This section contains analysis of the full results from the survey.
Exceptional financial support – recent actions
Respondents were asked to indicate which actions relating to exceptional financial support their council had taken either before or during the 2024/25 financial year. As Table 2 shows, almost one in ten (9 per cent) reported having had a conversation with MHCLG to discuss the possibility of requesting EFS before 2024/25, whilst 10 per cent reported doing this during the current financial year. It should be noted that the period before 2024/25 covers a longer time period than the 2024/25 financial year itself, so these apparently similar figures may in fact represent a sharp increase in conversations regarding EFS. Four per cent of respondents reported submitting an application for EFS to MHCLG prior to 2024/25, compared with two per cent during 2024/25.
Table 2. Has your council taken any of the following actions in this or previous financial years relating to exceptional financial support (EFS)?
Percentage of responses
|
Before 2024/25
|
2024/25 |
Conversation with MHCLG to discuss the possibility of requesting EFS |
9%
|
10%
|
Application for EFS to MHCLG submitted |
4%
|
2%
|
Application for EFS from MHCLG rejected |
1%
|
0%
|
Awaiting response to application for EFS from MHCLG |
1%
|
1%
|
Received confirmation of EFS (wholly or partially) from MHCLG |
4%
|
2%
|
Base: all respondents (195).
There was some variation in responses to this question by council type, with 14 per cent of single-tier and county council respondents reporting having a conversation with MHCLG (26 per cent of unitary authority respondents), and 5 per cent reporting requesting EFS (10 per cent of unitary respondents).
Likelihood of applying for exceptional financial support
Respondents were asked how likely their council was to apply for EFS in the 2025/26, 2026/27 and 2027/28 financial years. As Table 3 shows, 17 per cent of respondents said they were likely to apply for EFS in 2025/26, rising to 24 per cent in 2026/27 and 32 per cent in 2027/28. ‘Very likely’ and ‘fairly likely’ were roughly equal in proportion, apart from in 2026/27, when ‘fairly likely’ was slightly more prevalent. The proportion who answered ‘not at all likely’ fell steadily from 57 per cent in 2025/26 to 22 per cent in 2027/28.
Table 3. How likely, if at all, is your council to apply for EFS in the following three financial years?
|
2025/26
|
2026/27 |
2027/28 |
Very or fairly likely |
17%
|
24%
|
32%
|
Very likely |
10%
|
9%
|
16%
|
Fairly likely |
8%
|
15%
|
16%
|
Not very likely |
23%
|
28%
|
27%
|
Not at all likely |
57%
|
34%
|
22%
|
Don't know |
2%
|
14%
|
19%
|
Base: all respondents (195); all respondents who did not answer ‘don’t know’ (180 in 2025/26, 160 in 2026/27, and 150 in 2027/28).
An aggregate measure was created which measured the percentage of councils (including those who answered ‘don’t know’) who said they were very or fairly likely to apply for EFS in either or both of the financial years 2025/26 and 2026/27. As Table 4 shows, one in four (25 per cent) of respondents said they would be likely to apply for EFS at least once in these two financial years. This figure was higher among some council types, including 31 per cent of county councils and 41 per cent of single-tier councils (and 44 per cent of single-tier and county councils).
Table 4. Likelihood of applying for EFS in either or both of 2025/26 and 2026/27
|
Per cent very or fairly likely in 2025/26 and/or 2026/27 (including ‘don’t know’)
|
All councils |
25%
|
County |
36%
|
District |
7%
|
Single-tier |
45%
|
Single-tier and county |
44%
|
Base: all respondents (195); all respondents for each council type.
Issuing of Section 114 notices if EFS did not exist
Respondents were asked how likely or not they thought their Section 151 officer would be to issue a Section 114 notice in the four financial years from 2024/25 to 2027/28, if EFS did not exist. A Section 114 notice means that a council is at risk of failing to balance its budget. As Table 5 shows, the responses to this question were roughly similar to those in Table 3, with the addition of 6 per cent of respondents who would have been likely to issue a Section 114 in the 2024/25 financial year.
Table 5. If EFS did not exist, how likely or not do you think your Section 151 officer would be to issue a Section 114 notice in the following financial years?
|
2024/25
|
2025/26 |
2026/27 |
2027/28 |
Very or fairly likely (including ‘don’t know’) |
6%
|
18%
|
27%
|
33%
|
Very likely |
5%
|
9%
|
10%
|
18%
|
Fairly likely |
1%
|
9%
|
17%
|
15%
|
Not very likely |
22%
|
26%
|
33%
|
32%
|
Not at all likely |
71%
|
55%
|
28%
|
17%
|
Don't know |
1%
|
2%
|
13%
|
19%
|
Base: all respondents (195); all respondents who did not answer ‘don’t know’ (180 in 2025/26, 160 in 2026/27, and 150 in 2027/28).
As with the previous question, the percentage that said they would be likely to issue a Section 114 notice in either or both of the following two financial years if EFS did not exist was calculated. As Table 6 shows, approximately one in four respondents, and as many as 44 per cent of single tier and county councils, felt they would be likely to issue a Section 114 notice at least once in that time if EFS did not exist.
Table 6. Likelihood of issuing a Section 114 notice in either or both of 2025/26 and 2026/27, if EFS did not exist
|
Per cent very or fairly likely in 2025/26 and/or 2026/27 (including ‘don’t know’)
|
All councils |
25%
|
County |
38%
|
District |
9%
|
Single-tier |
42%
|
Single-tier and county |
40%
|
Base: all respondents (195); all respondents for each council type.
Ranking of service areas of budgetary concern
Councils were asked to select the five service areas of most concern in setting their council’s budget for 2025/26, and to rank these five areas in order of priority. These rankings are presented separately below for different council types, due to the different services and functions that they provide.
It should be noted that the percentages in Tables 7 to 10 refer to the percentage of respondents who ranked each service area in their top five. As such, a low percentage does not necessarily mean that a particular service area does not also face substantial financial pressures, simply that other pressures are perceived as relatively greater.
Table 7 shows the results for county councils, showing that the top five service areas of concern among counties were adult social care, children’s social care and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), all ranked in the top five by 100 per cent of county respondents, followed by home to school transport, ranked in the top five by 92 per cent, and highways and transport, at 54 per cent.
The high level of consensus between county council respondents was notable: despite being offered a number of services, they identified the same top concerns. As a result, a number of the other services were not selected at all, and therefore these are excluded from the table below.
The small number of respondents from county councils means that these results should be interpreted with some caution.
Table 7. Of the following service areas, please choose and rank the top five of most concern in setting your council’s budget for 2025/26 – results for county councils
County council services
|
Per cent
|
Adult social care |
100%
|
Children’s social care |
100%
|
Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) |
100%
|
Home to school transport |
92%
|
Highways and transport |
54%
|
Waste collection and disposal |
38%
|
Capital programme |
31%
|
Base: all county council respondents (11). Note: the other services listed were not ranked in the top five by any respondents from county councils, and have hence been omitted.
As Table 8 shows, the five service areas which were most frequently ranked in the top five as budgetary concerns by district council respondents were homelessness and temporary accommodation (ranked by 85 per cent in the top five), waste collection and disposal (82 per cent), planning and development (62 per cent), capital programme expenditure (50 per cent) and culture and leisure (47 per cent).
Table 8. Of the following service areas, please choose and rank the top five of most concern in setting your council’s budget for 2025/26 – results for district councils
District council services
|
Per cent
|
Homelessness and temporary accommodation |
85%
|
Waste collection and disposal |
82%
|
Planning and development |
62%
|
Capital programme |
50%
|
Culture and leisure |
47%
|
Housing services (excluding homelessness) |
38%
|
Environmental and regulatory services (excluding waste) |
29%
|
Central services |
18%
|
Other (please specify) |
13%
|
Base: all district council respondents (91).
Table 9 shows the results for single-tier councils, showing that the top five areas of concern for these councils were children’s social care (91 per cent ranked this service in the top five), adult social care (89 per cent), SEND (77 per cent), homelessness and temporary accommodation (74 per cent), and home to school transport (60 per cent).
Table 9. Of the following service areas, please choose and rank the top five of most concern in setting your council’s budget for 2025/26 – results for single-tier councils
Single-tier council services
|
Per cent
|
Children's social care |
91%
|
Adult social care |
89%
|
Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) |
77%
|
Homelessness and temporary accommodation |
74%
|
Home to school transport |
60%
|
Capital programme |
19%
|
Waste collection and disposal |
19%
|
Highways and transport |
9%
|
Housing services (excluding homelessness) |
6%
|
Environmental and regulatory services (excluding waste) |
4%
|
Central services |
2%
|
Planning and development |
2%
|
Culture and leisure |
1%
|
Public health |
1%
|
Other (please specify) |
6%
|
Base: all single-tier council respondents (81).
Single-tier authorities and county councils were looked at together, as they are social care authorities. As Table 10 shows, the five service areas of most budgetary concern to respondents from single-tier and county councils overall were children’s social care (ranked by 93 per cent), adult social care (90 per cent), special educational needs and disabilities, or SEND (80 per cent), home to school transport (65 per cent) and homelessness and temporary accommodation (64 per cent).
Table 10. Of the following service areas, please choose and rank the top five of most concern in setting your council’s budget for 2025/26 – results for single tier and county councils
Single-tier and county council services
|
Per cent
|
Children's social care |
93%
|
Adult social care |
90%
|
Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) |
80%
|
Home to school transport |
65%
|
Homelessness and temporary accommodation |
64%
|
Waste collection and disposal |
21%
|
Capital programme |
20%
|
Highways and transport |
15%
|
Housing services (excluding homelessness) |
5%
|
Environmental and regulatory services (excluding waste) |
3%
|
Central services |
2%
|
Planning and development |
2%
|
Culture and leisure |
1%
|
Public health |
1%
|
Other (please specify) |
5%
|
Base: all single-tier and county council respondents (103). Respondents from county councils are excluded from the calculation base for services where they do not have a responsibility.
‘Other’ areas of concern identified by respondents included:
- agency workers and staff costs
- costs of debt financing
- equal pay
- exempt accommodation
- increased re-tendering costs
- landscape and tree management
- property and estates, including reduced rents and increased maintenance and utility costs
- reductions in investment income and interest earned.
- salary growth and national living wage (NLW) provision
- schools, including high needs dedicated schools grant (DSG) and school deficits.