One in nine has no website we could find. Another one in ten has an address that leads
nowhere, so one home in five has nothing a family could open, rising to one in four among
small operators. Of the homes that do have a working site, the typical one answers about
six tenths of what a family needs and leaves the rest out. That sounds like a damning
verdict on the sector. It is closer to a timing problem. These sites were built to
reassure a human who had already found them, which was the right brief for a long time.
One gap shows up at every size of operator. Between a third and 43% give a family nothing
on fees, funding, visiting, or what admission involves. The national groups with marketing
departments are barely better on it, which is good news if you are smaller than them.
The CQC point lands hardest. Operators assume a strong rating carries them. It does
not. The rating is real and it matters to families, but it lives on the regulator's
website, in the regulator's words. So when an AI engine needs evidence, it cites the
regulator. Or a directory. Rarely you.
That is the gap. Your quality is written up somewhere else, by someone else, and they
get the credit for it.
Read the full study, including
the method and what it does not claim.