Salford social care claims seem impressive. But we highlight the practical challenge of independently verifying their combined adult and children’s social care figures following a response from Ofsted. The issue is not whether the claims are true or false, but whether they can be checked at all. That distinction matters, especially when public bodies present statistics as evidence of impact.
The original press release, issued by Salford City Council to mark World Social Work Week, paints a positive picture of local services. It highlights support to “5,446 adults and children across the city” and cites “an average of 129,545 hours of care every month”. These figures are presented as indicators of scale and effectiveness, reinforcing a broader narrative celebrating the role of social workers. Comment was sought from both Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Ofsted responded, while the CQC did not respond to our request.
Salford social care claims and the verification challenge
Ofsted’s reply was clear in their scope. The regulator confirmed that it “inspects and regulates children’s social care services” but “does not have a role in overseeing adult social care services”. It also stated that it does not comment on individual local authorities beyond its published reports. This creates an immediate structural issue in relation to the headline figure of 5,446 people supported. The council’s figure combines both adults and children into a single total. However:
- Children’s services fall under Ofsted’s remit
- Adult services fall under a different regulatory framework (CQC).
Due to this split, no single regulator is in a position to confirm the combined figure as presented. This is not a contradiction of the data, but it is a limitation when it comes to independent verification.
What we can scrutinise and what we can’t
Inspection reports are designed to evaluate:
- Quality of services
- Safeguarding effectiveness
- Leadership and management.
But if we can’t check the numbers with those held by Ofsted, and CQC won’t give us the numbers for adult care cases, scrutiny becomes virtually impossible.
The Local Authority’s decision to combine adults and children into a single figure is central to the issue. Aggregation simplifies messaging, but it can also obscure detail. In this case, the combined figure of 5,446:
- Does not distinguish between service types
- Does not indicate timeframe (e.g. monthly, annual, snapshot)
- Cannot be directly mapped onto a single dataset or regulator.
The Ofsted response reinforces this point indirectly. By clarifying its limited remit, it highlights that different parts of the figure sit under different systems of oversight. For readers, this makes interpretation more difficult. Without a breakdown, it is unclear:
- How many are children versus adults
- What level of support is being counted
- Whether individuals are counted once or multiple times across services.
None of these questions are addressed in the original press release.
Salford social care claims and the role of public messaging
The press release itself is clearly framed as a celebration. It emphasises the “transformational” role of social workers and the “extraordinary contribution” made across the city. Quotes from senior officials reinforce themes of compassion, resilience, and community support. This is typical of World Social Work Week communications. However, the inclusion of specific figures gives the release an additional layer of authority. Numbers imply measurement, and measurement implies accountability. The difficulty arises when those numbers:
- Are not clearly defined
- Are not externally verified
- Cannot be easily compared with published datasets.
The Ofsted response does not challenge the figures, but it does not give us the opportunity to confirm them either, or to find out what level of care was needed for these cases.
Inspection reports rather than press releases
Ofsted’s direction to “inspection reports” is significant. These reports are the primary mechanism through which the regulator communicates its findings. They are:
- Publicly available
- Evidence-based
- Focused on service quality rather than headline metrics.
By referring enquiries back to these reports, Ofsted indicated that its published inspections, not press releases are the appropriate source for assessing children’s social care services. Inspection reports are structured, evidence-based, and standardised, whereas press releases are more likely to be selective, thematic, and narrative-driven.
Another problem with a press release can be when (like in this case) a council publishes a combined figure that can not be confirmed by one regulator on their own, therefore can not be scrutinised by any one regulator.
Salford Social Care claims
Readers of the original press release are presented with a clear message:
- Social workers are making a significant impact
- Thousands of people are being supported
- Services are operating at scale
What they are not given is:
- A breakdown of those figures
- A source for the data
- A way to independently verify the claims. Comment was also sought from the Care Quality Commission regarding the adult social care elements of the figures, but no response was received before publication.
There is a temptation in reporting to frame issues in binary terms, true or false, accurate or inaccurate. Not every case fits that model. The Ofsted response does not disprove the council’s claims. However, it can not validate them either. Instead, it establishes something more subtle, but equally important, that the figures as presented,sit outside the scope of independent confirmation by them. That is not an accusation. It is a limitation.
A gap worth reporting
The most significant outcome of this exchange is not a revelation of error, but a clarification of process. A council has published figures to demonstrate impact. A regulator has confirmed that it cannot verify those figures in full. Between those two positions lies a practical challenge for journalists attempting to independently verify combined adult and children’s social care statistics.
In preparing this article, independent confirmation of the combined figures was not obtained despite approaching both Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. That does not make the figures wrong. However, it does mean we need to rely on trust rather than independent confirmation, and that is an important distinction.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
