Provisional (methodology v1.0). Weights and measures may change as more data is added.
Separate leagues. England, Scotland and Wales are measured differently, so a rank in one is not comparable with another. Why. England is stable; Scotland and Wales are provisional.
How we score councils in Scotland
Scotland methodology v1.0 (provisional). Service quality across six services, value for money on four (unit costs compared with councils of similar need and results), and financial health (reserves and borrowing costs).
A separate league
Scotland's councils are ranked against each other, not against England's. The services councils run, the bodies that inspect them and the way each measure is defined all differ between the nations, so a rank in Scotland cannot be compared with a rank in England. The method is the same: the same pillars and weights, and the same way of combining scores. The measures are not.
Who is ranked
32 councils in Scotland, and each also within cities, islands and other councils. Small groups give little to go on: a rank within a group of three or four councils says little.
What we measure
Service quality (60% of the overall score)
Planning (weight 1 within service quality)
- Local applications decided within 2 months (higher is better; weight 0.6 within planning) Planning Applications Statistics Table 4: local developments without processing agreements. Statutory target is 2 months.
Source: Scottish Government — Planning Applications Statistics - Average weeks to decide a local application (lower is better; weight 0.25 within planning) Table 4: overall average, local applications without processing agreements
Source: Scottish Government — Planning Applications Statistics - Average weeks to decide a major application (lower is better; weight 0.15 within planning) Table 2: overall average, major applications not subject to a processing agreement. Small counts (single digits in many councils) - interpret with care.
Source: Scottish Government — Planning Applications Statistics
Waste & recycling (weight 1 within service quality)
- Household waste recycled (higher is better; weight 1 within waste & recycling) LGBF indicator ENV06, which uses SEPA's household waste data.
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework
Complaints (weight 0.5 within service quality)
- Ombudsman complaints upheld per 100,000 residents (lower is better; weight 0.6 within complaints) SPSO upheld (fully or in part) / NRS population. Counts are tiny, so this barely separates councils.
Source: Calculated from Scottish local government finance statistics, Ombudsman complaints and NRS population - Ombudsman complaints determined per 100,000 residents (lower is better; weight 0.4 within complaints) SPSO complaints determined (all stages) / NRS population. Includes advice and early resolution, so partly measures awareness of the Ombudsman.
Source: Calculated from Scottish local government finance statistics, Ombudsman complaints and NRS population
Children's services (weight 1.5 within service quality)
- Pupils gaining 5+ awards at SCQF level 5 (higher is better; weight 0.15 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN04
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - P1, P4 and P7 pupils achieving expected literacy level (higher is better; weight 0.15 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN13a
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - P1, P4 and P7 pupils achieving expected numeracy level (higher is better; weight 0.15 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN13b
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Pupils entering positive destinations (higher is better; weight 0.2 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN11
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - School attendance rate (higher is better; weight 0.1 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN19a
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - School exclusions per 1,000 pupils (lower is better; weight 0.05 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN20a
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Participation rate for 16-19 year olds (higher is better; weight 0.05 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN21
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Funded early years provision graded good or better (higher is better; weight 0.05 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN18 (Care Inspectorate grades)
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Child protection re-registrations within 18 months (lower is better; weight 0.05 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN22. Small counts - interpret with care.
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Looked-after children with more than one placement in the year (lower is better; weight 0.05 within children's services) LGBF indicator CHN23
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework
Adult social care (weight 1.5 within service quality)
- Adults supported at home who agree their support improved or maintained their quality of life (higher is better; weight 0.2 within adult social care) LGBF indicator SW04b (Health and Care Experience survey)
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Adult care services graded good or better (higher is better; weight 0.2 within adult social care) LGBF indicator SW07 (Care Inspectorate grades)
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Adults supported at home who agree they are supported to live as independently as possible (higher is better; weight 0.15 within adult social care) LGBF indicator SW04c (Health and Care Experience survey)
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Adults supported at home who agree they had a say in their support (higher is better; weight 0.1 within adult social care) LGBF indicator SW04d (Health and Care Experience survey)
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Carers who feel supported to continue caring (higher is better; weight 0.1 within adult social care) LGBF indicator SW04e (Health and Care Experience survey)
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Hospital readmissions within 28 days per 1,000 discharges (lower is better; weight 0.1 within adult social care) LGBF indicator SW06
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Days in hospital when ready for discharge, per 1,000 population aged 75+ (lower is better; weight 0.1 within adult social care) LGBF indicator SW08
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - People 65+ with long-term care needs receiving personal care at home (higher is better; weight 0.05 within adult social care) LGBF indicator SW03a
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework
Homelessness (weight 1 within service quality)
- Unintentionally homeless households moving to settled accommodation (higher is better; weight 0.4 within homelessness) Table 55a: council tenancy + housing association + private rented tenancy, as a share of all outcomes where contact was maintained. Our definition of settled; includes households whose outcome is not known.
Source: Scottish Government — Homelessness in Scotland - Households in temporary accommodation per 1,000 households (lower is better; weight 0.3 within homelessness) Table 33, at 31 March (the publication gives a rate per 10,000 households; divided by 10 here). Driven heavily by local housing costs.
Source: Scottish Government — Homelessness in Scotland - Average days in temporary accommodation, cases closed in the year (lower is better; weight 0.3 within homelessness) Table 38a
Source: Scottish Government — Homelessness in Scotland
Value for money (20% of the overall score)
Adult social care value for money
Compares adult social care results with home care cost per hour, people aged 65 or over, after allowing for need. We estimate the cost expected for each council from population aged 65 and over and population per square kilometre and its adult social care results, then score a cost below that expectation as better value. Results already count under service quality, so they are not counted again here. LGBF indicator SW01, cash terms
Children's services value for money
Compares children's services results with cost per primary school pupil, after allowing for need. We estimate the cost expected for each council from population per square kilometre and its children's services results, then score a cost below that expectation as better value. Results already count under service quality, so they are not counted again here. LGBF indicator CHN01, cash terms
Waste value for money
Compares waste & recycling results with net cost of waste collection per premises, after allowing for need. We estimate the cost expected for each council from population per square kilometre and its waste & recycling results, then score a cost below that expectation as better value. Results already count under service quality, so they are not counted again here. LGBF indicator ENV01a, cash terms
Planning value for money
Compares planning results with cost of planning and building standards per planning application, after allowing for need. We estimate the cost expected for each council from its planning results, then score a cost below that expectation as better value. Results already count under service quality, so they are not counted again here. LGBF indicator ECON02, cash terms
Financial health (20% of the overall score)
Reserves (weight 1 within financial health)
- Usable reserves as a share of annual budgeted revenue (higher is better; weight 0.5 within reserves) LGBF indicator FINSUS01
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Uncommitted General Fund balance as a share of budgeted net revenue (higher is better; weight 0.3 within reserves) LGBF indicator FINSUS02
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework - Reliance on reserves as a share of net expenditure (lower is better; weight 0.2 within reserves) LGBF indicator FINSUS06
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework
Debt (weight 1 within financial health)
- Financing costs as a share of net revenue stream (General Fund) (lower is better; weight 1 within debt) LGBF indicator FINSUS03
Source: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework
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.
- Service areas are combined into pillars, and pillars into the overall score, using the weights above. Scores are re-standardised at each step, so the published weights are the weights that actually apply.
Value-for-money cost models
Expected cost comes from a least-squares regression across all 32 councils. Each figure is the change in expected cost for a one-unit change in that factor. R² is the share of the differences in cost between councils that the model explains. For adult social care, children's services, waste and planning it is low (under 20%): need and results explain little of why councils' costs differ, so those value-for-money scores are close to a plain cost comparison. Treat them with caution.
| Service | Factor | Effect on expected cost |
|---|---|---|
| Adult social care value for money Home care cost per hour, people aged 65 or over. 30 councils, R² 0.09 | Baseline | £8.8 |
| Population aged 65 and over | £1.3 | |
| Population per square kilometre | £0.001 | |
| Service results (per standard deviation better) | £0.61 | |
| Children's services value for money Cost per primary school pupil. 32 councils, R² 0.11 | Baseline | £8,472 |
| Population per square kilometre | −£0.6 | |
| Service results (per standard deviation better) | −£164 | |
| Waste value for money Net cost of waste collection per premises. 32 councils, R² 0.07 | Baseline | £69 |
| Population per square kilometre | £0.002 | |
| Service results (per standard deviation better) | −£4.3 | |
| Planning value for money Cost of planning and building standards per planning application. 32 councils, R² 0.09 | Baseline | £7,469 |
| Service results (per standard deviation better) | £748 |
Service quality, adjusted for need (limited need data)
Alongside the main ranking we show a second view of service quality that allows for need. It is not part of the overall rank. For adult social care and waste & recycling, we measured how each service's score tends to move with its need measures across the 32 councils and took that part out. Planning, complaints, children's services and homelessness are left as they are, because we have no measure of their need.
| Service | Need measure | Effect on the service score | Variation explained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adult social care | Population aged 65 and over | 0.11 | 11% |
| Population per square kilometre | 0.001 | ||
| Waste & recycling | Population per square kilometre | −0.001 | 17% |
Effects are in standard deviations of the service score, per unit of the need measure.
The adjusted and unadjusted ranks have a rank correlation of 0.98; the largest move is 4 places and 0 of 32 councils move more than 5. Need is only partly captured by these measures, so treat this view as indicative.
How reliable are the rankings?
We re-ran the rankings under reasonable alternatives. Each row shows how closely the new order matches the published one (a rank correlation of 1 would be identical) and how far councils moved.
| Change | Rank correlation | Median move | Largest move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pillars 50/25/25 | 0.986 | 0 | 4 |
| Pillars 70/15/15 | 0.992 | 1 | 4 |
| Pillars equal thirds | 0.884 | 3 | 10 |
| Equal weight for every service | 0.946 | 2 | 9 |
| No temporary accommodation | 0.993 | 1 | 3 |
| No cap on outliers | 0.964 | 1 | 8 |
With few councils a single move is a large share of the table, 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 multiplying every service-area and pillar weight by a random factor between 0.5 and 1.5. 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. The median range spans 7 places of 32. The ranges don't cover errors in the source data or measures we don't have.
Known gaps and limits
- Value for money is weak evidence. Scotland's deprivation index (SIMD) is being rebuilt and is not used, so costs are compared allowing only for population density and the share of residents aged 65 and over.
- There is no measure of special educational needs. Children's services are judged on outcomes (attainment, destinations, looked-after children), not inspection grades.
- Adult social care is run by health and social care partnerships, and in Highland is split between the council and the health board.
- Cities (4 councils) and Islands (3) are too small for a rank within the group to mean much.
- Ombudsman complaint counts are tiny in most councils, so complaints carry half the weight of other services.
Figures not published or withheld
These are listed, not hidden. Where a figure is withheld it is because it looks inconsistent with the same council's other figures; we have not changed it, and it returns if the publisher confirms or revises it.
| Council | Measure | Period | Status | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Lanarkshire | Uncommitted General Fund balance as a share of budgeted net revenue | 2024-25 | Not published | No 2024-25 figure published for uncommitted General Fund balance |
| Aberdeen City | Home care cost per hour, people aged 65 or over | 2024-25 | Withheld | Withheld: the 2024-25 care hours roughly doubled, which looks like a change in how hours are counted |
| Clackmannanshire | Home care cost per hour, people aged 65 or over | 2024-25 | Withheld | Withheld: home care and residential care spending both fell by about half in 2024-25, which looks like a reclassification |
| Clackmannanshire | Residential care cost per week per resident aged 65 or over | 2024-25 | Withheld | Withheld: home care and residential care spending both fell by about half in 2024-25, which looks like a reclassification |
Data and licence
Every figure is taken from an official source and traced to the file it came from. Sources: Improvement Service — Local Government Benchmarking Framework; Scottish Government — Scottish Local Government Finance Statistics; Scottish Government — Planning Applications Statistics; Scottish Government — Homelessness in Scotland; Scottish Public Services Ombudsman — complaints statistics; National Records of Scotland — Mid-year population estimates; National Records of Scotland — Household estimates, via data.gov.scot; Scottish Government — Council Tax datasets; Calculated from Scottish local government finance statistics, Ombudsman complaints and NRS population. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Reproducibility
These results are methodology v1.0 on data snapshot 63142595a7f4, generated 2026-11-02. The snapshot identifies the exact source files behind every figure.