MHCLG enabled spend statistics, 2023-24: Technical notes
Published 12 March 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
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/mhclg-enabled-spend-statistics-2023-24/mhclg-enabled-spend-statistics-2023-24-technical-notes
General details
Title of output: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and selected arm’s-length bodies (ALB) enabled spend statistics
Coverage: Spend enabled by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate during the financial year 2023-24
Contact details: subnationalexpenditure@communities.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 MHCLG 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
MHCLG enabled spend statistics (ESS) is an annual publication that estimates MHCLG, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate spend by local authority district in the United Kingdom (UK). Data is sourced from MHCLG, 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 2023 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 MHCLG Chief Statistician and Chief Data Officer.
Orderly release
This is the second publication of these data and statistics and 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 MHCLG. This publication is a core output to help MHCLG to deliver its commitment to improving how UK government spend is collated and reported. 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 MHCLG 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 MHCLG enabled spend
This publication draws on two key data sources of MHCLG enabled spend.
The first is data extracted directly from the finance systems of MHCLG and two of its ALBs: Homes England and the Planning Inspectorate. This finance system data has been collected through the MHCLG Data Unit; and is used to measure direct spend by MHCLG 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. Spend between other government departments such as Cabinet Office has been excluded from direct MHCLG spend and any spend which is covered by the two ALBs (Homes England and Planning Inspectorate) has also been excluded to remove double counting of spend. 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 MHCLG’s local government finance system. Capturing MHCLG funding delegated to local authorities is essential as it represents a large proportion of total MHCLG enabled spend (nearly four fifths in 2023-24). 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 MHCLG enabled spend across the UK.
Core Spending Power is not the only possible proxy of MHCLG funding delegated to local authorities. However, unlike other measures such as local authority Revenue Outturn, it differentiates MHCLG 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 MHCLG 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 MHCLG 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, MHCLG 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 MHCLG 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 April 2023, as available on https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/. April 2023 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
- Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency 2021 Census for Northern Ireland
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.
The dataset includes many expenditure recipients as private companies. As outlined above, these recipients often suffer from the headquartering effect. To enrich the dataset with a more accurate representation of this spend, the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) produced by ONS has been used to enhance our apportionment methodology. The IDBR dataset enables the identification of trading locations of these recipients (rather than headquarters), thus improving the accuracy of spend distribution.
Programme-specific methodologies may draw on other data sources. These are detailed in Annex 1: 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 MHCLG across each local authority district. This approach was developed in collaboration with – and quality assured by– MHCLG teams leading on those programmes that make up the large majority (over 98%) of MHCLG enabled spend.
Deriving geographies from expenditure recipients
To address some of the headquartering effect limitation, and because an important share of MHCLG funding goes to local authorities (91% in 2023-24), 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. The IDBR dataset was also used to match any remaining expenditure recipients not matched against a standard geography. 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 MHCLG 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 9%) of total MHCLG enabled spend.
Apportioning funding down to a standard local authority district level
A primary aim of our publication is to provide estimates of MHCLG enabled spend at a standard level of geography which most accurately represents the geography where MHCLG enabled services are located. To produce these estimates, we have used the following approach to apportion funding. This approach was developed with MHCLG 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.
- MHCLG 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.
| Apportionment approach | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. By known values | Split the funding across benefitting local authority districts, according to known values. | Lancashire county council receives £100. It is known that £16 is for Burnley local authority district. Burnley is apportioned £16. The same is done for other component local authorities of Lancashire council. |
| 2. By IMD and dependent children | Split the funding across all local authorities that overlap with the recipient geography, using a combination of IMD and the number of families with dependent children. | £100 funding for East Sussex county council is split between its component local authority districts. As 17% of East Sussex households which are in scope for the programme are in Eastbourne local authority district, £17 is apportioned to Eastbourne. The same is done for other local authorities Hastings, Lewes, Rother and Wealden. |
| 3. By value proportion | Split the funding across benefitting local authority districts, according to the proportions received directly at lower-tier local authority level. | Cambridgeshire county council receives £100. Within this upper tier authority, several lower tiers receive separate direct amounts. Fenland district receives £30, Huntingdonshire receives £15 and South Cambridgeshire receives £5. Cambridge and East Cambridgeshire receive no direct amount. Fenland, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire will receive a proportional amount from that received by Cambridgeshire: 60%, 30% and 10%. |
| 4. By council tax levels | Split the funding across all overlapping local authority districts based on council tax levels within each of those districts. | Nottinghamshire county council receives £100. The council tax levels for Mansfield are proportional to 11% of the overall tax levels within Nottinghamshire. £11 will therefore be apportioned to Mansfield. This will be repeated for the other local authorities within Nottinghamshire. |
| 5. By dwellings and population over 80 | Split the funding across all local authority districts that overlap with the recipient geography, by number of dwellings and resident population over the age of 80. | £100 funding for Norfolk council is split between its component local authority districts. Within Norfolk, the proportion of the number of dwellings and population over 80 combined for Breckland is 15%, so £15 is apportioned to Breckland. The same is done for other local authorities Broadland, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, North Norfolk, Norwich and South Norfolk. |
| 6. By dwellings | Split the funding across all local authority districts that overlap with the recipient geography, by number of dwellings. | £100 funding for East Sussex county council is split between its component local authority districts. As 19% of East Sussex dwellings are in Eastbourne local authority district, £19 is apportioned to Eastbourne. The same is done for other local authorities Hastings, Lewes, Rother and Wealden. |
| 7. No apportionment | Keep the funding at the geography of the recipient local authority district. | Cumberland council receives £100 for use in the Cumberland local authority district area. £100 remains apportioned to Cumberland. |
| 8. By benefitting population proportion | Split the funding across all benefitting local authority districts, by resident Population. | Glasgow city council receives £100 on behalf of 8 local authority districts. Glasgow’s population represents 38% of the wider group’s population. Glasgow local authority district is apportioned £38. The remaining £62 are split among the other 7 local authority districts according to their population. |
| 9. By overlapping population proportion | Split the funding across all the local authority districts that overlap with this different geography, by resident population | Leicestershire county council receives £100 for the East Midlands Freeport. 18% of the Freeport’s outer boundary population is estimated to live in Derby. Derby local authority district is apportioned £18. The same is done for other local authority districts that overlap with East Midlands Freeport. |
| 10. By known values | Split the funding across the local authority districts that benefit, using known values. | Bury council receives £100. It is known for this recipient in a particular programme that £71 is to be distributed to a project benefitting a list of local authorities based on population percentage. Bury retains £29 and the other districts receive their share of the £100. Other bespoke apportionment methods exist for different programmes in this method. |
| 11. By population proportion | Split the funding across all local authority districts that overlap with the recipient geography, by resident population. | Suffolk county council receives £100 for use in Suffolk county. 18% of Suffolk’s population is estimated to live in Ipswich. £18 is apportioned to the local authority district Ipswich. The same is done for other local authority districts that overlap with Suffolk county. |
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 MHCLG programme teams leading on those programmes which make up over 98% of MHCLG 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 MHCLG enabled spend. These exceptions are presented below.
For the New Homes Bonus and Rural Services Delivery Grant that form part of Core Spending Power, ratios are used to allocate the funding. These ratios are proportional to the funding allocated directly to the lower tier local authorities. They then 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 the Council Tax Requirement excluding parish precepts programme that is part of Core Spending Power, funding is proportionally delegated from County Councils, Fire and Rescue Authorities and Combined Authorities to local authority districts based on Council Tax levels set by local authorities in England.
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 greater accuracy regarding the ASC Market Sustainability and Improvement Fund, Discharge Fund and Improved Better Care Fund an additional metric is further added in the calculation. Estimated resident population over 80 years old is used in conjunction with the estimated number of dwellings to show the emphasis on adult social care for these three Core Spending Power programmes.
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. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund programme team also provided a detailed breakdown of funding recipients in Northern Ireland, where the allocations are made based on programme records.
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’)
- Brownfield Housing Fund, where specific expenditure recipients are first mapped to known ONS geographies before this methodology step is applied
- Levelling Up Fund, where the programme team has identified non-geographic recipients and supplied the benefitting geography
In some cases, programme teams collect and hold more detailed information about spend location than is recorded in MHCLG 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
- Housing Infrastructure Fund
- Rough Sleeping Initiative
Similarly, some programmes provided a detailed breakdown of specific recipients or spend lines that were either captured at a non-geographic level or required additional information to apportion correctly. This extra detail was only required for a few recipients in the following programmes. All other lines in these programmes followed the standard apportionment approach:
- Affordable Homes Programme
- Homes and Communities Agency – Land Assembly Fund
- Homes and Communities Agency – Single Land Programme
- Housing Delivery and Diversification Fund
- Planning Inspectorate
Tagging central spend
Segments are groups by which Departments group spend within their financial monitoring systems. Following a review of direct MHCLG 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 MHCLG 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 MHCLG 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 MHCLG’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 MHCLG 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 MHCLG 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 scripts to:
1. Read the original enabled spend data.
2. Remove any payments made to Other Government Departments that are not included in this analysis.
3. Apply geospatial data science techniques to produce necessary geography lookups.
4. Derive geographies from expenditure recipients using approximate string matching against both ONS geography tables and the IDBR database.
5. Apportion funding to local authority districts.
6. Filter the data to exclude any payments made to organisations based overseas.
7. Tag central spend.
8. Generate a full improved dataset of MHCLG and ALB enabled spend.
9. Aggregate the data to produce the tables in the statistical tables file.
10. 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 the wider team not directly involved with producing these statistics.
Programme team sign off
Specific methodologies related to those programmes which make up over 98% of MHCLG enabled spend were developed in collaboration with the relevant MHCLG programme teams. Programme-specific lookups go through a three-stage quality assurance process involving at least two analysts. Final methodologies and data distributions underwent a final review by programme leads to ensure they were consistent with the approach used for programme allocations.
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 (accounting for data excluded as overseas or direct MHCLG and ALB spend)
- 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 MHCLG 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 MHCLG 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 second iteration of the publication, demonstrating the location of MHCLG enabled spend at a standardised and granular level of geography. The DLUHC enabled spend statistics, 2021-22 and 2022-23 publication is available for viewing online. They have been produced through the development of reproducible data science pipelines and the use of open-source coding tools such as Python. We will continue to look for opportunities to improve our products, including through the use of new tools and techniques.
Several improvements have been made during the development of the statistics for the 2023-24 publication:
- Introduction of IDBR to improve accuracy of apportionment for business recipients.
- Updated and standardised codebase to follow best practice and allow future repeatability including refactoring report and development of a new reporting package.
- Rearchitected the approach to a more component based structure and streamlined the technology used.
- Developed repeatable unit tests to maintain quality.
- Increased documentation and cataloguing of programme specific apportionment logic.
- Developed new apportionment logic options.
Efficiency and proportionality
This publication draws on administrative data systems and openly published data sources. Where data has been collected from MHCLG 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 MHCLG 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.
MHCLG enabled spend: The combination of direct in-year spend by MHCLG and two of its ALB recorded on a cash expenditure basis; and MHCLG 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 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 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@communities.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 MHCLG in 2023-24: some are self-funded and do not appear in the data, some received grant-in-aid from MHCLG and appear as recipients of central spend and two, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate, have place based policy spend that is categorised as direct MHCLG and ALB spend that can be apportioned to granular geographies. ↩