Research and analysis

Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) R&D Programme - evidence review

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.

Executive Summary

Introduction

This report, the output from Work Package 1 of the Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) research project, provides a review of evidence on LCSI in England. The review, consisting of 227 items in total, is designed to understand the current state of knowledge on LCSI, and to inform the subsequent research programme.

A fragmented and under-developed evidence base

The review is structured to assess evidence against the study’s four guiding research questions – see Table 1.1 below. Overall, there are two main messages that emerge from the evidence review:

1. The evidence base on LCSI in England remains fragmented and under-developed. Most studies look at particular aspects of LCSI, focusing on specific functions, individual organisations, activities and interventions or places. There is little that looks at LCSI in the round.
2. As a result, we find that the research questions guiding the study are addressing a central gap in understanding the overall nature, state and impact of LCSI in England.

Existing literature does speak to the research questions, albeit somewhat indirectly. While there are relevant studies which can helpfully inform the research, it would not be true to say that the questions have been adequately addressed already and are therefore redundant. In addition, the evidence base on LCSI is beset by a lack of consensus on key terms and definitions and overlapping concepts. Table 1.1. below identifies the main gaps in understanding LCSI and indicates where they will be addressed in the subsequent programme of research.

Table 1.1: Research questions and gaps in the literature

Report section	Research question	Main gaps in understanding	Actions
Defining local civil society infrastructure (Section 4)	RQ1: Which organisations and functions fall within LCSI?	Little explicit attention to the distinction between LCSI functions and LCSI organisations, and the implications of such a distinction; Lack of consensus around definition and scope of LCSI; No exploration of different configurations of LCSI in different localities	To be addressed in the research programme through Work Packages on theory of change framework development (WP2), secondary data analysis mapping and modelling (WP4) and local case study research (WP6).
Evaluating local civil society infrastructure (Section 5)	RQ2: How can we measure whether sufficient (in terms of coverage and quality) LCSI is present in a local area? How can we categorise ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ LCSI?	Little consensus on understanding ‘sufficiency’ or ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ LCSI, or proxy measures for them; Negligible overall geographical analysis of LCSI presence and sufficiency	To be addressed in the research programme through Work Packages on theory of change framework development (WP2), secondary data analysis mapping and modelling (WP4), a survey of LCSI organisations (WP5) and local case study research (WP6).
RQ3: What are the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak LCSI, and to whom do they fall?	Research limited by overlapping concepts (e.g., reach, quality, outcomes and impact), scale and attribution challenges; Limited longitudinal assessment of LCSI impacts, benefits and costs; More focus on benefits of LCSI presence/strength than costs of LCSI absence/weakness	To be addressed in the research programme through Work Packages on theory of change framework development (WP2), secondary data analysis mapping and modelling (WP4) and local case study research (WP6).
Strengthening local civil society infrastructure (Section 6)	RQ4: What factors and models are effective in strengthening LCSI?	Limited research directly addresses contexts and mechanisms for strengthening LCSI; Lack of overall, long-term or comparative assessment of effectiveness of approaches for strengthening LCSI	To be addressed in the research programme through a Work Package on improving LCSI (WP3).

Defining Local Civil Society Infrastructure

Due to its contested and context-specific nature, there is a lack of consensus on defining LCSI. Two approaches are evident in the literature. An ‘organisation-first’ approach sees LCSI as comprising one or more identifiable organisations serving a particular geographic area and then defines the functions of LCSI narrowly as the collective activities of those organisations. In contrast, a ‘function-first’ approach identifies the purpose and functions of LCSI and then seeks to identify the broader range of organisations that fall within that functional definition. One model emphasises three functions of LCSI - to connect individuals, groups and organisations; to develop the work and capacity of these individuals, groups and organisations and to influence decision-makers. A provisional taxonomy of LCSI distinguishes between a concentrated ‘core’ and a wider ‘penumbra’ of supplementary provision.

Evaluating Local Civil Society Infrastructure

The coverage, quality, benefits and impact of LCSI are sometimes used interchangeably and are not neatly delineated from each other. Direct discussion of the strength or weakness of LCSI is usually within the context of financial sustainability of LCSI organisations, and variation in coverage and quality is a recurring theme. Robustly evidencing the impact, benefits, and costs of LCSI is a long-standing and currently unresolved challenge, due to methodological issues around attribution, time lags and diverse needs, as well as organisational issues such as capacity and evaluation capabilities. A handful of studies have sought to quantify the impact of LCSI, using, for example, ‘distance travelled’ measures of self-assessed organisational development amongst front line organisations, social return on investment, and willingness to pay techniques.

Strengthening Local Civil Society Infrastructure

There is limited explicit evidence on ‘what works’ in strengthening LCSI. What there is derives primarily from single project or programme evaluations and cross-sectional research, with few comparative studies of the effectiveness of different interventions. Reflections on improvement in the literature cluster around four themes: funding, collaboration, organisational development and data and impact.

Introduction

The research project on Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI), commissioned by Department for Culture, Media and Sport through the R&D Science and Analysis Programme, involves an evidence review (Work Package 1) designed to inform a subsequent series of work packages. The evidence review explores what is currently known and understood about local civil society infrastructure (LCSI) in England in relation to the project’s guiding research questions:

• RQ1: Which organisations and functions fall within ‘local civil society infrastructure’?
• 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?
• 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?
• RQ4: What factors and models are effective in strengthening local infrastructure?

Structure

The report is structured as follows:

• Section 1 outlines the methodology undertaken to identify and review the literature. It covers the key stages of the process, the outcomes of those stages and highlights any limitations of the review.
• Section 2 provides some general reflections on the evidence base, noting its limitations and highlights how the subject is highly contested within the literature.
• Section 3 contains a brief overview of LCSI in government policy since 2003 outlining the key policy approaches and their impact on LCSI, as well as a recent upsurge in policy interest in LCSI.
• Section 4 begins to address the first research question, outlining how LCSI has been conceptualised within the literature, considering both the functions of LCSI and the organisations that comprise it.
• Section 5 explores how LCSI has been evaluated in the literature and brings together the evidence relevant to research questions two and three. It explores notions of the strength and weakness of LCSI and gives examples of the consequences of its weakness or absence. It goes on to discuss how ideas such as coverage and quality have been conceptualised and measured and concludes by looking at the impact of LCSI in terms of the challenges around measurement and theoretical frameworks.
• Section 6 addresses research question four by bringing together the key evidence from within the literature about how to strengthen LCSI. It focuses on how funding, collaboration, organisational development, and data about LCSI impact and civil society more broadly have a key role in the sustainability, effectiveness and strength of LCSI.
• Section 7 touches briefly on some overall concluding reflections from the evidence review.

Note on terminology

There are a wide variety of ways in which the civil society sector is described. Words, phrases or labels used to describe the sector have changed over time, with some falling out of use and others becoming more prevalent. The studies we have reviewed use a number of these labels to describe the sector; the terms third sector, voluntary sector, Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector and civil society are perhaps the most prominent.

For reasons of simplicity and comprehension we have taken the pragmatic step of treating these terms as synonymous. The paper uses the term ‘civil society’ as a default, even where a different term may have been used within the source material.

Methodology

To examine what is known about LCSI, this review used a rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology, providing a concentrated and comprehensive approach to review the existing evidence. The review was undertaken in three phases (see Figure 1.1):

• Searching and screening
• Sifting
• Review and synthesis.

Searching and screening

The evidence search focused primarily on LCSI but was supplemented with a limited search of literature on private sector business support. This looked to capture potentially useful insights and learning that could be transferable to LCSI.

The search for evidence was guided by a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Documents published from 2003 onwards and based on research/evaluation on LCSI in England were included (the full inclusion criteria used in the study are outlined in Appendix A). The 2003 date reflects the beginning of the ChangeUp investment in infrastructure, which sparked considerable research and evaluation.

Evidence for the review was identified from a number of sources, namely the collation of evidence lists/databases held by the research team, a call for evidence hosted on the website of Pro Bono Economics between 12 and 26 January 2024 and circulated among academic research networks, national infrastructure organisations and an academic research mailing list, and a search of databases. The latter involved a search of electronic databases (including Web of Science, IBSS, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts and Google Scholar), ‘grey’ non-academic databases (such as Google); and a search of foundation and trust websites, websites of civil society organisations (such as NAVCA, NCVO, Social Enterprise UK, Power to Change) and government.

A search string of key words and synonyms was used to help ensure the search results were as relevant as possible (see Appendix A). Documents were screened on title and key words in the first instance and then on abstracts. A total of 370 documents were identified for inclusion at this stage.

Sifting

In the sifting phase, evidence was scanned for relevance, with documents only included if: they contributed to one or more of the research questions, the inclusion criteria were met, there was no clear reason to exclude based on quality grounds (for example, a very low sample size) and the research was not compromised by the date it was undertaken (i.e. that it remains relevant). This sifting phase resulted in 227 documents for inclusion in the review.

Review and synthesis

Full reports/papers were then reviewed with key information extracted and recorded in a spreadsheet, including findings in relation to the research questions, limitations of studies and a rating on how useful documents were for the evidence review based on relevance and quality (methodological robustness and data confidence) with a rating from high to very low. This formed the basis of the synthesis with studies rated as ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ prioritised. Interim findings were presented to a research team workshop, which helped inform the synthesis.

Figure 1.1: Overview of rapid evidence assessment process.

Limitations of the review

The approach used in this review was comprehensive, but it was also rapid, with the search for evidence, review and synthesis undertaken over a short period of time in early 2024. It was not possible, therefore, for the search for evidence to be exhaustive and it is possible some relevant studies on LCSI have not been identified or included. This risk has been mitigated by seeking feedback on initial drafts of the report from the project’s academic advisory group to ascertain and address any gaps in the review.

As noted in the inclusion and exclusion table in the Appendix, the review has only included accessible and published research and evaluations that are in the public domain. Some documents were not available through databases or online (typically more dated documents). There may also be other unpublished forms of primary evidence such as informal papers and discussion documents that have not been included in this review.

General reflections on the evidence

In exploring and synthesising the literature used in this review, it became clear that the nature of the evidence base itself has certain characteristics and themes which reoccur across the key research questions under exploration. This section provides a brief summary of these reflections, in order both to inform the reading of subsequent sections of the report and to reduce the risk of repetition in the analysis.

Much of the evidence draws upon narrow studies of individual organisations, places or interventions rather than a holistic exploration of local civil society infrastructure

Within the evidence base there are very few studies which seek to explore local civil society infrastructure and/or the individual research questions as a coherent whole. Instead, the vast majority of the evidence draws upon studies which focus on individual programmes, geographic areas, points in time, policy interventions, evaluations, groups or types of infrastructure organisations or a combination of these narrower areas of exploration. As a consequence, the evidence base is somewhat fragmented, meaning that trying to piece together a coherent image of local civil society infrastructure in order to answer the research questions is difficult. As will become clear, the existing evidence addresses the research questions only indirectly, typically by inference or implication. In addition, it is notable that the peer-reviewed academic literature on local civil society infrastructure is very sparse. Overwhelmingly, the evidence comes from ‘grey’ literature such as research reports and evaluations.

Due to the contested and context-specific nature of local civil society infrastructure, there is a lack of consensus about how it is defined

Broadly, the research questions seek to explore two interrelated themes. First, defining local civil society infrastructure through its component parts of purpose, functions and organisations. Second, questions exploring coverage, quality, strength, weakness, impacts, benefits, and costs of local civil society infrastructure require identification of how it can, or has been, mapped and evaluated.

Defining and evaluating local civil society infrastructure are interrelated pursuits. Attempts to evaluate local civil society infrastructure must be informed by an initial definition of what it is. Only by first defining what infrastructure is, and crucially what it is for (its purpose), how its purpose is pursued (its functions) and which actors undertake it (people, networks and organisations) can any attempt be made to evaluate elements such as coverage, quality and strength.

However, within the literature despite a superficial consensus as to how local civil society infrastructure is defined, beneath the surface exists a number of tensions, differing interpretations, contested meanings and competing agendas. For example, while the general consensus is that one of the primary functions of local civil society infrastructure is to provide ‘support’ to ‘front-line organisations’ in the form of ‘capacity building’, the term capacity building itself is not universally agreed upon, and the question of for what purpose capacity is being built changes according to different actors at different times. Cairns et al (2005) explore this issue, concluding that ‘A review of the literature on the subject [of capacity building] revealed a variety of definitions and ideological roots and a lack of conceptual clarity’ (Cairns et al, 2005b: 880). Leat (2011) also directly addresses this issue, contending that capacity building is ‘loosely defined’ with ‘numerous ways of describing and classifying capacity-building’ and identifying that notions of capacity building are only meaningful with a shared understanding of its purpose: ‘if we want to talk about capacity-building we need to specify capacity for what’ (Leat, 2011: 5).

This lack of consensus is not just confined to discussions of capacity-building. Differences emerge over other fundamental aspects of the way civil society infrastructure is defined. For example, local infrastructure is frequently defined alongside and in contrast to infrastructure operating at other geographical ‘levels’. For some, local infrastructure constitutes anything that operates at the regional level or below (Kane and Cohen, 2023); for others it operates at the sub-regional level or below (OPM/Compass, 2004), while others see local infrastructure as operating exclusively below the sub-regional level (TSRC, 2009).

Within this there are multiple ways of drawing the boundaries of ‘local’. Many studies explore infrastructure along recognised local government geographies such as upper or lower tier local authority areas (Macmillan et al, 2022; Bell, 2014; NAVCA, 2024), sub-regions (Allison, 2004; Dayson, 2010) or combined authorities (Greater Manchester VCSE Leadership Group, 2020; GLA, 2019). Furthermore, some studies look at coterminous groupings of local authority areas, often within traditional county borders (Baine and Benson, 2006; Gage, 2009).

To add yet further ambiguity, civil society infrastructure that operates below the national or regional level is not universally prefixed with the term ‘local’ within the literature. As discussed in the previous section, bringing together these studies and their objects of enquiry and placing them under an umbrella term of ‘local civil society infrastructure’ requires some element of inference.

Brief overview of the impact of government policy from 2003

Government policy in relation to civil society in general, and more specifically in respect of support for civil society, has played a significant role in shaping how local civil society infrastructure is conceived and how it is structured. It has also informed views on how its performance should be evaluated and provided the impetus and resources to undertake much of that evaluation.

But while government policy has often sought to establish a framework of local civil society infrastructure from which evaluation can emanate, significant moments of policy change have served to disrupt and reconstruct some of these ideas. This is important insomuch as it demonstrates how some of the fundamental concepts of local civil society infrastructure and any subsequent assessment of its performance are dependent on the wider context and highlight the key role of government policy in shaping that context.

By providing a brief overview of government policy regarding local civil society infrastructure, the rest of this section will provide insight into the influence of government policy on the role of local civil society infrastructure, the organisational structures and geographies through which it operates, and its evaluation. The discussion highlights how changing policy has resulted in shifts in emphasis, meaning and expectations around local civil society infrastructure. While the 1997-2010 Labour government invested heavily in the development of a more coordinated supply side of civil society infrastructure, subsequent governments from 2010 drew back from this approach and withdrew significant investment.

2003-2010

The early 2000s saw a ‘step-change’ in government policy interest in civil society (Kendall, 2005). This change was heavily influenced by the 1997-2010 Labour government’s desire to invest in and reform public services. An expanded role for civil society in the transformation and delivery of public services was identified as a key catalyst for that reform, albeit this ambition was tempered by the recognition that the civil society sector must first overcome barriers and build capacity to enable it to fulfil this role effectively (HM Treasury, 2002).

The primary mechanism recommended to support the sector was the implementation of a single cross government framework for capacity building and infrastructure - ChangeUp - accompanied by a £231m ten-year programme of investment, initiated in 2003-04, which aimed to develop the supply of infrastructure support (Home Office, 2004; National Audit Office, 2009). Although the policy rationale was made in terms of public service delivery, the programme was designed to offer support to the sector as a whole, for a range of purposes. ChangeUp sought to “build… an architecture of support for frontline organisations” (Macmillan, 2021a: 60) in order to meet “the principal capacity needs of front line organisations [in terms of]… performance improvement, workforce development and leadership, ICT, governance, supporting volunteers and financing voluntary and community sector activity” and affect how “sector infrastructure should be modernised and reconfigured” (Fiona Mactaggart, debate in the House of Commons, Hansard, June 2004, accessed 29 February 2024).

ChangeUp was brought to a close, three years early, in March 2011. Over the seven years that it operated, the programme proved highly influential in shaping perspectives on what civil society infrastructure was for (Home Office, 2004; National Audit Office, 2009), how it was appraised (TSRC, 2009; Baine and Benson, 2006a&b; Batty et al, 2009) and the geographical configurations within which it operated (Macmillan, 2008; TSRC, 2009; Gage, 2009; Baine and Benson, 2006a&b; Batty et al, 2009; National Audit Office, 2009).

Policy since 2010

Following the change of government, and in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, government policy regarding civil society infrastructure changed significantly. ChangeUp and Capacitybuilders (the arms length body established to oversee the delivery of ChangeUp) were wound down and a new approach emerged, accompanied by limited support to help existing infrastructure to adapt to the new policy environment.

The coalition government’s Supporting a Stronger Civil Society (Cabinet Office, 2010) demonstrated some elements of continuity with the past. There remained a focus on support to build the skills of front line organisations, and the ambition for civil society infrastructure to become more self-sufficient. However, it also introduced subtle shifts in the perceived purpose of infrastructure, alongside more radical reform which aimed to broaden and diversify the supply side of civil society support. The language of capacity building was replaced with a desire to ‘build the skills of front line organisations’ in order to be ‘less reliant on the state, bid for public service contracts, modernise or be more entrepreneurial’. Although ChangeUp and Capacitybuilders mooted the reconfiguration of local civil society infrastructure, greater impetus was given by a need to ‘rationalise’ (Cabinet Office, 2010: 8) and otherwise transform the business models of civil society infrastructure in an era of ‘fiscal tightening’ (Cabinet Office, 2010: 10).

The £30m Transforming Local Infrastructure (TLI) programme, which ran between 2012 and 2013, aimed to support the transition of local civil society infrastructure, in selected localities, towards new models of provision. Analysis of grants by the programme demonstrates the salience of government policy for the landscape and activity of local civil society infrastructure in this period. Common themes that emerged from the programme included structural transformation (mergers, partnerships and collaboration), financial sustainability through increased charging for services, a focus on developing relationships with the public and private sectors and supporting better measurement of quality and impact (Munro and Mynott, 2014).

Perhaps more radical was a concerted shift in emphasis to a ‘demand-led’ capacity building model (Macmillan, 2013, Dayson et al, 2017) in which (reduced) funding for support would be channelled directly to front line organisations (in the form of bursaries or vouchers). Such funding would then be used by front line organisations to purchase support from a supplier of their choice, thus potentially opening up the market beyond existing infrastructure organisations and consortia. This was manifest in the ‘Building Capabilities’ agenda emerging from the Big Lottery Fund (with the accompanying £6m ‘Big Assist’ voucher programme to support civil society infrastructure organisations to adapt to the new agenda (Big Lottery Fund, 2012; Macmillan, 2013; Curtis, 2015)), and the Cabinet Office’s £20m ‘Local Sustainability Fund’, which ran between 2015 and 2016 (Ockenden, 2018). Macmillan and Walton (2014) provide a detailed review of ‘demand-led’ voucher schemes in practice.

The 2018 Civil Society Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2018) perhaps represented a policy nadir for local civil society infrastructure. While the strategy recognised the ‘important role for support that takes account of the local context’ (Cabinet Office, 2018: 78) alongside the acknowledgement of ‘local support [that]… faces significant challenges’ (Cabinet Office, 2018: 78) there was little commitment beyond a promise to ‘convene key stakeholders to explore how we can collectively help to develop strong local support systems’ (Cabinet Office, 2018: 78). Although the commitment was not followed up, it is interesting to note how the terminology ‘local support systems’ was used here in preference to ‘infrastructure’.

Renewed policy interest has brought with it a changing emphasis on the role of local civil society infrastructure

In recent years there has been renewed interest in the role and contribution of local civil society infrastructure. Primarily this has been a consequence of three key developments.

First, the emergency precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular the need to coordinate and deliver various aspects of crisis support to local populations, coupled with a surge in interest in volunteering, brought about a dramatic and rapid transformation of local authority and civil society relationships. The nature of the crisis, in particular the need to share intelligence and information, and to coordinate activity and resources across statutory and civil society sector boundaries, meant that local civil society infrastructure organisations in many areas were naturally positioned to play a key role in the local response. By and large it is recognised that both the sector and infrastructure organisations emerged from the crisis with a renewed recognition and appreciation of their value and contribution (Thiery, 2020; Cook et al, 2023; Dayson and Damm, 2020; Macmillan, 2021a; Haslam, 2021; 2022).

Second, there has been a growing interest in ‘place’ in policy and practice, and the development of ‘place-based approaches’ to address social and economic disadvantage and to build capacity in local institutional systems and civil society. The policy agenda around ‘Levelling Up’, coupled with growing concern around pride of place and the social fabric of communities, led to increased attention to the health of local civil society and social infrastructure in communities – although the latter concept is somewhat beset by definitional ambiguity (Kruger, 2020; Tanner et al, 2020; HM Government, 2022; British Academy and Power to Change, 2023).

Third, the ongoing transformation of health systems in England under the auspices of health and social care integration, alongside growing interest in community-based approaches to public health, has once again played into the ‘natural territory’ of local civil society infrastructure organisations. For example, ‘social prescribing’ was initially pioneered, at least in part, through the work of local civil society infrastructure (Dayson and Bashir, 2014), helping subsequently in the development of the ‘single point of contact’ (SPOC) model for local civil society commissioning (NAVCA, 2017). In recent years the NHS in England has consistently emphasised the role of greater partnership working and integration with civil society (NHS, 2017; 2019; 2021). It is recognised that the scale, diversity, and capacity constraints of civil society make this difficult to do in practice, with local civil society infrastructure cited as important to overcoming these barriers (see, for example: NHS, 2023; Gilburt and Ross, 2023). Research into the ongoing process of partnership working between health systems and civil society seems to bear this out, with evidence of a central role for local civil society infrastructure in the development of partnership working and collaboration between the sector and wider health systems. The research also recognises the potential that this process entails for redrawing the geographical boundaries of local civil society infrastructure (Cole, 2023; Ellis Paine et al, 2023).

We note that in each of these developments there has been a shift in the emphasis of the role and functions of local civil society infrastructure. There is now considerably more focus on the importance of representation, coordination, collaboration and the strategic interface with statutory services – the convening role of local civil society infrastructure - and less discussion of direct capacity building or developing the skills and capabilities of front line organisations.

Defining local civil society infrastructure

Key messages

• There is a lack of consensus on defining LCSI.
• Two approaches to definition are evident: ‘organisation-first’ (LCSI as comprising identifiable organisations serving a particular geographic area, where LCSI functions are the collective activities of those organisations) or a ‘function-first’ approach (identifies the purpose and functions of LCSI and then identifies the range of organisations that perform these functions).
• One model of LCSI identifies three broad functions - to connect individuals, groups and organisations; to develop the work and capacity of these individuals, groups and organisations and to influence decision-makers.
• A provisional taxonomy of local civil society infrastructure involves a distinction between a concentrated ‘core’ of LCSI and a wider ‘penumbra’ of supplementary provision.

Introduction

This section explores how the literature conceptualises local civil society infrastructure in terms of organisations and functions. Methodologically there are two ways of approaching this: an ‘organisation-first’ and a ‘function-first’ approach. The answer to the study’s first research question, of which organisations and functions fall within the concept of local civil society infrastructure, differs depending on which of these two approaches is applied.

An organisation-first approach is one that assumes local civil society infrastructure is comprised of one or more identifiable infrastructure organisations serving a particular geographic area and then defines the functions of local civil society infrastructure as the collective activities of those organisations. This approach is particularly prevalent in studies which do not take a holistic view of local civil society infrastructure as a distinctive or abstract area of enquiry. This literature tends towards primary research, exploring certain places, programmes or points in time, usually coalescing around traditional established infrastructure organisations such as Councils for Voluntary Service (CVSs), Voluntary Action or Volunteer Centres (see: Batty et al, 2009; Capacitybuilders 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Crisp and Dayson, 2011).

The function-first approach addresses the problem from the opposite direction. It starts by identifying the purpose and functions of local civil society infrastructure and then seeks to identify the range of organisations and provision that fall within that functional definition. This approach is frequently deployed among secondary and/or quantitative research and is more prevalent within studies which take a more holistic view of local civil society infrastructure (Cohen and Kane, 2023; Dayson and Sanderson, 2014; Dayson et al, 2017; Needham and Oakley, 2009). The key consequence of this function-first approach is that it opens the concept of local civil society infrastructure to a broader set of providers across the public, private and civil society sectors. Two central features of the field of local civil society infrastructure are worth noting: first, LCSI functions are not only performed by dedicated or traditional local infrastructure organisations (other forms of provision exist as well); and second, dedicated or traditional local infrastructure organisations do not only perform LCSI functions (some carry out other activities as well).

On the surface there seems to be a general consensus about the functions of local civil society infrastructure but beneath this lies a variety of perspectives and views

Within much of the literature, an approach which seeks to define the functions of civil society infrastructure tends to follow from a more general definition of the purpose of infrastructure itself. At the most abstract level, this involves two key assumptions.

First is that there exists a core population of ‘front line’ civil society organisations, so defined because they work ‘directly with individuals and communities in order to provide services, offer support and campaign for change’ (Home Office, 2004 cited in Kendall, 2005: 14). Second is that civil society infrastructure comprises organisations that are one step removed from the ‘front line’ - often described as ‘second- or third tier’ - and whose purpose is to provide some level of ‘support’ and positive benefit to those front line organisations.

The functions of local civil society infrastructure tend to be derived from this notion of ‘support’ and cover a wide array of practical activities. The National Association for Voluntary and Community Action (NAVCA), the national umbrella body for local infrastructure organisations, defines its members’ four functions as: capacity building, leadership and advocacy, partnerships and collaboration and the promotion of volunteering (NAVCA website). This shares many similarities with the ChangeUp definition which identifies ‘support and development, co-ordination, representation and promotion’ as the functions of infrastructure (Home Office, 2004 cited in Kendall, 2005: 14). Likewise, Common Vision identify: ‘Direct capacity building and development support; networking and knowledge sharing and advocacy and voice’ as the functions of infrastructure (Common Vision, 2022: 11), while the National Lottery Community Fund’s Infrastructure Design Lab identifies: ‘connecting, capacity building, service developing, influencing, and network support’ (TNLCF, 2023: 5).

While there is no ‘dictionary definition’, it is clear that conceptualisations of the function of civil society infrastructure tend to coalesce around ‘variations on a theme’, arguably most succinctly summarised in NCVO’s Value of Infrastructure Programme (2009-2012), which identified the functions of civil society infrastructure as consisting of three broad elements:

• to connect individuals, groups and organisations;
• to develop the work and capacity of these individuals, groups and organisations, and
• to influence decision-makers’ (NCVO, 2011: 11).

As previously identified, the prefix of ‘local’ to the term civil society infrastructure is not universally applied or agreed upon. However, there is nothing in the literature that implies this overarching definition of the functions of civil society infrastructure would need to be reassessed for civil society infrastructure operating at the ‘local’ level; the functions are common regardless of geographical scale.

It is also important to reiterate that despite this seemingly broad consensus about the functions of infrastructure in the literature, there is still significant room for discussion about their meaning. As touched on previously, concepts such as ‘capacity building’ or notions of what constitutes ‘local’ might on the surface seem obvious, but on closer inspection are often varied. The same is likely to be true of concepts such as ‘connecting’, ‘developing’ or ‘influencing’. Who or what is being connected, what is being developed and for what purpose, and who is being influenced and for what ends are questions which are likely to elicit different answers from different people in different contexts.

There is also a small seam of literature which diverges entirely from the general consensus on the functions of infrastructure, calling instead either for a shift to local radical organising and action (Waterhouse, 2014, Rochester 2012) or a focus on enabling civil society to find its own solutions to issues and problems (Sen and Associates, 2016).

There is an important difference between local civil society infrastructure and local civil society infrastructure organisations

Taking a function-first approach means that local civil society infrastructure in its broadest sense comprises any organisation or form of provision which contributes to infrastructure functions within a ‘local’ area. However, this concept of infrastructure can easily be confused or conflated with a narrower object of enquiry, namely local civil society infrastructure organisations.

That local civil society infrastructure can comprise a diverse range of organisations is acknowledged within the literature. The Cabinet Office report ‘Supporting a Stronger Civil Society’ touches on this notion of diversity: ‘Organisations including Councils for Voluntary Service (CVS) and Rural Community Councils have long provided ‘infrastructure’ services’’ while ‘Specialist organisations focus on topics such as accountancy, or support particular groups, such as Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) organisations’ and that ‘Pro bono support (typically professional advice and services offered free of charge) can be available from the private sector’ (Cabinet Office, 2010: 9).

This breadth of organisations is also outlined in research which seeks to provide an overview of the supply of civil society support infrastructure. These studies identify a wide range of non-profit and for-profit providers, operating under a range of legal structures at different geographical scales (Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014; Dayson and Sanderson, 2014). The field of infrastructure provision can therefore be described as pluralist, but evidence suggests it might also be highly concentrated: for example, based on survey evidence from a range of providers, Dayson and Sanderson (2014: 13-15) note that the vast majority of capacity building support to front line organisations is provided by non-profit organisations for whom this work is a main focus.

Within a number of studies, civil society infrastructure organisations are subdivided into two categories: generalist (or generic) and specialist. Of particular note is the variety of specialist organisations identified within the literature, which are defined according to a number of organisational characteristics. These include: the community/identity/protected characteristic the organisation serves, their beneficiary organisation type, the professional skill/s in which the organisation specialises, the particular policy or social issues on which the organisation focuses and the type of geography that the organisation serves. (Chadwick-Coule, 2009; Batty et al, 2005; Kendall, 2005; GLA, 2019; ETTO, 2010; Zahno Rao Associates, 2006; Hochlaf et al, 2023; Allinson et al, 2011; Capacity: Public Services Lab, 2019; Dayson and Sanderson, 2014; Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014; Clinks, 2015; Kane and Cohen 2023). (See table 4.1 below for further detail and examples).

A number of studies focus on the provision of infrastructure functions by organisations that are perhaps more known for their direct funding or grant-making relationships with civil society organisations. Reviews of such ‘funder-plus’ practice by trusts, foundations and perhaps most relevant to this subject, community foundations, identify the role of funding organisations in the provision of support such as capacity-building, organisational development and networking (Bolton and Abdy, 2007; Buckley and Cairns, 2012; Cairns et al, 2011; Lloyds Bank Foundation England and Wales, 2019; CAF, 2021).

Despite this, research into local civil society infrastructure in practice often focuses more narrowly on local civil society infrastructure organisations. These organisations are generally distinguished from the broader notion of infrastructure in that the provision of infrastructure functions is their primary purpose, as expressed, for example, in an organisation’s mission or charitable objects (Home Office, 2004; Common Vision; 2022; Dayson and Sanderson, 2014; Kane and Cohen, 2023; Hunter and Longlands, 2017).

The limited number of quantitative research studies into civil society infrastructure organisations have, by necessity, compounded this narrowing of the field of observation. Predominantly this is the result of pragmatic decisions reflecting the availability of data and the ability to identify relevant organisations within existing datasets. Dayson and Sanderson’s review of the capability building market uses the 2010 National Survey of Charities and Social Enterprises (NSCSE) to identify infrastructure organisations. Within this study respondents are classified as infrastructure organisations where they name other civil society organisations as their beneficiaries and identify ‘capacity building or other support’ as their area of work (Dayson and Sanderson, 2014). Kane and Cohen use datasets derived from the three UK charity regulators. Infrastructure organisations are identified through a combination of which beneficiary types and activities have been recorded by the charity with the regulators (Kane and Cohen, 2023).

Further complexity in identifying the organisations that perform infrastructure functions to civil society organisations relates to social enterprises and community businesses. Research shows that these organisations often seek infrastructure support from organisations that are predominantly orientated towards the private sector, such as local Chambers of Commerce, Growth Hubs, and the now defunct regional Business Link network, as well as specialist support from experienced individual consultants, consultancies and organisations that provide training or advice (Hochlaf et al, 2023; Allinson et al, 2011; Capacity: Public Services Lab, 2019).

There are significant barriers to identifying the organisations that contribute to the provision of local civil society infrastructure (in its broadest sense) and practical challenges to identifying local civil society infrastructure organisations (in the narrowest sense). However, drawing from the literature, a provisional taxonomy of local civil society infrastructure might be suggested. Central to this is a distinction between a concentrated ‘core’ of LCSI and a wider ‘penumbra’ of supplementary provision:

• Core Local Civil Society Infrastructure: consisting of infrastructure activities undertaken by organisations which provide one or more of the functions of infrastructure to civil society organisations within a defined sub-national geography, and that fulfilling such functions is their primary and enduring purpose or main area of activity;
• Supplementary Local Civil Society Infrastructure: consisting of infrastructure activities undertaken by organisations pursuing one or more functions of infrastructure to civil society organisations within a defined sub-national geography, but where fulfilling such functions is not their primary purpose or main area of activity. Supplementary LCSI might include the ‘beyond funding’ activities of bodies such as Community Foundations, community development and voluntary sector engagement work undertaken by local statutory bodies and Housing Associations, support allied to time-limited initiatives and pro-bono private sector support.

It is important to note that both core and supplementary LCSI contribute to provision in any given geographical area, and also that the categorisation of an organisation as part of either the core or the wider penumbra is not fixed. Organisations can and do move between the two, depending on how their work develops over time. The distinction is designed to recognise that provision takes several forms at different scales but is unlikely to be evenly spread across different forms. However, the balance between ‘core’ and ‘supplementary’ may vary considerably between different local areas: there may be different models of LCSI in play in different places. A significant gap in the existing literature is that it has not, to date, explored or compared different configurations of LCSI.

The distinction between ‘core’ and ‘supplementary’ LCSI may provide a workable definition as a basis for secondary data analysis using administrative datasets (in Work Package 4). Table 4.1 below illustrates the kinds of organisations which might be considered part of ‘core’ LCSI.

Table 4.1 Towards a taxonomy of core local civil society infrastructure

Sector	Category	Subcategory	Examples
Non-profit	Generalist/ generic		Council for Voluntary Service – Hackney CVS Voluntary Action – Voluntary Action Sheffield Community Action – Community Action MK
Non-profit	Specialist	Community/identity/ protected characteristics	Local race equality councils – Plymouth and Devon Racial Equality Council Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations – Inclusion London
Non-profit	Specialist	Recipient organisation type	Social Enterprise Networks – Sheffield Social Enterprise Network Local Growth Hubs – GM Business Growth Hub Chambers of Commerce – Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce Business Link (now defunct) Networks of faith communities – Faith Forums For London
Non-profit	Specialist	Professional skills or specialism	Volunteer Centres – Volunteer Centre Sutton Community Accountancy – Derby Community Accountancy Service
Non-profit	Specialist	Policy or social issue	Child Poverty Alliances – 4 in 10
Non-profit	Specialist	Geography	Rural Community Councils – Action in Rural Sussex
For-profit	Specialist	Professional skills or specialism	Training consultant or consultancy

Sources: Chadwick-Coule (2009); Batty et al (2005); Kendall (2005); GLA (2019); ETTO (2010); Zahno Rao Associates (2006); Hochlaf et al (2023); Allinson et al (2011); Capacity: Public Services Lab (2019); Dayson and Sanderson (2014); Macmillan and Ellis Paine (2014); Clinks (2015); Kane and Cohen (2023)

Evaluating local civil society infrastructure

Key messages

• The coverage, quality, benefits and impact of LCSI are sometimes used interchangeably.
• Direct discussion of the strength or weakness of LCSI is usually within the context of financial sustainability of LCSI organisations, and variation in coverage and quality is a recurring theme.
• Evidencing the impact, benefits, and costs of LCSI is a long-standing challenge, due to methodological issues around attribution, time lags and diverse needs, as well as organisational issues such as capacity and evaluation capabilities.
• A handful of studies have sought to quantify the impact of LCSI, using, for example, ‘distance travelled’ measures of self-assessed organisational development amongst front line organisations, social return on investment, and willingness to pay techniques.

Introduction

This section focuses on the literature associated with the evaluation of local civil society infrastructure. It addresses research questions 2 and 3, which cover questions of sufficiency (in terms of coverage and quality) as well as notions of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ local civil society infrastructure. It also addresses the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak local civil society infrastructure, and to whom they fall.

As discussed in Section 3, there are very few studies that take a holistic view of local civil society infrastructure, highlighting the importance of this research commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport through the R&D Science and Analysis programme. The literature highlights the overlap of many of the concepts identified in research questions 2 and 3. Notions of strength and weakness, coverage, quality, benefits and impact are not neatly delineated from each other and are sometimes used interchangeably. They are often directly or indirectly conceptualised as constituent parts of the same thing, or different dimensions of a collective whole.

An example of this can be seen in the work of Batty et al (2005) which assessed the strengths of local infrastructure in terms of “local focus, accessibility and flexibility, good geographical coverage and depth, a diverse range of relatively well established organisations which, in some perspectives, work well as a collaborating network, clarity of roles and vision” (Batty et al, 2005: 2), and weakness as “thinly stretched resources covering a wide range of organisations, funding and geographical inequalities between areas and organisations, a lack of capacity, skills and expertise, a lack of coordination and collaboration and a lack of leadership” (Batty et al, 2005: 2).

This section begins by exploring how strength and weakness of local civil society infrastructure has been conceptualised within the literature. This is followed by a discussion of how the literature has identified and apportioned the impact of weak or absent local civil society infrastructure. An exploration of how coverage and quality have been conceptualised and measured then follows. This section concludes by bringing together the evidence about the impacts, benefits, and costs of local civil society infrastructure.

Direct discussion of the strength or weakness of local civil society infrastructure is usually within the context of financial sustainability

There is a strong consensus around the over-arching perception that local civil society infrastructure has diminished over the last decade. Proponents of this view identify a long-term decline in income as key to the weakening of infrastructure at the aggregate level (Rochester, 2012; Kane and Cohen, 2023; Independent Commission on the Future of Local Infrastructure, 2015; Macmillan, 2021a; Macmillan et al, 2022; Hunter and Longlands, 2017). Another term used in the literature to describe weak local civil society infrastructure is ‘under-developed’. In their analysis of ChangeUp investment plans, Siederer (2006) assessed infrastructure in a locality on a three-point scale which defined strength in terms of financial resources.

Several surveys of local civil society infrastructure organisations undertaken in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis sought to understand the changing condition of infrastructure organisations during a deteriorating economic climate. A core component of these surveys was to gain insight into changes in income and the effect of financial pressures (Capacitybuilders, 2009a; 2009b; 2010).

There is a small body of evidence that has explored the financial condition of individual infrastructure organisations. Macmillan et al’s (2022) study of NAVCA members looked at their financial circumstances by comparing income and expenditure. They found four in five were in surplus in 2020/1, while one in five (19%) recorded a deficit. This picture may not be typical, however, due to a noted increase in income during the pandemic, a view shared by Kane and Cohen (2023).

The consequences of weak or absent local civil society infrastructure is becoming more apparent in the literature, with costs for a variety of stakeholders

The weakness or absence of local civil society infrastructure as a theme has become more prevalent within the literature in recent years. A number of studies have highlighted instances of weakness or absence and explored its consequences in terms of both the costs and the stakeholders affected.

Macmillan (2021a) identifies the pandemic as a catalyst for an upswing in the fortunes of infrastructure following a decade of ‘disinvestment, disenchantment [and] dismantling’ (Macmillan, 2021a: 59). Kane and Cohen (2023) shed light on how the consequences of that decade of weakening were felt during the pandemic by funders, front line organisations and ultimately their beneficiaries. They cite the withdrawal of ChangeUp funding in 2011 as precipitating the closure and contraction of a ‘high number of local, regional and national Black and Minoritised infrastructure organisations’ (Kane and Cohen, 2023: 4). As a consequence, they found that funders seeking to execute emergency grant making programmes during the crisis were unable to reach those who needed it most because ‘the mechanisms to reach Black and Minoritised led organisations were not consistently available due to the reduction in number and capacity of equalities infrastructure organisations’ (Kane and Cohen, 2023: 4) and that ‘Without these infrastructure bodies there was also less support available for Black and Minoritised community groups responding to the crisis’ (Kane and Cohen, 2023: 4).

Others have also cited the pandemic as a period during which the absence or weakness of local infrastructure became more apparent. In exploring the transformation of local authority and civil society relations during the crisis response to the pandemic, Cook et al (2022) examined how structures to facilitate inter-sectoral collaboration took a variety of forms across different case study areas. One of their research findings was that the presence, absence or weakness of local civil society infrastructure played a role in both shaping what forms these structures took as well as the quality of the collaboration between sectors that resulted from them. Local civil society infrastructure organisations are described as ‘a vital bridge between Local Authority staff, services and community organisations’ (Cook et al, 2022: 9), with their ability to coordinate, commit resources and be flexible described as ‘pivotal’ and having ‘shaped successful collaboration’ (Cook et al, 2022: 9-10). Where infrastructure was absent or weakened by poor relationships with local government, the researchers found that local authorities responded by deploying their own staff and community spaces to facilitate a local crisis response, with one participant speculating that this was potentially less efficient than had they worked more closely with their local civil society infrastructure organisations.

The literature also identifies the ongoing process to restructure health systems in England as another aspect of state and civil society relationships in which absence or weakness of local civil society infrastructure is identifiable. Cole (2023: 7) identifies how partnership development between health services and civil society have been inhibited by weakened local civil society infrastructure:

A decline in funding for more than a decade has also led to weaker or complete loss of VCSE infrastructure in some areas. This means many areas are starting from scratch in developing the infrastructure for partnership at this level.

A number of sources within the literature focus on the impact of weak or absent local civil society infrastructure on front line organisations themselves. Kane and Cohen (2023) describe how reduced funding has led to a decline in the coverage of Community Accountancy Services (CASs). In turn they assert that this is likely to have driven up support costs incurred by front line organisations, on occasions at the expense of service provision (Kane and Cohen, 2023).

The evaluation of the ChangeUp programme undertaken by the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC, 2009) identified that collaboration between infrastructure organisations led to more effective support to front line organisations. The authors suggest that the value of this collaboration was most obvious when speculatively compared with areas where it was weak or absent, presumably because front line organisations were unable to reap the benefits.

Coverage is conceptualised and measured across a number of dimensions including geography, resources, function, reach, depth and accessibility

Variance of local civil society infrastructure in terms of coverage and quality is a recurring theme across much of the literature. Sources variously describe infrastructure provision as ‘piecemeal’ (HM Treasury, 2002: 20), that ‘the quality of support to frontline groups is variable’ (Cabinet Office, 2010: 12), or that ‘good quality infrastructure is not universal’ (Independent Commission on the Future of Local Infrastructure, 2015: 13).

Exploring the notion of coverage within the literature reveals a wide variety of dimensions in which it has been conceptualised. Some authors describe it simply in terms of the presence or absence of civil society infrastructure organisations within a certain geographical area (Cole, 2023). However, there have been few systematic attempts to measure geographical coverage. Macmillan et al (2022) identify that local infrastructure organisations who are NAVCA members ‘cover 80% of distinct Local Authority areas in England, representing 84% of the population’ (Macmillan et al, 2022: 3), while noting that the remainder either have ‘no functioning local VCSE infrastructure or are served by local infrastructure organisations who are not members of NAVCA’ (Macmillan et al, 2022: 4). Kane and Cohen (2023) identify the presence of infrastructure organisations by region, but do not differentiate between local and national organisations.

Coverage has also been explored by reference to the distribution of resources. Kane and Cohen (2023) find considerable regional variation in expenditure by local infrastructure bodies on both a per capita and per charity basis. Distribution of resources will be closely linked to income and/or resources available to distribute generally and the evidence suggests considerable variation on this. Macmillan et al (2022) identify significant regional variance in terms of the median income of NAVCA members. Needham and Barclay’s review of funding for infrastructure in London identifies variance in terms of local civil society infrastructure income per head of population (Needham and Barclay, 2004).

Batty et al’s (2005) study of infrastructure organisations in Leicester Shire (so named to account for the specific geography of the research, involving both Leicester and Leicestershire) takes a slightly different approach, measuring the distribution of staff resources. Their analysis identifies significant variance between local civil society infrastructure organisations in the study in terms of the number of staff per head of population served.

Expanding on the concept of geographical coverage and resource distribution is the exploration of the provision of infrastructure functions. In essence these are attempts to understand and quantify the delivery or use of activities or services provided by local civil society infrastructure organisations across a geographic area or group of civil society organisations operating or based locally. A crucial part of measuring sufficiency in terms of functional coverage is the identification of unmet need. The literature explores this in terms of identifying whether organisations are seeking support that is not provided by infrastructure organisations or in terms of the inability for infrastructure organisations to meet that need due to a lack of capacity (Dayson, 2010; Dayson and Sanderson, 2014; Batty et al, 2009; Chapman et al, 2009; Macmillan, 2004).

The reach into civil society that infrastructure organisations have is another commonly used metric that can be equated with the notion of coverage. Studies in this area attempt to quantify reach by exploring either the number of organisations or people in receipt of infrastructure support over a given period of time (Crisp and Dayson, 2011; Dayson and Sanderson, 2014; Macmillan et al, 2022) or conversely by quantifying the number of front line organisations that use infrastructure support services (Dayson, 2010; Dayson and Sanderson, 2014, Cabinet Office, 2010; Savage, 2004).

Other parts of the literature also consider reach in terms of the extent to which local civil society infrastructure interacts with the varying types of organisations that exist within civil society (in terms of size, legal type, beneficiary group, activities, or purpose). Within this context, reach can be conceived as the extent to which infrastructure organisations provide support to a representative cross section of the different types of organisations within the local area either as a totality of organisations, or relative to their need for support (Savage, 2004; Macmillan, 2022; Dayson and Sanderson, 2014; Cabinet Office, 2010).

Relatedly is a notable body of literature that highlights the issue of inequity of access to effective infrastructure support. These studies either note or explore how the absence of, or inadequate funding for, specialist infrastructure organisations risks leaving certain parts of civil society without access to effective support. These risks are further compounded where there are additional challenges such as structural barriers or lack of adequate knowledge. Predominantly this is explored in terms of race or other protected characteristics of the people leading the organisations and/or the communities they serve (Sepulveda and Rabbevåg, 2021; GLA, 2019; Ware 2018; Batty et al, 2005; BSWN, 2019; White, 2007; ETTO, 2010; Sparks Insights and Locality, 2023) but also identifies other factors such as organisation size (Donahue, 2011; Savage, 2004; Burkeman and Harker 2007) and organisation type (Capacity: Public Services Lab, 2019).

The reach of local civil society infrastructure can also be considered in terms of engagement with the statutory sector, strategic groups and partnerships. Macmillan et al (2022) found NAVCA members had a good presence and a ‘seat at the table’ at a range of strategic groups, forums and partnerships, including integrated health and care arrangements, Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and health and wellbeing boards. Members reported having less reach into arts and cultural forums and Local Economic Partnerships.

Depth is another dimension of coverage that can be identified within the literature. The concept of depth takes into consideration the intensity with which local civil society infrastructure interacts with front line organisations. For example, the study by Halton and St Helens CVA (2011) explores the impact on front line organisations of interacting with local civil society infrastructure with varying degrees of intensity, from long-term, regular and structured support right through to ad-hoc or one-off interactions. A study by Larkham (2023) highlights barriers faced by front line organisations which limit their ability to engage with and consume the support provided by local civil society infrastructure. This suggests that any consideration of coverage must account for both the demand and supply side of the equation.

Though measurement is limited, quality is generally perceived in terms of the effective delivery of the functions of infrastructure alongside markers of connectivity and culture

Attempts to conceptualise and measure quality within the literature primarily focus on the delivery of the key functions of local civil society infrastructure. However, there are also other more intangible markers, often relating to overall perceptions by different stakeholders about the organisation itself and the people within it (Macmillan, 2004; Sen and Associates, 2015; Macmillan et al, 2007; Batty et al, 2005; Third Sector Research Centre, 2009). A clear example of the focus on functions is NAVCA’s Local Infrastructure Quality Accreditation scheme, which centres on infrastructure organisations demonstrating their delivery of the four functions of infrastructure (as established by NAVCA in consultation with its membership) alongside other markers of organisational effectiveness, such as strategic planning and a review of policies and procedures (NAVCA website, Local Infrastructure Quality Accreditation, accessed 28 February 2024).

The central importance of the functions of infrastructure to notions of quality are also evident in the views of infrastructure organisations themselves. Macmillan et al’s (2023) work with NAVCA members to understand their views on what makes quality and effective infrastructure highlights this. The study identified a clustering of opinions around themes closely related to the functions of infrastructure, such as ‘practical advice and support’, ‘connections and relationships’, ‘voice, advocacy and influence’. Sen and Associates show that this general perspective on quality is also held by front line organisations, who identified variance in quality in terms of ‘services and in relation to the degree to which they feel effectively represented’ (Sen and Associates, 2015: 7).

Perceptions of the ‘connectivity’ of infrastructure organisations is another indicator of quality that arises from the literature. This includes views on how well they connect to the sector and each other, how accessible they are to front line organisations, the extent to which front line organisations are aware of them and what they do, as well as the extent to which they have insight into and are responsive to the needs of the sector and communities. The literature also identifies perceptions of organisational culture and leadership as an indication of quality. This incorporates notions such as ways of working and style, views on the abilities and character of staff (in particular chief executives), dynamism and the willingness to change (Macmillan, 2004; Sen and Associates, 2015; Macmillan et al, 2007; Batty et al, 2005; Third Sector Research Centre, 2009).

Attempts to measure quality remain limited to a small number of surveys of front line organisations. Commonly these explore perspectives on the quality or usefulness of the services they have received from local infrastructure organisations or their perception of the infrastructure’s effectiveness in facilitating collaboration and influencing statutory bodies (Cabinet Office, 2010; Macmillan, 2004; Baine and Benson, 2006; Third Sector Research Centre, 2009).

Robustly evidencing the impact, benefits, and costs of local civil society infrastructure is a long-standing and currently unresolved challenge

Many attempts to demonstrate the impact, benefits and costs of local civil society infrastructure are heavily caveated and highly cautious, stemming from the inherent challenge in trying to undertake such analysis. Within the literature it is possible to identify two main factors which inhibit such analysis: methodological and organisational.

Methodologically, the problem of attribution is a recurring theme across the literature. Batty et al (2009) identify that “A wide range of factors, decisions, behaviours and actions come together in the notion of ‘impact’” (Batty et al, 2009: 30). Consequently “Isolating the contribution made by a specific intervention is unlikely to be easy” (Batty et al, 2009: 30). Research by Halton and St Helens VCA (2011) reiterates this, describing capacity building interventions by local civil society infrastructure organisations as a ‘Black box problem’ (Halton and St Helens VCA, 2011: 3) in which it is difficult to identify exactly the changes to behaviour and actions brought about by their interventions.

The time-lag between intervention and impact is another methodological challenge acknowledged within several studies. Bell (2014) describes infrastructure impacts as ‘incremental’ (Bell, 2014: 6), while Macmillan (2006) identifies the need to study ‘interventions and their (beneficial) effects… over time’ (Macmillan, 2006: 36).

A report by Central London CVS (2010) highlights that many front line organisations have complex and varied needs. Consequently, the response by local civil society infrastructure organisations is often individually tailored to those specific needs, making it difficult to establish consistent methods for measurement of impact.

A number of studies have relied on qualitative methods to try and overcome elements of these challenges, in particular tackling the issue of attribution by ascertaining participants’ perceptions of impact on their organisation. Batty et al’s (2009) reflections on their qualitative research identify three potential problems with this approach:

1. Faltering memory: “it was not always clear to our interviewees what support had been accessed, how it was received and regarded at the time, and whether and what changes it led to…”

2. Partial knowledge: “some people within supported organisations may only have partial knowledge of the context in which support needs were identified, support sought and accessed, and the difference it made…”

3. Unclear contribution: “the contribution of a particular support provider or person is unclear, unpublicised, or obscure, a full attributable picture of the difference made is not always available to interviewees”. (Batty et al, 2009: 30)

Organisational factors also contribute to the difficulties many have identified in demonstrating the impact of local civil society infrastructure. The capacity (in terms of time and resources) of local civil society infrastructure organisations to undertake impact evaluation is called into question by Batty et al (2009) and Cupitt and Mihailoduo (2009), the latter of which also posit limitations in terms of capabilities (evaluation skills and knowledge). This is clearly understood by LCSI organisations themselves as evidenced in Macmillan et al (2022), which found that one of the three main areas where LCSIs report that they need support is around evaluation and demonstrating impact.

The literature highlights the consequences of these methodological and organisational challenges. Macmillan (2006) identifies issues relating to the scale and coherence of the evidence base, which he describes as ‘not particularly substantial’ and ‘somewhat fragmented and disparate’ (Macmillan, 2006: 5). Wells and Dayson (2010) focus on the quality of the evidence, describing existing measurement as ‘poorly conceived’ and the data as ‘inherently weak, particularly for the purposes of benchmarking or aggregating data across or between areas’ (Wells and Dayson, 2010: 3).

The literature theorises that impacts, benefits and costs occur across a range of different stakeholders

Despite the methodological and practical difficulties of measuring the impact of local civil society infrastructure, a number of frameworks have been developed which provide examples of where impact can be identified and subsequently who benefits from activity.

The PERFORM framework (COGS, 2006) was developed as part of the ChangeUp programme. It was intended as a tool for infrastructure organisations to support them in planning for and subsequently delivering a set of outcomes. The PERFORM framework identified impact in terms of the impact of local civil society infrastructure on front line organisations, in particular in terms of skills, collaboration, services and influence (COGS, 2006).

Building on the PERFORM framework, NCVO’s Value of Infrastructure Programme (VIP) ran for three years between 2009 and 2012. As part of the programme, the framework outlining the impact of infrastructure organisations was expanded. It identified the impact of infrastructure organisations across four domains:

1. Strong organisations
2. Dynamic sector
3. Capable people
4. Supportive external agencies

(See slides 12 & 13 uploaded by NCVO to slideshare.net – accessed 1 March 2024)

The framework implies that local civil society infrastructure has an impact at a number of levels. At the organisational level it would help front line organisations impact on their beneficiaries or cause, for example, in terms of improving their income, strategy, learning, leadership and governance, people, managing resources and communication. At the sector level it would have an impact on building cross-sector working and resources. At the level of external agencies (e.g. government agencies, businesses, trusts and foundations) it would enable them to support the work of the sector as effectively as possible. Finally, at the individual level it would make an impact by strengthening individuals’ capabilities and knowledge (i.e., the front line organisations’ staff and management, as well as their service users).

A theory of change developed by NAVCA, the national membership body for local civil society infrastructure organisations in England implies a similar framework of impact as the VIP. It identifies five domains or levels of impact that occur as a result of local civil society infrastructure:

1. Civil society organisations
2. Communities
3. Individuals
4. Local authorities and statutory partners
5. Businesses

(Unpublished, submitted as part of the call for evidence, January 2024, see Appendix B).

More recently studies exploring the burgeoning relationship between local civil society infrastructure and local government during the pandemic and local civil society infrastructure and health services in England as part of the construction of Integrated Care Systems could be seen to infer impact at a ‘systems’ level. These studies highlight the key role of local civil society infrastructure in helping to devise, develop and deliver partnership working and collaboration that spans the boundaries of both sectors (Ellis Paine et al, 2023; Smith, 2022; Cole, 2023; Cook et al, 2023; Gilburt and Ross, 2023).

There have been a handful of studies which have sought to quantify the impact of infrastructure

As identified earlier, this body of evidence is both limited in scale and variable in quality. We could find no attempts to use the frameworks outlined above to demonstrate the overall impact of local civil society infrastructure. The studies that were identified tended to focus on certain functions, interventions or services provided by infrastructure organisations, often in a single locality. The result is an evidence base that lacks a comprehensive evaluation of the totality of infrastructure functions or an overarching measurement of its impact nationally. Moreover, evaluations have tended to be undertaken by infrastructure organisations themselves. A potential lack of impartiality would pose a risk to the quality of such findings.

Halton and St Helens VCA (2011) worked with Liverpool University to devise and execute a three-year study to explore its impact on organisational development. Impact was measured by asking participants from front line civil society organisations to undertake baseline self-assessments of development across eight organisational dimensions and repeating the same self-assessments three years later to measure ‘distance travelled’. The population of participant organisations was segmented into a study group, a control group and an ad hoc group, with assignment to each group defined by the intensity of support that participants would receive from the local infrastructure organisation. The research found that over the three-year period, each group of organisations reported improvement in organisational development, with the study group organisations, who had worked most intensively with the local infrastructure organisation, reporting considerably higher levels of progress.

The South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme (SYSIP) (2006 –2009) looked to increase the sustainability of the voluntary and community sector in South Yorkshire through support to infrastructure organisations. This included investment in core infrastructure services, volunteering and neighbourhood infrastructure. Evaluation of the programme found that local civil society infrastructure organisations were “reaching those parts of the sector which may be most vulnerable and in need of support” (Wells et al, 2010: p2). The evaluation highlighted that front line organisations were positive about the support accessed and valued the support being provided by another VCS organisation (Wells et al, 2010). Reported impacts of the programme included greater partnership working to influence decisions more effectively, enabling front line organisations to influence local policy processes and in some cases increased sustainability of local civil society infrastructure through the development of partnerships and networks.

Despite the scale of the programme and extent of the evaluation, the evidence on the links between the programme and its impact on sustainability were mixed, with researchers (Batty et al, 2009: 28) concluding that they were:

Not in a position to provide a conclusive and authoritative judgement about whether the case study organisations are actually stronger, more sustainable and resilient, and if so by how much… However, our respondents, that is, people who might be expected to know most about the impact of the support on their organisation, clearly think they are stronger and more sustainable. Their perspectives might form a provisional proxy for the impact of support services funded through SYSIP.

Furthermore, the evaluation also suggests investment in the ethnic minority alliance’s network co-ordinator and network development led to improved representation of black and minority ethnic (BME) VCS in strategic decision making and operational bodies; “there is now more reach and greater scope for involvement and influence” (Batty et al, 2009: 31). The evaluation also explored the economic value of the programme, estimating that the economic benefits to be £8.3 million and £13.4 million Gross Value Added, concluding that “SYSIP contributed to the South Yorkshire economy through job creation, through the development of VCS organisations, through skills development and through volunteering” (Batty et al, 2009: 25).

Bell (2014) undertook a two-year mixed-method study exploring the social and economic value of the infrastructure services provided by Voscur, a generic local civil society infrastructure organisation covering the City of Bristol. Through qualitative methods the evaluation identified that “Voscur’s services were considered valuable and effective by both frontline groups and other external agencies who are strategic stakeholders” (Bell, 2014: 6). The results of quantitative methods were slightly more equivocal, and it should be noted that survey samples were small, with 54 front line groups responding across three waves. Surveys identified a “strong association between Voscur inputs and increased management capacity among frontline organisations. But… did not identify many strong correlations between Voscur inputs and other specific components of performance” (Bell, 2014: 6).

The study also sought to estimate the economic impact of Voscur’s activities via a social return on investment-type assessment which assigned proxy values to outcomes, multiplied those values by estimations of recipient populations and then added deflators to account for attribution and deadweight. This part of the evaluation concluded that “Voscur’s social return on investment is £1: £11.82” (Bell, 2014: 6) but stated that “caution is needed when interpreting this result” (Bell, 2014: 6).

Using both quantitative and qualitative methods Crisp and Dayson (2011) sought to measure the outcomes and value for money delivered by Middlesbrough Voluntary Development Agency (MVDA). The study drew on a survey of 55 of MVDA’s beneficiary organisations alongside 15 qualitative interviews. The study considered impact across areas including development support, inter- and intra-sectoral engagement and volunteering, with a variety of outcomes within each impact area. Both qualitative and quantitative data showed generally favourable results in terms of outcomes for beneficiary organisations and attribution of outcomes to the work of MVDA.

The study also applied economic analysis consistent with HM Treasury Green Book guidance to determine value for money across the development support and volunteering impact areas. The economic benefit of development support was calculated using a Gross Value Added measure to give a one year return on investment of between £2.43 and £4.04 per £1 and a three year return on investment of between £7.06 and £11.77 per £1. The study also applied ‘willingness to pay’ techniques to approximate the perceived value of the outcomes to beneficiary organisations. These approaches are often used when trying to value products, services, or in this case outcomes, that don’t have a ‘market price’. In this study survey respondents who reported a positive outcome from the development support work of MVDA were asked what they would be willing to pay to achieve those positive outcomes. This technique identified a one-year return on investment of 78p per pound.

There are also a few smaller instances in the literature where studies identify or infer impact of local civil society infrastructure. One study examining different capacity building activities found that ‘surgery’ advice sessions with front line organisations helped improve their systems and processes and success with funding applications. However, the study also notes the ‘outcomes of support were relatively limited’ (Shared Intelligence, 2009: 27). Another paper reported that accessing infrastructure was associated with positive outcomes, including a substantially higher likelihood of success in grant applications and bidding for contracts (Cabinet Office, 2010).

Strengthening local civil society infrastructure

Key messages

• There is limited explicit evidence on ‘what works’ in strengthening LCSI. What there is, derives primarily from single project or programme evaluations and cross-sectional research, with few comparative studies of the effectiveness of different interventions.
• Reflections on improvement in the literature cluster around four themes: funding, collaboration, organisational development and data and impact.

Introduction

This section addresses research question 4 - What factors and models are effective in strengthening local civil society infrastructure? It identifies what can be learned from the literature in terms of ‘what works’ in strengthening local civil society infrastructure, bringing together the existing evidence on the factors and models that appear to be effective. This is explored within the context of the issues discussed in section 5, namely how ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ local infrastructure is understood and conceptualised in different ways in the literature, including notions of coverage, quality and impact.

The evidence reviewed on ‘what works’ primarily derives from single project or programme evaluations and cross-sectional research. There are few studies comparing the effectiveness of different interventions or comparing similar interventions in different contexts and settings. There is, however, some evidence which points to factors or models that can make a difference to local civil society infrastructure. Context is an important consideration, including the environment in which organisations operate, as this will shape, enable and constrain actions and interventions. What might be effective in strengthening local civil society infrastructure in one area or organisation may not be transferable to another and the effectiveness of interventions and models will depend on existing capacities and capabilities of local civil society infrastructure as well as their purpose (Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014). There is also the question of what works for whom. Interventions could strengthen an organisation in terms of its competitive position, to the detriment of another organisation; or a ‘stronger’, more financially sustainable local civil society infrastructure organisation may not necessarily have the desired impact on support services for local civil society.

The review of evidence identified four key themes pertinent to the question of ‘what works’ in strengthening local civil society infrastructure:

1. Funding
2. Collaboration
3. Organisational development
4. Data and impact

A greater amount of longer-term, diverse and more flexible funding is identified as a key factor in strengthening local civil society infrastructure

Local civil society infrastructure is funded by a number of sources, including local government, NHS/statutory health bodies, grant-makers, central government, income from providing services and membership fees (Kane and Cohen, 2023; Macmillan et al, 2022).

However, over the last decade government and other funding for local civil society infrastructure has reduced or been withdrawn (Macmillan, 2021a). In 2020/1 the sector was much smaller but supported a larger civil society sector - while civil society has grown overall in the last decade, the number of local civil society infrastructure organisations has reduced by approximately 25% (Kane and Cohen, 2023). If the number of organisations is an indicator of overall ‘strength’, the loss or reduction of funding as an intervention, appears to have weakened local civil society infrastructure. This suggests, conversely, that increased, or at the least stable, funding would help to strengthen it (see also Macmillan, 2021a). As highlighted by Macmillan et al (2007), funding has a two-fold function for local civil society infrastructure; the money itself makes a difference, providing stability and enabling activity, but it also ‘provides a signal of the worth of local VCS infrastructure (and indirectly the local VCS) – as something of value, with a contribution to make and therefore worth investing in’ (Macmillan et al 2007: 29-30).

There is a considerable body of evidence linking funding to ‘improved’ local civil society infrastructure with much of this focused on the benefits of large-scale funding ‘interventions’ (Taylor et al, 2005; TSRC, 2009). A number of evaluations highlight some of the activities and outcomes for local civil society infrastructure that would not have happened without the funding intervention. In the case of ChangeUp, for example, this included collaboration, increased stability and a closer relationship with the statutory sector. The programme evaluation reports that ‘most Consortium members state that this would not have happened without the ChangeUp funding’ (TSRC, 2009: 81). However, the impacts of the programme overall were identified as ‘patchy’ and hard to ascertain (TSRC 2009; National Audit Office, 2009).

The South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme (SYSIP) invested £35 million in local civil society infrastructure which reportedly helped develop partnerships in the VCSE sector and enabled some organisations to become more sustainable. This arose ‘where resources were focused on a small number of strategic projects which were supported by a group of partners’ (Batty et al, 2010: iii), although a lack of strategic focus meant that success was mixed.

Alongside a strategic focus for funding interventions, Cole’s (2023) study of partnership building between local civil society infrastructure and health services identifies the need to provide longer term models of funding to ‘build, sustain and progress partnerships into action’ (Cole, 2023: 16). The literature calls for flexible models of funding for the civil society sector in general (Common Vision, 2022; IVAR, 2021; National Lottery Community Fund, 2023; Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 2023). For example, in exploring design principles for LCSI, Common Vision (2022) calls for a flexible and fluid approach to funding local civil society infrastructure in terms of language and criteria as well as openness and inclusivity (to strengthen local civil society infrastructure through greater diversity, and better reach to minoritised groups). Wider evidence suggests that flexible funding models, such as unrestricted funding and flexible core cost funding, can help organisations be more resilient and better able to respond and adapt to changing operating environments (IVAR, 2021; NTU, 2022). Underlying this approach is a model of trust in the organisations supported by funders. Factors identified in the research to promote effective flexible funding practice include funders being open, flexible and being proportionate in their approach (Common Vision, 2022; IVAR, 2021). There is, however, a lack of robust evidence on the effectiveness of flexible funding models for strengthening local civil society infrastructure.

Individual local civil society infrastructure organisations pursue different funding strategies to improve their financial sustainability. The Connecting Locally research with NAVCA members (Macmillan et al, 2022) suggests that four in five organisations are actively pursuing the diversification of funding streams. NAVCA members themselves identified this as one of the most important activities for their future sustainability. The literature examines some of the sustainable funding models organisations pursue, including developing existing and/or new funding sources (Munro and Mynott, 2014; Shared Intelligence, 2010a). In their review of the Transforming Local Infrastructure programme, Munro and Mynott (2014) examined different sustainable funding models, including charging for existing services, the creation of new charged-for services (such as training, consultancy, back office services to VCSE groups and establishment of trading arms) and new mechanisms for organisations to generate income themselves (such as partnerships with localgiving.org). The review suggested that some models were effective in generating income to support sustainability. One organisation was able to secure 20 per cent of its income from charging and trading through the creation of a trading arm, a chargeable membership model and charged for services including DBS checks, marketing and design, business team challenges and employer-supported volunteering.

However, research points to some of the challenges of developing and delivering such funding models, including the exclusion of groups that cannot or are unwilling to pay (in particular small organisations), the threat of mission drift for local civil society infrastructure organisations and a move away from some functions such as advocacy and networking (Elliot, 2012; Kara, 2013; Macmillan and Paine, 2014; Munro and Mynott, 2014; Shared Intelligence, 2010a). As highlighted by Macmillan and Paine (2014) there is “a more general concern reflected in the literature that a market-based approach may be limited more generally by inability and unwillingness to pay for support services” (Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014: 60). While there is a lack of evidence on the impacts of different charging models on the long-term strength of local civil society infrastructure, the literature does suggest a number of factors that can help to understand what works with these models, including:

• Meeting needs – where models address the evidenced needs of the sector/community (Shared Intelligence, 2010a).
• Knowing the market – there is a demand for the service and there is an understanding of whether and how much organisations are willing to pay (Munro and Mynott, 2014; Bubb and Michell, 2009 cited in Macmillan and Paine, 2014).
• High quality – the model delivers high quality services/opportunities for the sector (Shared Intelligence, 2010a).
• Legitimacy – the model is supported by those in the LCSI organisation, including the board, staff and volunteers (Elliot, 2016; Munro and Mynott, 2014; Shared Intelligence, 2010a).
• Impact – the model demonstrates effectiveness and impact on the LCSI and sector (Shared Intelligence, 2010a).

There are common factors that support the effectiveness of collaborative models

Collaboration - the interactions across the boundaries of two or more organisations (Cairns et al, 2011) - is generally considered as both a key function and indicator of the strength of local civil society infrastructure. Consequently, enabling greater levels of and more effective collaboration is a key element in strengthening local civil society infrastructure. Collaboration is primarily conceived in two key areas:

• Collaboration between local civil society infrastructure organisations.
• Collaboration between local civil society infrastructure organisations and other stakeholders such as the statutory or private sector.

Table 6.1 Collaboration spectrum between local civil society infrastructure organisations

Interactions with other local civil society infrastructure organisations	includes informal alliances, networks of local civil society infrastructure organisations, assemblies and fora (see Harris and Macmillan, 2022)
Sharing without merging	includes joint service delivery, joint campaigning, consortium tendering, sharing back-office functions, co-location (see Shared Intelligence, 2010a; Stafford, 2012; Munro and Mynott, 2014)
Merging	includes merging of structures, acquisition/ absorption, equal merger (see Burnby, 2007; Shared Intelligence, 2010b)

(Adapted from IVAR, 2010).

Collaboration and partnership have been at the heart of many efforts, including government interventions, to strengthen local civil society infrastructure. It was arguably the primary mechanism for improvement in the design of the ChangeUp programme, for example in joint working between organisations through local consortia. Evaluations point to the value of the programme in bringing people together through consortia (Siederer, 2006; National Audit Office, 2009). One evaluation found that collaboration through the consortia “is widely believed to have improved the quality of support services available locally” (TSRC, 2009: 81). However, key barriers to the effectiveness of the programme, and ultimately to strengthening local civil society infrastructure, included competition between local civil society infrastructure organisations, and between local civil society infrastructure organisations and front line organisations, which undermined trust and collaboration (Betteridge Insight Consultancy, 2007).

Munro and Mynott’s (2014) analysis of Transforming Local Infrastructure (TLI) found that investment in collaboration and partnership was a key mechanism through which local civil society infrastructure organisations used TLI funding, including the development of infrastructure alliance agreements, mergers of organisations and the development of shared referral mechanisms for front line organisations looking for support services. The evidence on whether these interventions helped to strengthen local civil society infrastructure is limited. However, the study highlighted that what worked was having a clear focus on local support needs, partnering organisations having shared values and vision for local services and not ‘forcing’ partnership working.

With some encouragement by programmes such as TLI, there have been significant mergers of organisations over the last twenty years (Kane and Cohen 2023), for example in Cumbria, Staffordshire and Suffolk. The impetus for such mergers came variously from statutory bodies, funders and organisations themselves in a bid for more financial sustainability and envisaged efficiencies, and from the VCSE sector with a desire to improve support for front line organisations (Macmillan et al, 2007; Shared Intelligence, 2010b). The evidence is limited on the long-term effectiveness of mergers on strengthening local civil society infrastructure and the implications of concentrating resources within a smaller number of providers.

Macmillan (2016) highlights that mergers can often be perceived as a threat or problem rather than a solution or opportunity. However, the literature points to some positive short-term impacts including improved management structures, opportunities for funding, economies of scale and improved ability to represent the sector (Burnby, 2007; Shared Intelligence, 2010b). One study of local civil society infrastructure mergers found that “when mergers were successful, they offered a range of benefits, including improved service coverage and quality, some short-term cost savings and greater likely long-term financial sustainability” (Shared Intelligence, 2010b: 40). The same study identified a number of success factors for mergers, including having a clear vision for the new organisation, leadership and anticipating and addressing post-merger issues such as differences in working practices. Wider learning from mergers in the VCSE sector also points to further success factors including a business case for merger, clear communications and clear plans for the merger process and beyond (IVAR, 2012).

Efforts to strengthen local civil society infrastructure can also focus on the formation of new collaborations, networks and organisations (Craig-Jackson, 2022; Wells et al, 2010). Craig-Jackson (2022) documents the evolving community anchor model in Leeds, with plans to develop third sector organisations as anchors in 33 wards. The functions of these ‘bottom up’ community anchors, operating at neighbourhood level, are similar to some of the functions explored earlier in this report, including promoting partnerships between local organisations and supporting community organisations.

At the other end of the spectrum are the more informal interactions between local civil society infrastructure organisations, including through networks and informal alliances. Research points to the importance of collaboration in promoting shared learning and understanding, for example between specialist and ‘generic’ organisations. Equal to the Occasion’s research on identity-based VCSEs (ETTO, 2010), for example, found that ‘identity-based infrastructure has an important role to play in ensuring that mainstream support is accessible and inclusive – by acting as trusted intermediaries and by educating mainstream providers’ (ETTO, 2010: 10).

The importance of inter-sectoral collaboration within which local civil society infrastructure organisations play a central role has emerged within the more recent literature, ostensibly in response to developments that occurred during the pandemic and the longer-term transformation of health and social care systems in England. As a consequence, the evidence on how to strengthen local civil society infrastructure through collaboration across sectoral boundaries is much less well developed than the evidence concerning collaboration among organisations.

Local civil society infrastructure organisations also perceive that the building of stronger strategic relationships with health bodies and local authorities is very important for their own sustainability (Macmillan et al, 2022). Macmillan’s (2007) study into local civil society infrastructure effectiveness highlighted the importance of interpersonal relationships between senior members of both local civil society infrastructure organisations and local authorities. In particular the role of ‘champions’ (Macmillan, 2007: 20) within local government was seen as a key to development of organisations. This suggests that having sufficient organisational capacity and regular opportunities to engage with sympathetic and influential local government officers is a key factor in facilitating collaboration and therefore strengthening local civil society infrastructure. However, Macmillan (2007) also identifies that changing contexts and circumstances play an important role in shaping the likelihood and impact of these interactions.

As identified earlier, Cole’s (2023) rapid review of the funding available to support partnership development across newly developing health systems in England supports the notion that resourcing is key to collaboration. However, strategic and other circumstantial factors are a necessary prerequisite of a drive towards collaboration. This is an idea borne out among various studies of the development of relationships between local authorities and local civil society infrastructure during the pandemic (Macmillan, 2021a; Ellis Paine et al, 2023; Smith, 2022; Cook et al, 2022).

Bringing the evidence together, the literature highlights several common factors for the success of collaboration to strengthen local civil society infrastructure. These are similar to those identified for partnership working in civil society more generally, and include:

• Commitment from those working together.
• A clear purpose and shared vision for collaboration.
• A shared focus on local needs.
• Flexibility and adaptability.
• Learning from other examples of collaboration.
• Resources to facilitate collaboration.
• Conditions and circumstances which compel collaboration across organisational and sectoral borders.

Across much of the literature there is a general assumption that collaboration is an effective model for strengthening local civil society infrastructure. Few studies examine how collaboration might weaken local civil society infrastructure, for example, through inequalities and power and loss of organisational capacity (Macmillan, 2021b). Alternative ‘competitive’ models are rarely discussed in the evidence. Macmillan (2016) highlights this as a gap and explores how organisational positioning by individual organisations might be an important dimension for examining local civil society infrastructure as a whole. External support in the form of capacity building or fundraising, for example, might be sought to ‘gain competitive advantage over and above rival organisations’. Rather than collaboration, competition might strengthen one organisation to the detriment of another: ‘strengthened organisational capacity then begins to look rather like a ‘positional’ good (Hirsch, 1977) in that its value to an organisation derives from the fact that others do not have it’.

Organisational development is vital to strengthening local civil society infrastructure and key ingredients underpin this, but context matters

There is a relatively extensive evidence base exploring interventions and models focused on the organisational development of local civil society infrastructure (Naya et al, 2015; Walton and Macmillan, 2014; Shared intelligence, 2009). These include interventions focused on practices and processes, such as building capabilities, the development of quality systems and leadership.

The Infrastructure Design Lab programme which worked closely with seven established infrastructure organisations in the UK (including national, regional and local organisations) identifies core capabilities to enable organisational redesign and renewal in infrastructure organisations. These include flexible and adaptable structures, systems and processes to enable change; open and adaptive mindsets and organisational cultures; foundational experience/capability to foster change; unrestricted funding to support continuous development; and appropriate support networks and access to resources (National Lottery Community Fund, 2023). This research, along with wider studies, highlight the importance of context when exploring what works, particularly in relation to the existing capabilities, capacities and readiness of organisations to engage in interventions such as those focused on capacity building and in change (Chadwick-Coule and Batty, 2009; Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014; National Lottery Community Fund, 2023).

A number of large-scale programmes have focused on capability or capacity building to transform, improve and strengthen local civil society infrastructure. The £6 million Big Assist programme funded by the Big Lottery Fund, for example, piloted ways of offering tailored support to organisations through diagnostic review processes and vouchers to purchase support from a ‘marketplace’ of suppliers (Naya et al, 2015). Over 700 local civil society infrastructure organisations completed the diagnostic review and over 570 organisations were awarded vouchers (ibid) with the evaluation of the programme finding that Big Assist resulted in ‘tangible outcomes, both for the infrastructure organisations themselves and the local organisations they work with’ (Curtis, 2015: 5). Cited outcomes included the development of new services and strategies a year after participation in the programme (ibid). Factors identified as important to the effectiveness of the programme included the diagnostic process which helped organisations identify their needs and priorities, relevant tailored support and independent external support (Naya et al, 2015; Walton and Macmillan, 2014).

A review of evidence on building capabilities in the third sector identifies a series of factors that underpin successful capacity building interventions (Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014). The evidence for this review suggests that these factors are highly relevant to interventions focused on strengthening local civil society infrastructure (Shared intelligence, 2009). The factors include:

• Adopting a systematic and comprehensive approach - the purpose of capacity building is clear, and stakeholders agree on the intended outcomes.
• Tailoring and blending interventions (external expertise, peer support) with a thorough diagnostic process as the foundation.
• Delivering through capable and trusted providers to whole organisations.
• Giving due attention to sustaining the learning gained.

These factors are useful for understanding how local civil society infrastructure support services might be strengthened, a key function for many organisations. The value of organisations themselves tailoring support to the needs of specific bodies is particularly highlighted in the literature (Sepulveda and Rabbevåg, 2021; Shared Intelligence, 2009). Research on ‘funder plus’ programmes reaffirms a number of these factors including the value of focusing on the purpose of support and the importance of appropriate diagnostic processes (Lloyds Bank Foundation, 2019).

The role of strong relationships, the building of trust between grant-maker and grantee and the need to empower organisations around the support they receive are also noted (Cairns et al, 2005a; Lloyds Bank Foundation, 2019). Wider learning from business support programmes suggests that hands-on, more targeted individual advice may be more effective than a light touch approach with little or no engagement or follow up between providers and organisations (What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, 2016). While the literature points to the importance of these factors, there is limited evidence that categorically links these to strengthened local civil society infrastructure. There is also a lack of evidence on how these practices and models impact on the organisations receiving support (see also Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014).

The evidence is limited on the effects of quality systems on local civil society infrastructure but suggests factors including choice, compatibility and resources for implementation might make a difference

The development and adoption of quality systems is one route taken to pursue the improvement of performance and accountability in local civil society infrastructure organisations (Cairns et al, 2005b; Munro and Mynott, 2014). These systems include, for example, the NAVCA Local Infrastructure Quality Accreditation (LIQA) and other frameworks developed for, or by, local civil society infrastructure. Munro and Mynott (2014) examine quality systems in partnerships funded through Transforming Local Infrastructure, providing examples of partnerships that introduced a quality assurance initiative for charity support services and the development of a common Performance Management Framework for infrastructure organisations to help better measure outcomes and quality of service. Some studies suggest that quality standards and kitemarks are ‘valuable’ or useful for organisations (Munro and Mynott, 2014) and ‘when used appropriately have aided the development of infrastructure organisations’ (Wells and Dayson, 2010: 12).

Wider evidence on the use of quality systems in the civil society sector more broadly provides some insights into the benefits of quality systems including acting as an ‘organisational development tool’ (Cairns et al, 2004: 49), increasing ‘organisational legitimacy, improved reputation and credibility with external stakeholders’ (Cairns et al, 2004: 49) and ‘providing the opportunity for an organisation to reflect upon and review their working processes and ways of doing things’ (Cairns et al, 2004: 49). One study focused on the adoption and use of quality standards in the voluntary sector identifies three factors that influence the perceived benefits of quality systems amongst organisations: first, the ability of an organisation to make a choice about adopting a quality system, second, the ability to choose or negotiate the use of a system that complements existing organisation culture and systems, and third, dedicated resources for implementation (Cairns et al, 2005b). However, while this learning is useful there is not sufficient evidence specifically on the adoption, use and impacts of quality systems in local civil society infrastructure organisations to draw any conclusions about their effectiveness in driving improvements in performance or in strengthening local civil society infrastructure.

Demonstrating impact is a frequently cited as key to strengthening local civil society infrastructure

Following a comprehensive review undertaken at a time when local civil society infrastructure was perceived to be in decline and in need of reform, one of the key recommendations made by the Independent Commission on the Future of Local Infrastructure (2015) was that organisations must ‘demonstrate your social value, economic contribution and communicate your impact’ (Independent Commission on the Future of Local Infrastructure, 2015: 8).

There is a sizeable body of literature which supports this position and links demonstrating the impact of local civil society infrastructure to its sustainability and strength. There are a number of reasons cited for this including that it is important for accountability, for demonstrating the difference made and therefore justifying and leveraging investment (Independent Commission on the Future of Local Infrastructure, 2015; Sen and Associates, 2015), and improving quality and performance (Cupitt and Mihailodou, 2009; Macmillan et al 2022, Munro and Mynott, 2014).

Macmillan et al’s study (2022) found that this belief is shared by LCSI organisations themselves. The research found that NAVCA members thought that demonstrating the impact of their work was the most important action they could take to ensuring the sustainability of their organisations over the next few years.

The literature identifies a number of different models for addressing some of the issues identified above:

Frameworks for assessing outcomes and impacts including PERFORM, the outcomes-based performance improvement framework for local civil society infrastructure organisations discussed in Section 5 (COGS, 2006), a toolkit for assessing the impact of volunteer development agencies based on the core functions of volunteer centres (IVR), Third Sector Outcomes Indicator Framework (Evaluation Support Scotland, 2018), Valuing Infrastructure Programme framework and tools (NPC, 2011) and a framework and tool to assess the impact of Rural Community Councils (Moseley et al, 2006). Other frameworks have also been developed that could be used more widely. For example, Walker (2020) identifies six measures for assessing the impact of the work of community foundations. Research suggests that these tools have not been taken up extensively in the sector and limited evidence on the effectiveness of these tools on improving and strengthening local civil society infrastructure (Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014).

Funder plus activities to support organisations with impact practice - relevant to local civil society infrastructure organisations. Key factors identified that make a difference include the support in the initial stages of funding which can enable organisations to think about the purpose and value of evaluation, bringing together organisations at similar stages of development through training and events and directing support to organisations with a commitment to learning (Wadia and Parkinson, 2020).

Cascading learning as seen, for example, in the National Outcomes Programme which recruited and trained outcomes champions within local civil society infrastructure organisations. The evaluation found that as well as cascading learning to front line organisations, champions were able to disseminate learning within their own organisations, increasing understanding of outcomes and a shift to using outcomes approaches. Key factors that were effective included a cascading approach and recruitment of a good geographical spread of champions. The longer-term implications of this on local civil society infrastructure, however, is unclear from the evaluation findings (Tribal, 2009).

Collaboration, including partnerships with universities to assess the impact of local civil society infrastructure for example the Voscur/University of Bristol evaluation or the work done by Halton and St Helens VCA in conjunction with Liverpool University.

Improving data available to organisations about local civil society would make them more aware of and responsive to local need and potentially more effective partners for statutory bodies

Effectively delivering the functions of local civil society infrastructure is in part reliant on the knowledge, insight and intelligence of organisations. A study by Mohan (2012) explored the composition of local civil society by looking at contact details of organisations contained within the databases held by various organisations. It found that there was significant variance between different organisations in terms of the information they held about civil society locally and describes the data as ‘inevitably partial and limited’ (Mohan, 2015: 212). While the paper identified that not all of this variation is unwarranted and that these differences are likely to have a number of contributing factors, it recognised that organisational resourcing and the ability of organisations to compile data does play a part, and that therefore there is scope to improve local civil society infrastructure in this area.

This has clear implications for local civil society infrastructure when considering its key functions. Knowledge of the composition of civil society locally is fundamental to understanding and responding to the needs of local civil society organisations. This point is made by Sen and Associates (2015) who suggest that improving data on the size, nature and structure of local civil society would help to better inform the work of organisations (Sen and Associates, 2015). Better insight and knowledge of the sector locally and its value also contributes to stronger and more effective local civil society infrastructure in other ways, in particular its ability to collaborate with and influencing local public sector bodies (Munro and Mynott, 2014: 50):.

Local infrastructure organisations are in a unique position to gather data on the local voluntary sector and help local groups to use data – this is something to value… infrastructure can provide evidence of the impact of charities’ work, inform the local picture of need and provision and lobby local decision makers to invest in the right places. Whilst this work can be resource-intensive, and requires a certain amount of expertise, those partnerships that invested time and resources during TLI were able to build relationships with local public sector partners and influence their work as a result.

This is particularly pertinent given the observable shift in recent years on the role of local civil society infrastructure. Studies highlighting the growing importance of organisations in terms of inter-sectoral collaboration (Ellis Paine et al, 2023; Gilburt and Ross, 2023; Cook et al, 2022) suggests that better knowledge and insight would make organisations more effective in this role.

Concluding remarks on the evidence

The evidence review has taken a detailed and comprehensive look at the existing literature on LCSI in England, specifically in relation to the four research questions which animate the overall study. To conclude the review, we offer some reflections on the evidence base as a whole, and in particular identify the main gaps in the literature.

Overall, there are two main messages that emerge from the evidence review:

1. The evidence base on LCSI in England remains fragmented and under-developed. Most studies look at particular aspects of LCSI, focusing on specific functions, individual organisations, activities and interventions or places. There is little that looks at LCSI in the round.
2. As a result, we find that the research questions guiding the study are addressing a central gap in understanding the overall nature, state and impact of LCSI in England.

Existing literature does speak to the research questions, albeit somewhat indirectly. While there are relevant studies which can helpfully inform the research, it would not be true to say that the questions have been adequately addressed already and are therefore redundant. In addition, the evidence base on LCSI is beset by a lack of consensus on key terms and definitions and overlapping concepts.

Table 7.1 below identifies the main gaps in understanding that have become evident from the evidence review and suggests some ways forward to address them through this research programme.

Table 7.1: Gaps in the LCSI literature

Research question	Main gaps in understanding	Action
RQ1: Which organisations and functions fall within LCSI? (See section 4)	Little explicit attention to the distinction between LCSI functions and LCSI organisations, and the implications of such a distinction; Lack of consensus around definition and scope of LCSI; No exploration of different configurations of LCSI in different localities	Work Package 2 (Theory of Change framework development) can surface assumptions on definition and scope of LCSI; Work Package 4 (Secondary data analysis mapping and modelling) can operationalise a workable definition for analysis of administrative data, and explore different geographical configurations of LCSI; Work Package 6 (Local case study research) can build understanding of different geographical configurations of LCSI
RQ2: How can we measure whether sufficient (in terms of coverage and quality) LCSI is present in a local area? How can we categorise ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ LCSI? (See section 5)	Little consensus on understanding ‘sufficiency’ or ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ LCSI, or proxy measures for them Negligible overall geographical analysis of LCSI presence and sufficiency	Work Package 2 (Theory of Change framework development) can draw out understandings of LCSI sufficiency and strength Work Packages 4 (Secondary data analysis mapping and modelling) and 5 (Survey of LCSI organisations) can operationalise and map LCSI sufficiency and strength Work Package 6 (Local case study research) can explore LCSI sufficiency and strength in practice
RQ3: What are the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak LCSI, and to whom do they fall? (See section 5)	Research limited by overlapping concepts (e.g., reach, quality, outcomes and impact), scale and attribution challenges; Limited longitudinal assessment of LCSI impacts, benefits and costs; More focus on benefits of LCSI presence/strength than costs of LCSI absence/weakness	Work Package 2 (Theory of Change framework development) can explore and clarify relationships between key concepts Work Package 4 (Secondary data analysis mapping and modelling) can explore relationships between measures of LCSI strength and other local outcomes Work Package 6 (Local case study research) can examine impacts, benefits and costs of LCSI in different contexts
RQ4: What factors and models are effective in strengthening LCSI? (See section 6)	Limited research directly addresses contexts and mechanisms for strengthening LCSI Lack of overall, long-term or comparative assessment of effectiveness of approaches for strengthening LCSI	Work Package 3 (Improving LCSI) can enable a comparative (retrospective) assessment of different improvement approaches in different contexts

The research programme provides an opportunity to advance the evidence base by attending to the logical sequence presented by the four guiding research questions, and thereby provide a more comprehensive understanding of LCSI in England than currently exists. This should be of value to policymakers, practitioners and researchers alike.

References

Allinson, G., Braidford, P., Houston, M., Robinson, F. and Stone, I. (2011) Business Support for Social Enterprises: Findings from a Longitudinal Study (Durham, Policy Research Group/University of Durham).

Allison, E. (2004) North Yorkshire Sub-region VCS Infrastructure Consortium project evaluation

Baine, S. and Benson, A. (2006a) Pulling the Threads Together – a report on the Consortium’s ChangeUp programme

Baine, S. and Benson, A. (2006b) Testbed Final Evaluation Report - Autumn 2006 Norfolk Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure Consortium

Batty, E., Hall, M., Jones, C., Macmillan, R. and Morgan, G. (2005) Looking Ahead….Visions of voluntary and community sector infrastructure in Leicester Shire (Report for the LeicesterShire VCS Infrastructure Consortium and LeicesterShire Funders Panel).

Batty, E., Macmillan, R., Pearson, S., and Wells, P. (2009) Evaluation of the South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme Report F: Core Infrastructure Services (Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University).

Bell, K. (2014) Proving the Economic Value of Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Sector Infrastructure Support Organisations

Betteridge, Insight Consultancy (2007) Forward Together South Yorkshire ChangeUp Consortium Development 2006-7: Review Report

Big Lottery Fund (2012) Building capabilities for impact and legacy (London, Big Lottery Fund).

Black South-West Network (2018) We want to change and they have the power (BSWN)

Bolton, M. and Abdy, M. (2007) Foundations for organisational development: Practice in the UK and USA (London, The Baring Foundation).

British Academy and Power to Change (2023) Space for Community: Strengthening our Social Infrastructure (London, British Academy).

Buckley, E. and Cairns, B. (2012) New ways of giving by UK Trusts and Foundations: High engagement funding practices, Paper for 2012 ISTR conference

Burnby, D. (2007) Anatomy of a merger – the Cumbria experience How the county’s five district CVS became one (Sheffield, NAVCA).

Cabinet Office (2010) Supporting a Stronger Civil Society: An Office for Civil Society consultation on improving support for frontline civil society organisations

Cabinet Office (2018) 2018 Civil Society Strategy (London, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport).

CAF (2021) Creating resilience: How funders can help strengthen small charities. Learnings from a CAF programme (West Malling: Charities Aid Foundation).

Cairns, B., Hutchinson, R. and Schofield, J. (2004) The Adoption and Use of Quality Systems in the Voluntary Sector, (Birmingham, Centre for Voluntary Action Research)

Cairns, B., Harris, M., Hutchison, R. and Tricker, M. (2005a) Improving Performance? The Adoption and Implementation of Quality Systems in UK Nonprofits, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(2), 135-151.

Cairns, B., Harris, M., and Young, P. (2005b) Building the capacity of the voluntary nonprofit sector: Challenges of theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 869–885.

Cairns, B., Harris , M. and Hutchison, R. (2011) Thinking about… collaboration (London, IVAR).

Cairns, B., Burkeman, S., Harker, A. and Buckley, E. (2011) Beyond money A study of funding plus in the UK (London, IVAR).

Capacitybuilders (2009a) Survey of local third sector support providers: the impact of the economic downturn (Birmingham: Capacitybuilders).

Capacitybuilders (2009b) Second survey of local third sector support providers: the impact of the economic downturn (Birmingham: Capacitybuilders).

Capacitybuilders (2010) Survey of local third sector support providers: Third report (Birmingham: Capacitybuilders).

Capacity: Public Services Lab (2019) Community Business Support: Support for community businesses in Liverpool City Region London (Power to Change)

Central London CVS Network (2010) Supporting central London’s local third sector: An exploration of the impact of services offered by Central London Councils for Voluntary Services (London, Central London CVS Network).

Chadwick-Coule, T. and Batty, E. (2009) NAVCA Local Commissioning and Procurement Unit evaluation: A baseline report (Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University).

Clinks (2015) Critical Friends: An independent review of voluntary sector infrastructure in the Criminal Justice System (London, Clinks).

COGS (2006) PERFORM: An Outcomes Approach for Infrastructure Organisations Sheffield, Communities and Organisations: Growth and Support (COGS).

Cole, A. (2023) Snowballs and Eels: A rapid review of national funding for cross-sector partnership building in health and care in England from 2019 to 2022 (Sheffield, NAVCA).

Common Vision (2022) Investing in infrastructure How to build movements, missions and muscle in civil society (London, Common Vision).

Cook, J., Thiery, H. and Burchell, J. (2023) ‘No Longer ‘Waiting for the Great Leap Forwards’? Advances in Local State-Voluntary and Community Sector Relationships During Covid-19’, Journal of Social Policy, FirstView, doi:10.1017/S0047279422000939, published 9-2-23

Craig-Jackson, C. (2022) Shaping the ‘Community Anchor Model’ for Leeds (Leeds, Voluntary Action Leeds).

Crisp, R. and Dayson, C. (2011) Delivering Outcomes for the Local Voluntary and Community Sector An Evaluation of the Value for Money of MVDA’s Work (Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University).

Cupitt, S. with Mihailodou, A. (2009) Demonstrating the difference (London, Charities Evaluation Services).

Curtis, A. (2015) Aiding Organisational Change: An evaluation of the difference the Big Assist has made to local infrastructure organisations (London, NCVO).

Dayson, C. (2010) The reach of third sector infrastructure services in South Yorkshire (Rotherham, South Yorkshire ChangeUp Consortium).

Dayson, C. and Bashir, N. (2014) The social and economic impact of the Rotherham Social Prescribing Pilot: Main Evaluation Report (Sheffield, CRESR/Sheffield Hallam University).

Dayson, C., & Damm, C. (2020). Re-making state-civil society relationships during the COVID 19 pandemic? An English perspective. People, Place and Policy, 14(3), pp. 282-289

Dayson, C., Ellis Paine, A., Macmillan, R. and Sanderson, E. (2017) ‘Third sector capacity building: the institutional embeddedness of supply’ Voluntary Sector Review, 8(2): 149-168.

Dayson, C. and Sanderson, E. (2014) Building capabilities in the voluntary sector - A review of the market, TSRC WP 127

Donahue, K. (2011) ‘Have voluntary sector infrastructure support providers failed micro organisations?’ Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3): 391–8.

Elliott, D. (2012) Voluntary sector support services: towards a research agenda for chargeable services, Paper presented at the VSSN / NCVO Researching the Voluntary Sector conference, University of Birmingham, September 2012.

Ellis Paine, A., Jochum, V., Stuart, J., Sheaff, R. and Exworthy, M. (2023) Coordination, collaboration and translation: Boundary spanning role of VCSE infrastructure in health and care commissioning, presented at the Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, Sheffield Hallam University, September 2023

ETTO (Equal to the Occasion) (2010) Equal support: Do identity-based voluntary and community groups need identity-based organisational development (London, Big Lottery Fund).

Evaluation Support Scotland (2018) Third Sector Interface Outcome Framework (Edinburgh: Evaluation Support Scotland).

Gage, M. (2009) Reflections: LeicesterShire Infrastructure Review Process (Sheffield, NAVCA)

Gilburt, H. and Ross, S. (2023) Actions to support partnership: Addressing barriers to working with the VCSE sector in integrated care systems (London, The Kings Fund).

Greater London Authority (2019) Specialist Civil Society Infrastructure Programme, Appendix 1 Specialist CSI Evidence Base, (London, Greater London Authority)

Harris, C. and Macmillan, R. (2022) Learning from elsewhere: insights from voluntary sector assemblies in England (Sheffield, CRESR/Sheffield Hallam University).

Halton and St Helens Voluntary and Community Action (2011) Inside the black box: Discovering what really works (Runcorn, Halton and St Helens Voluntary and Community Action).

Harker, A. and Burkeman, S. (2007) Building Blocks: Developing second-tier support for frontline groups (London: City Parochial Foundation)

Haslam, D. (2021) Working ‘in the middle’: The role of voluntary sector Local Infrastructure Organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic in England (Open University, Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership)

Haslam, D. (2022) A focus on funding: The role of voluntary sector Local Infrastructure Organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic in England (Open University, Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership)

HM Government (2022) Levelling Up the United Kingdom, CP 604 (London, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities).

HM Treasury (2002) The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery: a cross cutting review (London, HM Treasury)

Hochlaf, D., Gregory, D and Darko, E. (2023) Mission Critical – State of Social Enterprise Survey 2023 (Social Enterprise Knowledge Centre).

Home Office (2004) ChangeUp: Capacity Building and Infrastructure Framework for the Voluntary and Community Sector (London, Home Office).

Hunter, J. and Longlands, S. (2017) Civil Society Support in the North of England (Manchester, IPPR North).

Independent Commission on the Future of Local Infrastructure (2015) Change for good: Report of the Independent Commission on the Future of Local Infrastructure (Sheffield, NAVCA).

IVAR (2010) Getting ready for collaboration: Learning from experience (London, IVAR).

IVAR (2012) Thinking about….mergers (3rd ed)(London, IVAR).

IVAR (2021) Towards more flexible funding: practical ideas from open and trusting grant-makers, (London, IVAR).

IVR (2008) Check it Out: A toolkit to assess the impact of Volunteer Development Agencies (London, Institute for Volunteering Research).

Kane, D. and Cohen, T. (2023) Sector Infrastructure Funding Analysis (London, 360Giving).

Kara, H. (2013) Sheffield FUSE Evaluation (Uttoxeter, We Research It Ltd.).

Kendall, J. (2005) The Third Sector and the Policy Process in the UK: Ingredients in a Hyper-active Horizontal Policy Environment, Third Sector European Policy Working Papers.

Kruger, D. (2020) Levelling up our communities: proposals for a new social covenant. A report for government by Danny Kruger MP, (accessed 24/9/20).

Larkham, J. (2023) Productivity of purpose: Bringing charities into the UK’s productivity drive, Law Family Commission on Civil Society (London, Pro Bono Economics)

Leat, D. (2011) New tools for a new world (or why we need to rethink capacity-building) (London, Big Lottery Fund)

Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales (2019) Five Years of Funder Plus (London, Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales).

Macmillan, R. (2004) Shaping the future… The development of voluntary and community sector infrastructure in County Durham Report for the One Voice Network, County Durham.

Macmillan, R. (2006) A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Benefits of Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure (Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University).

Macmillan, R. with Batty, E., Goudie, R., Morgan, G. and Pearson, S. (2007) Building effective local voluntary and community sector infrastructure (Sheffield, NAVCA).

Macmillan, R. (2008) A Shape of Things to Come: Reviewing County Durham’s Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure Report for the One Voice Network, County Durham.

Macmillan, R. (2013) Demand-led capacity building, the Big Lottery Fund and market-making in third sector support services, Voluntary Sector Review, 4(3): 385-394.

Macmillan, R. (2016) ‘Capacity building for competition: the role of infrastructure in third sector service delivery’ in Rees, J. and Mullins, D. (eds) The Third Sector Delivering Public Services: Developments, innovations and challenges (Bristol, Policy Press), pp.107-25.

Macmillan, R. (2021a) A surprising turn of events - episodes towards a renaissance of civil society infrastructure in England, People, Place and Policy: 15/2, pp. 57-71.

Macmillan, R (2021b) Co-ordinating community business infrastructure (London, Power to Change).

Macmillan, R. and Ellis Paine, A., with Kara, H., Dayson, C., Sanderson, E. and Wells, P. (2014) Building Capabilities in the Voluntary Sector: What the evidence tells us, TSRC Research Report 125 (Birmingham, Third Sector Research Centre).

Macmillan, R., Leather, D. and Stuart, J. (2022) Connecting Locally: local voluntary and community sector in England (Sheffield, CRESR/Sheffield Hallam University).

Mohan, J. (2012) ‘Entering the lists: what can we learn about the voluntary sector in England from listings produced by local infrastructure bodies?’ Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2): 197–215.

Moseley, M., Owen, S., Johnson, P., Craig, C., McNamee, S. and Wilkinson, M. (2006) Rural Community Value: Assessing the Impact of the Work of Rural Community Councils (London, DEFRA).

Munro, E. and Mynott, B. (2014) Analysis of Transforming Local Infrastructure (Sheffield, NAVCA).

National Audit Office (2009) Building the Capacity of the Third Sector. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC132, Session 2008-2009 (London, The Stationery Office).

National Lottery Community Fund (2023) Infrastructure Design Lab: Established programme learnings and recommendations (National Lottery Community Fund)

NAVCA (2017) Improving Commissioning through a VCSE Single Point of Contact (Sheffield, NAVCA)

Naya, K., Ritchie, O. and Wilson, S. (2015) Evaluation of the Assist Investment in National Infrastructure Programme: Final Report (London, OPM).

NCVO (2011) The Value of Infrastructure Programme, Presentation given at NCVO’s Annual Conference, (NCVO, London) (accessed 29 February 2024)

Needham, J. and Barclay, J. (2004) Infrastructure for BME Organisations in London

Needham, J. and Oakley, R. (2009) Mapping Support to Third Sector Organisations Final Report (Birmingham, Capacitybuilders)

NHS England (2017) Next Steps on the NHS Five Year Forward View, (London, NHS England) (accessed 29 February 2024

NHS England (2017), NHS Long Term Plan, 2019 (London, NHS England) (accessed 29 February 2024

NHS England (2019), NHS Long Term Plan (London, NHS England) (accessed 29 February 2024)

NHS England (2021), Building strong integrated care systems everywhere (London, NHS England) (accessed 29 February 2024)

NHS England (2023), A framework for addressing practical barriers to integration of VCSE organisations in integrated care systems (London, NHS England) (accessed 29 February 2024)

Nottingham Trent University (2022) Respond, Recover, Reset: Two Years On, Nottingham Trent University, Centre for People, Work and Organisational Practice

Nottingham Trent University (2021) Respond, recover, reset: the voluntary sector and COVID-19, December 2021 (Briefing on Infrastructure)

NPC (2011) Measuring the impact of infrastructure organisations: Piloting an approach with ACEVO (London: NPC/ACEVO).

Ockenden, N. with Evison, I. (2018) The evaluation of the Local Sustainability Fund: final report (London, NCVO).

OPM (2013) Evaluation of the Assist investment in national infrastructure programme: Interim report 2013

OPM/Compass Partnership (2004) Early mapping of national infrastructure organisations (London, OPM).

Paul Hamlyn Foundation (2023) Supporting a thriving voluntary sector: Evaluating the impact of infrastructure funding through the Backbone Fund (London, Paul Hamlyn Foundation).

Rochester, C. (2012) ‘Councils for Voluntary Service: the end of a long road?’ Voluntary Sector Review, 3(1): 103-10.

Savage, O. (2004) Review of infrastructure support for voluntary organisations in Leicester and Leicestershire: Key findings from VCO Survey and Discussions (Greengage Consulting Ltd)

Sen, S. and Associates (2015) The Change Ahead: Creating a new future for civil society in London (London, London Funders).

Sen, S. and Associates (2016) The Way Ahead: Civil Society at the Heart of London (London, London Funders).

Sepulveda, L. and Rabbevåg, S (2021) Minoritised Ethnic Community and Social Enterprises: A literature review and analysis of support from Power to Change, Social Investment Business and Access – The Foundation for Social Investment, (Power to Change, Social Investment Business and Access)

Shared intelligence (2009) Testing different models of support (Birmingham, Capacitybuilders).

Shared Intelligence (2010a) Sustainable models of support services (Birmingham, Capacitybuilders).

Shared Intelligence (2010b) Learning from mergers (Birmingham, Capacitybuilders).

Siederer, N. (2006) ChangeUp Programme Infrastructure Investment Plans Collation and Analysis of Data. Report for Capacitybuilders

Smith, L. (2022) ‘The latent strength of community ties: how voluntary sector infrastructure organisations utilised their local networks in response to COVID-19’, in Rees, J., Macmillan, R., Dayson, C., Damm, C. and Bynner, C. (eds)(2022) COVID-19 and the Voluntary and Community Sector in the UK: Responses, Impacts and Adaptation (Bristol, Policy Press), pp.211-224.

Sparks Insights and Locality (2023) Exploring Barriers to Funding and Support Experienced by Marginalised Community Businesses: Insights, Solutions and Recommendations for Funding and Infrastructure Organisations (Power to Change)

Stafford, J. (2012) ‘Recession, resilience, resources…and relationships’ Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2): 257-263.

Tanner, W., O’Shaughnessy, J., Krasniqi, F. and Blagden, J. (2020) The State of our Social Fabric Measuring the changing nature of community over time and geography (London, Onward).

Taylor, M., Purdue, D., Carlton, N., Mackridge, R., Syed, A., Ardron, R., Wilson, M., Meegan, R. and Russell, H. (2005) Making Connections: An evaluation of the Community Participation Programmes Research Report 15 (London, ODPM).

The Greater Manchester VCSE Leadership Group (2020) Voluntary organisations, Community groups and Social Enterprises (VCSE) in Greater Manchester – the next 10 years (Manchester, The Greater Manchester VCSE Leadership Group).

Thiery, H., Ballantyne, E., Cook, J., Burchell, J., Walkley, F., McNeill, J. (2020) Report #3 Building Local Responses to Identify and Meet Community Needs During COVID-19, (MoVE project, Sheffield/Hull /Leeds)

Third Sector Research Centre (2009) Evaluation of ChangeUp 2004 to 2008: Summative Evaluation (Birmingham, Third Sector Research Centre, bmg research, Guidestar Data Services, Sustain Consultancy).

Tribal (2009) Evaluation of Charities Evaluation Services’ National Outcome Programme, 2006-2009, Final Project Report

Wadia, A and Parkinson, D. (2020) Research into the support provided by funders to VCSE organisations with data and evidence work (London: NCVO)

Walker, C (2020) The Value and Impact of the UK Community Foundation Network (Newark: UK Community Foundations)

Walton, C. and Macmillan, R. (2014) A brave new world for voluntary sector infrastructure? Vouchers, markets and demand-led capacity building, TSRC Working Paper 118 (Birmingham, Third Sector Research Centre).

Ware, P. (2018) Walking on Treacle: Black and Minority Ethnic Groups’ Experiences of Community Capacity Building (Birmingham, Third Sector Research Centre)

Waterhouse, P. (2014) Homes for local radical action: The position and role of local umbrella groups NCIA Inquiry into the future of voluntary services Working Paper 7 (London, National Coalition for Independent Action).Wells, P., Ardron, R. and Wilson, M. (2009) Evaluation of the South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme: Report I: Partnership, voice, engagement and influence (Sheffield, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University).

Wells, P., Batty, E., Pearson, S., Dayson, C., Platts-Fowler, D., Trinnaman, J., Garner, S., Ardron, R., Wilson, M. and Macmillan, R. (2010) Evaluation of the South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme, Report A: Summary Report (Sheffield, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University).

Wells, P. and Dayson, C. (2010) Measuring the impact of third sector infrastructure organisations: A report to the NCVO Funding Commission.

What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth (2016) Evidence Review 2: Business Advice (London,What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth)White, R. (2007) What should we do to improve support for frontline organisations and how will we know when we’ve done it? Report of an Open Space event 1-3-07 (London, City Parochial Foundation).

Zahno Rao Associates (2006) Report to Home Office Active Community Directorate – Strategy Paper on Mainstreaming Diversity within the ChangeUp programme.

Appendix A: Methodology

Key inclusion criteria

To make the review as relevant and useful as possible, evidence was only included if it met the following criteria:

Table A1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Population/object of research	Local civil society infrastructure; Private sector business support	National civil society infrastructure with no infrastructure role in local areas
Geography	Evidence from England (and UK where includes England)	Evidence from outside England
Publication date	Studies published from 2003 onwards	Studies published before 2003 (with possible exceptions for significant pieces before then)
Other study dimensions	English language studies; Studies where a full report or paper is available; Studies where the author, individual or organisation is stated; Priority for studies based on primary research, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies and evaluations. Pieces without primary evidence e.g. blogs and think pieces only included if provide useful insights; Existing evidence reviews on LCSI (these will be used for further references)	Studies where no report is available; Studies where the author, individual or organisation is not stated; Articles not available in English

Search terms

When searching for evidence on databases the following search string was adapted according to the database. These strings use boolean operators such as AND and OR where useful.

“civil society” OR “third sector” OR “voluntary” OR “community sector” OR “charity sector” OR VCSE OR “non-profit” OR “social enterprise*” OR faith OR “private sector” OR “business*” AND “infrastructure” OR “development agenc*” OR “support agenc*” OR “support organisation*” OR “umbrella” OR “intermediary” OR “second-tier” OR “support system*”

We searched for these search terms in the titles/abstracts and key words (if applicable) of articles. This helped to ensure the most relevant articles were included in the search.

Appendix B: NAVCA Theory of Change

NAVCA Theory of Change.

Source: NAVCA, Unpublished, submitted as part of the call for evidence, January 2024.