 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The lottery league tables 2002
back to the contents page
Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription
today.
New readers start here: every year Lottery Monitor produces a set of league tables showing a district-level local authority breakdown of lottery awards made. Over the years we have tried to refine the process to turn it from art into something approaching science, so that the end result is useful data in which our readers can have a high degree of confidence. We’re still getting there, but again this year we can say without reservation that this is the most comprehensive and up-to-date set of figures we have yet produced, and you won’t find anything else that betters it. It would be better still were we able to rely on a single common system of data reporting from all 15 lottery distributors to the DCMS, from whom we take the base data, but this is not the case. We plug the holes by collecting extra data from any board where we identify queries, and I should record our gratitude to the technical staff at the boards and at the DCMS for their helpfulness and high levels of cooperation with this very complicated exercise.
Our primary aim has always been to produce a tool for those working at local level; beyond that an annual appraisal of shifts in lottery distribution is also an important general policy tool. This year we have created two new analyses. First we have added to the UK-wide league rankings a set of nation-specific and English regional rankings by district authority. Second, we are showing for the first time
amounts of lottery cash that accrue to a particular nation or English region but which cannot be allocated to a district-level authority.
Table 1 All awards 1995 - 2002
Table 2 Awards by
region/nation 1995-2002
The main category involved here is New Opportunities Fund programmes, which for instance makes county-level education awards, health authority awards or other partnership awards that cut across district boundaries. NOF has supplied us with a substantial amount of data which remains unreported on the DCMS database, but while we are filling some big gaps, I should warn you that we believe we are still under-reporting the full value of NOF awards.
Apart from NOF, the regional totals also allow us to include funding that pays, for example, major land use or conservation projects, waterway improvement schemes and other large-scale projects that have previously been knocked out of our calculations. It therefore lets you see,
apart from the identifiable local benefits, what additional lottery resource is reaching your region or nation, perhaps for strategic purposes; often filtering back down to localities through partnership sub-schemes or portfolio bids.
Here, then, are the ‘rules of engagement’, the criteria we have used to arrive at each authority’s totals and league rankings.
1. All awards over £1m are scrutinised for inclusion or exclusion. We leave in big capital schemes unless we are confident their aim has no intended local benefit, such as the headquarters of a national organisation or building work for a national institution which lacks any regeneration implications. Similarly we exclude national research programmes and other ‘intangibles’.
Table 3 Awards up to £1 million
2. We have, however, reversed last year’s decision to exclude the £120m grant to Wembley stadium. A year ago it was looking like money down the plughole; since then the stadium has been rescued and Brent’s citizens therefore stand to benefit from this project.
3. Overseas, UK-wide and multi-region awards are excluded.
4. Film Council, Scottish Screen and Arts Council film production awards are excluded unless specifically local (community film-making, etc).
5. The Dome and the Nesta endowment are excluded.
6. All identifiable programmes involving awards to individuals are excluded.
7. Awards with regional but no sensible district-level or unitary council designations are excluded (but will appear as part
of the regional cash totals). This will knock out, for instance, education awards made to second-tier authorities and awards to primary care or hospital trusts, where geographical boundaries often differ from those of local authorities.
Table 4 Awards for All 1998 - 2002
8. We have used the most recent official population figures from ONS, derived from 2001 census data. Affected authorities will be aware of whether the new census count has exaggerated their movement up or down the league tables
Other points to note when reading the tables are:
- Global totals (Tables 1 and 3) include all awards, unlike district-level totals.
- Totals for nations and English regions exceed the sum of authority totals for that nation / region because of the non-specific awards added in (see Table 2 and commentary above).
- Awards for All England became a single ‘joint pot’ scheme mid-way through 2002. Until then, its awards have always been counted under the relevant funding board (arts, charities, etc), but they now appear under a single, separate total.
- SportScotland and Sport Wales data is incomplete for 2002, and therefore slightly underrepresented here.
- The very patchy recording of awards made under programmes delegated to award partners (such as NOF’s green spaces and HLF’s local heritage initiative) makes it very hard to attribute these awards down to district level. We have tried to allocate LHI awards correctly, but Green Spaces schemes are only represented within the global totals as single umbrella awards.
- Distribution boards regularly update previous years’ award figures based on the progress (or not) of approved projects. This means that previous years’ totals – even back to 1995 – continue to change, so don’t be surprised if they look different from last year’s picture!
The tables
Table 1 shows the headline figures for all awards over the eight years: how many grants were made, their total value and a notional average award value.
Table 2 shows the regional value per head of awards 1995-2002, plus an indexed figure for comparison with UK-wide averages (1995-2002 and just 2002).
Tables 3 and 4 give a more detailed picture of how the main bulk of awards divide.
Table 3 shows how many awards have been made in three different value bands, and
Table 4 separates out Awards for All from all other small grants schemes (several of the boards had their
own schemes prior to A4A and a few boards retain their own programmes still. Awards to individuals for artistic and sporting professional development are counted within the grand total of small awards
(Table 3) but not the Awards for All totals
(Table 4).
Table 5 Awards for All by distribution
Finally, Table 5 allows us to see the pattern of Awards for All by distributor. This table also includes the A4A England Joint Scheme, which runs from mid-2002 and no longer separates out its grants by distributor.
As always, our thanks go to the DCMS, several of whose officials provide invaluable help to us. As mentioned above, we are grateful for the cooperation of the boards. And thanks to Dominic Jacquesson and Maughin Campbell for their tireless attention to database detail.
