Adult social care: every shire district ranked by spend per resident
24 councils · median £1.33/person · mean £5.90/person. From MHCLG Revenue Outturn 2024-25.
| Rank | Council | Control | Seats | Population | Total spend | Per resident | vs median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elmbridge | LD | 141,926 | £3.9m | £27.56 | +1972% | |
| 2 | Spelthorne | LD | 107,074 | £2.1m | £19.74 | +1384% | |
| 3 | Woking | LD | 105,679 | £2.0m | £18.68 | +1305% | |
| 4 | Mole Valley | LD | 88,709 | £1.5m | £17.15 | +1189% | |
| 5 | Epsom and Ewell | RES | 83,288 | £1.0m | £12.39 | +832% | |
| 6 | Surrey Heath | LD | 94,492 | £1.1m | £12.06 | +807% | |
| 7 | Tendring | Con | 156,759 | £1.5m | £9.29 | +598% | |
| 8 | North Hertfordshire | Con | 137,201 | £0.9m | £6.72 | +405% | |
| 9 | Runnymede | Lab | 92,118 | £0.6m | £6.69 | +403% | |
| 10 | Harborough | Con | 104,713 | £0.5m | £4.79 | +260% | |
| 11 | Horsham | LD | 151,521 | £0.7m | £4.54 | +241% | |
| 12 | Harlow | Con | 98,235 | £0.2m | £1.93 | +45% | |
| 13 | South Cambridgeshire | LD | 172,544 | £0.1m | £0.73 | -45% | |
| 14 | New Forest | Con | 176,116 | £0.1m | £0.44 | -67% | |
| 15 | Wyre | Con | 118,743 | £0.1m | £0.42 | -68% | |
| 16 | Waverley | LD | 134,284 | £0.0m | £0.36 | -73% | |
| 17 | Ribble Valley | Con | 65,794 | £0.0m | £0.33 | -75% | |
| 18 | Tandridge | LD | 90,586 | £0.0m | £0.06 | -95% | |
| 19 | Burnley | Ref | 99,233 | £0.0m | £0.05 | -96% | |
| 20 | North Kesteven | Con | 122,468 | £0.0m | £0.03 | -98% | |
| 21 | Bolsover | Lab | 83,773 | £0.0m | £0.01 | -99% | |
| 22 | Crawley | Ref | 124,008 | £-0.0m | £-0.18 | -114% | |
| 23 | Wyre Forest | Con | 103,913 | £-0.1m | £-0.89 | -167% | |
| 24 | Blaby | Con | 108,165 | £-0.1m | £-1.29 | -197% |
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.