Council scorecard
Kent County Council
- Type
- county
- Population
- 1,600,000 (ONS mid-year estimate, rounded)
- Political control
- Reform UK majority (since 22 May 2025; Conservative 1997 – May 2025)
- Next election
- May 2029 (whole council; last elected 1 May 2025)
- Council website
- www.kent.gov.uk
Scorecard
Methodology published 2026-05-18. Pending cells reflect data collection in progress, not methodology uncertainty — they will populate as the underlying data is gathered.
Refuse collection
Missed bin reports, recycling rates, complaint resolution time
Refuse collection is a district/borough function; the county does not run kerbside collection.
Complaints handling
Volume, response times, LGSCO upheld findings
LGSCO 2025-26: 349 complaints dealt with, 67 investigations completed, 58 upheld — an 87% uphold rate vs the 89% county-council average, and 3.5 upheld per 100,000 residents vs the 5.2 county average. A remedy had already been provided before the Ombudsman in 16% of upheld cases (county average 10%); compliance with recommendations 100%, but timely compliance 79% vs the 86% county average. Context: a 2023 LGSCO investigation uncovered a backlog of 170 unanswered children's-services and education complaints — the volume position has improved against that baseline. 2025-26 figures precede the LGSCO annual letters (due ~July 2026) and may be revised. Attribution: the 2025-26 Ombudsman year spans the Conservative administration (to 21 May 2025) and the Reform UK administration (from 22 May 2025), which held office for roughly ten of its twelve months; the 2024-25 comparison year (83% uphold, 3.9 per 100k) falls to the Conservative administration.
as of 2026-07-02 · source
KCC response
Agree
— received 2026-07-21
FOI response
Average response time, refusal/exemption rate, compliance with 20-day statutory deadline
KCC publishes the longest FOI statistics series of any Kent council (2005–2026) — creditable in itself, but the performance it discloses is weak. Timeliness (50% weight): 86% of 2,858 requests answered within the 20-working-day statutory deadline in calendar 2025 (89% in 2026 to date, up from 75–78% across 2022–24), yet average completion time worsened to 25 days in 2025, indicating a long tail of late responses. ICO component (20%): 23 decision notices in the three years to July 2026 — by far the most in Kent — including 7 findings of failure to respond in time; 22 upheld vs 16 not-upheld findings. The refusal-rate component (30%) is not scoreable: KCC's published series does not split grants from refusals. Attribution: calendar-2025 performance spans the Conservative administration (to 21 May 2025) and the Reform UK administration (from 22 May 2025); the 2026 year-to-date improvement falls under Reform UK.
as of 2026-07-03 · source
KCC response
The metric attributes FOI performance improvements to changes in the political administration. This attribution is incorrect. The Freedom of Information function at KCC operates independently. The service is managed operationally within the Information Governance function, with oversight provided through management structures including the FOI Lead, Information Governance Manager and Head of Information Governance. Since June 2024, the service has undergone significant organisational change while continuing to improve performance and dealing with increased numbers of resuests. Despite these challenges, compliance improved from 78% in 2024 to 86% in 2025 and currently stands at approximately 88%.
— received 2026-07-21
Financial health & budget discipline
Revenue budget variance, capital programme delivery, reserves + Section 114 risk, external auditor VfM judgment, council tax positioning + trajectory vs national
Weighted across the six published components: revenue budget variance 25%, capital programme delivery 20%, reserves & Section 114 risk 20%, external auditor VfM judgement 15%, council tax positioning 10%, council tax trajectory 10%. 2025-26 outturn: £22.7m (1.5%) net revenue overspend funded from reserves — adult social care & health +£42.9m — plus a further £33.0m schools' delegated (DSG) overspend; capital programme 69% delivered with £135.5m of rephasing/slippage carried forward; General Fund reserve £66.0m = 4.3% of the net budget, below the council's own 5% floor, with a cumulative £130.5m DSG deficit held under statutory override to March 2028; external auditor Grant Thornton rates financial sustainability a significant weakness (Red, carried forward) but issued an unqualified opinion on the 2024-25 accounts with no statutory recommendations. Council tax: Band D £1,758.60 is 2.4% below the shire-county average (£1,802.36), 5-year CAGR 4.39% vs 4.58% nationally, and the 3.99% 2026-27 rise did not use the full 4.99% referendum-cap flexibility. Attribution: the 2025-26 budget was set in February 2025 by the Conservative administration; in-year delivery from 22 May 2025 and the 2026-27 council tax decision sit with the Reform UK administration.
as of 2026-07-03 · source
KCC response
When comparing county council tax charges, it is important to account for differences in governance arrangements relating to Fire and Rescue Services. In some areas, responsibility for Fire and Rescue Services rests with the county council and the associated costs are included within the county council tax charge. In others, these costs are levied separately through a standalone Fire Authority precept. Any comparison that excludes Fire Authority charges where they are charged separately risks comparing figures that are not directly equivalent. To provide a more accurate comparison, the Fire and Rescue element should be included where applicable so that all authorities are assessed on a like-for-like basis. Attached is a comparison that incorporates Fire Authority charges where appropriate. It is also unclear on how the reported county average of £1,802.36 was calculated. Using the median county council charge, which represents the middle-ranked authority and can provide a more representative comparison than a simple average, Kent's combined county council and fire charge for 2026-27 aligns almost exactly with the county median. For context, in 2025-26, Kent's equivalent charge was approximately 0.9% above the county median. It is suggested the methodology and calculations used in this metric are reviewed to ensure that comparisons are accurate and based on equivalent measures.
— received 2026-07-21
Transparency
Open data publication, councillor expenses, contract register, committee paper publication
Fixed-date website audit (2026-07-03) against the Transparency Code checklist: spending-data currency and format, contracts register, councillor allowances, interests, committee papers, senior pay, open data, FOI disclosure log. Items not individually verified this quarter are scored neutrally and flagged. KCC publishes monthly £250+ spending data current to March 2026, councillor allowances (2026/27 scheme), per-member interests and gifts registers, senior staff salaries, live committee papers, a searchable FOI disclosure log linked from its Access to Information page, and a contracts register on the Kent Business Portal, which listed 611 KCC contracts when checked on 1 October 2026. Weaker item: there is no dedicated open-data portal (the advertised open-data page returned a 404 on the audit date). Correction, 1 October 2026: this note previously said KCC had no FOI disclosure log. That was wrong — the council pointed to the log in its right-of-reply response of 21 July 2026, which KLN failed to take into account before publication — and the score was corrected from 71 to 76. Corrected after a re-check on 1 October 2026: this note also said the contracts register "was not verified current". The register is public and current, and KLN should have checked it. The score has been corrected from 76 to 81. Attribution: audit conducted under the Reform UK administration (in office from 22 May 2025).
as of 2026-07-03 · source
KCC response
The metric states that KCC does not operate a dedicated open-data portal and highlights this as a weakness. While KCC does not maintain a separate platform branded as an "open-data portal", there is no legal requirement to do so. The authority publishes information through its established Information and Data webpages in accordance with its transparency obligations, including those set out in the Local Government Transparency Code 2015. KCC's long-established disclosure log and publication scheme are publicly available. See: https://kccportal.icasework.com/cases?public=true&auth=0&drilldown=false&max=20&title=Kent+County+Council+Disclosure+Log . You can access this from our main Access to Information landing page - the same page that the published stats are on. Access to information - Kent County Council (https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/information-and-data/access-to-information). The publication scheme can be accessed here: https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/information-and-data/access-to-information/publication-scheme
— received 2026-07-21
Planning
Application approval ratios, appeal-overturn rate, determination time vs statutory targets
Districts and boroughs determine the vast majority of planning applications. The county council handles only minerals and waste planning; that narrower remit is not assessed here.
Education & children's services
SEND/EHCP statutory processing, SEND tribunal LA-loss rate, children's services Ofsted rating, school transport delivery (county + unitary only)
Ofsted ILACS inspected 3–7 November 2025 (published 2 February 2026): KCC children's services rated Good overall — down from Outstanding (May 2022). Sub-judgements: help & protection Good, children in care Outstanding, care leavers Requires Improvement, impact of leaders Good. Attribution: the May 2022 Outstanding was awarded under the previous (Conservative) administration; the November 2025 inspection took place under the Reform UK administration in office since May 2025. SEND improvement notice lifted August 2024; a joint Ofsted/CQC area SEND inspection took place 6–10 July 2026, report pending.
as of 2026-02-02 · source
KCC response
Agree
— received 2026-07-21
Safeguarding & LADO
LADO referral handling, multi-agency safeguarding (MASH) timeliness, Section 47 enquiry compliance, independent safeguarding audit findings (county + unitary only)
Basis refreshed to the November 2025 ILACS (published 2 February 2026): the safeguarding-relevant judgements are help & protection Good and impact of leaders Good — the 2022 framework rating of Outstanding is superseded. January 2024 focused visit on KCC's "front door" (assessments, child-protection decisions) published positive findings. Specific LADO + MASH performance data tracked separately.
as of 2026-02-02 · source
KCC response
Agree
— received 2026-07-21
Manifesto delivery (Trust)
KLN tracks what the controlling party promised at the most recent election vs what was actually delivered. KEPT/PARTIAL/BROKEN/PENDING/OUT_OF_SCOPE categorisation.
Trust score: 5 judged pledges + 3 categorised public issues, averaged.
as of 2026-10-03
School-system health in this LA area
This is NOT a score of the council itself. Schools in England are accountable through Ofsted and, for academies, their academy trust — not through the local authority. The council's responsibility for schools is indirect (place planning, SEND, transport, safeguarding — see Metrics 7 + 8 above). This panel shows aggregate health of the school system inside this LA's geographic area, because residents reasonably want to know.
School Ofsted ratings
Share of schools in this LA area rated Good or Outstanding at their last graded inspection (a frozen measure: Ofsted ended overall grades in September 2024)
A frozen legacy measure. At 31 August 2025, 94.8% of the state-funded schools in the Kent County Council area that hold an overall Ofsted grade were rated Good or Outstanding (471 of 497; England 93.1%). Ofsted stopped awarding overall grades in September 2024, so this figure can no longer change: 96 schools here inspected since then have no overall grade, and half of the grades counted pre-date September 2019. Aggregated by KLN from Ofsted's school-level data; Ofsted publishes no local-authority figure. Correction, 1 October 2026: this note previously said the area had 176 Outstanding schools and that 89% of secondary and 92% of primary schools were rated Good or Outstanding, figures taken from a secondary website. Ofsted's data shows 59 Outstanding schools, with 86.9% of secondary and 96.6% of primary schools that hold a grade rated Good or Outstanding.
as of 2025-08-31 · source
GCSE Attainment 8
Average Attainment 8 score across LA-area secondaries vs national average
Average Attainment 8 score 46.7 in 2024/25 (England 46.1), with 47.0% of pupils achieving grade 5 or above in English and maths (England 45.4%). This is a selective (grammar school) area, which lifts raw attainment; Progress 8, which adjusts for intake, is not available for 2024/25. Source: DfE Key stage 4 performance 2024/25 (revised). Re-based on official statistics in October 2026; earlier figures on this panel came from secondary sources.
as of 2025-08-31 · source
Pupil absence
Overall absence rate (authorised + unauthorised) across LA-area schools vs national average
Overall absence rate 6.96% in 2024/25 (England 6.78%); 19.4% of pupils were persistently absent, missing a tenth or more of sessions (England 18.1%). Both rates improved on 2023/24 (7.40% and 21.4%). Source: DfE Pupil absence in schools in England, full academic year 2024/25.
as of 2025-07-31 · source
Post-16 progression
Share of students finishing 16-18 study in this LA area who went on to sustained education, an apprenticeship or employment
79.7% of students who finished 16-18 study in 2022/23 were in sustained education, an apprenticeship or employment the following year (England 78.9%, state-funded mainstream schools and colleges). Counted by where the student studied, not where they live. Source: DfE 16-18 destination measures, academic year 2023/24.
as of 2024-03-31 · source
Top public issues for KCC residents
This is editorial assessment, not a metric score. Each issue carries an alignment tag — ALIGNED (council in step with residents), MIXED (some action falls short), COUNTERACTING (council against residents on this), or SILENT (no clear position). KLN-curated. Council positions added verbatim where provided. Right-of-reply opens with initial publication.
- 🔴Counteracting
Local Government Reorganisation impacting KCC's structure + staff
KCC faces dissolution into new unitary authorities under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 — four of them under the Government's decision of 16 July 2026, a process the Government itself paused on 7 September 2026 pending a legal review. Residents have not consented; restructure cost falls on council tax payers; service continuity is at risk through transition.
Council position
KCC, under Reform UK since May 2025, has said publicly that it opposes reorganisation being imposed on Kent. Its record is different. It authored and submitted its own unitary proposal (Option 1A, a single county-wide council); its decision papers told members that councils were "unable to stop or delay LGR"; and when the Government chose four unitaries over its model, its response was a position statement saying a legal challenge "remains under review". Asked by KLN on 3 September 2026 whether it had considered pausing or reviewing any of its reorganisation contracts, it answered: "No."
KLN assessment
Actions enable, on both administrations' watch. The Conservative administration began Kent's LGR programme; the Reform UK administration carried it forward at the same pace — its own proposal, its own spending, and none of the blocking levers available to it (a legal challenge, non-cooperation, an ultra vires resolution). Per KLN's investigation, £113m+ was spent across the 14 months when statutory authority for the underlying changes was absent. The dispute KCC has pursued with the Ministry is about which unitary model Kent gets, not whether Kent is reorganised at all. The Government's pause on 7 September 2026 came from its own legal review, not from any action by the council. Per the "actions, not statements" principle: COUNTERACTING.
Evidence
- KLN: Exclusive Ministry FOI investigation
- KLN: Kent LGR — 14 months of council spending lacked statutory authority
- KLN: Told it was mandatory. Told it was not — KCC's "unable to stop or delay LGR" line and its 3 September answers (Part 8) · 2026-09-05
- KLN: Five months of asking under what law. Then the Government stopped to check — the 7 September pause and KCC's Option 4B position statement · 2026-09-08
- KCC: Option 4B — Position Statement, report of the Leader and Chief Executive to the Devolution & LGR Cabinet Committee (meeting of 8 September 2026, postponed) · 2026-09-04
- 🟡Mixed
SEND/EHCP service failures
Years of backlog and tribunal losses in KCC SEND assessments and provision affect thousands of Kent families.
Council position
KCC acknowledges service pressures and commits to broader children-services reform under the 2025-2028 strategy. No specific 20-week-deadline-recovery commitment headlined.
KLN assessment
Acknowledged but not yet solved. Pace of improvement is the live test; KLN will track via Metric 7 (Education) and tribunal-loss data.
- 🟡Mixed
Highway condition + pothole repair backlog
KCC manages Kent's 5,400-mile highway network. Resident complaints about pothole frequency, repair timeliness, and surface condition are persistent year-round.
Council position
Reform UK has committed to remove "obstacles and inefficiencies" and work with local contractors directly. Specific funding + delivery targets to follow.
KLN assessment
Mixed: stated intent is aligned with residents' priorities but delivery against measurable standards is yet to be evidenced. £75m budget review may either help or hurt this service line.
News from this council's area
How this scorecard works
Each metric is scored 0-100 and banded A through F. We do NOT aggregate to a single overall ranking — combining unrelated performance areas would mislead. See the methodology page for full details, thresholds, and data sources.
Spot an error or have data we should add for KCC? editor@kentlocalnews.co.uk.