Elements of the proposed new policy directions of the Big Lottery Fund threaten the funder's independence from government, the Directory for Social Change has warned.

In its response to the proposed new policy directions for the Big Lottery Fund, the Directory of Social Change has expressed concern that tasking the Big Lottery Fund with responsibility for growing the social investment market and not being clearer on the principle of additionality could undermine the funders independence.

The DSC echoed concerns raised by NCVO over the suggested priority on BIG to “increase the capacity of the social investment market”, an expansion of the funder's traditional good causes remit which was first mooted in the summer. The new policy directions follow the decision of government to move responsibility for the lottery funder from the DCMS to the Office for Civil Society.

Jay Kennedy, head of policy and the author of the DSC’s official response to the consultation on the new policy direction, wrote that this priority “sounds like the government’s mission for Big Society Capital and is not an appropriate role for the major grantmaking Lottery distributor”.

“Building the capacity of a particular funding marketplace should not be a priority or role for BIG, even if as an intelligent funder it is engaged in constructive policy conversations with other funders about different developments and practices,” wrote Kennedy. “[The Office for Civil Society] should remove this priority from the policy directions.”

Additionality “watered down”

The DSC also highlighted concerns about the Big Lottery Fund’s long-held principle of ‘additionality’, that is of funding projects which do not cover the core work of government. “The definition of ‘additionality’ appears to have been watered down,” Kennedy writes. He added that the Lottery funding should not “displace, substitute or replace” government funding and that this needs to be made clearer in the policy document.

He went on to say that while BIG should be subject to a level of “political oversight”, with public spending cuts biting at essential public services, the temptation for government intervention “is inevitably greater”.