Back

Exploring local government public health grant spending by health indicators, time and deprivation strata: an ecological study in England

Mendelsohn, E.; Prendergast, T.; Boshari, T.; Fraser, C.; Conti, S.; Briggs, A. D. M.

2026-03-13 public and global health
10.64898/2026.03.12.26348255 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe public health grant is used by upper-tier and unitary local authorities in England to fund public health services. Public health grant allocations have declined by 26% per person since 2015/16, with cuts being made without any adjustment based on population needs, resulting in absolute cuts often being greater for more deprived local authorities. This study seeks to investigate how these cuts have affected spending decisions across different areas of public health and how changes in spend relate to population health needs. MethodsIn this longitudinal ecological study, data on local government revenue expenditure and financing to 146 upper-tier local authorities in England were extracted from the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government for the years 2017/18, 2018/19 2019/20 and 2022/23. Demand for each function of the public health grant was proxied using a publicly available indicator of need. Descriptive analyses explored changes to grant expenditure over time by function and IMD quintile. A compositional regression model was developed to account for the relatedness of spend data. The significance of associations between indicators of need and spend on functions of the grant was tested using MANOVA, producing Pillais Trace statistics as an indication of the effect size of each explanatory variable relative to others. FindingsPublic health grant spending reductions were widespread. More deprived local authorities often experienced deeper absolute cuts against a backdrop of greater need, with spend being protected across all IMD quintiles in only three areas: childrens 0 to 5 non-prescribed functions, health protection, and public mental health. In the multivariate regression, there was limited relationship between indicators of health need and patterns of grant spend between public health categories. InterpretationThere is no clear relationship between potential indicators of need and expenditure of the public health grant in different reporting categories. Instead, spending decisions are being driven by other factors that may include historic spend, wider local priorities and financial pressures. These findings suggest a review of the public health grant formula to support local authority public health teams to more strategically apportion spend based on population health need. O_LIWhat is already known on this topic O_LILocal authority public health teams in England receive a ring-fenced grant from central government which was originally based on an allocation formula that has not been updated since 2012/13. C_LIO_LIThe grant has been cut substantially over the past decade, often with larger absolute cuts for more deprived local authorities. C_LIO_LINo previous study has investigated how public health teams allocate a diminishing grant across competing areas of public health need and how this may vary by deprivation. C_LI C_LIO_LIWhat this study adds O_LIThis study found limited evidence that indicators of health need have driven public health grant allocation in related spend categories, nor any differences by deprivation. Our analysis is the first to explore multiple indicators of need and to employ compositional regression to account for corelations between categories of grant spend. C_LI C_LIO_LIHow this study might affect research, practice and policy O_LIThis study supports a review of the public health grant funding formula to better distribute the public health grant according to local population health need. C_LI C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
33.2%
2
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.4%
5
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.0%
6
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
9
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
10
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
11
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
12
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
13
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
14
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
15
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
16
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
17
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
20
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
23
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%