used to produce accurate statistics.

In CLD, local authorities are encouraged to provide individual records of short-term, preventative and ongoing low-level support such as equipment and telecare, but there is currently variable coverage of these types of support. It is also not a separate value in the defined list for the CLD event outcome field, but it was previously a SALT sequel. In the activity statistics, we have included ongoing low-level support as a sequel, but we are aware that some request sequels which would have been classified as ongoing low-level support in SALT may now be classified as a no further action (NFA), such as ‘NFA: outcome stated and not found’ because this data has not been reported in CLD.

Figure 1 compares CLD and SALT requests by local authority in 2023 to 2024. Of the 151 local authorities that have data from both CLD and SALT:

• 93 data points (in black) are close to the line of agreement
• 37 show the CLD count of requests are more than 20% lower than their SALT counts (in orange below the line)
• 21 are more than 20% higher (in green above the line)

Figure 1: STS001 by local authority, SALT and CLD method, 2023 to 2024

Short-term support to maximise independence (STS002)

CLD figures for short-term support to maximise independence (ST-Max) are also not comparable to SALT. Figures are lower in some local authorities than those from SALT due to incomplete CLD submissions, especially for reablement services commissioned by the local authority but jointly funded or provided by the NHS. We have also been made aware of CLD data quality issues in some local authorities that affect this statistic, such as client status being incorrectly reported as unknown in one authority which has led to reablement records being incorrectly excluded. Annex A provides a list of local authorities that have reported errors or coverage issues in their CLD submissions and a description of how this has affected their ST-Max (STS002) figures.

The definition of a new client for this statistic has changed in CLD. Previously in SALT, ST-Max episodes were counted in STS002a only if they were captured in STS001 as new requests. But local authorities’ varied recording practices meant these were not always captured reliably as request records in CLD. The requirement for a prior new request has been removed:

• if a prior request exists, it is linked and the route of access is reported
• if a prior request does not exist, the ST-Max episode is included in the statistic, but the route of access is reported as ‘Prior request not found’

The sequel type ‘Short-term support: ongoing low level’ may exhibit the same data coverage issues as for STS001, mentioned above.

Figure 2 shows the comparison of CLD to SALT for ST-Max for new clients (STS002a) in 2023 to 2024. Of the 143 local authorities that have data from both CLD and SALT:

• 73 data points (in black) are close to the line of agreement
• 47 show the CLD count of ST-Max episodes are more than 20% lower than their SALT counts (in orange below the line)
• 23 are more than 20% higher (in green above the line)

Four local authorities did not submit any ST-Max records (Windsor and Maidenhead; Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole; Portsmouth; and the Isles of Scilly). These missing values have been imputed for the purpose of calculating national and regional totals using methods set out in the accompanying methodology on the Adult social care activity report, England: 2024 to 2025 page.

Figure 2: STS002a by local authority, SALT and CLD method, 2023 to 2024

Long-term support (LTS001)

CLD and SALT figures describing long-term support are comparable. Long-term support is consistently recorded on local authority case management systems, and the aggregate statistics rely on fewer fields and less complex processing rules to produce from CLD records.

Figure 3 shows that nearly all local authorities have CLD long-term statistics broadly in line with their SALT returns for 2023 to 2024. Of the 151 local authorities that have data from both CLD and SALT:

• 135 data points (in black) are close to the line of agreement
• 1 shows the CLD count of people receiving long-term support is more than 20% lower than their SALT count (in orange below the line)
• 15 are more than 20% higher (in green above the line)

Figure 3: LTS001a by local authority, SALT and CLD method, 2023 to 2024

Reviews of long-term care and support plans (LTS002)

Reviews of long-term care and support plans are a mandated element of local authority adult social care duties, but the way these activities are performed and recorded is not standardised. In some cases, this review activity is recorded on local systems under other categories such as assessments or updates which may not be attributed to review counts. There are also difficulties in making distinctions between planned and unplanned review activities. These are some of the reasons why there have been difficulties in accurately representing review activity - which affected both the previous SALT data collection and CLD.

Figure 4 shows that many local authorities have CLD review statistics broadly in line with their SALT returns for 2023 to 2024. Of the 151 local authorities that have data from both CLD and SALT:

• 107 data points (in black) are close to the line of agreement
• 23 (in orange) show the CLD count of reviews are more than 20% lower than their SALT counts (in orange below the line)
• 21 are more than 20% higher (in green above the line)

Figure 4: LTS002b by local authority, SALT and CLD method, 2023 to 2024

Unpaid carer support (LTS003)

As described in the ‘Client level data coverage’ section, there are several known quality issues relating to the collection of unpaid carer activity data.

Following our review of the July CLD submissions, the national number of unpaid carers recorded in CLD for 2024 to 2025 remains significantly below the figure reported through SALT 2023 to 2024. There is particularly poor coverage of universal services.

To avoid misinterpretation, this year’s official statistics will exclude CLD measures of local authority support for unpaid carers.

Accommodation and employment status of people receiving long-term support (LTS004)

Accommodation status and employment status statistics use the same cohort as LTS001a (clients accessing long-term support during the year) so local authority totals are very close to the SALT counterparts. Employment status and accommodation status were only collected in SALT for people who were aged 18 to 64 and receiving learning disability support. In CLD submissions, it is only mandatory for local authorities to report employment status for this same group, although employment status can be submitted voluntarily for other people receiving services. In this measure, employment status is presented for all people receiving long-term support so it includes both mandatory and voluntarily submitted data. Among the group receiving long-term learning disability support, 81% have a recorded employment status whereas, only 45% of people receiving long-term support for other primary support reasons have a known employment status.

Accommodation status is mandatory for all people in CLD because it is used in the ASCOF to measure whether people are living at home or with family. Among the group receiving long-term learning disability support, 96% had a known accommodation status whereas 88% of people receiving long-term support for other primary support reasons had a known accommodation status.

Figure 5 shows that nearly all local authorities have CLD employment status statistics broadly in line with their SALT returns for 2023 to 2024. Of the 150 local authorities that have data from both CLD and SALT:

• 143 data points (in black) are close to the line of agreement
• 1 shows the CLD count of employment status is more than 20% lower than their SALT count (in orange below the line)
• 6 are more than 20% higher (in green above the line)

Though not shown, accommodation status statistics follow a very similar relationship to employment status statistics, producing a nearly identical graph.

Figure 5: LTS004 people aged 18 to 64 with a learning disability and a known employment status by local authority, SALT and CLD method, 2023 to 2024

How the statistics can be used

The data can be used to gain insights into national activity and user characteristics. For long-term support, the data can be used to gain insights into national trends over time.

Caution is advised when using the data to compare local authorities, with reference to those noted as having reported poor coverage or other data quality issues listed in annex A.

Population rates can be used to compare groups across demographics and geography, however, the impact of data quality should be considered when drawing conclusions. Such rates have been presented in tables 12, 24 and 36 of the accompanying commentary on the Adult social care activity report, England: 2024 to 2025 page using 2024 to 2025 data and population data from the ONS mid-year population estimates, mid-year 2024.

CLD statistics are published as official statistics in development. As a new data collection, we expect there to be data quality issues and other complexities and these should be considered in any use of this data.

Number of adults aged 18 to 64 (ASCOF 2b) or aged 65 and over (ASCOF 2c) whose long-term support needs are met by admission to residential and nursing care homes

These 2 metrics were previously derived by combining figures from 4 separate SALT activity metrics, which reported on sequels to requests, sequels to short-term services and changes in care setting following a review. With the transition to CLD, the methodology for these ASCOF metrics has been simplified and new admissions are now identified by reviewing a person’s service history. Users are advised not to use the activity data published here to derive either of these 2 ASCOF metrics as was done previously with SALT activity data and rather, await the ASCOF publication which is expected in December 2025 or January 2026.

Client level data quality

This section measures the adult social care statistics against the dimensions of quality set out by the Government Statistical Service for statistical outputs. Any feedback on these statistics is welcome and can be sent to asc.statistics@dhsc.gov.uk.

Relevance

These statistics are published to provide an overview of local authority commissioned adult social care, providing transparency and insight. The publication aims to improve access to various data on adult social care by providing a comprehensive, easily accessible report and analysis.

Accuracy and reliability

The accuracy and reliability of the data is dependent on the quality of data submitted by local authorities. CLD returns are drawn from local authorities’ case management systems and should reflect the activity and outcomes at the time of the event with minimal additional processing required. Differences in local case management IT systems, processes and procedures influence how data is recorded and reported for the CLD collection. Even where the returns are an accurate description of local activity, differences in the way that activity is organised and recorded by local authorities needs to be appreciated and considered when attempting any comparative analysis or benchmarking.

As a new collection of administrative data, there will also be some unquantifiable data quality issues that could affect the accuracy and reliability of the published statistics.

DHSC has worked with the CLD local authority reference group to develop the CLD data specification and the CLD collection guidance. DHSC and AGEM CSU also provide tools to local authorities to assess and improve the quality of their data and ensure their data aligns with the specification. The emphasis is on correcting data quality issues at source, with quality assurance processes to support this.

Local authorities are asked to use the comments box (in the NHS England Data Landing Portal (DLP)) when they submit their data, to indicate where information is not currently available and describe plans to include it in future returns. Local authorities can also contact DHSC directly if further clarification of the guidance is needed. A list of local authorities that have reported data coverage or data quality issues through the comments box is included in annex A.

Several local authorities have notified us of data quality issues that they intend to correct in future submissions, so we expect data quality and coverage to improve over time for these local authorities. Improvements in data quality have already been seen each year since the national data CLD collection began.

Statistical disclosure control methods

Statistical disclosure control methods are applied to the CLD statistics in the monthly statistics publication to protect individuals from being identified. Counts below 5 are suppressed, indicated by [c] in the data tables (and CSV files), and all counts are rounded to the nearest 5 to prevent low counts being deduced.

Timeliness and punctuality

CLD is a quarterly collection, and the submission timetable mandates that data must be provided by the end of the month following the mandatory reporting period. 

Statistics in this activity report used data submitted for the financial year 2024 to 2025. This data was originally submitted in April 2025, and local authorities had the chance to resubmit data for publication up until 31 July 2025. The data extracted for this publication includes submissions made up to and on 6 August 2025.

Historically, the adult social care activity and finance report was an annual publication aligning with the annual SALT collection. With the shift to a quarterly collection, there is an opportunity and utility in publishing some of these statistics more frequently and DHSC will consult with users, local authorities and other stakeholders on a future publication timetable and its content in due course.

Accessibility and clarity

These statistics are available on GOV.UK, with all documents published in an accessible format. The statistical reports and this data quality statement are published in HTML and accompanying data tables are published in OpenDocument Spreadsheet (ODS) format. Additionally, the commentary is written with the aim of being clear and impartial.

The sections on how the statistics can be used are included to ensure users have sufficient information to use and interpret the data appropriately.

CLD statistics are published as official statistics in development. As such DHSC will continue to engage with users and stakeholders to ensure the statistics develop in line with user needs with the aim of them becoming official statistics in due course.

Quality assurance - overview

Working with AGEM CSU, DHSC provides accessible data quality reports to local authorities to help them improve the completeness and accuracy of their data as it relates to specific areas of analysis. We will continue to make clarifications to the CLD collection guidance where needed to support consistent returns.

CLD is submitted quarterly by local authorities with adult social care responsibilities. To produce their returns, local authorities extract data from their case management and financial systems, and in some cases collect data from partners (where activity is outsourced and appropriate data sharing agreements are in place). Local authorities carry out processing to compile their return as a CSV file, in line with the CLD data specification. An Excel data validation tool is provided to enable local authorities to check that their data conforms to the formatting of the specification and outputs basic aggregations to support sense checking.

The collection is operated by AGEM CSU in their capacity as NHS England’s North West Data Services for Commissioners Regional Office. Local authorities upload their returns to the DLP and AGEM CSU ingests the data into a central NHS England database. Automated data validation checks are carried out to evaluate whether the data meets expected data types and defined list values and NHS number tracing is performed. AGEM CSU then provides data validation reports back to local authorities, including optional NHS number tracing results.

Due to the variation in the way that activity is organised and recorded across local authorities, the CLD data specification will not always fit with local terminology or recording. Support is provided to local authorities with mapping local definitions to the specification. DHSC regularly reviews and updates this support with NHS England and the local authority CLD reference group.

DHSC analysts access CLD remotely through a secure repository hosted by AGEM CSU. Checks are carried out after each quarterly submission deadline to ensure that all local authorities have submitted a return covering the required reporting period. These checks identify any data quality issues that need to be addressed, and analysts will contact local authorities where issues are identified.

Quality assurance - data validity

Data is evaluated as valid where it meets expected data types and defined list values, in line with the CLD data specification, or where it is provided blank and may be legitimately blank. For example, ‘event end date’ should be left blank for services that are open and ongoing. Data validation will not pick up incorrect data where a valid value has been supplied. For example, invalid blanks will be incorrectly evaluated as valid, for example, where an event has ended but the ‘event end date’ has been left blank. Similarly, where client type has been categorised as ‘unknown’, this will be evaluated as valid but may be excluded from statistics in this report. Invalid responses have been corrected where the intended valid response is clear.

Quality assurance - data processing

The data is processed every quarter through a reproducible analytical pipeline (RAP). This RAP has been set up so that only limited manual intervention is necessary each month to produce updated outputs. This means that the risk of human error is minimised throughout the process.

All production code is written by DHSC staff. Any changes made to the code, or new code added, is rigorously tested and peer reviewed before it is incorporated in the production process.

In addition, version control is assured through the use of Git and GitHub. This version control software is used to track changes in code files and to ensure thorough verification and validation is performed every time the code is edited. Changes to a piece of code are systematically reviewed by a different analyst who takes on the role of quality assurer.

Quality assurance - statistical commentary

Text changes in the report are made by one person and are then checked and cleared by another person afterwards.

Revisions to CLD statistics

Submissions cover a 12-month rolling reporting period. The data for 2024 to 2025 was first submitted in April 2025. Local authorities had the opportunity to resubmit their 2024 to 2025 data up until 31 July 2025 this year. The future revision policy will be developed to align with the future publication timetable, in consultation with users and stakeholders.

Annex A: list of local authorities reporting issues

Each quarter, local authorities upload a CSV file to the DLP hosted by AGEM, containing individual records of activity from the last 12 months. The CLD collection guidance recommends that local authorities use the comments box on the DLP to indicate when mandatory data is not yet available or is incomplete for specific fields.

This annex lists issues reported by local authorities through the DLP or formally reported to DHSC for data submitted in April and July 2025 covering 2024 to 2025, grouped by the activity measure that these issues are likely to affect.

Requests for support (STS001) issues

West Northamptonshire reported a range of issues with the completeness of submissions and fields following migration to a new case management system, and limitations in reporting functionality with the new system. For requests, this has led to an apparent 25% increase in the numbers included under STS001, since it is harder to filter out non-social care contacts.

Essex are currently unable to systematically differentiate a request for social care support from a contact for another reason. STS001 is therefore likely overestimating the number of requests for support.

ST-Max (STS002) issues

Rutland reported a technical error in their July 2025 submission which meant that the majority of Rutland’s reablement episodes were not considered for the STS002a measure. Rutland’s case management system utilises a care plan for ST-Max activity meaning that the client type field was wrongly categorised as ‘unknown’ if no subsequent service is provided. The DHSC methodology for this measure excludes service events where the client type is not ‘service user’. As a result, Rutland’s figures in this publication underestimate their ST-Max activity and disproportionately omit episodes where no further support was required.

Redbridge have reported that their July 2025 submission was missing data on reablement services provided under section 75 partnership arrangements with the NHS for April to June 2024. The STS002 figure in this report is therefore an underestimate by around 25% of Redbridge’s reablement activity. ASCOF 2A and ASCOF 2D therefore underestimate the volume of reablement activity by approximately 25%. They have also reported that all requests for support for mental health clients are given the event outcome of ‘NFA: information and advice or signposting’ and Care Act assessments for mental health clients are not included in their CLD return.

Medway’s commissioned reablement service had an information and communication technology (ICT) issue, leading to incomplete coverage of their ST-Max services in their CLD submission.

Portsmouth were unable to capture ST-Max as they are jointly provided with the NHS and captured in a separate system where the record level information is not currently available. Since this reporting period, a solution has been developed which should resolve this issue for future reporting purposes.

Lambeth’s latest data submission did not include complete data for reablement services. This is because Lambeth’s reablement service is integrated with their NHS trust and some of the data comes from the health provider.

Oxfordshire reported a technical issue which caused the incorrect recording of event start and end dates for reablement services in their July 2025 submission. The STS002 figure in this report is therefore underestimating the number of people who received further support following reablement by around 20%.

Somerset have reported ongoing challenges with the recording of ST-Max in their case management system and the difficulty in accurately identifying whether a service followed a reablement package. This should be improved with the deployment of a new module to their case management system in the near future.

West Berkshire do not include health-led reablement services in their CLD submission. This represents approximately 50% of the reablement provision in West Berkshire and therefore the volume of this activity in STS002 is significantly underreported.

Worcestershire have a high proportion of invalid event outcomes for short-term support services likely due to a mapping issue in their system. This impacts their figures for STS002a however this should improve in a future submission.

Accommodation and employment status of people receiving long-term support (LTS004) issues

Brent reported some missing values for accommodation status field since this data was not previously collected in some of their data collection forms.

Tameside reported that their mental health services data may be incomplete due to an ongoing data migration.

Calderdale have reported a technical error which results in incomplete data being submitted for long-term support. The metric is therefore likely to show a lower value for Calderdale than had the data been complete.

Kirklees have reported that 75% of people have an unknown accommodation status in their CLD submission. This therefore impacts their figures for LTS004.