evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Cambridgeshire's Resource Allocation System — the UK Supreme Court Case That Set Rules for Algorithmic Care Budgets

United Kingdom · Cambridge · See the United Kingdom profile · See the Cambridge profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 32% 67/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

England's Resource Allocation System converts a standardised needs questionnaire into a personal care budget; the UK Supreme Court upheld its use in R (KM) v Cambridgeshire (2012) but demanded clearer reasoning behind the figures it produces.

85,000 GBP/year
Annual direct payment set after Upper Banding review (2012)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Cambridgeshire County Council (Resource Allocation System, used England-wide)
Period
2003–2012
Keywords
adult social care, disability benefits, personal budgets, due process

Context

England's Resource Allocation System (RAS) is a weighted-points formula, developed by Simon Duffy and John Waters through the "In Control" programme, that converts a standardised social-care needs questionnaire into an indicative annual personal budget for adult social care. It has been adopted by nearly all English local authorities since the mid-2000s, with an "Upper Banding Calculator" for the most complex cases.

Activities

In R (KM) v Cambridgeshire County Council, a severely disabled adult challenged his local authority's RAS-derived budget as too low and too opaque. After an Upper Banding review, his direct payment was set at £85,000 a year, with all of his presenting needs accepted as eligible.

Results

The UK Supreme Court (2012) declined to strike down RAS itself, holding it an acceptable "ball-park" starting tool provided there is a realistic link between needs, points and costs. However, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court sharply criticised the council's reasoning as "tortuous" and marked by "deficits in reasoning," and required authorities to give an intelligible written explanation of how a budget figure relates to assessed needs and costs.

Conclusions

RAS remains in use across most English councils, but disability and social-care researchers continue to flag a tendency for RAS to supplant professional judgement — a caution that a legally upheld formula is not the same as a well-calibrated one, and that transparency remedies address process, not necessarily accuracy.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
social workers/care assessors administering the needs questionnaire, council legal and finance teams handling budget decisions and appeals

Conditions for success

  • an intelligible written explanation linking assessed needs, points and the resulting budget figure
  • a realistic, evidenced link between needs, points and costs in the underlying formula
  • ongoing professional oversight so the formula does not supplant individual professional judgement

Common failure modes

  • opaque or "tortuous" reasoning behind a budget figure invites successful legal challenge
  • over-reliance on the formula supplanting professional judgement of individual need

Where it fits

Governance type
local government (English local authorities, devolved statutory duty)
Scale
national — adopted by nearly all English councils
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful