Share

Big Lottery Fund re-examines additionality policy

Gerald Oppenheim
News

Big Lottery Fund re-examines additionality policy

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 1 Oct 2010

The board members of the Big Lottery Fund are re-examining the funder’s policy on additionality and considering whether it is still fit for purpose in the tighter economic environment.

Former Big Lottery Fund policy director Gerald Oppenheim predicts that the principle of additionality – that lottery funding is additional to things that the government should fund – will be severely tested in the coming months as public spending dives and charities look for other income sources to plug the gap.

In an interview with Civil Society just before he left BIG, Oppenheim explained that the basic concept of additionality sounds simple but is actually quite complicated in practice.

“Things that are statutorily funded aren’t always funded because there’s an absolute legal duty to fund them, but often because the local authority has decided it has a discretion and wants to fund something,” he said.

“And after whatever the Chancellor announces on 20 October filters down, the discretionary funding element of local authorities in particular, may dry up. Then of course the issues for BIG will be, will we have a surge in applications as a result and will those applications be asking us to replace funding that’s been stopped in mid-track? And is that the slippery slope – will the statutory funders all just say ‘BIG will take that over’, and cut even more on the back of it?”

Oppenheim presented a paper to the last BIG board meeting asking the members to look at whether the current policy on additionality was robust enough.  He said they would keep an eye on the situation over the next few months to monitor whether the number of applications increase and whether that appears to be because public funding sources have dried up.

“If someone was to come to us now, spending review notwithstanding, and say ‘we’ve lost our statutory grant, can you replace it’, we’d probably say no [because it breaches the additionality prinicple],” said Oppenheim.

“But the challenge for the future is what’s going to be lost, and whether it is so important for beneficiaries that actually we should consider it. That’s the important driver – is the outcome so important that we ought to do it even if it is slightly awkward?”

The additionality debate will continue at the next board meeting in January after more work has been done internally to look at the sorts of issues which may arise.

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Free eNews

Macmillan's voluntary income soars by £34.1m

31 Jul 2014

Macmillan Cancer Support raised £186.9m in 2013 – an increase of £34.1m on the previous year, according...

Half of hospices in England saw NHS funding cut or frozen this year

31 Jul 2014

Half of hospices in England have had their statutory funding from the NHS either cut or frozen this year,...

Cranfield Trust endorses stricter rules for new charities

31 Jul 2014

The Cranfield Trust has added its voice to the view that there are too many charities, recommending to...

Cranfield Trust endorses stricter rules for new charities

31 Jul 2014

The Cranfield Trust has added its voice to the view that there are too many charities, recommending to...

Charity Commission to meet Society Network Foundation trustees this week

30 Jul 2014

The Charity Commission is meeting with the trustees of Society Network Foundation this week in an attempt...

Commission investigates charity over concerns it was used for private benefit

29 Jul 2014

The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into grant-giver the Catalyst Trust over concerns...

Online donations forms are too long and cost charities donations, finds report

28 Jul 2014

One third of leading charity websites require potential donors to complete more than 20 actions before...

Greenpeace video removed from YouTube following copyright claim

14 Jul 2014

A campaign video by Greenpeace against Lego’s relationship with Shell has been subject to a copyright...

Oxfam advert removed after appearing before extremist videos

10 Jul 2014

Oxfam has removed one of its adverts from YouTube after it was shown on channels showing content from...

Join the discussion

Twitter button

@CSFundraising