The current government grant register is more murky than open data

The current government grant register is more murky than open data

The current government grant register is more murky than open data

Finance | Kirsty Weakley | 24 Feb 2016

The current government grants register does not help us to understand how much money the government gives to the sector and is sorely in need of improvement, says Kirsty Weakley.

Yesterday the Cabinet Office published its grants register, which led to much excitement in the Civil Society News team as we  imagined a quick analysis piece with loads of interactive pie charts and searchable tables.

Alas it was not to be (well not just yet anyway) because the data is presented in a way that makes it really difficult to interrogate – surely the antithesis of the open-data drive the government has been so keen to promote.

There are several different categories intended to explain who the recipient is, including “central government”, “private sector” and what appears to be an all-encompassing “non-profit” category. There’s also a bizarre “local government and voluntary sector/charities” which has only been used by the Department for Work and Pensions.

This is an improvement on last year’s data where several different categories which all had “voluntary organisation” in the title, but the change in approach makes year-on-year comparisons difficult and potentially misleading.

Each department seems to have provided information in a slightly different way. For example the Cabinet Office has quite diligently listed all of its grants, albeit using a lot of acronyms, which is fine if you’re a charity sector journalist or policy officer at an umbrella body, but is potentially gobbledygook to anyone else.

By contrast HMRC has reported that it did make “grant funding to the voluntary, charity and community sector” worth £3m to 22 organisations. Many others refer just to the name of the programme rather than the organisations which received the cash.

What is a non-profit organisation?

To many people the term non-profit is synonymous with “charity” or “voluntary sector” but while many of us deal with those terms every day it doesn’t necessarily mean that the general public is au fait with them.

Last year my colleague David Ainsworth carefully went through the data to establish what we would consider to be a truly independent voluntary organisation, by removing things like quangos and universities, and came up with the staggering figure that just 33p in every £100 of grant money went to the voluntary sector.

Some of the things that have been classified as non-profit for the purposes of the government grant are truly confusing and include grants to local authorities, other government departments and large amounts to schools, higher education and university funding.

Also notable is the £700,000 from the Cabinet Office for the maintenance and refurbishment of the Chequers Estate, the Prime Minister’s country residence, and £26.8m from the Department for Transport for the rail operator Thameslink.

How to improve it

If you’re going to make data available it is essential that it is easy to interpret, ie people should not need to spend hours re-categorising things to make sense of it. And it would not be difficult to fix some of the issues outlined above.

Each department should report the same information in a standardised way, identifying each organisation by name and what its legal structure is – this would make it easy to filter for charities, community interest companies or anything else.

Doing this would create a register that is truly transparent and a useful resource to the sector.

In its response to the Public Accounts Committee’s report on Kids Company, which recommended the creation of a grants register, the government promised a “fundamental review”. Let's hope they get it right.



[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear


  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Kirsty Weakley

Kirsty Weakley is a reporter at Civil Society Media.

Follow Kirsty on Twitter @KirstyWeakley 

Team talk and a CRM upgrade

19 Jul 2016

A CRM upgrade is not just about tech – you need to consider the effect on people, says Ivan Wainewright....

The ‘fake’ charity app scam could damage trust in charities

21 Jun 2016

Kirsty Weakley argues that if charities don’t understand what their technology partners are doing, they...

Environmentally-friendly printing - is it possible?

25 May 2016

SaxoPrint highlights how environmentally-friendly printing products and affordability for charities need...

Society Diary: Is a woman really shacked up with this dead philanthropist?

23 Sep 2016

Our weekly round-up of interesting and outlandish information, collected from the corners of the charity...

Dear Andrew: How do I deal with my board's poor attendance?

22 Sep 2016

In this regular column, Andrew Hind answers readers’ queries about governance issues. This week a trustee...

The regulator: Charities should get on the front foot

22 Sep 2016

Many charities have responded proactively to the recent media storm, and are stronger as a result, says...