Two years ago, we reported that 60% of community social care locations had either never been rated by CQC or held a rating that was four or more years old. Last year, that figure was 70%. Our latest analysis, published in June, shows it now stands at 83.5%. Of 14,597 active community locations, 36.9% have never been assessed and a further 46.6% hold a rating that is four to 10 years old. Only one in six has a current rating.
The absolute numbers are starker still. The number of community services holding an up-to-date rating has more than halved in two years, from 5,118 to 2,413, while the number never assessed has risen from 2,879 to 5,385. Ratings are ageing out of currency faster than new assessments replace them. For most of the market, CQC ratings no longer function as a realistic assurance of quality and safety.
CQC has made welcome progress in some areas. It has overhauled its registration process and cleared its registration backlog, responding to recommendations we have made for years. Of 3,053 new homecare applications received in the six months to April 2026, CQC granted fewer than 6%. Applicants must now provide realistic business plans, evidence of local need and a physical location rather than a virtual office. This is stemming the inflow of providers without the capability to deliver safe, good-quality care.
Assessment activity is also rising. The new Chief Inspector of Adult Social Care and Integrated Care, Chris Badger, has made increasing assessments his foremost priority, restoring direct management of inspectors, piloting shorter reports and using AI to cut drafting time. Community social care inspection reports ran at almost 96 per month from January to April 2026, up from an average of 78 across the year. CQC’s new prioritisation criteria explicitly target aged ratings and services unassessed more than a year after registration, which aligns with our recommendations.
Yet the gap keeps widening. Sustaining a three-year assessment cycle requires around 406 community assessments per month. Even at the improved rate, CQC completes about a quarter of that. Meanwhile, it published 2.2 times more residential ratings than community ratings last year, despite the two sub-sectors now being almost identical in size. Care delivered behind closed doors, unobserved by others, cannot reasonably receive less than half the regulator’s attention.
The assessments conducted give cause for concern. Of community social care ratings published in the past year, 24% were below good, double the proportion across all ratings since 2016. Risk-based targeting explains some of this, but it is reasonable to infer that the 12,000-plus unassessed or out-of-date locations contain undetected problems.
CQC has suggested awarding interim ratings at registration. We urge caution. A newly registered provider has delivered no care, so there is no quality to assess. The better safeguard is a guaranteed first assessment within 12 months of registration, based on care actually delivered.
Above all, CQC needs surge capacity. We recommend time-limited, ring-fenced Government funding to clear the community backlog – not higher fees on providers already paying for a service many are not receiving. Government policy rests on a principle of ‘home first’ and a decisive shift of care into the community. That shift cannot happen safely if the regulator cannot see the services delivering it.
CQC has fixed the front door. But the care happening behind it, in more than 14,000 community services, remains largely unseen and unrated. Until that changes, most people choosing care at home still do so without the independent assurance the rating system was built to provide.
Dr Jane Townson OBE is Chief Executive Officer at the Homecare Association.
Email: [email protected] Linkedin: @Homecare-Association