Proposals for a merger of two Lottery fund distributors ? the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) ? which were first made in the review of Lottery distribution published by the Department for Culture Media and Sport in July last year, have been put on hold as the board of the Community Fund has deferred its decision on a possible merger.
The NOF board has endorsed the proposals, and expressed the view that a new body could provide a more streamlined and accessible service to a wide range of customers and stakeholders. But the Community Fund board has refused to give its support until a number of specific issues have been addressed. Central to these issues are the remits of the different organisations. Although both bodies distribute Lottery funds, the Community Fund has operated independently of government, choosing its own mission - to help those at greatest disadvantage in the community - and developing its own programmes for doing so. NOF, on the other hand, only funds programmes determined for it by the Government.
The board of the Community Fund has laid out an eight-point set of demands which must be met before it will participate positively in any further merger discussions, namely:
? a guaranteed funding stream for a new distributing body, that is free from government direction and at least equal in size to the current grant budget of the Community Fund
? all new funding to any merged body to be additional to government programmes
? grant decision-making to be independent of government
? any new distributor to operate through a devolved structure in the countries and English regions
? a commitment to equality underpinning all policies and practices
? open appointment to all non-executive roles and transparent decision-making
? all new programmes in the new body to be accessible to the voluntary and community sector
? new primary legislation to enshrine these principles
The Directory of Social Change (DSC), which has vigorously opposed the merger, has warmly welcomed the stance of the Community Fund. It points out that the independence of the Community Fund has already led to protests against some of its work by David Blunkett who, it claims, echoed a violent campaign in the right-wing press. The DSC has been campaigning for the completely independent allocation of charities? existing percentage of Lottery funds, which have already been reduced by government to 17%, to be enshrined in any new arrangements.