Second tier, infrastructure

Includes reports from Baring Foundation and NAVCA

London Funders' publications
Support services for the VCS: Are they more at risk than the front line?
(2012) Vital support services for the VCS-training, development support, advocacy, etc. are seeing their funding reduced in favour of the “front-line heroes”. This  report looks at some of the issues and examples of good investment.

Value of infrastructure
(2009) Main points of agreement from a meeting of funders and infrastructure organisations

Publications
Another uncomfortable conversation – Part 1: Foundation funding of nonprofit infrastructure
National Council of Nonprofits (May 2016)
A look at the funding for nonprofit infrastructure organisations in the US.

Another uncomfortable conversation – Part II: The risks of underfunding nonprofit infrastructure
National Council of Nonprofits (May 2016)
A blog outlining the risks of underfunding infrastructure organisations in the US.

Bridge between two worlds 
NAVCA report exploring what is being done by local support and development organisations in partnership with public bodies, to develop, promote and shape good, intelligent, local commissioning practice. It defines “intelligent commissioning” as commissioning practice which enables the best outcomes for service users and local communities, ensures that services deliver value for money and are rooted in good partnership working and includes voluntary organisations and community groups and service users. 

The report is based on a series of case studies which can also be downloaded: BolsoverGreater Merseyside, Halton and St HelensHalton and St Helens, Isle of WightStaffordshire and Voscur.
 
Andrew Purkis for The Baring Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2010) 
In the light of Coalition Government policy as well as recent trends, recent analysis of the impact of long term takeover of state services by housing associations, this report has many stimulating questions for other voluntary organisations.
 
How to build a minimum viable system
Participatory City (April 2016)

A blog about the planning of a demonstration neighbourhood to build a minimum viable system. It asks if issues such as poverty and sustainability can be designed out at a systems level.
 
Researched over six months using a random sample of 30 groups per London borough, this accessible report looks at the impact of six borough councils for voluntary service (CVS).
 
This research provides case study evidence of sustainable models of delivering capacity building support. Each case study  will identify the critical success factors which contribute to the sustainability of support services and how these have been implemented effectively.

Transforming Local Infrastructure bids
NAVCA, 2013
This report analyses the 74 local programmes funded by TLI: the report pulls them together by common themes or similar areas of work based on the original TLI funding bids.
 
The Way Ahead: Civil society at the heart of London
London Funders (April 2016)
This final report of the Review of the Future of Civil Society Support in London proposes a new vision and system for civil society and how it should be supported in future. This includes communities finding and delivering their own solutions where possible. It also says funders should act as catalysts for action and identify emerging needs.
 
What does the Urban Forum legacy report mean for the community sector?
The Voluntary Sector Alchemist (March 2016)
Urban Forum closed in 2014 and this report is partly a historical record, partly a celebration of what was achieved. The report covers the history of Urban Forum, what it did, and the lessons and learning identified through its closure.
 
What regulation, who pays? Public opinion and charity regulation

Charity Finance Group (January 2016)

The report presents the findings of four focus groups with a representative sample of regular and non-regular donors. There was support for charities making some contribution towards the cost of the regulator, however, a significant number felt that the Charity Commission should be funded wholly through taxation and very few felt that charities should be the sole funders. The key disincentive for a wholly charity-funded regulator was the threat that this would pose to the Charity Commission’s independence.