Methodology and sources
Every figure on this site comes from official open data, reproduced without adjustment except where a page says a value is calculated (and then the calculation is stated). This page lists the sources, defines each measure, and — just as important — states what the data does not show.
Sources
| Dataset | Publisher | Publication | Periods used |
|---|---|---|---|
| EHC plan 20-week timeliness; requests for assessment and refusals; new plans; caseload | Department for Education | Education, health and care plans: Reporting year 2026, published 2026-06-25 (accredited official statistics) | Calendar years 2019–2025; caseload at January census 2019–2026 |
| SEND Tribunal appeal rates by local authority (appeals registered per appealable decision) | DfE, from HMCTS GAPS2 case data | Supporting file of the same publication | Calendar years 2024 and 2025 |
| SEND Tribunal appeals and outcomes (England) | Ministry of Justice / HMCTS | Tribunal Statistics Quarterly, July to September 2025 — SEND Tribunal Tables 2024 to 2025, published 2025-12-11 | Academic years 2011/12–2024/25 |
| Statistical-neighbour peer groups | Department for Education | Children's services statistical neighbour benchmarking tool (May 2025 rebuild, 2021 Census variables) | May 2025 model |
All sources are published under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Raw files are fetched by script and figures are recomputed from them on every build; the build fails if a sampled figure stops matching its source.
Definitions
- Issued within the 20-week limit
- Regulation 13(2) of the SEND Regulations 2014 requires a final EHC plan within 20 weeks of the request for assessment. The headline series excludes exceptional cases — cases where regulation 13(3) allows the deadline to be exceeded (for example, the child was away for the summer holidays or advice was delayed for defined reasons). This matches the DfE headline measure. Each chart's table also carries the series including those cases, which is always equal or lower.
- Requests for assessment refused
- The percentage of requests for an EHC needs assessment where the authority decided not to assess, as published by DfE. Collected on a person-level basis only from 2023, so no earlier years are shown.
- SEND Tribunal appeal rate
- Appeals registered with the First-tier Tribunal (SEND) against decisions of the authority, as a percentage of that authority's "appealable decisions" in the same calendar year — DfE's published measure joining HMCTS appeal records to DfE decision counts. The England comparator on this site is calculated as the sum of appeals across all authorities divided by the sum of appealable decisions, from the same file.
- Decided appeals found at least partly for the family
- Of appeals decided at a tribunal hearing in England, the percentage where the decision was in favour of the appellant (in whole or part), from MoJ Table SEND_1. Most registered appeals never reach a hearing decision — many are conceded by the authority or withdrawn first — so this percentage is of decided appeals only, and the number decided is always shown alongside.
- Statistical neighbours
- The ten authorities DfE's children's-services benchmarking model rates most similar on socio-economic characteristics (2021 Census variables). Comparing an authority to its statistical neighbours is fairer than comparing to a national average, because it holds demographics roughly constant. Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness, are not in the DfE model following local government reorganisation; their pages compare against England only.
What this data does not show
- It says nothing about any individual case. A council that meets the 20-week deadline half the time may still handle your case well, or badly.
- Tribunal outcomes are not published per local authority. The England-wide outcome rate is shown for context on every page, clearly labelled. Per-authority pages show appeal rates (which are published), not outcome rates (which are not).
- Quality is not measured here. A plan issued inside 20 weeks can be a poor plan; these statistics measure timeliness and volumes, not the quality of provision.
- A high refusal or appeal rate is not, by itself, proof of poor practice. Authorities differ in demand, in how requests reach them, and in decision-making culture. The figures are the starting point for questions, not a verdict.
- Small numbers move percentages. For small authorities (City of London, Isles of Scilly, and small unitaries), a handful of cases can swing a year's percentage; DfE suppresses some small values entirely, shown as "not published".
- Years are calendar years for process measures (matching DfE's SEN2 collection) and academic years for tribunal outcomes (matching MoJ's reporting). The two do not align exactly.
Postcode lookup
The postcode box queries postcodes.io (Open Government Licence / OS OpenData) in your browser; no postcode is sent to this site or stored. EHC plans are a duty of upper-tier authorities, so in two-tier areas the county council is returned, not the district.
Contact and corrections
If a figure on this site does not match its cited source, that is a defect — please report it and it will be corrected. This site is not affiliated with the Department for Education or the Ministry of Justice.