Select committee inquiry
Levelling up funding to local government
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“The Government has allocated £9.5bn in levelling up funding, in support of over 4,000 local projects, to be spent by 31 March 2026. A further billion pounds in funding has yet to be awarded. In June 2022, the Committee’s report on local economic growth highlighted the uncertainty around funding pots for local economic growth, with a risk of over-optimism on how ‘shovel ready’ projects in local bids actually were. A National Audit Office report examining three of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities’ (DLUHC) levelling up funds found that delivery is behind schedule, with local authorities struggling with the impact of inflation among other challenges. DLUHC had originally expected projects to complete between March 2024 and March 2026, but it is unlikely local authorities will meet this deadline. Based on the NAO report, the Committee will take evidence from senior DLUHC officials on subjects including: • Progress to date delivering levelling-up projects; • DLUHC’s plans for evaluating the levelling-up funds; • What action DLUHC is taking to tackle delays and support local delivery. If you have evidence on these issues, please submit it here by 23:59 on Saturday 23 December 2023. Please look at the requirements for written evidence submissions and note that the Committee cannot accept material as evidence that is published elsewhere. This inquiry was closed due to the 2024 General Election.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of Twenty-First Report - Levelling up funding to local government ↗
“Levelling up” is a government-wide policy to reduce geographical inequality in a broad range of economic and social measures across the UK. Of the £10.47 billion total funding across three significant funds from central government to be spent over the period 2020–21 to 2025–26, by December 2023 local authorities (the recipients of the funds in most cases) had received only £3.70 billion and, furthermore, £1.24 billion had actually been spent and was therefore making a difference on the ground (as of the latest data for September 2023). Also, of the projects actually underway, many have been delayed despite being picked for funding because they were supposedly “shovel-ready”: over 80% of the Levelling Up Fund Round 1 projects are already set to miss their March 2024 completion deadline. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, or DLUHC (“the Department”) is the lead Department for the three Levelling Up funding streams, but could not give us any compelling examples of what had been delivered so far. The Department cited project specific issues and the impact of the pandemic and inflation for a lower-than-anticipated level of spending to date, but that its spending was now more aligned to its budgets than in the earlier years of the funds.
As we have found before, optimism bias has meant impactful bids to the Levelling Up Fund may have missed out at the expense of so-called ‘shovel-ready’ projects, some of which have nevertheless been affected by delays. As a result, the Department has extended the deadline for local authorities to spend their government funds for the Future High Streets Fund and Rounds 1 and 2 of the Levelling Up Fund, which demonstrates problems with the original assessments.
We are concerned that there is as worrying lack of transparency in the Department’s approach to awarding funds. This approach has wasted scarce public resources and caused some local authorities to miss out. The Department changed the rules for the Levelling Up Fund as it went along, for example only after submitting their bids for Round 2 of the Levelling Up Fund did local authorities learn that they had no chance of being successful if they had already secured Round 1 funding. Also, only after Round 3 had launched did the Department decide that, rather than consider new bids, it would only allocate Round 3 funding to unsuccessful bids from Round 2, meaning those local authorities that had waited to submit bids in Round 3 missed out. The Department claimed that, on balance, this approach to Round 3 was the best way to remove the significant effort from local authorities of bidding. In future, the Department must give organisations applying for funds more assurance of the principles and implications for awarding funds under different scenarios and not change them once published, in order to save considerable time and money in preparing and submitting ineligible bids.
It is right that the Department is working to simplify the funding system and reduce the administrative burdens on local authorities, including simplifying the variety and complexity of multiple funding streams and reducing the burden of data collection. In order to make this a success, the Department needs to continue to do more to embed the changes it has started to make.
What the government said
The government responded on 28 May 2024.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government agrees with the Committee's recommendations, most of them marked "Recommendation implemented" or with a target implementation date, but disagrees with the recommendation on fixing funding criteria in advance.
- On spending, the government agrees to report, but considers "a fairer measure of success" to be spend by local authorities compared with funding released to them: £4 billion released and £1.45 billion spent to date.
- On the rules for future funds, it disagrees with the recommendation not to change published rules save in exceptional circumstances, stating that such decisions "are a matter for Ministers at the time".
- It agrees to update the Committee on simplification, with a target implementation date of April 2025. It states it "has not sought to quantify" the costs and benefits, and the evaluation reports for the pathfinder pilot will be published "when available".
- On long-term evaluation, it agrees (target implementation date December 2025) while stating it "does have plans to measure the long-term impact", and says it commissions external experts, with reports to be published.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 13 December 2023 to its close on 28 May 2024.
- Oral evidence 15 Jan 2024
- Report 15 Mar 2024
- Government response 28 May 2024
- Correspondence 2 letters
What it recommended 10 recommendations · 15 conclusions
2Set out lessons learned to ensure timely success and application to future levelling up funds.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are concerned the Department did not do enough to understand the readiness of project proposals and the challenges facing local authorities before it awarded funds. As we have found before, optimism bias has put impactful bids to the Levelling Up Fund at risk of missing out at the expense of so-called ‘shovel-ready’ projects. The Department gave many reasons why projects are delayed and how it needed to balance deliverability against requiring local authorities to have everything in place to start building as soon as they are awarded funds. But this optimism has meant the Department has had to allow local authorities to extend the deadline to spend their money for all projects in the Levelling Up Fund Rounds 1 and 2 and the Future High Streets Fund. So far, the vast majority (60 out of the 71) of Levelling Up Fund Round 1 projects which were due to have spent their government funds by the end of 2023–24 have reprofiled their spend into 2024–25 and the Department expects some of the remining 11 to do so as well. We found this astonishing given Round 1 of the Levelling Up Fund was awarded to ‘shovel-ready’ projects that were supposed to be completed and delivering for local people by March 2024. As Round 3 of the Levelling Up Fund has been allocated to those unsuccessful bids made under Round 2, the Department could not assure us these same delays would not be repeated. Furthermore, the Department could have been much more inquisitive about the realistic delivery timetable of each project it funded, for example in regard to obtaining planning permission and acquisition. Levelling up funding to local government 7 Recommendation 2: In its Treasury Minute response, the Department should set out what it has learnt to ensure proposals have the best chance of timely success, and how it will ensure this learning is applied to future funds. It should also set out how it is sharing its experiences with the Levelling Up programme both within the Department and across governm
3Set out clear principles and transparent decision-making process for awarding future Levelling Up funds.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department changed the rules for applying for the Levelling Up Fund during the application process, wasting scarce public resources, disadvantaging some local authorities and hindering transparency. The Levelling Up programme was sub-optimal in this respect and it is important that lessons are learnt. There is as worrying lack of transparency in the Department’s approach to awarding funds with the Department changing the rules for the Levelling Up Fund as it went along. Having seen how many bids were submitted, the Department decided that local authorities that were successful in Round 1 would not be awarded any funds in Round 2. On average, local authorities have historically spent £30,000 pursuing each competitive grant, such as Levelling Up grants, yet we now know that 55 local authorities who had received funding in Round 1 and then bid in Round 2 had, in fact, no chance of being successful in Round 2. The Department also changed the rules for Round 3, deciding it would not run a new competition but instead restrict the allocation of Round 3 funding to unsuccessful Round 2 bids, meaning those waiting to bid in Round 3 missed out. The Department said that, on balance, this was the best approach to remove the significant effort of bidding. But the downside is that local authorities that did not bid under Round 2 (for example, because they were not ready) did not get a chance to fund their projects. In addition, only around 25% of bids across Rounds 1 and 2 of the Levelling Up Fund were successful: the Department should have better anticipated the expected demand for funding and, given the available funding, set sufficiently stringent criteria to help avoid local authorities investing in bids that had little chance of success. Recommendation 3: In its Treasury Minute response the Department should set out the principles it will apply and the decision-making process for awarding future Levelling Up funds for reducing regional inequality. The Department should ca
4Update on funding simplification progress, pilot results, and report costs and benefits bi-annually.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the intentions to simplify the funding system, but the Department has more to do to implement its plans. The Department published its plans for funding simplification in Summer 2023. This plan covers the whole of government and aims to simplify the approach to, and number of, funding streams available to local authorities. The plan includes, giving local authorities more flexibility in managing their projects and reducing the burden of data collection on local authorities. Currently, the Department collects over 400 indicators across 13 funds but recognises this is too much. It has established what it calls ‘pathfinder 8 Levelling up funding to local government simplification pilots’ that allow ten local authorities who are receiving money from multiple funds to pool these funds so they can manage their individual projects as one. However, it is yet to draw any conclusions from this initiative. Recommendation 4: In its Treasury Minute response, the Department should update us on the progress with simplification including its work with other government departments and progress with the ten simplification pilots. In the future, it should update the Committee by letter once every six months of further developments in this regard, along with the costs and benefits (both to the Department and local authorities) arising from greater simplification.
5Set out lessons learned from focused local support work and disseminate to all authorities.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department is providing focused support to some local authorities with project delivery, but it remains to be seen how the Department will use any learning from these activities to support all local authorities. In addition to the flexibilities introduced in the pathfinder simplification pilots (see above), the Department is providing focused support to local authorities to help them unblock and deliver their projects. This includes area teams that work with local authorities and departmental experts that it is deploying into 25 local authorities to help them unblock delivery. The Department also has an additional £65 million to provide additional funding to local authorities who received funds under the Levelling Up Fund and to provide external experts to build capacity and capability in local authorities. But the Department’s focused support is available to only a small number of local authorities. It remains to be seen how the Department is going to disseminate these lessons to support all local authorities and how they will use these lessons to improve their approach in the future. Recommendation 5: The Department should set out in its Treasury Minute response the lessons it is learning from its local support work and how it will disseminate the lessons to all local authorities.
6Update on evaluation progress and ensure robust long-term data for sustained improvement assessment.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We recognise the Department’s plans to evaluate these funds in the short-term, but we are concerned it has no long-term plans to measure the impacts. The Department is playing catch up in its efforts to carry out robust evaluation. Having previously not considered evaluation well enough, it is now putting in place plans to carry out evaluation of the funds. Evaluating the impact and added value of levelling- up funds will be complex and will require a wider range of information than that used to award funds in the first place. It may be challenging to show clearly what outcomes can be convincingly attributed to the funding awarded. The Department expects findings from the evaluations to start becoming available from 2025. We are however concerned about how the Department will ensure robust data over the long-term and surprised that the Department has no long-term plans to know if these funds worked, for example, by reviewing over five, ten, and 15 years to find out how people have benefitted from the investments. Recommendation 6: In its Treasury Minute response, the Department should: • update us on its progress with evaluation and provide us with regular updates thereafter; and Levelling up funding to local government 9 • update us on how it will ensure it has the right data and how it will carry out evaluation over the long-term to assess whether the investments have led to sustained improvement. 10 Levelling up funding to local government 1 Progress of project delivery
1Committee took evidence on three significant levelling-up grants to local government.
Concluded (the committee's words)
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (the Department) about three significant levelling-up grants to local government.1
7Many levelling-up projects 'underway' with few completed and limited tangible impact.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department sought to fund ‘shovel-ready’ projects in both the Towns Fund and Levelling Up Fund. The Department told us the latest figures across Rounds 1 and 2 of the Levelling Up Fund show that 284 out of 308 projects have commenced. For the Future High Streets Fund, it is 185 out of the 242 and for the Town Deals, it is 488 out of the 604 projects.9 We challenged the Department on its use of different terms for the status of projects. The Department told us that its use of the term ‘underway’ means a local authority has started to spend the government funding they have been given under these funds and could include, for example, activities such as feasibility studies, seeking planning permission, land acquisition, paying for design fees or site preparation.10 We were also concerned to see that 19 projects under the Future High Streets Fund had been paused. The Department told us it would be in discussion with those local authorities about how to progress the projects.11 By 31 March 2023 local authorities and other organisations had completed 64 projects across these funds.12 We asked for three examples of projects that had delivered change. We felt the examples the Department gave us were, while important to their localities, relatively small scale compared to the substantial and convincing examples we would have expected the Department to have readily available at this stage.13 Projects behind schedule
8Optimism bias and unrealistic timescales cause significant delays in levelling-up projects.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Our report in 2022 on Local Economic Growth found there was an optimism bias in expectations for Round 1 of the Levelling Up Fund.14 The recent NAO report found that the Department’s monitoring reports are showing that projects are behind where it would expect to be at this stage of the Towns Fund (consisting of Town Deals and the Future High Streets Fund) and Levelling Up Fund.15 We challenged the Department about how it had got the timescales so wrong and queried whether the Department had done enough to understand if projects were able to deliver within the 18 to 24 months they were given. 7 Correspondence from Permanent Secretary, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, dated 29 January 2024 8 Figures do not sum due to rounding 9 Q 48 10 Qq 41, 48; Correspondence from Permanent Secretary, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, dated 29 January 2024 11 Q 44 12 C&AG’s Report Para 2.2 13 Qq 61-77 14 Committee of Public Accounts, Local Economic Growth, Fifth Report of Session 2022-23, HC 252, 8 June 2022 15 C&AG’s Report Para 8 12 Levelling up funding to local government For example, we asked the Department whether local authorities should have planning permission, compulsory purchase powers approved or a feasibility study before they bid. The Department told us there is a balance between asking local authorities to have everything ready to go when they bid for funds against its desire for deliverability.16
9Repeated deadline extensions granted for Levelling Up and Future High Streets Fund projects.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We asked for assurance that Round 1 projects of the Levelling Up Fund would be able to spend their government funds by the 31 March 2024 deadline. The department told us that it had provided flexibility to local authorities and allowed them to extend Round 1 projects to March 2025 and Round 2 projects to March 2026.17 For Future High Streets Fund projects, the deadline has been extended from 31 March 2024 to 31 September 2024.18 The Department told us its position is to extend deadlines as this protects value for money for a project that has already been invested in.19 For Round 3 of the Levelling Up Fund the Department told us that it is sticking to the March 2026 deadline but it could not assure us that these projects would not suffer delivery issues.20 When the Department wrote to us after our evidence session, it confirmed that so far 60 out of 71 Levelling Up Fund Round 1 projects had extended their spending into 2024–25, and it expected some more of the remaining 11 to also extend their spending.21 We had already been told that if a local authority was struggling to deliver their project because of inflation, then they could rescope it.22 We therefore asked the Department what would happen if a local authority could not complete a project with the money available and whether it expected to see an emerging pattern of unfinished projects. It told us while it did not want to see unfinished projects, there was no extra money for these funds. The Department told us it would be able to absorb financial pressures that fall into a following financial year through its day-to-day management of its budgets.23 It did not feel there was an emerging problem because its spending is beginning to match its budgeted spend much more closely.24
10Project delays attributed to inflation, supply chain issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We challenged the Department about whether allowing local authorities to extend the deadline to spend government funds for all projects in the Future High Street Fund and Rounds 1 and 2 of the Levelling Up Fund was a sign that there was a problem with how the funds were set up. It told us that the early years of the projects were very seriously affected by inflation and supply chain issues, as well as the impact of the pandemic but its spending was now more aligned to its budgets than in the earlier years of the funds.25 The changing application process
11Competitive bidding for Levelling Up Funds creates burdensome 'begging bowl' culture for councils.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Evidence we received from the South East Councils told us that the bidding process for funds had led to a ‘begging bowl’ culture where Councils were required to spend too much time and money to meet ever-changing demands of ministers, rather than planning for the long-term to truly deliver for their communities.26 The Local Government Association 16 Qq 29, 30 17 Q 9 18 Q 43 19 Q 13 20 Qq 34, 36 21 Correspondence from Permanent Secretary, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, dated 29 January 2024 22 Q 16 23 Qq 120, 121 24 Q 121 25 Qq 15, 59, 78 26 Q 101, LFG0002 Levelling up funding to local government 13 (LGA) estimated the average cost to councils of pursuing each competitive grant to be in the region of £30,000 (with each local authority spending roughly £2.25 million a year chasing down various pots of money distributed from across Whitehall).27
12Nearly three-quarters of Levelling Up Fund bids, valued at £9.74 billion, were rejected.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The NAO reported that local authorities and other bodies submitted 834 bids across Rounds 1 and 2 of the Levelling Up Fund. Of these, 216 bids were successful with a value of £3.78 billion, and 618 (just under three-quarters) were rejected, with a value of £9.74 billion.28
13Department changed Levelling Up Fund rules mid-process, excluding successful Round 1 bidders without notice.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We questioned the Department on why it changed the rules for the Levelling Up Fund between the rounds. It told us that having seen how many bids were submitted for Round 2 of the Levelling Up Fund, ministers decided that local authorities that were successful in Round 1 would not be awarded any funds in Round 2.29 This decision was made during the assessment process and was not communicated in advance.30 The Department said it understood the frustration this caused by not taking this decision ‘up front’.31 The NAO reported that this decision directly affected 55 local authorities who had received funding in Round 1 and had also bid in Round 2.32
14Levelling Up Fund Round 3 allocation disadvantaged local authorities unable to bid previously.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Round 3 of the Levelling Up Fund was run as an allocation to some of the unsuccessful bids that were submitted in Round 2. We challenged the Department that this disadvantaged some local authorities who might have wanted to submit a bid in Round 2 but decided not to, because they did not think they would be able to deliver their projects within the Round 2 timetable. They could have achieved it within the Round 3 timetable, but they did not get a chance to bid, because Round 3 was announced without any bidding.33 We were told by the Department that there was still a role for competition, but following feedback from local authorities that competitions required significant effort, the Department felt it was more appropriate to restrict the allocation of Round 3 funding to unsuccessful Round 2 bids, rather than run another open bidding round.34 The Department accepted this would have consequences for local authorities but on balance ministers had taken the view that the chosen approach was the better way forward.35
15UK ministers decided Levelling Up Fund allocation in devolved nations with limited consultation.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Levelling Up Fund is UK-wide.36 We noted that the prioritisation of local places used criteria that was Great Britain wide, as well as three separate sets of criteria for Scotland, England and Wales. A different approach to delivering the Levelling Up Fund was taken in Northern Ireland, which took account of the different local government landscape including that there was no prioritisation of places.37 We challenged the Department about how the funds were allocated in Scotland as issues such as local regeneration, local transport and local government are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.38 We also asked the Department what discussions they had held with Scottish local authorities and the 27 Q 103, LFG0003 28 Q 54, C&AG Report Para 1.9 29 Q 102 30 C&AG’s Report, para 1.14 31 Q 102 32 C&AG’s Report Para 1.14 33 Q 35 34 Qq 35, 84 35 Q 35 36 C&AG’s Report Figure 2 37 DLUHC, Levelling Up Fund Round 2: technical note, July 2022; DLUHC Levelling Up Fund technical note, May 2021 38 Q 127 14 Levelling up funding to local government Scottish Government before the prioritisation was decided for Scotland.39 The Department told us it had conversations across the devolved administrations but ultimately the decisions were made by UK government ministers.40
16MP support functioned as a 'deciding factor' in Levelling Up Fund Round 1 bids.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We also questioned the Department on the future role of MPs in ‘signing-off’ bids and whether they have a veto. The Department said it was clear that ministers wanted MPs to have a role, but that MPs did not have a veto although a policy decision had been made that MP support can be a factor. When pressed, the Department agreed that MP support had been a ‘deciding factor’ in the Levelling Up Fund Round 1, but not a veto.41 39 Q 125 40 Qq 124-129 41 Qq 104-107 Levelling up funding to local government 15 2 Simplification and Evaluation Plans for simplification of funding to local authorities.
17Department aims to simplify local authority funding, acknowledging excessive data collection burden across multiple streams.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department published its plans for funding simplification in Summer 2023. The plan covers the whole of government and aims to simplify the number of separate funding streams available to local authorities.42 The Department told us it has introduced several practical and concrete ways to make the system more responsive and flexible with plans to reduce the burden of data collection on local authorities. The Department told us it has quarterly or half-yearly monitoring which gives it an ‘absolute ton of data’ and that it is collecting 400 indicators across 13 funds – which it said was too many.43 The Department explained the ‘pathfinder simplification pilots’ to us by telling us that it is testing how having one set of data, one delivery timescale and one payment schedule helps local authorities.44
18Local authorities permitted 30% delegated flexibility for project and budget changes, subject to reporting.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department told us that there are a lot of delegated flexibilities. For example, local authorities can move money between years, without seeking approval from the Department.45 The NAO reported that part of the simplification plan was to allow local authorities to make changes within individual programmes up to a threshold of a 30% change to agreed project outputs and outcomes, or changes to project timetables. For example, reducing the amount of new open space or length of a new cycle path, or swapping from providing business support to supporting jobseekers.46 There was also the same 30% flexibility threshold to move spending between financial years without seeking departmental approval.47 The Department wrote to us after the evidence session to clarify that while a local authority does not have to seek permission to make changes up to the 30% threshold, it does need to let the Department know through its regular reporting. It told us that as of December 2023, its latest reporting period, seven places have made changes within the 30% threshold for Town Deals and 29 places have made changes within the 30% threshold for the Levelling Up Fund.48 Learning what works
19Department's learning from pathfinder pilots and project flexibility remains in "early days".
Recommended (the committee's words)
During our evidence session we questioned the Department about how local authorities were supported to deliver their projects and what it is learning from this.49 As part of its simplification plans the Department told us it has allowed ten local authorities who are receiving money from multiple funds to each pool their funds so they can manage their projects collectively.50 We queried what the Department had learnt from these so- called pathfinder pilots. It told us it was still relatively early days for the pathfinders, but it planned to publish what it has found later this year. The Department also hoped to use 42 Q 84 43 Q 55 44 Q 91 45 Q 50 46 C&AG’s Report Para 1.16 footnote 8 47 C&AG’s Report 1.16 48 Correspondence from Permanent Secretary, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, dated 29 January 2024 49 Qq 10, 16, 89 50 Q 91; C&AG’s Report 1.17 16 Levelling up funding to local government the findings to inform its approach to the next spending review.51 Similarly, when the Department talked about the 30% project flexibility, it told us it was ‘early days’ but it would consider this policy and any learning from it in conjunction with the pathfinders.52
20Department's 'discovery team' provides targeted support to 25 local authorities at risk of missing deadlines.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department said it had locally-based area teams who knew their local authorities and can provide support across all the funding sources they may be accessing.53 We asked about support for local authorities who were struggling. The Department told us it had a ‘discovery team’ who were working with 25 local authorities who were at risk of missing deadlines to help accelerate delivery,54 for example, by providing support in contracting or in giving their match funding providers confidence to release funding. The Department explained these 25 places were not necessarily those in the most trouble but those that the Department thought it could make the most difference and move delivery along.55
21Department allocates additional £65 million funding for local support and expert procurement.
Concluded (the committee's words)
In addition to the support already mentioned, the Department told us it had an additional £65 million of funding to provide further support to local places and procure expert support. The funds were split across: £6 million for Delivery Associates; £38 million in direct grant support to local areas; £11 million to mayoral combined authorities; and some funding to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for specific heritage support.56 The Department explained the delivery associates were specialist experts in, for example, procurement or commercial negotiation.57 Evaluation
22Department developing robust evaluation plans for local growth after prior criticism.
Recommended (the committee's words)
In our report on Local Economic Growth, we were critical of the Department for not yet having developed the promised overarching monitoring and evaluation framework for local growth.58 The Department told us that, in response to recommendations from the Committee, it was putting in place robust plans for evaluation that will give it ‘unparalleled insight’.59
23Department progresses evaluation procurement, anticipating impact findings by 2025-2027.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We questioned the Department on its approach to evaluation.60 The NAO had reported that the Department had published its overarching evaluation strategy in November 2022.61 The NAO report said the Department was behind where it wanted to be with the procurement of its evaluation work, so we asked the Department what it had done to correct this.62 In response the Department said it had now published feasibility studies and made progress on procuring evaluation for the funds and was working to strike the balance between having in place a robust methodology and speed of delivery. The Department told us it expected to have findings on impact and value for money of the funds between 2025 to 2027.63 In addition, it told us about two other activities that will provide information more quickly: it is carrying out 36 place-based evaluations looking at 51 Q 91 52 Q 99 53 Qq 10, Q16 54 Q 16 55 Q 52 56 Q 89 57 Q 86 58 Committee of Public Accounts, Local Economic Growth, Fifth Report of Session 2022-23, HC 252, 8 June 2022 59 Q 143 60 Qq 57, 115 61 C&AG’s Report Para 3.3 62 Q 115 63 Qq 119, 147 Levelling up funding to local government 17 the totality of funding intervention, and carrying out a survey of 180,000 people to seek to understand the impact that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, in particular, is having on the pride in place mission set out in the Levelling Up white paper.64
24Department outlines comprehensive evaluation for £10.47 billion spending, including jobs and town comparisons.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We were interested to hear how the Department was going to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the £10.47 billion total that is being spent. It told us that there was always a balance, when doing place-based interventions, as to the timing of when you do them versus waiting for the outcomes you expect.65 The Department explained its evaluation would cover more than just the measures used to prioritise places and would include measures such as the number of jobs created, or the gross value added to the economic productivity of an area. It also told us that, for the Towns Fund (consisting of Town Deals and the Future High Streets Fund), it would look to compare similar towns that received funding to those that did not.66 The Department said it would also make sure there is a clear link with the funding that it had provided, and the improvements seen.67
25Department lacks long-term evaluation plan using public data but indicates consideration.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked the department whether it had a plan to use publicly available data to have a snapshot review at different points, for example five, ten or 15 years after a project had concluded, so that the department could continue the learning about what works. The Department told us it did not have a specific plan to do so, but this was something it would consider.68 64 Q 138 65 Q 117 66 Qq 122, 136 67 Q 136 68 Qq 151, 152 18 Levelling up funding to local government
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 15 Jan 2024Levelling up funding to local government3 witnesses, listed belowparliament.uk ↗
Who gave evidence 3 witnesses
- Jess BlakelyDirector for Major Levelling Up Programmes, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
- Sarah Healey CB CVOPermanent Secretary, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
- Will GartonDirector General for Levelling Up, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Correspondence 2 letters
- 5 Feb 2024Correspondence from Sarah Healey CB CVO, Permanent Secretary, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, re Follow up to appearance on 15 January, dated 29 January 2024
- 15 Jan 2024Correspondence from Sarah Healey CB CVO, Permanent Secretary, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, re Levelling up funding to local government, dated 12 January 2024