17. Memorandum submitted by
the Coalfields Regeneration Trust
REFORM OF THE NATIONAL LOTTERY
The Trust welcomes the opportunity to submit
evidence to the Select Committee, and wishes to make the following
points:
1. INEQUALITY
OF DISTRIBUTION
OF GRANTS
The Trust recognises the difficulties for any
funding body to ensure fair distribution of grants, and that the
Lottery Boards have made some progress towards addressing the
imbalance of funding between areas of deprivation and relative
affluence. However, progress is slow, and there continues to be
a significant variation. As far as coalfields areas are concerned,
they have received only 76% of the national average. We would
assert that unless this imbalance is urgently addressed, some
of the poorest areas in the country will be denied the funding
necessary for their successful social and economic regeneration.
There is now strong evidence to indicate that
on-the-ground support in communities where capacity building is
required, has empowered project leaders to apply to grant makers
including the National Lottery. This is not simply achieved by
the establishment of regional offices. The kind of support offered
by the community-based Regeneration Managers of The Coalfields
Regeneration Trust, encouraging groups to apply; assisting them,
where appropriate, in the application process; and, where necessary,
continuing to provide on-going support in developing their projects,
is a model which could assist the National Lottery address this
imbalance.
2. NEED TO
WORK STRATEGICALLY
WITH OTHER
MAJOR FUNDERS
The Trust has frequently experienced situations
during its four years existence as a grant maker, when it would
have been appropriate to have discussions at a senior level with
the lotteries boards, sharing policy on key strategic areas and
on major projects. In this way, funding packages could be drawn
up to ensure that most effective use is made of funds and project
leaders benefit from a "joined up" approach.
This approach is wholly consistent with Recommendations
for Action in the "Improving Lottery Funding Access and Delivery
in the British Coalfields" report commissioned by the DCMS
and published in March 2002. The Trust would wish to explore with
the LDBs the following recommendations:
31. All of the agencies operating in the
coalfields should engage in a continuous dialogue around funding
priorities and regeneration needs, leading to increased levels
of joint working.
32. LDBs should investigate ways of making
greater use of delegated grant-giving responsibility in the coalfields.
33. A wide range of regional level agencies,
including the LDBs, should seek to establish common ground and
develop more joint policy-making with each other, so that they
can work more effectively.
3. ADDRESSING
THE BALANCE
OF SUPPORT
TO NEW
AND EXISTING
PROJECTS
There is an increasing need to provide continuation
funding for those projects which are making a significant difference
to peoples' lives, but which, for a variety of reasons, require
longer-term support. In such situations, decisions to provide
on-going funding could be taken whilst recognising and avoiding
the risk of developing a "grant-dependent" culture.
There has been a tendency for projects to seek
core funding by creatively describing "new" activities
in order to secure funding. This contrived behaviour-pattern needs
to be addressed.
4. JOINT MONITORING
AND EVALUATION
The possibility of one funding body carrying
out monitoring and evaluation on behalf of several funders of
major projects should be explored. Clearly, the process would
need to meet the specific needs of the funders, but this could
be carried out as a single exercise.
Such an approach would be more cost effective for
the funding bodies, and avoid duplication in the projects. This
latter point would save the project leaders from jumping through
the same hoops more than once, and be a considerable saving in
time and expense.
Furthermore, the possibility of sharing resources
in the development work (referred to in item 1.above) could be
explored, since this could be a cost benefit for the funding bodies,
and provide a clearer focus for project management.
5. ADDRESSING
GAPS BETWEEN
INDIVIDUAL BOARDS
POLICIES
All funders should avoid situations whereby
project leaders are "bounced" from one to another. To
illustrate this point, The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has received
a number of applications from brass bands for uniforms and/or
equipment. The Heritage Fund refuse to fund them on the grounds
that "it is not heritage" but rather within the Arts
Council remit, and the Arts Council claim that the do not have
the funds to support such ventures. The Coalfields Regeneration
Trust has been trying to plug this gap and support such initiatives,
recognising that they are part of personal and social development,
heritage and artistic contribution to society. Anecdotally, the
Trust has been advised that, in the event of a band having to
close down, it would become eligible for Heritage Fund support
to write up the history of the band.
12 January 2004
| 
