ESF and ERDF 2014-2020 Operational Programmes Consultation Response
24 June 2014
Posted in
- The Operational Programme (OP) documents are incoherent in parts, contradictory in several places and use jargon and language that is inaccessible to most people.
- The financial tables in the ESF OP do not add up and use different sets of figures from previously published papers with no explanation or justification for the change.
- Different figures appear to have been issued to other stakeholders (HIEP) outwith the public consultation.
- Too much provision is planned for pipeline delivery which may not provide the specialist provision required by certain categories of customers.
- Third Sector organisations could potentially have to negotiate with 32 Local Authorities. The process would not represent value for money, nor would it guarantee quality of provision for service users.
- SCVO has proposed a National Employability Fund which would address some of the identified pipeline issues. This has been agreed in principle in a letter from John Swinney but the fund is not referred to in the OP.
- The contention that Community Planning Partnerships are the only legitimate vehicle supporting community sustainability is wrong.
- The constant use of the term Social Enterprise is unhelpful and of great concern as its definition and use is widely misinterpreted.
- The ESF OP document does not say who is leading on social inclusion and poverty. SCVO sought to convene a cross-sector consortium for this theme and expressed an offer to act as a lead partner for Theme 9.
- The outline programmes, particularly for social inclusion, do not seem to adequately address their own analysis of the problems.
- Counting theme eight activities towards theme nine hints at a lack of ambition and understanding on how to address and achieve theme nine.
- All the simplified costs options should be available to maximise service user provision and stakeholder involvement.
- Whilst review is essential it must not create a background of uncertainty and instability in terms of local authority pipeline contracting.
Last modified on 22 January 2020