AUSTERITY has brought with it pincer-like pressures for charities. The simple sum for those working in deprived communities is that the numbers needing help has risen, while resources on offer from councils and other funders have been squeezed.
For the Big Lottery Fund (Big) – that has led to a renewed focus on getting the best out of the cash it disperses. One outcome is the £7.5m Early Action fund just launched by Big, which will be available solely to community-based projects that aim to intervene before problems escalate.
While this is widely recognised as a good idea – Big says government, charities and community groups all agree – it is problematic for various reasons.
It is founded on the idea that it costs less. If you can prevent someone going to jail, you potentially save the state tens of thousands of pounds, the same if you can prevent a child going into care. If you can avert the lifetime costs of a drug addiction, any initial costs are surely a bargain.
But, initially, it is often more expensive. Funding for programmes for those already facing problems needs to continue while the early intervention has time to work. It is also hard to prove a negative, in this case that something didn’t happen – the lone parent who does not have to go to a food bank, the domestic violence incident averted, a person redirected from a life of crime.
So how do you know a project is being effective? As a prudent funder, how do you know when it is no longer needed? More pressingly, as councils and others look hard at budgets, a scheme tackling problems today is harder to cut than one aiming to end them tomorrow. Big’s fund is an attempt to address that conundrum.
The £7.5m is expected to be shared between no more than 8-10 applicants, so collaborations in specific areas are being encouraged to a refocus on prevention rather than cures.
Keeping women out of the criminal justice system – in line with the Scottish Government’s similar goal, and promoting healthy weight and healthy lives are two areas highlighted so far.
Evidence and common sense both suggest early action makes sense. This fund is a bold bid to prove it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here