[Note: subsequent to writing this post, Croydon Council disclosed their RAS algorithm to me. Accordingly, the ICO discontinued their investigation of my complaint as the matter was resolved]
An interesting opportunity has arisen to test whether local authorities must disclose their RAS algorithms under the Freedom of Information Act... The issue of RASs and transparency is especially timely given the Supreme Court will issue its decision due in KM v Cambridgeshire County Council on Thursday 31.
I've previously blogged here about the importance of transparency in the calculations underpinning local authority Resource Allocation Systems (RASs), which are used to determine the 'indicative' cash value of a personal budget from which care services can be purchased by a local authority or given as a direct payment. I've written here about the obstacles I encountered last summer when trying to get local authorities to disclose the workings of their RAS, and I'm pleased to say that each and every local authority who refused to disclose the algorithm at that time did eventually share it with me. Then this year, preparing for a research paper on RASs I made a second tranche of 20 requests for details of local authority RASs under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This time around all but two local authorities disclosed the underpinnings of their RAS (if they were using one - lots had abandoned the RAS approach, it turned out). I wrote here about the reasons given by Hackney Council and Croydon Council for refusing to disclose their RAS algorithm. In short, Hackney refused because they didn't know what it was - they'd bought it off FACE, and they didn't actually know what the algorithm itself said because FACE hadn't told them. Croydon initially refused to disclose its RAS and gave reasons that initially looked rather like a s36 FOIA exemption, that it would prejudice the conduct of public affairs. However, I sought a review of this refusal, and asked them to clarify which exemption under the FOIA they were applying. Their response was quite surprising, in short they applied an exemption that it would prejudice their own commercial interests - here's their reasoning in full:
