Council Spending and Efficiency

← all policy areas

Four Reform-led councils set up a DOGE-style efficiency unit, invited in Reform's national DOGE team, or commissioned a paid external efficiency review by formal decision.[1][2][3][4][5] Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, North Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire ran internal, officer-led efficiency reviews of their finances instead.[6][7][8][9] Four councils cut, capped or tightened control of consultancy or agency and interim-staff spend.[10][11][12][13] Three approved senior-management restructures deleting one or more senior posts.[14][15][16] Staffordshire put a headcount recruitment freeze in place; Derbyshire and Leicestershire explicitly did not adopt one, and Lincolnshire had taken no freeze decision as of January 2026.[17][18][19][20] Eleven Reform-led councils adopted a 2026/27 budget or medium-term financial strategy carrying a stated savings target.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

Key figures

4 Reform-led councils that set up a DOGE-style efficiency unit, invited in Reform's DOGE team, or commissioned a paid external efficiency/spending review by formal decision
Derbyshire County Council
Cabinet Member for Council Efficiency (DOGE) Cllr John Lawson confirmed the Council engaged PwC (a paid external firm) to review the Council's Operating Model and third-party spend, producing recommendations for a Transformation and Efficiency Programme; a public question at Council on 10 December 2025 cited PwC's estimate that savings of between £11.2m and £22m could be achieved through better management of third-party spend.
“Work is ongoing to assess the PwC findings against the Council’s Change Portfolio and to identify a plan to implement the recommendations identified by PwC in the form of a Transformation and Efficiency Programme for the Council.” source ↗
Kent County Council
Kent County Council's Reform administration established the Department of Local Government Efficiency (DOLGE) — its own internal DOGE-equivalent efficiency unit — with the Leader creating it in May 2025 to identify savings and efficiencies across the council.
“Kent County Council’s Department of Local Government Efficiency (DOLGE) was established by the Leader in May 2025.” source ↗
Leicestershire County Council
Cabinet formally resolved on 28 October 2025 to award the Efficiency Review contract to the winning tenderer following a competitive procurement process (Newton Consulting Ltd), rather than taking up the DOGE offer.
“The Cabinet considered an exempt report of the Director of Corporate Resources which provided an update on the outcome of the procurement process to commission an external efficiency review and sought approval to award to the most advantageous tender following the completion of the evaluation process.” source ↗
West Northamptonshire Council
At Cabinet on 16 July 2025, under item 'Provision of Financial Data', Councillor Andrew Last proposed and Councillor John Slope seconded, and Cabinet agreed and RESOLVED to approve sharing council financial information with the Reform DOGE team, subject to satisfactory completion of due diligence checks by the Chief Executive and completion of legal agreements, with delegated authority given to the Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer to conduct that due diligence and negotiate the agreements.
“Councillor Andrew Last proposed the recommendations Councillor John Slope seconded. The Cabinet agreed the recommendations. RESOLVED: a) Noted the information contained at Appendix A that reflects requests from Reform UK but is information that is already in the public domain and accessible to all interested parties. b) Subjected to the satisfactory completion of all due diligence checks considered necessary by the Chief Executive Officer and completion of the relevant legal agreements referred to in recommendation C, approve the sharing of information detailed within Appendix Two” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “DOGE unit / external efficiency review commissioned”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-02.
4 councils that cut, capped or tightened control of consultancy or agency/interim-staff spend by formal decision
Durham County Council
County Durham Council's MTFP(16) Cabinet Report (considered 19 November 2025 and again 21 January 2026, as part of the Resources savings package) included a specific £0.100 million saving titled 'Reduction of Professional Fees Budget', explicitly reducing the use of consultants because a full-time Project Manager was appointed in-house instead.
“Reduction of Professional Fees Budget Following a review of the budget requirement, opportunities have arisen to make efficiencies and reduce the use of consultants, directly due to the appointment of a full time Project Manager, saving £0.100 million.” source ↗
Nottinghamshire County Council
At Full Council on 20 November 2025, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources (Cllr Stuart Matthews) told members the administration was on target to save £1.2 million gross over the following 12 months by reducing agency staff use, particularly in the social care sector, and that this had already roughly halved the number of agency children's school workers in 18 months.
“we’re on target over the next 12 months to save £1.2 million gross on that, so that’s a good achievement.” source ↗
Staffordshire County Council
At full Council (11 Dec 2025), the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources told members that 'reductions in temporary worker costs' and 'ending consultancy services' had been identified as financial and workforce efficiencies -- a verbal claim in answer to a councillor question, with no £ figure or formal cabinet/budget paper attached to consultancy/agency spend specifically.
“Additional financial and workforce efficiencies have been identified, including reductions in temporary worker costs and ending consultancy services.” source ↗
West Northamptonshire Council
West Northamptonshire Council (Full Council, 25 September 2025) operates a formal approval threshold requiring member-level sign-off for individual agency/interim-staff spend above £100,000: Council was asked to, and did, approve a remuneration package in excess of £100,000 for one interim worker engaged to lead the recommissioning of Drug and Alcohol Misuse Services, with officers noting overall agency costs were falling; this is a tightened-reporting/approval gate rather than a cut or cap, and no reduction target was set.
“330. Approval of Agency Spend >£100k Councillor Last proposed and Councillor Slope seconded the report which sought approval for a proposed remuneration package in excess of £100,00 for one interim worker” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “consultancy & agency/interim spend control”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-02.
3 councils that approved a senior-management restructure deleting one or more senior posts
Kent County Council
The 18 September 2025 Kent County Council decision specifically deleted two senior management posts — General Counsel and Director of Human Resources and Organisation Development — as part of the restructure, alongside reporting-line changes for the Director of Infrastructure and redesignation of the Head of Law as Monitoring Officer.
“2. Agree the deletion of the General Counsel and Director of Human Resources and Organisation Development posts.” source ↗
Durham County Council
As part of the MTFP(16) 2026/27 savings package, Durham County Council Cabinet proposed (19 November 2025, restated 21 January 2026) deleting the Grade 14 NETPark Project Director role within Business Durham, saving £68,200 a year, and on 11 February 2026 Cabinet formally decided to approve recommending this and the wider Appendix 4/5 savings package to full Council for final approval on 18 February 2026.
“(c) Deletion of NETPark Project Director role (£0.068 million)” source ↗
Staffordshire County Council
Staffordshire County Council resolved (agenda item 43, meeting minutes, effective 1 April 2025) to partially restructure its Senior Leadership Team following the Director of Corporate Services' retirement: it deleted the Director of Corporate Services post and created two new posts (Director of Transformation and Director of Finance and Resources) in a revised structure; no headcount or pound-saving figure is stated in the decision.
“the Chief Executive proposes to partially restructure the Senior Leadership Team to delete the post of Director of Corporate Services and reassign the functions within the current Corporate Services Directorate to create two new posts of Director of Transformation and Director of Finance and Resources within a new revised structure.” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “senior-management restructure / senior-post deletion”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-02.
11 Reform-led councils that adopted a 2026/27 budget or MTFS carrying a stated £ efficiency/savings target
Durham County Council
Cabinet on 11 February 2026 approved recommending to County Council a savings plan for the 2026/27 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) totalling £5.662 million of MTFP(15) savings and £9.807 million of new MTFP(16) savings, profiled at £12.914 million in 2026/27, alongside a 2026/27 Net Budget Requirement of £674.060 million.
“approve recommending the savings plans detailed in Appendix 4 (MTFP(15) savings totalling £5.662 million) and Appendix 5 (MTFP(16) savings totalling £9.807 million (was £10.057 million)) and which are profiled in total £12.914 million in 2026/27” source ↗
Derbyshire County Council
Full Council adopted the Revenue Budget Report 2026-27 on 11 February 2026, moved by Councillor J Lawson (Reform Cabinet Member for Finance); the approved budget calculation nets £55,331,478 (c.£55.3m) of 'Budget Reductions' against pressures in setting the Council Tax requirement, and Council separately approved 'the level and allocation of budget savings' set out in Section 9 and Appendix 7 of the report. A Conservative amendment (moved by Councillor Dale) to reduce the council tax rise and part-fund the gap from reserves instead was defeated on a recorded vote.
“Less Budget Reductions -55,331,478” source ↗
Kent County Council
Kent County Council's Reform administration's draft Revenue Budget 2026-27 and Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2026-29 -- introduced by Deputy Leader Brian Collins to the Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee on 14 January 2026 -- carried a headline savings figure of £61.7m of new/full-year savings plus £14.6m of income generation, offsetting £179.5m of core funded spending growth; the Committee resolved to note the Administration's draft budget proposals.
“He explained that the draft budget included £179.5m of core funded spending growth and reversals of £28m of previous savings. These spending pressures were offset by £14.7m of net reserve movements, £61.7m of new or full year savings, and £14.6m of income generation, resulting in a net change of £116.5m in revenue spending.” source ↗
Lancashire County Council
As part of setting the 2026/27 Budget, Cabinet on 27 November 2025 noted a wider review of savings opportunities across the council that had identified a further £16.599m portfolio of savings for 2026/27 (on top of £6.657m identified via the Efficiency Review), alongside a previously agreed £43m savings package already built into the budget when it was set by the outgoing administration on 26 February 2025.
“A wider review of savings opportunities across the council which had resulted in a portfolio to the value of £16.599m for 2026/27 with further savings in subsequent years.” source ↗
Leicestershire County Council
Officers confirmed to Scrutiny Commission that £44m of efficiencies had already been built into the MTFS before Newton Consulting's involvement, with a further £59m of additional savings developed with Newton's support as part of the same programme.
“Efficiencies identified prior to Newton’s involvement had already been included within the MTFS to the value of £44m. The additional savings of £59m had been developed with Newton’s support.” source ↗
Lincolnshire County Council
Lincolnshire's Executive formally approved the Council Budget 2026/27 initial proposals on 6 January 2026 (Decision I036259), including the budget savings and cost pressures for 2026/27 set out in Appendix B; at the same meeting the Chief Finance Officer confirmed a headline £62.7m savings figure over the Medium Term Financial Plan as the current identified position.
“On the headline £62.7m savings over the Medium Term Financial Plan, the Chief Finance Officer confirmed this was the current identified position, with further efficiencies” source ↗
North Northamptonshire Council
At Full Council on 19 February 2026, North Northamptonshire's Reform UK administration (Cllr Martin Griffiths, Leader) adopted its 2026/27 General Fund Revenue Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan, with cost pressures and service investment offset by stated savings, efficiencies and income generation of £20.1m; the budget motion (moved by Deputy Leader Cllr Graham Cheatley, seconded by Leader Cllr Martin Griffiths) was carried after Conservative and Labour amendments were voted down.
“Cost pressures and service investment would be, in part, offset by savings, efficiencies and income generation of £20.1m, which included the continuation of savings already included as part of the 2026-27 medium term financial plan and which remained deliverable” source ↗
Nottinghamshire County Council
Nottinghamshire County Council's Reform administration (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Cllr Stuart Matthews) set out a three-year savings plan in its Cabinet report of 6 November 2025 underpinning the 2026/27 Medium-Term Financial Strategy: £18.3m in 2026/27, reducing to £15.5m in 2027/28 and £11.1m in 2028/29 (about £44.9m over three years), given in answer to a Full Council question from Cllr Stuart Bestwick on 20 November 2025 about the timing of the administration's savings.
“The savings plan shows £18.3 million next year, reducing to £15.5 million the year after and £11.1 million in the third year.” source ↗
Staffordshire County Council
Staffordshire County Council's Reform administration adopted its first Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026-2031 and 2026/27 Budget at Full Council on 12 February 2026 (moved by Cllr Murray, Acting Leader, seconded by Cllr Lakin, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources), which set a headline efficiency/savings figure of £26m towards a total £50m of budget pressures for 2026/27 (the remaining £24m met through council tax).
“Councillor Murray added that the Council was facing £50m in pressures for 2026/27. Of this, £24m would be met through council tax, and £26m through efficiencies and savings to limit the burden on residents.” source ↗
Warwickshire County Council
In moving the Reform UK administration's 2026/27 Budget and 2026-31 MTFS, Cllr Shaw stated the Council's track record of delivering planned savings had enabled a proposed £103m of budget reductions over five years (to 2030/31) and £27.7m of savings in 2026/27 alone, alongside a proposed 3.89% council tax rise.
“The Council’s track record of delivering planned savings had enabled a proposed £103m of budget reductions over five years and £27.7m in the next financial year.” source ↗
West Northamptonshire Council
West Northamptonshire Council's Reform administration's first full-year Budget, recommended by Cabinet on 16 February 2026 and approved by Full Council on 26 February 2026, identified efficiency and income-generation savings of over £8 million, alongside adopting the Medium-Term Financial Strategy for 2026-27 to 2030-31.
“Efficiency and income generation totalling more than £8 million have been identified, with many cuts impacting services.” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “efficiency/savings target in an adopted budget/MTFS”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-02.

DOGE, paid consultants, or an in-house review: how councils chose to scrutinise spend

Kent's Reform administration created its own efficiency unit in May 2025: the Department of Local Government Efficiency (DOLGE).[1] DOLGE is led by a dedicated cabinet member, supported by two deputies, and tasked with identifying savings across the council.[39] Derbyshire created a Cabinet Member for Council Efficiency (DOGE) portfolio, held by Councillor John Lawson.[2] West Northamptonshire's Leader invited Reform's national DOGE team to set out the framework and legal basis for a comprehensive audit of council spending, at no cost to the local taxpayer.[40] Its Cabinet then formally resolved to share council financial information with the DOGE team, subject to due diligence checks and legal agreements.[5] Derbyshire also engaged PwC, a paid external firm, to review the council's operating model and third-party spend.[3] Leicestershire ran a competitive procurement and awarded a 'root and branch' efficiency review to Newton Consulting.[4][41] Leicestershire's Leader confirmed the administration chose a paid external consultant over taking up the DOGE offer.[42] Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, North Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire instead commissioned or ran internal, officer-led efficiency reviews of their finances.[6][7][8][9] North Northamptonshire confirmed no outside consultants had been engaged and that its review would come at no cost to taxpayers.[43] Staffordshire's Monitoring Officer confirmed no formal request for a DOGE audit had been received.[44] Warwickshire said it had no firm DOGE plans and set up its own internal two-year Value for Money savings programme.[45][46] County Durham's Leader described a process of bringing the Reform 'Department of Local Government Efficiency' into the council to audit its books.[47] Officers later confirmed the council had had no engagement with the Reform DOGE initiative and that no budget savings had come from that process.[48] Conservative-led Newcastle-under-Lyme declined the DOGE framing, pointing to its own Efficiency Board, which has run since 2018 and had delivered almost £17m of savings.[49]

Consultancy, agency and recruitment controls

Where councils acted on consultancy and agency spend, the mechanisms varied.[10][11][13][12] County Durham cut its professional-fees budget by £0.1m, reducing the use of consultants after appointing a full-time project manager in-house.[10] Nottinghamshire's finance lead told Full Council the administration was on target to save £1.2m gross over 12 months by reducing agency staff use, particularly in social care.[11] Its Cabinet Efficiency Working Group separately reported an in-year saving of £3.0m from reducing agency staff numbers and investing in training full-time employees.[50] West Northamptonshire operates an approval gate: member-level sign-off is required for any individual agency or interim-staff package over £100,000.[13] Staffordshire set up a panel checking recruitment and costs, began a review of temporary workers, and disclosed baseline spend of £6.5m on consultants and over £2m on temporary workers.[12] Derbyshire's planned Consultancy Spend Board was described as ongoing work rather than a decision setting a reduction or cap.[51] Essex went the other way: its Cabinet formally extended its agency-payroll contract by a further year, with no reduction or cap stated.[52] Lancashire's scrutiny committee heard that reduced agency staffing in children's social care had produced year-on-year savings of more than £3.0m, an officer-reported outcome rather than a cabinet cap.[53] Warwickshire's scrutiny committee was likewise told agency staff use had fallen 22% year-on-year, with no new cabinet decision setting a target.[54] Staffordshire put a headcount recruitment freeze in place, with an exception for key workers.[17] The freeze's operational effect was independently confirmed when a wraparound-childcare post was left unfilled because of it.[55] Derbyshire has not adopted a corporate recruitment freeze.[18] Leicestershire's officers stated there was no intention to impose one, preferring organisational design, management-structure review and reduced agency use.[19] Lincolnshire had taken no formal freeze or vacancy-control decision as of January 2026.[20]

The scale of the savings targets

The savings targets written into the 2026/27 budgets varied widely.[38][24] West Northamptonshire's first full-year Reform budget identified efficiency and income-generation savings of over £8.0m.[38] Kent's draft 2026-27 budget carried a headline £61.7m of new and full-year savings, plus £14.6m of income generation.[24] Full County Council adopted Kent's budget on 12 February 2026.[25] Nottinghamshire's three-year plan set £18.3m of savings for 2026/27.[33] North Northamptonshire's adopted budget offset pressures with £20.1m of savings, efficiencies and income generation.[32] Staffordshire's first MTFS set a headline efficiency figure of £26m against £50m of budget pressures for 2026/27.[35] Warwickshire's budget proposed £27.7m of savings in 2026/27, within £103m of budget reductions over five years.[36] Derbyshire's adopted budget nets £55.3m of budget reductions.[23] Leicestershire commissioned its efficiency review in response to a £90m budget gap; the resulting Better Leicestershire Programme targets £102.6m of savings to close a budget gap by 2029/30.[41][56] Lincolnshire's officers worked to a minimum £25m savings target for 2026/27, against a projected budget gap rising to £55m by 2028/29.[57] Lancashire's 2026/27 budget incorporated a further £16.6m of savings on top of £6.7m from its Efficiency Review, alongside a £43m package already agreed by the outgoing administration.[26] Essex's adopted 2026/27 budget carries no specific savings target; it commits only to securing 'greater efficiencies' in the medium term.[58] Its budget papers reference a £110m budget gap over the medium term.[59] Where councils reported delivery against earlier targets, they fell short.[60][61] Derbyshire delivered £35.1m (93.7%) of an inherited £37.5m target for 2025-26, leaving £2.4m still to be found.[60] North Northamptonshire delivered £24.6m of its £28.6m target for 2025/26.[61] In Labour-mayor Doncaster, Reform's budget amendment cut the council-tax rise from 4.99% to 2%; the adopted budget still records £3.7m of savings for 2026/27.[62] Conservative-led Newcastle-under-Lyme closed a £1.599m gap for 2026/27 through its Efficiency Board process.[63]

References

1. Kent County Council's Reform administration established the Department of Local Government Efficiency (DOLGE) — its own internal DOGE-equivalent efficiency unit — with the Leader creating it in May 2025 to identify savings and efficiencies across the council.
“Kent County Council’s Department of Local Government Efficiency (DOLGE) was established by the Leader in May 2025.” Decisions, 13 November 2025 ↗
2. Derbyshire County Council's Reform administration established a formal Cabinet portfolio titled 'Cabinet Member for Council Efficiency (DOGE)', held by Councillor John Lawson, confirmed in Cabinet and committee minutes from at least November 2025.
“Cabinet Member for Business Services and Cabinet Member for Council Efficiency (DOGE), to award the contract” Decisions, 13 November 2025 ↗
“due to his role as the Cabinet Member for Council Efficiency (DOGE)” Minutes, 3 December 2025 ↗
3. Cabinet Member for Council Efficiency (DOGE) Cllr John Lawson confirmed the Council engaged PwC (a paid external firm) to review the Council's Operating Model and third-party spend, producing recommendations for a Transformation and Efficiency Programme; a public question at Council on 10 December 2025 cited PwC's estimate that savings of between £11.2m and £22m could be achieved through better management of third-party spend.
“Work is ongoing to assess the PwC findings against the Council’s Change Portfolio and to identify a plan to implement the recommendations identified by PwC in the form of a Transformation and Efficiency Programme for the Council.” Minutes, 11 September 2025 ↗
“Thereafter PWC indicated that estimated savings between 11.2 and 22m could be achieved through better management of third party spend.” Minutes, 10 December 2025 ↗
4. Cabinet formally resolved on 28 October 2025 to award the Efficiency Review contract to the winning tenderer following a competitive procurement process (Newton Consulting Ltd), rather than taking up the DOGE offer.
“The Cabinet considered an exempt report of the Director of Corporate Resources which provided an update on the outcome of the procurement process to commission an external efficiency review and sought approval to award to the most advantageous tender following the completion of the evaluation process.” Minutes, 28 October 2025 ↗
“That approval be given to award to the most advantageous tender, as outlined at paragraph 27 of the report;” Minutes, 28 October 2025 ↗
5. At Cabinet on 16 July 2025, under item 'Provision of Financial Data', Councillor Andrew Last proposed and Councillor John Slope seconded, and Cabinet agreed and RESOLVED to approve sharing council financial information with the Reform DOGE team, subject to satisfactory completion of due diligence checks by the Chief Executive and completion of legal agreements, with delegated authority given to the Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer to conduct that due diligence and negotiate the agreements.
“Councillor Andrew Last proposed the recommendations Councillor John Slope seconded. The Cabinet agreed the recommendations. RESOLVED: a) Noted the information contained at Appendix A that reflects requests from Reform UK but is information that is already in the public domain and accessible to all interested parties. b) Subjected to the satisfactory completion of all due diligence checks considered necessary by the Chief Executive Officer and completion of the relevant legal agreements referred to in recommendation C, approve the sharing of information detailed within Appendix Two” Minutes, 16 July 2025 ↗
6. Lancashire County Council's Cabinet resolved as urgent business on 5 June 2025 to commission an internal 'Efficiency Review of the Council's Financial Management, Procurement and Associated Governance Arrangements', to be scoped by the Interim Director of Finance and Commerce and overseen by a new Cabinet Working Group, expected to shape the 2026/27 budget; a later Audit, Risk and Governance Committee report (21 July 2025) confirmed the review 'would be completed by officers of the council', i.e. an internal review rather than a paid external DOGE-style unit or consultant.
“Cabinet considered a report that sought to commence a review of the Council’s financial management, procurement, and associated governance arrangements.” Minutes, 5 June 2025 ↗
“The commencement of a review of the Council’s financial management, procurement, and associated governance arrangements, be approved” Minutes, 5 June 2025 ↗
“Following the Cabinet decision to conduct a review of the county council's finances, the efficiency review would be completed by officers of the council” Minutes, 21 July 2025 ↗
7. Nottinghamshire County Council's Reform-led Cabinet formally commissioned an internal efficiency review of the Council's financial management, procurement and contract management arrangements at its 23 June 2025 meeting (RESOLVED 2025/014), as part of the budget-setting process; a Cabinet Working Group (members appointed by the Leader) was established to oversee it, and authority was delegated to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Leader, Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer, to agree the review's detailed scope and programme.
“EFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS RESOLVED 2025/014 1) That an efficiency review of the Council’s financial management , procurement and contract management arrangements be commenced as part of the Council’s budget setting process.” Document, 17 July 2025 ↗
“2) That a Cabinet Working Group be established, members of which will be appointed by the Leader, to consider the work of the Efficiency Review and to report to Cabinet accordingly. 3) That authority be delegated to the Service Director – Finance, Infrastructure and Improvement (Section 151 Officer) in consultation with the Leader, the Chief Executive and Service Director Customers, Governance and Employees (Monitoring Officer) to agree the detailed scope and programme of the review.” Document, 17 July 2025 ↗
8. On 17 June 2025 North Northamptonshire's Executive resolved to approve the commencement of an internally-run Efficiency Review of the Council's financial management, procurement and governance arrangements, delegating the detailed scope to the Executive Director of Finance (s151 officer) in consultation with the Leader and Executive Member for Finance, Efficiency and Change.
“Approved the commencement of a review of the Council’s financial management, procurement and associated governance arrangements.” Decisions, 17 June 2025 ↗
9. Lincolnshire County Council's Executive (8 July 2025) noted the progress of an ongoing internal review of the Council's finances and that further supplementary efficiency reviews may be required, with authority for any such reviews resting with the Chief Executive or the Deputy Chief Executive/Executive Director of Resources under existing powers -- this is an internal officer-led review process, not a named DOGE unit or a commissioned paid external audit.
“the progress on the ongoing review of the Council’s finances and that further supplementary efficiency reviews may be required that fall under the powers of either the Chief Executive, as Head of Paid Service in relation to staffing matters, or the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Resources, as s151 Officer responsible for financial administration and affairs of the Council, be noted.” Minutes, 8 July 2025 ↗
10. County Durham Council's MTFP(16) Cabinet Report (considered 19 November 2025 and again 21 January 2026, as part of the Resources savings package) included a specific £0.100 million saving titled 'Reduction of Professional Fees Budget', explicitly reducing the use of consultants because a full-time Project Manager was appointed in-house instead.
“Reduction of Professional Fees Budget Following a review of the budget requirement, opportunities have arisen to make efficiencies and reduce the use of consultants, directly due to the appointment of a full time Project Manager, saving £0.100 million.” Document, 21 January 2026 ↗
“Reduction of Professional Fees Budget Following a review of the budget requirement, opportunities have arisen to make efficiencies and reduce the use of consultants, due to the appointment of a full time Project Manager, saving £0.100 million.” Document, 19 November 2025 ↗
11. At Full Council on 20 November 2025, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources (Cllr Stuart Matthews) told members the administration was on target to save £1.2 million gross over the following 12 months by reducing agency staff use, particularly in the social care sector, and that this had already roughly halved the number of agency children's school workers in 18 months.
“we’re on target over the next 12 months to save £1.2 million gross on that, so that’s a good achievement.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
“This has led to numbers of children’s school workers agency staff nearly halving in the last 18 months.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
12. At full Council (9 Oct 2025), the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources told members the Reform administration had put in place a headcount freeze (except key workers), set up a panel reviewing costs and recruitment, and commenced a review of temporary/agency staff use, and disclosed baseline spend of £6.5m on consultants and over £2m on temporary workers -- a stated scrutiny/review action, not a £ cut or cap target.
“We have put in place a headcount freeze, with the exception of key workers, and we also now have a panel which is checking on costs and recruitment.” Minutes, 9 October 2025 ↗
“We have also commenced a review on temporary workers.” Minutes, 9 October 2025 ↗
“The Council has also spent £6.5m on consultants and over £2m on temporary workers.” Minutes, 9 October 2025 ↗
13. West Northamptonshire Council (Full Council, 25 September 2025) operates a formal approval threshold requiring member-level sign-off for individual agency/interim-staff spend above £100,000: Council was asked to, and did, approve a remuneration package in excess of £100,000 for one interim worker engaged to lead the recommissioning of Drug and Alcohol Misuse Services, with officers noting overall agency costs were falling; this is a tightened-reporting/approval gate rather than a cut or cap, and no reduction target was set.
“330. Approval of Agency Spend >£100k Councillor Last proposed and Councillor Slope seconded the report which sought approval for a proposed remuneration package in excess of £100,00 for one interim worker” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
“It was noted that overall agency costs were falling” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
“RESOLVED: Council approved the proposed remuneration over £100,00 for the Drug and Alcohol Misuse Commissioner interim role.” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
14. The 18 September 2025 Kent County Council decision specifically deleted two senior management posts — General Counsel and Director of Human Resources and Organisation Development — as part of the restructure, alongside reporting-line changes for the Director of Infrastructure and redesignation of the Head of Law as Monitoring Officer.
“2. Agree the deletion of the General Counsel and Director of Human Resources and Organisation Development posts.” Minutes, 18 September 2025 ↗
15. As part of the MTFP(16) 2026/27 savings package, Durham County Council Cabinet proposed (19 November 2025, restated 21 January 2026) deleting the Grade 14 NETPark Project Director role within Business Durham, saving £68,200 a year, and on 11 February 2026 Cabinet formally decided to approve recommending this and the wider Appendix 4/5 savings package to full Council for final approval on 18 February 2026.
“It is proposed to delete the Grade 14 NETPark Project Director role within Business Durham.” Document, 19 November 2025 ↗
“(c) Deletion of NETPark Project Director role (£0.068 million)” Document, 11 February 2026 ↗
“approve the recommending of the updated savings proposals set out in Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 and summarised in Table 3 and Table 4 to Council for approval on 18 February 2026” Decisions, 11 February 2026 ↗
16. Staffordshire County Council resolved (agenda item 43, meeting minutes, effective 1 April 2025) to partially restructure its Senior Leadership Team following the Director of Corporate Services' retirement: it deleted the Director of Corporate Services post and created two new posts (Director of Transformation and Director of Finance and Resources) in a revised structure; no headcount or pound-saving figure is stated in the decision.
“the Chief Executive proposes to partially restructure the Senior Leadership Team to delete the post of Director of Corporate Services and reassign the functions within the current Corporate Services Directorate to create two new posts of Director of Transformation and Director of Finance and Resources within a new revised structure.” Minutes, 22 May 2025 ↗
17. At full Council on 9 October 2025, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources confirmed in response to a councillor question that Staffordshire County Council has put in place a headcount recruitment freeze (with an exception for key workers) alongside a panel checking recruitment and costs and a review of temporary workers; no specific headcount/FTE target or £ savings figure was stated for the freeze itself.
“We have put in place a headcount freeze, with the exception of key workers, and we also now have a panel which is checking on costs and recruitment.” Minutes, 9 October 2025 ↗
18. Derbyshire County Council has not adopted a corporate recruitment/hiring freeze or vacancy-control regime by cabinet, budget, or MTFS decision; the only documented recruitment pause is a narrow, service-specific one in Adult Social Care, where recruitment to new adult-care roles was paused so that staff displaced by the closure of eight HOPs day facilities could be offered redeployment first — a redeployment-priority measure, not a cost-saving vacancy freeze, and no headcount/FTE or £ saving target is stated for it.
“Recruitment to new roles has been paused to ensure colleagues affected by the closure of the eight HOPs facilities are offered redeployment first.” Minutes, 25 March 2026 ↗
19. At the 11 May 2026 special County Council / Scrutiny Commission meeting discussing the MTFS savings programme, officers confirmed there was no intention to impose a recruitment freeze; the targeted savings were instead to be pursued through organisational design, review of management structures and reduced agency use, so Leicestershire has not adopted a recruitment-freeze decision.
“There was no intention to impose a recruitment freeze, explaining that the savings would instead be pursued through a combination of organisational design, review of management structures, reduction in agency use, and wider efficiency and effectiveness measures.” Minutes, 11 May 2026 ↗
20. Lincolnshire County Council's draft 2026/27 budget proposals (considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board on 29 January 2026, ahead of Executive decision) listed 'vacancy management' as one of several savings assumptions alongside pension reductions and digital efficiencies, but officers stated this was 'subject to governance' and that full details of the underlying efficiencies had been withheld from reports specifically 'to avoid pre-empting formal decisions' — i.e. no formal recruitment/hiring freeze or vacancy-control decision had been taken as of that scrutiny meeting.
“Officers assured that savings included vacancy management (subject to governance), pension reductions and digital efficiencies, with transformation support now embedded.” Minutes, 29 January 2026 ↗
“these efficiencies arose from ongoing work with Heads of Services on vacancy management, contract reviews and similar measures, but that full details have not been included in reports to avoid pre-empting formal decisions” Minutes, 26 February 2026 ↗
21. Cabinet on 11 February 2026 approved recommending to County Council a savings plan for the 2026/27 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) totalling £5.662 million of MTFP(15) savings and £9.807 million of new MTFP(16) savings, profiled at £12.914 million in 2026/27, alongside a 2026/27 Net Budget Requirement of £674.060 million.
“approve recommending the savings plans detailed in Appendix 4 (MTFP(15) savings totalling £5.662 million) and Appendix 5 (MTFP(16) savings totalling £9.807 million (was £10.057 million)) and which are profiled in total £12.914 million in 2026/27” Decisions, 11 February 2026 ↗
“approve the 2026/27 Net Budget Requirement of £674.060 million (was £673.733 million) for consideration by County Council on 18 February 2026” Decisions, 11 February 2026 ↗
22. County Council formally adopted the Medium Term Financial Plan 2026/27 to 2028/29 and Revenue and Capital Budget 2026/27 on 18 February 2026, moved by Deputy Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance Councillor D Grimes, who described it as the first budget of the Reform administration elected in May 2025; the report and recommendations, including the savings plan, were resolved to be adopted in full on a recorded vote.
“In Moving adoption of the Cabinet reports, Councillor D Grimes, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance made a statement on the budget proposals” Minutes, 20 May 2026 ↗
“The budget put forward was the first for this administration and set a historic moment for all Reform members and followed months of hard work that commenced after the election in May.” Minutes, 20 May 2026 ↗
“Resolved: That the report and its recommendations be adopted in full.” Minutes, 20 May 2026 ↗
23. Full Council adopted the Revenue Budget Report 2026-27 on 11 February 2026, moved by Councillor J Lawson (Reform Cabinet Member for Finance); the approved budget calculation nets £55,331,478 (c.£55.3m) of 'Budget Reductions' against pressures in setting the Council Tax requirement, and Council separately approved 'the level and allocation of budget savings' set out in Section 9 and Appendix 7 of the report. A Conservative amendment (moved by Councillor Dale) to reduce the council tax rise and part-fund the gap from reserves instead was defeated on a recorded vote.
“Councillor J Lawson introduced a report, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting, that sought approval for the proposed Revenue Budget and Council Tax for 2026-27.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“Approves the level and allocation of budget savings as outlined in Section 9 and Appendix 7 to the report” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“Less Budget Reductions -55,331,478” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“The amendment was declared to be lost.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
24. Kent County Council's Reform administration's draft Revenue Budget 2026-27 and Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2026-29 -- introduced by Deputy Leader Brian Collins to the Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee on 14 January 2026 -- carried a headline savings figure of £61.7m of new/full-year savings plus £14.6m of income generation, offsetting £179.5m of core funded spending growth; the Committee resolved to note the Administration's draft budget proposals.
“RESOLVED to note the Administration’s draft capital and revenue budget proposals.” Minutes, 11 March 2026 ↗
“He explained that the draft budget included £179.5m of core funded spending growth and reversals of £28m of previous savings. These spending pressures were offset by £14.7m of net reserve movements, £61.7m of new or full year savings, and £14.6m of income generation, resulting in a net change of £116.5m in revenue spending.” Minutes, 11 March 2026 ↗
25. Full County Council formally adopted the Revenue Budget 2026-27, 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan and 2026-36 Capital Programme on 12 February 2026, on a motion moved by Deputy Leader Brian Collins and seconded by Leader Linda Kemkaran, setting a net revenue budget requirement of £1,648.1m for 2026-27 and formally noting that the budget/MTFP carried a savings and income requirement.
“Mr Collins proposed, and Ms Kemkaran seconded the following motion: “County Council, having given due regard to the s25 Report (published for consideration and noting as agenda item 5 of this meeting), is asked to agree the following:” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
“(c) The net revenue budget requirement of £1,648.1m for 2026- 27.” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
“To note the ongoing and escalating cost pressures on the Council’s budget alongside insufficient funding in the multi- year local government finance settlement and knock on requirement for savings and income in the final draft 2026-27 budget and 2026-29 medium term financial plan.” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
26. As part of setting the 2026/27 Budget, Cabinet on 27 November 2025 noted a wider review of savings opportunities across the council that had identified a further £16.599m portfolio of savings for 2026/27 (on top of £6.657m identified via the Efficiency Review), alongside a previously agreed £43m savings package already built into the budget when it was set by the outgoing administration on 26 February 2025.
“A wider review of savings opportunities across the council which had resulted in a portfolio to the value of £16.599m for 2026/27 with further savings in subsequent years.” Minutes, 27 November 2025 ↗
“That savings of £42.927m were built into the 2026/27 Budget when the current year budget was set by Full Council on 26 February 2025” Minutes, 27 November 2025 ↗
27. Lancashire County Council's 2026/27 Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), including the savings proposals set out in Annex 3, was recommended by Cabinet on 5 February 2026 and formally adopted by Full Council on 26 February 2026 on a recorded vote of 55 for, 10 against and 8 abstaining.
“Approve the savings proposals (see Annex 3 of Appendix A).” Minutes, 26 February 2026 ↗
“The Motion was CARRIED and it was: Resolved: - That, the Budget for 2026/27 including all the information set out in the appendices with the following specific recommendations” Minutes, 26 February 2026 ↗
28. Leicestershire's Council-owned Efficiency Review (delivered with consultants Newton Consulting Ltd) is a named savings programme tied to the MTFS: the Leader told Scrutiny Commission on 11 May 2026 that £33.4m of savings originally built into the budget had been increased to £44m by officer work, with external consultants identifying further potential savings of up to £60m, giving an overall headline target of £102.6 million, expected to deliver payback within around three years.
“The Leader outlined that savings of £33.4 million had originally been built into the budget, which had been increased to £44 million through work with officers, and that external consultants had worked with the Council to identify further potential savings of up to £60 million, contributing to an overall target of £102.6 million.” Minutes, 11 May 2026 ↗
“the independent review had produced a rolling programme of action expected to deliver payback within around three years, target £60 million of savings” Minutes, 11 May 2026 ↗
29. Leicestershire County Council formally adopted the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2026/27-2029/30 at Full Council on 18 February 2026 (motion moved by Mr Fowler, seconded by Mr Harrison), setting a net revenue budget for 2026/27 of £616.1 million incorporating the growth and savings for that year set out in Appendix C; the substantive motion was carried 39 for, 0 against, with 13 abstentions.
“It was moved by Mr Fowler and seconded by Mr Harrison” Minutes, 18 February 2026 ↗
“approval be given to the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) which incorporates the recommended net revenue budget for 2026/27 totalling £616.1m as set out in the revised Appendices A, B and E of this report and includes the growth and savings for that year as set out in the revised Appendix C” Minutes, 18 February 2026 ↗
“The substantive motion was carried, with 39 members voting for the motion and 13 members abstaining.” Minutes, 18 February 2026 ↗
30. Lincolnshire's Executive formally approved the Council Budget 2026/27 initial proposals on 6 January 2026 (Decision I036259), including the budget savings and cost pressures for 2026/27 set out in Appendix B; at the same meeting the Chief Finance Officer confirmed a headline £62.7m savings figure over the Medium Term Financial Plan as the current identified position.
“That the following elements of the budget for 2025/26 as its initial proposals subject to further consultation and scrutiny, be approved, namely:  The budget requirement as detailed in Table A2 of Appendix A.  The budget savings and cost pressures covering the 2026/27 financial year, as detailed in Appendix B.” Decisions, 6 January 2026 ↗
“On the headline £62.7m savings over the Medium Term Financial Plan, the Chief Finance Officer confirmed this was the current identified position, with further efficiencies” Minutes, 6 January 2026 ↗
31. Lincolnshire County Council formally adopted the Council Budget 2026/27 (including the Council's Financial Strategy at Appendix D of the Budget Book) at full Council on 20 February 2026; the budget was introduced and moved by Reform UK's Councillor T Catton, seconded by Councillor S Matthews, and the original motion as amended was carried by recorded vote 38 for, 20 against, 1 abstention.
“Councillor T Catton introduced the budget and moved the proposals as set out in the report, which was seconded by Councillor S Matthews.” Minutes, 20 February 2026 ↗
“Original Motion by Reform UK Group, as amended Following a discussion, the original motion, as amended, was put to the vote.” Minutes, 20 February 2026 ↗
“FOR: 38 Those voting for: Councillors Baxter, Bean, Beecham, Bridgwood, D Brookes, J Brookes, Carey, Catton, Cheyne, Clegg, Condell, Cullen, Daish, East, Edgoose-Zagorskiy, Findley, French, Gibson, Hastings, Hume, Kelly, King, Litchfield, Lock, Matthews, McGonigle, Oliver, Parkinson, Redfern, Reeve, Roberts, B Robinson, R Robinson, Sheard, Sneath, Whitaker, Wimhurst, Woods AGAINST: 20 Those voting against: Councillors Bamford, Brockway, Carrington, Chapman, Christopher, Clarke, Cleaver, Cooke, Davies, Dilks, Dyer, Hill OBE, Kendrick, Lee, Martin, Mrs Overton MBE, Taylor, Vernon, Woolley, Wright ABSTENTIONS: 1 Those abstaining: Councillor Bunney” Minutes, 20 February 2026 ↗
“approves the Council's Financial Strategy contained in the appended Budget Book (Appendix D – Financial Strategy)” Minutes, 20 February 2026 ↗
32. At Full Council on 19 February 2026, North Northamptonshire's Reform UK administration (Cllr Martin Griffiths, Leader) adopted its 2026/27 General Fund Revenue Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan, with cost pressures and service investment offset by stated savings, efficiencies and income generation of £20.1m; the budget motion (moved by Deputy Leader Cllr Graham Cheatley, seconded by Leader Cllr Martin Griffiths) was carried after Conservative and Labour amendments were voted down.
“Cost pressures and service investment would be, in part, offset by savings, efficiencies and income generation of £20.1m, which included the continuation of savings already included as part of the 2026-27 medium term financial plan and which remained deliverable” Minutes, 5 March 2026 ↗
“Cllr Graham Cheatley moved, and Cllr Martin Griffiths seconded the motion setting” Minutes, 5 March 2026 ↗
“RESOLVED That Council: a) Approves the 2026/27 Revenue Budget which includes:” Minutes, 5 March 2026 ↗
33. Nottinghamshire County Council's Reform administration (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Cllr Stuart Matthews) set out a three-year savings plan in its Cabinet report of 6 November 2025 underpinning the 2026/27 Medium-Term Financial Strategy: £18.3m in 2026/27, reducing to £15.5m in 2027/28 and £11.1m in 2028/29 (about £44.9m over three years), given in answer to a Full Council question from Cllr Stuart Bestwick on 20 November 2025 about the timing of the administration's savings.
“The savings plan shows £18.3 million next year, reducing to £15.5 million the year after and £11.1 million in the third year.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
“Let’s turn to the plan set out in my report to Cabinet on 6 th November.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
34. Cabinet formally resolved (RESOLVED 2026/003) to recommend to Full Council an Annual Revenue Budget of £875.670 million for 2026/27 and approval of the principles underlying the Medium-Term Financial Strategy; a later Cabinet report approved an amended Annual Revenue Budget of £880.007 million for 2026/27 together with an amended Medium-Term Financial Strategy.
“The Annual Revenue Budget for Nottinghamshire County Council be set at £875.670 million for 2026/27” Document, 5 March 2026 ↗
“That the Annual Revenue Budget for Nottinghamshire County Council be set at £880.007 million for 2026/27, as set out in table 1 of the report, be approved” Document, 19 March 2026 ↗
35. Staffordshire County Council's Reform administration adopted its first Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026-2031 and 2026/27 Budget at Full Council on 12 February 2026 (moved by Cllr Murray, Acting Leader, seconded by Cllr Lakin, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources), which set a headline efficiency/savings figure of £26m towards a total £50m of budget pressures for 2026/27 (the remaining £24m met through council tax).
“Councillor Murray moved, and Councillor Lakin seconded, the recommendations contained in the report before the Council.” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
“Councillor Murray added that the Council was facing £50m in pressures for 2026/27. Of this, £24m would be met through council tax, and £26m through efficiencies and savings to limit the burden on residents.” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
36. In moving the Reform UK administration's 2026/27 Budget and 2026-31 MTFS, Cllr Shaw stated the Council's track record of delivering planned savings had enabled a proposed £103m of budget reductions over five years (to 2030/31) and £27.7m of savings in 2026/27 alone, alongside a proposed 3.89% council tax rise.
“The Council’s track record of delivering planned savings had enabled a proposed £103m of budget reductions over five years and £27.7m in the next financial year.” Document, 5 February 2026 ↗
37. The budget process was adjourned after the original 3.89% Reform UK proposal failed to secure support on 17 February 2026, and Cllr Shaw then moved an amendment raising the council tax rise to 4.44% and retaining youth grant funding; Council formally resolved to agree the 2026/27 Budget and continue work on the 2026-31 MTFS by a recorded vote (against 18, abstentions 3).
“ent which proposed a 4.44% increase in council tax and the retention of the youth grant funding.” Minutes, 17 February 2026 ↗
“Resolved That Council agrees the 2026/27 Budget and authorises work to continue on ensuring the 2026-31 Medium Term Financial Strategy is aligned with and supports the delivery of the Council’s ambitions as set out in the Council Plan.” Document, 17 February 2026 ↗
38. West Northamptonshire Council's Reform administration's first full-year Budget, recommended by Cabinet on 16 February 2026 and approved by Full Council on 26 February 2026, identified efficiency and income-generation savings of over £8 million, alongside adopting the Medium-Term Financial Strategy for 2026-27 to 2030-31.
“Efficiency and income generation totalling more than £8 million have been identified, with many cuts impacting services.” Minutes, 16 February 2026 ↗
“Approves the 2026-27 Budget for West Northamptonshire set out in this report, and recommends the Budget to the Full Council meeting on 26 February” Decisions, 16 February 2026 ↗
“the Medium-Term Financial Strategy from 2026-27 to 2030-31 as set out in Appendix D” Decisions, 16 February 2026 ↗
39. The Reform administration created a new Department of Local Government Efficiency (DOLGE) portfolio when it took office in May 2025, led by a dedicated Cabinet Member supported by two Deputy Cabinet Members, tasked with identifying efficiencies and savings across KCC and feeding proposals into the 2025/26 in-year and 2026/27-plus medium-term savings programme.
“3. Background 3.1 KCC’s Department of Local Government Efficiency was formed as a new portfolio when the new Administration was appointed in May 2025. A Cabinet Member is in place who is supported by two Deputy Cabinet Members (Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance & Cross-Cabinet Activity and Deputy Cabinet Member for Corporate and Traded Services) to deliver the required activity.” Decisions, 13 November 2025 ↗
“DOLGE will have an initial specific focus on the delivery of 2025/26 in-year savings but also, the medium-term savings for 2026/27 and beyond to ensure a planned and sustainable approach.” Decisions, 13 November 2025 ↗
40. At the 26 June 2025 Full Council meeting, the Leader (Reform UK) announced he had extended an invitation to the Reform Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to lay out the framework and legal basis for a comprehensive audit of Council spending, at no cost to the local taxpayer, aimed at identifying previously unidentified efficiencies to redirect toward frontline services such as SEND, social care and highway maintenance.
“He had extended an invitation to the Reform Department of Government Efficiency to lay out the framework and legal basis of a comprehensive audit of Council spending, at no cost to the local taxpayer, in order to identify previously unidentified efficiencies and redirect funds where they were needed most; in frontline services such as SEND provision, social care and highway maintenance.” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
41. At the 11 May 2026 Scrutiny Commission, the Leader said the Administration had commissioned this 'root and branch' efficiency review (via Newton, not DOGE) of Council spending, income and procurement because of a £90m budget gap, and that it had built an overall savings target of £102.6 million (£33.4m originally budgeted, raised to £44m, plus a further £60m identified by the external consultants).
“the new administration had inherited a significant budget gap of £90 million and had therefore decided to commission a root and branch efficiency review of Council spending, income and procurement.” Minutes, 11 May 2026 ↗
“The Leader outlined that savings of £33.4 million had originally been built into the budget, which had been increased to £44 million through work with officers, and that external consultants had worked with the Council to identify further potential savings of up to £60 million, contributing to an overall target of £102.6 million.” Minutes, 11 May 2026 ↗
42. In a written answer at the 3 December 2025 County Council meeting, the Leader confirmed DOGE had been invited to the County Council for discussion at the 8 September 2025 Scrutiny Commission, but that the Administration decided instead to appoint a paid external consultant (Newton Consulting Ltd) to carry out the Efficiency Review, and stated Leicestershire had not been officially invited by Reform UK to conduct a DOGE audit.
“I confirmed they had been invited to the County Council. However, I also said at that same meeting I felt the appointment of an external consultant would be the best approach to address the high level of savings that the County Council was required to deliver. This is what the Administration ultimately decided to approve.” Minutes, 3 December 2025 ↗
“Not officially. However, Reform UK has said that it expected all councils it controls to be invited to conduct an audit. This is not the case in Leicestershire.” Minutes, 3 December 2025 ↗
“Newton was appointed on that basis and after an open procurement process to carry out the Efficiency Review.” Minutes, 3 December 2025 ↗
43. At Full Council on 26 June 2025 Cllr Helen Harrison asked the Leader to confirm whether the Efficiency Review agreed by the Executive on 17 June 2025 was 'in effect, the North Northamptonshire Council's version of DOGE' and whether outside persons would be engaged; the Leader's written answer confirmed the Council had not received any request for outside persons or consultants to be involved and that there would be no cost to taxpayers, with normal governance and Executive approval required before any outside persons could be instructed.
“Will the Leader or the Council please confirm that the Efficiency Review agreed by the Executive Committee on the 17th June 2025 is, in effect, the North Northamptonshire Council's version of DOGE, and that no outside persons (political or otherwise) will be engaged to carry out this review?” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
“The Council has not yet had any request for any outside persons or consultants to be involved in an Efficiency Review of the Council.” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
“There will be no cost to the taxpayers of North Northamptonshire.” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
44. At the Audit and Standards Committee on 8 July 2025, members queried a prospective external audit of Staffordshire's finances by Reform UK's DOGE team and how it would sit within corporate governance rules; the Monitoring Officer confirmed no formal request or notification for the DOGE audit had yet been received, so no decision to invite it in had been made as of that meeting.
“it was noted from the Monitoring Officer that no formal request or notification had been received with regard to the DOGE audit as yet, and once received, a full response and update would be given to the Committee.” Minutes, 8 July 2025 ↗
“Members queried the upcoming external audit of the Council’s finances, conducted by the Reform UK party’s DOGE team, and how this would fit within the Council’s Corporate Governance rules.” Minutes, 8 July 2025 ↗
45. At Cabinet on 12 June 2025, Councillor Chilvers asked the Portfolio Holder and Leader whether Warwickshire had plans to introduce a DOGE unit similar to Kent County Council's; the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Property, Councillor Shaw, replied that there was an ambition to save money but no firm DOGE plans were in place at that point.
“Councillor Chilvers addressed the need to deliver savings in 2025/26 and asked the Portfolio Holder if he or the Leader had plans to introduce a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), similar to that brought in by the new administration at Kent County Council. In response, Councillor Shaw advised that there was an ambition to save money for the Council and people of Warwickshire but there were no firm plans in place so far.” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
46. At Cabinet on 4 September 2025, rather than commissioning DOGE or an external paid review, Councillor Shaw proposed and Cabinet resolved to establish the Council's own internal two-year 'Value for Money' savings programme, governed by Shaw with Executive Director for Resources delegated to finalise scope; Shaw stated the programme would let the Council capture savings 'should a DOGE programme come in' -- i.e. as of this decision DOGE itself had still not been established or invited in.
“He highlighted that by initiating this programme, as many savings as possible could be made, should a DOGE programme come in.” Minutes, 16 October 2025 ↗
“1) Approves establishing a Council Value for Money programme to support the Medium-Term Financial Strategy refresh, focusing on the objectives set out in paragraph 4.23 of the report and programme workstreams in paragraph 4.24 of the report;” Minutes, 16 October 2025 ↗
47. In June 2025 Cabinet minutes, County Durham's Reform Leader described a process under way of bringing the Reform 'Department of Local Government Efficiency' (DOLGE/DOGE) into the council to audit its books, alongside the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge, as part of the administration's ambition to eliminate waste.
“This joint approach extended to the process of bringing the Reform Department of Local Government Efficiency into this council to audit the books.” Minutes, 18 June 2025 ↗
48. At full Council on 18 February 2026, in response to a question on the 2026/27 MTFP16 budget, the Corporate Director of Resources confirmed that the council had had no engagement with the Reform DOGE initiative and that no budget savings had come from that process.
“He confirmed that they had had no engagement with the reform DOGE initiative so no savings had come from that process.” Minutes, 20 May 2026 ↗
49. At Full Council on 24 September 2025, Newcastle-under-Lyme's (Conservative-led) Leader declined to adopt the Reform 'DOGE' efficiency-audit framing, responding to a councillor's question that the Council's own internal Efficiency Board process (running since 2018) had already delivered almost £17m in savings and would identify a further ~£2m towards the February 2026 budget, with no DOGE unit or external paid audit established, invited in, or commissioned.
“This Council would come forward with a measure of savings to save almost £2m.” Minutes, 24 September 2025 ↗
“The Leader advised that from this Council’s point of view, the efficiencies that were attached to the DOGE agenda were nothing new as efficiency board meetings had taken place in the Council since 2018 and, through that funding strategy almost £17m had been saved.” Minutes, 24 September 2025 ↗
50. By early 2026 the resulting Cabinet Efficiency Working Group reported initial outcomes to Overview Committee, citing an in-year saving of £3 million from reducing agency staff numbers and investing in training full-time employees, among other efficiencies; Overview Committee resolved (2026/006) that the Working Group's reports should keep coming back with figures and implementation dates included.
“Councillor Stuart Matthews, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, introduced the report which provided an update on the outcomes from the initial work of the Cabinet Efficiency Working Group.” Document, 7 May 2026 ↗
“The C ouncil had already made in -year efficiencies by saving £3 million through reducing the number of agency staff and investing more in training full-time employees.” Document, 7 May 2026 ↗
51. In a written response to a full Council question (10 Dec 2025), Cabinet Member for Council Efficiency (DOGE) Cllr J Lawson confirmed the Council was revising its procurement Standing Orders and had plans to establish a 'Consultancy Spend Board' and a Third Party workstream to reduce contract/third-party spend, but described this as ongoing work rather than a decision setting a specific reduction or cap figure for consultancy/agency spend.
“establishing a Consultancy Spend Board, a Third” Minutes, 10 December 2025 ↗
“It is correct the Council has reviewed its standing orders that details how the Council procures services. The revised standing orders are included on today’s agenda.” Minutes, 10 December 2025 ↗
52. Essex County Council's Cabinet took a formal decision on 4 November 2025 (FP/203/09/25, 'Future Requirements for Temporary Resourcing Services') to EXTEND — not cut or cap — its agency/interim staffing arrangements: it prolonged the Matrix SCM temporary-worker payroll contract and Dynamic Purchasing System by a further year and launched procurement for successor temporary/interim/permanent staffing supply chains, with no reduction or cap figure stated.
“Extend the contract with Matrix SCM for a period of 1 year for the provision Temporary Worker Payroll Services, from 24/11/2025 to 23/11/2026.” Decisions, 4 November 2025 ↗
“Agree to undertake competitive procurements under the Procurement Act 2023 for (a) a replacement service similar to the current contract for payroll and billing service for management of ECC temporary staff and (b) a supply chain to support the recruitment for temporary, interim and permanent staff for hard to fill posts” Decisions, 4 November 2025 ↗
53. Lancashire's Children, Families and Skills Scrutiny Committee (3 Dec 2025) heard that a three-year reduction in agency staffing costs in children's social care had produced year-on-year savings of more than £3,000,000, driven by successful recruitment reducing the need for agency social workers -- an officer-reported achieved reduction discussed at scrutiny, not a forward cabinet/budget cap or target.
“Regarding the reduction in agency cost over the last three-year period, it was questioned if the £3m savings was an annual saving, or an overall saving over the three-year period.” Minutes, 3 December 2025 ↗
“It was confirmed that it has been a year on year saving and overall, the savings were more than £3,000,000.” Minutes, 3 December 2025 ↗
54. Warwickshire County Council's Resources and Fire & Rescue Overview and Scrutiny Committee (4 March 2026) was told, in response to a councillor question on the Quarter 3 2025/26 performance report, that agency staff use had fallen 22% year-on-year — an officer-reported outcome, not a new cabinet/budget decision setting a target or cap; the Executive Director for Resources said the underlying workforce cost-savings delivery routes were set out in the budget report recently agreed by Full Council, rather than a specific consultancy/agency spending cap.
“there had been a 22 per cent reduction in the use of agency staff” Minutes, 4 March 2026 ↗
“Delivery routes for the savings were set out within the budget report that was recently agreed by Full Council.” Minutes, 4 March 2026 ↗
55. The council-wide recruitment freeze's operational effect was independently confirmed at Staffordshire Schools Forum on 13 November 2025, where officers explained that a wraparound-childcare lead officer post had not been filled and its duties absorbed into existing team roles because of the current LA recruitment freeze/pause.
“It had been explained that the lead officer role had been absorbed into existing team roles due to the recruitment pause, with responsibilities shared” Minutes, 13 November 2025 ↗
“Finally, Steve enquired whether a lead officer had been appointed for the programme, or if this had been affected by the current LA recruitment freeze.” Minutes, 13 November 2025 ↗
56. On 26 May 2026 Leicestershire County Council's Cabinet took a Key Decision approving the outcomes of its Efficiency Review and re-naming the revised Transformation Programme the 'Better Leicestershire Programme', targeting overall savings of £102.6m (built from an original £33.4m, raised to £44m, plus up to £60m identified with the help of external consultants Newton) to close an £85m budget gap by 2029/30; as explained to the Scrutiny Commission on 11 May 2026 ahead of that Cabinet decision, the savings would be pursued through a mix of organisational design, management-structure review, 'reduction in agency use', and wider efficiency measures — with no separate £ figure isolated for the agency-use strand alone.
“That the revised Transformation Programme at Appendix A to the report be approved and re-named the Better Leicestershire Programme;” Minutes, 26 May 2026 ↗
“make progress towards closing the current gap of £85m by 2029/30.” Minutes, 26 May 2026 ↗
“external consultants had worked with the Council to identify further potential savings of up to £60 million, contributing to an overall target of £102.6 million.” Minutes, 11 May 2026 ↗
“the savings would instead be pursued through a combination of organisational design, review of management structures, reduction in agency use, and wider efficiency and effectiveness measures.” Minutes, 11 May 2026 ↗
57. In June 2025 Lincolnshire's Overview and Scrutiny Management Board was told officers were working to a minimum £25 million savings target for 2026/27 (against a projected £25m budget gap in 2026/27, rising to £55m by 2028/29), ahead of the annual budget-setting process; OSMB unanimously endorsed the report for Executive decision on 8 July 2025.
“He explained that officers were working on proposals to deliver at least £25 million in savings through service-level reviews, contract efficiencies, and administrative reforms.” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
“Further questions were raised surrounding the £25m savings target. Officers stated £25m was a minimum target and that heads of service had been asked to prepare scenarios for 5–25% reductions.” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
58. Essex County Council's Reform-administration Annual Plan and Budget 2026/27, adopted by Full Council on 12 February 2026 (division vote carried 42 for, 16 against, 0 abstentions), commits only to vague future efficiency language rather than a specific £ savings/efficiency target: it states that a balanced budget could not be set beyond 2026/27 and that 'greater efficiencies' would need to be secured in the medium term, with no headline £ figure attached to that commitment.
“Further opportunities for improving income and funding, plus greater efficiencies, will need to be secured in the medium-term which will be achieved by a focus on prioritisation and outcomes-based commissioning and transformation.” Minutes, 27 January 2026 ↗
“carried by 42 votes for, 16 against and 0 abstentions” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
59. The adopted 2026/27 budget papers and debate reference a medium-term funding/budget gap (not a savings target) of £110m over the medium term, discussed at the same 12 February 2026 Full Council budget meeting where the Reform administration's budget was carried.
“given the £110m gap over the medium term and the ambition of Whole Council Transformation” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
60. Derbyshire County Council's 2025-26 Revenue Budget (adopted before the Reform administration took control of the council in May 2025) carried a savings target of £37.499m; reporting to Cabinet on 12 March 2026 (Quarter 3 budget monitoring), Reform Cabinet Member for Finance Councillor Lawson stated £35.146m (93.7%) had been delivered, leaving £2.353m of savings still to be found and a forecast £0.505m overspend at year-end.
“The 2025-26 Revenue Budget includes savings targets totalling £37.499m.” Minutes, 12 March 2026 ↗
“As at the end of Quarter 3 total savings forecast to be delivered are £35.146m (93.7%).” Minutes, 12 March 2026 ↗
61. Reporting to the Executive on 9 June 2026 on the 2025/26 financial year outturn, officers stated the Council had set a savings target of £28.6m for 2025/26, of which £24.6m had been delivered by year end.
“We had set a savings target of £28.6m and of that £24.6m had been delivered. This was a strong delivery rate, but some savings had not been achieved and have impacted the budget.” Minutes, 9 June 2026 ↗
62. At Full Council on 26 February 2026 the Mayor's (Labour) 2026/27-2028/29 budget motion was voted down 13-39; Councillor Craig Ward, Leader of the Reform Party, then moved an amendment (seconded by Councillor Rachel Reed) cutting the Council Tax rise from 4.99% to 2% by removing the Adult Social Care precept and adding seven governance conditions, which carried 39-12 and became the substantive motion; the budget adopted as amended still records pressures of £18.7m and savings of £3.7m in Appendices C and D, 'and further savings detailed in the Reform UK budget amendment'.
“On being put to the meeting, the Motion was CARRIED, meaning this now became the substantive motion.” Minutes, 26 February 2026 ↗
“The motion to approve the Mayor’s budget proposals was declared LOST. At this point in the consideration of the item, Councillor Craig Ward, Leader of the Reform Party proposed a Motion to amend the Mayor’s Budget Proposals.” Minutes, 26 February 2026 ↗
“the revenue budget proposals for 2026/27 detailed at Appendix B (pressures £18.7m) and Appendices C and D (savings £3.7m), and further savings detailed in the Reform UK budget amendment” Minutes, 26 February 2026 ↗
63. Full Council formally adopted the 2026/27 General Fund Revenue Budget and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2026/27 to 2030/31 on 11 February 2026, moved by the Leader (Cllr Simon Tagg), with a stated £1.599m budget/efficiency gap filled via the Council's Efficiency Board process; the recommendations were carried 24 votes in favour to 12 against, 0 abstentions.
“The Leader introduced the report and moved the recommendations as set out by Cabinet for the 2026/27 General Fund Revenue Budget and Capital Programme. The Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2026/27 to 2030/31, Capital Strategy for 2026/36, Treasury Management Strategy for 2026/27, Investment Strategy 2026/27 and Commercial Strategy for 2026/27 were also recommended for approval.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“The Efficiency Board had ensured that the budget gap of £1.599m had been filled.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“In Favour (Y) – 24 Against (N) – 12 Abstain – 0 Resolved: That recommendations (a) to (o) as set out in Appendix 1 to this report, be approved.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗