How lottery funding should change

back to the contents page

Two views from Scottish authorities and an address from the Welsh culture minister. As before, we have edited the extracts from submissions and in some cases paraphrased the questions for brevity

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

Extracts from submission: Scottish Borders Council

Are micro-grants a good idea?
For the Scottish Borders… it would represent a good opportunity to raise community capacity through small, achievable projects, funded locally, and would hopefully lead groups on to larger level lottery funding opportunities.

What sort of organisation should administer it?
Local authorities already have the structures to administer small grants schemes and would be the ideal agency to engage with other local partners. The community planning process should drive the delivery of the scheme.

Should distributors target funds so that no area receives less than a certain percentage below average?
Targeting is not the answer to uneven distribution. If targeting should happen it should be the targeting of outreach and resources to improve the capacity of the area. Targeting funding will dilute project quality and create a pressure to spend allocated funding. The Fair Share areas initiative should be monitored and evaluated in order that lessons can be learnt from targeting.

Development of networks and community capacity comes before the allocation of funding. A clear distinction needs to be made between any proposed targeting of lottery funds at areas of depressed take up – which is a lottery responsibility; and the proposed targeting of funds at deprived areas – which is a Scottish Executive responsibility and part of the political agenda.

Should there be more feedback on applications early on?
Yes. Feedback is severely lacking within the system, especially unsuccessful outcome feedback. Some community groups can spend years of voluntary time and extensive community consultation developing an application only to be given basic and general feedback. Groups should have access to the scoring outcomes of their application and to assessment reports and committee comments. This will create capacity building opportunities for the group and real direction in terms of reapplications. Transparency of the assessment process cannot truly be achieved without this provision.

Should there be a one-stop lottery advice shop?
No. This could prove an expensive option, diverting resources away from communities and into administration. Investment in existing local networks could provide this service. 

How do we achieve the balance between keeping lottery funds distinctive and achieving synergy with other public funds?
If synergy can be achieved, that is a bonus but lottery funding needs to be allowed to retain its special nature, its independence and its potential for innovation and risk taking. It needs to be sufficiently fluid and free from local strategies, to ensure that communities can achieve the funding to meet their priorities. Community priorities often differ from the higher level priorities of strategic bodies. The lottery provides the potential to unlock and max-imise the considerable potential for community action, community service delivery and community asset control.

Is additionality still relevant? 
Additionality has never been more relevant. The advent of NOF has compromised additionality and has contributed to the decline in ticket sales. Further erosion of the lottery’s independence will compound this situation. 

How could the delivery of funding be streamlined?
Each distributor should operate only three programmes: Awards for All, a medium grants programme and a main grants pro-gramme. Funding limits throughout the distributors should be common. 

Would there be merit in merging some distributors.?
There would be no merit at present for merging distributors. Distributors must be allowed to develop and for those developments to be given time to work.

Extracts from submission: Eilean Siar
Public involvement in national and regional awards committees
The Comhairle would advocate greater representation from the Western Isles on decision-making committees because the region has unique social and economic problems which can only be known and understood, on a day to day basis, by those who reside in the region. This role could be fulfilled by nominated local authority councillors, many of whom serve on community groups and are especially aware of the problems faced by community groups in their respective areas as a result of rurality, peripherality and geographical remoteness. The role could also be fulfilled by nominated and approved grass-roots community group representatives. The Comhairle would support the delegation of umbrella grants to local agencies who would then distribute these in line with local demands. 

Capacity building 
Feedback from community groups indicates that they need greater ‘hands-on’ assistance with the completion of forms. They need more than advice and encouragement in view of ever-larger application forms and more onerous application processes. There should be more visits by lottery distributors’ representatives to peripheral, rural and island areas to deliver funding briefings and workshops in view of the complexity of certain programmes and frequently changing information. 

Targeting areas and groups 
The Comhairle is not in favour of the Fair Share initiative because lottery pro-grammes should be open to all and areas should not be prejudiced against for having made a high level of applications and/or having secured relatively high levels of funding per head of population. The Comhairle would support the ring-fencing of lottery funding to address specific issues/problems as long as these included problems specific to remoter rural or island areas, eg, ageing population, depopulation, and outward youth migration. 

Application forms
A single application form would be problematic, not least in terms of its size. The Lottery could set up some sort of clearing house which would accept single application forms and then decide internally which programme would be most suitable and take it from there. Many community groups also feel that the preapplication/enquiry process could be more informative and effective, eg, an improvement in the quality of the information and a credible steer on what is likely to be an eligible project. Holiday periods have proved particularly problematic when relevant lottery staff are on

leave and when more information than an application pack is required. 

One-stop shops/ partnerships
There would be demand for establishing Lottery Advisory Offices in remoter areas such as the Western Isles or a mobile service which could offer cross-distributor programme information to community groups. This could be a huge step forward. There is scope for greater working partnerships between distributors, local agencies and community groups. This would reduce the potential for the submission of haphazard lottery applications and also reduce the number of community groups who fail to secure the necessary matching funding, much of which is expected from local agencies. Lottery applications are rarely made on a strategic basis; these are more usually made on the basis of need or perceived need in local communities.

Innovation and risk
The Comhairle would support a new lottery programme to assist innovation in the Western Isles where there is a narrow economic base, and where new ideas could have positive and greater spin-off social and economic benefits. 

Fewer distributors/programmes 
Ultimately community groups are more interested in an efficient, cost-effective and speedy application process rather than in the number of distributors/ programmes.