Peter Wanless

For the Big Lottery Fund, it’s hard-wired into our legislation that we should fund and move on. We are heavily oversubscribed. If all we did was pick particular projects and support them ourselves for ever and a day, we would deny others with great ideas access to limited good cause cash. Read More »

In Kevin Curley’s recent Third Sector commentary about what the Big Lottery Fund might be up to he referred to my work shadowing leaders of small charities, something he kindly kicked off for me back in 2008.

When I arrived at BIG there was some suspicion as to whether an ex-Civil Servant who had spent the last 10 years in and around a Whitehall education department would “get” the realities of what life was like running charities at the front line of helping many of the most vulnerable in society.  In addition, there’s a constant danger that leaders of big organisations become detached from those they need to work successfully with and through.  Kevin was onto this immediately and I was keen to respond positively.  Having been reminded of those early visits, there are at least three insights that have influenced my work at BIG ever since.

First, though he didn’t know it, Kevin sent me to a charity that only days before had been rejected at the final hurdle for £500k of Big Lottery fund cash it desperately wanted.  The BIG machine would never have chosen to send me there!  In terms of feedback, the charity had received general encouragement but had basically been told there was not enough money to go round.  This was essentially true.  Nevertheless, there’s always some reason why decision makers favour one application over another. I left determined to ensure that we never again rejected an applicant who had completed a substantial application form without giving more useful guidance on why they missed out.

The next insight occurred when a second charity took me round the back of a local Lidl to an unprepossessing church hall in which an explosion of enthusiastic community-based activity was taking place.  Literally scores of people stopped what they were doing briefly to hear from me about what small grants were available from the Big Lottery Fund to help them on their way.  Most of them had never heard of us.  Many were perfectly happy to get on with what they were doing without the perceived palaver of getting cash from us.  But a determination to connect with “below the radar” groups who may not want to remain there stuck with me.  Having arrived at BIG and made a succession of speeches saying we could no longer be all things to all people, I rapidly concluded that, at least so far as our small grants were concerned, we should be. These should absolutely offer easy to access, fast turn around awards essentially driven by what mattered most to local people determined to improve the quality of life in their area, whatever that might be.  I still enjoy nothing more than getting out into communities that really ought to be accessing more Lottery cash to help them understand what is available.

My third insight occurred when one of my work shadowing opportunities was abruptly cut short.  The chief executive concerned faced an urgent choice – gabbing away to me or getting to Ryman’s before closing time.  He was the only one of three workers with a car.  They had no toner.  No toner meant no printer.  No printer meant no hard copy of a funding application which had to be returned in hard copy by last post that day.  However grand the visitor might be, the realities of operational life and the essential need to secure further funding kicked in and the CEO made the right judgement.  I was left to wander alone back to the railway station, suitably humbled by the dedication to duty this leader and so many others demonstrate day after day.

There’s no doubt that The Big Lottery Fund’s identity has evolved over the years. Today we strive to be more than just a cash machine; rather an intelligent funder that is respected for our work, both within the sector we operate in and outside. We are keen to learn from our natural peers – independent trusts and foundations, emulating them where they are at their best while, in turn, hoping ourselves to influence wider funding practice through what we do.

But while we like to present ourselves as a member of that happy family of funders, the truth is that under the microscope our DNA is very different. Read More »

With further reports in the media over the weekend about the impact of public funding cuts on UK charities, there is no doubt that many parts of the VCS are struggling. As a major funder of charities and community groups, we at BIG see and hear evidence of this every day.

But since my first blog for Third Sector last July where I wrote about how charities should realise that the funding future doesn’t look like the past, and the need for them to adapt to the changing economic environment, I’ve been heartened to see how some have been rising to this challenge. Read More »

BIG convened a meeting recently with representatives from two rival inner-city gangs, which gave me real pause for thought.

The turf war between these gangs has been extremely damaging, costing lives and generating fear and uncertainty that has rippled across their communities for more than a decade.

Now, with a fragile truce being negotiated between the two groups, they are looking at what they might do to establish the foundations of a more peaceful future.

In response, BIG used its contacts and connections to convene a range of organisations – funders, thinkers and practitioners – with deep personal experience of working with young people and resolving inner-city challenges to meet with them and offer advice on how they might want to move things forwards.

Listening to the former gang members speak, I was struck by how raw and inexperienced they were about our world of funding, think tanks and policy reviews. Unmediated, the young people talked openly about their – often brutal – experience of gang culture. How could they secure a solution to the years of conflict? Some of us were equally raw and inexperienced as to the realities of the challenges facing them.

Lasting change will never happen without their active commitment. Any number of strategies could be written about them or policies imposed upon them but nothing will be more powerful than the young people themselves, at the very centre of these problems, sensing the benefits of a better future, wanting to secure it for their families and being given the opportunity to consider for themselves what they ought to do next.

While the primary purpose of our meeting was for the young people to take away inspiration to develop options and contacts for the future, it was clear that they were by no means the only ones learning a lot from the experience. Even the most experienced organisations in the room not only picked up a great deal from just hearing the young people’s perspectives first hand, they also benefited from what they’d heard from other experts in the room. There was a real sense of a common cause and understanding.

I’m under no illusions that our good cause cash is what attracts most people to BIG.  However, it’s been fascinating recently how often people have commented positively and publicly about our ability to bring people round a table to generate collective excitement and momentum behind an issue. Our contact book of amazing people from the length and breadth of the UK at street level as well as the corridors of local and national power is an asset we should be generously willing to offer the sector to help address 2012’s most stubborn of social policy issues.

Last year, when a national newspaper observed critically that I’d managed “over 3,500 tweets” and run up around £9,000 in travel expenses, it was my Twitter followers who immediately sprang to my
defence. “Thank goodness a CEO of a fund takes the trouble to engage with us directly and will bother to come and see what we are up to for himself,” was their response, made even before I’d had the chance to consider my own.

I seem to be developing a reputation as a prolific tweeter (how a Third Sector journalist described me recently). I average around five tweets a day, which isn’t much when there are thousands of people one might potentially converse with. It probably is five more than most other CEOs though, which is why people tend to notice. So why bother?

I originally began tweeting to highlight the amazing people and projects the Big Lottery Fund has the privilege to support.  They say that good news doesn’t sell but I found that the audience for my positive comments rapidly grew. Perhaps they provided an antidote to the torrent of tweets about cuts, online abuse and hashtag games.

Once I got started, I discovered that you gain much more from Twitter by listening than you do merely by broadcasting.  Through collecting people to follow with challenging ideas and opinions, there is no shortage of fascinating stuff to stimulate the mind.

When Wanless Jr hacked into my account one evening, and sent a few unexpected tweets about Robin Bogg, I discovered that people seemed to enjoy knowing there was a real person behind the job title. These days, the antics of my son and his thoughts as to my inadequacies as a father seem to generate just as much of a reaction as anything else I choose to share.

From time to time I will chip into people tweeting about BIG. It is possible to offer sympathy or a source of advice if someone is struggling with an application and chooses to share that with the world.
More broadly, I can pick up frustrations quickly and set the record right rapidly. I try to be absolutely
straight in what I say so that, should any debate arise about BIG’s work – in the media or elsewhere – people know they can get the true facts straight from the horse’s mouth.

There are downsides to Twitter. It’s addictive. I discipline myself only to do it when travelling, in the evenings or when I have something urgent to share. I must always remember I am a public servant who isn’t allowed to insert personal opinions into controversial or seemingly political debates that rage on Twitter. I know this frustrates some of my followers – and me – from time to time.

And while I’ve met more lovely people on Twitter than anywhere else in the last couple of years, there are a small number of horribly abusive people out there as well. I’m always up for a reasoned argument but the hostile tone of voice which some adopt when they launch into debate, says more about them than anyone else. Make your point clearly and with good manners and Twitter gives you a hotline to almost anybody.

You can follow Peter Wanless at www.twitter.com/peterwanless

Peter Wanless is chief executive of the Big Lottery Fund

My staff are a pretty positive bunch, really. But, if there’s one thing that makes their blood boil, it’s the lack of national media coverage for remarkable work that organisations do with the cash we give them.  

The National Lottery Awards are one moment in the year when the nation has a chance to vote on and then celebrate what they consider to be the very best Lottery-funded projects.  

Here’s this year’s shortlist. They have already made it through one round of public voting. You can use this link to influence who this year’s winners will be.
 
Not everyone is a fan of glitzy award shows of this kind, where celebrities pitch up to hand trophies over. Some complain that celebrity culture diminishes and diverts from what real people are achieving day in day out. There is unease that some celebs profit from good causes, exploiting the connection for their own benefit.  

This is a debate that circles round many charities and is by no means unique to the Lottery Awards. Third Sector reports on new celebrity link-ups and endorsements every week and I’m sure many of these are motivated by the very best of reasons.
 
Others feel uncomfortable with X-Factor style public voting. They question the objectivity of television-inspired popularity contests. The suspicion is that those helping children and animals, traditionally popular with the public, will always win through. The most powerful work may not necessarily be in the most popular of causes.

On the other hand, Lottery players are contributing £28m a week to good causes – they might reasonably expect a certain degree of confidence that at least some of their cash is going to places they are personally proud to associate themselves with. And the competition is structured to try to ensure a wide range of winners. At a time when many projects are struggling to secure finance, publicity makes community groups aware of the doors that Lottery funding can open.  
 
I’ve also heard people complain that causes with the best networks will be able to mobilise the most support. But isn’t that partly the point? Excellent causes should take what opportunities they can to promote the importance and effectiveness of what they do in order to engage with wider audiences.

We’ve got plenty of evidence that entering for a National Lottery award can be hugely positive for the charity, whether or not they win. The process of mobilising support, increasing awareness and understanding can bring in new cash and new volunteers.  

One of this year’s finalists is a drama project from Northern Ireland – We Were Brothers: WW1 A Shared Heritage. It remembers soldiers from both the Unionist and the Nationalist traditions who served side by side with the Ulster Battalions in WW1. Media coverage of this application has already encouraged a professional tour manager to volunteer his services. His expertise will now make it possible for the play to tour beyond Northern Ireland, whether or not they eventually win. It is this kind of support that helps small projects grow and become successful.  
 
Whether you are a fan of TV awards or not, check out the shortlist and consider voting. It would make a big difference to all the people who work with or will benefit from the project that catches your eye.

The Big Lottery Fund is gearing up for our BBC One debut Village SOS, a prime-time series that follows the journey of six BIG-funded rural community enterprises.

Through
Village SOS we gave people in rural areas, with great ideas for
community-reviving businesses, the financial backing they needed to make
their dreams a reality. The winners of a very competitive process
didn’t just get cash but a TV crew to film the ups and downs of what
happened next.

Broadcast partnerships certainly have their risks.
We were determined not to compromise our decision-making and grant
management processes. The programme makers were equally determined to
produce something worth watching. So, the stakes were high.  

Millions
of people will watch Village SOS, who will previously have had little,
if any, understanding of what lottery funding or social enterprise might
do for their community. Viewers would see vividly the pain of putting
together a project and the challenges of achieving impact with cash.  

With
luck they might see first-hand the delight that comes from safeguarding
the future of a much needed amenity; the consequences of breathing new
life into dormant communities through visionary business ideas and the
satisfaction of new friendships forged through shared endeavour between
residents that have never previously spoken to one another.  

But,
they might also see local tensions erupt, new challenges presented by a
funder and its processes or people on tenterhooks staring at plots of
desolate land while planning applications wind their way through
protracted decision-making processes.

Just to make things extra
exciting, we agreed with the BBC that it would be interesting to match
up each project with a full-time business mentor – a ‘village champion’ -
who would use their insight to harness the villagers’ aspirations,
focus their outcomes and support the long-term sustainability of
projects.

We were delighted at the people who came forward to
take on such roles and were fascinated by the matchmaking between
villages and entrepreneurs ahead of action getting underway.

We
don’t know for sure exactly what to expect, though having visited a
couple of the villages I know you will be deeply impressed by the vision
and commitment of some of the leading players.  

I hope you’ll be
inspired not only by the efforts of the six villages but by what local
effort, hard work, business acumen and a bit of Big Lottery Fund cash
can bring.

And to harness this inspiration, alongside the series we will be launching Village SOS Active (register for updates at www.villagesos.org.uk)
a campaign to give people the support, advice and tools they need to
start up their own community businesses, whether they are based in
villages, towns or cities.

Community empowerment is high on the
agenda, and through Village SOS Active we have a chance to kick-start
many more great ideas that will bring people together to improve their
local community.

Village SOS begins on Wednesday 10 August at 8pm on BBC ONE.

Peter Wanless is chief executive of the Big Lottery Fund

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