Research and analysis

Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) R&D Programme - case study synthesis report

Published 11 July 2025

This research was supported by the R&D Science and Analysis Programme at the Department for Culture, Media & Sport. It was developed and produced according to the research team’s hypotheses and methods. Any primary research, subsequent findings or recommendations do not represent government views or policy.

Notes to this report

About this report and research

This report synthesises the main insights from five locality case studies (labelled A to E) for Work Package 6 of the Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) study. The study aimed to help build an evidence base on: (1) the positive impacts of effective local infrastructure, (2) the negative impacts of its absence, and (3) the conditions and models for building effective local infrastructure. The project was supported by the R&D Science and Analysis Programme at the Department for Culture, Media & Sport, but carried out independently by a consortium led by Ipsos UK, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (at Sheffield Hallam University), PBE, University of the West of Scotland.

Work Package 6 Research team

Work package lead and synthesis report author: Rob Macmillan

Case study A: Ellen Bennett, Jo Watts

Case study B: Rob Macmillan, Rebecca Hamer, Cathy Harris

Case study C: Amelia Byrne, Lauren Mosher, Alex Oliviera, Ben Roff

Case study D: Jo Stuart, Rebecca Hamer, Cathy Harris, Rob Macmillan

Case study E: Jack Larkham, Beth Kitson, Leo McGurk

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their experiences and perspectives by participating in the interviews, workshops and focus groups in the five case study localities. Particular thanks are due to key stakeholders who kindly supported the research by sharing background information and contacts, making introductions and offering space for workshop discussions. This research would not have been possible without this voluntary contribution from participants.

Anonymity

In line with the agreed approach to anonymising cases in the study overall, this report does not name or identify case study areas nor attribute key points or quotes to named individuals or organisations.

Terminology

Different terms prevail at different times to describe and label the organisations and activities associated with ‘civil society’. Here we use ‘voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise’ (VCFSE) to describe the sector or its constituent organisations. We also use the term ‘local civil society infrastructure’ (LCSI) throughout the study and in this report, whilst recognising that it may not be in wide use.

Key points

Case study research examined local civil society infrastructure (LCSI) in five localities in England, as part of a wider study. The findings highlight the complexity of LCSI, in terms of how it is configured and operates in different places, how it is judged for its presence, coverage, quality and impact, and how it might be improved.

Although there are different approaches to and experience of LCSI, the research was not aiming to assess different ‘models’ of LCSI. Rather, the case studies enable insights and learning to be drawn from a clear contrast between areas considered to have stronger LCSI, and those where it is thought to be weaker or absent.

Those contrasts become apparent in the unfolding analysis of case study material discussed in this report. There are four main findings from the research.

Organisations and functions: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to LCSI. Different configurations have developed over time in different places, based the interplay between highly specific local contextual factors, such as the relative financial and organisational strength of LCSI organisations, and wider factors, such as the changing policy priority and resources devoted both to the VCFSE sector and its infrastructure.

Sufficiency and coverage: The way in which existing LCSI provision is assessed is often ambiguous, demonstrating varied engagement and knowledge about LCSI and laden with different normative ideas about what good LCSI might involve. Even so, case study comparisons reveal that three of the case studies are regarded by participants in very positive terms, while in the other two a general sense of inadequate LCSI applies where it is thought to require attention and resources.

Impacts, costs and benefits: Accounts of impact given in relation to two broad outcomes (‘Better targeted resources to meet local needs’ and ‘Improved policy making on local priorities’) were more confident and convincing than those for a third outcome (‘Increased community trust, empowerment and belonging’). In areas with strong LCSI, the VCFSE sector is more connected, joined up and plugged in to wider developments. In areas with relatively weak or absent LCSI, the VCFSE sector is less well supported and is fragmented, resulting in isolation, duplication and competition amongst frontline VCFSE organisations.

Strengthening and improving LCSI: A common theme in discussions of how to improve LCSI was the quantity and quality of funding. In areas with weaker LCSI, the basic resourcing for LCSI functions came to the fore, while in areas with stronger LCSI, discussion looked to address the duration and conditions of funding. One case study highlights the positive possibilities of merger to create more strategic and sustainable LCSI organisations. Another case study shows how an ambitious and strategic agenda can be developed for deep area-based work to address fundamental structural problems facing the locality, based on LCSI’s attachment and rootedness to place, knowledge of communities, key people and organisations.

Introduction

The R\&D Science and Analysis Programme at the Department for Culture, Media & Sport supported a study of Local Civil Society Infrastructure in England. The research aimed to build the evidence base on: (1) the positive impacts of effective local infrastructure, (2) the negative impacts of its absence, and (3) the conditions and models for building effective local infrastructure. The study was carried out independently by a consortium led by Ipsos UK, along with Sheffield Hallam University, Pro Bono Economics and the University of the West of Scotland.

A significant part of the research programme involved five detailed case studies of local civil society infrastructure. This report synthesises the main findings and insights from the case studies.

The study overall, and the case studies, sought to address four research questions. The questions, and the relevant sections of this report, are indicated in table 1 below.

Table 1: Research questions

Report section	Research question
Organisations and functions	RQ1: Which organisations and functions fall within ‘local civil society infrastructure’?
Sufficiency and coverage	RQ2: How can we measure whether sufficient (in terms of coverage and quality) local civil society infrastructure is present in a local area? How can we categorise ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ local civil society infrastructure?
Impacts, costs and benefits	RQ3: What are the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak local civil society infrastructure, and to whom do they fall? For example, does better local infrastructure support the growth, effectiveness and productivity of the local civil society sector?
Strengthening and improving LCSI	RQ4: What factors and models are effective in strengthening local infrastructure?

The research methodology is detailed in the appendix to this report, covering case study selection, data collection and analysis. In summary, the case study research involved desk analysis of relevant organisational and strategic documents and websites, coupled with interviews, focus groups and workshops with frontline VCFSE groups and organisations, local civil society infrastructure organisations, statutory authorities and funding bodies. Across the five case studies, a total of 200 individuals from 127 separate organisations participated in the research.

Organisations and functions

LCSI can be configured in different ways in different places. A range of LCSI functions might be carried out by a single or several generalist and specialist LCSI organisations and by organisations for whom infrastructure is not a sole or main purpose, including from bodies beyond the local VCFSE sector itself. This section draws from across the case studies to explore what LCSI looks like in different places, addressing the research question: Which organisations and functions fall within ‘local civil society infrastructure’?

Summary of case study findings

Table 2 below provides a basic summary of the organisations and functions pursued by LCSI in the five case study localities.

Table 2: LCSI organisations and functions.

Case study	Description	Organisations and functions
A	A relatively deprived metropolitan district in the north of England	Concentrated approach to LCSI: A single large main LCSI organisation fulfils most functions in this and neighbouring districts. It has strong support from, and close relationships with, its local authority. The two organisations work together strategically and in jointly convening geographically based networks.
B	A relatively deprived unitary authority in the north of England	Plural approach to LCSI: There is no single, general LCSI organisation or volunteer centre. Several larger local frontline VCFSE organisations meet regularly together with the local authority to discuss and advance strategic issues for the VCFSE sector, and other networks exist. New initiatives to develop volunteering in health and organisational capacity building are underway.
C	A mixed urban and rural area of three unitary authorities in the south of England, with areas of affluence and high deprivation	Concentrated approach to LCSI: Three main LCSI providers work across the area: a general LCSI organisation, a grant administrator and support provider and a rural LCSI organisation. Each tends to be aligned to one of the unitary authorities, and they work in collaboration with each other.
D	A mixed urban and rural district with relatively high deprivation in a two-tier area in the Midlands	Plural approach to LCSI: There is no single general LCSI organisation or volunteer centre operating in the district, but there are discussions about creating one. A VCFSE alliance and other collaborative forums provide some support, networking and information for the VCFSE sector, along with local authority-funded community workers. But all are short-term funded.
E	A large, rural, two tier county in the south of England, with areas of affluence and high deprivation	Concentrated approach to LCSI: A single large main LCSI organisation seeks to fulfil most LCSI functions across the county and districts. It was formed from the merger of several smaller LCSI organisations. Other networks exist, and local authorities also provide support to the VCFSE sector.

Comparing the case studies

The key point of contrast across the case studies is the extent to which LCSI functions tend to be pursued within one or two dedicated LCSI organisations – that is, where these functions are usually a sole or main purpose of the organisation. The question is whether more concentrated or consolidated arrangements apply, or something else, such as a more dispersed or pluralist approach.

In case studies A and E LCSI functions are delivered primarily through large, well-established, generalist providers. This is not to say that LCSI functions are exclusively provided in this way. Other networks and organisations are also involved, such as thematic networks, neighbourhood-based forums and through local authority staff. But the large LCSI providers in each act as anchor organisations for the VCFSE sector as a whole, the main ‘go to’ place for support, guidance, information and convening networks. They are highly visible to those in the sector and have a presence in networks and strategic conversations about the locality.

The LCSI organisation in case study A has a long history and has grown over time to become one of the largest LCSI providers in England. It’s expansion has arisen through merging with a similar organisation in a neighbouring district, opening services in a third with no effective LCSI provision, and gradually expanding its role, latterly to include grant-making. It has very close working and strategic relationships with the local authority and plays a significant role in wider sub-regional developments. Its equivalent in case study E was formed as a single county-wide LCSI organisation through the merger of several smaller district-based LCSI and specialist LCSI organisations. The aim, supported by central government policy and resources, was to create a more sustainable and effective LCSI organisation able to act strategically across the county. To this end, as shown in sections 3 and 4 below, it is widely regarded as being successful.

Case study C involves several LCSI organisations working across a common patch involving three different (and quite contrasting) local authorities. One of three main LCSI organisations would be regarded as a generalist provider, while the other two, a rural community development agency and a grant administrator and support provider, are more specialist. Importantly, the organisations work in close and longstanding collaboration to provide LCSI functions whilst avoiding duplication. Each LCSI organisation tends to be the main provider in one of the three areas, highlighting the need to consider how all functions come to be delivered in each area, although work does expand beyond local authority areas.

In case studies B and D, LCSI provision appears to be furthest away from the idea of LCSI functions provided by single or just a few dedicated LCSI organisations. In both of these cases, generalist LCSI organisations had wound or closed down in the last 10 years. In their place, a more dispersed approach to LCSI was in operation. LCSI functions were being pursued, to the extent possible, through geographical, thematic or strategic networks and groupings. In both cases, it was reasonably straightforward to identify whether and how functions such as convening (within the VCFSE sector and with statutory authorities) and advocacy were undertaken. In contrast, LCSI functions which tend to involve direct work with individual VCFSE organisations, such as facilitating funding, organisational development and support for volunteering, were harder to identify.

Reflections

The case study research highlights that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to LCSI. Different configurations have developed over time in different places. This is the result of the interplay between:

  * highly specific local contextual factors, such as the relative financial and organisational strength of LCSI organisations, changing leadership and strategic orientations of LCSI organisations, and the nature of local authority support

  * wider factors, such as the changing policy priority and resources devoted to the VCFSE sector and its infrastructure, including by trusts and foundations, and the overall direction of government policy (for example towards encouraging mergers).

The existence of different LCSI configurations prompts two questions for further research and consideration. First, what a more comprehensive map of LCSI provision and its different configurations across the country looks like. Addressing this question would help understand, compare and assess different potential ‘models’ of LCSI provision, for example concentrated, plural and others in between. A second question then arises: whether policy should embrace the potential diversity of LCSI configurations, assuming each to be sensitive to its local context, or support their convergence towards a favoured model of whatever kind.

Sufficiency and coverage

Beyond articulating the functions pursued by different LCSI organisations and networks, it becomes important to assess, to the extent possible, how much LCSI work is underway. This section addresses the questions: How can we measure whether sufficient (in terms of coverage and quality) local civil society infrastructure is present in a local area? How can we categorise ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ local civil society infrastructure?

The case study research suggests that given the amorphous nature of LCSI it is not possible to answer these questions in any straightforward way. The wider research in the study provides a starting point for considering sufficiency, measured in terms of, for example, LCSI expenditure per capita in a local authority area. However, it is important to recognise the limitations of such data, since LCSI expenditure can only be tracked through assigned LCSI organisations in administrative datasets (such as the Register of Charities). It will exclude infrastructure functions performed through other means, such as services provided, or collaborative networks facilitated, by frontline VCFSE organisations. Moreover, there is no consensus understanding of, or comprehensive data about, LCSI quality.

One implication of these data limitations, given the different configurations of LCSI described in section 2, is that it may be easier to identify the scale of LCSI effort, and judge it’s sufficiency, in areas with more concentrated, and therefore visible, LCSI provision. The scale and reach of dispersed arrangements by their very nature are harder to discern. Moreover, it is likely that the scale and sufficiency of some functions are easier to assess (for example, facilitating funding and organisational development) than others (for example, convening and advocacy).

Summary of case study findings

The case studies provide an indication of sufficiency and coverage, as summarised in table 3 below. But they also highlight some of the difficulty in making such an assessment. The data arises through conversation with LCSI organisations, frontline VCFSE organisations and others including statutory stakeholders. As such it is grounded, but inevitably impressionistic.

Table 3: LCSI sufficiency and coverage

Case study	Description	Sufficiency and coverage
A	A relatively deprived metropolitan district in the north of England	LCSI functions are delivered by one main, generalist LCSI organisation, working closely with the local authority. It is one of the largest LCSI organisations in England, but its expenditure also covers two neighbouring districts and includes a significant role in grant distribution). LCSI in case study A is thought to be sufficient and strong.
B	A relatively deprived unitary authority in the north of England	It is not possible to quantify the scale of LCSI, but it is mostly thought to be insufficient in coverage and quality. There is no dedicated LCSI organisation; LCSI functions are delivered across a range of organisations and networks. With limited resources, LCSI functions are improvised. They are stronger in relation to convening and advocacy, but the support for and inclusion of smaller VCFSE organisations is regarded as a significant gap.
C	A mixed urban and rural area of three unitary authorities in the south of England, with areas of affluence and high deprivation	LCSI across the area is regarded as strong and stable, provided primarily through three established LCSI organisations, with a combined annual turnover of more than £8m (including grant distribution). The three organisations work closely together to coordinate support, where each is primarily aligned with one of the three local authorities.
D	A mixed urban and rural district with relatively high deprivation in a two-tier area in the Midlands	With no dedicated LCSI organisation, functions are delivered through several networks and by local authority staff. As such it is not possible to quantify the scale of LCSI provision, but it is widely thought to be insufficient and weak. While various networks bring VCFSE organisations together, there is a concern about the lack of support for smaller groups.
E	A large, rural, two tier county in the south of England, with areas of affluence and high deprivation	LCSI functions are primarily delivered through a large generalist provider with a turnover of more than £2.5m per annum. This is seen as a central hub in a wider LCSI support system, which includes other networks, statutory authorities and a large grant-making body. LCSI in case study E is widely seen as strong and sufficient in coverage and quality, but with some geographical variation.

Comparing case studies

The main contrast across the case studies in relation to sufficiency and coverage is between those areas thought to have greater sufficiency and coverage (case studies A, C and E) and those where coverage is absent or thought to be inadequate and insufficient (case studies B and D). In terms of the research question, case studies A, C and E look to be examples of relatively strong LCSI, while case studies B and D look to involve relatively weaker LCSI.

Case studies A, C and E exemplify strong LCSI in terms of sufficiency, coverage and quality. In each case LCSI functions are primarily delivered through dedicated LCSI organisations from the VCFSE sector itself. It is important to note, however, that this work is closely coordinated with key statutory authorities, who engage with and fund LCSI provision in various ways. For example, in case study A this partnership is evident in practice through joint convening work in neighbourhood level networks, core contracts or grants for the delivery of LCSI functions and higher level advocacy and strategic engagement. The same applies in case study C, where three LCSI organisations work closely with each other across the area to coordinate LCSI provision, but also with three very different local authorities. Case study E involves a large generalist LCSI provider as central part of a wider LCSI system of support for the VCFSE sector, which includes funding and provision by statutory authorities.

Case study A is considered a prime example of what ‘strong’ LCSI could look like. This is seen in terms of the extent and strength of connections and networks across the district, the visibility and reach of core infrastructure services, the recognition of (and trust in) key staff, and the way in which LCSI services in the council work cohesively with and recognising the main LCSI body as an independent, infrastructure organisation, sharing information and signposting groups between the two organisations where appropriate. A key strength of LCSI provision is the knowledge, experience, longstanding strategic relationships and trust between key individuals in the LCSI organisation and the local authority.

I’ve known XX almost 30 years. We’ll ring each other up and just go, ‘Mate, I am struggling with this, let’s have a chat,’ so, within that, it’s the relationships that are developed that offer that ability for peer support, external and internal support. Where you can ring somebody up, who you’ve got a trusted relationship with, to be able to say, ‘This is something I’m hitting a brick wall with. Can we chat this through? Can I get some help?’, and that happens a lot.” (Case study A participant, Statutory body/funder)

This finding of close working relationships with statutory authorities is also evident in case studies C and E. It applies in case studies B and D, but here the relationships appear to be more diffuse and less well institutionally embedded.

The main LCSI organisation in case study A adopts a wider role in raising the profile and demonstrating the important role that VCFSE organisations play in supporting strong and thriving communities. It is developing a proactive strategic purpose and vision for the district, which goes beyond merely supporting VCFSE organisations to address broader societal issues of equity, social justice and quality of life. This involves projecting a more ambitious role for local civil society in looking deeply at the root causes of inequalities, straining to hear the voices of communities and working in partnership towards social justice goals.

The strength and sufficiency of LCSI provision in case study C was thought (by participants from frontline VCFSE organisations, statutory bodies and LCSI organisations alike) to lie in the distinct roles, remits and catchment areas of the three primary LCSI organisations, the passion and dedication of LCSI leaders and the extent of their knowledge of local needs in each authority.

I think that sustainability in having people that have known the local area, and, you know, built those relationships over many years, is a real strength for [this area], it’s that commitment.” (Case study C participant, Frontline organisation)

LCSI organisations in case study C were generally perceived as sufficient in the quality of provision, particularly in relation to volunteering, organisational development and facilitating funding. Connections with statutory services were well developed and participants from statutory organisations in particular spoke highly of the work undertaken by LCSI organisations.

Case study E’s LCSI is robust, well-integrated, and diverse, with complementary roles played by the county’s main LCSI organisation, local government, the NHS, specialist consultancies and independent networks. Within this mixture there is a well-established and highly integrated core consisting of key organisations that provide the vast majority of the funding, strategic oversight, coordination and practical delivery of LCSI. The main LCSI organisation has a good reputation, especially amongst statutory partners, and appears to be financially secure. The previous merger has encouraged streamlined coordination and economies of scale. The main strengths of LCSI in case study E are the strategic buy in from key parts of the public sector, high levels of collaboration and a well-integrated model of both strategic oversight and provision.

Some disconnections were evident in different approaches to LCSI taken by health bodies and local government, and in terms of uneven LCSI funding arrangements across the complexity of two-tier local government. As a result, it was suggested by some participants that LCSI provision was complex to manage and varied somewhat across the county, and some inconsistencies in service quality were reported by frontline VCFSE organisations.

In contrast, LCSI in case studies B and D was generally, with some exceptions, thought to be insufficient. Many participants regarded LCSI in these areas as simply absent, but for some this may also be a product of equating LCSI provision (across many functions, organisations and networks) with the work of a single, dedicated LCSI organisation, such as a ‘Council for Voluntary Service’. The demise or absence of such an organisation is thought to have left a gap. Many participants were able to acknowledge that LCSI functions could be, and to an extent were being, provided through other means, but in general these efforts were regarded as insufficient, piecemeal and improvised – making the best of adverse circumstances.

In both cases, but particularly evident in case study B, there was some divergence of opinion about whether existing LCSI efforts were adequate or sufficient. Some participants viewed ‘traditional’ (or concentrated) LCSI, through a single dedicated provider, as a risk and were more prepared to argue that existing (dispersed) LCSI efforts were working well and were a ‘work in progress’. This included networks of frontline VCFSE organisations, and a suggestion - doubted by some participants – that larger frontline VCFSE organisations could offer informal support and advice to others. The majority view among participants, however, was that existing LCSI was inadequate, that there was a recognisable gap that needed to be filled.

There’s a feeling that what we have as the [steering group] now, these group meetings, is really important. And it’s doing everything the infrastructure could do, and this is all we need. I find that not very credible because there are so many things that are going on and just none of us, in my opinion, have the real time or resources to deliver what good infrastructure should do”. (Case study B participant, Frontline organisation).

In particular, equity and inclusion concerns in the VCFSE sector’s access to support and networks were raised. Worries were expressed about where smaller and emergent groups could find out about and gain access to information and support and have a voice in existing networks. Similar concerns for the experience of smaller VCFSE organisations were expressed in case study D. There was more of a consensus in this case that existing LCSI provision was insufficient.

There’s a whole wealth of people out there that, with the right support, they could set something up, you know, they’ve got an interest. But we just can’t get that off the ground……there isn’t an infrastructure provider, they can’t get the advice, the support, the information, the guidance, the funding.” (Case study D participant, Statutory body/funder).

Reflections

The terms in which participants assess existing LCSI provision are often ambiguous, demonstrating varied engagement and knowledge about LCSI and laden with different normative ideas about what good LCSI might involve. Even so, the contrasts between the case studies in terms of sufficiency, quality and coverage are quite stark and revealing. Three of the case studies are regarded by participants in very positive terms, while in the other two a general sense of inadequate LCSI applies, where the relative weakness of LCSI requires attention and resources.

Gaining insight from at least two additional case studies would be instructive in assessments of sufficiency and coverage – namely an area with a relatively concentrated configuration of LCSI, but where provision was thought to be inadequate or of poor quality; and vice versa, an area with a relatively dispersed LCSI configuration, where provision was thought to be strong. Although it would be difficult to specify such cases in advance, given the elusive nature and challenge of understanding LCSI sufficiency and coverage, it would go some way to exploring the factors that come into play in assessing LCSI.

Impacts, costs and benefits

After considerations of strength of LCSI in terms of sufficiency and coverage, attention turns to the impact of LCSI, or the difference it makes in key areas of work. This section addresses the study’s overall ‘so what?’ question: What are the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak local civil society infrastructure, and to whom do they fall? For example, does better local infrastructure support the growth, effectiveness and productivity of the local civil society sector?

The study adopted and developed a theory of change approach for LCSI, in which five sets of LCSI activities (around facilitating funding, community participation, organisational development, convening and advocacy) could lead variously to short-, medium- and longer-term outcomes along three outcome pathways:

1. Better targeted resources to meet local needs

2. Improved policy making on local priorities

3. Increased community trust, empowerment and belonging.

Research for the case studies involved gathering evidence in relation to each of these pathways.

Summary of case study findings

A summary of the impacts, benefits and costs of LCSI in different case studies is provided in table 4 below.

Table 4: LCSI impacts, costs and benefits

Case study	Description	Impacts, costs and benefits
A	A relatively deprived metropolitan district in the north of England	Evidence for the impact of LCSI is quite strong, particularly in relation to convening, advocacy and organisational development. More confident narratives of impact are seen in relation to better targeted resources and improved policymaking (through ‘knitting together’ frontline VCFSE organisations in established networks), compared with evidence in relation to increased trust, empowerment and belonging.
B	A relatively deprived unitary authority in the north of England	There is some limited evidence for the impact of LCSI, particularly around improved policymaking through a cross-sector steering group and allied initiatives. The potential costs of weak LCSI are noted by participants, including a more fragmented VCFSE sector, with fragile and under-developed smaller frontline VCFSE organisations left to fend for themselves, resulting in fewer funding applications. There was no strategic overview or knowledge of the scale, scope, potential and priority needs for support of the VCFSE sector, and a relative lack of input from smaller VCFSE organisations in networks and policy discussions.
C	A mixed urban and rural area of three unitary authorities in the south of England, with areas of affluence and high deprivation	There is more evidence of LCSI working towards the three broad outcomes than tangible evidence of meeting them. LCSI organisations facilitated funding (e.g. meet-the-funder events, bid-writing training), supported organisational development (e.g. governance training) and convened networks. LCSI was perceived by stakeholders to be having an influence on local policymaking, supported by stable, long-term relationships of trust, although frontline VCFSE organisations were less confident of impact here.
D	A mixed urban and rural district with relatively high deprivation in a two-tier area in the Midlands	A ‘disjointed’ and ‘uncoordinated’ VCSFE sector was described, with concerns about resulting duplication and competition between VCFSE organisations. There was no route for finding volunteers nor for support with funding applications, and a suggestion that fewer were submitted as a result. There was perceived to be a lack of collective voice and leadership, and the VCFSE sector was not effectively represented in local decision-making.
E	A large, rural, two tier county in the south of England, with areas of affluence and high deprivation	The sustainability of frontline VCFSE organisations was advanced by LCSI through networks, training and time-saving practical tools such as a funding information portal. Local policymaking was improved by public bodies hearing from diverse community voices, able to speak up with confidence through LCSI-convened networks.

Comparing case studies

Overall, the case studies show evidence of positive efforts to support and develop the local VCFSE sector, albeit in different contexts and in different ways. There are good pointers towards the impact LCSI activities have made in all the case studies. However, overall evidence tends to be stronger, with more convincing accounts of impact, in relation to ‘better targeted resources to meet local needs’ and ‘improved policy making on local priorities’ than for ‘increased community trust, empowerment and belonging’.

Once again, the case studies provide a powerful contrast between areas thought to have stronger or well established LCSI (case studies A, C and E), and areas where it is thought to be absent, insufficient or otherwise less well developed (case studies B and D). In the former, participants emphasised the positive benefits arising from the work of strong LCSI. While positive impacts are noted in the latter, there is more of a focus on the costs and consequences of LCSI’s relative weakness or absence.

The first outcome pathway suggests that strong and effective LCSI could eventually lead to better targeted resources to meet local needs by supporting a more vibrant local VCFSE sector that can identify and meet the needs of residents and communities.

Participants in case studies A and E described a vibrant local VCFSE sector, supported by LCSI in terms of coordination of networks to meet different needs (such as area forums facilitated by the main LCSI organisation in case study A, together with local authority representatives, to learn about the area and each other), facilitating funding and knowledge sharing amongst local VCFSE organisations and groups. Frontline VCFSE organisations felt more confident and better equipped to navigate challenges, with reference to ‘not being alone’ and ‘knitting together’ activities. The result was a better understanding of the local landscape of provision to improve signposting, build collaboration, share ideas and reduce duplication.

My Chair recently went on [a] one day training [at an infrastructure organisation], and came back with lots of good ideas to help develop the board at a strategic level. And so that strengthens local organisations, it provides that ability to have access to information and advice that can be tailored to the needs of individual organisations.” (Case study C participant, Frontline organisation).

Case study E highlights how organisational development and capacity building support provided through LCSI, with practical tools such as a funding information portal, contributed to VCFSE sustainability. Frontline VCFSE organisations described how the support and tools around funding provided by LCSI helped to simplify complex processes and save time and resources, increasing the efficiency with which the local VCFSE sector operates. In addition, development staff within the main LCSI organisation could provide expert support to frontline VCFSE organisations, and connect them with other initiatives.

[LCSI Development worker] was able to put us in touch with people who knew the answers to the questions we had, because he was making an effort to network around the [issue]… he’d glue it all together. A lot of these things they tend to become islands in the sky because they’re not connected up to anything else” (Case study E participant, frontline organisation).

In case studies B and D, participants observed how fragmented the VCFSE sector is, and how isolated individuals and frontline VCFSE organisations are as a result. Participants in case study D linked weak LCSI to a ‘disjointed’, ‘fragmented’, ‘dispersed’ and ‘un-coordinated’ VCFSE sector, with perceived consequences for duplication of services and competition within the sector. Information flowed less readily, and organisations were not as aware of each other’s work, compared with other case studies.

“[It] gives more strength to the smaller organisations if they come together. It’s an easier way for us to connect with partner organisations if they’re all brought together… It can prevent duplication as well because if you hear that somebody’s doing something similar. You know, you can look at how you can work in a way that complements each other rather than duplicates because funding is so scarce.” (Case study D participant, Frontline organisation).

Limited resources and capacity among key stakeholders in case study B, together with a lack of clear responsibility, meant there was no strategic overview or knowledge of the scale, scope, potential and priority needs for support of the VCFSE sector. More established frontline VCFSE organisations would regularly come together and share information, but it was felt that smaller organisations were largely left to fend for themselves. Information about funding opportunities would not necessarily cascade throughout the local VCFSE sector. Frontline VCFSE organisations described how they found out about new opportunities through the newsletters or e-bulletins of LCSI organisations in neighbouring localities, or through information passed on by peers.

The gap, the big, big thing that’s not happening in [our area] is, because there’s no infrastructure organisation for a small, evolving group, you know, to go to get some advice and support on the most basic things. Like, ‘I need some funding but they’ve told me I have to have a constitution or some rules and I have a bank account. I have to have a committee and I don’t know what to do’. Because that doesn’t exist for anyone, it’s impacting on the evolution of groups because only the most savvy, middle-class people will understand that and try and do something” (Case study B participant, LCSI organisation).

Moreover, there is a lack of direct support and training around how to prepare credible funding applications in case studies B and D. Several participants observed that each locality was regarded as being a ‘cold spot’ in terms of successfully gaining grants for the local VCFSE sector to meet local needs, and funders in each reported fewer grant applications from local VCFSE organisations. Several factors are potentially in play, including the number, scale and quality of applications to funders, the presence of the funder and the presence of LCSI in facilitating funding. The absence of LCSI in both case studies was seen in the lack of support available for local VCFSE organisations, and no straightforward mechanism through which funders could disseminate information about latest funding opportunities.

You can tell them as much as you like about funding opportunities, but if they don’t know how to write a bid and there is nobody there with that knowledge or expertise, you’re a small organisation, and there is nobody there for them to say, ‘Tell me how I should approach this.’ Even as a starting point. How do you make a case for support? How do you do full-cost recovery? How do I put this together?” (Case study D participant, Frontline organisation).

A contrast can be seen in case study A, where the main LCSI organisation was actively involved in brokering relationships with funders, such as working with the National Lottery Community Fund to explore rates of funding coming into the district and bringing different funders into convened spaces to support a dialogue between funders and frontline VCFSE organisations.

The second outcome pathway focuses on the voice of the local VCFSE sector and the value of knowledge accruing from its close connections and work with communities. Strong and effective LCSI would facilitate and channel this voice through convening networks and direct advocacy with statutory partners, resulting in improved policy making on local priorities.

The strongest and most visible articulation of evidence for impact in relation to improved policy making comes from case studies A and E. They both show how close working and established relationships between LCSI organisations and statutory authorities can make a difference. Case study A involved a deep and long-standing set of relationships which work through dedicated area-based structures within the locality. These provided key routes into communities to cascade public policy messages, engage in consultation and support dialogue between communities and statutory agencies. In convening these forums LCSI organisations can facilitate communication and information sharing between different local stakeholders to bring local knowledge into policy making.

Case study E involves similar mechanisms but they are not organised in as structured a way. Nonetheless they allowed the public sector to better understand the realities of what is happening “on the ground” in communities, hearing diverse voices and gaining better insight into inequalities, gaps in services, and unmet needs.

I think the difference [the VCFSE Assembly] makes is our statutory partners are thinking about collaborating with us… I think before it existed it was easy to not do that. It was easy to just say, ‘Oh, I talked to a charity, and now we’ve done all that consultation, and collaboration’… But now people are actually clamouring to come and speak to us about things” (Case study E participant, LCSI organisation).

Moreover, they opened spaces for local VCFSE sector voices to inform public sector policies and service design - for example to develop more preventative agendas in public policy - and opportunities to shape public sector approaches to working with and funding the VCFSE sector locally. LCSI organisations can give frontline VCFSE organisations greater strength in numbers, where leaders described feeling more confident in raising concerns with public sector decision-makers.

Evidence from case studies B, C and D in relation to improved policy making is more mixed, with questions raised about the opportunities for influence as well as the effectiveness of LCSI in representing local communities. Participants from LCSI organisations and statutory bodies in case study C felt that LCSI was having an influence, supported by ongoing, stable and trusting relationships. However, participants from frontline VCFSE organisations were more uncertain about what LCSI organisations could achieve in terms of improving local policy making.

In the absence of a dedicated LCSI organisation in case study B, a cross-sector steering group in practice fulfilled some LCSI functions, such as convening and advocacy, albeit with very limited resources. It had gained recognition as a strategic partnership from the local authority and could identify examples of impact in shaping policy priorities, but there was some ambiguity about how independent from the council it was, in terms of focus and agenda setting. There were also concerns about how inclusive it was, given that it was mainly larger, well-established frontline VCFSE organisations who participated and whose voices were heard. Similar arrangements and concerns were evident in case study D, where stakeholders noted how there was no obvious route for small and grassroots VCFSE organisations to engage with the local authority, resulting in a lack of collective voice and leadership, and a VCFSE sector not able to influence as it should and not effectively represented in local decision-making.

The third outcome pathway is towards increased trust, empowerment and belonging. Through LCSI activities promoting volunteering and wider community engagement, individuals can be supported to participate in local activities and VCFSE organisations can involve communities more in their work.

Of the three outcome pathways, this has arguably the least compelling evidence for the impact of LCSI activities. However, participants in workshops and case studies could articulate how activities around volunteering and community engagement lead to short-term outcomes.

For the two case studies with perhaps the most well established LCSI presence (case studies A and E), work towards the outcome of greater trust, empowerment and belonging was noted but appeared to be less central to the overall purpose of LCSI. The main LCSI organisation in case study A was primarily focused on addressing need, inequality and disadvantage across the locality, rather than trust, empowerment and belonging. Conventionally volunteering and community engagement are concerned with increasing the numbers of volunteers. The LCSI organisation went beyond this, seeking to support the VCFSE sector to strengthen its work in listening to the voices of local communities and ensuring that these voices help to shape the work that takes place, and importantly where resources are invested to make a real impact. From this perspective, residents were engaged not merely as an untapped resource to be mobilised for the community, but as active voices of those communities.

Case study C (as with case studies A and E) supported this outcome pathway through volunteer management and engagement activities and support for frontline organisations. Strong relationships have been developed between the three main LCSI organisations who collaborate around volunteering and put on joint events to celebrate volunteers. For example, one of the three main LCSI organisations runs a volunteer management service to connect volunteers with frontline VCFSE organisations. Another facilitates an extensive network of ‘Good Neighbour’ groups. However, the evidence is of activity in support of enhanced community trust, empowerment and belonging, rather than evidence of achieving these outcomes.

There was limited evidence of existing LCSI activity towards this pathway in case studies B and D. The absence of dedicated infrastructure devoted towards volunteering (following earlier closure of volunteer centres in both cases) created challenges for frontline VCFSE organisations in terms of recruiting volunteers. It also left people not knowing where to find out about volunteering and presented difficulties for statutory bodies and other stakeholders looking to signpost residents and patients to opportunities. The withdrawal of community development resources some years ago in case study B was thought to have eroded neighbourhood-based engagement activity in response to community needs organised through community centres and halls. Case study D emphasises the value of such close community work in terms of building trust and creating connections, through a network of (local authority-employed and temporarily funded) community builders working to empower local people to engage in their communities, including helping to set up new groups or community activities.

Reflections

Gathering convincing evidence for the positive impact of LCSI activity has conventionally been a challenge for LCSI organisations and advocates for LCSI, as well as for evaluators and researchers. By definition ‘infrastructure’ is behind the scenes, in the background and underpins activities carried out by others^{[footnote 1]}. As such, it is implicated in complex, extended and prolonged attribution chains from inputs and activities (funding and staffing to carry out LCSI functions) through to short-, medium- and long term outcomes (such as a stronger VCSFE sector meeting local community needs). Each step in these chains is an opportunity to identify the nature and scale of activities and causal links to the difference they make. Each step is also where data and insights can be overlooked, lost or hard to discern, and where the context of other factors affecting outcomes becomes more complex.

To help overcome this problem, the LCSI study sought to structure and simplify the impact of LCSI by developing a theory of change, working along three outcome pathways. Evidence was gathered in the five case study settings to test both the theoretical links in the theory of change and the claims made for the impact of LCSI. Participants from LCSI organisations themselves, but crucially also frontline VCFSE organisations, statutory bodies and funders, were asked to share examples and evidence of impacts.

Two main conclusions emerge from this analysis. First, accounts of impact given in relation to two of the broad outcomes (‘Better targeted resources to meet local needs’ and ‘Improved policy making on local priorities’) were more confident and convincing than those for the third outcome (‘Increased community trust, empowerment and belonging’). This does not mean that stronger evidence around trust, empowerment and belonging could not be generated, nor that the impacts in this area do not exist. It is just that participants found it harder to draw evidenced connections from LCSI activities around volunteering and community participation to wider impacts. Clearer lines of sight were evident for more concrete outcomes, such as targeting resources and improved policymaking.

The second conclusion is that despite the general challenge of generating compelling evidence of impact, the contrast between case studies is evident. More convincing accounts of the positive impact of LCSI can be seen in case studies regarded as having relatively strong LCSI, compared with those where it is relatively weak or absent. In areas with strong LCSI, the VCFSE sector is more connected, joined up and plugged in to wider developments, VCFSE organisations are strengthened by, for example, training and funding advice and information, and can make a contribution to wider policy development. In areas with relatively weak or absent LCSI, the VCFSE sector is less well supported and is fragmented, resulting in isolation, duplication and competition amongst frontline VCFSE organisations.

It is not anywhere near the co-ordination or scale that the sector needs to bring it together to bring cross sector impact.” (Case study D participant, frontline organisation).

There are few or under-developed channels for articulating the voice and grounded experience of frontline VCFSE organisations, and little strategic overview of the VCFSE sector’s scale, support needs and potential.

Strengthening and improving local civil society infrastructure

Having explored what organisations and functions are involved in LCSI, its sufficiency and coverage, and possible impacts, benefits and costs, the final aim of the study was to understand how LCSI could be strengthened and improved. The research question here was: What factors and models are effective in strengthening local infrastructure? In the research study as a whole, this question was addressed through a dedicated work package and main findings written up in a separate report.^{[footnote 2]} However, the research in five case study localities offered the opportunity for considering the grounded experience of LCSI and possible areas for improvement.

Participants tended to comment on how existing LCSI infrastructure could be improved, rather than reflect on and share learning about what had and had not worked in efforts to improve LCSI. Nonetheless, case study participants shared helpful perspectives and suggestions for enhancing LCSI provision in their areas.

Summary of case study findings

Table 5 below summarises the main findings in relation to the final research question.

Table 5: Strengthening and improving LCSI

Case study	Description	Strengthening and improving LCSI
A	A relatively deprived metropolitan district in the north of England	A risk of over reliance was noted on (a) the main LCSI organisation to be ever-present in all networks and partnerships, and (b) a few capable and experienced LCSI staff. The main LCSI organisation was seeking to develop a more ambitious role for LCSI in supporting communities and the VCFSE sector to dig deeper and address key inequalities.
B	A relatively deprived unitary authority in the north of England	The main concern was the need for funding to provide a basic level of LCSI provision in circumstances where it is negligible. The issue was a cause of contention about the way forward, but the main priorities were around support for smaller VCFSE organisations and a coordinating function. New projects to develop LCSI were getting underway.
C	A mixed urban and rural area of three unitary authorities in the south of England, with areas of affluence and high deprivation	Multi-year funding for LCSI would help address problems of staff retention and also support innovation and skills development in LCSI organisations. With three main LCSI providers working in the area, there was a need to strengthen collaboration and cohesive working between the three providers, as well as to improve both the profile and reach of LCSI into diverse communities.
D	A mixed urban and rural district with relatively high deprivation in a two-tier area in the Midlands	A lack of provision meant that LCSI functions were carried out through under-resourced networks and absorbed into the time of key individuals. There was a consensus about the need to develop LCSI, and new proposals were in discussion. However, the prospect of local government reorganisation will introduce some uncertainty, given that there had been no significant previous merger activity amongst LCSI organisations in the county.
E	A large, rural, two tier county in the south of England, with areas of affluence and high deprivation	An earlier merger had helped create a more strategic and sustainable LCSI support offer. The importance of longer-term and streamlined funding across a complex system of statutory authorities was emphasised, reducing transaction costs and attendant dysfunctions of short-term funding, and helping to improve the consistency and accessibility of LCSI support.

Comparing case studies

Much of the discussion about strengthening and improving LCSI in the five case study localities directly reflects the local context and recent history of LCSI and the VCFSE sector in each place. For each case study, suggestions for improvement are typically a logical outcome of assessments of the state of existing LCSI (as described in sections 2-4 above).

Accordingly, improvement suggestions for case studies A, C and E tend to head in two directions: either addressing vulnerabilities in a context of otherwise strong, well-regarded and well-functioning LCSI, or seeking to enhance LCSI further through more ambitious, strategic and pro-active work locally. In contrast, improvement for LCSI in case studies B and D tends to be about building up provision from a very low base of improvised infrastructure with very few resources.

A common feature here is around funding for LCSI organisations. LCSI in case studies A, C and E looks relatively well-resourced, and so the concern tends to be about the quality of funding rather than its quantity, although many LCSI organisations would make the case that they could achieve more with more generous funding. The quality of funding refers primarily to its duration, but also to its conditions of access (competitive tendering or more collaborative commissioning) and use (what LCSI funding is for, how flexible it is, what outcomes are expected, and how is it monitored and evaluated). LCSI participants tend to regard short-term funding as problematic in being an inefficient means to resource LCSI given the transaction costs of constant funding applications and the attendant discontinuity and disruption to staffing and projects.

Short-term funding was seen as a challenge in case studies C and E, undermining the consistency and quality of services provided by the main LCSI organisations. In case study E, for example, longer-term funding would ensure stability and improve service delivery. This could be achieved through unifying LCSI funding across local authorities and the NHS to enhance coordination and reduce geographical variation. Participants highlighted the need to ensure that support for LCSI remains strong within local government, highlighting some gaps in buy-in among some senior leaders and politicians. Others, however, voiced concerns about the main LCSI organisation’s reliance on local authority funding, which was felt to limit its independence.

Case studies B and D show how important basic resourcing is for LCSI provision. In both cases, funded LCSI work is negligible. Instead, LCSI is provided in limited ways by absorbing the costs, either in the networking time provided by key staff from existing VCFSE and statutory organisations, or by offers of unfunded and ad hoc in-kind support to other frontline VCFSE organisations. The extent to which this happens is unclear, but it does not lend itself to a reliable, quality or comprehensive LCSI support system. The lack of resources for LCSI in case study B had a paradoxical consequence. Here, some frontline VCFSE organisations appeared to adopt a zero-sum approach to funding, such that any available resources should be directed to frontline VCFSE services rather than LCSI, instead of seeing them as complementary ways to develop the VCFSE sector.

There’s a general thought that if the local authority is going to fund the voluntary sector, after… years of not funding anybody at all, that they should fund the charities that have actually stepped up to the plate and worked when there was no money - as opposed to putting another shelf in, that’s going to take money that, potentially, if you get the right people round the table, can bring money in. … The view of the infrastructure is ‘that’s an extra slice on the funding cake, an extra tier, when there’s no money anywhere’” (Case study B participant, Frontline organisation).

However, participants in both case studies B and D recognise the problems of unsupported LCSI and were making efforts to seek additional resources through grant applications.

You need some kind of vehicle which can create an opportunity for those organisations to come together, potentially work together, discuss their issues and, you know, really analyse the gaps, so that they are best positioned to be able to fill those gaps. Otherwise, how are you really addressing need?” (Case study D participant, Statutory body/funder).

The priority needs in case study B, for example, were for direct support and advice for smaller VCFSE groups, and some form of coordinating and communicating body – if not quite a fully-fledged LCSI organisation - for the VCFSE sector as a whole. Efforts to address these gaps had been contentious, but new projects around supporting volunteering and organisational development were about to get underway as the fieldwork for this research concluded.

Arguably case study E represents a compelling case for the longer term benefits of merger among LCSI organisations. The main LCSI provider in the county was formed over ten years ago from the merger of several smaller LCSI organisations (smaller both in turnover, but also in terms of geographical scale and remit). With policy support and resources at the time from central government and others, the aim was to create a single, countywide body that would be more sustainable, strategic and impactful. Although there are many advantages and disadvantages of rationalisation and merger, it would be difficult to argue that this overall aim has not been fulfilled, given the status, reputation and security of the main LCSI organisation. Merger activity has also been a historical feature in case study A, where the main LCSI organisation merged with its equivalent in another district, and now provides services in a third where the existing LCSI organisation closed down.

In contrast, case studies B and D could be seen, counterfactually, as representing what sometimes happens in the absence of merger. In both cases the existing LCSI organisations wound down or closed rather than join up with or be taken over by another provider. The result has been a continuing gap in LCSI provision in both localities. The prospects for merger would perhaps have been stronger in case study D, where the locality is a lower-tier local authority in a two-tier arrangement. Previously LCSI organisations in the county had tried, unsuccessfully, to work as a collaborative consortium rather than consider merger, but subsequently have tended to work in relative isolation, in their own districts. The government’s devolution ambitions and local government re-organisation for two-tier areas^{[footnote 3]} are likely to have significant implications not only for local government, but also for the VCFSE sector and how LCSI is configured across the district and county. Case study B is already a unitary authority but is relatively small. Previous attempts to join up support with LCSI providers in neighbouring areas have not been taken forward.

The main vulnerability noted in case studies of otherwise strong LCSI was the risk of over-dependence. This arose in two ways, as seen in case studies A and C: first in relying on a single main LCSI provider, facing pressure to be all things to everybody or ever present in all networks and partnerships; and second in depending on a few highly capable, knowledgeable and experienced individuals within the LCSI organisations. The latter emphasised the need to encourage succession planning and distributed forms of leadership. Other areas for improvement were around support to enhance the diversity of the VCFSE sector, impact evaluation, addressing the needs of medium and larger organisations and support for social enterprise.

Reflections

Research participants across the case studies offered thoughts about how LCSI could be improved in their area. These tended to involve identifying shortcomings, risks or areas for improvement, rather than deeper insight into learning about LCSI improvement efforts. The quantity and quality of funding for LCSI was a common theme across several case studies, albeit manifested in different ways. In areas with weaker or negligible LCSI, it was a question of basic resourcing for LCSI functions. In case studies with stronger LCSI, discussion looked to address the quality of funding and other areas for development.

Case study A shows what might be possible with well-established and well-regarded LCSI provision. Here, attention has turned to the development of a more ambitious, strategic and pro-active agenda for local development, seeking to address fundamental structural problems facing the area, and for ‘deepening’ an area-based approach, drawing from its attachment and rootedness to place, knowledge of communities, key people and organisations.

So, for us, it’s a deeper, further strategy around getting deeper into tackling the root causes of those inequalities, going further around hearing voices of local people and how that can influence decisions around where resources go, how stuff is done in communities and further and deepening the amount of stuff that is community led, that is absolutely I think where our mission is” (Case study A participant, LCSI organisation).

Conclusions

LCSI comes in lots of shapes and sizes – different configurations of organisations and networks providing different combinations of functions. That lends itself to a great deal of complexity, to the extent that it is a challenge for policymakers and researchers to make sense of and judge the strength, effectiveness and impact of LCSI, let alone practitioners, funders and front line organisations navigate it.

The case studies show that efforts to chart and describe LCSI, and consider its potential impacts, are incremental and patchy. There are no definitive answers, such is the complexity and variation in LCSI. The research framework, organised around a theory of change, has helped to provide a guide to the world of LCSI, and provide pathways to understand and evidence activity and impact.

The empirical work in five localities has provided good evidence by way of proof of concept for LCSI, if not a comprehensive sense of how close the actual, differentiated world of LCSI approximates theoretical impact in all places. Lines of sight can be drawn from the inputs and activities of LCSI towards outcomes that are considered positive by stakeholders. But the research does not and could not provide an assessment of all LCSI everywhere.

The research provides powerful indications from the case studies that there are more convincing stories of impact in localities where LCSI is highly visible and present, than in those where it is patchy, under-developed or absent. Well-funded, -led and -supported LCSI matters. The evidence for this comes from different kinds of stakeholders – frontline VCFSE organisations, funders, statutory authorities as well as LCSI organisations. It can be seen to apply across all LCSI functions, although some outcomes are harder to identify.

Moreover, the case studies also indicate that how LCSI is provided, should be provided and improved, is open to some debate, further research and consideration. There are some common features and dilemmas in how LCSI is configured in different places, but also local nuance and complexity. There is no clear sense from the research that one kind of approach should prevail.

Finally, where LCSI is thought to be patchy, under-developed or absent, local stakeholders, with some nuance, tend to recognise it and seek to do something about it. Where there are gaps, people see them and seek to fill them. This gives a very strong indication that LCSI functions are widely thought to be important and need to be organised, resourced and supported.

Appendix: Research methodology

Case study selection and design

Work Package 6 consisted of five case studies, where each case covers local civil society infrastructure in a specific local authority area or linked areas. The cases were selected to provide a range of different local contexts (urban and rural; different local government structures; relative deprivation) and different configurations of local civil society infrastructure.

A ‘local civil society infrastructure configuration’ can be thought to consist of how local civil society infrastructure functions are organised and provided in a given geographical territory, i.e., who does what in relation to different functions, how functions and organisational providers relate to each other, how different functions and organisations are prioritised and supported, and how all these aspects change over time. Table 6 below indicates and defines two broad approaches to the local configuration of civil society infrastructure: concentrated/consolidated local civil society infrastructure, and plural/dispersed local civil society infrastructure.

Table 6: Configurations of LCSI

Concentrated (or consolidated) local civil society infrastructure

Plural (or dispersed) local civil society infrastructure

Where local civil society infrastructure functions in a defined geographical area (usually coterminous with a local authority boundary) are provided through one or more main established providers for whom these functions are a sole or main purpose, such as a generalist ‘Council for Voluntary Service’-type organisation (with embedded Volunteer Centre), a linked or separate Rural Community Council where appropriate, and a Community Foundation. Other forms of specialist, networked and hyper-local provision may also exist, but these are likely to be smaller and less well established, gaining less policy attention and resources.

Where local civil society infrastructure functions in a defined geographical area (usually coterminous with a local authority boundary) are provided through a wide array of different organisations and networks, some of whom may work elsewhere and/or carry out other (non-local civil society infrastructure) services. Local civil society infrastructure functions are delivered in multiple and hybrid ways and tend to have a fluid and changeable character. A plural configuration may arise because the arrangements in a consolidated configuration break down, or result from the strategic choices of key stakeholders and funders.

The approach to selecting case studies for Work Package 6 was informed by this distinction, but in practice configurations of local civil society infrastructure are likely to be more complex and varied. The selection aimed to include those areas that are thought to veer towards a more concentrated model of local civil society infrastructure provision, and those thought to veer towards more hybrid arrangements or more of a plural model of local civil society infrastructure.

Data collection and analysis

Research for the case studies was undertaken between October and December 2024 and involved two main strands: desk-based research and primary fieldwork.

Desk-based scoping research

Review of:

  * selected websites for key organisations and those of prospective interviewees, including records from the Register of Charities and Companies House

  * selected reports, strategy documents and research of relevance about each locality, its local civil society and local civil society infrastructure, including the wider sub-region and region as relevant

  * minutes of relevant networking meetings

  * committee reports and minutes from local authority committees as relevant

  * contextual data from Work Package 4.

Workshops, focus groups and interviews

Primary fieldwork involved:

  1. Stakeholder workshops – in some case studies, key stakeholders were brought together for initial and closing workshops about the research

  2. Focus groups – with frontline VCFSE organisations

  3. Individual interviews – with representatives from LCSI organisations, frontline VCFSE organisations, statutory authorities, funders and others

In total the research involved 200 participants from 127 different organisations, as shown in table 7 below.

Table 7: Case study participants – organisations and individuals

Case study	A	B	C	D	E	Total
Organisations
LCSI organisations	1	7	3	3	3	17
Frontline VCFSE organisations	16	23	15	22	9	85
Statutory authorities	2	2	7	3	4	18
Other	2	2	0	3	0	7
Total	21	34	25	31	16	127
Individual participants
LCSI organisations	9	10	6	4	3	32
Frontline VCFSE organisations	30	31	17	25	9	112
Statutory authorities	10	12	9	9	9	49
Other	2	2	0	3	0	7
Total	51	55	32	41	21	200

Most interviews, workshops and focus groups were conducted online, but a small number were held in person (with some participants joining online).

Analysis

All workshops, focus groups and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed using a framework method of identifying and recording summary insights and illustrative quotes against key themes in a spreadsheet. The themes were:

  * Local context

  * Local civil society

  * Local civil society infrastructure

  * Strengths and weaknesses of local civil society infrastructure

  * Impact of local civil society infrastructure

  * Improving local civil society infrastructure

  * Other

  * Overall reflections.

1. The term ‘infrastructure’, which originated in French railway construction in the 19th century, is derived from the Latin prefix ‘infra’, meaning ‘below’. ↩

2. Local Civil Society Infrastructure - What Works Report. ↩

3. MHCLG (2024) English Devolution White Paper. Power and Partnership: Foundations for Growth, CP 1218 (London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government). ↩