Guidance

Civil Society Covenant - Summary of engagement findings

Published 17 July 2025

1. Introduction

The Prime Minister has made it a priority to reset the relationship with civil society and build a new partnership that can harness civil society’s full potential to rebuild our country and deliver against the government’s 5 missions.

In October 2024, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport committed to developing a Civil Society Covenant that will act as a principles-based foundation for this new relationship and will symbolise the UK government’s recognition of the sector as a trusted and independent partner. As a first step, they launched a Covenant Framework document setting out the proposed ambition, scope and key principles that should underpin the new relationship. The launch also kickstarted an ambitious engagement exercise, led by DCMS in partnership with National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO), to hear views on the Covenant and experiences of partnership working directly from civil society and government bodies.

Key engagement questions

Are the 4 key principles- recognition, partnership, participation, transparency - the right ones?

What are the enablers of effective partnership and what are the examples of best practice?

What are the barriers to meaningful partnership and collaboration?

How do we harness the excellent ability of civil society to innovate and find new solutions to societal problems and how do we support that spirit to spread across the sector?

How do we ensure this Covenant holds weight and is effective?

How do we make the new relationship a reality, especially in the current economic context?

We aimed to reach the full range and diversity of civil society across the UK as well as government and public bodies at every level. In particular we wanted to hear from organisations who may not usually get a chance to give their views to the government, such as small community groups. To help reach these diverse audiences we delivered a wide range of engagement opportunities including:

• An online survey hosted by NCVO that was completed by 488 civil society organisations
• NCVO hosted a series of 16 accessible ‘drop-in’ engagement sessions where organisations shared views verbally and through discussion, 18 in-depth interviews with civil society leaders and a range of wider stakeholder engagements
• DCMS and No10 hosted a series of themed roundtable discussions, including with social enterprise, local infrastructure organisations, BME-led organisations and faith groups
• 92 civil society organisations submitted written responses and evidence directly to DCMS

DCMS also engaged widely across government and received 72 responses from across Whitehall departments, local authorities, strategic authorities and devolved governments. For a full overview of the engagement process, please see [Annex A](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-society-covenant/civil-society-covenant-summary-of-engagement-findings#annex-a—methodology.

Over an 8 week period we heard from over 1,200 organisations across the breadth and diversity of civil society, Whitehall departments, local authorities, strategic and devolved governments. We heard from civil society organisations operating in every corner of the UK from micro grassroots community organisations, to those turning over £100 million annually. We also heard from a vast range of organisations, including frontline organisations, infrastructure organisations, trade unions, research and advocacy organisations. The scope of respondents makes this one of the most extensive engagement exercises conducted across civil society. Annex A provides a more detailed breakdown of this engagement.

The findings from the engagement period are set out in this document and these insights have directly informed the development of the final Covenant led by DCMS in close collaboration with advisory groups drawn from civil society and Whitehall.

NCVO have also produced a summary of findings from their engagement with civil society.

We thank everyone who participated in this engagement.

2. The Covenant principles

The Civil Society Covenant Framework set out 4 principles that we proposed would sit at the heart of the Covenant and would form the basis of the future relationship. These were developed by DCMS in close collaboration with key civil society bodies, including NCVO and ACEVO.

The proposed 4 high level principles

1. Recognition: to ensure a strong and independent civil society.

2. Partnership: to ensure effective service delivery and policy making, and shared learning of best practices.

3. Participation: to ensure people and communities can be heard and make a difference.

4. Transparency: to ensure civil society and government have the information needed to best serve people and communities.

A core aim of our engagement was to test support for a new Covenant and gather views on our proposed principles. We asked ‘Are the 4 key principles- recognition, partnership, participation, transparency - the right ones?’ and also asked for suggestions to improve or add to the principles.

We heard significant support right across our engagement for a new principles-based Civil Society Covenant. 80% of respondents to the NCVO online survey stated that they felt a Covenant is needed to improve the relationship between civil society organisations and the government.

We also heard from national government departments and local authorities that the aims and objectives of the Covenant are supported.

We absolutely recognise the importance of a new Civil Society Framework and the role that it will play in enhancing and strengthening the role of the sector.

- Local authority

We believe that your Covenant Framework and 4 high level principles of recognition, partnership, participation and transparency align closely with our X agreement, and we have the same shared purpose of tackling deep seated challenges and inequalities.

- Local authority

We also heard widespread support for the proposed principles across both civil society and government. Both local and national government responses recognised the 4 principles as important and valuable in working effectively with civil society. Civil society organisations saw the principles as comprehensive, and a good starting point for effective relationships between civil society and public bodies.

Overall, there was a strong message from across all stakeholder groups that together the 4 principles represent a solid foundation and framework for the future relationship between civil society and government.

The 4 principles of Recognition, Partnership, Participation and Transparency are sound and are supported. [It’s] very positive that the value of civil society is recognised, and a strong voice is being given to civil society organisations. These principles will help ensure effective service delivery and policymaking, encourage meaningful conversations and help remove barriers for smaller organisations.

- Local authority

The principles of recognition, partnership, participation and transparency are the right ones. They will help to build awareness and understanding, and ensure that civil society organisations and public bodies can work together to deliver benefits for patients and wider society.

- Civil society organisation

We agree with the focus of these 4 principles, which reflect the role which civil society plays in supporting thriving and resilient places and communities.

- Central government department

The key principles outlined in the Covenant are important and appropriate to build upon the relationships that already exist at a local level and can be further enhanced.

- Local authority

These principles collectively provide a framework for fostering trust, collaboration, and shared responsibility, which are vital for tackling complex societal challenges. They help align the objectives of public bodies and civil society, ensuring that policies and initiatives are responsive to community needs.

- Local authority

However, while there was clear support for the 4 proposed principles, some responses suggested strengthening them through the inclusion or increased emphasis of themes such as:

• The value and role of civil society, including its independence, expertise, and reach
• Mutual respect and trust
• Mutual accountability
• Listening to a diversity of voices, including those of young people
• Co-production and co-design
• Sustainability (both financial and environmental)
• Innovation
• Equity and human rights
• Anti racism
• Social value and social cohesion

There was a divergence in opinion on the amount of detail and specificity required in the principles. Many respondents acknowledged that the principles were high-level, and suggested that this was positive, as it allowed for flexibility in how the principles can be applied in different contexts. It was suggested that this also helps alignment with existing partnership arrangements in local areas or devolved nations, for example.

However, other respondents highlighted a desire for more specificity around how the principles would operate, and what they would look like in practice.

These 4 principles seem to be adequate headings but in general will require clear definitions in order to be meaningful in practice. We would suggest that they are further defined in collaboration with the sector.

- Central government department

I think that they are a helpful start but they could be just words - good to define what they mean.

- Civil society organisation

Linked to this, a further key message was that whilst the principles are a good start, they are not sufficient on their own. Making the Covenant an on-the-ground reality will be a long term goal that requires sustained and meaningful action across civil society and government. This theme is explored further in Section 5.

Agree in the main but the principles have to be put into action and monitored, and key milestones put in place.”

- Civil society organisation

A Covenant could be valuable if it is paired with an action plan outlining concrete steps and commitments to strengthen the relationship. Such [a] plan should be backed by accountability mechanisms that measures the impact and success of the Covenant.

- Local authority

I feel that the draft principles come from the right place in terms of intention - but I can not see any language around ‘application’. Surely the point is not just how we think we ought to move forward, but what we can do to move forward.

- Civil society organisation

It is a positive to have created those 4 principles but it remains unclear how they are going to lead to action and change. Civil society organisations need practical actions and milestones to ensure there is accountability.

- Civil society organisation

3. What factors enable effective relationships?

We asked ‘What are the enablers of effective partnership and what are the examples of best practice?’ We heard a clear, consistent message from both civil society and government that the key factors include:

• Trust, mutual respect and value
• Strategic alignment
• Proactive communication
• Early and inclusive participation and collaboration
• Sustainable and unrestricted funding
• Flexible and collaborative commissioning models

Trust, mutual respect and value

A strong message was that mutual trust, respect, and value is the foundation of good partnership working between civil society organisations and public bodies.

Both the government and civil society must have mutual trust and respect.

- Local authority

Many highlighted that it is important that government and public bodies respect the value and expertise of civil society including its strength and diversity, its role as an advocate for communities, its capacity to bring those with lived experience into the conversation, and its flexibility to adapt and respond to situations quickly and innovatively.

As a delivery partner, CSOs (civil society organisations) play an essential role in delivering X Department’s priorities. They have specific qualities and expertise which can mean they are best placed to deliver in certain contexts and enable them to reach marginalised communities that other actors cannot.

- Central government department

Respect and understanding for the expertise within civil society. Recognising the capacity of civil society to “tap into” the lived experience of individuals. Trusting civil society to act as a partner in shaping policy and delivery, whilst supporting its role as an external agent for change and advocacy.

- Civil society organisation

Civil society organisations thrive when they are trusted to design and deliver solutions tailored to local needs, often due to their close proximity and membership of the communities they seek to serve.

- Civil society organisation

Some highlighted that government and public bodies can send a powerful message when they explicitly recognise the wider social and economic value and contribution of civil society.

Recognise civil society’s foundational role by regularly acknowledging its critical contribution to societal growth and prosperity. This affirmation helps build confidence and motivation within the sector.

- Local authority

Case study - Greater London Authority: increasing trust with civil society and communities during and after COVID

During response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Greater London Authority (GLA) worked collaboratively with London’s civil society, hosting online roundtables, public health briefings, and ‘Big Conversation’ events. Working with health partners, these forums played a vital role in supporting testing and vaccine uptake, building trust, and sharing accurate and culturally competent information.

Following the pandemic, there was a determination to take the learnings from this collaboration, further embedding these approaches within vaccine programmes and work tackling health inequalities. This happened predominantly through the London Legacy Health Equity Partnership. During this time, there was a continuation of co-convened public health, GLA and NHS information briefings, covering issues like winter preparedness and mental health.

The GLA has further strengthened relationships with community and faith partners within their approach to resilience, including through co-producing the London Communities Emergencies Partnership (LCEP), a civil society-led approach to coordinating emergency preparedness and response. LCEP sits on the London Resilience Forum, alongside emergency services and other public agencies, bringing the value of community voice and insight into London’s emergency response. This has helped build trust between agencies and collaboration with civil society in response to incidents.

Key learnings: Working collaboratively with civil society before, during and after emergencies can strengthen resilience and, in the case of the pandemic, improve health outcomes like vaccine uptake. Community-led models can increase trust in public services, and ensure the government’s messaging and approach is culturally competent. Furthermore, through recognising the value of civil society organisations in its reach into local communities, the GLA has been able to effectively work with the sector to tackle shared challenges.

Strategic alignment

Strategic alignment, meaning shared priorities and common goals, were also frequently highlighted as key to successful partnerships and collaboration. Respondents highlighted that strong partnerships have a shared vision and purpose underpinned by clearly defined parameters, where all parties understand their respective roles and responsibilities.

Shared goals and priorities are crucial, ensuring alignment on objectives and a unified vision for outcomes. Developing a shared understanding of demand for services and the issues people face within communities with the onus on public bodies to support ways to achieve this.

- Local authority

Clarity of purpose. From the outset of work with any partners, agreeing vision, structure, governance, principles for collaboration, and how each party can benefit. This should be supported by regular, structured meetings, to facilitate ongoing dialogue and collaboration, building trust and ensuring continuous feedback integration.

- Central government

Other responses also highlighted that civil society and government may often have different priorities and agendas, but that common ground can be found if there is goodwill and intent.

Don’t assume their [civil society’s] goals are the same as the government’s - work consciously on where our common interests lie.

- Central government

Case Study - Cambridge City Council: building shared goals and alignment with the Community Wealth Building Strategy

Cambridge City Council has had an anti-poverty strategy since 2014 designed to tackle poverty and inequality. Over the past ten years the council’s approach has evolved. The council recognised that to truly tackle the long-term deep rooted causes of poverty, they needed to implement a shared approach that combines “council leadership and collaborative working with local communities and a range of local partners and key stakeholders to maximise our collective impact”. This resulted in the development of a Community Wealth Building (CWB) strategy, adopted in 2024.

The CWB approach aims to tackle the causes of poverty by working holistically across sectors towards a shared vision and goal with all stakeholders; through combining the assets, statutory responsibilities and convening role of the council with the services, approaches and relationships that the community, voluntary, business, and public sectors are able to deliver.

Key themes underline the Council’s CWB approach, including:

• ensuring that a joint, holistic approach to tackle poverty is always at the centre of future programme and projects; working across organisations and sectors in order to create solutions

• how the council can explore opportunities to use its leadership and assets to generate wealth back into the community, including social value from contracts and better use of council buildings and land

• working with the local private sector to support a sustainable and inclusive local economy

The new principles of the CWB strategy are exemplified by the Shaping Abbey project. Shaping Abbey brings together local residents, civil society and private sector partners, alongside council and UK government backed investment of £100 million to redevelop parts of Abbey Ward in the northeast of Cambridge. Here, residents and community groups have been integral to shaping the future of Abbey Ward, and have been involved in “Shaping Abbey” conversations, where community voices have been central to the area’s development. A related “Focus on Abbey” programme, provides funding for locally focused community projects.

Key learnings: Through their Community Wealth Building Strategy, Cambridge City Council developed a new partnership approach with local civil society organisations, and wider local stakeholders, based on a shared vision to tackle poverty across the city.

Proactive Communication

We heard a very clear message from both civil society and government that proactive and regular communication enables better relationships and effective partnerships. Honest, open and transparent communication is key to building trust between parties, especially in the early stages of building a relationship or in challenging circumstances.

Open and transparent communication, especially when things aren’t as positive as initially planned for, builds trust and respect between partners.

- Local authority

Building trust through regular, open dialogue fosters collaboration”* - Civil society organisation

- Civil society organisation

Many respondents highlighted that the most effective communication and engagement approaches tend to be regular, structured and intentionally provide opportunities and spaces for listening and dialogue.

Clear and open channels of communication, supported by structures that facilitate open dialogue and meaningful engagement.

- Civil society organisation

Another clear message was that communication and dialogue is most effective when it is constructive and solution-focused.

Civil society should] be solution-focused: engage with the government by presenting actionable ideas, not just critiques, to demonstrate readiness for collaboration.

- Civil society organisation

Avoiding adversarial positions and seeking constructive dialogue to develop solutions is important.

- Civil society organisation

Case study - Leeds City Council: building effective partnerships through proactive communication and engagement

Leeds City Council builds strong partnerships with civil society through consistent, proactive communication and engagement. At the heart of this is the Third Sector Partnership, a strategic forum bringing together senior leaders from the Council, NHS, universities, Combined Authority, Third Sector Leeds, and other civil society representatives. This platform enables early, open dialogue on key citywide issues, to support a resilient and thriving civil society sector that continues to deliver positive outcomes for Leeds residents.

The Partnership meets bi-monthly with co-produced agendas and shares regular updates. This includes an annual overview of the council’s financial position, proposed budget, and key risks. These insights help manage expectations and inform civil society’s messaging. In addition, bi-annual breakfast meetings bring together civil society and council leaders to align on lobbying strategies and maximise social impact.

These regular engagement opportunities have helped build trust, embed civil society perspectives into strategy development, and support transparent, two-way communication. It also strengthens collaboration, helping ensure decisions stay closely aligned with community needs.

Key learnings: Consistent and proactive communication is supported through the provision of defined spaces for regular engagement between partners, alongside transparency in decision-making. This is important for building effective and trusted partnerships.

Early and inclusive collaboration

We heard from both civil society and government that early and inclusive collaboration is key. Many respondents highlighted that early engagement can help harness the combined expertise of all sectors, pool resources towards common goals, help public bodies think about issues holistically and avoid siloed thinking. Bringing civil society in early can also help identify unintended consequences, delivery challenges and risks early so that they can be designed out or mitigations developed.

Early and meaningful engagement through a co-design approach which enables diverse community voices to be heard and interventions to be collaboratively shaped.

- Local authority

Shifting away from siloed strategies. Civil society organisations work across various sectors and departments. A holistic approach is needed across government to engage with them.

- Civil society organisation

Many also stated that meaningful collaboration needs to be inclusive of a wide range of viewpoints and perspectives. Co-production and participatory design methods were frequently highlighted as effective tools and approaches. There was a strong view that meaningful collaboration with a diverse range of voices will improve policy and decision making, and both civil society and government have a role to play to achieve this.

Ensure diverse voices, including underrepresented communities, are part of the consultation and policy-shaping process.

- Local authority

By inviting in civil society (and citizens) to play a more deliberative role in shaping policy, we can bring in a broader range of perspectives and develop better policy, as a result.

- Central government

Incorporating more co-design and co-production with civil society to allow people with lived experience to contribute to policy making. Including people with lived experience ensures that people’s voices are at the centre of policymaking, and their diverse perspectives, knowledge and understanding are taken into consideration.

- Central government

Public bodies should engage meaningfully with civil society organisations by dedicating time to listen, understand different perspectives, and build trust. Public bodies should prioritise intentional outreach to organisations that represent and serve marginalised communities, ensuring their voices are heard and valued.

- Local authority

Case study - The Plan to Make Work Pay: early and inclusive collaboration with stakeholders

From the first day in office, the government set out its commitment to creating jobs that provide security, treat workers fairly, and pay a decent wage. To help achieve this, the government committed to continuing to work closely in partnership with business and trade unions at ministerial and official level. This tripartite working has been embedded within the delivery of the Plan to Make Work Pay and as part of the development of the government’s landmark Employment Rights Bill.

This way of working has involved numerous engagement sessions to hear honest and diverse opinions from a range of perspectives and backgrounds. The expert and detailed insights and feedback gained from tripartite working has been invaluable in getting the detail right across the Plan to Make Work Pay and the Employment Rights Bill. From new rights on guaranteed hours, to sick pay, and to protection from unfair dismissal, trade union and business representatives have actively participated in informing policy development and will continue their involvement during the implementation.

This collaborative approach has ensured that the development of the Plan to Make Work Pay and the Employment Rights Bill have benefited from the practical expertise and perspectives of representatives of employers and employees. DBT’s Ministers and Employment Rights Directorate has engaged with over 190 stakeholders; ensuring the government is engaging broadly and deeply. The resulting policies will represent the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation.

Key learnings: Early and extensive collaboration with key stakeholders is crucial for developing effective and well-received employment legislation. This approach should be sustained throughout policy development. Embedding tripartite working fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and helps to mitigate unintended consequences.

Sustainable and unrestricted funding

There was a consistent message from civil society and government that sustainable and unrestricted funding can provide the stability and flexibility required for effective partnerships to grow and develop. Respondents highlighted that engagement and collaboration comes at a cost for civil society organisations, and that funding should take this into account.

Funding and resources play a crucial role in establishing and maintaining partnerships, especially within the civil society sector. Adequate, multi-year, unrestricted funding allows organisations to invest in necessary infrastructure, resources, and personnel, which are vital for effective collaboration in addressing social issues. Sufficient funding not only enables project delivery but also signals a commitment to the partnership, fostering trust and motivation among stakeholders. It allows an organisation to focus on genuinely impactful activity rather than being driven by the need to satisfy funder requirements on a project-by- project basis.

- Local authority

Sustainable and meaningful funding needs to support civil society organisations to function and engage with public bodies.

- Civil society organisation

Some respondents highlighted that public sector bodies can support partnership building with civil society through other forms of resource sharing and capacity building. This, some respondents said, can also support civil society to innovate.

[what supports an effective relationship between civil society organisations and public bodies?] Resource sharing and capacity building; charities often operate with limited resources, so support from public bodies—whether in the form of funding, training, or administrative assistance—can be invaluable.

- Civil society organisation

[what supports civil society to innovate?] Capacity building and training: providing CSOs (civil society organisations) with training in areas like leadership, management, technology, and data analysis helps build the internal skills needed to innovate. Strengthening their capabilities enables them to respond more effectively to societal problems.

- Civil society organisation

Respondents also suggested it would be beneficial for funding models to support and encourage flexibility and innovative thinking in partnership working, as this can lead to collaborative and impactful work.

Make greater use of match funding initiatives, incentivising greater philanthropy to drive innovation.

- Civil society organisation

Government must incentivise innovation and risk taking e.g. through Social Outcomes Partnerships which encourage collaboration for solutions and are focused on impact.

- Civil society organisation

Case study - London Borough of Camden - unrestricted and long term funding

Since 2015, London Borough of Camden has operated a long-term support scheme for the voluntary sector, including offering 7 year grants through the Community Partner Fund. This approach aims to increase stability, enable strategic planning, and reduce the bureaucracy connected to frequent grant applications.

The Council launched a 7 year Community Partner Fund programme (2024-2031), providing core grants to local civil society organisations delivering significant social change. 38 organisations received grants ranging from £10,000 to £100,000 annually, part of a larger £4 million yearly investment. The multi-year funding has significantly strengthened relationships, fostering a collaborative environment focused on shared community goals. Funding flexibility enabled organisations to leverage other funding and adapt to evolving needs. In designing this programme, the council was led by the Institute for Voluntary Action (IVAR) open and trusting grant-making principles, and became one of the first public agencies to sign up to this initiative encouraging best practice in grant funding. Drawing on learning from previous funding programmes and responding to changing external needs in communities and grassroots organisations, Camden continues to develop a diverse funding ecosystem to support more organisations at varying stages of development.

Key learnings: This approach has encouraged greater cooperation, mutual support, and collaborative working, shifting relationships from transactional to strategic, and empowering organisations to achieve lasting community impact.

Flexible and collaborative commissioning models

We heard from many that public sector commissioning has the potential to be a powerful platform for building effective partnerships when it is collaborative, accessible and based on fair funding. Respondents highlighted that effective commissioning models bring civil society organisations into the process early so that contract aims, outcomes and service design can be developed collaboratively with the benefit of civil society expertise.

Re-think the whole commissioning programme. Bring VCSE organisations in much, much earlier to discuss how to address the needs of the community and shape the contract. Consider how to engage smaller organisations in delivery. Provide better resource to support the sector. Ensure that contracts offer full cost recovery.

- Civil society organisation

We also heard that commissioners can address practical barriers in order to make commissioning and procurement processes more accessible for civil society, especially for smaller organisations. For example, respondents highlighted ensuring timely market engagement, realistic deadlines, and proportionate tendering and reporting requirements as important to opening up commissioning opportunities to a wide range of civil society organisations.

Remove the barriers to commissioning and contracting that prevent a lot of CSOs from delivering public services.

- Civil society organisation

Including multi-year settlements and advance notice of funding streams, and proportionate bidding processes would facilitate greater capacity to deliver in partnership at a local and national level.

- Local authority

Be more willing to commission and fund services from civil society organisations of different sizes to meet local and regional needs (rather than very large one size fits all commissions which do not meet needs and may undermine the positive work that is being done).

- Civil society organisation

Case study - AllChild and Better Society Capital: flexible commissioning for impactful early action

AllChild is a charity created to harness community resources to work with schools, local authorities, philanthropists, government and the voluntary and community sector to improve life chances for the 20% of children most at risk of poor outcomes. The programme is an intensive two-year package of support tailored to each child’s unique strengths, needs and aspirations.

In terms of its funding model, AllChild is supported by outcomes-based commissioning, which sees social investors such as Better Society Capital channel money through fund managers to provide working capital for the organisation. The commissioner, in this case local government, only pays out once target outcomes are achieved, such as improved wellbeing for children. This funding model reduces the financial risk on public bodies, thereby encouraging investment in innovative and flexible programmes.

Key learnings: Outcomes-based contracts provide flexibility and sustainability for social sector organisations, enabling them to create partnerships with stakeholders including the local public sector, philanthropists and investors, while delivering tailored, impactful services.

Good quality data

Throughout the engagement, we heard that effective working relationships are underpinned by good data practices, which provide a foundation for evidence-based solutions and informed decision making.

Encourage data sharing and collaboration: Provide access to relevant data sets, research, and analytics tools to help CSOs develop evidence-based solutions.

- Central government

There was a clear ask to support the sector to improve its data collection and usage, in order to accurately measure the impact of services, and improve policy and service design.

Robust data practices enable CSOs to demonstrate need, impact and align more effectively with public body goals.

- Local authority

Responses highlighted that data sharing between civil society and public bodies is crucial for building shared evidence and improving mutual understanding.

Developing a shared evidence base (through better data sharing and improved understanding of current data gaps).

- Civil society organisation

Open data sharing and collaborative research between public bodies and civil society enhance evidence-based approaches to complex challenges.

- Civil society organisation

Case study - Government Outcomes Lab, data sharing, and partnership working

The Government Outcomes Lab (GO Lab) is a research and policy centre at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, established through a partnership with the UK Government. The mission of the GO Lab is to enable government to partner more effectively with the private and social sectors to improve people’s lives. The GO Lab offers a collaborative hub to enhance government learning from outcomes-based commissioning through world-class research, data curation and sharing, and responsive policy engagement.

Through initiatives such as INDIGO (International Network for Data on Impact and Government Outcomes) GO Lab’s work illustrates how data-led decision making can support effective working relationships across sectors. INDIGO is a global data collaborative that openly and transparently shares data about outcomes-focused partnerships. The INDIGO initiative includes the maintenance of a community of practitioners, a system for sharing data and open-access datasets designed to serve as public goods, such as a comprehensive dataset on social outcomes partnerships, and outcomes achieved by the Life Chances Fund projects.

Key learnings: Open data sharing between civil society and public bodies creates a shared evidence base and improves mutual understanding, while empowering civil society and other stakeholders to better understand and engage with government initiatives.

4. What factors are a barrier to meaningful partnership and collaboration?

A key focus of our engagement was ‘What are the barriers to meaningful partnership and collaboration?’

We found that around 70% of civil society organisations responding to NCVO’s survey reported experiencing barriers when engaging with public bodies. Furthermore, both civil society organisations and public bodies identify several key barriers, including:

• Lack of mutual understanding and recognition
• Unequal relationships and power imbalances
• Bureaucratic and siloed structures
• Poor communication and engagement
• Resource and capacity constraints
• Commissioning models that exclude or disadvantage civil society

Many respondents highlighted that these barriers are more significant for smaller civil society organisations.

Lack of mutual understanding and recognition

A consistent theme was that a lack of understanding and recognition of each others’ role, strengths or constraints is a fundamental barrier to an effective relationship, and means that civil society’s expertise may not be fully valued or harnessed.

Meaningful partnership cannot exist where one partner does not understand or value the other.

- Local authority

Some respondents suggested this barrier was heightened for smaller civil society organisations, stating that some public bodies more readily recognise and engage with larger organisations, as they are more well known and therefore trusted.

There is a need for more equal engagement and understanding of smaller community focused organisations - beyond large well-known civil society organisations or other high-profile organisations that may deliver some civil society outcomes.

- Civil society organisation

As a relatively small/medium sized CIO (Community Interest Company) that has only been operating for 4/5 years we have found it difficult to be recognised by local and regional influencers. It feels like the more well known organisations are contacted to represent the sector.

- Civil society organisation

Many civil society organisations highlighted that public bodies do not always understand the resource and capacity constraints faced by the sector, leading to unrealistic expectations about delivery and partnerships.

Public bodies having insufficient resources in place to fulfil statutory duties and powers, leading to unrealistic expectations [that] civil society organisations will plug service gaps without the funding or resources to do so, which diverts them from delivery of their core work within communities.

- Civil society organisation

A common message was that government and public bodies do not always understand or recognise civil society organisations’ advocacy and campaigning roles, especially when civil society seeks to provide constructive criticism or hold public bodies to account.

Charities need to be able to hold public bodies to account as a critical friend, campaigning on behalf of our beneficiaries to ensure the issues that matter most to people and communities are heard.

- Civil society organisation

Unequal relationships and power imbalances

We also heard that power imbalances between civil society and public bodies can provide a significant barrier to working together effectively. Many described relationships where civil society organisations are not seen as equal by public bodies and have to work hard to demonstrate their value and expertise. For many respondents, this issue was closely linked to a lack of understanding between the sectors.

Public bodies failing to acknowledge and afford a level of deference to civil society organisations’ unique field(/s) of expertise, leading to inequality and power imbalance in relationships with them.

- Civil society organisation

Further to this, there were suggestions that civil society organisations are not treated equally by public bodies, and smaller, specialist organisations are most likely to be overlooked.

We are not considered because they deem us too small to interact with.

- Civil society organisation

Some respondents, including from the government, highlighted that there is scope to put relationships on a more equal footing through greater transparency, sharing leadership and devolving decision-making and resources to civil society and community level organisations.

Demonstrate the willingness to hand over power, leadership and resources where others are better placed to deliver meaningful solutions to local issues.

- Local authority

A lack of transparency in funding, decision-making, and accountability mechanisms can be a barrier, making it challenging to establish sustained and equitable partnerships. Addressing these barriers requires intentional efforts to level the playing field and foster inclusive engagement.

- Local authority

Bureaucracy and siloes

A clear message was that bureaucracy and siloes can make public sector organisations challenging to access, navigate and interact with. Responses highlighted that bureaucratic, complex systems and processes can result in government structures and ways of working that are rigid, inaccessible, or removed from communities. This is a particular issue for smaller organisations and groups representing marginalised communities.

There is often unnecessary complexity, opacity, and inconsistency across different government departments and other funding bodies who are looking for the same or similar outcomes which adds to the burden on both local councils and VCSE organisations/civil society.

- Local authority

Bureaucratic processes and poor communication can further alienate groups, particularly those representing marginalized communities.

- Local authority

Some respondents also flagged that public sector organisational siloes can make engagement more time-consuming, fragmented and challenging. For example we heard that organisations frequently have to have multiple conversations with different officials in the same organisation, and a lack of internal coordination can lead to conflicting messages or priorities from within the same organisations.

Fragmented processes and isolated efforts prevent holistic and aligned action

- Local authority

Policies affecting young cancer patients span multiple departments (e.g., health, education, welfare), creating fragmented engagement and hindering cohesive solutions.

- Civil society organisation

Respondents also highlighted practical challenges, such as finding the right government official and frequent staff turnover, that make forming meaningful and trusting relationships more difficult.

Staff turnover means you have to spend time building new relationships.

- Civil society organisation

Finally, responses stated that bureaucracy can stifle innovation and flexibility within civil society. Linked to this, it was highlighted that risk aversion in the public sector can also restrict innovation and flexibility within civil society.

Public sector can still be risk averse in the ways that it approaches civil society which restricts innovation and flexibility of approach.

- Local authority

Poor communication and engagement

Engagement methods with public bodies were often perceived as limited and often tokenistic. Responses described communication with government bodies as a ‘tick box’ exercise, referencing where engagement with civil society isn’t meaningful or valued. This lack of structured communication hinders consistent and meaningful engagement.

There is an appetite to engage but the processes remain as challenging as ever. VCSE reps might have a seat at the table but it still feels relatively tokenistic and the structures prevent real equitable engagement.

- Civil society organisation

There can be an inconsistent way of collaborating or inappropriate timelines which prevent a meaningful dialogue. Co-production takes time, and the statutory sector does not always allow for the right amount of time to collaborate meaningfully.

- Local authority

Respondents also highlighted where exclusive communication methods, such as communicating only via digital platforms, and the use of overly complex language were seen as a barrier to meaningful communication.

‘In person’ partnerships will be crucial… whilst digital collaboration has a role to play, digital communications can easily get lost in translation and can result in mixed messages or a lack of engagement with intended audiences.

- Local authority

Another communication barrier was raised in relation to sensitive or confidential work areas. Here, the sharing of information in a transparent manner, and the potential risks associated with sharing information was highlighted as an ongoing challenge.

Legal and practical barriers to data sharing can hinder joint working.

- Central government department

Finally, respondents raised where civil society wasn’t given enough time for deeper or more meaningful forms of engagement with government. Respondents highlighted where a lack of early engagement inhibited the ability of organisations to shape policy and service design. Respondents warned that if civil society organisations are brought in too late, then opportunities for meaningful collaboration may be missed.

Too many times, public bodies define the issue, spec out the solution then ask civil society organisations to bid. [By that] point, we miss opportunities for meaningful improvements.

- Civil society organisation

Resource and capacity constraints

Many responses highlighted that civil society and public bodies are typically operating within an uncertain and challenging funding context.

The funding uncertainty is a huge barrier to becoming more productive and enabling boroughs to plan services strategically and take invest-to-save decisions.

- Local authority

As incomes are stretched and priorities shifted, charities are grappling with reduced donations while facing higher operational costs and a surge in demand for their services.

- Civil society organisation

A clear message from both civil society and government is that resource and capacity constraints are a significant barrier to building and sustaining effective partnerships. Many highlighted that relationship building and collaboration brings real benefits but requires the patient investment of time and effort which comes at a cost and is challenging when resources are scarce.

Sustained financial challenge limits capacity for positive partnership working. It is important to be clear about the shortfalls that budgetary constraints put in place.

- Local authority

The reduction of investment into both public and VCFSE [voluntary, community, faith, social enterprise] sectors over the last decade, and consequent ‘churn’ has been a barrier to participation and engagement as capacity is reduced and it becomes harder to develop and grow long-term partnerships.

- Local authority

Linked to this, some stated that public sector bodies often have unrealistic or unreasonable expectations about appropriate levels of funding for civil society. For example, some described a mis-perception that civil society organisations offer a ‘cheap’ option or can deliver for ‘free’. Often this was described as linked to civil society organisations subsidising government contracts or grants with their own funding and resources .

Insufficient funding & unrealistic expectations - public sector contracts don’t cover all the costs of delivering the contracts, so civil society end up subsidising them. Additionally, they expect you to give so much more than what you’re funded for.

- Civil society organisation

In general, responses suggested that capacity issues created bigger problems for smaller civil society organisations, leading to smaller organisations being excluded from policy and decision making, and larger organisations becoming more dominant in these areas.

Smaller organisations often struggle to participate due to insufficient capacity or funding, while larger organisations dominate decision-making.

- Local authority

At the moment it feels like the larger charities get a seat at the table but they don’t represent or cannot communicate the full breadth of change that is required as they are not experts in everything. The medium-sized charities do not often get that access to key Ministers, key consultations.

- Civil society organisation

Commissioning models that exclude or disadvantage civil society

We heard that public sector commissioning models and practices can provide barriers to collaboration and partnership with civil society. Firstly, respondents highlighted administrative or process barriers that disadvantage or exclude civil society. These include complex and time-consuming bidding requirements, short deadlines, a lack of timely access to funds or funding information, uncertainty about when funding will arrive, last minute budget decisions and allocations, and a lack of transparency. These factors make it more difficult for civil society organisations to plan ahead and think strategically. Many respondents stated that they make it particularly difficult for smaller organisations to engage with public bodies and seek funding.

Some public bodies have complex administration processes, which can cause delays (e.g. delays in approval from senior leaders or unclear decision-making and accountability).

- Civil society organisation

The bureaucratic / regulatory nature of the tendering / grant system makes it extraordinarily difficult for smaller charities to engage / benefit.

- Civil society organisation

Procurement rules, and/or the interpretation and application of those rules, can act as a barrier to engaging with civil society organisations. Bidding requirements can often unintentionally exclude parts of the sector from engaging, especially smaller organisations who often lack the resources and capacity to complete various bids and related forms.

- Central government

More widely, responses referenced where commissioning practices were designed for the short term funding (for a year or less), and were below the ‘full cost of recovery’ for civil society organisations, resulting in organisations subsidising contracts from their own resources.

Public sector commissioning of VCS providers is too often below the actual cost of delivery, with the VCS having to subsidise contracts through fundraising, reserves or expending resources to pursue alternative funding. It passes the burden of sustainability to the VCS, and this is not recognised by commissioners.

- Civil society organisation

Finally, many respondents stated that competitive commissioning practices drive behaviours across civil society that work against partnership and collaboration. For example, it leads to organisations competing over resources rather than working together, and creates a transactional relationship between civil society and public bodies.

Restricted commissioned contracts do not enable collaboration, but rather create competition between civil society organisations. Creating competition for scarce resources is unhelpful both for the relationship with government but also for local and national collaboration across sectors. It creates siloed working and undermines trust.

- Civil society organisation

Increased competition driven by funding pressures, rising costs, and inconsistent timescales threatens collaboration, potentially undermines the covenant’s goals.

- Civil society organisation

5. Embedding the covenant

We wanted to explore ideas for embedding the Covenant principles across civil society and government at every level. We asked: ‘How do we ensure this Covenant holds weight and is effective?’ and ‘How do we make the new relationship a reality, especially in the current economic context?’. Key themes to emerge focused on:

• Governance and accountability
• Implementation and delivery
• Measuring Impact
• Celebrating success and best practice

Governance and accountability

There was a strong message that the Covenant should be underpinned by governance and accountability arrangements but no clear consensus on what would be effective or proportionate. Most responses highlighted a desire for accountability on all parties, not just for the government and public bodies.

The Covenant should be a joint commitment based on shared ownership of the vision and goals whereby all parties agree and are mutually accountable.

- Local authority

Appropriate and proportionate governance and shared accountability is essential at a local and national level.

- Local authority

Some called for formal accountability and governance arrangements, including putting the Covenant onto a statutory footing with an independent oversight body to drive implementation and monitor progress. Others suggested introducing new reporting requirements, in particular for the UK Government and other public bodies, such as annual progress reports to Parliament.

Government departments should take the responsibility to monitor various [bodies’] performance against the principles of the Covenant, maybe even embed in performance plans and reporting (KPIs?) for achieving certain progress in that area.

- Civil society organisation

For public bodies, strengthening the mechanisms within government for the oversight and support of the voluntary sector would be welcome

- Civil society organisation

However, there was also a clear ask not to increase requirements or burdens for civil society or other public bodies, given stretched capacity and resource constraints. Some suggested that a more appropriate approach would be for the Covenant to provide a voluntary framework for mutual accountability in order to drive learning and improvement within partnerships.

Shared accountability and learning – a framework for mutual accountability and feedback loops for continued learning and improvements.

- Civil society organisation

Implementation and delivery

A clear view emerged that embedding the Covenant principles across civil society, government and public bodies is a significant challenge that will require a sustained and coordinated approach to implementation at a national and local level. Many respondents flagged that this could be challenging in a context of resource and capacity constraints.

Multiple responses called for the UK Government to lead by example and ensure that the Covenant is owned by and embedded across Departments.

To be effective, there needs to be practical implementation of the principles of the Covenant, at a national level. At the very least the Covenant would need to be demonstrably embedded across all government departments.

- Local authority

To make this Covenant effective it must be owned by the whole of government and inform good practice across every department and be led by those at the top of government.

- Civil society organisation

We also heard a clear message that there needs to be clarity on the scope of the Covenant and the expectations or requirements it places on devolved or local government. Many suggested that the Covenant should not be implemented in a one-size-fits all model and that there should be flexibility to adapt the Covenant to local needs or existing arrangements. Responses suggested supporting and empowering local government by handing over power and decision making where others are better placed to deliver solutions, and creating guidance and toolkits for local partners to aid them in embedding the Covenant locally.

Flexibility to develop local frameworks/MOUs based on the principles and setting out clear expectations and arrangements for accountability and governance.

- Local authority

Because of the diversity of the sector, and how it is shaped to a geographical place, it is likely that many areas continue to develop a localised strategy. As noted above, the Covenant principles give breadth and space to support complementary local design. Covenants alone do not deliver change, and it will be important that both the Covenant, and locally designed strategy are supported by action plans which are transparent and measurable, and where possible are linked to associated funding.

- Local authority

The work of civil society is so broad and all-encompassing – as set out in the Covenant, it spans across all the government’s 5 missions. This means that the covenant needs to be embedded across all areas of government. In reality, a Covenant like this can only be effective with shared agreement around principles and ways of working to be effective, so engaging on both sides to understand it and put it into practice is key.

- Local authority

Respondents also suggested that there is a need for practical tools and resources for civil society organisations and public bodies to use to implement the Covenant principles across existing and new relationships. This could include resources for professional and organisational development, knowledge exchange platforms, mentorship and skills transfer initiatives, along with training on securing public sector contracts, and wider learning opportunities.

Adequate resources, tools, and support to enable stakeholders to meet their commitments of the Covenant must be provided. This may include funding, training, or simply access to expertise.

- Local authority

Provide programs that develop skills and sustainable leadership

*- Civil society organisation

Measuring impact

Respondents reflected that it would be beneficial for the Covenant to be a living document, for its impact to be regularly assessed, and for the document to be adjusted as needed. It was suggested that these impacts should focus on local needs, outcomes and social value.

Clear, robust and regular processes should be established in government to actively uphold the principles of the Covenant, ensuring it remains a living and impactful framework. Monitoring progress of its implementation, assessing outcomes and addressing any shortcomings will be vital.

- Civil society organisation

Building in regular review is important, to ensure that the Covenant is achieving what it set out to achieve – getting feedback from all sides about what is working and isn’t working, and using this to adapt and improve practice.

- Local authority

Celebrating success and best practice

In order for the Covenant to be successful, respondents highlighted the importance of commitment and ‘buy in’ from national and local leaders. This could be demonstrated through publicly visible support of the Covenant, including positive communications and action, highlighting incentives and tangible benefits of the Covenant by celebrating successful partnership working and giving recognition through awards and programmes.

All partners need to demonstrate a commitment to the Covenant.

- Local authority

The government and all partners should actively celebrate the intended new relationship with civil society, including by recognising the partnerships, sharing the impact of what has worked well, and highlighting any lessons learned. The government and all partners should also identify and promote opportunities to link the Covenant into national, regional, and local strategic documents, policies, and plans.

- Local authority

Finally, responses suggested highlighting case studies of the Covenant working in practice, and acknowledging and taking learnings from existing partnership arrangements across the UK.

The Covenant should] build upon the existing good practice, [as] there is a lot of excellent work already happening locally, regionally and nationally.

- Local authority

6. Conclusions and next steps

The purpose of this engagement was to gain a crucial understanding into current working relationships between the government, public bodies and civil society organisations in the UK. For the Covenant to be effectively implemented, DCMS needed to hear from those on the ground about ongoing relationships, what supports positive partnership working, what barriers are present, and how the Covenant could best support and improve these. The breadth and scope of this engagement has provided a rare and valuable insight into this.

It is clear from these findings that there is work to be done to improve the relationship between civil society, public bodies and the government. However, it is also clear from these findings that there is much to be gained from closer, more effective working relationships. The Covenant is an exciting opportunity for all parties to work towards shared goals, and tackle the nation’s challenges together.

Following this engagement period, officials in DCMS have used these findings to develop a final Civil Society Covenant, which provides the foundation for resetting the relationship. This is not the end of the learning process for civil society and government, and we intend for the Covenant to guide all parties towards more effective and fruitful partnerships for the long term.

Annex A - Methodology

Summary

From October - December 2024, DCMS, NCVO and ACEVO ran an extensive engagement exercise to gather views on the Civil Society Covenant Framework. During this engagement period, we sought to reach out and engage with the full diversity of civil society, including organisations of all purposes, sizes, geographical locations, and those that are minority led.

DCMS also sought to engage officials and leaders across public bodies, gathering views from all levels of government, including central, local and devolved governments, as well as strategic authorities and arms length bodies.

Overall, DCMS, NCVO and ACEVO heard from over 1,200 organisations across the length and breadth of civil society, and from government at every level. A breakdown of the engagement activities has been provided below.

Engagement activities

Civil society engagement

• DCMS, NCVO and ACEVO jointly designed an online engagement survey hosted by NCVO that was open to all of civil society. The survey was cascaded widely through NCVO, ACEVO and civil society partner networks, reaching over 2,000 recipients and receiving 488 valid responses.
• DCMS also invited civil society to provide more detailed submissions and evidence direct to the Department. We received 92 submissions from a wide range of organisations, some of whom may have also responded to the online survey.
• NCVO delivered a series of online ‘drop in’ day-long consultation events to provide more accessible engagement opportunities for organisations and individuals who would face barriers to engaging via formal events or written consultation.
• NCVO also held in-depth interviews with civil society leaders during this period. They focused the interviews across a range of issues, including service delivery and contracting, campaigning, smaller organisations’ focuses and ethnic minority organisations, in order to get a varied perspective on NCVO’s findings and conclusions for this work.
• In partnership with No10, DCMS held 9 roundtables which were attended by 220 organisations. The roundtables sought to engage with a diverse set of civil society organisations, including groups and subsectors that may have been under-represented or faced barriers in participating in the engagement process. The roundtables brought together a range of leaders to represent different perspectives from across the UK. They included leaders from faith communities, those representing ethnic minority groups, organisations with experience of supporting and running social enterprises and co-operatives as well as people leading organisations locally in the heart of their communities and Local Infrastructure Organisations.

Public bodies and government engagement

• DCMS invited direct and detailed responses from public bodies and across government, via a letter from the DCMS SoS. Letters were sent to devolved government ministers, English strategic authority mayors and chief executives and english local authorities, encouraging their involvement in the engagement.
• DCMS officials ran a local government Webinar targeted at Directors of Communities to brief them on the Covenant, hear views and encourage submissions. 120 officials from English local authorities and strategic authorities attended.
• DCMS jointly ran a day-long event with Pro Bono Economics aimed at senior civil servants and senior leaders in the sector. This was attended by around 150 in person attendees and 192 online attendees. This event focused on enabling and supporting effective collaboration between civil society and the civil service.
• DCMS conducted extensive engagement across central government departments, throughout the engagement period. DCMS officials also utilised existing ministerial and official level engagement in order to promote the Covenant, where suitable.
• DCMS officials engaged with officials from each of the devolved nations and territorial offices throughout the engagement period in order to keep them informed about the Covenant and its applicability across the UK, and to gather feedback on its content. This engagement also provided DCMS officials with the opportunity to learn about existing arrangements with civil society in each of the devolved nations.
• Overall DCMS received 72 responses from across Whitehall departments, local authorities, strategic authorities and devolved governments.

Data limitation

The main limitation of this engagement is that the findings only reflect the experiences and views of those in the sector who opted in to taking part. There may be others who did not have the time or resources to participate in this engagement.

Engagement questions

We used the following key engagement questions to provide a framework for respondents to provide their feedback on the Covenant Framework.

Key engagement questions:

• Are the 4 key principles - recognition, partnership, participation, transparency - the right ones?

• What are the enablers of effective partnership and what are the examples of best practice?

• What are the barriers to meaningful partnership and collaboration?

• How do we harness the excellent ability of civil society to innovate and find new solutions to societal problems and how do we support that spirit to spread across the sector?

• How do we ensure this Covenant holds weight and is effective?

• How do we make the new relationship a reality, especially in the current economic context?

In order to gather feedback from civil society, we rephrased the key engagement questions for the NCVO Engagement Survey. This was done to ensure the questions were appropriate for a civil society audience, and were phrased to enable organisations to fully answer the questions provided. These alterations were decided on by DCMS officials, NCVO and ACEVO.

NCVO Engagement Survey questions:

• Do we need a Covenant to improve the relationship between civil society organisations and government?
  • To what extent do these 4 principles support an effective relationship between civil society and public bodies?
  • What changes or additions, if any, would you make to the draft principles?

• What supports an effective relationship between civil society organisations and public bodies?

• Do you experience barriers when engaging with public bodies?
  • Please tell us more about your experience

• How can we ensure civil society organisations and public bodies uphold these principles?

• What supports civil society to innovate and find solutions to societal problems?

• What actions should civil society organisations take to improve the relationship with public bodies?

• What actions should public bodies take to improve the relationship with civil society organisations?

DCMS Analysis of the NCVO Engagement Survey

The analysis of survey responses was done using a combination of quantitative analysis, qualitative coding and inductive thematic analysis. A team of researchers in DCMS began by familiarising themselves with the responses and identifying codes within excerpts. An inductive approach was followed for open text responses, in which codes and themes emerged directly from the data and responses. This ‘ground-up’ approach was taken as it ensured that the analysis and subsequent findings closely reflected the experiences and perspectives of those within the sector. To ensure the codes were standardised across the team, researchers frequently came together to test the approach for each question and refine codes. The team then analysed the codes and grouped codes according to emerging themes. Data was triangulated across the various engagement activities to form the research findings.

To quality assure the analysis 2 researchers assessed each response. Any responses in which a researcher was not able to deduce the message or meaning was flagged for more in-depth analysis.

Visual representation of the NCVO civil society responses

As evidenced by the graphs below, the NCVO civil society survey responses were wide ranging.

Where were survey respondents operating? Respondents could select multiple options, indicating that they operate in more than 1 region (n=481).

In terms of geographic spread, civil society organisations that operate across the UK were the most common respondent type. Organisations operating in every corner of the UK and operating internationally responded to this survey.

Organisations responding to the online survey, by size. Respondents could select one option only (n=447).

DCMS heard from organisations with incomes ranging from below £10,000 per year (micro organisations) to super-major organisations (income above £100 million per year). The most common respondent came from medium sized organisations (income between £100,000 and £1 million per year).

Online survey responses to the question 'What role does your organisation play?' Respondents could select multiple roles. Roles which were undertaken by fewer than 10 respondents have not been included (n=479).

DCMS heard from a variety of types of organisations. The most common respondent type was ‘service delivery’ organisations.