Navca has warned the Big Lottery Fund that it suffers from the perception of government interference, as it calls for a clear separation between the policy decision-making processes of both.
In its submission to BIG as part of the funder’s first triennial review, Navca raises concerns about the relationship between government and BIG, joining a growing list of sector commentators who have recently raised similar concerns, including Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of Acevo, and former shadow minister for civil society, Gareth Thomas, who said BIG's senior team was too close to ministers.
In response to a question on the essential characteristics for BIG to operate effectively, Navca highlighted “longstanding concerns about political interference in decision-making”.
“These concerns have been expressed under the previous government,” it said, “as well as under the current government…..this has the potential to damage both the Fund and the government of the time.
“Therefore there needs to be a way of ensuring that BIG is held to account for the way that money is distributed, whilst there being clear separation of the government’s and BIG’s policy-making decisions.”
Under the current government, there have been concerns that BIG’s support of the social investment market is politically-motivated.
Change to BIG model
The triennial review also asks whether BIG should remain a non-departmental government body, be run by a government department, or take up another model.
Navca said it opposes any move to integrate BIG further into government. It said: “We would welcome any moves to address perceptions of political interference, but do not believe that this necessarily needs to involve a change in status. There is currently insufficient information on any other potential models.”
Last year, Sir Stephen suggested that BIG should be reconstituted as a charitable foundation.
The triennial review also asks, whether BIG does, and should, contribute to government policy.
Navca responded that BIG does contribute to government policy, but that it should not be taking this direction. “Where similarity of purpose can be established it makes sense for government and Lottery funding to be aligned,” it said. “However it is vital that Lottery funds should not be regarded as government money to spend and should be spent according to need, rather than government priorities.”
Navca suggests that there should be greater clarity when BIG is distributing Lottery funding and when it is administering government money via its Big Fund subsidiary, saying: “The latter will in its very nature be closely aligned to government policy.”
As well as raising concerns about BIG’s independence, it also highlights its dominance in the funder market, and its growing influence, describing it informally as a “standards-setter and a direction-shaper”.
“Given the significant reductions in local authority grant funding, BIG is becoming an increasingly dominant player, so will need to have regard to its ability to influence, shape and affect the sector and the funding marketplace.”
But while Navca does raise further concerns, such as the risk of fewer small grants in the future from BIG, overall, it describes it as an “engaged and flexible funder that by and large focuses on outcomes rather than process”.
