This shows what fraction of the council's care spending is paid back by the people receiving the care — for example, 0.15 means 15p of every £1 spent comes back through means-tested charges. It matters because a council recovering less than its peers is asking local taxpayers to cover more of the bill. A high rate can reflect a wealthier population or efficient billing; a low rate can reflect deprivation — or charges not being collected. So it mixes local circumstances with how well the council runs its charging.
| name | asc_income_recovery_rate |
|---|---|
| dataset | 07-adult-social-care-finance |
| kind | constructed |
| type | numeric |
| unit | share (0–1) |
| grain | council (CASSR), keyed on GEOGRAPHY_CODE |
| role | feature |
| source | Formula: asc_income_client_contributions / asc_gross_current_expenditure; both inputs extracted from the main CSV |
| period | FY 2024-25 |
| missingness | NA where either input is suppressed (`[x]`); treat `[x]` as NA, never zero |
| score_note | Distinct charging-efficiency ratio, though confounded by deprivation and care mix. |
| peer_group | CASSRs (the 153 social-care authorities) — not yet scored on the leaderboard |
Proportion of gross care spend recovered from users — a charging-policy/efficiency signal. Caveat: heavily shaped by local deprivation and care mix, so compare within similar councils rather than across the whole distribution.