1. Introduction
Councils have statutory duties to provide accommodation and financial support to safeguard and promote the welfare of families, adults with care needs, and care leavers who are at risk of homelessness, or have insufficient income to meet their basic living needs, but cannot access benefits or local authority housing assistance due to their immigration status. Support alleviating homelessness, destitution, and poverty experienced by people with no recourse to public funds is usually provided by social care teams or no recourse to public funds teams.
This report draws on information recorded by 91 councils in England, Scotland, and Wales on NRPF Connect regarding individual households with no recourse to public funds who were referred for, or received, statutory support between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 (‘2024–25’). The data provides evidence of collective costs and caseloads when accommodation and financial support is provided to households, as well as the immigration status of people who were referred for, or received, local authority support. The report also analyses the work of the Home Office NRPF team over NRPF Connect.
For a list of councils providing data, see Appendix A.
For more information about the dataset, statutory social care duties and who has no recourse to public funds, see Appendix B.
2. Summary of findings
An essential, yet costly, safety-net
Whilst immigration restrictions on accessing benefits and housing remain in place, councils are required to safeguard the welfare of children, care leavers, and adults with care needs with no recourse to public funds by providing accommodation and financial support.
In 2024–25 :
- 91 councils in England, Scotland and Wales supported 5,724 adults with care needs, families, and care leavers at a collective cost of £94m
- The volume of referrals rose by 13% for adults with care needs and 16% for families when compared to the previous year
Supporting households with no recourse to public funds is an essential, yet costly, area of social care practice, with the need for this vital intervention increasing in 2024–25. Extending immigration-related restrictions is likely to put more residents at risk of destitution and in need of local authority support.
For more information about costs and caseloads, see section 4.1. For more information about referrals, see section 4.2.
Home Office partnership-working benefits councils, but more needs to be done
Councils using NRPF Connect to work in partnership with the Home Office have achieved a high rate of case resolution – the number of households receiving support has not substantially risen, despite increasing volumes of referrals.
Across the year 2024–25:
- The overall number of adults receiving support decreased by 6
- The number of families receiving support increased by 44
However, the average time on support and number of households supported on a long-term basis remained unacceptably high, and the most common reason for ending support was a grant of leave to remain, which can take years to achieve.
More needs to be done by the Home Office to enable councils to effectively promote the welfare of children and adults receiving support, and to prevent local government from holding the financial burden of supporting people on a long-term basis, in recognition that many households will obtain leave to remain or be unable to return to their country of origin.
In 2024–25:
- Adults with care needs spent an average of 880 days (just under 2.5 years) on support
- Families spent an average of 501 days (just under 1.5 years) on support
- 492 adults with care needs and 451 families were supported for at least 1,000 days, making up 30% and 16% of supported adults and families, respectively
- A ‘grant of leave to remain’ was the case closure reason provided for 66% of families and 54% of adults whose support was ended during the year
- For those households whose support ended following a grant of leave to remain, the average time on support was 479 days for families and 779 days for adults with care needs
For more information about caseload volume, see section 4.3. For more information about time on support and households supported on a long-term basis, see section 4.6. For more information about case closure reasons, see section 4.7.
People accessing support will follow different pathways to resolve their long-term destitution
People accessing local authority support are diverse in terms of their immigration status and will, therefore, follow different pathways to resolve their long-term destitution. It is of particular concern that a significant proportion of families accessing support had leave to remain.
In 2024–25, 44% of adults with care needs who were provided with support and 36% of adults referred for support had ‘no current immigration permission’, making this the most common immigration status of adults who were provided with, or referred for, support throughout the year.
Councils also supported a significant number of adults who were seeking asylum or were appeal rights exhausted (ARE) following an unsuccessful asylum claim, and adults who had leave to remain with a ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) condition, with these groups making up 23% and 18% of adults receiving support, respectively.
39% of families provided with support had ‘no current immigration permission’, which was the most common immigration status of families receiving support.
‘Leave to remain with NRPF’ was the most common immigration status of families that were referred for support and was the second most common immigration status of families provided with support, with 32% of family referrals and 28% of families receiving support holding this status.
People with pre-settled status or a pending EUSS application made up 12% of families and 7% of adults who were receiving support.
For more information about the immigration status of adults with care needs, see section 4.4. For more information about the immigration status of families, see section 4.5.
Immigration status affects the length of time support is required
Immigration status is a factor that affects the length of time that an adult with care needs or family may require support for, with some groups, including people in the asylum system and people with EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) status, likely to be supported for longer periods than others.
Therefore, the average time on support and proportion of households supported on a long-term basis must be taken into account when considering how immigration status affects overall caseloads and costs.
For example, in comparison to 30% and 16% of all adults and families, respectively, who were receiving support for at least 1,000 days:
- 42% of adults and 30% of families who were seeking asylum, or ARE following an unsuccessful asylum claim, were supported for at least 1,000 days
- 33% of adults and 21% of families with pre-settled status, or a pending EUSS application, were supported for at least 1,000 days
To reduce the need for long-term local authority support for specific groups, it is essential that the government takes steps to ensure that people should have support implemented without unnecessary delay when they are entitled to benefits or Home Office asylum support.
For more information about time on support and households supported on a long-standing basis, see section 4.6.
Destitution risks are disproportionately high for single-mothers
75% of family households receiving support were made up of single-mothers (or female carers), demonstrating that destitution risks arising from having no recourse to public funds are disproportionately high for this group.
The Home Office meets local authority information-needs well when the NRPF team is fully staffed
The Home Office NRPF team provides local authorities with a high volume and well-used service, responding quickly and well within agreed timescales when the team is at full staffing capacity. 83% of NRPF Connect users who responded to a survey in June 2025 were either very satisfied or satisfied with the overall service they receive from the Home Office NRPF team.
Throughout 2024–25, the Home Office NRPF team received nearly 18,000 requests for immigration status information from local authorities.
Between November 2024 and March 2025, when the team had a full staffing complement, the average response time each month for immigration status checks and queries was 2 working days.
However, in the months prior to November, average response times fell outside of the service level agreement. When the Home Office fails to meet agreed response times, this undermines a council’s ability to manage statutory responses efficiently.
For more information about partnership working with the Home Office, see chapter 5.
Data relating to adults with care needs is incomplete
The true extent of the support provided to adults with care needs is unknown, due to under-reporting amongst current NRPF Connect subscribers.
In 2024–25, only 62 out of 91 councils subscribed to NRPF Connect recorded financial data for adults with care needs .
Under-reporting means collective costs are not fully known. Locally, costs may be higher than they need to be if councils are not benefiting from case-resolution approaches established through NRPF Connect.
For more information about costs and the number of households receiving support, see section 4.1. The councils providing data on adults with care needs are listed in the UK annual data.
3. What needs to change?
3.1 Why change is needed
Whilst restricting people from accessing benefits remains a central aspect of UK immigration policy, alleviating migrant homelessness, destitution, and child poverty will remain a key area of social care practice. The UK government must recognise the vital role that local government plays in delivering this essential safety-net for residents with no recourse to public funds by providing funding and clearly defining legal duties in existing statutory guidance for social care practitioners.
It will be essential to continue the successful partnership between the Home Office and councils that has been established through NRPF Connect, but the high time-on-support averages and significant number of households supported on a long-standing basis demonstrate that existing processes are insufficient to reduce costs to councils. Therefore, more needs to be done by the Home Office to enable councils to effectively promote the welfare of children and adults receiving support, and to prevent local government from holding the financial burden of supporting people on a long-term basis, in recognition that many households will obtain leave to remain or be unable to return to their country of origin.
To reduce the need for long-term local authority support, it is also essential that the government takes steps to ensure that people with pre-settled status who are at risk of destitution access benefits in line with recent case law, and that people in the asylum system who are eligible for Home Office accommodation have support implemented without unnecessary delay.
It is particularly concerning that a high proportion of families that were referred for, or were receiving, support in 2024–25 had leave to remain with a NRPF condition. The UK government should not put more residents at risk of destitution through extending immigration-related restrictions and should enable people with leave to remain to be assisted through the benefits system at times of need.
Councils will need to ensure that this key area of social care practice is given proper oversight within children’s social care and adult social care due to the high costs, rising need, and diversity of the people receiving support. Staff need to be fully supported to deliver an effective service and to identify available pathways off support in order to promote the well-being and welfare of people receiving support, as well as to reduce costs. Councils will also need to ensure that they are maximising the benefits of using NRPF Connect and are helping the Home Office to progress and prioritise the immigration claims of people receiving support.
3.2 Recommendations for government
Funding for councils and defining legal duties
The UK government should:
- Provide grant funding to councils, specifically to fund the delivery of support to residents with no recourse to public funds when social care duties are engaged
- Work with the devolved governments to ensure that equivalent funding is delivered to councils in Scotland and Wales, and Health and Social Care Trusts in Northern Ireland
- Ensure that statutory guidance in England (Working Together to Safeguard Children and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance) clearly defines how social care duties apply to supporting families and adults with no recourse to public funds, reflecting court judgments and established practice, as set out in NRPF Network practice guidance
Assisting councils to reduce costs
As a minimum, the Home Office should:
- Conduct a one-off case-resolution exercise for households recorded on NRPF Connect as being supported on a long-standing basis, with a particular focus on adults with care needs
- Ensure effective processes for the expedient determination of immigration claims are implemented by casework teams, when supported households recorded by councils on NRPF Connect are marked as a priority by the Home Office NRPF team
- Continue to fully resource the Home Office NRPF team to effectively meet the information needs of councils as well as undertake targeted work to reduce the backlog of long-standing cases
- Implement a policy to grant leave to remain when a person’s complex care, health and/or capacity-related needs mean that local authority cannot withdraw support or Home Office enforcement cannot be pursued, but a resolution cannot be achieved under existing policies and immigration rules
The Ministry of Justice should:
- Require the courts to expedite immigration appeal hearings when an appellant is receiving local authority support
Preventing destitution and increasing need for statutory support
The Home Office should not:
- Impose the NRPF condition on more groups
- Increase the time that people can be subject to NRPF conditions by extending settlement routes beyond 5 years
The Home Office should:
- Enable caseworkers to exercise discretion to lift the NRPF condition when leave to remain is not curtailed and evidence is provided that maintaining an NRPF condition would lead to the person or family being provided with local authority support
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should:
- Review guidance regarding SSWP v AT [2022] with a view to disregarding the availability of local authority support when assessing whether Universal Credit can be awarded under the AT criteria to prevent destitution
Enabling access to benefits and asylum support
The Home Office should:
- Update the Asylum Seekers with Care Needs guidance and relevant contractual documentation to clarify responsibility for identifying and accommodating people with care and support needs, including a clear process for expediently transferring people from local authority support to Home Office accommodation, where appropriate
- Reinstate the ‘split-costs’ policy so that councils are funded to support dependent family members when an adult asylum seeker with care needs is accommodated by adult social care
The DWP should:
- Ensure that staff routinely implement guidance regarding the application of SSWP v AT [2022] to ensure that destitution is prevented by awarding Universal Credit to people with pre-settled status who do not have a qualifying right to reside when they meet the relevant criteria
- Automatically issue National Insurance numbers when leave to remain is granted and the individual does not already have one (mirroring current practice for people granted refugee status)
Please refer to the NRPF Network website for more information about the impact of immigration policies and the solutions that could be implemented to end homelessness, eradicate child poverty, and reduce health inequalities.
3.3 Recommendations for councils
We recommend that councils:
- Understand the cost-savings that a dedicated response to supporting households with no recourse to public funds can bring
- Use wider service restructures as an opportunity to ensure that the key elements of support can be effectively delivered
- Develop robust internal protocols to identify and manage NRPF cases, including responsibility for using NRPF Connect, particularly when dedicated workers are not resourced
- Provide staff with internal procedures to ensure consistency of approach and practice when meeting need
- Consider an ‘invest to save’ approach to increase access to immigration advice
- Fully record the households they are financially supporting on NRPF Connect and ensure data is accurate
- Ensure that staff are offered training and are signposted to NRPF Network practice guidance and resources
3.4 Funding context
The cost of providing accommodation and financial support to families or adults with no recourse to public funds when social care duties are engaged is not met by any grant funding or direct funding from the UK government, other than a small fund that is only available for supporting Hong Kong BN(O) visa holders in certain circumstances.
Leaving care teams will receive some funding from the UK government but this is unlikely to cover full costs of supporting former looked-after children who have no recourse to public funds.
Although the devolved governments do not directly fund social care to deliver support to residents with no recourse to public funds, the Scottish and Welsh governments have funded work to support councils to deliver services.
The lack of funding for social care to deliver essential safety-net support to residents with no recourse to public funds must be considered in the context of wider cost-pressures experienced by councils.
3.4.1 Wider cost-pressures
Costs of supporting households with no recourse to public funds are usually met through overstretched social care budgets.
Local Government Association (LGA) analysis shows that in the three years from 2022–23 to 2024–25, councils in England had annual average overspends of 5.2% of budgeted spend for adult social care, 14.2% for children’s social care, 25.1% for home-to-school transport for children with SEND, and 51.9% for homelessness. The LGA also identified large increases of annual planned spend based on budget data for 2025–26, predicting a 9% increase for adult social care and a 10.1% increase for children’s social care.
3.4.2 Destitution fund for Hong Kong BN(O) visa holders
A small grant is available to councils England if they provide support to a Hong Kong BN(O) visa holder who is applying for a change of conditions. In such cases, the council can claim back up to £2,720 from the destitution fund operated by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. However, this fund has a minimal impact on overall costs as only three Hong Kong BN(O) visa holders were recorded on NRPF Connect as being provided with support in 2024–25.
3.4.3 Funding for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children
The UK government provides councils with funding to support looked after children and care leavers who are (or were) unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. In 2024–25, councils could receive up to £1,001 per week for accommodating a child, with additional one-off payments available until Autumn 2024, where transfers of children from Kent were made within specific timeframes.
However, funding significantly reduces to £270 per week once an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child turns 18 and ends 3 months after a young person becomes appeal rights exhausted. Home Office funding, where still in place, is unlikely to cover accommodation and subsistence costs on top of other support the young person may be receiving from a leaving care team.
No funding is provided to councils for accommodating looked after migrant children or care leavers who are not unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
3.4.4 Assistance for councils in Scotland and Wales
The Scottish government has provided assistance to councils in recognition of the role they play in supporting people with no recourse to public funds, through the Ending Destitution Together Strategy. This has included updating COSLA’s guidance for councils and funding immigration advice provision.
The Welsh government has produced guidance for councils, funded training, and funded a partnership project involving three councils in Wales.
4. What the data tells us
4.1 Costs and caseloads
In 2024–25, 91 councils in England, Scotland and Wales supported 5,724 adults with care needs, families, and care leavers with no recourse to public funds at a collective cost of £94m. See figure 1 for a breakdown of costs by practice area and figure 2 for a breakdown of supported households by practice area.
2,873 families were supported with 5,266 dependants. We estimate that up to 4,696 children were supported, as 570 dependants were partners. See section 4.8.1 for information about the make-up of family households.
62 councils recorded data for adults with care needs, 82 councils recorded data for families, and 43 councils recorded data for children and care leavers.
For details of the costs and caseloads recorded by region, see the UK data and the data by region.
Figure 1: Collective costs by household-type
Figure 2: Households supported throughout the year
4.1.1 Average cost per household
The average cost per household has been calculated by dividing the total costs in 2024–25 by the number of households that received support, regardless of how long they were supported for throughout the year. Therefore, the average cost has also been calculated for households that were supported for at least 1,000 days.
Where an adult with care needs or family had been supported for at least 1,000 days, the average cost per household was significantly higher, reflecting the longer-term nature of support. See figure 3 for the average cost of support for an adult with care needs or family in 2024–25.
Figure 3: Average cost per household in 2024–25, by household type and duration of support
4.1.2 Costs breakdown
Property-related costs make up the most significant area of spend. These costs will primarily be temporary accommodation charges, which a council will have limited control over.
Person-related costs include subsistence payments made to people receiving support. Levels of financial support are determined by individual councils, in line with guidance provided by the courts regarding minimum rates and when uplifts will be required.
For the costs breakdown for adults with care needs, see figure 4. For the costs breakdown for families, see figure 5.
For more information about meeting needs by providing accommodation and subsistence, see our families practice guidance and adults practice guidance.
Figure 4: Costs breakdown for supported adults with care needs
Figure 5: Costs breakdown for supported families
4.2 Referrals
A local authority will record a request or referral for support as a ‘referral’ on NRPF Connect.
In 2024–25, the number of referrals recorded throughout the year for adults with care needs and families increased by 13% and 16%, respectively, compared to the previous year.
However, there had been a greater increase in referrals relating to adults with care and support needs between the years 2022–23 and 2023–24.
For referral numbers for adults with care needs, see figure 6. For referral numbers for families, see figure 7.
Figure 6: Number of referrals recorded for adults with care and support needs during each financial year, with percentage increase
Figure 7: Number of referrals recorded for families during each financial year, with percentage increase
4.3 Caseload volume
The number of supported households did not substantially increase throughout the year because the number of households that had their case closed offset the number of new households taken on for support.
Successes in case closures resulted in a reduction of 6 adults with care needs receiving financial support and a slight increase of 44 families receiving financial support from the start of the year to the end of the year.
For the number of new households take on for support and supported households closed during 2024–25, see figure 8. For the change in supported households across the year, see figure 9.
Figure 8: Number of new households taken on for support and supported households closed in 2024–25
Figure 9: Change in the number of supported households across the year
4.4 Immigration status of adults with care and support needs
‘No current immigration permission’, was the most common immigration status of adults with care needs who were provided with, or referred for, support in 2024–25. This group comprises of people without lawful status in the UK who do not have an asylum claim recorded by the Home Office.
Councils also supported a significant number of adults who were seeking asylum or were appeal rights exhausted (ARE) following an unsuccessful asylum claim, and adults who had leave to remain with an NRPF condition, with these groups making up 23% and 18% of adults receiving support, respectively.
Almost a fifth of the adults requesting or referred to adult social care for support had leave to remain with access to public funds, which suggests that there may have been a lack of awareness about their status and entitlements, or difficulties confirming their status.
A small proportion of people provided with support had pre-settled status or a pending EU Settlement Scheme application, and although have access to public funds, will only qualify for benefits when a ‘right to reside’ test is met. For more information about the right to reside test, see the NRPF Network website.
For the immigration status of adults with care needs who were supported or referred for support in 2024–25, see figures 10 and 11, respectively.
For information about how immigration status is recorded on NRPF Connect, see Appendix B. For a full breakdown of immigration status types, see the UK data.
Figure 10: Immigration status of adults with care needs receiving support in 2024–25
Figure 11: Immigration status of adults with care needs referred for support in 2024–25
4.5 Immigration status of families
For families, the immigration status of the lead parent or carer is reported.
‘No current immigration permission’ was the most common immigration status of families receiving support in 2024–25. This group comprises of people without lawful status in the UK who do not have an asylum claim recorded by the Home Office.
‘Leave to remain with NRPF’ was the most common immigration status of families that were referred for support and was the second most common immigration status of families provided with support.
A small proportion of families provided with support had pre-settled status or a pending EU Settlement Scheme application, and, although have access to public funds, will only qualify for benefits when a right to reside test is met. For more information about the right to reside test, see the NRPF Network website.
For the immigration status of families who were supported or referred for support in 2024–25, see figures 12 and 13, respectively.
For information about how immigration status is recorded on NRPF Connect, see Appendix B. For a full breakdown of immigration status types, see the UK data.
Figure 12: Immigration status of families receiving support in 2024–25
Figure 13: Immigration status of families referred for support in 2024–25
4.6 Time on support and long-standing cases
The average time on support for all households that were provided with accommodation and/or financial support at any point throughout 2024–25 was high, at:
- 880 days (just under 2.5 years) for adults with care needs
- 501 days (just under 1.5 years) for families
However, the average time on support varied depending on the type of immigration status that the adult or parent had.
Adults and families who had a pending or unsuccessful asylum claim, were likely to have been supported for a longer period than people with other types of immigration status, with adults supported for an average period of 1,000 days and families for 765 days.
Families with pre-settled status or a pending EU Settlement Scheme application were more likely to have been supported for a longer period than families with the remaining types of immigration status, with such families supported for an average of 593 days.
For the average number of days on support for adults with care needs or families, categorised by immigration status, see figures 14 and 15, respectively.
Figure 14: Average number of days on support for adults with care needs, categorised by immigration status
Figure 15: Average number of days on support for families, categorised by immigration status
When looking at time on support is is also necessary to examine the number and proportion of households receiving support on a long-term basis.
In 2024–25, a significant proportion of households had been receiving support for at least 1,000 days:
- 492 adults with care needs (30% of the total adults supported)
- 451 families (16% of the total families supported)
The proportion of households supported on a long-standing basis also varied depending on the type of immigration status that the adult or parent had.
Adults and families who had a pending or unsuccessful asylum claim, were more likely to have been supported for at least 1,000 days when compared to people with other types of immigration status. 42% of adults and 30% of families with a pending or unsuccessful asylum claim had been supported for an average period of 1,000 days.
The Home Office began a review of long-standing (1,000-day) cases in February 2025, as documented in section 5.3, but the results of the review will not be fully realised until after the report period.
For the proportion of adults with care needs and families who were supported on a long-term basis, as categorised by immigration status, see figures 16 and 17, respectively.
The data shows that the average time on support and proportion of households supported on a long-standing basis must be taken into account when considering how immigration status affects overall caseloads and costs. For example, although only 7% of adults and 12% of families receiving support had pre-settled status or a pending EUSS application, these groups experienced high average times on support with a substantial number of households being supported for at least 1,000 days.
Figure 16: Proportion of adults with care needs supported for at least 1,000 days, categorised by immigration status
Figure 17: Proportion of families supported for at least 1,000 days, categorised by immigration status
4.7 Case closures
A high proportion of households had their support ended and case closed due to a grant of leave to remain with access to public funds. However, local authority support is often required for lengthy periods before immigration claims are concluded and a transfer to benefits and mainstream housing is completed. Adults and families who had their support ended due to a grant to leave to remain were supported for an average period of 779 days and 479 days, respectively.
For the reasons that support was ended and cases were closed on NRPF Connect for adults with care needs and families, see figures 18 and 19, respectively.
Figure 18: Reason for ending support for adults with care needs who had their cases closed in 2024–25
Figure 19: Reason for ending support for families who had their cases closed in 2024–25
4.8 Family household make-up
4.8.1 Single-parent families
In 2024–25, single-parent households made up the majority of families receiving support from local authorities, with these households usually being female-led. This demonstrates that destitution risks arising from having no recourse to public funds are disproportionately high for female single-parents.
Figure 20: Supported families by household type
4.8.2 Families with British children
In 2024–25, 190 families had a British child in the household, making up a small but significant proportion (7%) of the total families receiving support.
A child being British is relevant as:
- Leave to remain can be granted to a parent on the basis of being the sole carer of a British child
- Parents with a British child qualify for help to buy healthy food, milk and vitamins for young children through the Healthy Start scheme in England and Wales
- Councils must ensure that subsistence payments made to a family with a British child fully meet the child’s welfare needs and therefore cover more than the family’s essential living needs
There are likely to be other children receiving support who are entitled to register as British citizens but have not done so due to a lack of awareness of their entitlement, being unable to access free legal advice, difficulties paying the £1,214 registration fee, or not knowing about the application fee waiver policy. For more information about British citizenship for children, see the NRPF Network website.
5. Home Office partnership working
NRPF Connect is operated by the Home Office NRPF team based within Immigration Enforcement. The team’s primary role is to respond to local authority immigration status requests and queries raised on NRPF Connect. It also liaises with Home Office casework teams on behalf of councils and conducts targeted work, such as reviewing long-standing cases.
In June 2025, we undertook a short survey of NRPF Connect users, receiving 95 responses. 83% of responders were either very satisfied or satisfied with the service they receive from the Home Office NRPF team and 74% of responders confirmed that having a central point of contact with the Home Office (the NRPF team) was essential to their work.
5.1 Volume of status checks and queries
The Home Office NRPF team provide local authorities with a high volume and well-used service, receiving nearly 18,000 local authority queries and requests for immigration status checks throughout the year. For the number of information requests received by the Home Office each month, see figure 21.
Local authority users can also perform an instant immigration status look-up by using the Recourse to Public Funds (RTPF) checker, which is embedded within NRPF Connect. The RTPF checker will show the current or last grant of leave that a person has had within the previous two years. The council can go onto create a case and request the Home Office NRPF team to undertake a manual status check, where this is required.
Figure 21: Number of immigration status checks and queries requested by local authority users throughout 2024–25
5.2 Response times
The Home Office regularly reviews resourcing levels and operational processes to ensure the delivery of an effective service aligned with service level agreements. In addition, continuous efforts are made to identify opportunities to streamline and enhance existing processes.
A service level agreement sets out the agreed response times with the Home Office aiming to respond to status checks within 5 working days and queries within 10 working days.
Since November 2024, the Home Office responded to immigration status checks and queries within an average time of 2 working days. An average response time of 2 days was maintained when requests for immigration status checks and queries significantly increased in January.
However, prior to November, the average response times for status checks and queries were above the timeframes set out in the service level agreement. This can be attributed to staffing changes, as the team was understaffed for the first part of the year. In November 2024, a new manager joined, staffing numbers returned to full capacity, and newly appointed team members had completed their training.
When the Home Office fails to meet agreed response times, this undermines a council’s ability to manage statutory responses efficiently.
For the average times that the Home Office responded to information requests each month, see figure 22.
Figure 22: Average number of days the Home Office took each month to respond to status checks and queries during 2024–25
5.3 1000-day cases review
Since February 2025, the Home Office NRPF team has been undertaking a full assessment of all households recorded as receiving financial support for at least 1,000-days.
As part of this work, strategic focus has been placed on case types where the need for urgent decision-making is most evident. Casework teams have been allocating cases to individual caseworkers for progression, while collaboration with councils is helping to ensure that active cases are accurately maintained on NRPF Connect and that financial support records are up to date. In parallel, internal referrals and ongoing reviews of 1,000-day cases are expected to lead to more positive outcomes in the coming months.
Appendix A: Councils providing data
Five new councils in England, Wales and Scotland joined NRPF Connect in 2024–25, bringing the total number of subscribers to 90.
Some new joiners may not have added data by the time that the report was run. One council joined after 31 March 2025 and added data for households they had been financially supporting during 2024–25, which has been included in the collective data.
The total number of councils that have social care responsibilities, and therefore could potentially subscribe to NRPF Connect, are:
- 153 in England
- 32 in Scotland
- 22 in Wales
- 5 Health and Social Care trusts in Northern Ireland
However, we would not expect councils to subscribe to NRPF Connect when they only rarely receive referrals relating to support for residents with no recourse to public funds, although there is no minimum requirement to be able to use the system in terms of the number of households receiving support.
Currently no Health and Social Care trusts in Northern Ireland are using NRPF Connect.
Some councils in England have delegated social care responsibilities to a trust. In Scotland, social care responsibilities may be delegated to a health and social care partnership. Where such arrangements are in place, the council is recorded as the subscriber to NRPF Connect.
Councils subscribed to NRPF Connect
Councils that were subscribed to NRPF Connect in 2024–25 or provided data for that period are listed in this section. Information about the councils providing data for each practice area can be found in the UK annual data and regional data for 2024–25.
East of England
- Bedford Borough Council
- Essex County Council
- Hertfordshire County Council
- Luton Borough Council
- Norfolk County Council
- Peterborough City Council
- Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Thurrock Council
East Midlands
- Derby City Council
- Leicester City Council
- Northamptonshire County Council
- Nottingham City Council
- Nottinghamshire County Council
Greater London boroughs
- Barking & Dagenham
- Barnet
- Bexley
- Brent
- Bromley
- Camden
- Croydon
- Ealing
- Enfield
- Greenwich
- Hackney
- Hammersmith & Fulham
- Haringey
- Harrow
- Havering
- Hillingdon
- Hounslow
- Islington
- Kensington & Chelsea
- Lambeth
- Lewisham
- Merton
- Newham
- Redbridge
- Southwark
- Sutton
- Tower Hamlets
- Waltham Forest
- Wandsworth
- Westminster
North East
- Durham County Council
- Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council
- Middlesbrough Council
- Newcastle City Council
North West
- Lancashire County Council
- Liverpool City Council
- Manchester City Council
- Rochdale Borough Council
- Salford City Council
- Trafford Council
South East
- Brighton & Hove City Council
- Buckinghamshire County Council
- East Sussex County Council
- Hampshire County Council
- Kent County Council
- Medway Council
- Milton Keynes Council
- Oxfordshire County Council
- Portsmouth City Council
- Reading Borough Council
- Slough Borough Council
- Southampton City Council
- Surrey County Council
- West Sussex County Council
South West
- Bristol City Council
- Gloucestershire County Council
- South Gloucestershire County Council
- Swindon Borough Council
West Midlands
- Birmingham City Council
- Coventry City Council
- Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
- Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
- Staffordshire County Council
- Stoke-on-Trent
- Telford & Wrekin
- Walsall Council
- Warwickshire County Council
- Wolverhampton City Council
Yorkshire & the Humber
- City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
- Kirklees Council
- Leeds City Council
- Sheffield City Council
Scotland
- Aberdeen City Council
- City of Edinburgh Council
- Glasgow City Council
- North Lanarkshire Council
Wales
- Flintshire County Council
- Newport City Council
Appendix B: Notes on the data
This report uses data from NRPF Connect to evidence costs, caseloads, and immigration status of people with no recourse to public funds who were provided with accommodation and financial support by councils across the UK between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025. Such support is provided when statutory social care duties are engaged.
What data is being reported?
NRPF Connect is a case management tool used by councils in England, Scotland and Wales to record details of households with no recourse to public funds that are provided with accommodation and/or financial support when social care duties are engaged.
NRPF Connect is hosted by LoCTA Ltd and operated by the NRPF Network in partnership with the Home Office. It is used on a voluntary basis and subscribers pay an annual subscription fee.
The dataset includes:
- Referrals recorded on NRPF Connect and the financial support provided to households between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 (downloaded on 29/07/2025)
- Home Office weekly performance report between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 (downloaded on 13/08/2025)
The report focuses on data regarding adults with care needs and families, as NRPF Connect provides the only UK-wide dataset for these groups. Although NRPF Connect is also used by councils to obtain immigration updates about looked after children and care leavers, grant funding reporting for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children takes place outside of NRPF Connect, therefore finance information provided for this group is usually only indicative of the overall costs incurred.
What changes have been made?
This year, we have changed the way of counting households receiving financial support to provide a more complete picture of caseloads and costs. Any person or family that was provided with financial support at any point between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 will be counted regardless of whether they were still being supported at the end of the year.
In previous years, we reported on a snapshot of households that were receiving financial support at the end of the financial year, i.e. on 31 March. As we are now reporting on all households that received financial support at any point throughout the year, comparisons with previous annual financial support data cannot be made. Referrals have always been counted across the whole year, and that method remains the same.
We now profile the immigration status of supported households as it is recorded at the start date of the report (i.e. 1 April 2024) or when the immigration status field is first completed if the person or family’s support started at a later date in the year. We also profile the immigration status of referrals added throughout the year when the immigration status field is first completed. The immigration status field may have been populated by the results of a look-up performed on the Recourse to Public Funds checker or otherwise will usually be completed by the Home Office when a person’s details are initially added to NRPF Connect. For families, we report on the immigration status of the lead parent or carer.
How we use the data
The dataset is the only UK-wide data drawn from case information relating to households requesting or receiving local authority support. The data demonstrates the costs incurred by councils through delivering essential support to households with no recourse to public funds to alleviate homelessness and destitution. The data also provides an insight into the people receiving support in terms of their immigration status, duration of support, and make-up of family households.
The dataset is used to inform policy recommendations that we make to central and devolved governments. These are raised with the Home Office when the report is published and with other government departments and parliamentarians when we respond to consultations and parliamentary inquiries, etc. Read our recent evidence submissions.
The data is often referred to by other organisations and academic researchers.
Definitions
‘Adults with care needs’ or ‘adults’ are people who requested, or were provided with, accommodation and financial support under the following legislation:
- Section 18(1) of the Care Act 2014
- Section 19(1) of the Care Act 2014
- Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
- Section 35 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014
- Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983
- Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996
- Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011
‘Families’ are families with a child under 18 that have been provided with accommodation and financial support under the following legislation:
- Section 17 of the Children Act 1989
- Section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
- Section 37 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014
‘Looked after children and care leavers’ are children and young people who have been provided with accommodation and financial support under the following legislation:
- The Children Act 1989, as amended by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000
- Section 20 of the Children Act 1989
- Section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
- Sections 29 & 30 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
- Part 6 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014
‘No recourse to public funds’ includes people who have:
- Leave to remain with a ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition
- No lawful status
- A pending asylum claim or appeal
- Leave subject to a maintenance undertaking, such as an adult dependent relative
- Pre-settled status or a pending EUSS application and are ineligible for means-tested benefits
Further guidance and information
For more information about who has no recourse to public funds and what services they may be entitled to, see the NRPF Network website.
For more information about how statutory duties apply to people with no recourse to public fund, please refer to our detailed practice guidance, which is supported by the Local Government Association, Association of Directors of Children’s Services and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services.
Acknowledgements
The annual datasets have been prepared by Arthur Lewis and Sam Gill. This report has been produced by the NRPF Network staff team.
We are grateful to all the local authority users of NRPF Connect who have contributed to this collective data. At the Home Office we would like to thank Chandra Nair, Ben Clements and the NRPF team for the continuing support they provide to councils using the system.