Councils can run their own care homes or pay private and charity providers to do it; this measures the difference in weekly cost per resident between the two. It matters because most councils' own homes cost more per week — sometimes hundreds of pounds more — which raises the question of whether that premium buys better care or is just inefficiency. A large positive gap means in-house care is much dearer than bought-in care; a small or negative gap means the council runs its own homes at competitive cost.
| name | asc_inhouse_vs_external_residential_cost_gap |
|---|---|
| dataset | 07-adult-social-care-finance |
| kind | constructed |
| type | numeric |
| unit | £ per person per week |
| grain | council (CASSR) × AgeBand × PrimarySupportReason (matched cuts) |
| role | feature |
| source | Formula: UNIT COST(Residential, In House) − UNIT COST(Residential, External) at matched AgeBand/PrimarySupportReason. Inputs: asc_unit_cost_by_setting_age_psr, ActivityProvision='In House' vs 'External' cuts (both verified present, 153 rows each per cut) |
| period | FY 2024-25 |
| missingness | Subject to suppression (`[x]`) for councils with little in-house provision; treat `[x]` as NA, never zero |
| score_note | Prime in-sourcing efficiency gap, unique across all datasets, but suppression leaves incomplete coverage. |
| peer_group | CASSRs (the 153 social-care authorities) — not yet scored on the leaderboard |
How much more (typically) the council's own residential provision costs than externally commissioned care — an in-sourcing efficiency signal. Caveat: suppressed for councils with little in-house provision, so coverage is incomplete, and comparisons should be made at matched age-band/PSR cuts.