Dormant assets: a quick explainer (and who really decides where money goes?)

Over £1bn in forgotten money has been unlocked for social causes. But how are decisions made about who gets it? And why aren’t women and girls one of the priorities?

Over £1 billion of forgotten money has already been released for social causes in the UK through the Dormant Assets Scheme.

But who gets to decide where it goes?

“Dormant assets” sounds technical, but the idea is actually pretty simple. It’s money sitting in bank accounts, investments, pensions or insurance policies that hasn’t been touched for years. If financial institutions can’t reunite it with the owner after a long time (usually 15 years), they can transfer it into the UK’s Dormant Assets Scheme instead.

The money can still be reclaimed if the owner eventually turns up. But in the meantime it’s used for social good.

The route it takes is a bit circuitous. Dormant funds go to Reclaim Fund Ltd, which keeps enough in reserve in case people claim their money back. The rest is distributed in England by The National Lottery Community Fund, with priorities set by the government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). They then distribute set amounts to four independent spend organisations - Youth Futures Foundation, Fair4All Finance, Better Society Capital, and Access - which were set up with the express purpose of delivering dormant assets funding.

Where the Money Goes

In England, dormant assets are currently directed to four “named causes” set in legislation:

• Youth services and opportunities

• Financial inclusion (debt support, affordable credit, financial capability)

• Social investment (funds that invest in charities and social enterprises)

• Community wealth funds (investing in small, local, deprived neighbourhoods)

The current strategy expects about £440 million to be distributed by 2028:

• £132.5m for youth

• £132.5m for financial inclusion

• £87.5m for social investment

• £87.5m for community wealth funds (match funded by the National Lottery)

Closing the Gap Between Capital and Community

While the scheme has succeeded in mobilising significant capital, the layered intermediary model (prioritising research, social investment, and repayable loans over direct grant funding) raises legitimate questions about how much ultimately reaches the communities it was designed to serve. The Community Wealth Fund model represents a departure from the current approach, although it is still unclear what it will actually look like.

When we achieve our campaign aims to get dormant assets investment in the Women's Forever Fund, we'd want to put resources directly in the hands of frontline women's organisations. At the same time, the endowment model ensures that, unlike conventional grant funding, the capital keeps working indefinitely, compounding value and impact across generations.

How Were These Causes Chosen?

Officially, through consultation. Thousands of organisations, including Women's Resource Centre, responded when the government asked what dormant assets should be used for.

But anyone who has spent time around policy knows consultations are only part of the story.

Funding priorities rarely emerge from social need alone. They’re shaped by who has organised, who has built coalitions, and who is lobbying most effectively.

Community wealth funds are a good example. In 2019, a large coalition of mainly VCS organisations (Community Wealth Fund Alliance) launched a campaign to build the case for investing dormant assets in “left-behind” neighbourhoods. It worked: in March 2023, community wealth funds were added as a fourth cause.

But what about women and girls?

During the consultation, many organisations, including many of us in the women’s sector, argued that dormant assets should support women and girls.

That didn’t make it into the final list. Why?

That’s harder to answer. And it raises an uncomfortable question: whose voices carry the most weight in these decisions?

In a previous blog post, I wrote about how youth services seem to consistently attract large funding streams while women and girls’ organisations struggle to do the same. I’m not suggesting youth funding isn’t important. Of course it is. But the pattern does raise questions about how funding priorities are really decided. Are they driven by evidence of need? By economic arguments government finds persuasive? Or by well-organised lobbying happening largely behind closed doors?

The truth is probably some combination of all three.

Changing the System Isn’t Quick. But it is Possible

One barrier is that these causes are set in legislation. Adding new ones usually means consultations and parliamentary approval, which can take years. But the community wealth fund example shows something important: when the government decides something matters, and when a strong coalition pushes for it, change can happen relatively quickly.

Policy timelines are often less about bureaucracy and more about political will.

Why we Need to Lobby for Women and Girls as Dormant Assets Beneficiaries Now

The government has set a bold target to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.

If that target is serious, the funding architecture needs to reflect it. Right now, much of the investment linked to tackling violence against women and girls still flows into criminal justice responses or short-term programmes. Meanwhile, the women's community-based organisations that prevent abuse, support survivors and rebuild lives are expected to survive on fragile, piecemeal funding.

There’s a disconnect there that policymakers need to confront.

Women’s organisations are the infrastructure that makes prevention and recovery possible. Women disclose abuse in women-only spaces. They rebuild their lives in women’s groups. They find safety, solidarity and healing in services run by and for women. Those spaces don’t just deliver services. They hold communities together.

The Forever Fund will Push for our Piece of the Pie

Dormant assets are designed to fund long-term social good. Which raises a pretty obvious question: why aren’t women and girls one of the named causes?

If the government is serious about tackling violence against women and girls - and about gender equality more broadly - then funding the women’s sector shouldn’t be an afterthought.

Dormant assets could be part of that strategy. It's not 'new money'. It already exists. And the Forever Fund is the perfect vehicle to ensure that it gets to more than half the population through the women's voluntary and community sector.

We've been ignored and devalued for far too long. It's time to claim what is ours.