Adult social care: every county council ranked by spend per resident
21 councils · median £510.06/person · mean £504.47/person. From MHCLG Revenue Outturn 2024-25.
| Rank | Council | Control | Seats | Population | Total spend | Per resident | vs median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | East Sussex | — | — | 560,882 | £380.3m | £678.01 | +33% |
| 2 | Norfolk | — | — | 940,359 | £572.0m | £608.30 | +19% |
| 3 | Nottinghamshire | — | — | 857,013 | £477.0m | £556.54 | +9% |
| 4 | Derbyshire | — | — | 822,377 | £456.9m | £555.58 | +9% |
| 5 | Devon | — | — | 842,313 | £462.6m | £549.17 | +8% |
| 6 | Suffolk | — | — | 786,231 | £425.1m | £540.74 | +6% |
| 7 | Hertfordshire | — | — | 1,236,191 | £663.2m | £536.47 | +5% |
| 8 | Lancashire | — | — | 1,294,914 | £688.8m | £531.91 | +4% |
| 9 | Surrey | — | — | 1,248,649 | £655.1m | £524.68 | +3% |
| 10 | Essex | — | — | 1,563,365 | £813.5m | £520.35 | +2% |
| 11 | Kent | — | — | 1,639,029 | £836.0m | £510.06 | 0% |
| 12 | Hampshire | — | — | 1,447,214 | £683.7m | £472.46 | -7% |
| 13 | Cambridgeshire | — | — | 710,317 | £334.0m | £470.21 | -8% |
| 14 | Warwickshire | — | — | 632,207 | £289.8m | £458.45 | -10% |
| 15 | Worcestershire | — | — | 621,360 | £284.8m | £458.37 | -10% |
| 16 | Oxfordshire | — | — | 763,218 | £349.5m | £457.95 | -10% |
| 17 | West Sussex | — | — | 915,037 | £417.7m | £456.52 | -10% |
| 18 | Gloucestershire | — | — | 669,380 | £295.3m | £441.11 | -14% |
| 19 | Staffordshire | — | — | 907,153 | £388.5m | £428.21 | -16% |
| 20 | Lincolnshire | — | — | 789,502 | £334.8m | £424.06 | -17% |
| 21 | Leicestershire | — | — | 745,573 | £309.3m | £414.82 | -19% |
What this shows. Net revenue expenditure on the adult social care bucket from each council’s 2024-25 Revenue Outturn (RO) submission to MHCLG, divided by ONS mid-year population. Higher per-head doesn’t imply waste — it can reflect demographic need (e.g. more older residents), rurality, or policy choice (e.g. retaining in-house services rather than contracting out). Lower per-head doesn’t imply efficiency — some councils have moved costs to fees, grants, or a ringfenced account.
Caveats. Councils under MHCLG suppression for 2024-25 don’t appear here (Birmingham, Slough, Cumberland and others — see their council card for the reason). Comparisons across the tier line don’t make sense, which is why this table is filtered to one council type at a time. Source: MHCLG Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing.