Funding review responses

back to the contents page

From 420 responses to the DCMS lottery review consultation, civil servants have produced a summary document. Below we reproduce the summarised conclusions, but in the full document each heading has more detail, analysed by the various sectors of respondents: government and MPs, local authorities, voluntary sector, distributors and Camelot, and others, which makes for interesting reading

Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription today.

Public awareness of the lottery
The majority of responses felt that Camelot’s recent campaign promoting good causes had little or no effect in raising awareness of lottery projects or encouraging applications for funding. Although many did not believe raising awareness would increase ticket sales, some felt that it could help keep lottery players who hadn’t won from stopping playing. There was support for work to be increased (but concern about costs involved) in raising awareness and strengthening the lottery brand, primarily at a regional or local level.

A joint approach
There was broad support for Camelot and distributors to work together on promotional activities but little support, mainly on cost grounds, for a separate body to do this.

National lottery day
Divided responses on this issue. Concerns were that it would cost too much, achieve little and take money away from good causes. Also that there were already too many themed national days. Others thought it could be a good idea and should be linked to heritage open days, etc. Much of the support was for focusing events locally and regionally.

Consultation
Recognition of work distributors already do (particularly at the regional level). Support for piggy-backing on to existing consultation networks where possible (eg citizens’ panels). General opposition to tick-boxes and local referenda, largely because of concerns that ‘unpopular’ projects will lose out. Concerns over the cost of additional consultation/local consultation fatigue/ building in delay – needs to be managed carefully.

Public involvement in national and regional awards committees
Broad support for existing arrangements. Some local authorities suggested councillors should be involved. Many other respondents, particularly voluntary organisations, were against this.

Local decision-making
Broad support for regional decision-making (following local consultation for strategic priorities): seen as striking the right balance between local knowledge and impartial decisions. Some support for smaller grants to be delegated to local panels and support (particularly in Wales) for devolution to countries. Concerns about delegating decisions to a more local level, particularly over cost, additional bureaucracy and delay in making decisions.

Micro grants
Support for this as a ‘first step on the lottery ladder’ – could be used for capacity-building using a very simple application process such as that adopted by ‘community chest’. Some thought that it would add another layer of administrative costs and that several other funders already provided these types of grants. Also a belief that lottery money plugs a gap in larger additional funding and that is where the need is.

If micro grants were introduced, local authorities, voluntary organisations and an expanded Awards for All were variously suggested to administer it.

Capacity building
There was a general acceptance of the need for this, but opinion was split between the need for building capacity generally and targeting deprived areas. Opinions also varied as to who would be most suited to provide and fund this role – lottery distributors, local authorities or the voluntary sector (the last two possibly funded by the lottery). Some favoured an ad hoc approach with local arrangements to suit local conditions.

Targeting areas and groups
Organisations and local authorities connected to coalfields, deprived and rural areas tended to be in favour of targeting. Others took the view that applications should be based upon merit only –deserving projects should not fail to receive funding as a result of targeting. There was broad support for indicative allocations rather than ring-fencing, as this would provide flexibility.

Applications and application forms
Little support for a single application form generally, given the wide variety of detailed and often specialist information required by different distributors. Instead the view was that core information requirements (eg applicant details) should be stan-dardised across distributors. Support for a single application form for cross-distributor projects (eg community halls). Suggestion from distributors to investigate a single pre-application form. More support for the idea of a ‘single front door’ rather than a single application form.

Electronic applications
Broad support for increasing the availability of electronic applications, as long as paper copies were available to those that did not have computer access/technical skills. Should be a standard-ised, user-friendly format. Interactive application forms also broadly welcomed, but respondents generally preferred them to be downloadable or on disk, rather than filled in on-line.

Lottery distributors as investors
Need for early and honest feedback about applications’ merits with the opportunity to re-submit with support was a consistent theme. Some support for greater investment in deprived areas, towards capacity building. Some respondents felt that distributors should invest throughout the life of a project, while others thought that this would add too much to administration costs. Need to maintain independence of both applicant organisation and distributor.

One-stop-shops
There was more support for ‘virtual’ one-stop-shops than for fixed physical locations since the latter could be expensive and less flexible. Ideas included expanding the hotline and telephone helpline. However, some concluded that physical one-stop-shops/ roadshows could be useful in deprived areas. If we were to go down the route of physical shops the feeling was that they should provide information about all kinds of funding, not just lottery.

Working partnerships
Partnerships between distributors and local organisations were generally seen as essential, but there were concerns about lottery funding being merged with other funding – losing the principle of additionality.

Additionality
Strong support for the concept but with recognition of the need for lottery funding to complement other funding streams. Some called for a redefinition of additionality. A few felt it was no longer relevant. Significant support for the continued independence of distributors.

Sustainability
All recognised sustainability as a key issue: mixed views on how it should be resolved. Need to explore sustainability at outset of project. Recognition that not all projects are sustainable. Need for closer working between lottery and statutory funders.

Extended revenue funding
Most supported the idea of funding being made available for longer periods (around five to six years) particularly for deprived areas. The Community Fund’s tapered funding approach was commended. However, extended revenue funding should not be a substitute for statutory funding. Some supported revenue funding throughout the life of projects in deprived areas.

Core funding
Most believed that it was right to fund core costs associated with lottery projects. Some believed there was a case for more general core funding of groups which were delivering a useful service –particularly in deprived areas.

Endowments
Some were in favour of endowments to provide secure revenue funding for certain types of projects. Others were against it as they considered it would tie up too much lottery money in too few projects. Some were in favour of introducing enabling powers, so that distributors could offer endowments sparingly in very specific circumstances. Some support for the concept of expendable endowments.

Innovation and risk, reducing red tape for low-risk projects
Most replies were in favour of a reduction in red tape. The idea of proportionality – a longer process for projects with higher risks – found favour. Proper business planning and exit strategies were seen as essential. The fact that projects may fail was noted by many replies. Some replies commented that the controls currently in place served a good purpose.

Supporting capital projects
The concept of major lottery-funded projects was firmly endorsed. Partnership funding was a favoured method for financing large projects. It was felt that distributors have a role in working with other funders. The question of renewal funding provoked very mixed reactions.

Funding social enterprise
Need to tie in with existing social enterprise networks to identify and encourage likely projects. Empower distributors to accept greater risk. Need for better awareness of lottery funding and opportunities it presents.

Increasing joint working
Distributors’ individual expertise has been greatly valued and responses believed that they covered different areas. The main problem highlighted was for those applying for funding for buildings with a multiple use. Many respondents referred favourably to the West Midlands pilot for joint working with community buildings applications and expressed interest in the outcome. Top-slicing was generally not supported, but a lot of respondents were in favour of more joint working. Awards for All was seen as a good example of this.

Reducing the number of distributors
The majority of respondents were against the idea of a single distributor as they believed this would lose individual expertise, add another layer of bureaucracy, reduce money/focus on less popular good causes. Some felt that Community Fund & NOF could be merged, but there would be a need to ensure that a sound financial and efficiency case is made for any rationalisa-tion. The voluntary sector particularly wanted CF to remain independent. Support for HLF from the significant number of heritage sector respondents. There was strong support for the idea of a ‘single front door’ for those who wanted it (ie first-time applicants, smaller groups, cross-cutting projects).

Reducing the number of programmes
Most supported reducing the number of programmes in favour of wide generic grant programmes.

Outcome funding
Many agreed on the need for evaluation, but there were concerns over prescribing generic outcomes: there was a clear view that these should be arrived at by agreement between grant recipient and distributors. There was support for greater overall evaluation by distributors of the wider effects of their programmes.

NLDF balances
The idea of flexible payment proved popular. Replies suggested that draw-down timings could be linked to risk. Many replies commented that high balances had positive effects. Some respondents noted the good reasons for high balances.

You can download the full summary of responses (pdf) from the temporary DCMS website address at http://193.128.182.36/lottery/review_lottery_funding.htm