News

The merger of two separate National Lottery funds for good causes is being viewed as a threat by some parts of the voluntary sector. Once again the government has wheeled out the word "modernisation" to explain its plans to bring together the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund. It will provide a more "responsive and streamlined source of funding and support" for disadvantaged communities, says secretary of state for culture, media and sport Tessa Jowell. But differences in the running of the two funds have provoked fears that the government will exercise more control over who gets the money. New Opportunities Fund money has been used largely for mainstream projects concerned with health, education and the environment. The Community Fund has more freedom to finance a variety of work with social excluded groups. Many in the voluntary sector feel the government may intervene to stop money going to unpopular causes. Some are also worried that the "principle of additionality", which ensures that the money is additional to existing public spending, will be sacrificed.

Martin Green, chief executive, Counsel and Care for the Elderly
I have no problem with a merger between the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund, as long as there are clear assurances that it will produce more money for distribution, that the voluntary sector element will be clearly ring-fenced, independently allocated and based on the principle of additionality. It will also be interesting to monitor whether the way the decision is finally made is within the spirit of the voluntary sector compact, or imposed unilaterally by the government on the sector."

Felicity Collier, chief executive, Baaf Adoption and Fostering
"The key issue here is that there would be a real risk that some people would no long perceive the Community Fund as independent of government. If an application for funding is not one that clearly delivers on the government's priorities and is not successful, there will be suspicions, however unfounded, that other influences have been brought to bear. This would do neither the government nor the charitable sector any favours - this merger should go back to the drawing board."

Karen Squillino, senior practitioner, Barnardo's
"It is my view that the voluntary sector is there to add value to statutory services and provide services for groups who do not always have access to government-funded services. If this proposal goes ahead then the voluntary sector will become contracted agents to the government that will mean that certain groups needing services will be bypassed. The voluntary sector needs to remain autonomous in order to reach groups that are not high on the government agenda."

Bill Badham, development officer, National Youth Agency
"The New Opportunities Fund targeting money at government priorities and the Community Fund supporting local action both have value and illustrate the two sides of the compact with the voluntary sector. A merger of the two under the jaded banner of economy, effectiveness, and efficiency causes concern. Both funds will lose out. Government must also be more honest about its dependence on the voluntary sector and should fund the foundations as well as the frills for the services it requires, without making it a lottery."

Bob Hudson, principal research fellow, Nuffield Institute for Health, University of Leeds
"It is a sad reflection on the declining level of trust in the government that any proposals to 'modernise' or 'streamline' are met with widespread cynicism. The prime minister has espoused the idea of a 'new localism', yet here is a proposal that will centralise funding for voluntary organisations. Much firmer assurances are needed from Tessa Jowell, otherwise the suspicion will remain that policy is unduly influenced by what is said in the Daily Mail rather than what is said by the voluntary movement itself."