Employment and adults with learning disabilities in England - 2024/25 update

Towards the end of October each year, the government publishes statistics about adult social care for England for the previous financial year (in this case, April 2024 to March 2025). I have reported on aspects of these statistics in a number of blogposts over the years. This year the government has made some changes to how the information is collected and reported – the statistics are largely consistent with previous years, but sometimes with extra information reported and occasionally with less available information.

There are a few blogposts that I’ll be working on from these statistics – this updates previous posts on what the statistics say about the self/paid employment of adults with learning disabilities in England. These figures are provided by local authorities every year, and since 2014/15 have only been provided for people getting long-term social care (before 2014/15 it was the larger group of people known to local authorities as a person with learning disabilities, even if they weren't getting long-term social care support). This means that these figures don't include the much, much larger group of adults with learning disabilities who aren't known to local authorities or GPs and who don't get any kind of support related to their learning disability. It is also important to say that the quality of this information has been questioned at times.

What do the numbers tell us?

The first graph below shows the number of adults with learning disabilities aged 18-64 that councils say are in any self/paid employment, broken down by whether people are in employment for 16+ hours per week or less than 16 hours per week (and 1 hour a week can count in these statistics). Newly reported for 2024/25 is the number of people who local authorities say are in self-paid employment, but for an unknown number of hours per week – as the column for 2024/25 shows, these people seem to have been drawn from people previously stated as working less than 16 hours per week.

According to these figures, in 2024/25 there were 6,365 adults with learning disabilities aged 18-64 getting long-term social care in any form of self/paid employment. This historically low figure has been flatlining for 4 years in a row. Consistent across the years is that a minority of the people in employment (29% of people in 2024/25) are working for at least 16 hours per week.

Also newly reported for 2024/25 are equivalent figures for people with learning disabilities aged 65 or over (working age no longer stops at 65). In total, 405 adults with learning disabilities aged 65+ were reported to be in some form of self/paid employment, with a similar percentage of people (27%) working at least 16 hours per week.

What do these numbers mean in terms of employment rates? The graph below shows the employment rates for adults with learning disabilities aged 18-64 over the same time period. The columns show the overall employment rate - in 2024/25 this was 4.6%, compared to 75% for adults generally in March 2025. This is the lowest employment rate for adults with learning disabilities recorded since the statistics were changed in 2014/15. The equivalent employment rate for adults aged 65+ is 2.1%. 

The lines on the graph show employment rates for men and women with learning disabilities separately up to 2023/24 – changes to the way information is reported for 2024/25 means that I couldn’t find the information to produce equivalent calculations for 2024/25. Employment rates for men (the purple line) are consistently higher (5.1% in 2023/24) than employment rates for women (the blue line) (4.1% in 2023/24 with this gender employment gap staying fairly stable over time.

The next graph below sounds an appropriate note of caution about the reliability of information on self/paid employment provided by councils, and there have also been some important changes to what is reported in 2024/25. This shows, for all adults with learning disabilities aged 18-64 getting long-term social care, whether councils say they are: 1) in self-paid employment; 2) not in employment but actively seeking work (and presumably therefore liable to potential benefit sanctions); 3) not in employment but not actively seeking work. There is also a fourth category, where councils say they don't know the employment status of the person. New in 2024/25 is an additional category of voluntary work only – this used to be collected back in the mists of time so I’m not sure if this is newly collected this time round or it was collected all along and it’s been newly reported.

Over time, the number of people whose employment status is unknown has decreased from 44% of adults with learning disabilities aged 18-64 in 2014/15 to 18% of people in 2024/25 (although there has been an increase from 2023/24 to 2024/25). Newly reported information for 2024/25 shows that almost as many adults with learning disabilities aged 18-64 are doing voluntary work only (5,980 people) as are in any form of paid/self employment (6,365 people). There has also been an increase for two years in a row of the number of people reported to be not in employment but actively seeking work.

For the first time in 2024/25, equivalent information is reported for adults with learning disabilities aged 65+, where the employment status of 22% of people (4,310 people) is reported as unknown. While the majority of adults with learning disabilities aged 65+ are reported not be not in paid work and not actively seeking work/retired (13,165 people; 67%), there are still over 1,000 people (1,090 people; 6%) who are not in paid employment but actively seeking work. Smaller numbers of adults with learning disabilities aged 65+ are in paid/self employment (405 people; 2.1%) or doing voluntary work only (490 people; 2.5%).

The final graph below shows employment rates of adults with learning disabilities aged 18-64 by English region. These mainly reflect the reducing employment rates over time seen nationally, with only the South East and the North West to some extent bucking this trend. Compared to other regions, there are consistently low employment rates in the West Midlands, East Midlands and North East, with a large recent drop in employment rates in Yorkshire & Humber. A person with learning disabilities in the South East is almost five times more likely to be in paid/self employment than a person in the North East.

Overall, this update shows further reductions in employment rates (from a ridiculously low base) for adults with learning disabilities getting long-term social care, with most work being extremely part-time, a gender employment gap, and big regional variations. 

As far as we know, many more than 4.6% of working age adults with learning disabilities want to work. We know that secure, stable paid employment for people with learning disabilities is associated with better physical and mental health, and we know that supported employment is highly cost-effective. Are punishment withdrawals of benefits in an already punitive system going to be the answer?

Children with learning disabilities in schools in England - 2025 update

I've been very bad at writing this blog for a couple of years now. I'm going to write blogposts a bit more often again, mainly just to do regular updates of statistics related to people with learning disabilities. There are unlikely to be hot takes or deep insights, and there will be graphs. 

This blogpost updates previous blogposts I've written about Department for Education annual statistics concerning children and young people identified within the English education system as children/young people with learning disabilities, recorded in an annual census of schools that takes place in January each year.

 In the Special Educational Needs (SEN) statistics there are a number of mutually exclusive categories of SEN, three of which concern children with learning disabilities – Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD), Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD) and Profound & Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD). There are a number of other SEN categories recorded within these statistics (Specific Learning Difficulties; Speech, language and communication needs; Social, emotional and mental health; Autistic spectrum disorder; Visual impairment; Hearing impairment; Multisensory impairment; Physical disability).

Within the annual census, a child can be classified as having a ‘primary need’ in one of these categories, and optionally classified as having an additional, ‘secondary need’ in another category. Most importantly in terms of how children are supported, children may have a special educational need that has been judged to require specific support in the form of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan (previously an SEN Statement). Beyond that, DfE statistics now only report an additional much larger number of children at a level of ‘SEN support’, which has no requirements to specifically support a child.

This blogpost simply  goes through what some of these statistics say about the education of children and young people with learning disabilities, as identified within the education system. I would strongly recommend looking at Special Needs Jungle for brilliant, in-depth analysis and opinion about these and other statistics.

The first question is simply – how many children and young people with learning disabilities are recorded in DfE statistics?

The first graph below shows the number of children with a statement/EHC plan with a ‘primary SEN need’ of MLD, SLD and PMLD, from 2010 to 2025 (apologies for the acronyms).

The graph shows that in 2025, almost 76,000 children in England had a statement/EHC plan and were identified as children with learning disabilities. 

For children with MLD this was 34,755 children in 2025, with a large decrease of 31% from 2010 to 2018 but an increase of 23% from 2018 to 2025 - the number of children in 2025 is still less than the number of children in 2010. 

In 2025, there were 31,271 children with a statement/EHC plan and identified with a primary need of SLD, an increase in numbers of 24% from 2010 to 2021 but with numbers staying static from 2021 to 2025.

Finally, in 2025 there were 9,911 children with a statement/EHC plan and identified with a primary need of PMLD, an increase of 16% from 2010 to 2018 but with fluctuating numbers and a possible small decrease since.

 

The second graph below shows the number of children with a ‘primary SEN need’ of MLD, SLD and PMLD at the level of SEN Support, from 2015 to 2025 (the reporting of statistics changed in 2015).

The graph shows that in 2025, 173,000 children in England were identified as children with learning disabilities at the level of SEN Support. For children with MLD this was 170,228 children in 2025, with a 16% increase from 2015 to 2016 and a 30% decrease from 2016 through to 2025.

In 2025, there were 1,859 children with a primary need of SLD at the level of SEN Support, with numbers increasing by 5% from 2015 to 2016 and decreasing by 44% from 2016 to 2025. 

Finally, in 2025 there were 695 children at the level of SEN Support with a primary need of PMLD, with an 11% increase from 2015 to 2018 and a 31% decrease from 2018 to 2025.

How many children with learning disabilities are being educated in mainstream schools or special schools? The graph below shows the percentage of children with statements/EHCPs in mainstream vs special schools from 2010 to 2025.

The percentage of children with a primary need of MLD and a statement/EHC plan in mainstream school dipped from 51% in 2010 to 43% in 2017, with the percentage increasing again to 59% in 2025. 

For children with a statement/EHC plan and a primary need of SLD, the percentage of children in mainstream schools decreased from 17% in 2010 to 12% in 2018, and has stayed static from 2018 to 2025. 

For children with a statement/EHC plan and a primary need of PMLD, the percentage of children in mainstream school was around 14% from 2010 to 2016, 15% from 2017 to 2020, and 16% from 2021 to 2025.

For children identified at the level of SEN Support (I haven’t included a graph on this), in 2025 almost all the children with a primary need of MLD (99.8%) and the vast majority of children with a primary need of SLD (90.1%) or PMLD (87.8%) were in mainstream schools.

Although it’s not an ideal marker of the financial circumstances of families, eligibility for free school meals is collected within DfE statistics. 

The graph below shows the proportion of children with statements/EHCPs associated with MLD, SLD and PMLD and the proportion of children at the level of SEN Support eligible for free school meals, from 2015/16 to 2024/25. There are a number of trends in this graph:

1) There are big increases over time in the percentage of children eligible for free schools across all groups in the graph

2) A greater percentage of children with a statement/EHCP are eligible for free school meals compared to children with the same label at the level of SEN Support

3) Children with a label of MLD are most likely to be eligible for free school meals, followed by children with a label of SLD and then children with a label of PMLD.

In 2024/15, 51% of children with a label of MLD and a statement/EHCP were eligible for free school meals (47% for children with MLD at the level of SEN Support). 47% of children with a label of SLD and a statement/EHCP were eligible for free school meals (41% for children with SLD at the level of SEN Support). 40% of children with a label of PMLD and a statement/EHCP were eligible for free school meals (30% of children with PMLD at the level of SEN Support).

At what age are children with learning disabilities identified in schools? The graph below shows how many children for every 1,000 total children in school had a statement/EHCP at each age from age 5 to age 15 in 2025. 

For children with MLD, there were big increases in the number of children with a statement/EHCP through the later ages of primary school and into the early years of secondary school, with slight decreases beyond this point.

For children with SLD, there was a steady increase in the number of children with a statement/EHCP through the school years.

For children with PMLD, the highest numbers of children with a statement/EHCP were in the earlier years of primary school, with slight decreases beyond this point.

Finally (horror of horrors) I'd like to post the table below. This shows, for 2025, the proportion of children with labels of MLD, SLD and PMLD with a statement/EHCP, broken down by the ethnicity labels used in the pupil census. These are compared to the proportions for all children in schools. Lilac means that children from a particular ethnic group with labels of MLD, SLD or PMLD are more likely compared to the proportion of all children from that particular ethnic group in schools. Orange means that children from a particular ethnic group with labels of MLD, SLD or PMLD are less likely compared to the proportion of all children from that particular ethnic group in schools.

I'm not qualified to offer an interpretation of what these figures mean (getting an EHCP is one endpoint of a very long and complicated process, with all sorts of factors impinging on this). All I will say is that the picture is complicated, with very different patterns across MLD, SLD and PMLD for specific ethnic categories as used in the pupil census.

As I've said, I'm not in a position to offer a deep interpretation of these numbers, but I hope it is useful to see them set out like this. I'm not seeing a massive and sustained increase in the number of children with the labels of MLD, SLD and PMLD, certainly taking 2010 as the baseline. If anything, recent years suggest that the number of children with these labels being supported with an EHCP is flatlining. On the long view from 2010, there is also little change in the proportion of children with these labels in mainstream schools. 

However, poverty amongst children with these labels is sharply and consistently increasing year on year, and there are different patterns of EHCPs for children with MLD, SLD and PMLD across different ethnic groups.

What all of these statistics miss is children who are not in school, for any number of reasons. Without having some understanding of this, we only have a partial picture of children with learning disabilities in England.

LeDeR Report 2025 - a first look

 This is a blog post based on my first reaction to the much delayed latest version of the LeDeR report. As you’ll see, I didn’t get as far through it as I planned, for reasons that I hope to explain.

There are a few things about the report that I found a bit odd. The first is that the report is listed as a 2024 report (of LeDeR information in 2023), even though it wasn’t made public until September 2025. When I write anything, the date on it will be when it’s published, not when I handed it in. Listing this as a 2024 report makes invisible the long delay in its publication.

I also didn’t really understand the decision to only include 2021, 2022 and 2023 information in the report (although the authors don’t always stick to this). I get the logic of combining across multiple years to look at some issues where there are smaller numbers of people, but taking as your baseline 2021 (in the second year of the height of COVID-19 pandemic) seems odd when there is more or less national LeDeR information going back to 2018. The reviewing methods have changed over time, but this happened in June 2021 so the 2021 data will include both old and new reviewing methods anyway. Where possible, starting in 2018 would give the reader some handle on what was happening before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The foreword to the main report also says “This year, due to unforeseen pressures on the NHS, there have been somewhat fewer completed reviews than anticipated, affecting reviews during the latter part of 2023 in particular. This limitation may mean there are fewer completed reviews of deaths due to certain conditions, such as seasonal flu”. First, I think these pressures were quite foreseeable, and right from the start of the LeDeR programme it has been a struggle to get reviews completed. Second, I’m not clear if this is a backlog – given the extensive delay to the publication of the report, couldn’t ‘late’ reviews of 2023 deaths have been included in the analyses? Or is it that these missing reviews are never going to happen, which raises real questions about the ongoing feasibility of the LeDeR programme in the absence of focus and investment. As far as I tell from the latest LeDeR report, there were reviews for 77.9% of notifications of deaths in 2021, 83.3% in 2022, and 67.1% in 2023.

Looking through the easy read report against the more detailed reports and infographic, I have some worries about how some important information is shown in the easy read report. I’m particularly thinking about median age of death. The infographic and main report says that this was 62.2 years in 2022 and 62.5 years in 2023, a difference of between 3 and 4 months. The easy read report says “This year, the average age of death is 63. Last year, the average age of age was 62. I know it is one year difference, but it needs to be better”. I don’t think this is right.

When looking at big reports like this, I often start by looking at the detailed data tables right at the end of the report or added as an appendix. This can help me to understand the numbers a bit before reading the words in the main report that interpret what they mean, so I have some ideas and questions that I hope the main report will explain.

I haven’t had the stamina, and I can’t expect you as a reader to have the stamina, to go through all of these, mainly because I got stuck on some straightforward inconsistencies in the first table that I couldn’t get beyond. In the main report this is Table 1.1 (and in the Appendix Table 1.1), which among other things breaks down the number of people with learning disabilities who had died by age group and sex (as recorded at birth). First thing – the number of people in 2023 whose sex was ‘not known’ is different across the two tables – 234 people in the main report table, and 233 people in the Appendix table. Second thing – the Appendix table breaks this down by age group, but the number of people of ‘not known’ sex in each specific age group adds up to 333 people rather than 233 people. I can appreciate that this kind of information is incredibly messy, and also that mistakes like this can happen. I also don’t know that it would make a massive difference in the overall messages to take from the LeDeR dataset. But if a justification for the huge delay in publication is forensic scrutiny of the data from the LeDeR team, NHS England and DHSC…?

I haven’t gone through the whole report checking for these kinds of issues, because there are some other things I need to do before I retire like washing up and sleeping, but it does put me on edge when looking through the rest of the report. Partly to see if there was information going back to 2018 that I could use for longer-term trends, I also looked at the LeDeR report for 2022 (published in 2023). Here I found some other differences that I don’t really understand. The 2025 report said that there were 3,451 notifications of deaths of adults with learning disabilities in 2021, and 3,593 deaths reported in 2022. As far as I can tell, the equivalent data from the 2023 report was 3,096 notifications of deaths in 2021 and 3,044 notifications of deaths in 2022. I don’t know why there are these big differences.

Finally, I want to mention some trends over time about various ways in which the state might deal with, notice, and investigate deaths of people with learning disabilities – these trends aren’t mentioned in the easy read version of the 2025 report. This information is all subject to caveats that not all people with learning disabilities who died have been notified to the LeDeR programme, not all people notified to LeDeR have been reviewed, and not all reviews included this information. They also use information from the two most recent LeDeR reports, which as we have seen can be inconsistent in the information they report.

DNACPRs. The percentage of adults with Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation orders looks like it’s been consistently increasing over time: 69.8% of people in 2018/19; 71.9% of people in 2020/21; 72.5% (or 74.2%) of people in 2021; 72.1% of people in 2022; and 75.5% of people in 2023.

Coroner reporting. There are huge unexplained differences between the figures in the earlier report (22% reported to a coroner in 2018/19; 19% reported to a coroner in 2020/21; 25% reported to a coroner in 2022) and in the 2025 report (40.5% reported to a coroner in 2021; 41.1% reported to a coroner in 2022; 36.4% reported to a coroner in 2023). I don't know why this is.

Police investigation. It looks like information on the percentages of people’s deaths where there was a police investigation has been reported for the first time in the 2025 report: 4.4% of people’s deaths in 2021; 3.8% of people’s deaths in 2022; 2.2% of people’s deaths in 2023.

Safeguarding enquiry. Again, it looks like the percentage of people’s deaths where there was a safeguarding enquiry (I don’t think this is reported anywhere in the main report text, but it is in the Appendix) was reported for the first time in the 2025 report: 16.5% in 2021; 9.2% in 2022; 7.0% in 2023.

Across the piece, it looks like less attention and less scrutiny is being paid of the deaths of people with learning disabilities.

I will stop there for now – this has already turned into a longer blog post than I was planning (no surprise there). I may return to other aspects of the LeDeR report at some point, but I am quite worried about the inconsistencies that have emerged on a cursory look.

All the more recent LeDeR reports can be found here  https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/leder