 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Let the people decide
A key lesson is emerging from the success of small-grants schemes, argues Annabel Jackson: client-led programmes work
Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription
today.
There has been much debate about the merits of small-grant programmes. Over the last two years Annabel Jackson Associates have carried out two impact studies of Millennium Awards, including the one launched last month, and an impact study of Awards for All England. Between these three evaluations we have interviewed more than 2,000 recipients. We also evaluated Arts for Everyone, a precursor for Awards for All and reviewed the programmes of support to individual artists in both Northern Ireland and Eire.
These studies demonstrated the merits of small grants and raised the interesting possibility that client-led pro-grammes might, in fact, be more effective at reaching strategic objectives than more explicitly policy-led
programmes.
Client-led programmes are those that are customised around the award recipients’ understanding of their needs, circumstances and working conditions. Policy-led programmes are those that are more explicitly strategic, filtering out applications and organisations that do not meet central criteria. Arts for Everyone, Awards for All and Millennium Awards can all be described as client-led – and all have been overwhelmingly successful in meeting their objectives. When we carried out our early evaluation of Arts for Everyone in 1997, small
The small programmes have low entry requirements that enable them to reach individuals and groups previously excluded from funding
grants were controversial. There was widespread concern that they would be too costly to administer and too small to be effective. Our evidence did not support these concerns. Of the arts officers we interviewed, 99% were in favour of Arts for Everyone. One local authority arts officer wrote: ‘£1,000 in the hands of a small local organisation delivers as much as £10,000 directed to the large “establishment” organisations’. This response is typical. Our 1997 study of Arts for Everyone looked at the cost of processing applications, estimating that each application cost £26.10. This is 1.7% of the grant money awarded (or 2.7% if you include set-up and consultation costs). Our later studies do not look at the cost of processing applications, but provide a vivid picture of the schemes’ achievements.
Examples of programme projects
The Millennium Awards programme provides grants to individuals with an average value of £2,500, supported through a partnership of 97
organisa-tions. Since its establishment by the Millennium Commission in 1996, the Millennium Awards programme has offered grants totalling £100m and made nearly 20,000 awards. Roughly half of award recipients work in groups, either informal groups (including families) or teams.
Awards for All (England) is a cross-distributor programme dating back to September 1998 and aimed at organisa-tions with an annual turnover below £15,000. It, too, has spent £100m on 28,000 awards. Arts for Everyone was a pilot scheme run by the Arts Council of England in 1996-97. Its average grant was £4,000.
Both Awards for All and Millennium Awards have performed well against their objectives. Around 70% of Awards for All recipients say that the funded project increased the stability of their organisation and made it more adventurous; more than three-quarters of award recipients say that the project increased their skills; more than 80% say the project made their organisation more confident; and almost 90% say they have been able to improve the quality of what they do. Over 80% of organisations were able to reach more people than before the award. The average number of participants benefiting from each project is 471. Almost 80% of Awards for All organisa-tions have not received a Lottery grant before. These achievements compare favourably with dedicated capacity-building and access programmes operating on far larger budgets.
Of Millennium Awards recipients, 30% say that the award helped them to obtain a job; well over 80% say their Millennium Awards project increased their confidence and motivation; nearly 70% say they are more likely to take part in future training or education; and more than 70% of projects provided a new service or facility, improved the quality of life, reduced isolation, raised awareness of specific issues and strengthened links within the community. The average number of people participating in each project is 2,486. Just in this list, Millennium Awards is contributing to economic development, community development, soft skills and lifelong learning.
These small-grant programmes have a lesson for evaluators. Evaluators often assume that problems, even teething problems on new schemes, are evidence of failure. Our second social impact study for Millennium Awards investigated the problems that award recipients experienced. Almost 80% of them had problems, often multiple problems. However, this did not seem to diminish the impact of their project. Indeed, on a personal level, overcoming hurdles seemed to strengthen the participants and increase their sense of achievement. Even award recipients who had experienced severe difficulties with their project were invariably positive about the
programme.
What is it about these programmes that makes them so special? It is not just the small sums involved. Arts for Everyone, Awards for All and Millennium Awards have several factors in common that help to explain their success. First, the small programmes have low entry requirements that enable them to reach individuals and groups previously excluded from funding. Second, the programmes combine capital and revenue in a complementary package. Third, to a greater or lesser extent, the programmes combine financial aid with advice and support.
Comments from the evaluations
These three factors add up to a flexibility that is strongly welcomed by award recipients. Awards for All recipients rate the major strengths of the programme as the straightforward application and flexibility. For Millennium Awards recipients the main strengths are openness to individuals and flexibility. More than three-quarters of Awards for All recipients said that the project they wanted to do fitted A4A criteria. Only 12% designed their project around A4A criteria. In almost 70% of Millennium Awards recipients, the idea for the projects came from the award recipient themselves. In many cases, this was a project the individual had wanted to carry out for many years. As these quotations demonstrate, client-led programmes are associated with commitment, innovation and ability to span policy or subject boundaries. These small programmes are tapping into an enormous reservoir of energy and knowledge at the local level. The overwhelming evidence from our evaluations is that small grants, designed on a client-led basis rather than on a policy-led basis, can make an enormous difference to the community, while at the same time achieving the funders’ objectives. There may be lessons for other Lottery
pro-grammes, large as well as small, of the benefits of designing programmes around applicants’ perceptions, priorities and ways of operating.
‘The impact of Awards for All on
Applicants and Their Communities’ can be obtained from Mike Wilkins at the Community Fund.
Social Impact Study of Millennium Awards’ can be obtained from Steve Denford at the Millennium Commission.
Both publications by Annabel Jackson Associates, 52 Lyncombe Hill, Bath BA2 4PJ, Telephone 01225-446614, Fax 01225-446627,
ajataja@aol.com
