How to hold public confidence

back to the contents page

Penny Cousins, chief executive of a large Scottish charitable concern, argues that the government review has missed two priority areas for attention

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

The benefits of eight years of National Lottery funding are increasingly evident as projects and programmes come to fruition. However, as the bank of experience builds among lottery distributors, award partners, grant applicants and recipients, some important issues are emerging about the effectiveness and equality of distribution. So the present Lottery Review is timely and provides a useful framework for consultation.

The review has two main themes:

• How do we maintain and if possible increase ticket sales?
• How do we encourage grant applicants to develop and deliver good projects so that funds are used to maximum effect?

These themes should be seen as inextricably linked. Clearly there are issues of marketing and game structure that will influence the propensity of people to buy tickets. But an equally important factor is the ability of the lottery to demonstrate that it is an effective mechanism for stimulating and supporting the delivery of high-quality projects in a way that reflects public priorities and is responsive to community aspirations and constraints. Setting aside the question of whether this should be based on a commercial or not-for-profit management system, there are two aspects of the distribution process that do not receive the attention I believe they deserve in the review paper in view of their potential to help build public confidence in, and support for lottery programmes: project evaluation and capacity-building. 

Evaluation: 
Evaluation of projects and programmes seems to be a low priority for lottery distributors. There is pressure on award partners to minimise management costs, and rightly so. However, tight thresholds make it difficult to undertake comprehensive evaluation across all projects. Where evaluation is funded by the distributors it is generally undertaken at a national level, producing grossed-up output measures and case studies that are of little relevance locally. The lack of local data represents a significant constraint on award partners in terms of:

• assessing the effectiveness of schemes and providing information that can help to develop and refine programmes;
• building models of good practice and providing case studies as a learning tool;
• providing the information necessary to attract the interest of local media and hence publicise achievements.

We would urge the lottery distributors to allow a percentage of scheme costs to be allocated explicitly for award partners to evaluate projects. This should be recognised as an essential element of good scheme management and we would encourage the development and promotion of a standardised approach that delivers good value when set against the level of award involved, and enables comparisons across schemes, while also allowing sufficient flexibility to reflect the varying objectives of projects. Forward Scotland is working to develop an evaluation methodology and we would welcome dialogue with other organisations with a view to working up a common and cost-effective approach.

Capacity Building: 
The second critical issue relates to the building of capacity within community-led organisations. Equality of access to funding for good causes is a basic principle of our National Lottery. This means more than achieving a fair geographic and per capita spread of funding. It also means opening funding access to a wide range of organisations. Increasingly the distributors are seeking to channel funds to groups at the most local level. Large sums of money are available and the distribution is, and must be, governed by public accountability requirements. As a consequence the application and appraisal process can appear daunting and lead to frustration and disillusionment unless guidance and support are available. Similarly the process of grant drawdown is and must be subject to high standards of monitoring and verification.

As award partners we can demonstrate that the outcomes from successful projects are potentially enormous, with some community groups building upon an initial, small project over a period of years to design, deliver and manage very large projects that can significantly improve the quality of life for local residents. We know this, and we can help to build the capacity among community groups to fulfil their potential, but we do need the lottery distributors to recognise the importance of capacity building and allow funds to be allocated to development and project management support.

The benefits that will flow from getting this right will not only impact on the community groups concerned, but will also help the award partners and lottery distributors achieve their own objectives, by:

• advancing the development of project proposals and thereby the speed at which lottery funding can be committed;
• providing support for project implementation, thereby allowing award partners to pay out funds promptly and to schedule; and
• improving the long-term sustainability of projects.

Our experience has demonstrated the extraordinary range of benefits that are generated for local communities and indeed individuals from lottery-funded projects, often far beyond original expectations. We believe that this story is not yet being properly told. The outcome will certainly be increased gains for local communities and a building of awareness and confidence in the projects that the lottery makes possible. 

Forward Scotland is a not-for-profit charitable company whose remit is the promotion of sustainable development in Scotland. Forward Scotland receives development funding from the Scottish Executive Sustainable Action Fund and secures funding for projects and pro-grammes from a range of other sources. Email: neil.macgillivray@forward-scot-land.org.uk