How we score councils
Methodology v0.5 (provisional). Service quality across seven services, value for money on four (spend compared with councils of similar need and results), and financial health (reserves, debt costs, schools-funding deficit, government bailouts).
Who is ranked
The 32 London boroughs and 36 metropolitan boroughs, 68 councils in all. Services where both scores and data are published are weighted by how much they matter to residents and budgets: adult social care and children's services count one and a half times as much as other services. These councils run almost all local services themselves, so they can be compared fairly. The City of London is shown but not ranked: with about 8,600 residents, its figures per resident aren't comparable. Each council is ranked against all 68 councils, and separately against London or metropolitan boroughs only.
What we measure
Service quality (60% of the overall score)
Planning
- Major planning decisions made in time (24 months) (higher is better; weight 0.5 within planning) Within 13 weeks or the agreed time limit (PPA/extension of time/EIA). Government designation measure.
Source: MHCLG — Planning application statistics (PS2) - Non-major planning decisions made in time (24 months) (higher is better; weight 0.5 within planning) Minor + other applications within 8 weeks or the agreed time limit.
Source: MHCLG — Planning application statistics (PS2)
Waste & recycling
- Household waste sent for reuse recycling or composting (higher is better; weight 0.5 within waste & recycling) Ex NI192
Source: DEFRA — Local authority collected waste management - Residual household waste per household (lower is better; weight 0.5 within waste & recycling) Ex NI191
Source: DEFRA — Local authority collected waste management
Complaints
- Ombudsman upheld decisions per 100k residents (lower is better; weight 0.5 within complaints) Combines the latest 2 years. As published by LGSCO (their population base). To be recomputed from ONS mid-year estimates.
Source: Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman — annual review data - Ombudsman investigations upheld (lower is better; weight 0.25 within complaints) Combines the latest 2 years, adding up the case counts. Upheld / (upheld + not upheld). Small counts - interpret with care.
Source: Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman — annual review data - Ombudsman recommendations implemented on time (higher is better; weight 0.25 within complaints)
Source: Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman — annual review data
Children's services
- Ofsted overall effectiveness (children's services) (higher is better; weight 0.8 within children's services) Most recent ILACS judgement: 4 Outstanding - 3 Good - 2 Requires improvement - 1 Inadequate
Source: Ofsted — Local authority inspection outcomes - Ofsted sub-judgements (average) (higher is better; weight 0.2 within children's services) Average of the leadership / help and protection / children in care / care leavers judgements
Source: Ofsted — Local authority inspection outcomes
Adult social care
- Quality of life of people who use services (adjusted) (higher is better; weight 0.3 within adult social care) ASCOF 1B. Adjusted for factors outside the council's control
Source: DHSC — Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework - People who use services satisfied with their care and support (higher is better; weight 0.25 within adult social care) ASCOF 1D
Source: DHSC — Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework - Older people still at home 12 weeks after hospital discharge into reablement (higher is better; weight 0.15 within adult social care) ASCOF 2D part 1
Source: DHSC — Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework - People receiving long-term support who live in their own home or with family (higher is better; weight 0.15 within adult social care) ASCOF 2E part 1
Source: DHSC — Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework - People who use services who feel safe (higher is better; weight 0.15 within adult social care) ASCOF 4A
Source: DHSC — Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework
Special educational needs
- New EHC plans issued within 20 weeks (higher is better; weight 1 within special educational needs) Combines the latest 2 years, adding up the case counts. Excluding exception cases. Statutory limit is 20 weeks
Source: DfE — Education, health and care plans
Homelessness
- Homelessness prevented: accommodation secured for 6+ months (higher is better; weight 0.45 within homelessness) Combines the latest 4 years, adding up the case counts. Share of prevention duties ended where the household secured accommodation for at least 6 months
Source: MHCLG — Statutory homelessness statistics - Homelessness relieved: accommodation secured for 6+ months (higher is better; weight 0.35 within homelessness) Combines the latest 4 years, adding up the case counts. Share of relief duties ended with accommodation secured for at least 6 months
Source: MHCLG — Statutory homelessness statistics - Households in temporary accommodation per 1000 households (lower is better; weight 0.2 within homelessness) End of quarter. Driven heavily by local housing costs
Source: MHCLG — Statutory homelessness statistics
Value for money (20% of the overall score)
Adult social care value for money
Compares adult social care results with adult social care net spend per adult, after allowing for need. We estimate the spend expected for each council from income deprivation affecting older people average score and population aged 65 and over and whether it is in London (higher costs) and its adult social care results, then score spending below that expectation as better value: less money for the same need and the same results. Results themselves already count under service quality, so they are not counted again here. RSX adult social care net current expenditure / population aged 18+
Children's services value for money
Compares children's services results with children's social care net spend per child, after allowing for need. We estimate the spend expected for each council from income deprivation affecting children average score and whether it is in London (higher costs) and its children's services results, then score spending below that expectation as better value: less money for the same need and the same results. Results themselves already count under service quality, so they are not counted again here. RSX children's social care net current expenditure / population aged 0-17
Waste value for money
Compares waste & recycling results with net waste spend per dwelling (incl. disposal levy), after allowing for need. We estimate the spend expected for each council from index of multiple deprivation average score and whether it is in London (higher costs) and its waste & recycling results, then score spending below that expectation as better value: less money for the same need and the same results. Results themselves already count under service quality, so they are not counted again here. RO5 collection + disposal + recycling + minimisation plus RS waste disposal levy / dwellings
Planning value for money
Compares planning results with net development control cost per planning decision, after allowing for need. We estimate the spend expected for each council from whether it is in London (higher costs) and its planning results, then score spending below that expectation as better value: less money for the same need and the same results. Results themselves already count under service quality, so they are not counted again here. RO5 development control (net of fees) / planning decisions in the year
Financial health (20% of the overall score)
Bailout rule: on financial health, a council that needed Exceptional Financial Support from government in the last three years ranks below every council that did not. Without this rule, healthy-looking reserves could offset the bailout that protected them. The rule applies to this pillar only, not to the overall rank: a council with a bailout but strong services can still rank above one without. A council whose financial health was already near the bottom barely moves; one that looked healthier is moved to just below the lowest council without a bailout. The size of the bailout is shown but not scored separately, so it isn't counted twice.
Reserves
- Usable reserves as a share of net revenue expenditure (higher is better; weight 0.85 within reserves) Unallocated + other earmarked reserves at year end (excl. schools public health and DSG) / net revenue expenditure
Source: Calculated from MHCLG Revenue Outturn, ONS population, MHCLG dwelling stock and planning statistics - Change in usable reserves over the year as a share of net revenue expenditure (higher is better; weight 0.15 within reserves) (Year-end minus start-of-year usable reserves) / net revenue expenditure. Negative = drawing down reserves
Source: Calculated from MHCLG Revenue Outturn, ONS population, MHCLG dwelling stock and planning statistics
Debt costs
- Debt servicing costs as a share of net revenue expenditure (lower is better; weight 1 within debt costs) Repaying principal (MRP) plus external interest, less interest paid by the Housing Revenue Account, / net revenue expenditure. How much of each year's budget goes on past borrowing. Excludes leases
Source: Calculated from MHCLG Revenue Outturn, ONS population, MHCLG dwelling stock and planning statistics
Schools funding deficit
- High-needs (DSG) deficit as a share of net revenue expenditure (lower is better; weight 1 within schools funding deficit) Negative DSG adjustment account at year end / net revenue expenditure. The statutory override keeps these deficits off council balance sheets for now
Source: Calculated from MHCLG Revenue Outturn, ONS population, MHCLG dwelling stock and planning statistics
Government bailouts
- Exceptional Financial Support over three years as a share of net revenue expenditure (lower is better; weight 1 within government bailouts) Sum of EFS agreed for the last three financial years / net revenue expenditure. 0 = none
Source: Calculated from MHCLG Revenue Outturn, ONS population, MHCLG dwelling stock and planning statistics
How the scores are combined
- Each measure is converted so that higher always means better.
- Extreme values are capped at the 5th and 95th percentiles, so one outlier can't dominate.
- Each measure becomes a standard score: how far a council is above or below the average, in standard deviations.
- Service-area scores are weighted averages of their measures. A council must have data covering at least 60% of the weight to receive a score. If a measure is missing, the council's other measures in that area share its weight in proportion to their own; the same applies when a whole service area or pillar is missing. Councils scored on incomplete data are marked with an asterisk in the rankings.
- Service areas are combined into pillars, and pillars into the overall score, using the weights shown above. Scores are re-standardised at each step, so the published weights are the weights that actually apply.
Value-for-money spending models
Expected spend comes from a least-squares regression across all 68 councils (separate fits are used within London and metropolitan boroughs). Each figure is the change in expected spend for a one-unit change in that factor. R² is the share of the differences in spending between councils that the model explains; where it is low, need and results explain little of why councils spend different amounts, and the value-for-money score is close to simple spending per head. Treat those scores with more caution.
| Service | Factor | Effect on expected spend |
|---|---|---|
| Adult social care value for money Adult social care net spend per adult. 66 councils, R² 0.48 | Baseline | £192 |
| Income deprivation affecting older people average score (0–1 scale) | £740 | |
| Population aged 65 and over (per percentage point) | £15 | |
| In London (yes = 1) | −£39 | |
| Service results (per standard deviation better) | −£7.3 | |
| Children's services value for money Children's social care net spend per child. 66 councils, R² 0.04 | Baseline | £1,338 |
| Income deprivation affecting children average score (0–1 scale) | £678 | |
| In London (yes = 1) | −£56 | |
| Service results (per standard deviation better) | £1.8 | |
| Waste value for money Net waste spend per dwelling (incl. disposal levy). 66 councils, R² 0.10 | Baseline | £140 |
| Index of Multiple Deprivation average score | £1.6 | |
| In London (yes = 1) | £21 | |
| Service results (per standard deviation better) | £4.6 | |
| Planning value for money Net development control cost per planning decision. 66 councils, R² 0.08 | Baseline | £624 |
| In London (yes = 1) | −£205 | |
| Service results (per standard deviation better) | −£115 |
How reliable are the rankings?
We re-ran the rankings under reasonable alternatives: different pillar weights (50/25/25, 70/15/15), equal weight for every service, no bailout rule, leaving out temporary accommodation, and no cap on outliers. Rankings stayed closely correlated with the published version (rank correlation 0.98 or higher), the median council moved 1–2 places, and some councils moved up to 10 places. Giving the three pillars equal weight changes more (rank correlation 0.91, median move 6, up to 19 places), because value for money measures something different from service quality. So the bands (top quarter, upper middle, lower middle, bottom quarter) are a more reliable guide than exact positions.
Likely range for each council
Each council page gives a likely range for its overall rank. We re-ran the ranking 500 times. Each time, every service-area and pillar weight was multiplied by a random factor between 0.5 and 1.5, to reflect that reasonable people would weight things differently. Measures built from case counts (Ombudsman decisions, EHC plans, homelessness cases) were also re-drawn to reflect chance variation in small numbers. The range runs from the 5th to the 95th percentile of the council's rank across those re-runs, and always includes its published rank. We also show how often it stayed in the same band. Councils near the top and bottom are clear-cut; mid-table ranges often span 15–25 places. The ranges don't cover errors in the source data or measures we don't have.
What's coming
- CQC ratings of council adult social care (when published in a reusable format).
- Financial health: borrowing and audit status.
- A deprivation-adjusted view of service quality.
Reproducibility
Every published number is traced to the exact source file it came from. This page describes methodology v0.5 applied to data snapshot 16a4b69be362.