Slow start, could do better

back to the contents page

Latest data confirms the persistence of Lottery funding inequalities

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

The report published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for its Coalfields conference in early November presented a range of updated data showing changes in the performance of the Lottery distributors. This data forms the basis of graphs 1 and 2 below, reflecting performance changes in relation to the periods 1995-98 and then 1998-Oct 2001. However, it has been translated into index form so that the two periods can be sensibly compared. This means that the ‘awards index’ and ‘spending index’ should not be taken as actual per capita figures for the number of awards and their value: the figures have been adjusted to permit comparability over the two periods.

Graphs

Graph 3, showing the geographical spread of Lottery funds, uses DCMS website figures as its baseline, and is therefore UK-wide (not GB-wide). All three graphs were prepared by Tony Gore, senior research fellow at the Centre for Local Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University, who led the independent team that produced two coalfields and the Lottery reports for the DCMS in 1999 and 2000 (see box for details).

As well as the revealing data shown here, the DCMS report contains much useful summarised information from the distributors about various initiatives they have taken to improve take-up of Lottery funds from ‘cold spot’ areas. Unfortunately the report lacks the consistency to permit proper comparison of the efforts (and successes) of different distributors under the various headings; nor is it easy to read off how well any piece of action has met the specific recommendations set down in the Sheffield Hallam study. Some of the initiatives mentioned, however, are worth promoting more widely. I have picked out here the section on development costs, as it includes some interesting examples of where these troublesome costs may be eased:

The coalfields report recommended that alternative methods of assisting potential applicants with project development should be introduced in the coalfields. These might include vouchers or similar allowances to cover professional fees, legal costs and payment for development services.

Sport England: Sport England will under certain circumstances consider funding project development costs. In cases of genuine need, for example, where an applicant organisation cannot afford to pay project development costs such as architects’ fees, Sport England will meet the costs rather than see a good project founder because of lack of resources.

NOF: The Countryside Agency’s Doorstep Greens programme requires the submission of a project development plan. ‘Small grants can be made available to help communities complete a project development plan …’ 

HLF: can fund development costs under its two-stage process. ‘These costs include specific technical and heritage elements such as the preparation of detailed designs, the cost of employing quantity surveyors and other professionals.’ 

ACE: capital programme support includes ‘up to £50,000 for technical assistance (eg development of scheme drawings and other professional advice), and up to £70,000 for capacity building of applicant organisations (eg, training for the Board in governance, financial training and support to general managers, and training in project management).’

Scottish Arts Council: funds professional fees and development work for building projects and the public art scheme – this will continue under their new Capital Strategy, but applicants will not have to apply for separate development applications if they are accepted on to the programme. 

Community Fund: ‘The East Midlands office has funded the provision of technical assistance for groups developing large or complex projects via a grant to Technical Aid to Nottinghamshire Communities. This assistance is available for Nottinghamshire organisations bidding to any funder (not just the Community Fund). Feasibility studies and scheme design studies are also often funded through Awards for All or main grants. The Yorkshire & the Humber office has made a number of grants to voluntary sector development agencies (eg, South Yorkshire Funding Advice Bureau) to work with groups. 

Key publications:
‘Coalfields and the Lottery’ by Sheffield Hallam University (July 1999)
‘Improving Lottery Funding Access and Delivery in the British Coalfields’, Coalfields and the Lottery Study phase 2; by Sheffield Hallam University (June 2000) ‘Fair distribution of Lottery funding to coal-fields and other areas’, by DCMS, Nov 2001 

all reports are available at www.culture.gov.uk