deep dive · economy and public finances

Council pressure across England

English councils face real and rising pressure from duties driven by demand: Education, Health and Care plans, the cost of getting children with special educational needs to school, and children in care. Thirty councils needed emergency bailouts in 2025 to 2026. But comparing five official datasets shows the link is weaker than the headlines suggest. The councils that needed a bailout are, on average, no more pressured by high needs than those that did not, and that pressure does not track deprivation. For one specific cluster of councils, though, the two clearly collide.

Coverage: England · Period: 2024 to 2026

Key figures

538,547

children and young people have an Education, Health and Care plan, the fastest-growing duty councils must fund

2025/26DfE
£1.38bn

in emergency exceptional financial support to 30 English councils in a single year

2025/26MHCLG
50 vs 50

the average high needs pressure of bailed out councils and solvent ones is identical: there is no aggregate link

0.09

correlation between a council's high needs pressure and its child poverty rate: in other words, essentially none

The demand

The demand is real, and it is rising fast

Three demand driven duties sit at the centre of council budgets: Education, Health and Care plans, home to school transport for children with special educational needs, and children in care. All are growing. To compare councils we built an indicative pressure score from four official measures (the five year growth in EHC plans, the share of special needs transport carried by taxis, how few EHC plans are issued on time, and the looked after children rate). It is an analytical construct, not an official statistic, but it lets us rank where the strain is greatest.

Highest high needs pressure (indicative composite of four official measures)

Tameside91
Derbyshire86
Nottingham84
Cheshire West and Chester84
Sandwell81
Wirral78
Shropshire77
Wigan77

Source: British Resilience Index analysis of DfE home to school transport, EHC plans and children looked after data.

Children and young people with an EHC plan

538,547

More than one in five pupils now have some form of special educational need.

Typical growth in a council's EHC caseload over five years

+65%

This is the median across councils. Nine councils saw their caseload more than double in five years.

Average cost of a taxi to school for a special needs pupil

£10,700

58 per cent of pre-16 special needs transport users travel by taxi or private hire, accounting for 67 per cent of the spend, roughly 1.15 billion pounds a year.

Finding one

But high needs demand is not what is bankrupting councils

It is tempting to blame the wave of council bailouts on rising special needs costs. The data does not support it. Across the councils we scored, those that needed exceptional financial support have an identical average pressure score to those that did not: 50 against 50. And the very biggest bailouts go to councils with below average high needs pressure, because their problems lie elsewhere: equal pay and IT at Birmingham, commercial property and investment bets at Croydon, Thurrock and Woking.

The biggest council bailouts, and why most are not about high needs

Birmingham (low pressure: equal pay, IT)180
Bradford (high pressure)127
Croydon (low pressure: commercial)110
Southampton90
Havering (low pressure)88
Woking (commercial collapse)75
Plymouth (high pressure)72
Thurrock (low pressure: investment)62

Source: MHCLG, Exceptional Financial Support for local authorities 2025 to 2026.

Councils on exceptional financial support

30

Up from 19 the year before, totalling about 1.38 billion pounds. Of the councils we could score, 25 are on the list.

2025/26MHCLG

Average pressure score: bailed out vs solvent councils

50 vs 50

Identical. High needs pressure has no aggregate relationship with whether a council needed a bailout.

Birmingham's bailout, the largest, at a below average pressure score

£180m

Birmingham's score is 37 out of 100. Its crisis stems from an equal pay liability and a failed IT system, not special needs demand.

2025/26MHCLG

The honest reading

The wave of council bailouts is mostly not caused by special needs demand. For a specific cluster of councils, however, it clearly is part of the story.

Finding two

And it is not a story about poverty

High needs pressure is also not concentrated in deprived areas. The correlation between a council's pressure score and its child poverty rate is 0.09, which is to say there is none. Affluent shire counties such as Cheshire East, West Berkshire and Shropshire are under as much high needs strain as deprived cities. Demand for special needs support, transport and care is broad based, not a function of poverty.

Correlation between pressure and child poverty

0.09

Pearson correlation across 121 single tier councils. A value near zero means the two are unrelated.

Child poverty in the most deprived councils

50%

Tower Hamlets and Hackney have around half of children in low income families, yet sit only mid-table on high needs pressure.

Where they meet

Where demand and distress do collide

For one cluster of councils the two stories genuinely overlap: high needs pressure is real and so is the financial distress. These are the places where rising special needs demand is plausibly part of why the budget broke, and the ones worth watching most closely.

Councils that are both high pressure and on a bailout

Nottingham (£25m)84
Wirral (£8m)78
Cheshire East (£25m)75
Medway (£28m)68
Worcestershire (£34m)68
Plymouth (£72m)66
Bradford (£127m)63

Source: British Resilience Index analysis; MHCLG exceptional financial support list.

Nottingham: every special needs transport user on a taxi

100%

Nottingham is on a 25 million pound bailout, has issued a section 114 notice twice, and carries all its pre-16 special needs transport users by taxi or private hire.

Caveats & method

How to read this analysis

  • The pressure score is an indicative analytical construct, not an official statistic. It is the mean percentile rank of four official measures (five year EHC caseload growth, taxi share of special needs transport, the share of EHC plans not issued within 20 weeks, and the looked after children rate), each weighted equally. Different weightings would shift the ranking, but the two headline findings about distress and deprivation are robust to it.
  • The analysis covers upper tier councils, the bodies that actually hold these duties. 145 councils were scored.
  • Exceptional financial support reflects many causes, including governance failures, commercial losses and demand pressures. Some amounts are agreed in principle and may be revised. The point here is not that high needs is irrelevant, but that it is not the dominant cause.
  • The deprivation comparison covers single tier councils only, because child poverty is not published at the county-council level. Counties are therefore excluded from that correlation.
  • The five datasets cover slightly different periods and populations, so their figures are not directly additive.

Sources

Data provenance