Additional questions

You can comment on any of the chapters individually, but we would also like your views on the following questions:

Q6i) Should infrastructure investment focus on more specific spatial areas – for example, to provide support in rural areas; the most deprived areas; to focus on those areas that have the most infrastructure needs; or where third sector groups are operating in challenging environments? Comment

Q6i) Should infrastructure investment be targeted with specific streams focussed on distinct outcomes?  For example, on supporting organisations to contribute their expertise and views on the improvement of public services; building capacity in smaller community organisations; supporting the development of social enterprise; or establishing effective interface between generic VCS and “functional” VCS, e.g. mental health, housing, sport and recreation? Comment

Q6.iii) Capacitybuilders is committed to at least 65% of its programme budget being allocated locally and regionally.  Is this proportionate about right, too much or too little? Please give a % national and % regional/local focus with reasons for your answers: Comment

Q6.iv) Should Capacitybuilders ensure that infrastructure investment includes stronger focus on equalities & diversity mainstreaming, or is there a case for retaining special programmes? Comment

Q6. v) In your view, what are the most important un-met infrastructure needs of the third sector?  Please provide 3, in order of importance. Please detail any other infrastructure needs you consider unmet. Comment

Q6. vi) Do you have any specific thoughts about what infrastructure support for frontline voluntary and community organisations might look like in the future?  Comment

Q7. Please leave any other general comments about the consultation here.  Comment

Comments

[SimonB]

Investment should be made to effect real change.

Whilst consensus building and representation has its place, it is extremely time consuming, can be divisive/excluding if not done properly, and tends to re-inforce the status quo and consolidate the influence of existing stakeholders.

Funding that makes a direct impact at the frontline might include more direct interventions such as:
- bursary funds for training to build skills and/or achieve qualifications
- cascade training
- subsidies
- building capacity through social enterprise creation (the sector serving the sector through trading/market creation).

Tie ins for those trained similar to those which teachers experience: Deploy skills gained in the sector or pay back.

[SimonB]

Where it is allocated is not so important as where it actually reaches.

For example, net:gain is funded nationally but it is set up to that most of the funding is allocated to local delivery centres and to delegates as subsidies to participate.

[SimonB]

More intervention could be safely based on trading / intertrading / market development. This can be done without losing vital elements of voluntary sector ethos.

[test]

test