Lots of people tell me that when times are tough, the Big Lottery Fund should focus on the tried and tested. They say that with other funds drying up, the lottery needs to protect the best of what is out there.
The trouble is that the future doesn't look like the past. Just because an operating model worked in one public spending context is no guarantee it will thrive in another.
Not enough of the bids to our demand-led programmes currently recognise this. Too many of the applications we are currently getting - many no doubt facing desperate funding situations and understandably looking for cash fast - are simply requesting larger sums of money on shorter timescales to go on delivering in just the same way they have delivered in the past.
I'm not saying we want to see change for change's sake. But I am talking about the need to move with the times. I'm talking about building on success; capturing within a bid an understanding and appreciation of the future operating context and adjusting one's plans to the new realities. Especially where need is urgent and acute, we want to help organisations that are doing great work to go on addressing that need.
However, simply helping an organisation through a few years until it faces its next funding crisis is not necessarily the best use of our money or doing the best we can for the people that the organisation is seeking to help.
I think it is becoming increasingly important for applicants to consider how to use lottery money to become more resilient as well as deliver essential services. And, it is increasingly important for BIG to recognise and value that.
The current funding situation is not a temporary blip before things return to the way that they used to be. Projects that explicitly address this stand out vividly from the rest.
Another worry I have is around the number of bids to our open programmes that seem determined to show that they and they alone are best placed to help those most in need. This is rarely the case. In fact, splendid isolation is far less impressive than seeing evidence of an organisation that knows what else is available locally, wants to avoid duplication, and is looking to pool resources where it makes sense with other local organisations.
I'm not saying we should force mergers but we like to see people who are thinking about where working with others would benefit those they are seeking to help.
Peter Wanless is chief executive of the Big Lottery Fund
Source: Third Sector online
Food for thought - what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment