A map for the money jungle

back to the contents page

It is time, David Carpenter argues, to transform the back-up available to voluntary sector project developers, in order to make the most of their energy and talent 

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

The ‘cross-cutting’ government agenda rolls on. As it does, the volunteer championing small-to-medium-sized projects is confronted with an increasingly burdensome challenge in accessing comprehensive, consistent funding and project development advice. The funding minefield operates at two levels. First, the days are gone when, for example, the local sports club (and here read any other arm of the cultural sector) could apply for public funding on grounds of sporting benefit alone. In today’s climate it is essential to look beyond the ‘good cause’ and take account of other factors such as education, crime reduction, health, regeneration and social inclusion.

Second, even if a project gets through those tests, project advice and criteria can suffer from subtle inconsistencies –indeed, at worst can sometimes conflict.

For all the success that the National Lottery has brought to the cultural sector, a lot of work is still needed to raise the aspirations and standards of many fundamentally sound local schemes so that they offer the best possible benefit and value for money. The task is doubly difficult in the more socially challenged areas. Yet in my experience the added value required to turn a basically sound project into a really good one is often straightforward provided the potential project developer is given the key to the door: that is, who to contact/meet and/or where to find the important information.

The ongoing government review of lottery distribution has once more highlighted these issues, but at the time of writing it looks as though the current ad hoc approach is likely to continue. I think it is time to address the issues on a cross-governmental basis that goes far wider than just lottery distribution. Quite a lot of good work is already being done. For example, the Home Office has been working hard to achieve some cross-departmental consistency in terms of funding advice and, through its Active Community Unit, to address capacity building at the local level.

Similarly the National Council for Voluntary Organisations – with whom the cultural sector in England might make more effort to interface – and the New Opportunities Fund are working closely to develop electronically accessed resources and a wide range of networks. But these kinds of initiatives need putting together into comprehensive and consistent packages.

The question of whether to build development support around electronic or human interface is a difficult balance. My guess is that you probably need an equal amount of both at present, edging in the longer term toward the electronic as we all become technology literate. The web, and I suspect, video conferencing, have fantastic potential but neither can yet beat the satisfaction that potential project developers get from a face-to-face meeting. There is no question, and the statistics bear this out, that in the first five years of lottery funding the good local authority link or lottery officer brought significant funding into their locality. Yet the lottery officer map remains a patchwork quilt and with the role having no statutory status there is always pressure to reallocate that funding – no matter how precious – elsewhere.

I don’t profess to have a blueprint for revolutionising development support and funding advice, but there is an urgent need to come up with some better solutions. Here, as my contribution to the debate, are six pointers to start with.

1. Make the issue one that both the statutory and voluntary sectors want to solve and give either the Home Office or Office of the Deputy Prime Minister the lead responsibility to work towards single access points for all sources of funding and project development advice. Involve all other departments, Government Offices, Regional Development Agencies, lottery distributors, local authorities and the voluntary sector. That in itself is a tall order but to be able to provide a single service outlet would be a huge step forward.

2. Seriously consider putting aside say 1% of total grant funding from all statutory sources (not just lottery), to be used to develop the funding advice and development service both electronically and on the ground. This would be a very significant and no doubt controversial sum – the lottery figure alone would be in excess of £10m annually – but if properly implemented and managed, the resulting service would pay big dividends in terms of raising the bar and securing quality projects with added value.

3. Pilot a number of comprehensive local advice centres, and test a regionally based model. Set clear criteria for monitoring and evaluation.

4. Ensure that there is consistency of training for the personnel involved and train them to a high level.

5. Try to get some consistency into the overall funding rounds for public funding regimes. This is a difficult one but we need to tackle the senseless juggling acts that project developers have to perform, waiting on one or two funding elements to come good, or, more frequently, having to meet ridiculously short application timescales that then threaten to prejudice the quality of the project.

6. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, acknowledge that the aspirations of the voluntary sector do not always match the expectations of government and its agencies. If social inclusion, regeneration and other benefits can accrue as part of a less sophisticated set of objectives and criteria, then all can still come out as winners. 

David Carpenter is the former lottery director of Sport England.

What do you think about funding advice and project development support? If you want to respond to this article or add your own view, contact us and we will reflect the debate in a future issue. Email davidclottery1999@yahoo.com or jane@lottery-monitor.com