Guidance

Established Mayoral Strategic Authority designation: Criteria and evidence guidance

Published 6 May 2026

Applies to England

Introduction 

This guidance sets out what Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) should look to include in their proposals for submission to the department when seeking ‘established’ designation.

The English Devolution White Paper set out the criteria that MSAs must meet before submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as an Established Mayoral Strategic Authority (EMSA).

In addition to these criteria, the White Paper also states that MSAs seeking EMSA designation need to submit evidence demonstrating a track record of managing major programmes.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act that provides for EMSA status and designation, also requires any MSA proposals for EMSA designation to include details of any non-devolution framework bespoke functions or voting arrangements that an MSA either has and wants to maintain or would like to have which, if agreed, would mean that their functions are exercised differently to other Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities.

1. Guidance

The purpose of this guidance is to set out what the department is looking to MSAs to provide as evidence in support of their proposals. Evidence should be robust enough to satisfy government that an EMSA has the capability and capacity to take on the functions that will come to them from the Devolution Framework, as well as the significant new responsibilities for assuring the value for money of spending and managing novel funding freedoms that will come to them as part of receiving an Integrated Settlement.

It is our intention to work with MSAs to agree on an individual basis what major programmes they may choose to use to provide that evidence. This could include transport, adult skills or housing. However, we recognise MSAs may have other programmes they consider will help to demonstrate their delivery and management of finances and governance as well as how they manage risk.

The evidence that MSAs should provide in the proposal is set out below; it covers what evidence should be submitted to show how the MSA meet the White Paper criteria as well as guidance relating to the 6 areas where they need to provide evidence in a way that demonstrates good performance in managing and delivering major programmes:

• financial and cost management

• sound programme delivery

• strong governance

• resource management

• effective risk management, as well as setting out

• the outcomes achieved (benefits realised)

English Devolution White Paper criteria

As part of ending devolution by default, the government set clear criteria for accessing the Established Mayoral tier. Specifically:

• The Mayoral Strategic Authority (or predecessor Mayoral Strategic Authorities) have been in existence, with a directly elected mayor, in place for at least 18 months at the point of submitting a request to move up to the Established Mayoral tier and access to the Integrated Settlement. Proposals should confirm the date of the establishment of the MSA and the relevant order or regulation as well as confirmation of the date the first mayor took office.

• The Strategic Authority has a published Local Assurance Framework in place which should be annexed to the proposal.

• Proposals should confirm that the Strategic Authority has not been subject to a review, intervention inspection or notice in that period. Where a Strategic Authority  has been subject to any of these measures over that period, the Secretary of State can consider disapplying this criteria and review an EMSA designation application earlier if there has been a change in political leadership at a Strategic Authority between the review, intervention, inspection or notice successfully concluding and the end of the 18 month period.

• The Strategic Authority is not subject to any ongoing (or implementing) recommendations from an externally mandated independent review. Proposals should confirm that the MSA has not and is not implementing recommendations from a review or confirm that it has been subject to a review in the last 18 months. If an MSA has been subject to such a review, then details of the review – which organisation issued it; the dates it ran for; the recommendations it issued and information on how the MSA has undertaken and implemented the recommendations should be annexed as evidence.

• There are no material accounting concerns covering the current or previous financial year which relate to the Strategic Authority’s ability to manage public money. Where possible, audit reports from the last two financial years, or the last financial year (applicable where an MSA has been established for under two years) should be annexed to the proposal.

2. Evidence

Major programme delivery

When Mayors of Strategic Authorities submit their proposals to the government they should also submit evidence demonstrating their track record of delivering major programmes as agreed with government – this could include programmes relating to transport, adult skills, housing programmes or any other programmes MSAs think are relevant.

Evidence should demonstrate good financial and cost management, effective delivery management, and governance, and strong resource and risk management, as well as setting out outcomes achieved (benefits realised). In all cases, supporting evidence relevant to each of these themes can be attached as annexes or separately as addendums.

Each programme that MSAs decide to provide evidence for should have an outline that includes:

• the programme name, its aim and main objectives
• the policy area(s) (competence or competencies and fund(s) the programme was delivered / is being delivered against)
• the budget and business case
• the programme timeline – if complete please provide details of its duration, if still ongoing please set out where you’ve reached in the programme cycle
• a high-level summary of what the programme has achieved to date or in total if complete

Supporting evidence such as budget breakdowns and full business cases can be attached as annexes or separately.

Financial and cost management  

For each programme, outline the systems you have in place that have been, or will be, used to monitor and manage the costs of the programme/s. 

Evidence should include details of the processes and systems for:

• budget forecasting
• monitoring of forecasts against actuals
• controlling expenditure (management and monitoring of any underspends or overspends through the programme cycle)
• programme financial assurance and audit (scope, frequency and use of the results)
• commercial contract management (where applicable)

If you are submitting evidence for more than one programme and you used (are using) the same processes and systems for financial and cost management for each programme, then this only needs outlining once as long as it is clear how they were or are being applied to each programme.

Delivery management  

For each programme outline how it has been or is being delivered. 

Evidence should include:

• how you ensured the programme/s aligned with the strategic mission or vison of your organisation
• how the programme scope or aims were decided
• how timelines were developed, agreed and iterated or adjusted where needed throughout the programme
• how objectives and outcomes were or will be realised

Governance

For each programme, outline the governance arrangements that have been used.

Evidence should include how your MSA:

• managed or is managing roles and responsibilities
• tracked or is tracking progress, and took or will take prompt action to assess and address any slippage
• maintained or will maintain transparency and made or is making efficient and robust decisions

Information should include details on how the MSA took ownership, established accountability, and undertook regular progress reviews, the use of overview and scrutiny, audit or regular assurance or other type of programme health checks.

Supporting evidence for this section such as organograms or details of the wider governance structures for the programme(s) should either be included in the annexes or as addendums where necessary.

Resource management  

For each programme, please provide information on your resource management processes.

Evidence should be provided on how your MSA:

• approached assessing the resources required to deliver them
• kept or is keeping under regular review
• the approach taken to assess any identified gaps identified
• the approach taken to assure yourselves that those in key roles such as senior sponsors, programme managers and dedicated budget holders have the right experience, expertise and/or qualifications to carry out their roles effectively in relation to the selected programme/s

Please provide a brief assessment of whether your existing resources are at the level you need to be able to deliver further programmes and where that’s not the case, how you intend to address any resourcing gaps.

Risk management  

For each programme, please outline the processes used to identify and manage risks within the programme/s. 

Information should include details of:                                                                             

• how risks were identified and monitored
• examples of how risks that materialised were mitigated
• examples of how any risks that needed to be escalated were handled effectively

Supporting evidence such as relevant risk registers should either be included in the annexes or as addendums where necessary.

If you are submitting evidence for more than one programme and you used (are using) the same processes and systems for risk management for each programme, then this only needs outlining once as long as it is clear how they were or are being applied to each programme.

Outcomes achieved (benefits realised)

Where you are submitting evidence in respect of completed programmes please outline:

• why the programme was successful
• the outcomes that have been achieved and benefits realised and details of any learning or successes you’ll take forward into other programmes as a result

For ongoing programmes please provide an assessment of success so far in terms of programme management and any outcomes achieved (benefits realised) to date.