This is the total debt a council has built up over the years on its schools budget — the gap between what the government grant for schools provided and what the council actually had to spend, mostly on support for children with special educational needs. It matters because this debt is currently kept off the council's main books by a temporary accounting rule, and when that rule ends the bill comes due. A high number means a large accumulated debt; a low or negative number means the council has broken even or has money in reserve.
| Council | Class | Value | In its class |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hampshire | county | 213,147,730 | 1st worst of 23 |
| Surrey | county | 141,890,320 | 2nd worst of 23 |
| Norfolk | county | 131,890,646 | 3rd worst of 23 |
| Devon | county | 125,670,000 | 4th worst of 23 |
| West Sussex | county | 123,205,742 | 5th worst of 23 |
| Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole | unitary | 113,256,491 | 1st worst of 61 |
| Cheshire East | unitary | 112,149,048 | 2nd worst of 61 |
| Worcestershire | county | 98,139,169 | 6th worst of 23 |
| Suffolk | county | 97,637,705 | 7th worst of 23 |
| Kent | county | 97,482,511 | 8th worst of 23 |
| Council | Class | Value | In its class |
|---|---|---|---|
| Birmingham | metropolitan | -55,253,350 | 1st best of 36 |
| Bradford | metropolitan | -24,628,736 | 2nd best of 36 |
| Camden | london | -18,931,045 | 1st best of 33 |
| Coventry | metropolitan | -16,130,057 | 3rd best of 36 |
| Nottingham | unitary | -16,123,202 | 1st best of 61 |
| Portsmouth | unitary | -11,126,264 | 2nd best of 61 |
| Lambeth | london | -10,669,885 | 2nd best of 33 |
| Barnet | london | -9,188,143 | 3rd best of 33 |
| Sheffield | metropolitan | -8,314,477 | 4th best of 36 |
| Southend-on-Sea | unitary | -7,097,531 | 3rd best of 61 |
| name | dsg_deficit_cum |
|---|---|
| dataset | 05-dsg-send-deficits |
| kind | extracted |
| type | numeric |
| unit | GBP |
| grain | local authority x financial year |
| role | outcome |
| source | data/data/s251_alleducation_la_regional_national.csv (cp1252); geographic_level == 'Local authority'; category_of_expenditure == '1.9.3 Dedicated Schools Grant carried forward to next year'; column gross_expenditure |
| period | 2015-16 to 2024-25 (2016-17 missing) |
| missingness | 2016-17 has no 1.9.3 LA rows; 'x' = not applicable, 'z' = suppressed — never treat as zero |
| score_note | The headline outcome; sign convention needs care but it is the deficit signal itself. |
| calculated | calculated/dsg-deficit-cum.csv |
| calculated_rows | 1366 |
| calculated_periods | 2015-16 to 2024-25 (2016-17 missing) |
| calculated_date | 2026-08-13 |
| peer_group | unitaries (n=63), metropolitan boroughs (n=36), London boroughs (n=33), counties (n=26) — scored within each class against its median/IQR |
Cumulative DSG balance carried forward at year end — the headline "hidden deficit" figure for a council's schools/SEND funding position. Sign convention (corrects SOURCE.md): a positive value is a cumulative deficit, a negative value is a surplus, verified via the identity 1.9.3(t) == −1.9.2(t+1) and by the largest positive values belonging to known large-deficit LAs (Hampshire, Surrey, Norfolk) while Birmingham, in surplus, is negative. In 2024-25 all 153 LAs carry a numeric value (123 positive/deficit, 29 negative/surplus).