Research and analysis

Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) R&D Programme - final research report

Published 11 July 2025

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

Research summary

This programme of research has aimed to develop the evidence base on local civil society infrastructure (LCSI). It was led by a consortium of Ipsos UK, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (at Sheffield Hallam University), PBE, University of the West of Scotland. The research aimed to answer four key research questions set out below. This report condenses findings across 7 Work Packages.

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.

Which organisations and functions fall within ‘local civil society infrastructure’?

1. There is no agreed definition of which organisations and functions fall within local civil society infrastructure. This presents a challenge in defining the scale of LCSI.
2. Local civil society infrastructure has been broadly understood in two ways – either an “organisation-first” or “function-first” approach. The “organisation-first” approach centres around identifiable organisations in a geographic area or specialism and a “function-first” approach examines which organisations are performing the functions of LCSI. The “function-first” approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of the availability of infrastructure in an area by capturing a greater diversity of organisations and networks delivering activities defined as ‘infrastructure’.
3. The “organisation-first” approach identifies 1,392 LCSI organisations active in England at some point between 1991 and 2023, with an estimated 530 organisations active in 2023. There has been a gradual decline in the number of LCSI organisations operating in England since 2006. Nevertheless, most local authorities have at least one LCSI organisation operating in their area.
4. There is some consensus around the types of functions that fall within infrastructure. These functions focus on facilitating funding, organisational development, advocacy, volunteering and community participation, and convening.

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?

1. There is no universally agreed upon definition in the literature of what is meant by ‘strong’ LCSI, nor agreed ways of measuring it. Existing literature on LCSI has used notions of strength, weakness, coverage, quality, benefits and impact interchangeably. Discussion of strength has typically focused on financial sustainability.
2. LCSI coverage was explored through geography, quality of provision, and whether the coverage was consolidated or dispersed. Evidence points to a decline in the proportion of local authorities with LCSI organisations since 2001, particularly among district councils. However, higher LCSI coverage does not necessarily correlate with higher rates of civil society organisation survival or foundation. This emphasises how the quality of provision – and the need to adapt to the local context - is more important than the extent of coverage in defining LCSI sufficiency.
3. LCSI funding was analysed as a proxy for its ability to deliver support. Areas with larger numbers of civil society organisations tend to have higher total LCSI expenditure per capita. The research finds no evidence linking higher LCSI expenditure to increased foundation or survival rates of civil society organisations. Stakeholders emphasise the need for sufficient, consistent and flexible funding to enable LCSI organisations to fulfil their core functions effectively.
4. Being knowledgeable about the local area and being well connected were seen as important factors in the quality of LCSI amongst survey respondents. The quality of relationships often depends on stakeholder buy-in, and the extent to which decisionmakers, particularly in local government and the public sector, value LCSI.

What are the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak local civil society infrastructure, and to whom do they fall?

1. Assessing the impact, costs, and benefits of LCSI is inherently difficult due to complex attribution chains, a wide range of activities, and diverse organisational structures. Existing research on the impact of LCSI remains underdeveloped, often focusing on specific projects or organisations rather than providing a comprehensive view.
2. A Theory of Change for LCSI, developed in conjunction with stakeholders, outlines how LCSI activities can lead to better targeted resources, improved policy making, and increased community trust, empowerment, and belonging.
3. Survey data suggests that LCSI organisations state their activities contribute to positive short- and medium-term outcomes, particularly in areas like increased funding for VCFSE organisations, stronger relationships between VCFSE organisations and strategic partners, and better alignment between VCFSE services and local needs. However, there is less confidence amongst LCSI organisations on their impact on policymaking, community engagement practices, and diversity within VCFSE organisations.
4. Overall, there is stronger evidence that LCSI activities result in better targeted resources and improved policy making, compared to increased community trust, empowerment and belonging. There is more evidence of the impact of LCSI in case study localities with well-established provision, than those with less well developed or absent LCSI. Key benefits fall on:
   • a. Frontline organisations including increased access to funding sources, greater connections, and increased confidence to take ideas to decision makers.
   • b. This in turn may benefit local communities through stronger frontline organisations and increased volunteering activities. However, evidence for a direct link between LCSI and local communities is weaker than for other beneficiary groups, reflecting how LCSI organisations tend to be one step removed from activities with local communities.
   • c. Statutory bodies including gaining a greater insight of local needs, improvements in commissioning processes and local policy decisions.

What factors and models are effective in strengthening local infrastructure?

1. There is limited explicit evidence on ‘what works’ in strengthening LCSI. This research has emphasised the importance of working with the ‘grain’ of local contexts.
2. Stakeholders consistently identified three approaches that can support the improvement of LCSI:
   • a. Addressing key challenges within the funding system
   • b. Enhancing strategic buy-in
   • c. Building on good-quality relationships to develop more formal structures.

Introduction

This programme of research has aimed to develop the evidence base on local civil society infrastructure (LCSI) in England; namely, the positive impacts of effective LCSI, the negative impacts of its absence and the conditions and approaches for building effective LCSI in areas where it is weak or non-existent.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has supported this research through the R&D Science and Analysis Programme. It has a particular focus on addressing the Civil Society and Youth Directorate’s (CSY) area of research interest on ‘understanding the factors and organisations that contribute to a strong civil society and a society which supports young people’.

The programme has been led by a consortium made up of Ipsos UK, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (at Sheffield Hallam University), PBE, University of the West of Scotland. The research team was supported by an academic advisory group, comprising academics from the University of Stirling, City St George’s, University of London, Sheffield Hallam University, the University of Hull, the University of Wolverhampton and the University of Sheffield.

Research questions

The programme addressed four key research questions, all in relation to local civil society infrastructure across England:

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

Work packages

The research was structured in seven distinct but interlinked Work Packages (WPs) delivered from December 2023 to January 2025.

Work Package 1 (WP1) – Evidence Review: A systematic evidence review examining existing research and evaluation on LCSI, with the aim of providing a comprehensive understanding of what we know already in relation to all four research questions.

Work Package 2 (WP2) – Theory of Change framework: The development of a working theory of change (TOC), through two series of workshops, to illustrate connections between the activities of LCSI organisations, related outputs, outcomes and longer-term impacts.

Work Package 3 (WP3) - Improving LCSI: A set of nine semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in local areas which had undergone or were involved in significant LCSI improvement processes. This was supplemented with one workshop with relevant national umbrella organisations, national funders, academia and experts in place-based change. This work package sought to explore what participants felt were the most important contributors to the relative strength or weakness of LCSI.

Work Package 4 (WP4) – Secondary Data Analysis and Mapping: An audit of LCSI provision using existing data sources. This work package sought to determine both sufficiency and coverage, with key outcomes including a mapping exercise, a typology, and statistical analysis.

Work Package 5 (WP5) – LCSI Survey: A survey of LCSI organisations identified through Work Package 4 to determine the range and types of activities they provide alongside outcomes, impacts and recent experiences.

Work Package 6 (WP6) – Locality Case Studies: An in-depth look at LCSI in five contrasting case study areas, investigating all four research questions and examining the ‘strength’ of LCSI in the locality. The case studies included LCSI organisations, frontline organisations and statutory stakeholders and funders. In total 200 participants from 127 separate organisations took part in interviews, focus groups and workshops across the five case studies.

Work Package 7 (WP7) – Continuous Knowledge Transfer: Through knowledge-sharing sessions, summaries of key learnings within outputs, and participation in the Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research conference 2024, the project team have continuously sought opportunities to share findings with stakeholders. This will provide stakeholders with a better-informed framework for policy and will generate methodological learning for future research.

How to interpret this report

This report provides a summary of key findings from this research, structured by the four key research questions. It brings together insights from across the seven work packages. Further information and analysis collected throughout the project can be found in individual work package reports.

Throughout the report, we have included figures and charts from Work Package 5 (LCSI survey), which collected data from infrastructure organisations in England. The relatively small sample size (115 complete responses) necessitates caution when interpreting the results and findings should be viewed as exploratory. Due to rounding, percentages presented in this report may not always sum to 100%. Similarly, combined percentages may not precisely match the sum of their constituent parts.

Quotes have been attributed showing which Work Package and stakeholder group the quotation came from. From Work Package 6 (Locality Case Studies), we draw heavily on research in five localities which have been anonymised with a letter identifier from A to E to illustrate where insights relate to the same case. To aid the discussion, a brief summary of the case studies is provided in table 1.1 below.

Table 1.1 Locality case studies

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

Key acronyms

Whilst we endeavour to maintain consistency in our report, please note that the terms listed below may vary based on the preferences of different stakeholders. As a result, there may be inconsistencies in language throughout, especially within quotations and Work Package 5 (LCSI survey) questions.

Acronym	Meaning
LCSI	Local Civil Society Infrastructure
VCFSE/VCSE	Voluntary, Community, Faith and Social Enterprise/Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise. Different stakeholders prefer different terms, and this is reflected in the reporting below. We have tended to use VCFSE, unless as part of a verbatim quote from a stakeholder where we’ve used their original language.
VCS	Voluntary and Community Sector
FLO	Frontline organisation
IMD	Index of Multiple Deprivation
CVS	Council for Voluntary Services

Organisations and functions

Context box: evidence summary

LCSI has broadly been understood through either an “organisation-first view”, where LCSI is defined by identifiable infrastructure organisations serving a particular geographic area, or a “function-first” approach, defined by LCSI’s purposes and functions, spanning public, private and civil society sectors. The literature has generally conceptualised LCSI around three broad functions: connecting individuals, groups and organisations in the VCSE; developing their work and capacity; and influencing decision-makers.

Introduction

This section sets out the key research findings in relation to: Which organisations and functions fall within ‘local civil society infrastructure’? It primarily draws on insights from the evidence review, a survey of infrastructure organisations and secondary data analysis. However, where relevant we have also brought in examples from our case study research.

Defining ‘local civil society infrastructure’

There is no agreed definition of which organisations and functions fall within local civil society infrastructure. Limited attention has been paid to the distinction between organisations that identify as ‘infrastructure’, and organisations that fulfil infrastructure functions as part of their role. Similarly, there are multiple ways of drawing the boundaries of ‘local’, with no reference to the term ‘local civil society infrastructure’ in the broader literature. The evidence review highlighted two main approaches in research on LCSI:

• “Organisation-first”: where LCSI is defined as the functions and activities of one or more dedicated organisation serving a geographic area or a community of interest. This approach often coalesces around established infrastructure organisations such as Councils for Voluntary Service (CVS), Voluntary Action or Volunteer Centres.
• “Function-first”: This approach uses the purpose and functions of LCSI to identify the range of organisations performing these roles. This definition tends to be prevalent within studies that take a more holistic view of LCSI, opening the concept to a broader set of providers across the public, private and civil society sectors, including those for whom LCSI functions are not a sole or main purpose.

The function first approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of the availability of infrastructure in an area by capturing a greater diversity of organisations and networks delivering activities defined as ‘infrastructure’. This highlights how LCSI functions are not solely performed by dedicated or established local infrastructure organisations. At the same time, dedicated local infrastructure organisations do not only perform LCSI functions as some also carry out activities such as delivering other (non-infrastructure) services.

This brings challenges for defining the scale of LCSI. For example, questions arise as to how much ‘infrastructure’ should be provided to qualify as an ‘infrastructure organisation’, and where to locate the boundaries between activities such as influencing or advocacy work that span a diverse range of actors. The lack of familiarity with the term “local civil society infrastructure” was highlighted in a survey of organisations identified through the mapping work, with only 61% seeing themselves as fully part of an “LCSI sector”. This research has sought to develop a methodology for sizing “local civil society infrastructure” and defining which organisations and functions fall within it.

Question: Q19. Do you think of your organisation as being part of the local civil society infrastructure sector? Base: All participating LCSI (organisations). *CAUTION LOW BASE

Where possible, the research has taken a ‘function-first’ approach, taking a more holistic account of LCSI. However, in the survey of LCSI organisations and the secondary data analysis we have used an organisation-first approach. This reflects the existing data landscape that is drawn on a sample of mainly charitable organisations defined as LCSI rather than those conducting specific infrastructure functions.

Which organisations operate within LCSI?

Secondary data mapping taking an organisation-first approach, identified 1,392 LCSI organisations active in England at some point between 1991 and 2023, with an estimated 530 organisations active in 2023.^{[footnote 1]} The number of active LCSI organisations peaked between 2003 and 2006 and has since been in decline. However, as this mapping is based on LCSI organisations identified through administrative data sources, some organisations delivering key infrastructure functions may not be captured within the analysis. For example, during the case study research participants explained that groups like alliances and frontline organisations themselves could provide advice and guidance to other VCFSE organisations or signpost to volunteering and funding opportunities.

Figure 1: Number of LCSI organisations, by year.

Although the majority of LCSI organisations provide general services, secondary data analysis found a steady increase in the percentage of active organisations that provide specialist services. This is based on the categorisation used in the 360Giving typology (Kane and Cohen, 2023):

• General: Local Councils for Voluntary Service, or equivalent organisations, that provide services and support to all charities in an area.
• Volunteer centre: Providing volunteer services in the local area. Where the volunteer centre is hosted by a CVS the “General” category was used instead.
• Specialist: Providing support to a particular group of charities in a local area. For example, a specialist organisation could provide support on diversity, equality and inclusion training, or a community accountancy service.
• Service provider: Providing specific services, such as a community accountancy service. Where the service provider is hosted by a CVS the “General” category was used instead.

Stakeholders interviewed as part of case study research highlighted the availability of infrastructure support provided outside of formal LCSI organisations. They described accessing support through other routes, often delivered by individuals outside of their day-to-day role. For example:

• Local networks, forums, and alliances have been co-developed by different stakeholders in the civil society sector. These structures provide key support functions such as training on bid writing, project management, or organisational governance. They also play a convening role, bringing together local stakeholders.
• Frontline organisations delivering infrastructure functions, often on an informal basis, by providing support through activities like signposting to information on training.

A majority of the LCSI organisations mapped as operating in 2023 were formed over ten years ago. This was reflected in case study research where interviewees often described the longstanding nature of LCSI organisations. They highlighted how these organisations had staff that were experienced and knowledgeable on the local sectors’ needs. This has not always been the case. In the early 2000s, just over half of active LCSI organisations were less than ten years old, compared to just under 20% in recent years. This is driven by a combination of LCSI organisations surviving for longer periods and fewer new LCSI organisations founded since the early 2000s.

Figure 4: Age structure of LCSI sector, by year.

Adjusting for inflation, since 1995 there has been a decline in the number of organisations that fall into the lower income size bands (under £100,000). This has fallen from around 50% of infrastructure organisations in 1995, to around 15% in 2023. A majority of active LCSI organisations have an income of between £100,000 and £10,000,000. Compared to 1995, there has been an increase in the number of organisations that are in the income band of between £1,000,000 and £10,000,000. As the number of active organisations has declined, this suggests a greater concentration of income across a smaller number of established infrastructure organisations. The typical (median) annual income of an LCSI organisation increased consistently between 2000 (£200,000 pa) and 2010 (£400,000 pa), before dropping sharply to £250,000 pa in 2019, and recovering to £380,000 pa in 2022-23.

There is little change over time in the typical level of LCSI expenditure per capita across local authorities (figure 2.3; orange horizontal line). However, there is significant variation between local authorities in a given year. For example, in 2006 one local authority had total LCSI expenditure of almost £125 per head of population, while 25% of local authorities had £1.75 or less (figure 2.3; left panel). The differences between areas are smaller when comparing what the typical (median) LCSI organisation spends per capita but there is still significant variation (figure 2.3; right panel).

Figure 14: LCSI expenditure per capita, by year.

What functions fall within local civil society infrastructure?

There is a degree of consensus around the types of functions that fall within LCSI. The evidence review found that LCSI has been conceptualised around three broad functions: connecting individuals, VCFSE groups and organisations; developing their work and capacity; and influencing decision-makers. These concepts were tested during Theory of Change workshops with policymakers, LCSI organisations, and national membership bodies. Participants shared examples of activities they considered as part of LCSI, including training for volunteers, signposting activities, and funder engagement. These were grouped into five main functions:

• Facilitating funding such as providing information about opportunities, influencing the design and targeting of grants or other forms of funding and co-ordinating local bids.
• Community participation including advice and signposting, promoting community activities, volunteer brokerage and capacity building.
• Organisational development such as support for operational management and strategic development, training for frontline staff and bespoke work with organisations.
• Convening including bringing together networks of frontline organisations, building collaborations and partnerships across, between and within sectors and arranging community-led activities.
• Advocacy such as contributing to strategic cross-sector meetings, intelligence sharing with decision makers and the local VCFSE sector and representing the views of the local sector and decision makers.

A majority of the LCSI organisations surveyed conduct activities related to any of the five functions at least once a month. Signposting and providing advice were the most undertaken activities within the functions of facilitating funding, volunteering and community participation, and organisational development.

For those undertaking each function, activities related to volunteering and community participation were most frequently carried out over the last twelve months, often delivered multiple times a week. Organisational development activities are also completed regularly, with over half of organisations engaging in them more than once a week. However, no single function dominated in terms of the frequency that activities were carried out.

Question: Q7.How often in the last 12 months, has your organisation undertaken the following types of activities? Base: All participating LCSI organisations (115), all who conducted facilitating funding (107), all who conducted volunteering (102), all who conducted organisational development (108), all who conducted convening (106), all who conducted advocacy (110). *CAUTION LOW BASE. For clarity don’t know responses are excluded from this chart.

Sufficiency and coverage

Context box: evidence summary

The literature on LCSI has used notions of strength, weakness, coverage, quality, benefits and impact interchangeably. Discussion of strength has typically focused on financial sustainability, with a long-term decline in income cited in the perceived weakening of infrastructure over the past decade. Coverage has usually been explored through dimensions such as geography, resources, function, reach, depth and accessibility; with LCSI considered as lacking in coverage. Generally, quality has been assessed as the effective delivery of infrastructure functions, alongside attributes such as connectivity and culture. However, efforts to measure quality remain limited, resulting in a lack of comprehensive measures or evaluations of strong or weak LCSI.

Introduction

This section sets out to answer the question: How can we measure whether sufficient (in terms of coverage and quality) LCSI is present a local area? It draws on evidence from the literature review, the survey, secondary data analysis, and the perspectives of stakeholders who participated in Theory of Change workshops, interviews and case studies. We have explored the sufficiency of LCSI in three main ways:

• Coverage: Capturing the number of LCSI organisations operating in an area, including those registered within or outside of the area. Survey respondents were also asked whether the number of LCSI organisations operating in their area was sufficient to deliver each infrastructure function.
• Funding: We have used the spending capacity of LCSI organisations as a proxy for their ability to deliver support, and as such, a quantitative measure of sufficiency, as well as stakeholder perceptions on the importance of sufficient, consistent and flexible funding.
• Quality of local knowledge, personal relationships and leadership: Including stakeholder perceptions on the importance of understanding local needs and the context of a place, being well-connected and having strong relationships with both statutory bodies and frontline organisations.

The research concludes that there is no universally agreed upon definition of what is meant by ‘sufficient’ LCSI, nor are there agreed ways of measuring it. However, there is consensus around the importance of LCSI reflecting local civil society and being configured in a way that aligns with local structures, norms and ways of working. This highlights the importance of context in understanding the relative strength or weakness of LCSI.

Coverage

The proportion of local authorities where LCSI organisations are present has declined since 2001, particularly within district councils. In the data mapping, taking an organisation-first approach, local authority LCSI coverage is determined by the presence of one or more of the following:

• LCSI organisations with a head office / main address in the local authority.
• LCSI organisations registered elsewhere that report operating in the local authority. This additional information is only available from 2012 onwards, explaining the increase in coverage in that year.

Figure 5: Proportion of areas with at least one LCSI organisation, by year.

The secondary data analysis highlights how this declining coverage is partly ameliorated by the presence of LCSI organisations that are registered in a different local authority providing infrastructure support across local authority boundaries. Since 2015, roughly 40% of all LCSI organisations present in an area are registered in a different local authority. Of the 725 organisations identified as active between 2012 and 2023, 70% report operating in a single local authority outside of where they are registered or have a head office,10% in two areas, and 20% in three or more areas. Three organisations report operating in 12-15 areas.

Figure 6: Mix of LCSI coverage, by year.

Most local authorities in England have had an LCSI organisation registered in the area over the period 1991-2023. During this time, about 40 local authorities gained a registered LCSI organisation, and about 60 organisations lost a registered LCSI organisation. Across the same timeframe, there is a constant presence of LCSI organisations registered elsewhere, suggesting continuous coverage of infrastructure across local authorities in England. However, there is variation in the number of organisations present in a local authority area. The typical number of LCSI organisations present in a local authority is two. This ranges from 75% of local authorities that have three or fewer LCSI organisations, while 1% of local authorities have eleven or more.

In general, there is a positive association between local authority areas with larger numbers of civil society organisations and those with more infrastructure organisations present. In the same way, LCSI organisations are more likely to be present in more deprived local authorities.

Figure 8: Relationship between number of LCSI and civil society organisations.

The majority of LCSI organisations responding to the survey rated the number of infrastructure providers in their local area as sufficient. However, only a small proportion of respondents considered the number of providers in their local area as “completely sufficient” for each infrastructure function (ranging from 11% to 18% across activity categories).

A higher proportion of respondents rated the number of providers for volunteering and community participation sufficient (63%) compared with those for facilitating funding (43%). This disparity was underscored by a larger proportion of respondents perceiving a lack of providers specifically for facilitating funding (48%). This compared with other LCSI activities where roughly one-third (24% to 35%) reported insufficient provision.

Question: Q15. How, if at all, would you rate the number of providers in your local area for the following types of activities…? Base: All participating LCSI organisations (115)

The secondary data analysis found no evidence that higher levels of LCSI coverage are associated with higher rates of civil society organisation survival or foundation. This suggests that coverage alone is an insufficient measure of LCSI support to civil society organisations to form or continue to deliver.

The case studies included different configurations of LCSI, such as dispersed and consolidated. Within the local contexts, these configurations were perceived by case study participants as working well. In this way, there is no single model for effective or ‘strong’ LCSI, with case studies suggesting different configurations are suitable in different contexts. The case study areas were selected based on different configurations of infrastructure from concentrated provision through established providers to dispersed infrastructure delivered through a range of organisations and networks. Although it is also important to note that LCSI provision may be configured in a broad range of ways. There are advantages and disadvantages in different configurations of LCSI, for example:

• Consolidated LCSI, with a single or core infrastructure provider that benefits from greater resources and economies of scale. This can bring potential benefits including:
  • Increased efficiency and reduced duplication as resources are channeled through a single organisation.
  • Better coordination of different but highly inter-related infrastructure functions, including the ability to build specialist knowledge and expertise in LCSI work.
  • Reduced competition between LCSI organisations for funding.
  • Smoother relationship building with statutory bodies due to reduced complexity around strategic and commissioning conversations.
  • A single point of contact for frontline organisations support. For example, in one area, there was strong backing for the existing LCSI organisation and an appetite for deepening its connections to local communities, organisations and individuals.
• Dispersed LCSI, with multiple LCSI organisations and different specialisms. Where those active in the area work cohesively together, this can bring potential benefits including:
  • Greater choice for frontline organisations and funders looking to invest in infrastructure.
  • Increased competition to encourage improvement in service provision.
  • Reduced risk that LCSI functions are provided by a single ineffective or financially unsustainable LCSI organisation.
  • Providing more specialised support that meets the needs of local organisations and communities. In one area, a stakeholder felt this specialist support was lost when ten organisations merged into a single infrastructure provider.

We want to encourage the [LCSI organisation] to be at the forefront of doing that [support]…let’s not try and make it more complicated than it needs to be. Organisations need to be able to find a solution, the best solution at the earliest opportunity.” (Case study E participant, statutory authority / funder)

This emphasises how the quality of provision – and the need to adapt to the local context - is more important than the extent of coverage in defining the sufficiency of LCSI. However, the ability to define ‘quality’ in the data is limited given the variation in the aims of infrastructure, efficiency of LCSI organisations’ operations and the specific needs and mix of organisations in a place.

Funding

Secondary data analysis focused on two measures of the spending capacity of LCSI organisations as a proxy for their ability to deliver support relative to the size of the local population. These measures were used as a simple way of operationalising sufficiency of funding:

• Typical (median) expenditure of LCSI organisations with a registered / head office address in the local authority, standardised by population size.
• Total expenditure of all LCSI organisations with a registered / head office address in the local authority, standardised by population size.

Analyses were restricted to the period 2000-2022 as financial information is not available in sufficient quantity for other years. Expenditure has also been allocated to the area where a LCSI organisation has a registered / head office address. This likely undercounts expenditure for areas where there are some LCSI organisations present but registered elsewhere. However, this avoids the issue of how to apportion LCSI expenditure to a given local authority for LCSI organisations that operate across multiple areas.

In general, areas with larger numbers of civil society organisations are associated with slightly higher levels of total LCSI expenditure per capita, though this is not the case for median expenditure. There are considerable regional disparities in LCSI expenditure per capita: relative to the South East, all regions have higher levels of spend in particular the East Midlands, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber. Likewise, all types of rural areas have lower levels of LCSI expenditure relative to those classed as urban.

However, there is no evidence that higher LCSI expenditure is associated with higher foundation rates of civil society organisations. Similarly, there is no association between LCSI expenditure and the survival rate of civil society organisations. This suggests that funding on its own is not sufficient for the provision of LCSI that supports the foundation or survival of civil society organisations.

Figure 18: Relationship between LCSI expenditure and foundation rate of civil society organisations.

Participants from LCSI organisations within the case studies and the WP3 interviews emphasised how strong LCSI requires sufficient, consistent, and flexible funding to meet the needs of frontline organisations, other local stakeholders and the wider community. Stakeholders placed a particular emphasis on the importance of long-term and sustainable LCSI funding. Where this is available, they suggested it provides security and stability and allows LCSI to become fully embedded in the local landscape. This includes enabling LCSI organisations to build knowledge, enhance their skills and credibility and establish strong relationships with a wide range of cross-sector stakeholders. All of this was perceived as helping to establish positions of legitimacy and trust. Access to flexible funding was also considered important, supporting innovation and adaptation in the face of changing local circumstances.

[LCSI organisations need] more long-term funding settlements. Infrastructure can be hugely effective if it’s able to focus on its core purpose instead of spending most of its time scrambling around for funding.

- (Survey respondent, LCSI organisation)

Without sustainable funding sources, stakeholders felt it was more difficult for LCSI organisations to deliver core functions and measure their impact. This may also result in competition with frontline organisations. They argued this can lead to a paradox where it becomes more difficult to access funding due to limited resources, and the relationship with frontline organisations – a key stakeholder – is undermined.

If we are forced to rely on ad-hoc grant funding, which is rarely available to support infrastructure work (and also means competing with our VCSE for funding) then our support for our voluntary sector cannot be effective.

- (Survey respondent, LCSI organisation)

Quality of local knowledge and personal relationships

Although long-term funding plays a role in perceptions of the sufficiency of LCSI, being knowledgeable about the local area was seen as the most important factor for infrastructure organisations amongst survey respondents, with 92% seeing this as very important. This aligned with the perceptions of policymakers and frontline organisations in stakeholder workshops. Case study findings among local areas which were regarded as having ‘strong’ LCSI also identified local knowledge as a factor which supported high-quality infrastructure. They saw the dedication of leaders to be involved in and understand local needs as vital for the success of infrastructure support provided in those areas. However, case study participants also recognised this as a sustainability risk due to a potential reliance on individuals who may look to move to new roles or retire. This could lead to a loss of organisational connection and expertise.

Question: Q17. To what extent, if at all, are the following components important for organisations to be effective in providing support to frontline organisations, or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector (VCSE)? Base: All participating LCSI organisations (115). For clarity don’t know/ prefer not to say responses are excluded. *CAUTION LOW BASE

The importance of local knowledge potentially contrasts with trends seen in the data mapping. For example, the secondary data analysis illustrates how there has been an increase in the coverage of organisations operating in a local authority that are registered elsewhere and the growth of specialist, national infrastructure providers. However, by taking an organisation-first approach, this analysis does not account for more informal sources of infrastructure such as local networks or provision from frontline organisations seen in the case studies. The survey also found that being present in a local area for a long time was seen as the least important factor for effective infrastructure provision – although 91% of respondents still viewed this as important.

Being well connected to other organisations and having strong relationships with local stakeholders was also regarded as an important aspect of quality. LCSI organisations highlighted the value of strong relationships characterised by parity of esteem, mutual respect, and collaboration, particularly with local government and health systems. They described how relationships flourish when LCSI organisations engage directly with council leaders and senior managers, often described as being “in the room” or “at the top table.” Similarly, being well connected to other organisations was viewed as important by 99% of survey respondents and 97% felt that having a good reputation with policymakers was important.

I think that sustainability in having people that have known the local area, and, you know, built those relationships over many years, is a real strength for [area], it’s that commitment.

- (Case study C participant, Frontline organisation)

The quality of these relationships often depends on stakeholder buy-in, and the extent to which decisionmakers, particularly in local government and the public sector, value LCSI. Stakeholders described how this buy-in extends beyond financial support to an appreciation of its potential to help the public sector achieve objectives and support local communities. They felt that strong LCSI is frequently underpinned by a conscious nurturing of the relationship with the public sector. It requires capacity and capability on both sides and can be supported by good-quality evidence of the effectiveness of LCSI and profile raising of individuals and institutions more generally. Stakeholders further report that these relationships flourish when there is mutual respect, and that it is important in this context for LCSI organisations to have direct access to senior personnel within the public sector.

[We have] really good relationships with all of them and we come together once a month as community partners, just for an hour on a Friday morning, late Friday morning. And, you know, it’s all very professional. We give updates on what we’re doing, we share what the pressures are, what the tensions are, what our frustrations are, less about me and more about them.

- (Case study C participant, Statutory body/funder)

However, there was also agreement about the value of LCSI being independent from statutory bodies, although this was seen as the second least important component of effective LCSI by survey respondents. Throughout the case studies, representatives of LCSI and frontline organisations emphasised the benefits of independent infrastructure support. This was especially relevant for advocacy activities where LCSI organisations acted as a voice on behalf of the wider sector, often bringing challenge or advice on public sector approaches to service design or delivery.

Outside of their advocacy role, there was a recognition of a power imbalance between the public and voluntary sectors within a locality, especially where funding or commissioning relationships exist. In this way, LCSI organisations were seen as an effective bridge that can support open and honest communication. In contrast, stakeholders felt relationships with frontline organisations could be undermined where LCSI organisations were heavily funded by statutory authorities or not seen as independent. Overall, LCSI organisations were valued for their collaborative nature, connecting with the wider VCSFE sector, statutory bodies and funders. This collaboration was viewed as a sign of strength from across stakeholder groups. Where LCSI organisations had significant buy-in from champions within local government, this was seen to help support the voice of the VCFSE sector.

I think the foundation of your local infrastructure offer absolutely should be independently led.

- (Case study B participant, LCSI organisation)

Relationships with frontline organisations were seen as critical for enabling LCSI organisations to deliver against key activities by providing legitimacy, insights and connections. Where individuals and organisations involved in LCSI are viewed with trust by others within civil society, they can serve as conduits of insight and coordinators of activity. This was seen as especially valuable for smaller VCFSE organisations that struggle to have their voice heard at an individual level. In building this trust, LCSI organisations become more important partners for public sector leaders. To play this role in relation to the local VCFSE sector, stakeholders were clear that LCSI organisations need to showcase their independence and act transparently.

There was also a recognition in the case study research that LCSI organisations do not always have adequate reach or connections with smaller grassroots groups. This was seen as essential for building legitimacy and understanding local needs to effectively represent the sector. For example, in one case study area interviewees felt that the role of faith-based groups was often overlooked by a local steering group. They pointed to the importance of having relationships with the breadth of local communities and making efforts to avoid always having the same people in the room. In another example, stakeholders suggested that greater representation in a local voluntary sector assembly was an important counterweight to the local LCSI organisation’s dual role as a service provider and infrastructure body.

If you’ve got infrastructure organisations that are also providers, then they are conflicted. So, you’ve got to have more even representation, and a broader range of voluntary sector organisations involved.

- (Case study E participant, Statutory body/funder)

Participants from LCSI organisations emphasised how in-depth knowledge and strong relationships require sufficient staff and retention planning. Case study participants from LCSI organisations outlined the risks associated with the staffing structures typically found across LCSI organisations. Where infrastructure organisations rely on a few key staff members, there is a risk to the sustainability of the organisation as these employees look to make the next moves in their careers or possibly retire. This risk was perceived as heightened due to limited and short-term funding, employer National Insurance increases, rising costs and lower value contracts. Participants from LCSI organisations described how this means it is becoming more difficult to retain key staff. In addition, staff turnover was identified as a barrier to development and innovation as time and resources must be spent on filling roles. Succession planning was also considered a risk where LCSI organisations tended to be small with limited resources and often older leaders.

You get into this big risk of having the same person, or couple of people, in every space because they’re really good at it. But that’s not necessarily the right way to be trying to engage.

- (Case study A participant, LCSI organisation)

Impacts, costs and benefits

Context box: evidence summary

Earlier reviews on capacity building and infrastructure highlight the evidence base for the value and impact of LCSI remains under-developed (Macmillan, 2006; Macmillan and Ellis Paine, 2014). There are indications from a range of research projects and evaluations of the difference LCSI can make, but the impact is not seen in any structured or comprehensive way. This is not least because of the wide range of activities encompassed by the idea of infrastructure and the myriad ways in which it is organised and delivered.

Several frameworks in the literature outline the impacts, benefits, and costs of LCSI. For example, the PERFORM framework highlights LCSI’s impact on frontline organisations in areas such as skills, collaboration, services, and influence (COGS, 2006). Building on this, the Value of Infrastructure Programme emphasised the multi-level impact of LCSI: supporting organisations to benefit their causes, fostering cross-sector collaboration; enabling effective external support of the sector from agencies such as government and trusts and foundations, as well as enhancing individuals’ capabilities (NCVO, 2011). Overall, however, the focus of research and evaluation has tended to be on specific projects, programmes or organisations, deploying, for example, ‘distance travelled’ metrics for organisational development, social return on investment, and willingness-to-pay techniques.

Introduction

Assessing the impact, costs, and benefits of LCSI is intrinsically challenging. LCSI operates through complex attribution chains, from varied inputs, multiple activities, working with others through to outcomes and impact. Given this, we sought to take a broader view by providing evidence for the impacts associated with LCSI, particularly in contexts where it is considered strong or well established, and those where it is less so. This section primarily draws on insights from the case study research to address the question: What are the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak local civil society infrastructure, and to whom do they fall?

Theory of change for LCSI

Informed by earlier research as outlined in the literature review, we developed a Theory of Change for LCSI in conjunction with stakeholders from government, civil society and local infrastructure. The Theory of Change illustrates how the five sets of activities associated with LCSI (described above) result in three outcome pathways. In theory, pursued effectively, these activities would lead to a series of short- and medium-term outcomes, such as increased funding, improved ways of working, more connectivity, stronger relationships, more diverse and representative organisations and better community engagement. In turn these would translate into three long-term outcomes:

1. Better targeted resources to meet local needs
2. Improved policy making on local priorities
3. Increased community trust, empowerment and belonging.

The Theory of Change shows how these ultimately lead to a broader impact of more capable VCFSE organisations, stronger place-based systems and more resilient communities. We gathered evidence through the survey and workshops in the case study locations to test the strength of the underpinning logic. Below we discuss intermediate outcomes first, before considering the broader outcome pathways.

Short and medium-term outcomes of LCSI

Overall, a majority of survey respondents stated their activities lead to positive outcomes, but to varying degrees depending on the outcome. LCSI organisations are likely to be positively inclined to emphasise the impact of their work, so the differences between the outcomes are more important than the overall extent of agreement. LCSI organisations appeared to be more confident that their activities lead to positive outcomes in four areas:

• Increased funding for local VCFSE organisations.
• Increased connections and relationships between VCFSE organisations.
• Stronger relationships between VCFSE organisations and their strategic partners.
• VCFSE organisations better meet local needs.

In contrast, they tended to be less confident about the consequences of their activities in terms of:

• Frontline organisations (or other organisations in the VCFSE sector) have an improved approach to community engagement.
• Improved financial management of frontline organisations or other VCFSE organisations.
• Organisations better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve.
• Improved policymaking on local priorities.

LCSI organisations appeared to be more confident about the consequences of their activities around facilitating funding and convening, and slightly less so for activities around volunteering and community engagement, organisational development and advocacy.

In addition to the outcomes above, survey respondents highlighted the role of their work in leading to improvements in capabilities and resilience (of organisations, staff and communities) and an overall improved experience and visibility of frontline or other organisations within the VCFSE sector and the local area. They described how funders would also have a better understanding of the socio-economic needs of communities and VCFSE organisations.

Improved understanding of funders about the importance of lived experience and the role of led by and for organisations.

- (Survey respondent, LCSI organisation)

LCSI activities were thought to lead to increased capabilities of frontline organisations, in terms of confidence, skills and knowledge to deliver their services. One respondent noted that, as a result of LCSI support, “staff in VCS organisations feel less isolated and lonely. People feel supported and listened to.” In turn, enhanced capabilities would not only support the security and sustainability of frontline VCFSE organisations, they would also lead to more resilient communities and an improvement in quality of life.

There are impacts around more resilient communities that come out of all our work. The groups we work with exist for a reason, so our work is about the ultimate benefit linked to our vision of ‘fair, strong, connected communities’.

- (Survey respondent, LCSI organisation)

Table 4.1 Extent of positive short and medium-term outcomes from LCSI activities

Activity	Contribution perceived to a great extent	Contribution perceived to some extent	Contribution hardly perceived/ not at all
Outcome 1: Increased funding for local VCSE organisations
Facilitating funding	50%	36%	8%
Outcome 2: Increased connections and relationships between VCSE organisations
Convening	58%	37%	3%
Advocacy	46%	52%	1%
Organisational development	43%	51%	5%
Facilitating funding	43%	48%	7%
Outcome 3: Stronger relationships between VCSE organisations and their strategic partners
Convening	46%	48%	4%
Advocacy	37%	55%	7%
Organisational development	31%	58%	5%
Outcome 4: VCSE organisations better meet local needs
Facilitating funding	43%	45%	5%
Volunteering and community participation	41%	51%	2%
Convening	36%	55%	4%
Organisational development	32%	58%	5%
Advocacy	31%	64%	1%
Outcome 5: Increased trust within or between communities
Volunteering and community participation	28%	59%	6%
Outcome 6: Improved ways of working within frontline organisations
Convening	33%	57%	6%
Organisational development	29%	62%	5%
Facilitating funding	25%	61%	7%
Advocacy	24%	64%	7%
Outcome 7: Frontline organisations (or other organisations in the VCSE sector) have an improved approach to community engagement
Volunteering and community participation	20%	67%	4%
Outcome 8: Improved financial management of frontline organisations or other VCSE organisations
Facilitating funding	21%	56%	11%
Organisational development	19%	54%	17%
Outcome 9: Organisations better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve
Volunteering and community participation	17%	65%	13%
Organisational development	12%	66%	14%
Advocacy	11%	64%	17%
Outcome 10: Improved policymaking on local priorities
Convening	16%	56%	23%
Advocacy	13%	64%	20%
Organisational development	11%	53%	28%

Source: LCSI WP5 survey of LCSI organisations, Q9-13, ‘To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to [named activity of five] have contributed to achieving the following positive outcomes?’ CAUTION: Low base (N=102-110, unweighted).

Outcome pathways

In the Theory of Change, LCSI activities contribute via these intermediate positive outcomes to three broad outcome pathways: better targeted resources to meet local needs, improved policymaking on local priorities, and increased community trust, empowerment and sense of belonging. Below we discuss evidence for each of these pathways in turn, focusing on the five locality case studies. For a refresher on the case study LCSI configuration, please refer to Table 1.1. in the introduction.

The case studies provide a powerful sense of contrast between areas thought to have stronger or well established LCSI (case studies A, C and E), and areas where it is thought to be absent, insufficient or otherwise less well developed (case studies B and D). In the former, the emphasis from the analysis tends to be on the positive benefits arising from the work of strong LCSI, while in the latter there is more of a focus on the costs and consequences of its absence. Nonetheless, in all cases there is evidence of positive efforts to support and develop the local VCFSE sector, albeit in different contexts and in different ways. Yet participants across all the case studies also highlighted gaps in coverage and quality, and suggested areas for improvement.

Pathway 1: Better targeted resources to meet local needs

The first outcome pathway speaks to the idea that better targeted resources to meet local needs would result from a more vibrant local VCFSE sector that can identify and meet the needs of residents and communities. This is created and supported by strong and effective LCSI.

Overall, the evidence suggests a clear and confidently articulated contribution by stronger LCSI towards better targeted resources to meet local needs, when compared with the second and third pathways. Case studies A and E describe a vibrant local VCFSE sector, supported by LCSI in terms of coordination of networks to meet different needs, facilitating funding and knowledge sharing amongst local VCFSE organisations and groups. The connections and knowledge gained through LCSI made frontline organisations feel more confident and better equipped to navigate challenges. Through this process, LCSI was seen as a key driver in helping organisations thrive and better serve their communities.

In case study A, frontline organisations come together in regular area forums facilitated by the main LCSI organisation, and involving local authority representatives, to learn about the area and each other. They emphasised the importance of these forums, with repeated references to ‘not being alone’ as VCFSE organisations, ‘knitting together’ activities in the area and building resilience. District-wide thematic groups around specific issues are also supported. For example, in response to the increasing concern about domestic violence during the lockdowns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the main LCSI organisation in the area helped bring people together to establish a Women’s Network as a forum for communication and peer support. Over time, this group has become self-sustaining, facilitating itself, developing its own programme of work and directly influencing local policy.

The main LCSI organisation in case study E helped to foster connections between local VCFSE organisations to share information and resources, avoid duplication of efforts and to gain insight into what was happening across the sector and in local communities. The result was a sense of empowerment from increased awareness of other available services and opportunities. Having a better understanding of the local landscape made it easier to signpost individuals to appropriate services, helping them to ensure the needs of people were better met. Networking events were described as spaces for partnership building, sharing ideas, and promoting the work of frontline VCFSE organisations, increasing their visibility and reputation. They could learn about funding opportunities and identify potential collaborators.

This approach was also evident in case study C, where the relevant LCSI organisations were praised for facilitating widespread connections across the VCFSE sector and having an awareness of local needs, built upon convening and networking activities. A forum of welfare advice providers, convened by LCSI, provided a forum for exchanging information on the provision, gaps and resource requirements of advice and information services, delivered and supported training, and sought funding for projects to develop advice services relevant to local needs. LCSI played a supportive role enabling others to come together to develop relevant networks to advance and better target VCFSE provision.

Direct organisational development and capacity building support provided through LCSI, alongside practical tools such as a funding information portal, contributed to sustainability and growth. For example, training sessions, such as those focused on full cost recovery, were cited as having contributed to financial resilience, improved funding bids and new ideas for strategic development.

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

- (Case study C participant, Frontline organisation)

There is considerable overlap between LCSI activities facilitating funding, and those supporting organisational development seen in reflections from the case studies. This includes:

• Support for frontline VCFSE organisations in completing application forms and securing funding. This enabled one organisation in case study E to continue and expand their projects. Similarly, one LCSI organisation in case study C reported that through its activities it had supported frontline organisations to access around £2m over the most recent three-year period.
• Combining funding sources and/or distributing grants. In case study A the main LCSI organisation worked to become a significant grant distributor by pooling statutory sources of funding for the VCFSE sector into a single pot. Through this, it created a single, simplified, streamlined process for local organisations to access funding. Frontline organisations reported how this eases access to funding and helps to level the playing field.

Other frontline organisations reported how the support and tools around funding provided by LCSI help to simplify complex processes and save time and resources, increasing the efficiency with which the local VCFSE sector operates. This support was particularly important for newer organisations, with one person noting how it helped their organisation become more robust and sustainable, providing a strong foundation for longer-term success.

[LCSI organisation] helps you figure out what you need to become a robust organisation without feeling overwhelmed.

- (Case study E participant, Frontline organisation)

A clear theme emerging from case studies B and D, where there is a relative lack of LCSI provision, was how fragmented the VCFSE sector is, and how isolated individuals and frontline VCFSE organisations are as a result.

In case study B, the absence of strong LCSI coupled with limited resources and capacity among key stakeholders, meant there is no strategic overview or knowledge of the scale, scope, potential and priority needs for support of the VCFSE sector. Knowledge about and support for the sector remained patchy, ad hoc and improvised. Communication flows about and through the VCFSE sector were limited, and stakeholders reported that initiatives were often developed in isolation.

In case study D, participants linked weakened LCSI to a ‘disjointed’, ‘fragmented’, ‘dispersed’ and ‘un-coordinated’ VCFSE sector, with perceived consequences for duplication of services and competition within the sector. Without strong co-ordination, participants noted that information flowed less readily, and organisations were not as aware of each other’s work.

You’ve got a lot of people doing a lot of little things across the district, who just aren’t having the opportunity to link together…when you’re a small organisation, finding the time to link in with others, your networking is incredibly time-consuming…it takes a lot of commitment to bring groups together and quite often they haven’t got the resources to anyway, at all.

- (Case study D participant, Frontline organisation)

This is not to deny or downplay the mechanisms in place which aim to bring organisations together, such as a multi-agency forum in case study D, or a steering group in case study B. Rather, these approaches were fragile, ad hoc and piecemeal. There was seen to be ‘no big picture’ or’ helicopter view’ of what was happening in the locality and how people could connect. In case study B, it was specifically the lack of opportunities for participation and voice for newer, smaller and community-based groups that was noted. More established organisations would regularly come together, but it was felt that smaller organisations were largely left to fend for themselves.

Similar observations were made in respect of facilitating funding. It was noted in case study B that information about funding opportunities would not necessarily cascade throughout the local VCFSE sector. The local authority had signed up to a funding portal, but it was not clear how much it was used, by whom and to what effect.

Frontline VCFSE organisations described how they found out about new opportunities through the newsletters or e-bulletins of LCSI organisations in neighbouring localities, or through information passed on by peers. One significant funding opportunity, which led to a successful application for a three-year project by a partnership of three local frontline organisations, came about almost by accident as a colleague in a different organisation passed it on. The partnership was heralded as a sign of the ability of organisations to work together in a common cause but also highlighted how partial and serendipitous the funding landscape can be in the absence of dedicated LCSI activity on facilitating funding.

The issue raises concerns about equity within the VCFSE sector, insofar as smaller and newer frontline organisations, often lacking the capacity and connections to engage, might be further disadvantaged by the lack of LCSI sharing information and opening opportunities in an area.

Beyond awareness of funding opportunities, case studies B and D highlight how there is a lack of direct support and training around how to prepare strong funding applications. Such support tended to involve helping frontline VCFSE organisations to understand and demonstrate the need for funding for an organisation or project, the need for consultation, project design, costing (including for evaluation, if appropriate) and making a compelling case for the application in line with funders’ priorities.

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

- (Case study D participant, Frontline organisation)

The net effect of this lack of activity around facilitating funding is a concern expressed about the locality being a ‘cold spot’ in terms of successfully bringing in funding for the local VCFSE sector to meet needs. This has potential implications for the local VCFSE sector, and the community needs to which it responds, missing out on vital investment and support. However, this is influenced by a complex combination of factors, making it difficult to assess the impact of LCSI support (or its absence). This includes:

• The number of applications for funding submitted from the sector in a local area over a particular time period
• The individual and combined value of such applications (as an indicator of need and ambition)
• The quality and rate of success of these applications.

To provide in-depth analysis of the contribution of infrastructure, each of these factors would need to be assessed against some metric of expected funding leveraged for an area, for example related to population and some assessment of overall need. The causes of any differences between the actual and expected levels of applications and funding awarded could also relate to the openness, presence and accessibility of funders, and the levels of development, experience, knowledge, confidence and ambition of local VCFSE organisations both in isolation from, and in combination with the LCSI support available. For example:

• In case study B, funders reported that the area had consistently fewer applications, particularly for smaller grants from smaller VCFSE organisations. Efforts had been made to redress the imbalance, but it was noted that funders tended to engage more with other areas in the region, where they could work closely with dedicated LCSI organisations.
• In case study D, one grant-making foundation noted that they consistently had fewer applications and that weak LCSI had led to a ‘gap’ in information and advice for the sector. As well as affecting the number and quality of funding applications from the sector, the lack of a dedicated LCSI organisation made it challenging for funders to communicate with the VCFSE sector about opportunities – there was no “recognisable home” for this.

Pathway 2: Improved policy making on local priorities

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

Participants confidently described the structures for bringing the VCFSE sector’s voices together and the value of closer working relationships, but tangible examples of consequent improvements in policy making were harder to discern.

The strongest and most visible articulation of evidence for impact in relation to improved policy making comes from case studies A and E. They both show how close working and established relationships between LCSI organisations and statutory authorities can make a difference.

LCSI organisations can play a key role facilitating communication and information sharing between different stakeholders to bring local knowledge into policy making. Case study A involves a deep and long-standing set of relationships which work through dedicated area-based structures within the locality. Regular area-based forums serve to provide key routes into communities to communicate public policy messages, engage in consultation and support dialogue between communities and statutory agencies. In addition, specific illustrations were given of the role of LCSI as a conduit for information, both from the statutory sector to the VCFSE sector (for example around public health initiatives), and vice versa.

There is a need to change care pathways, due to unacceptably high waiting lists. Part of this involves a duty to inform and involve members of the public in the decision-making process. [LCSI organisation] is supporting this work by providing vital communication routes into communities via VCFSE organisations. This is made possible by the extent to which the frontline organisations are well-networked with [LCSI organisation] and with each other.

- (Case study A participant, Statutory body/funder)

Case study E appears to involve less of a structured approach in regular engagement with local authorities and other statutory bodies, but several clear examples were outlined of how LCSI has helped to improved communication between the public sector and local VCFSE organisations. This work enabled a deeper understanding of the needs of local communities and the VCFSE sector locally. The result has been better-informed public sector policies and service design as well as creating the opportunity to reform public sector approaches to working with and funding the VCFSE sector locally.

LCSI organisations can give frontline VCFSE organisations greater strength in numbers, with leaders describing feeling more confident in raising concerns with public sector decision-makers. This increased influence opened the door to improving public sector approaches to commissioning, as well as highlighting the need for public services to take a more preventative approach in areas such as health and poverty.

Strengthened communication channels and improved connections as a result of LCSI organisation’s work in case study E allowed the public sector to better understand the realities of what is happening “on the ground” in communities. By connecting providers with lived experience, LCSI was seen to play a role in creating better insight into inequities, gaps in services, and unmet needs. A more effective mechanism for the voice of the VCFSE sector to be heard was felt to be an improvement on historical practices of speaking only to a couple of ‘trusted organisations’ and then claiming the VCFSE sector had been consulted.

Evidence from case studies B, C and D in relation to improved policy making is more mixed, with questions raised about the opportunities for influence as well as the effectiveness of LCSI in representing local communities.

Participants from LCSI organisations and statutory bodies in case study C felt that LCSI was having an influence, supported by ongoing, stable and trusting relationships. All of the primary LCSI organisations are recognised as having strong connections with local authorities, enabling them to influence policymaking and raise the voice of the VCFSE sector. However, participants from frontline organisations tended to be unsure about what LCSI organisations could achieve in terms of improving local policy making.

In case study B, a monthly VCFSE steering group brought together representatives of statutory bodies and larger VCFSE organisations with a significant presence in the locality, to discuss issues of common concern and new opportunities. In the absence of a dedicated LCSI organisation, the group appeared to fulfil some LCSI functions in practice, albeit with varying degrees of self-consciousness (some participants do not regard the group as a form of LCSI) and very limited resources. The structure had recognition from the local authority as a strategic partnership but there was ambiguity about how independent it was from the council, in terms of focus and agenda setting. There was some limited evidence of its impact on policy making, for example in helping to shape a three-year Council Plan, developing a youth support strategy for the area, and managing the distribution of the Household Support Fund. The local authority advised that the latter would not have been possible without the support of the steering group and its VCFSE organisation members.

In case study D, evidence focused on the implications of cross-sector relationships on VCFSE representation in local decision-making. Stakeholders noted how there was no obvious route in the area for small and grassroots VCFSE organisations to engage with the local authority, with the result that there was “no collective voice”, a lack of leadership and no-one to “advocate for the impact the sector is having locally”. This meant the VCFSE sector was “under the radar”, not able to influence as it should and not effectively represented in local decision-making.

It makes it very difficult for those organisations to have a real say in shaping policy and shaping service delivery, which otherwise they probably would be able to do. And I suppose that’s the same for representation, is it’s really hard for, you know, their voice to be heard…. if there’s a collective body that’s representing them, then that makes a heck of a difference because statutory organisations like mine will engage with a bigger organisation, they can engage with that, and they should engage with that.

- (Case study D participant, Statutory body/funder)

Notwithstanding this, participants in case study D were relatively optimistic that relationships between the VCFSE sector and statutory partners were strengthening, facilitated through various mechanisms including a multi-agency forum, VCFSE alliance mechanism associated with health and social care integration, and other specialist networks and forums. These were seen to create spaces for productive cross sector dialogue, connectivity and partnership working between sectors. Closer collaboration enabled statutory bodies to be more connected to communities and helped partners connect work and services to better respond to local needs.

It’s those kind of meaningful connections… I think that collaborative forum really has empowered…. we now hear [from] community providers of VCSE, what their issues are and we can fix things that we’re doing and we can connect things.

- (Case study D participant, Statutory body/funder)

Pathway 3: Increased community trust, empowerment and sense of belonging

The third outcome pathway is towards increased trust, empowerment and belonging. Through LCSI activities promoting volunteering and wider community engagement, individuals can be supported to participate in local activities and VCFSE organisations can involve communities more in their work. Of the three outcome pathways, this arguably has the least compelling evidence for the impact of LCSI activities. This was noted by stakeholders participating in Theory of Change workshops who felt the links between infrastructure activities and increased community trust, empowerment and belonging were weaker than the other pathways. However, participants in workshops and case studies could articulate how activities around volunteering and community engagement lead to short-term outcomes.

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

Evidence for this outcome in case study E was also relatively thin, but in part this may be related to research participants’ expectations about the primary objectives of LCSI. There were some examples of LCSI supporting local communities to address issues such as mental health, road safety, and loneliness. Such support was thought to have also provided some spill-over benefits in terms of increased feelings of inclusion and integration through involvement in local initiatives. For example, in the local development and expansion of Men’s Sheds.

Case study C (as with A and E) supported this pathway through volunteer management and engagement activities and support for frontline organisations. For example, one of the three main LCSI organisations runs a volunteer management service to connect volunteers with frontline VCFSE organisations. Another facilitates a network of 45 Good Neighbour Groups. And a third LCSI organisation works with businesses to give back to communities through partnerships with frontline organisations. Strong relationships have been developed between the three main LCSI organisations who collaborate around volunteering and put on joint events to celebrate volunteers. However, the evidence is of activity in support of enhanced community trust, empowerment and belonging, rather than evidence of achieving these outcomes.

There was limited evidence of existing LCSI activity towards this pathway in case studies B and D, where there was no dedicated infrastructure devoted towards volunteering.

In case study B, a volunteer centre closed when the area’s main LCSI organisation ceased operating in the mid-2010s. Wider community development work was also withdrawn during the early 2010s as part of austerity-related cuts in local government budgets. It was suggested by several participants that this had eroded neighbourhood-based engagement activity in response to community needs organised through community centres and halls.

Case study D emphasises the value of such close community work. A network of (local authority-employed) community builders work to empower local people to engage in their communities, including help to set up new groups or community activities. Although funding pressures mean this programme ends in March 2025, it was argued to be effective because of the trust that had developed between community builders and local people and the connections community builders have within communities.

Community builders have discovered some of those groups and been really instrumental in linking them up to the system…they’ve been able to spend time, build trust in those communities which, potentially, are under-served communities. And, they’ve got some great community-led activity going, which has been sustainable and that’s been from physical activity for people with disabilities to warm spaces.

- (Case study D participant, Statutory body/funder)

In both case studies B and D, the absence of volunteering infrastructure created challenges for frontline VCFSE organisations in terms of recruiting volunteers. It also left people not knowing where to find out about volunteering and challenges for statutory bodies and other stakeholders looking to signpost residents and patients to opportunities. They felt this meant individuals could potentially miss out on the benefits of being involved in local VCFSE groups or community projects.

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

- (Case study D participant, Statutory body/funder)

Although there was a lack of LCSI provision to support volunteering and community engagement in case studies B and D, the gap had been recognised in both cases. Efforts were underway to develop a (county-wide) volunteering platform in case study D, and a three-year project to promote volunteering in health was being set up in case study B.

Strengthening and improving LCSI

Context box: evidence summary

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. However, there is some evidence which points to factors and models that can make a difference to LCSI and its strength. These can be categorised into four key and interrelated themes: funding; collaboration; organisational development; and data and impact. Throughout, context is an important consideration as the environment in which organisations operate plays a significant part in shaping, enabling and constraining actions and interventions.

Introduction

This section sets out the key research findings in relation to the question: ‘Which factors and models are effective in strengthening LCSI?’ It draws mainly on findings from Work Package 3, which aimed to directly address this question.

Work Package 3 consisted of nine 60-minute online interviews and one 75-minute workshop which sought to explore what participants felt were the most important contributors to the relative strength or weakness of LCSI. Three interviews were with policy leads from national umbrella/membership organisations who represent and/or support providers of LCSI. Six interviews were held with people who had current or recent experience of leading LCSI organisations in England. The workshop brought together contributors from relevant national umbrella/membership organisations alongside representatives from national funders, academia and experts in place-based change

Where relevant this has been augmented with findings from the evidence review (WP1), the survey (WP5) and the local case studies (WP6).

As described above, there are no universally accepted definitions of what is meant by the ‘strength’ of LCSI, nor are there agreed ways of measuring it. However, there is a broad consensus that ‘effective’ infrastructure is characterised by both quality and sustainability. Over the course of this project, stakeholders have consistently identified three approaches that can support the improvement of LCSI:

• Addressing key challenges within the funding system.
• Enhancing strategic buy-in.
• Building on good-quality relationships to develop more formal structures.

However, any improvement approaches need to reflect, and work within, the variability and complexity of the local context. One aspect of this complexity is the number and variety of stakeholders involved in the delivery and strategic direction of LCSI. In any one place the functions of infrastructure can be delivered by multiple organisations from across the public, civil society and private sectors. Local funding arrangements for LCSI can involve several different funders, and a variety of specifications, requirements and objectives. What can result is a highly complex local system of frontline organisations, LCSI providers and public sector and other funders.

Within this, stakeholders are likely to have differing perspectives on what constitutes ‘local’ as well as the purpose, function, benefits and quality of LCSI. Each may also be seeking to influence, shape and derive benefit from its activities. Consequently, LCSI operates in a context in which there is no centralised point of power or decision-making, and no universally agreed perspective on what it should do, how it should do it, and how well it is doing.

In the absence of a consensus, negotiation, balancing interests, making trade-offs and concessions across multiple stakeholders become important features of decision-making and action. In this context, the nature and quality of relationships between the individuals and organisations in LCSI play a significant role in how successfully it operates as illustrated within our case studies. While there will likely be several factors driving this divergence of attitudes, the legacy of past LCSI experiences (good and bad) and the strength of a handful of personalities appear to play a significant part. Even in areas where support for LCSI was strong, there was a clear recognition of the risk associated with the area’s reliance on a small number of highly skilled and dedicated people.

To the extent that some commonalities emerge from the ideas shared across different locations, they revolve around the principle of ensuring that the agenda and work of infrastructure is driven by the VCFSE sector rather than by local government – ensuring independence and depoliticising funding. Even within this broad principle however, there are many different opinions. Some stakeholders express a preference for consolidating LCSI in a single organisation, while others favour shared responsibility and a pluralistic approach.

What is very apparent is that the nuance that exists from location to location requires a cautious approach to any attempt to scale-up or transplant into other areas LCSI configurations that appear to work in one particular part of the country. There are likely to be principles that can be shared at a national level, and stakeholders in different areas will inevitably have lessons to learn from each other. But strengthening LCSI will almost certainly continue to rest on taking a local-first approach and on ensuring that any reform is delivered with patience, sufficient resource and recognition of local concerns and sensitivities. Below we provide some suggestions for improvement approaches to consider within a local context drawn from the research.

Addressing challenges within the funding system

The sustainability of funding was regarded as a key influence over the strength of LCSI. This can be influenced by the actions of LCSI organisations, grant makers and central and local government.

LCSI organisations have developed strategies to increase funding by:

• Developing and curating relationships with key local authority decision-makers. Often this involved engaging with strategic reviews, consultations or tendering processes in relation to LCSI.
• Collection and reporting of quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate activity and output.
• Bringing in resources from grant-makers to pump-prime the delivery of infrastructure functions and demonstrate the benefits of LCSI.
• Generating income through membership fees or charging for services.
• Seeking to win contracts or grants for delivering services outside of the traditional functions of LCSI. However, some participants cautioned against this approach as it could contribute to the weakening of LCSI due to the reputational impact of being in competition with frontline organisations.

Through the provision of funding, particularly in areas where LCSI was thought to have been weak or absent, some grant-making organisations have been able to act as a catalyst for the development of LCSI. Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales and the National Lottery Community Fund were both cited as examples of this.

Central and local government has sought to shape LCSI by taking a coordinated and strategic approach to deploying resources, often leading to the consolidation of LCSI in local areas. In the early to mid-2010s the Cabinet Office’s Transforming Local Infrastructure programme supported mergers, among other transformational projects, in numerous areas. Through a shift to a single contract or grant agreement, some local authorities have also driven reconfiguration of LCSI provision. Examples of this have been seen in areas such as Leicestershire, Staffordshire and Wiltshire.

There were mixed views about the benefits of mergers between LCSI organisations. Those who were supportive saw mergers as a way to create larger organisations that can benefit from economies of scale and reduce competition between local LCSI organisations. Additionally, they could enable provision to mirror local authority structures, particularly after local government reorganisation, reducing the need for councils to manage multiple stakeholders and financial relationships. However, it was also clear that the context in which mergers occur can greatly affect the extent to which they are seen as positive or negative.

While some of these efforts have been well-received, their scalability and long-term sustainability remain unclear and there has been no strategic approach nationally. Stakeholders emphasised how the funding challenges that exist across the country need to be tackled in a way that transcends localised workarounds. That means being clear about where responsibility for funding LCSI needs to sit, establishing clear incentives or obligations for prioritising long-term funding of a sufficient level, and providing the resources necessary for the development of good-quality evidence on effectiveness.

Enhancing strategic buy-in

Although there is broad consensus about the importance of hosting infrastructure provision within civil society, there is also a shared understanding that it works best when there is a close relationship with the local public sector. This, in turn, is easiest to achieve when decision-makers – in local government and in NHS bodies, for example – take a strategic interest in local civil society that is borne of a recognition of its value and its ability to contribute to their own priorities.

Two approaches in particular are cited as being supportive of relationship building both within civil society and beyond:

• The presence of local champions within local government and Integrated Care Systems was a common feature of areas in which LCSI was perceived to be strong. These local champions often had significant experience of working within civil society and had subsequently moved into relevant senior management roles in the public sector. In case study E this was particularly notable, with a number of senior decision makers within local government having previously worked for the local LCSI organisation. Supportive leadership from elected members within local government was often cited as valuable. Other approaches to developing local champions rely simply on influencing and relationship building between LCSI organisations and the operational levels within the public sector, with a view that these can percolate up to senior and strategic management levels.
• The demonstrations of the effectiveness of LCSI during periods of crisis or change have helped to build public sector buy-in. Positive experiences of collaboration between LCSI organisations and statutory bodies during the pandemic were often fresh in the memories of many stakeholders. These experiences were commonly cited as examples of the public sector gaining fresh insight into the value and impact of LCSI. The importance that Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) have placed on working with and developing LCSI as a vital strategic partner in the development of local health systems is also notable, as seen in the development of a VCFSE Alliance in case study D. Strategic direction from NHS England around engagement with local civil society clearly carries weight within ICBs.

In both of these examples, knowledge, insight and connection to local civil society was a highly valued asset of LCSI, alongside the ability to help coordinate local civil society activity while operating as effective partners alongside statutory agencies. However, the development of positive connections that can support strong LCSI rests on the hard work and skill of the individuals that sit at the heart of those relationships. This relationship building should be prioritised and given space in organisational strategies and associated resource considerations.

Building on good-quality relationships to develop more formal structures

Futureproofing against personnel changes by establishing more formal structures that embed good practice takes these relationships one step further by locking-in progress. Predominantly this involved establishing boards, meetings or other regular forums to provide a regular flow of contact between the different actors in the public sector and LCSI organisations.

No specific model or approach to formalising structures emerged from the research. In some areas it simply involved regular formal meetings between LCSI leaders and senior managers from within local government to enable information sharing, generation of ideas or solve problems directly related to LCSI and/or civil society.

In other areas these structures can take on a broader strategic function. In case study E for example the local LCSI organisation chairs the Collaborative Communities Board (CCB). The CCB acts as a central point of coordination by bringing together various voluntary and public sector organisations in order to identify and collaboratively address social challenges in the area.

This should be supported by a more formal approach to ensuring the inclusivity of LCSI that supports all communities and organisations. This requires an active approach to outreach and inclusion and there is clear appetite for this to happen across locations.

Conclusions

Summary

This report has addressed four research questions relating to the composition, sufficiency and strength, impact of and improving LCSI. By its very nature LCSI is complex, multi-faceted and contested. It involves different functions and activities, multiple relationships with different stakeholders, can be provided in a range of different ways, and is the site of different perspectives on its purpose, quality and impact.

Nevertheless, just because it is hard to describe, capture and research, this should not thwart efforts to understand the changing landscape of LCSI provision or assess its value. The evidence base on LCSI is always work in progress, but the research reported here contributes to strengthening this by systematically exploring the nature, configuration and impact of LCSI. The key points to emerge from the research are summarised in the table below.

Table 6.1 Summary insights for each research question

Research theme and question	Key insight/conclusion
1. Organisations and functions Which organisations and functions fall within ‘local civil society infrastructure’?	Taking an organisation-first approach, there has been a gradual decline in the number of LCSI organisations operating in England since 2006, falling to 530 in 2023. Few local authorities have no LCSI organisations operating in their area. This does not account for infrastructure functions being delivered outside of formal dedicated LCSI organisations. It is difficult to draw boundaries around LCSI in practice, given that it can be provided in multiple ways. However, there is some consensus that the five main functions of LCSI developed through the research are: facilitating funding, organisational development, advocacy, volunteering and community participation, and convening.
2. Strength and sufficiency 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?	There is no universally agreed upon definition of what is meant by ‘strong’ LCSI, nor agreed ways of measuring it. Participants argue that strong LCSI requires sufficient, long-term, consistent, and flexible funding. Without sustainable funding, it is more difficult for LCSI organisations to deliver core functions or measure their impact. This can sometimes result in competition with frontline organisations. Being knowledgeable about the local area was seen as the most important factor in the quality of LCSI amongst survey respondents, alongside being well connected and having strong relationships with local stakeholders. This was echoed in the WP3 interviews and the case study findings.
3. Impacts, benefits and costs 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?	LCSI organisations were confident they help deliver outcomes relating to increased funding for local VCFSE organisations; increased connections and relationships between VCFSE organisations; stronger relationships between VCFSE organisations and their strategic partners; and VCFSE organisations better meet local needs. There is more evidence of the impact of LCSI in case study localities with well-established provision, than those with less well developed or absent LCSI. Stronger impacts are seen in relation to outcomes around ‘better targeted resources to meet local needs’ and ‘improved policy making on local priorities’ compared with ‘increased community trust, empowerment and sense of belonging’.
4. Strengthening and improving LCSI What factors and models are effective in strengthening local infrastructure?	Approaches to strengthening and improving LCSI need to work with the ‘grain’ of local contexts. For example, negotiating a complex landscape of different stakeholders and the impact of past (and current) LCSI provision on attitudes. There are three common factors which support the improvement of LCSI: addressing key challenges within the funding system (including the quality, quantity and effectiveness of funding); enhancing strategic buy-in (recognising the value of the local VCFSE sector and the role of local champions for LCSI); building on good-quality relationships to develop more formal structures, enhancing regular contact and information sharing between LCSI and strategic stakeholders.

Implications

Because different stakeholders have an interest in LCSI, and often some strongly held views about it, moving the conversation on from standard restatements of advocacy or opposition can sometimes be difficult. Good evidence generated through structured research can help in this, by examining and testing the multiple claims that are made about LCSI. There are no simple or straightforward answers to the question of how best to organise, support and strengthen LCSI, nor of its impact.

The Theory of Change approach adopted in this research helps to provide structure to discussions of activities, outcomes and impacts. It helps identify where there is more confidence about the role of LCSI and its impacts, and where evidence is less well developed, such that claims about LCSI’s impact remain plausible but not conclusive.

A key feature of LCSI, which in part serves to frustrate efforts to provide a straightforward overall picture, is precisely that it is ‘local’. This has two implications. First, it means that LCSI is fundamentally embedded in and related to the local context (and history) of the VCFSE sector, the communities in which it operates, and the relationships between LCSI, the VCFSE sector and statutory stakeholders. Its value is negotiated amongst multiple stakeholders and realised in each place specifically, in the legitimacy, trust and connections LCSI makes and facilitates. It is at its best when it meets the needs of a local place including forging relationships to build bridges across and between sectors, understanding and working through the power dynamics within the VCFSE sector and with statutory bodies and funders. Its strongest claims for impact are in strengthening and joining up the VCFSE sector to better target resources to meet the needs of communities.

A second implication of the ‘local’ in LCSI is that it can vary so much in configuration, activities, coverage, strength and impact. While this is important insofar as it demonstrates responsiveness to local context, it raises questions about spatial equity and a postcode lottery. If the perceived strength and resources available to LCSI varies, what implications does this have for VCFSE organisations seeking access to support in different places, for the strength of the VCFSE sector and its access to resources, and for its work with communities?

In the absence of a large existing literature or readily available metrics, any exploration of how LCSI provision might be strengthened or improved across the country must necessarily be qualitative and consultative in its nature. This involves recognition that ‘strong’ LCSI is based on a combination of factors, drawing on funding as well as local knowledge, relationships and local buy-in. Allied research exploring the conditions for effective and sustainable LCSI organisations undertaken at the same time as this study reaches broadly the same conclusions (Hamer et al, 2025). Our research on strengthening and improving LCSI suggests a need for a balanced approach, between:

• Principles that can helpfully be debated at the national level and conversations and decisions that must occur locally.
• Leaning into the nimble, organic, responsive strength that characterises so much of civil society and developing structures and frameworks that embed good practice and guard against the loss of key personnel.
• Prioritising near-term cost-savings and investing in future effectiveness.

Reflecting these themes, stakeholders identified three areas that can support the improvement of LCSI:

• Addressing key challenges within the funding system, including by:
  • LCSI organisations influencing funding structures including developing relationships with statutory bodies, demonstrating their impact and generating revenue streams.
  • Grant making organisations acting as a catalyst for LCSI by funding core functions.
  • Central and local government playing a co-ordinating role, although this needs to reflect local context especially if changing the local configuration of LCSI.
• Enhancing strategic buy-in from local decision-makers, including by:
  • Identifying local champions within statutory bodies who recognise the value of civil society and can advocate on behalf of LCSI, with dedicated resources to build relationships.
  • Demonstrating the effectiveness of LCSI during periods of crisis or change to show the value of infrastructure.
• Building on good-quality relationships to develop more formal structures, increasing resilience to change. These should reflect the local context and could involve establishing boards, regular meetings or other forums to provide a regular flow of contact. This should be supported by a formal approach to ensuring the inclusivity of LCSI that supports all communities and organisations.

Further research

Through this study, several areas can be seen as priorities for further research:

1. Mapping and understanding different configurations, trajectories and strengths of LCSI in different areas. This would provide a more granular account of areas with high quality and well established LCSI, and areas where it is absent, emergent or fragile. It would help explore the wider array of LCSI configurations, adding nuance to the binary hypothetical distinction between consolidated and dispersed LCSI. It would also bridge a potential gap in the design of this study, between the ‘helicopter’ picture of LCSI derived from secondary data analysis, and the grounded view of what LCSI looks like derived from the case studies. There are two ways in which this could be achieved:
   • a. A primarily desk-based mapping of LCSI across the country (through websites and annual accounts of LCSI organisations), supplemented by sense-checking stakeholder roundtables in each place. To simplify the process, local authority areas would be grouped together in ‘sub-regions’, in recognition that LCSI organisations often work across local authority boundaries.
   • b. The development of an LCSI assessment framework, drawn from the Theory of Change developed in this study, with the aim of allowing local stakeholders collectively to consider the scale, coverage, quality and impact of LCSI in their area. The framework could act both as a diagnostic tool for local stakeholders - to advance the local conversation about the purpose and quality of LCSI, along with areas for development – and as a data collection tool, insofar as it was sufficiently structured.
2. Exploring in depth whether and how frontline VCFSE organisations of different kinds recognise, understand and act on organisational needs for which support could be helpful. This would provide a view on LCSI and other support starting from a frontline organisation perspective. It could ask then whether and where frontline organisations access support (locally or beyond), how they assess it, and what impact it has.
3. Understanding the relationship between strong and sufficient LCSI and funding flows to the local VCFSE sector. This would provide a firmer foundation to conversations about the distribution of funding for the VCFSE sector, and about the existence and explanation of so-called funding ‘cold spots’. The case study research suggested how significant this could be in discussions about the value of LCSI in facilitating funding and strengthening VCFSE organisations, but the evidence on such ‘cold spots’ is not accessible, and systematic research on the topic is dated.
4. Improved data and mapping of the scale, impact, profile and activities of civil society at local authority level to provide stronger evidence of strategic value. Future work could adopt a more granular approach to measuring how LCSI organisations’ activities and expenditure are allocated across multiple local authorities. This may involve examination of annual accounts to ascertain expenditure breakdowns per local authority, and/or in-depth qualitative exploration of LCSI websites.

References

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

Hamer, R., Stuart, J. and Macmillan, R. (2025) Walking a tightrope: Exploring the conditions for effective local voluntary and community sector infrastructure (Sheffield, NAVCA).

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

Larkham, J., Stuart, J. and Macmillan, R. (2024) Local civil society infrastructure evidence review, LCSI study Work Package 1 (London, Ipsos UK).

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

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, University of Birmingham).

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

1. There are a number of instances where the same organisation re-registers as a new legal form (and thus appears as both a dissolution and formation) or merges with other organisations (e.g., the Volunteer Centre merges with the local Council of/for Voluntary Service). ↩