[wdmmg-discuss] wdmmg-discuss Digest,CRA issues
woolliams at googlemail.com
Sun Jan 17 22:12:14 UTC 2010
Please find attached the uk county data you mentioned, in xls format. This
is the sort of data that Chris of Openly Local has been collecting, not sure
if this will be useful to him too?
The CRI data you found in the long table is an 'unravelled' version of some
of the later chapter PESA tables(?chapter9?)
I found http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ who is using PESA, but also has
located a lot of older sets to give a much longer picture. Looking at some
of the long-term plots of spend as a fraction of GDP is illuminating, e.g.
national debt! The guy is in the US! Be useful to get hold of some of the
data as it can put into perspective some of what is going on in the UK at
the moment, even if the detail is lacking.
Do we know about another source of local govt data:
useful breakdowns and available as xls files.
Also some extra useful stats in this document, some of the raw data is
there does not appear to be any data for the map plots. These are available
for previous years too. I will collate go and download all the available xls
files to make it more useful for others to work on the numbers.
Does the "Local Spending Review" report that Chris unlocked and is using for
Openly Local the type of local breakdown that you are looking for?
I also note on the treasury page a note about "WGA- Whole of Government
Accounts", to be published for the first time in the FY09-10, is this
something that we are expecting to provide valuable extra data?
One of the outcomes of your recent discussion was how to make to make the
raw data available. Maybe allow users to produce customisable csv/xls files
or just give them a few options. I am intrigued by what a 'full council' XLS
file would look like (with demographics as well), where each column is a
different parameter. It would not be a small file, but would certainly allow
for some interesting automated processing and querying.
On the processing front, do post a copy of your Python code, I am a regular
MATLAB user, but keen to learn some Python as it is free and supposedly more
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <wdmmg-discuss-request at lists.okfn.org>wrote:
> Send wdmmg-discuss mailing list submissions to
> wdmmg-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wdmmg-discuss-request at lists.okfn.org
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wdmmg-discuss-owner at lists.okfn.org
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of wdmmg-discuss digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. CRA data analysis (Dave Boyce)
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:59:10 +0100
> From: Dave Boyce <dave at iconomical.com>
> Subject: [wdmmg-discuss] CRA data analysis
> To: wdmmg-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Message-ID: <896C354D-8A5A-4BA9-97D2-9DBB2B9C9257 at iconomical.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Attention deficit notice: this email is quite detailed, and can probably be
> skipped if you're not interested in the tedious nitty-gritty aspects of the
> Some background:
> The prototype was developed using the PESA data, which contains
> aggregations of UK public spending. In general, spending is classified using
> a scheme called COFOG: this defines a number of top-level functions, and
> each function is further broken down into sub-functions. For instance,
> pensions are part of the Social protection function, and Old age
> subfunction. More info about COFOG here:
> Money is spent either by central government, or by local authorities.
> Central government spending is performed by one a number of government
> departments, like the Dept of Transport, the Home Office, etc. Local
> authority spending gets grouped by area, depending on where the local
> authority is: England is broken down by region; Scotland, Wales and NI are
> pretty obvious. PESA doesn't differentiate between things like county,
> unitary authority, regions, etc: they're all grouped together as local
> authority spending.
> Spending can also be defined as identifiable or non-identifiable.
> Identifiable spending means that the money is spent for the benefit of a
> particular region, eg, pension spending for people in Wales. Almost
> everything is identifiable spending, even spending that goes outside the UK.
> By contrast, non-identifiable spending is spending that's thought to
> benefit the UK as a whole. For instance, much of defence spending, the civil
> list, national institutions, and the national debt fall into this category.
> (As does spending on the London Olympics, in spite of the word 'London'.)
> The CRA (county and regional analysis) data is a very large (25K rows)
> spreadsheet containing detailed spending breakdowns by department and
> program, so it offers much more granularity than PESA. What CRA allows us to
> do is take a look at a COFOG function or subfunction, and find out how the
> money is allocated between different spending programs, or between different
> regions. In theory, CRA should contain most of the raw information that was
> used to generate PESA.
> We've been spending time this week looking at the CRA data, mainly to
> understand what's in it, and what we can do with it. Here's the current
> The biggest item is that the top-level aggregate numbers derived from CRA
> (ie, the top-level function totals) match the PESA numbers, give or take.
> This shouldn't be a surprise, since PESA is supposed to have been generated
> from CRA in the first place.
> We can work with departments now, which we couldn't do before. This means
> we can look at central government spending across departments, over a number
> of years. We can also link up departments with their spending in terms of
> COFOG. For instance, we can look at a particular department and see how its
> spending breaks down by function, or do the reverse, look at a function and
> see which departments do their spending there.
> We have proper drill-down by programs. This means that we can look at
> spending programs in terms of how much money was spent on them, to find the
> biggest ones. We can do this for the uk as a whole, for countries, and for
> regions. For instance, we can look at Environment spending in the North
> West, and see that it's almost all due to the Nuclear Decommissioning
> We have the ability to do searches through the program items:
> - find all the olympics spending;
> - find all the pensions spending;
> - find all the museum spending.
> Addition of the program items is a big deal.
> The most fundamental issue in CRA is that none of the English local
> authority spending is broken down further than the top-level COFOG function.
> That means that for a region like, say, London, we can get local authority
> spending on social protection, but can't find out how that was divided
> between housing, sickness/disability, etc. Two consequences of that:
> - we can't show this breakdown. (Ok, the prototype had the same problem
> because it wasn't in PESA either);
> - we can't generate the UK-wide COFOG subfunction breakdown just from CRA
> (but we can get it from PESA).
> However, in order to create the UK-wide subfunction breakdown in the first
> place, the people who compiled PESA must have the local authority spending
> broken down by subfunction, somehow. There are also additional PESA tables
> that can't be generated from CRA.
> The lack of drill-down for LA spending into English regions is a really big
> problem. We can get subfunction and program drill-down for the other
> nations, but not for England. This is painful since LAs are responsible for
> the majority of the spending of items like education.
> You can find an interesting spreadsheet on the CRA website called
> cra_form.xls, which appears to be the form sent to the Treasury by local
> authorities, and is supposed to contain their submissions to the PESA/CRA
> process. One of the sheets has contact information, so this could be a route
> to getting more detailed info.
> Spending programs are owned by individual spending departments. (There are
> some exemptions, but they're just accounting tweaks.) This is, there's a one
> to one relationship between programs and departments.
> Some spending programs are linked to more than one COFOG function and/or
> subfunction. That is, a one to many relationship between programs and COFOG
> Programs can have multiple rows in the database. Most of this is because a
> program's spending is split across multiple regions, capital/current,
> id/non-id, etc, but there are a number of cases where rows are the same,
> except for the actual numbers.
> The Department codes are unreliable, since there are a number of
> mismatches. I haven't made any investigation as to how easy it is to
> reconcile them, and I'm taking the position that the department name is the
> important field.
> CRA broadly conforms to COFOG, but there many thousands of rows which don't
> have the correct function/subfunction definitions. In almost all cases, it's
> possible to re-map them correctly. Except for health spending, and it's not
> feasible for us to fix that.
> I have a Python script which takes the original CRA data, and outputs a new
> version with fixed COFOG functions and subfunctions. This is particularly
> useful if anyone wants to do things like put CRA into an SQL database, or
> run pivot table analyses. Let me know if you want the script.
> The cra_data.xls file contains a reference to another interesting data
> This is a detailed description of how the geographical regions in PESA/CRA
> break down, in terms of smaller regional authorities. It also contains
> information about population!
> We might get some milage by looking at other government reporting. For
> example, the Scottish executive produce their own accounts. (Here's an
> example: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/06/18101733/0) And
> the treasury website contains a useful page pointing to a number of govt
> departments' reporting. (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psp_index.htm) I
> doubt it's feasible to do much with this kind of data in the short term, but
> perhaps it would be a useful exercise to at least identify what's out there.
> We're going to continue with our analysis, but also look at visualization
> models, and think about the requirements and ideas that we've been
> discussing. In the meantime, I think there should be an action item to chase
> up the Treasury and see if we can get more detailed data, specifically to
> fill the hole in English LA spending. Who wants to take this up?
> - Dave
> wdmmg-discuss mailing list
> wdmmg-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> End of wdmmg-discuss Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 71168 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the openspending