Richard Caulfield, chief executive of Voluntary Sector North West, has voiced concerns that the Big Lottery Fund is becoming increasingly aligned with government policy, such as its recent programmes to help support the UK social investment market.
Caulfield aired his concerns last week at the first All Party Parliamentary Group on Civil Society and Volunteering meeting held outside of London. The event in Manchester, which had an audience of around 50 organisations, considered the issues around supporting small charities. NCVO is the APPG's secretariat.
Caulfield said he had worries that the Big Lottery Fund (BIG) was increasingly linked to government policy and that its programmes were delivered in a way which were not overly useful to the small charity sector. He called for BIG to be independent, free from political interference and not aligned to Number 10 agendas.
Speaking to civilsociety.co.uk after the event, Caulfield elaborated on his concerns.
“I know that BIG is experimenting with social investment. But given the money given to Big Society Capital, there should be no need for BIG to prove there is a social investment market - why create Big Society Capital in the first place then? If market building is needed, Big Society Capital money should be used.
“There is enough money and enough players in the social investment market. Why is BIG needed to chip in?”
Most recently, the Big Lottery Fund has given financial support to a new social investment research body. It has also launched a £40m fund to help public bodies pay returns on outcomes met through social impact bonds this year, and it has created a £300,000 fund to support organisations who want to be listed on the Social Stock Exchange to produce social impact reports.
Tail wagging the dog
Caulfied also said that he was concerned that some recent funding programmes from BIG included conditions that a local authority had to register interest before organisations in the area could apply. “It’s a bit like the tail wagging the dog.”
He continued that some BIG programmes gave groups money to buy support. “Sometimes this is going to the private sector, when traditionally it has been the voluntary sector funded.
“It does seem to be a spiral. For example, BIG’s relationship with Big Society Network and Your Square Mile. They seem to always get money from BIG and you wonder as government supports these initiatives.”
Society Network Foundation, the charity arm of Big Society Network, was awarded £1m by the Big Lottery Fund to launch the Britain’s Personal Best campaign this year, even though the Network was more than three months late filing its accounts with Companies House at the time.
Your Square Mile won £830,000 from the Big Lottery Fund in 2010.
Former shadow charities minister Gareth Thomas raised similar concerns about BIG's independence from government recently.
Independent like the Bank of England
Caulfield said that BIG should be made totally independent from government. “There are a range of organisations which are independent from government like the Bank of England and the new Care Quality Commission, while BIG is not totally independent from government. If it was it would stop raids like for the Olympics.”
Caulfield said a lot of colleagues shared his views, and had similar concerns about BIG, but at the same time they were reluctant to speak out because of BIG’s dominance in the funding market.
Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of Acevo, voiced similar concerns to Caulfield in June, suggesting that the Big Lottery Fund is used to fund some politicians’ “hobby horses”. He called for it to be reconstituted as a charitable foundation.
BIG needs adequate funding
Despite his concerns, Caulfield said he liked BIG and had worked closely with it in the past, and he had worries that government has said it wants it to get its costs down.
“This is bad news,” he said. “An organisation needs adequate funding to run like an intelligent funder, not stripped bare.
“I do think government is asking too much of BIG and it is leading to some of the models they are using currently. Intermediaries engaging with Lottery programmes often find it too onerous and BIG’s hands are tied in approach it seems.”
Ending optimistically, Caulfield said: “BIG sets the tone for funders. This is why it is vital. It’s interesting as its new chief executive Dawn Austwick may help change its current direction. So it’s not all doom and gloom. But I do think complete independence would be a way to lose some of the cynicism surrounding it.”
BIG response
Responding to Caulfield's concerns, a Big Lottery Fund spokeswoman said: “The Big Lottery Fund continues to develop and deliver funding programmes independent of government. We are committed to running open grant programmes that deliver a variety of grants both big and small, helping thousands of projects realise their potential. We believe in offering a range of funding programmes to organisations across the UK and open grantmaking remains at the core of what we do.
“For example in the last five years the amount of money we have awarded through our Reaching Communities programme has doubled. We continue to see this as a key element of our funding.”
She added: “From 2012-2013, the majority of our awards (88 per cent) were small awards of less than £10,000 supporting communities across the UK.”
