Curley challenges lottery minister to publish admin costs research

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 7 Jan 2011

Navca chief Kevin Curley has challenged the lottery minister to make public some research his department did recently into the costs incurred by other countries in administering their national lotteries.

John Penrose MP recently wrote to all the lottery distributing bodies, demanding that they reduce their administration costs to 5 per cent of their turnover. Curley opposes this edict, warning that local charities and community groups will be disadvantaged as a result.

“A lot of what is called administrative costs is actually support provided to applicants,” Curley said. “Helping them bid for funding and helping them increase the impact of any grant they receive.

“Also, as smaller grants are proportionately more expensive to administer, we could see there being fewer but larger grants which will disadvantage local communities.”

Curley (pictured) added that when he met with Penrose recently, the minister said he had commissioned some work on benchmarking national lottery admin costs in other countries. “I’d like him to publish his findings,” he challenged.

BIG applications set to rise

The Big Lottery Fund is likely to experience a surge in demand for its grants in light of the forthcoming public spending cuts. Julie Nicholson, chief executive of the Croydon Resource Centre, told Civil Society that 41 out of 47 charities she knows who have sustained cuts to their statutory funding, plan to apply to BIG for replacement grants. “Competition will be fierce,” she says.

Directory: Big Lottery Fund | National Association of Voluntary and Community Action
Who's Who: Kevin Curley

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

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.