Sir, I run a charity supporting families in need of help with under-fives in their own homes in a rural community.

Last year we applied for a National Lottery grant (report, October 18) and were subsequently assessed and recommended for the award. However, the pot available was too small, and because we did not fit into the ethnic minority or asylum-seekers targets, we were not a priority and were therefore turned down.

One year later we are struggling to survive, with just a few months’ funding left, and if nothing turns up we will close.

If the lottery weren’t so heavily tied into government targets and priorities, charities like ours, which helps all parts of our community, regardless of race, creed or income, would be able to access the grants.

The other obsession which needs to be halted is this pump priming of projects and then refusing core funding — how can anything be sustained in such a climate? The wonderful work that our volunteers do each week to support the families in our communities benefits everyone and is incredibly cost effective, yet charities like ours continue to struggle for sustainable funding. This needs to be addressed, and not just by the lottery, but by the Government and all other funders that have the ability to “make a difference” — just as our volunteers do.

SYLVIA WYATT
(Senior Organiser, Home-Start Ribble Valley)
Whalley, Lancs

From Mr Barry Crossland

Sir, A more efficient way of distributing lottery cash would be to give every applicant an account number. Those buying lottery tickets could then indicate the organisation to which they want the charity element to go by denoting the appropriate number on their lottery ticket. The donation would be made by electronic transfer.

BARRY CROSSLAND
Elland, W Yorks

From Mr A. Wigram

Sir, As a charity founded six years ago to introduce blind, deaf and disabled people to the enormous opportunities created by technology and the internet, we have benefited greatly from the support, effectiveness, advice and experience of many independent charitable trusts. These trusts are run effectively and cheaply but with passion and commitment, mostly by unpaid volunteer trustees who have the business judgment and direct charitable experience which qualifies them to run these highly effective organisations.

Why should not this wealth of talent be brought to the aid of the lottery, which is clearly struggling to distribute its funds fairly and economically? The charitable trusts know what they are doing but have too little money. The lottery has too much money and insufficient experience. It should be a perfect fit.

A. WIGRAM
(U Can Do I.T.)
London SW3

From Mr John Birtwistle

Sir, The platform for communities to develop new interests and thrive is the local village hall or community centre. However, all too often these are run-down, cold and unfriendly; if they were in better condition and cheaper to run we would see more exercise classes, more afternoon art groups and more social activities for people of all ages. The lottery could help by making an easy fast-track fund of £50,000 for each non-profit community centre to be spent on reducing operating costs.

This would encourage more use of the local facilities, build a stronger community spirit, help people to develop new interests, improve their quality of life and re-engage them with the lottery overall.

JOHN BIRTWISTLE
Reading, Berks

From Mr Norman Wall

Sir, Covetous charities furious over the National Lottery having £2.4 billion lying idle in its coffers sounds like sour grapes. Some charities, always ready with the begging bowl, are notorious for money hoarding also. Other countries limit the amounts charities can bank, yet in Britain there are no such rules it seems. One wonders, when donating money, just how much of it will benefit the cause itself and perhaps the sad answer is usually very little.

NORMAN WALL
Wallsend, Tyne and Wear

Explore Letters

• Feedback