DLUHC enabled spend statistics, 2021-22 and 2022-23: Technical notes
Updated 16 January 2024
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dluhc-enabled-spend-statistics-2021-22-and-2022-23/dluhc-enabled-spend-statistics-2021-22-and-2022-23-technical-notes
General details
Title of output: Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) and selected arm’s-length bodies (ALB) enabled spend statistics
Coverage: Spend enabled by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate during the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23
Contact details: subnationalexpenditure@levellingup.gov.uk
Official statistics in development
The statistics presented in this publication are official statistics in development. These are new statistics providing estimates of spend enabled by DLUHC and its ALB Homes England and the Planning Inspectorate[footnote 1] at a granular and standard level of geography (local authority districts).
Official statistics in development are official statistics that are undergoing a development; they may be new or existing statistics, and will be tested with users, in line with the standards of trustworthiness, quality, and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics. Official statistics in development were previously called ‘experimental statistics.’
Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR). OSR sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics should adhere to. You are welcome to contact us directly with any comments about how we meet these standards. Alternatively, you can contact OSR by emailing regulation@statistics.gov.uk or via the OSR website.
Summary
DLUHC enabled spend statistics (DESS) is an annual publication that estimates DLUHC, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate spend by local authority district in the United Kingdom (UK). Data is sourced from DLUHC, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate financial systems and reported on a cash expenditure basis as per monthly transparency publications; as well as published local government finance data - see ‘Quality - suitable data sources’ section below. Outputs are presented at December 2022 geographies.
This document provides an overview of the statistics and the process by which the annual statistical bulletin and associated data tables are brought together. It sets out how we have complied with the Code of Practice for Statistics, and includes sections on:
- Trustworthiness
- Quality
- Value
The Code of Practice for Statistics was published by the UK Statistics Authority in February 2018 to set standards for organisations in producing and publishing official statistics and ensure that statistics serve the public good.
Trustworthiness
Honesty and integrity
The data has been collected from government administrative systems and existing government publications. All organisations concerned in the collection, processing, checking and presentation of the data/ statistics comply with the Civil Service Code and the Seven Principles of Public Life. The publication of these statistics is intended to serve the public good and inform public debate and policy through greater transparency.
Independent decision making and leadership
These data and statistics have been produced and checked by government analysts and programme leads through a robust quality assurance process – see ‘Quality’ section below. The outputs in this publication have been signed off by the DLUHC Chief Statistician and Chief Data Officer.
Orderly release
These data and statistics are new but will continue to be published on a timely basis and at intervals that meet the needs of users as far as practicable. These statistics are to be published on an annual basis. We will continue to assess user needs to ensure this frequency is appropriate. Scheduled revisions or unscheduled corrections to the statistics and data will be released as soon as practicable and handled transparently.
Transparent processes and management
These statistics are produced by DLUHC. This publication is a core output to help DLUHC to deliver its commitment to improving how UK government spend is collated and reported, as set out in the Levelling Up White Paper. The development plan published alongside this document provides greater transparency on how users will be consulted to ensure these statistics remain valuable; and how these statistics will be improved.
Professional capability
Teams involved in collecting, processing, checking and presenting the data/ statistics include professional statisticians, data scientists, data analysts, finance professionals and data engineers. They are skilled, trained and supported in their own areas of expertise.
Data governance
Data is collated from existing government administrative systems and existing government publications. All data processing has been carried out to DLUHC standards using reproducible and reviewed code, ensuring accuracy and review before release. No personal or sensitive data is included.
Quality
Suitable data sources
Sources of DLUHC enabled spend
This publication draws on two key data sources of DLUHC enabled spend.
The first is data extracted directly from the finance systems of DLUHC and two of its ALBs: Homes England and the Planning Inspectorate. This finance system data has been collected through the Spatial Data Unit’s (SDU) Subnational Expenditure Data Project; and is used to measure direct spend by DLUHC and its ALB.
Spend data recorded on these systems provide the most accurate measure of in-year spend for these organisations. Data is provided on a cash expenditure basis. A financial year refers to when a payment is made, not when the funding is used to provide a service. It is also worth noting that we would not necessarily expect these measures of actual cash expenditure to match published programme allocations where payments may have been made in separate financial years.
The data excludes any overseas payments and excludes staff payroll. The data is supplied in a consistent format following a common schema and quality checks are embedded within the data collection system. This ensures data submitted by different organisations is coherent from submission.
The second data source is published measures of Core Spending Power, identified as the best available proxy of funding and revenue raising ability delegated to local authorities. This includes council tax, locally retained business rates, and grant funding, and is referred to as ‘delegated’ spend throughout the publication, in recognition of the fact this funding is made available to Councils through DLUHC’s local government finance system. Capturing DLUHC funding delegated to local authorities is essential as it represents a large proportion of total DLUHC enabled spend (nearly three quarters in 2022-23). While there are inherent differences between Core Spending Power and finance system data which limit the ability to make meaningful comparisons between the two, capturing funding delegated to local authorities provides a more complete picture of the geographic spread of DLUHC enabled spend across the UK.
Core Spending Power is not the only possible proxy of DLUHC funding delegated to local authorities. However, unlike other measures such as local authority Revenue Outturn, it differentiates DLUHC funding from wider central government funding. As we develop these statistics, we will continue to review whether Core Spending Power remains the most appropriate proxy.
Geographic comparability is a primary aim of this publication. Data quality has been strengthened (see below) to ensure DLUHC enabled spend can be compared at the level of the local authority district. Spend at different levels of geography has been apportioned for comparability. The methods to do so are experimental, and are, necessarily, in part assumption based — see ‘Quality – sound methods’ section below. Coherence over time is ensured as common methodologies are used across the different time periods covered.
Many DLUHC functions in England are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, therefore the devolved administrations will have received funding through the block grant (based on the Barnett formula) and allocated funding in line with their priorities. Consequently, DLUHC enabled spend per person is in addition to that already received via their block grants, and comparisons with spend in England are not meaningful.
As a result of how existing finance systems are set up, there are a few limitations of the direct DLUHC and ALB data to note. All efforts have been made to minimise the effects of these limitations through our methodology – see ‘Quality - sound methods’ below.
-
Headquartering effects: Original geographic locations of expenditure recipients relate to the location where an organisation receives payments. In many instances this is likely to be the organisation’s headquarters and not the location where services are provided.
-
Differing geographies of spend: Different programmes employ different methodologies to allocate funding; and allocate funding to different levels of local authorities. For example, some programmes allocate funding to towns (or ‘Built-Up Areas’) while others allocate funding to mayoral combined authorities (MCA).
-
Central or non-geography-specific spend: The data includes payments for central costs, the benefits of which cannot be attributed to any specific geography. This includes costs related to categories such as central administration and IT systems.
Other data sources used
For a full list of other data sources used see ‘Annex I - Other data sources’.
Geographic boundaries have been used extensively through our methodology. Where this is the case, we have consistently used boundaries as of December 2022, as available on https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/. December 2022 boundaries are used over any more recent boundaries as this was the latest period available consistently across all geographies (and geography lookups) used to produce these statistics in the lead-up to publication. They were also the boundaries in effect for the period that this publication covers.
Drawing on high-quality estimates of resident population is key for this publication – as our methodology relies on apportioning funding based on population. The primary sources of resident population are: the Office for National Statistics 2021 Census for England and Wales; National Records of Scotland Mid-2021 population estimates for Scotland; and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency 2021 Census for Northern Ireland. Population is assumed to be constant in each geography across 2021-22 and 2022-23.
When presenting our statistics, we make use of the Area Cost Adjustment (ACA) index. The ACA is a tool used to measure the variation in costs for local authorities in England and is a useful index for cost adjustment when making spend comparisons across local authorities.
Programme-specific methodologies may draw on other data sources. These are detailed in ‘Annex I - Other data sources’.
Sound methods
A rules-based approach was used to minimise the effect of the data limitations presented above and ensure our statistics most accurately reflect place-based spend enabled by DLUHC across each local authority district. This approach was developed in collaboration with – and quality assured by – DLUHC teams leading on those programmes that make up the large majority (over 98%) of DLUHC enabled spend.
Deriving geographies from expenditure recipients
To address some of the headquartering effect limitation, and because an important share of DLUHC funding goes to local authorities (92% in 2022-23), we sought to derive local authority geographies from the names of expenditure recipients. To do this, we developed approximate string-matching scripts to automatically match these names to standard geography names from the Office for National Statistics. Automatic matches were then reviewed and quality assured by at least two analysts.
Where geographies could be derived from recipient names, we used these as more accurate identification of the areas serviced by DLUHC funding. Where they could not be derived, we kept the original geographies. As a result, there may be residual headquartering effects in the data; however, this is thought to affect only a small percentage (less than 8%) of total DLUHC enabled spend.
Apportioning funding down to a standard local authority district level
A primary aim of our publication is to provide estimates of DLUHC enabled spend at a standard level of geography which most accurately represents the geography where DLUHC enabled services are located. To produce these estimates, we have used the following approach to apportion funding. This approach was developed with DLUHC programme leads to ensure our statistics best reflect the funding dynamics of each programme.
Important notes:
- This apportionment approach is in part based on assumptions, made in collaboration with programme experts.
- DLUHC enabled spend is not always allocated to local authority districts. In some cases, it is allocated at upper tier local authority or mayoral combined authority areas. In these cases, the way funding is subsequently distributed is often decided by these larger local authorities. Where we have apportioned spend to local authority district, it is an illustrative estimate.
A simplified version of the apportionment approach is visualised in the following diagram.
Default approach
Where the geography (derived from recipient names where possible; original otherwise) of the recipient is already at local authority district level, no apportionment has been made.
Where the geography of the recipient is at a level other than the local authority district level (such as payments made to a county council in England like Suffolk County Council), spend has been apportioned to the local authority districts which overlap with this recipient geography (in the case of Suffolk County Council: Babergh, Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, East Suffolk and West Suffolk), proportionally to the estimated resident population in each area of overlap.
For example, if the recipient’s geography is the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority, approximately half of the spend was attributed to the Bristol City Council’s geography, as the latter contains approximately half of the population of the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority. The remaining spend was apportioned to the geographies covered by Bath and North East Somerset Council and South Gloucestershire Council, as these also form part of the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority.
For non-administrative geographies, such as Fire and Rescue Authority areas, spatial analysis was conducted to estimate the resident population living in the geographic overlap between each area and a local authority district.
Exceptions to the default approach
Going beyond the default approach, we worked with DLUHC programme teams leading on those programmes which make up over 98% of DLUHC enabled spend to ensure our apportionment methodology is appropriate. While the default approach was appropriate for most programmes, specific exceptions were made for some programmes. This was done to ensure our estimates are as close as possible to the true geographic spread of DLUHC enabled spend. These exceptions are presented below.
For the New Homes Bonus and Rural Services Delivery Grant that form part of Core Spending Power, where specific ratios are used to allocate funding, these ratios were used to apportion funding delegated to County Councils, and Fire and Rescue Authorities in the case of the Rural Services Delivery Grant, down to the local authority districts they overlap with.
For all other components of Core Spending Power, funding delegated to local authorities was apportioned proportionally to the estimated number of dwellings (as opposed to the estimated resident population) in each area of overlap with local authority districts. This is to reflect that Core Spending Power has historically been expressed per dwelling.
For the Supporting Families Programme, spend was apportioned based on a combination of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and the number of households with dependent children in each recipient local authority district, instead of the resident population. This provides better estimates for this programme as it more closely matches the programme’s funding allocation methodology.
Where a local authority receives funding on behalf of a wider group of local authorities, the spend was assumed to be split among all intended local authorities according to their relative resident populations. This is the case for UK Shared Prosperity Fund funding to regional groupings in Scotland and Wales.
Where a local authority receives funding on behalf of a wider or different geography, the spend is assumed to be split among all intended local authorities which overlap with the wider or different geography, according to their relative resident populations. This is the case for:
- Freeports, where local authorities receive funding for a specific Freeport area
- Town Deals and the Future High Streets Fund, where local authorities receive funding for a town (or ‘Built-Up Area’)
In some cases, programme teams collect and hold more detailed information about spend location than is recorded in DLUHC financial systems. Where this is the case, we drew on their domain knowledge and existing documentation to ensure each payment is assigned to the correct local authority district. This is the case for:
- Disabled Facilities Grants
- European Regional Development Fund
- Devolution Deals
- Getting Building Fund
- Rough Sleeping Initiative
Tagging central spend
Segments are groups by which Departments group spend within their financial monitoring systems. Following a review of direct DLUHC and ALB spend segments, we first determined a list of segments which represent central, or non-geography-specific spend. These are segments which solely include spend on core functions such as administration, commercial, information technology or research.
Second, for those programmes which represent over 98% of DLUHC enabled spend we have gone further and checked each expenditure recipient to determine whether they received payments for central costs. This was quality assured by the relevant DLUHC programme teams.
For all spend lines under these segments and expenditure recipients we have set the geography to “Central / Non geography specific”. This spend is therefore not assigned to any UK geography.
Following the two steps above, it was determined that central spend lines would be covered under the remaining 2% of payments not prioritised for additional scrutiny. A common example of this is payments to DLUHC’s travel service provider, which appear under many segments.
To minimise the effect of this, we identified the expenditure recipients which were flagged as central spend under at least 3 programmes through the initial two steps and which appear under at least 3 of the remaining programmes. The geography of all DLUHC spend towards these expenditure recipients was then set to “Central / Non geography specific”.
Spend per person
To aid meaningful comparison of spend across place and spending segment, we have derived and published levels of spend per person. This is not reflective of, nor a statement on, how funding is or should be allocated. Funding streams seek to deliver different outcomes, which informs the distribution methodologies for each funding stream. These methodologies may not necessarily consider spend per person.
Assured quality
These data and statistics have undergone a robust quality assurance process. This process can be broken down into multiple layers of quality assurance.
Quality checks in collection
Data extracted from DLUHC and ALB financial systems undergoes automated quality checks as they are submitted. These basic quality checks ensure the data follows a coherent schema and correct value types are provided. Where issues are flagged, this is communicated directly to the data provider and actions are taken to ensure the data is reviewed and correctly reflects the source system.
Systematic review of the code pipeline
The methodologies described under ‘sound methods’ are applied through a version-controlled pipeline. This code pipeline uses reproducible Python and R scripts to:
- Apply geospatial data science techniques to produce necessary geography lookups.
- Read the original enabled spend data.
- Filter the data to the appropriate financial years and exclude any payments made to organisations based overseas.
- Derive geographies from expenditure recipients using approximate string matching.
- Apportion funding to local authority districts.
- Tag central spend.
- Generate a full improved dataset of DLUHC and ALB enabled spend.
- Aggregate the data to produce the tables in the statistical tables file.
- Produce the statistics and graphs that are including in the bulletin.
Any change to the code pipeline is reviewed by at least one analyst before it is made. This ensures that the entire code pipeline has been produced and reviewed by at least two analysts as it was developed.
Peer review of the code pipeline
The methodologies used and their operationalisation into code have been peer-reviewed by members of DLUHC teams not directly involved in the team responsible for producing these statistics.
Programme team sign off
Specific methodologies related to those programmes which make up over 98% of DLUHC enabled spend were developed in collaboration with the relevant DLUHC programme teams. Programme-specific lookups go through a three-stage quality assurance process involving at least two analysts. Final methodologies and data outputs were tested and signed off by programme leads.
Specific quality assurance checks on outputs
A list of final document quality assurance checks is provided below:
The statistical bulletin
- all figures in the text can be replicated from the raw data
- all graphs can be replicated from the raw data
The statistical tables
- all tables can be correctly replicated from the raw data
- any common figures between tables match each other
The improved dataset
- the total value of the full improved dataset matches the value of the original data
- full improved dataset volume and value can be replicated from the raw data
- all data that has been enriched with external databases has been enriched with data from the correct source
- all data that should be redacted has been
- no personally identifiable information can be found in the data
Value
Relevance
The primary purpose of these statistics is to provide users with information on place-based central government spend at local authority district level in the UK. This greater transparency helps inform public debate and policy and increase accountability to the taxpayer.
By providing estimates of enabled spend from DLUHC and two of its ALBs at the local authority district level, these statistics improve transparency on central government spend at a level of geographic granularity not previously achieved. In producing these statistics, all efforts are made to ensure the location of spend most accurately represents the geography where DLUHC enabled services are located.
We offer users the ability to provide feedback on the publication. We will use any feedback received to inform future improvements to this publication.
Accessibility
The statistics and data are available to all, with data presented in both charts and tables with dynamic alternative text for screen readers to suit different users. Data tables are available to download. Outputs follow Government Analysis Function guidance on data colours for data visualisation and releasing statistics in spreadsheets. We are always trying to improve the accessibility of our products and welcome any feedback or suggestions.
Clarity and insight
We aim to present our statistics, data and explanatory material in a clear, unambiguous way that supports and promotes use by all users. Where possible, we have tried to provide clear descriptions of the key findings from our data and used appropriate and simple visualisations to aid interpretation. We have also aimed to provide short examples of how the data should and shouldn’t be interpreted given its limitations.
Innovation and improvement
These statistics are published as official statistics under development due in part to the experimental nature of the methodologies used. The data produced is the first of its kind, demonstrating the location of DLUHC enabled spend at a standardised and granular level of geography. They have been produced through the development of reproducible data science pipelines and the use of open-source coding tools such as R and Python. We will continue to look for opportunities to improve our products, including through the use of new tools and techniques.
Efficiency and proportionality
This publication draws on administrative data systems and openly published data sources. Where data has been collected from DLUHC and two of its ALBs, this has been done on a voluntary basis. All efforts have been made to reduce the data collection burden as much as possible.
Concepts and definitions
Central or non geography specific spend: Direct DLUHC and ALB spend that benefits an organisation or programme in its entirety and/or that cannot be attributed to a specific geography. Examples of this include spend on core functions such as central administration, IT or research.
DLUHC enabled spend: The combination of direct in-year spend by DLUHC and two of its ALB recorded on a cash expenditure basis; and DLUHC funding delegated to local authorities.
Spend segment: Segments are groups by which departments group different spend within their finance systems.
Revisions policy
This policy has been developed in accordance with the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Revisions Policy.
It covers two types of revisions that the policy covers, as follow:
Non-scheduled revisions
Where a substantial error has occurred as a result of the compilation, imputation or dissemination process, the statistical release, live tables and other accompanying releases will be updated with a correction notice as soon as is practical.
Scheduled revisions
There are no scheduled revision points for these statistics at this stage beyond the changes that may result from the development and improvement of these official statistics in future publications.
Other information
User engagement
Users are encouraged to provide feedback on how these statistics are used and how well they meet user needs. Comments on any issues relating to this statistical release are welcomed and encouraged. Responses should be addressed to subnationalexpenditure@levellingup.gov.uk
Read the department’s engagement strategy to meet the needs of statistics users.
Annex 1: Other data sources used
-
Of the ALBs associated with DLUHC in 2022-23: some are self funded and do not appear in the data, some received grant-in-aid from DLUHC and appear as recipients of central spend and two, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate, have place based policy spend that is categorised as direct DLUHC and ALB spend that can be apportioned to granular geographies. Sponsorship of HM Land Registry moved to DLUHC in June 2023 and is outside of the scope of this publication. ↩