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.
Moscow's public health department centrally benchmarks and deploys a marketplace of 50+ vetted computer-vision diagnostic tools as a mandatory "second …