Where, in the country, is our tax money used?

One of the aims of ‘where does my money go?’ is to follow the path of our money from the point it is handed to the government as tax, to the point it leaves their hands to give benefit to something or someone somewhere in the world.

It is the ’somewhere’ we’ve been looking into recently — we’ve been investigating the stage where the money leaves the government hands, who benefits and in what way?

The Treasury devoted some resource to answering this exact question.

The Treasury Data

The data set the Treasury have is called the Country Regional Analysis (CRA). We’ve collected all years of this report back to 2005 in a CKAN package.

How the data is gathered

Every year the Treasury gather the CRA data by giving each central government department a spreadsheet. There is an example CRA spreadsheet on the CRA page.

You can see that the Treasury fill the spreadsheet with the department’s spending codes (programme object group) from COINS. The department is then asked to work out which regions, in the country, benefited from each of their spending codes.

The regions are quite crude, the whole of England is split into 9 regions and then there is the option of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

There is also an option for everyone in the world befits, this is called Non-ID.

Some of the ways of tracing the funds are easy, say, if there is a spending code for a local initiative that people from only one region are entitled to.

A more complex analysis would be something like if there is a spending code for a museum that people travel from all over the country to see, then a statistician is called upon, and they will determine which parts of the country benefit from this service, probably based on visitor surveys etc.

How to get something useful out of the CRA

The 2009 CRA data had lots of inconsistent use of classification of the spending. The classification of spending used in the CRA is the the United Nations system called Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG). In CRA 2009 some items of spending has only one level of detail in COFOG and most other lines had two levels of detail of COFOG. To be consistent we attempted to get all lines of spending to have the most detailed level of spending. We wrote scripts to fix many of these problems.

The 2010 CRA is much better but still requires some work. The 2010 CRA comes in two sets. Both sets describe the same spending, it is just one (called table 9) describes the areas the money was spent in more detail, and the other data set (called table 10) describes the type of spending in more detail.

Table 9 and 10 have to following fields in common:

• Department code
• Department name
• COFOG level 1
• HMT Functional Classification
• Programme Object Groups
• Programme Object Group alias
• ID and non ID
• CAP or CUR
• spending for dates 2004-05 to 2009-10

when we find a match between table 9 data and table 10 data for the fields above then we need to give it:

the NUTS 1 region code and spending for 2010-11 from table 9

and the ‘CG LG or PC’, COFOG 2 and HMT subfunction class from value from table 10

Then the full detail of the spending in one line.

When this join is done, there is one more problem to fix with the data. This issue all stems from the fact that local authorities do not have programme object groups.

We think the best solution is to replace the ‘dummy sprog …’ programme object group that is used in the CRA for local authority spending, with something like ‘Local Authority Spending’ rather than using ‘Unknown’.

What we have done with the CRA

We, at ‘Where Does My Money Go?’ have used the Treasury’s data for this display: But I’m sure there are many more uses to be had.

How much does our energy cost?

A big part of my motivation for working on the ‘Where Does My Money Go?‘ (WDMMG) project was to learn more about the cost of the UKs energy system and the cost of mitigating climate change.

What interests me about the climate change issue are the two competing requirements: on the one hand we have to provide affordable energy to meet an increasing energy demand as the population grows, on the other hand we have to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions (by 80% on 1990 levels by 2050) as set in the 2008 Climate Change Act.

The competition arises from the fact that the technologies that tend to emit carbon in the greatest levels are currently the most affordable and cost effective.

Unless there is a dramatic improvement in the cost effectiveness of low carbon energy sources or a dramatic reduction in the energy used then requirement 1 and 2 will conflict to a greater and greater degree in the next 40 years.

I’m not the only one who sees trouble ahead.

Last week the Department for Energy and Climate Change presented the public with an open source tool, which aims to show the effect of tweaking the supply and demand aspects of our energy system, and the effects this will have on our carbon emissions.

The tool is a carbon calculator that looks like this:

Once you have tweaked to get Britain the right carbon reduction and energy supply for 2050, and your happy with the results, there is a public consultation you can complete to let the government know.

The tool shows what is physically possible.

It does not show, within what is physically possible, what is economically possible. That is the next step.

I’ve been doing some research into the cost of energy systems.

I’d been looking for good, detailed data on how much the government spends on our current energy infrastructure, and since working on WDMMG I’ve found, pretty much, what I was looking for. I learnt about the Country Regional Analysis that HM Treasury publishes yearly to show the parts of the country that have benefit from UK public spending.

I took the Country Regional Analysis report and I’ve separated out all the codes that impact on our energy infrastructure and carbon emissions and their associated costs for 2008/09.

You can see the results of my investigation at my Many Eyes account.

I’m being quite careful about the summing these costs, as some of the figures are negative, which I believe means that they are income generating. But more research is required on this.

I have also been requesting the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s spending on different energy sources. So far you can see that for 2008/09 I’m getting a cost of £26 million, in total.

I’ll be writing a follow up post to this one, when I have a display of these Department of Energy and Climate Change costs.

I hope that calculating the costs of our current energy system will form a good baseline for discussions about the cost of our energy system leading up to 2050.

If you would like to work on this project with me then please add your details to our get involved page.

Alpha Version of the Budgetizer

We’ve just put out the alpha of a simple interactive tool — the ‘Budgetizer’ that let’s you explore what has been happening to UK finances in recent years, and what the impact of recent budgets have been.

To do this we’ve been busy collecting (and cleaning) government time series include projections from 2008, 2010 (before the budget) and 2010 (after the budget), into the google spreadsheet below. Each projection is contained in a different sheet. At present this is only at the level of GDP, total expenditure, total taxation, deficit etc. There’s also a description sheet which gives a bit of information about the structure.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tFggM4NNja9rSzUd_qQTv9w#gid=4

An initial view of a couple of sheets of this work are now available in the budgetizer:

http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/budget/budgetizer/

This is very much an alpha visualisation – the main thing at this stage is the code to read from multiple sheets and visusalise them as graphs.

Even with this simple view, you can see that while the annual overspend (expenditure over receipts) falls under the post-budget plan, the total deficit remains huge compared to GDP (compared to where it has been over the last 30 years)

Having built this, the plan is to add features to allow users to interactively experiment with different senarios. Even doing this roughly is quite a lot harder as it requires projecting the consequence of changes of policy multiple years into the future.

What was COINS missing? The mystery of the Government’s hidden spending data

The following article was originally published on the Guardian Datablog by Lisa Evans, the Lead Researcher on the OKF’s Where Does My Money Go? project.

We thought we were getting everything with the COINS release. In fact we were missing the best part of all: the Whole of Government Accounts.

Before he became chancellor George Osborne promised:

We will publish, shortly after coming to office, the Treasury’s COINS database that reports several thousand programme spending items in a consistent format across departments

Sure enough, in June, with George as our brand new chancellor, we saw the publication of COINS.

I’d been investigating the COINS (Combined Online Information System) prior to release and was expecting great things.

Like many others, we thought we would get a very detailed picture of the financial health of every government-funded body, because as the Treasury’s guide to COINS (pdf) explained: COINS is used for “the preparation of Whole of Government Accounts (WGA)”.

Now, I knew that the Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) requires each public authority to complete a detailed record of what they own and what they have bought.

You can take a look at the form each authority has to fill out, it is called an L-pack.

You’ll see the kind of information the WGA gathers, details about bank accounts, shares owned and services bought. There were 553 Local Authorities and 320 NHS trusts and foundations who completed this form last year - that’s a lot of data.

On top of that, each central government body has to fill out a C-pack. Once complete, all the L-Packs and C-Packs are uploaded to COINS.

Then, on COINS, the completed records are audited. The auditing involves the WGA team checking that each exchange of money between departments is accurately recorded by both parties.

Auditing, I believe, means “matching up” buyers and providers of services and goods. For example, a perfect match would be if Barnet Council records the purchase of an item costing £5.5m from Enfield Council, and Enfield Council records the sale of the same item at £5.5m to Barnet Council. The COINS scripts would eliminate this to zero.

However if Barnet Council records the purchase of an item costing £5.0 m from Enfield Council and Enfield Council records a sale of the item as £5.5 m to Barnet Council, then COINS would eliminate 5.0m and and put 0.5M into suspense. The suspense account then needs to be investigated more, to see where the mistake is. This investigation is the job of the WGA team.

The WGA has been running every year, for 10 years. And how many results have the public seen from the whole exercse? Exactly zero.

When COINS was published I expected to see this rich body of WGA data, but none of it was there.

So, I investigated, resulting in my request for the WGA for 2008/09.

The reply was unlike anything else I have seen. The Treasury conducted a public interest survey which consisted of a list of pros and cons for release of the WGA data. The list of pros were that the public would benefit by seeing more of the process.

Amongst the list of cons where:

Ministers and officials need space in which to develop policy, including space for the development of policy through an interactive process of testing and refining ideas. This process could be weakened if information was released prematurely or when proposals where not finalised, as this could lead to poorer decision-making

Overall the cons won and my request was rejected.

There are no plans to publish any of the 10 years worth of “dry run” data from the WGA. But the 2009/10 data will be published in spring 2011 - I’m told this report will be similar to company accounts level of detail.

So, when we hear about greater transparency on public spending, it is important to bear in mind that we have made great progress but we don’t have the full picture yet.

About Lisa Evans

Lisa Evans is Lead Researcher on Where Does My Money Go? an
independent non-partisan project run by the Open Knowledge Foundation
which makes government spending and finances understandable to the general public - showing each of us where every pound of our taxes go

Share This

Related posts:

1. A Big Part of COINS was not Published
2. UK Government commits to open up new spending data!
3. In The Beginning There Were Mystery Boxes

A Big Part of COINS was not Published

This is a post by Lisa Evans, lead researcher on Where Does My Money Go?.

When I saw the COINS data that was published at the beginning of June, I suspected there was something missing.

I had been reading about the Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) — a project to provide a really good detailed overview of government finances (more information in this previous post).

I was therefore expecting to see the local council assets and accruals data of the sort that is recorded in the L-packs as well as central government spending captured annually in the C-packs. But it wasn’t there.

I conducted some more investigation, speaking to the team at the Whole Of Government accounts. There team is really quite small — only two people in Communities and Local Government WGA team and five or six people in the Treasury — but they do an amazing job of documenting all public assets and accruals. What is more, they have been running it every year for 10 years, each year gathering a detailed picture of local authorities financial health.

Anyway, based on my existing knowledge and my conversations with the WGA team and others, I can now confidently confirm the WGA is completely absent from the COINS data that was released. This means there is no reporting of local authority’s spending in COINS. A report from the WGA is planned spring next year. But I believe this will be at a very high level of detail — the sum of the whole government’s assets and accurals, not the details of individual authorities and departments.

I have requested the 2008/2009 WGA data, with the Department of Health and the Department of Defence data removed, as I believe these two departments may have failed the relevant audit.

Now we’ll wait to see what happens.

Share This

Related posts:

1. What was COINS missing? The mystery of the Government’s hidden spending data
2. COINS: A Users Guide
3. Understanding COINS

The open spending data that isn’t

The following guest post is from Chris Taggart of OpenlyLocal, who advises the Where Does My Money Go? project on local spending data, and is a member of the Open Knowledge Foundation’s Working Group on Open Government Data. This is a cross-post — Chris’ original post here.

When the coalition announced that councils would have to publish all spending over £500 by January next year, there’s been a palpable excitement in the open data and transparency community at the thought of what could be done with it (not least understanding and improving the balance of councils’ relationships with suppliers).

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government Eric Pickles followed this up with a letter to councils saying, “I don’t expect everyone to do it right first time, but I do expect everyone to do it.” Great. Raw Data Now, in the words of Tim-Berners Lee.

Now, however, with barely the ink dry, the reality is looking not just a bit messy, a bit of a first attempt (which would be fine and understandable given the timescale), but Not Open At All.

As a member of the Local Public Data Panel, I’ve worked with other members and councils to draw up some clear and pragmatic draft guidelines for publishing the local spending data. We’ve had a great response in the comments and in conversations, and together with some lessons I did on importing the existing data, I think these will allow us to do a second draft soon.

One thing we weren’t explicit in that first draft – because we took it for granted – was that the data had to be open, and free for reuse by all. Equality of access by all is essential.

So I’ve been watching the activities of Spikes Cavell’s SpotlightOnSpend with some wariness and now those fears seem to have been borne out, as the company seems to set out not to consume the open data that councils are publishing, but to control this data.

The idea seems to be that councils should give Spikes Cavell privileged access to their detailed invoice information, which the company then adds to their proprietry and definitely non-open database, and then publishes an extract of this information on the SpotlightOnSpend website. Exactly what information they get, and under what terms isn’t disclosed anywhere.

The website’s got most of the buzzwords: transparency, accessible, efficiency. It’s even got a friendly .org.uk domain. If that’s not enough to convince councils, liberally sprinkled around the site is an apparent endorsement from the Secretary of State himself:

I’m really excited about the opportunities of transparency and it’s something this government is utterly committed to. spotlightonspend demonstrates that, when innovative businesses work with far-sighted public bodies, we can inform the public, reduce costs and improve democracy both locally and nationally.

However, when you go to the data and click on the download link this is what you get:

Note the “This data is for your personal use only”  (not to mention the fact that the use of a captcha’ to screen out machines downloading the data means, er, you can’t use machines to automatically download the data, which is sort of the point of publishing the data in a machine-readable way).

Never mind, surely you can just head over to the council’s website and download the data from there? No chance. This is what you get on the Guildford website:

You can search and view this financial data using a new Spotlight on Spend national website. Just follow the link found in the offsite links section of this page.

What about Mole Valley Council:

This data is now available on the spotlight on spend website. You can look at categories and individual suppliers to see how much has been spent in each area or you can download all the data to see individual transactions.

But what about Windsor & Maidenhead, who are closely affiliated with the project, and who are publishing data on their website? Well, download the data from SpotlightOnSpend and it’s rather different from the published data. Different in that it is missing core data that is in W&M published data (e.g. categories), and that includes data that isn’t in the published data (e.g. data from 2008).

So the upshot seems to be this, councils hand over all their valuable financial data to a company which aggregates for its own purposes, and, er, doesn’t open up the data, shooting down all those goals of mashing up the data, using the community to analyse and undermining much of the good work that’s been done.

It’s worth linking here to the Open Knowledge Foundation’s draft guidelines on reporting of Government Finances (disclosure: I helped draw them up), of which the first point is ‘Make data openly available using an explicit license’. And let me be absolutely clear here: this is not open data, not a desirable approach, will not achieve the results of transparency or of equality of access, and is not good for the public sector.

I’m hoping this is a matter of councils and the Secretary of State not understanding the process and implications of giving this data to Spike Cavell on a privileged basis. If not, perhaps it could be the first test case for the newly setup of Public Sector Transparency Board to rule on.

Share This

Related posts:

1. UK Government commits to open up new spending data!
2. Opening up UK local spending data
3. Open data on Russian government spending

Emergency Budget, Deficit and Cuts: Visualized

Today in the UK the Conservatives/Liberal Democrat coalition presented their Emergency Budget.

Collaborating with David McCandless, Where Does My Money Go? have created a simple visualization to help you understand and contextualise the budget, and answer some basic questions such as: How much impact will the emergency budget have on the £156bn budget deficit? And what will those mind-boggling billion pound amounts actually mean?

Embed

Want to use this graphic in your own site or in the news? We’re happy for you to do so as long as long as you explicitly credit us and have a link back to this url. Here’s an html code snippet to do this:

Want a higher-res version, e.g. for print? You can get it here: http://static.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/i/deficit_budget_print.pdf

Credits

A Where Does My Money Go? visualization by David McCandless / InformationIsBeautiful, research by Lisa Evans and Tim Hubbard using on information from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and HM Treasury.

Share This

Related posts:

1. Can You Close the Deficit Gap?
2. Putting the cuts into context: where is that £6 billion going to come from?
3. New mockups for “Where Does My Money Go?”

Can You Close the Deficit Gap?

Where Does Your Money Go? challenges you to beat the Chancellor to it before tomorrow’s budget and close the UK’s financial deficit. Will you increase taxes, make cuts or a mix of both? No decision is going to be popular but are some more palatable than others, you decide.

More information:

• Closing the Deficit Gap App
  • On the Guardian Datablog
• http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/cuts/
• http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/cuts/faq/

The application was created by the Where Does My Money Go? team. Researched by Lisa Evans and Tim Hubbard using many figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Visualized by Rufus Pollock and Tim Hubbard using the thejit and jquery.

Share This

Related posts:

1. Emergency Budget, Deficit and Cuts: Visualized
2. Putting the cuts into context: where is that £6 billion going to come from?
3. Alpha Release of Where Does My Money Go? Prototype

Understanding COINS

Something amazing has happened since the government spending recorded in the COINS database was made openly available to everyone. I’m talking about the impressive range of free, and in many cases open source, products to display the COINS data.

So far there are COINS search engines from The Guardian and The Open Knowledge Foundation, graphs from Rapid Gate Way and Alpine Interactive and bloggers like Martin Budden have been powering away on their own projects to describe the COINS data. What a triumph for publishing government data. It beats the alternative of using public funds to pay for these tools when the skills and enthusiasm are clearly out there in the community.

That’s not to say that the products to display the data are complete right now, or that we have understood the COINS data completely. We had a few clues about the structure of the data from previous research, but there is no substitute for having the data itself, and we are still building up our knowledge. But given it’s been just over a week since we first laid eyes on the data, I think it’s fair to say that we are making good progress by most IT project standards.

In this post I want to address two questions that drive our thinking at the Open Knowledge Foundation, since the COINS publication. They are: ‘what’s important in COINS?’ and ‘how do we get meaningful results out of it?’

It has taken some discussion with the exceptionally helpful staff at HM Treasury and reading the COINS Guidance(PDF) and other related materials that make more sense now we can see the data — but finally I feel we have more accurate answers to both of these questions.

What’s important in COINS?

The COINS Guidance lists every field in the version of COINS that was released. One of the big challenges with a big complicated data set, like COINS, is knowing which of these fields are important.

To determine this I’ve spoken with the Treasury team about the fields they consider most useful, and the combination of fields they use most frequently.

The answers I got focused mainly on the central government spending and income data.

The spending and income is described for each central government department which you can see in the ‘Department description‘ field. Each department has a number of programmes that will either require or generate money. The department’s programmes are in the ‘programmes object group description‘ part of COINS, and more detail still is in the ‘programme objects description‘, and yet more detail still is in the ‘account codes‘ which are all listed in Annex B.

The ‘Value‘ field tells the actual spending or income in thousands of pounds. If the number is positive it refers to the departments spending, if negative it refers to the department’s income. It should also be able to check if the amount is spending or income from the ‘account code’.

In addition to the spending programme and ‘account code’ information, there are two further categories in COINS that describe the data very usefully, those are:

• ‘budget boundary‘. There are three choices for ‘budget boundary’: 1) DEL which stands for Departmental Expenditure Limits. These are items that have been budgeted for 3 years, it is estimated that DEL makes up about 80% of the items in COINS. 2) AME which stands for Annually Managed Expenditure. These are the budget items that are difficult to predict accurately and the risk for these is taken by the Exchequer as a whole. We are ignoring everything in AME where the ‘Programme /admin’ is not set to ‘Other’. 3) ‘not DEL/AME’ is budgeting for arm.s length bodies — we are not too concerned about these budget items.
• the ‘resource capital‘. There are two options that are both useful for .resource capital. which are 1) ‘capital’ which is investment and capital assets. 2) ‘resource’ which includes all wages, salaries and operating costs.

There are some parts of COINS that we are less concerned with at the moment.

Other than the expenditure and income data, there are plans and estimates in COINS. You can see plans and estimates that should roughly correspond to the supplementary budget information and the supply estimates, respectively. We have been less concerned with plans and estimates as, by their nature, they will be less detailed than the outturn.

There is a CPID code in COINS which is there for a special project within the Treasury called the Whole of Government Accounts (WGA). This project will ensure that there is no double counting of the money when a transaction occurs between government departments. As I understand it, if body A gives money to body B then WGA would be responsible for subtracting the amount body B received from body A’s total. There are scripts in COINS to ‘best guess’ these subtractions using the CPID code, along with the WGA staff performing lots of checks too, but once this matching has been successful the CPID code is largely redundant.

The Whole of Government Accounts also collects information about spending by local authorities and records this spending in COINS, but this is not in a publishable state. However it is possible to view central government grants for local authorities with the field called ‘Local Government Use only‘.

How do I get meaningful results out of COINS?

On the advice of the Treasury guidance we are focusing on the Fact Table more than the Adjustment Table in COINS. In the fact table the field that defines actual spending and income is the ‘Data_type‘ being set to ‘Outturn’ and ‘Data_subtype‘ being set to ‘approved’ or = submitted_outturn (both of these conditions required).

In addition we can set Budget_Boundary to either DEL or if we require the shorter term budget spending then we set AME and then set programme/admin to ‘Other’.

For the 2009-2010 COINS data we can also set the Resource_capital2: set to Resource (on 2010-11 budgeting basis).

With the COINS data defined this way it is then possible look at the spending programmes and associated account codes certain that the results are actual spending and actual income for the time frame, rather than estimated or planned spending or income.

It is wonderful that the publication of COINS has brought so much innovation in the open software community. It will be even more wonderful if we can continue to develop to make public spending data easier to understand, particularly when so many important decisions are being made that will affect our lives.

Share This

Related posts:

1. COINS: A Users Guide
2. The Hunt For COINS
3. What was COINS missing? The mystery of the Government’s hidden spending data

COINS: A Users Guide

At 0930 BST today the UK government released the COINS database, one of the biggest sources of information on UK public spending. Open Knowledge Foundation Director Rufus Pollock says:

The release of this data marks another milestone in the opening up of public data - in which the UK leads the way. While this is by no means the end of the line, this material is substantially more detailed than anything previously available and is a major advance for transparency of public finances.With our Where Does My Money Go? project we’ve already been working to make spending understandable to the general public and this new data is essential to realizing the project’s goal of showing exactly where each pound of your taxes goes.

Update: for latest info see http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/data/coins/

Lets be honest — it’s basically mystery how our tax money is spent. Like all good mysteries it’s compelling to find the truth behind it.

The publication of the COINS database today will a big step forward in resolving this mystery. COINS, which stands for the Combined Online Information System, is the main database used by HM Treasury for budgeting — and reconciling what actually happened against those budget plans.

Public bodies have a requirement to report their spending to COINS. Each local government body, and this includes all councils (except parish), all local police, local fire, local transport and park authorities, report all items of spending over £1million once a year. The record of this spending is gathered by Communities and Local Government (CLG) and audited before it is entered into COINS as spending from CLG.

Similarly, each central government department has to report spending on all items over £1 million and agreements over £5 million and that they define this spending use their own spending codes for this. Some of these items are well defined in COINS — others less so.

Each of these bodies provide not only their spending once a year, but also estimates of their spending for the year ahead, once a month for every item of spending.

With the publication of COINS we can now see, for the first time all in one place, the spending and estimates for all of these public bodies.

But bringing this all together has a slight problem — there’s lots of accounting jargon that we can cut through here, to understand the great significance and value of this publication.

COINS: A User Guide

Permanent url: http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/data/coins/

COINS is a big listing of estimated or actual entries of money.

Each entry in the listing involves a named goverment department’s money.

Some of the entries show a department has bought something like a service or a product. Other entries show a department has recieved some money.

Key features:

• Programme objects and Programme object groups: each department creates Programme Objects to which spendings is assigned.
• Account types (SCOA = Standard Chart of Government Accounts): standard “accounting-like” classifications of spending. Details of how the money is recieved or spent, so you can choose all spending on Wages & salaries or Current Grants to private sector.
• CPID: If money is exchanged between government departments we have a record of which departments were involved. The Counter-party Identifier (CPID) in the entry line is the description of the other department.
• Data type: Each of the monthly and yearly budgeting exercises can be identified with the Data Type category. Examples of these are Forecast Outturn March, Forecast Outturn April etc.

The release of the COINs data is a huge step forward for transparency in the UK. We hope that the release of the data will lead to much better public understanding of how public funds are being spent. We’ve been very keen to get hold of the COINS data for our Where Does My Money Go? project and our team are already on the case, working to create intuitive visual representations of the data. If you’d like to follow our progress, you can find us at wheredoesmymoneygo.org or on Twitter at @wdmmg!

Share This

Related posts:

1. Understanding COINS
2. A Big Part of COINS was not Published
3. What was COINS missing? The mystery of the Government’s hidden spending data