Two thirds of authorities are dissatisfied with the fairness of the grant distribution system for their area. There is a history of interest groups competing with one another to develop what they see to be improvements to grant methodology. This is because any formula change redistributes a given sum, thus creating winners and losers . The lack of transparency over ministerial decisions on methodology changes has added to general dissatisfaction. There are practical limits on the amount of information reflecting the local area that can be incorporated in the formula, and there is no scope to respond to what the authority is trying to achieve.
Any finance system distributing a fixed sum of money is bound to be subject to criticism.
There are inevitable tensions between, for example, stability in grant allocation and the need to be responsive to changing circumstances. Local government s perspective is that such issues would be less significant if the grant system distributed a smaller proportion of local authorities resources and they had control of a larger share of their own income. When faced with real cuts in aggregate grants and capping linked partly to SSAs, many authorities only option for increasing resources was to advocate favourable formula changes in the annual SSA methodology round - thereby increasing the unpredictability of the outcome. The pressure on the grant system has eased in recent years. The Central Support Protection Grant also provides a floor to prevent cash reductions in grant.