 |
answer text |
<p>The table in the attached document shows the Big Lottery Fund spending per capita
in each local authority area in <ins class="ministerial">2017-18</ins><del class="ministerial">2016-17</del>.
However, this data does not present an accurate comparison of the benefits from Big
Lottery Fund spending for several reasons:</p><p>a) Funding is often provided over
several years, but the data shows this in the year that the grant is awarded. For
example an award of £600,000 for a five year long project, would be reported as £600,000
of funding in year one, and no funding in years two to five.</p><p>b) the data reflects
the geographical location of the funding recipient, but many projects reach far beyond
the local authority where the funding recipient is located. An extreme example of
this is the City of London, which has a small population but which was the location
of funding recipients running two large nationwide projects. Conversely, areas that
show no funding in <ins class="ministerial">2017-18</ins><del class="ministerial">2016-17</del>
have benefited from Big Lottery funded projects which have a primary location elsewhere.</p><p>c)
Island communities can also be outliers. Delivering a project usually involves a minimum
fixed cost, so local authorities with very small populations will generally show a
larger spend per capita than local authorities with higher populations.</p>
|
|
