 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From
the October 2001 Issue
Contents:
MAIN STORY
Report
reveals gaps in ethnic monitoring
Lottery
boards’ data is inconsistent and incomplete, reports Apala Chowdhury
The UK’s Lottery distribution boards have no consistent approach on the monitoring of awards to black and ethnic minorities, and the unevenness of their current data analysis is hampering their ability to ensure that Britain’s ethnic communities -- 5.5% of the population -- receives their fair share of Lottery funding.
These
are the findings of a Lottery Monitor special report published today
(pages 5 to 8). The report set out to examine how far the distributors
had got in recent years in their efforts to improve the uptake of awards
by black and minority ethnic (BME) groups. All the boards accept that
there is a general problem with the underfunding of BME communities. Yet
our findings reveal that while it is possible to gain an impressionistic
view (which suggests some cause for optimism), a coherent statistical
overview of funding levels and changes over time is not available.
Our
inquiries have shown that there is no agreed definition among the boards
about what exactly they should be monitoring; some boards have no
statistical data available at all; and in several cases
information is collected on application forms but not processed
into usable monitoring data. Further, because there is no agreed
mechanism for identifying what counts as a BME award, it is impossible
for the Department of Culture Media and Sport – or the public – to
get a clear picture of the state of BME funding. This is
reflected in the DCMS’s own awards database, which cannot be
interrogated to find out how many of the awards count as BME grants.
The
principle of monitoring was agreed in 1999 between the DCMS and the
distributors in a formal statement. But according to DCMS sources, the
implementation of monitoring was left voluntary and flexible because of
anxieties that the boards would not otherwise agree to do it.
A
DCMS spokeswoman said: ‘Monitoring takes time and money. We agreed
with the boards that we would not impose a deadline on them. At some
point soon we will telephone them to see how well they are doing.’
The
upshot, two years on, is that for example, the Heritage Lottery Fund has
no statistical information on BME awards, the Arts Council of England
cannot say how many BME revenue grant applications have succeeded, and
Sport England cannot tell whether BME applicants are more or less
successful than the average. And because the monitoring data is not
passed on to the DCMS in any systematic form, it would be impossible for
anyone to discover that the development funding
awarded last year to the Bernie Grant Centre, for instance,
should be counted as a BME award.
The
most advanced monitoring is carried out by the Community Fund, which for
the first time will publish
at the end of the month BME success rates for its 2000-2001 programmes
subdivided into applicants’ ethnic group. This information allows the
CF to see which ethnic communities are performing relatively well or
badly and to take appropriate action.
Sir
Herman Ouseley, former Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality,
said: ‘It surprises me. These agencies made a pact with the
involvement of the CRE. How can you manage something when you don’t
know what’s going on? They’re paying lip-service to ethnic
minorities if they still don’t have the structures in place.’
Community Fund to close
England office
The
Community Fund is to close its Leicester office as part of an internal
reorganisation that is intended to streamline its operation and save
money. Leicester is where the CF’s England office has been based, and
also houses the Awards for All England operation. In all 22 staff will
be relocated, probably to the Community Fund’s Nottingham office,
although London is a possibility, depending on the outcome of
consultations with staff.
Child’s play scheme
on the way
A £200m programme for children’s playgrounds is being drawn up by ministers and officials at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, to be run by the New Opportunities Fund. The initiative is not exactly new: it was announced on 1st June in a pre-election news release from the Labour party. But unlike the higher-profile £150m Fair Share targeted funding scheme, this proposal lay undisturbed in ministerial in-trays after the election. It is now being dusted down and is likely to be announced (again) by ministers over the next month or so.
Fair Share targets
being drawn up
The 50 target beneficiaries of the £150m ‘Fair Share’ programme being developed jointly by NOF and the CF are likely to be announced this month. Staff have analysed which local authority areas, among the most deprived communities of the UK (using the Community Fund’s calculation of deprivation) have also received the least Lottery cash. Any individual grants bigger than £1m have been excluded from the calculations, as these would have distorted the picture. The DCMS has also asked the distributors to check their list against recipients of support from other government initiatives such as Neighbourhood Renewal, New Deal for Communities and so on. Once this is done, the boards will forward names of 39 areas in England and six in Scotland to the DCMS. Three areas in Wales and two in Northern Ireland have yet to be determined.
Boards plan online applications
A single, electronic form for grant applications to all the Lottery distributors could be a reality within 18 months.
The
chief executives of the distribution bodies are scheduled to consider
this month the findings of a jointly commissioned feasibility study of
an internet-based applications system. Peter Woodward, the director of
information systems at the Community Fund, who proposed the research
project, told Lottery Monitor: ‘You could have something up and
running within 18 months if the decision was to go ahead.’
After
months of discussion the Lottery distribution boards have agreed to a
joint branding to increase
public awareness of Lottery funded projects. In future the words
‘Lottery funded’ will appear as part of the public branding of most
Lottery schemes. Not all, however, because the Heritage Lottery Fund has
a special dispensation on account of the ugly sounding combination of
‘Heritage Lottery Fund Lottery-funded’.
Special report: ethnic funding
Many
measures, less measurement
All
Lottery boards are taking action to engage black and minority ethnic
groups. But it’s far from clear how successful their efforts are.
Apala Chowdhury reports
June
2001 was a good month for Britain’s black and ethnic minority groups.
In two separate announcements the Arts Council of England and the
Millennium Commission earmarked £53m for 32 projects reflecting black
and minority ethnic (BME) aspirations and needs. For the ACE it was the
most Lottery money ever given to BME projects: £29m reserved for 22
capital grants. The MC’s fifth and final round of capital awards was
an explicit corrective to its previous underfunding of ethnic projects.
But the result was particularly pleasing for four winners who had failed
to secure MC money in earlier rounds.
A
day in the life of Judith Davies, (probably) the country’s first local
authority NOF officer
Start
the day checking the NOF website. This
is extremely useful with press releases and the latest awards update.
Nothing for me today.
Check
the diary. Later this
morning I’m meeting the Kent County Council PE curriculum adviser
about the new PE and Sports for Schools Initiative.
NOF rightly wants to see community involvement in any projects,
but community use and curriculum needs apparently differ.
Next week I’ll meet with other KCC colleagues about this initiative to consider which schools and youth and community sites will best fit the criteria. Yesterday I attended the quarterly meeting with external funding colleagues from the district councils. My idea to bring district and KCC colleagues together to consider county priorities was well received. This will hopefully give us a clear picture of where the need for PE and sports provision is, in good time for when NOF issues its formal programme guidance.
Don’t rely on visitors to buoy up your leisure attraction business plan, says Paul
Jardine. Sustainability needs creative thinking
The Millennium Commission and other Lottery Distributors have invested considerable sums of money in creating new visitor attractions during the last five years. As a result, the competition for visitors and, importantly, their purchasing power has increased significantly.
In the past decade, a number of attractions that relied substantially on visitors to generate income have found themselves in financial difficulties. Recent examples funded by various Lottery Distributors include Life Force, the National Faith Centre in Bradford, the National Centre for Popular Music in Bradford, and Cardiff’s Centre for Visual Arts. Visitor numbers can either be initially overstated or they can reduce as a result of external or internal factors ranging from dramatic events influencing the volume and pattern of global tourism, changing market tastes, to an outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
Community Fund is out in the
cold
Paul
Bevan, chief executive of the south-east England Regional Assembly,
warns that the CF’s strategy fits poorly with other funding
partnerships
The
South-east England Regional Assembly is the representative voice of the
UK’s largest region, with a population of more than eight million
people. One of our key concerns is to ensure greater coherence in
regional policy, ie, more ‘joined-up thinking’ that ensures regional
bodies are pulling together to achieve common goals. We were therefore
keen to look at the Community Fund’s proposed priorities for the
south-east in its new strategic plan.
Let the roadshows roll
Events,
events. As I write the Conservatives have just cut their annual
conference in half, and Labour is about to do the same, in deference to
the unfolding consequences of the destruction wreaked on New York on
September 11. The right decision, no doubt, but bound to be a
disappointment nevertheless to all those who ritually gather for these
annual tribal meetings. This year, as part of the huge fringe programme
that accompanies the official proceddings, a reception was to have been
held at each conference, hosted jointly by Camelot and the Lottery
distributors, to publicise their work for good causes.
The
receptions may have been called off, but there are signs that the
thawing of the relationship between the Lottery operator and the boards
will generate more initiatives in the coming months. A long-talked-about
programme of regional Lottery roadshows looks likely to be piloted next
autumn; Camelot is looking into providing a telephone route through to
the good causes helpline from its own National Lottery line; and when
Camelot’s website is relaunched in the new year, it could feature
funded projects on a regular basis.
This tentative outbreak of peace and harmony is very welcome. At last, both sides of the Lottery operation are acknowledging their interdependence. At the Lottery Monitor conference in June I vowed to bore everyone into submission with my unceasing calls for a hugely greater public profile to be given to the thousands of projects successfully funded by the Lottery. A casual conversation over lunch last week with my mother (an avid local newspaper reader, which is where most of the current coverage of awards appears) has set me off again. She began to assert, apropos of nothing, that huge amounts of Lottery funds were going to waste – or worse… If my mum believes that (and under vicious cross-examination from me she cheerfully admitted she could summon up no evidence in support of her contention), then the joint roadshow needs to roll just as soon and as noisily as it can.
Heard
the one about the national charity with a £16m turnover that applied
for an A4A grant (maximum £5,000)? I laughed when I heard, but was
relieved to be told that the application had been ruled out.
Inappropriate behaviour on the part of the charity, I say, and not
cost-free to the system that has to process the form. With NOF joining
A4A, there has to be a likelihood that more oddities like this will
occur, as there is nothing to stop a local authority or health authority
from applying for a couple of quid to plant a tree or something. Does
A4A or NOF have guidance on this yet? I’ll find out for next month.
And if anyone knows of any other similarly interesting applications, you
can safely confide in me.
For entirely understandable reasons of shocking human tragedy and its aftermath, the television news was preoccupied on September 17. Which meant I never got to see the opening of the extraordinary blinking Millennium bridge that links Gateshead and Newcastle across the Tyne. I did see drawings and a video model earlier this year (at a very underwhelming exhibition of big Lottery projects curated by the Royal Institute of British Architects), and immediately put it on my list of must-visit places. I can’t wait to cross it for real. Full marks to the Millennium Commission for backing it.