This shows what slice of the council's entire service budget goes on adult social care — roughly a quarter for a typical council. It matters because a big slice leaves less for libraries, roads, bins and everything else, and because comparing councils' overall efficiency is misleading without first accounting for it. A high share can mean an older or needier population, high care costs, or a squeezed overall budget; a low share means care takes up relatively less of what the council does.
| name | asc_share_of_service_spend |
|---|---|
| dataset | 07-adult-social-care-finance |
| kind | constructed |
| type | numeric |
| unit | share (0–1) |
| grain | council (CASSR), joined on ONS_code = GEOGRAPHY_CODE |
| role | feature |
| source | Formula: asc_net_current_expenditure / RSX_totsx_net_cur_exp (units already match: both £000s). Inputs: asc_net_current_expenditure from this dataset; RSX_totsx_net_cur_exp (and RSX_asc_net_cur_exp for cross-checking) from ../01-revenue-outturn/data/Revenue_Outturn_time_series_data_v3.2.csv, year_ending=202503 |
| period | FY 2024-25 |
| missingness | NA where either input is suppressed (`[x]`) or missing; treat `[x]` as NA, never zero |
| score_note | Useful ring-fencing ratio, but a cross-dataset derivation with modest standalone signal. |
| peer_group | CASSRs (the 153 social-care authorities) — not yet scored on the leaderboard |
How much of the council's total net service expenditure adult social care consumes. Use this to ring-fence ASC before whole-council efficiency comparisons — per the README caveat, ASC is roughly a quarter of all council spend and otherwise swamps everything else. Cross-check against RSX_asc_net_cur_exp from the revenue outturn sibling.