Research and analysis

Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) R&D Programme - survey findings

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.

1 Introduction

1.1 Research Objectives

This report provides a summary of key findings from a survey of LCSI organisations. It is part of a larger research programme supported by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Building on previous evidence reviews, Theory of Change workshops, and secondary data collection, this research explores LCSI activities, outcomes, and impacts and assesses LCSI coverage. It addresses three key research questions:

• How can we measure whether sufficient LCSI, both in coverage and quality, is present in a local area? How can we categorise ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ LCSI?
• What are the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak LCSI, and to whom do they fall?
• What factors and models are effective in strengthening LCSI?

The survey used the categories of activities, and their associated outcomes developed through these earlier stages of research. As such they are mentioned throughout this report. These categories are:

• Facilitating funding
• Volunteering and community participation
• Organisational development
• Convening
• Advocacy

1.2 Methodology

The LCSI survey sample frame comprised 663 organisations in England. These were identified as potentially active LCSI organisations in 2022 through secondary data mapping and analysis conducted in Work Package 4, excluding three with invalid contact information. The mapping work used existing databases, primarily the 360Giving List and Charity Commission data, to identify organisations. For further information on how the sample was created please review the Work Package 4 report.

As a result of taking an ‘organisation-first’ approach, the research team anticipated the need for targeted survey promotion. This was designed to capture organisations performing infrastructure functions, but not listed as an infrastructure organisation in existing databases. Due to the limited sample size, stratification, quotas, and data weighting were not feasible. However, fieldwork was monitored to ensure coverage across organisational type and size. Please see Appendix 1 for the full sample breakdown.

1.2.1 Questionnaire design

The 10-minute survey was developed by Ipsos with DCMS and was designed to accommodate the limited time and resources of LCSI organisations.

• Screener – confirmed participant organisation, location within England and that the organisation had been active in the last 12 months.
• LCSI activities – the survey asked participants to outline which activities their organisation undertakes. The pre-coded lists were built through the Theory of Change framework and reviewed by members of the academic advisory group. Participants were able to use the open-text ‘other’ category to write in activities which sat outside of the pre-coded list. The survey also asked participants which activities they conducted most often. An open text question allowed participants to explain their organisation’s activities for those who felt their answers did not align with the pre-coded lists.
• LCSI outcomes and impact – similarly to the activities section, the survey built pre-coded lists of outcomes based on those developed in the Theory of Change. An open text question also invited participants to suggest additional impacts or outcomes that the pre-coded lists had not covered.
• Sufficient and strong LCSI – the survey asked participants about the coverage (in terms of number of providers and quality of providers), what components were important for effective support of frontline organisations and the VCSE sector and what further support could be provided to support LCSI organisations.

1.2.2 Recruitment

The survey was distributed via email to the sampled organisations, using the DCMS logo to enhance legitimacy. Two reminder emails were sent, and telephone reminders were conducted with approximately 100 non-participants (prioritising participants who had started but not completed the survey). An open link promoted wider participation, including organisations not in the initial mapping, and was shared through consortium networks, by DCMS and at the Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Conference 2024.

The invitation email and landing page of the survey recommended that the person within an organisation with the best overview of the organisation’s activities should answer.

1.2.3 Fieldwork

The survey was conducted online using Ipsos’ bespoke survey software, Dimensions, and a paper-copy was given to some participants due to accessibility requirements. After five weeks of data collection (from 3rd September to 7th October 2024), the survey achieved 115 completed responses post-data cleaning. This was comprised of 95 sample organisations, and 20 open link organisations. The overall response rate from the sample was 14%.

The implications of using an open link were further mitigated by the data cleaning process once the survey closed. Through this data cleaning process, four duplicate organisations and five entries from local councils were removed. These local councils are referenced later in this report.

1.3 Interpretation of findings and how to read this report

Due to the inherent challenges in identifying and defining LCSI organisations, this study should be considered exploratory and its findings interpreted as indicative rather than definitive. Throughout the survey we have referred to survey respondents as ‘LCSI organisations.’ This is because organisations who completed this survey were identified as fulfilling functions that would be typical of organisations within the LCSI sector, and were invited to participate on the basis of secondary data mapping of active LCSI organisations.

The relatively small sample size (115 completes), particularly for subgroups (where there are approximately 30 organisations per subgroup), necessitates caution when interpreting the results related to specific segments of the LCSI sector. While subgroup analyses are included, they primarily serve to highlight potential tendencies and areas for future research. A difference has to be of a certain size in order to be considered statistically significant and only differences which are statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval, two-tailed, are commented on in this report. The following categories were considered during analysis, and findings are included throughout the report where relevant:

• The type of organisation
• Whether the organisation considers themselves to be part of the LCSI sector
• Their region
• Urbanity
• IMD quintile
• Expenditure levels of the organisation
• The types of LCSI activities they have undertaken
• How often they undertake LCSI activities

One participant responded on behalf of each organisation. The invitation email recommended that the person with the best overview of all activities should respond to the survey. However, it is possible that participants may not know about all areas of their organisation. As such, caution should be exercised when reviewing data on the number of activities an organisation conducts.

The report incorporates findings from open-text survey responses to illustrate the range and diversity of views and experiences within the LCSI sector. These qualitative insights provide valuable context and complement the quantitative data.

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.

1.4 Acronyms

Table 1 Definition of acronyms

Term	Definition
LCSI	Local Civil Society Infrastructure
VCSE	Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise
VCS	Voluntary and Community Sector
VCFSE	Voluntary, Community, Faith and Social Enterprise
FLO	Frontline Organisation
IMD	Index of Multiple Deprivation
CVS	Council for Voluntary Services
Facilitating funding	Includes the following types of activities: providing advice or signposting towards funding sources; providing information and insights to include in bids; capacity building to support access to funding; engaged with funders; co-ordinating local bids; and grant distribution.
Volunteering and community participation	Includes the following types of activities: providing advice or signposting about volunteering and community organising; promoting community participation; coordinating volunteers and facilitating volunteer engagement; and capacity building for volunteers.
Organisational development	Includes the following types of activities: providing advice or signposting to information about operational management and strategic development; providing templates and resources; training or developing frontline staff; tailoring support to help frontline organisations; and supporting the use and management of community assets.
Convening	Includes the following types of activities: bring networks of frontline organisations together or managing relationships in the sector; building collaborations and partnerships across, between or within sectors; and organising community-led activities for the benefit of the local community.
Advocacy	Includes the following types of activities: contributing to cross-sector meetings, forums, or partnership; intelligence sharing with decision makers or other organisations; representing or advocating for local sector’s views to decision makers; sharing decision maker’s perspectives with the local sector; developing a strategic sector voice; researching or providing data on local communities or the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector; and advocating within your sector for diverse communities.

2. LCSI Activities

2.1 Introduction

This chapter explores whether participants consider their organisation to be part of the LCSI sector, the types of activities that LCSI organisations conduct and the frequency by which they conduct them. Participants responding on behalf of their LCSI organisation were asked whether they did any of the following activities in the last 12 months related to the following categories:

• Facilitating funding
• Volunteering and community participation
• Organisational development
• Convening
• Advocacy

2.2 Summary

• Most respondents think of themselves as being part of the LCSI sector. A small percentage had not heard of the term LCSI, and some who conduct infrastructure activities did not consider themselves part of the sector.
• LCSI organisations undertake a range of activities and almost all organisations have conducted activities in each category.
• The most common activities undertaken by LCSI organisations demonstrates the importance of their signposting / providing advice role. For facilitating funding, volunteering and community participation and organisational development categories, the most common activity was providing advice and signposting organisations to other services.
• No single activity dominates in terms of how often LCSI organisations conduct them. Volunteering and community participation were the most frequently undertaken type of activity, while convening was least frequent. Facilitating funding consumed the most staff time, despite not being the most frequent activity. This suggests some facilitating funding activities may be more resource intensive.

2.3 LCSI sector belonging

Participants were asked whether they thought of their organisation as being part of the LCSI sector. The majority did consider themselves part of the LCSI sector (84%), reflecting our sampling approach drawing on active organisations identified through secondary data mapping. Organisations that act as a Council for Voluntary Services (90%) or a Volunteer Centre (78%) were more likely to say they were fully in the sector. However, 7% had not heard of the LCSI sector and almost one in ten (9%), despite conducting activities that fell under LCSI, did not consider themselves to be part of the sector.[^1] This indicates a need for greater sector understanding (which this research programme is intending to cover in more depth through case studies in other work packages).

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

2.4 Facilitating funding

The vast majority (93%) of LCSI organisations had delivered an activity related to facilitating funding in the last 12 months. The most frequently selected activity from the pre-coded list was providing signposting towards funding sources (83%). This was followed closely by engaging with funders (70%), providing information or insights to include in bids (67%), and capacity building to support access to funding (62%).

Table 2 Facilitating funding activities conducted in the last 12 months

	All LCSI Organisations (n=115) *
Any facilitating funding on behalf of frontline or other organisations in the VCSE sector (net)	93%
Provided advice or signposting towards funding sources, for example providing information about grant or contract opportunities	83%
Engaged with funders, for example influencing the design and targeting of grants or contracts	70%
Provided information or insights to include in bids, for example providing technical support to improve bid writing	67%
Capacity building to support access to funding, for example training around grants or contracts	62%
Grant distribution	56%
Co-ordinated local bids, for example identifying local partnerships	53%
Other activities related to facilitating funding	21%
None of the Above / Don’t know	7%

Base (unweighted): all participating LCSI organisations (115). Question: Q1. Which, if any, of the following activities related to facilitating funding has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months, for or on behalf of frontline organisations or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector? *CAUTION LOW BASE

LCSI organisations that identified themselves as part of the LCSI sector were more likely to report undertaking each facilitating funding activity compared to organisations that did not. Organisations in the North of England (including North-East, North-West, and Yorkshire & Humber) had the highest mean number of facilitating funding activities (excluding “none of the above”) at 5.1, compared to 4.2 in the East and West Midlands, and 4.1 in London and the South (South-East and South-West).

86% of LCSI organisations with lower expenditure (£499,999 or less) undertook at least one activity related to facilitating funding. However, this is in contrast to 100% of organisations with an expenditure of £500,000 a year or higher. This suggests that facilitating funding activities may be more challenging for smaller organisations to undertake (there were no differences in other categories of activities).

LCSI organisations were asked to identify any additional funding-related activities they conduct. The responses included bespoke funding services and liaison with funding networks, particularly connecting service providers with funders.

“We do micro evaluations of volunteer roles and VCS services, which in turn has helped raise over [redacted] for the [redacted] volunteering space.”

“Run regular Meet The Funder events and host a Funders network to help groups access and achieve successful funding outcomes and coordinate other funders to ensure we align funds to needs and gaps and reduce duplication.”

“Identified the lack of equality in the distribution of funding for the VCFSE and set up a VCFSE manifesto priority around [redacted]. Then arranged cross sector working on this issue to bring about change in funders, commissioners and grant makers approach to ensure fairer funding.”

2.5 Volunteering and community participation

Nearly nine in ten LCSI organisations (89%) conducted volunteering and community participation activities over the last 12 months. The volunteering and community participation activity conducted by most organisations (67%) was providing advice or signposting about volunteering and community organising. Two thirds (66%) of LCSI organisations conducted capacity building for volunteers, and 63% promoted community participation.

Table 3 Volunteering and community participation activities conducted in the last 12 months

	All LCSI Organisations (n=115) *
Any volunteering and community participation on behalf of frontline or other organisations in the VCSE sector (net)	89%
Provided advice or signposting about volunteering and community organising, for example provided information on volunteer management	67%
Capacity building for volunteers, for example developing specific skills	66%
Promoted community participation, for example developed a strategy for volunteering or participation	63%
Co-ordinated volunteers or facilitated volunteer engagement, for example vetting, matching volunteers to organisations	59%
Other activities related to volunteering and community participation	30%
None of the Above / Don’t know	11%

Base (unweighted): all participating LCSI organisations (115).Question: Q2. Which, if any, of the following activities related to volunteering and community participation has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months for or on behalf of frontline organisations or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector? *CAUTION LOW BASE

There were very few differences by organisation subgroups in volunteering, suggesting it is a core part of LCSI activities.

LCSI organisations were asked to provide any additional volunteering and community participation-related activities they had conducted, through an open-text question. The most common responses cited youth volunteering engagement services, volunteer celebration events/awards, and promoting impact-led volunteering initiatives.

“Supported a range of VCSE organisations that have received Know Your Neighbourhood funding to show the impact of having volunteers.”

“Young trustees, youth engagement opportunities…”

“Establishing a ‘Hall of Fame’ awards and information for charities and community organisations.”

2.6 Organisational development

In the past year, a substantial majority (94%) of LCSI organisations had delivered an organisational development activity. The most common of these was providing advice or signposting to information about operational management (74%). This was followed by 70% who said they had provided templates or resources, and 65% who had given tailored support to help frontline organisations.

Table 4 Organisational development activities conducted in the last 12 months

	All LCSI Organisations (n=115) *
Any organisational development on behalf of frontline or other organisations in the VCSE sector (net)	94%
Provided advice or signposting to information about operational management, business planning and strategic development	74%
Provided templates or resources, for example templates for legally compliant policies	70%
Tailored support to help frontline organisations, for example helped clarify missions and objectives, business planning, demonstrated value or supported equality, diversity and inclusion	65%
Trained or developed frontline staff, for example delivered equality, diversity and inclusion training	63%
Supported the use or management of community assets	57%
Other activities related to organisational development	27%
None of the Above / Don’t know	6%

Base (unweighted): all participating LCSI organisations (115).Question: Q3. Which, if any, of the following activities related to organisational development has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months for or on behalf of frontline organisations or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector? *CAUTION LOW BASE

Those responding on behalf of Councils for Voluntary Services most commonly undertook each activity related to organisational development. Likewise, those who considered themselves part of LCSI were much more likely to have conducted these activities than those who did not.

Similar to the activities related to facilitating funding, participants in the North of England (North-East, North-West and Yorkshire & Humber) reported a higher mean number of organisational development activities, excluding ‘none of the above’, at 4.3. This was in comparison to 3.7 and 3.4 for East/West Midlands/East and London and South (South-East/South-West), respectively.

An open-text question asked LCSI organisations to list any further organisational development activities they had engaged in that were not listed. The most common responses cited business advisory services, the promotion of the sector and informal/grassroots activists within it, and supporting technical skills development to enhance data use.

“Promotion and representation of sector, supported access to funding opportunities, consulted with sector, etc. All functions relate to Value of Infrastructure Model.”

“Provided support around technical infrastructure, e.g. websites, databases etc (within a partnership); similarly provided support on gathering and using data about the sector. Provided support on skills for example video making, case study production.”

2.7 Convening

A majority (92%) of LCSI organisations deliver activities related to convening. The most common convening activity was building collaborations or partnerships across, between or within sectors (88%). This was followed by bringing networks of frontline organisations together or managed relationships in the sector (78%) and organising community-led activities for the benefit of the local community (61%).

Table 5 Convening activities conducted in the last 12 months

	All LCSI Organisations (n=115) *
Any convening	92%
Built collaborations or partnerships across, between or within sectors	88%
Brought networks of frontline organisations together or managed relationships in the sector	78%
Organised community-led activities for the benefit of the local community	61%
Other activities related to convening	17%
None of the Above / Don’t know	8%

Base (unweighted): all participating LCSI organisations (115).Question: Q4. Which, if any, of the following activities related to convening has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months? *CAUTION LOW BASE

Again, those who considered themselves part of LCSI were much more likely to select that they had undertaken each activity. For example, 91% of those who considered themselves part of LCSI had built collaborations compared to 88% overall.

LCSI organisations were invited to contribute any other convening related activities they had engaged in, via an open-text question. The most common responses cited providing ‘go-to’ advice services for deliverers, upholding voices (particularly within forums/group spaces), and fostering relationships that are beneficial to the sector.

“Conferences, Networks, Workshops, Volunteer Awards, Volunteering Partnerships, LCSI partnerships.”

“Coordinated campaigning activities and voice and advocacy through collaborations and partnerships.”

“Connecting organisations with funders at various events, including an Annual [redacted] Funders Fair, convening local young people to have a voice about issues affecting them.”

2.8 Advocacy

Almost all LCSI organisations had conducted an activity related to advocacy in the last 12 months (96%). Over nine in ten (91%) reported they had contributed to cross-sector meetings, forums or partnerships. Nearly four in five (79%) reported that their organisation had represented or advocated for the local sector’s views to decision makers, and 73% said they had researched or provided data on local communities or the VCSE sector.

Table 6 Advocacy activities conducted in the last 12 months

	*All LCSI Organisations (n=115)*
Any advocacy	96%
Contributed to cross-sector meetings, forums or partnerships, for example sharing priorities or defining problems	91%
Represented or advocated for local sector’s views to decision makers	79%
Researched or provided data on local communities or the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector	73%
Intelligence sharing with decision makers or other organisations, for example, early warning systems, identifying policy gaps	72%
Advocated within your sector for diverse communities, for example championing diversity	71%
Shared decision maker’s perspectives with the local sector	64%
Developed a strategic sector voice, for example co-ordinated a local sector consensus about a policy	57%
Other activities related to advocacy	15%
None of the Above / Don’t know	4%

Base (unweighted): all participating LCSI organisations (115). Question: Q5. Which, if any, of the following activities related to advocacy has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months? *CAUTION LOW BASE

Participants who considered their organisation part of LCSI were more likely to undertake most individual advocacy activities. For example, 94% of those who considered themselves part of LCSI contributed to cross-sector meetings compared to 91% overall.

LCSI organisations shared further advocacy-related activities they had undertaken that were not listed through an open-text question. The most common responses cited advocating for various groups (particularly minority groups) in the local decision-making space, raising the profile of the sector, and contributing towards a strategic sector voice. Below are some examples:

“We do a huge amount on youth-voice. We have a youth voice panel…who we support to advocate on behalf of their peers on issues that impact them locally and influence local decision-making.”

“Development of a community directory which helps to raise the profile of the sector. Early stages of developing a data dashboard for the VCSE that can feed into local decision-making forums.”

“Brought together VCSE Leadership Networks; supported training of VCSE advocates.”

2.9 Frequency of activities

Overall, most LCSI organisations conduct all types of LCSI activities fairly frequently. When considering the different types of activities, more than four in five LCSI organisations said they conduct different types of activities at least once a month.

Table 7 The percentage of LCSI organisations that completed an activity at least once a month.

All LCSI organisations who undertook an LCSI activity (n=102-110) *	Volunteering and community participation	Organisational development	Facilitating funding	Advocacy	Convening
At least once every 2 weeks	76%	70%	68%	75%	60%
At least once a month	91%	88%	88%	86%	85%

Base (unweighted): all LCSI organisations that have undertaken an LCSI activity related to: volunteering and community participation (102), organisational development (108), facilitating funding (108), advocacy (110), convening (106). Question: Q7. How often in the last 12 months has your organisation undertaken the following types of activities? *CAUTION LOW BASE

The most frequently conducted activities were those related to volunteering and community participation. Three in five (60%) LCSI organisations reported that they conduct volunteering and community participation activities more than once a week. This was followed by more than half (56%) who said they conduct organisational development activities more than once a week. Convening was the least frequently conducted activity with just over a third (36%) undertaking a convening activity more than once a week.

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.

LCSI organisations were asked what proportion of staff time (both full and part time) at their organisation was spent on each activity category. Participants were not prepared for this question in advance and as such they were instructed to give a ballpark response or very rough breakdown. Therefore, caution should be exercised in interpreting this data, and these results should be treated as an overall indication of how staff time is spent.

Similar to the frequency of conducting activities, staff time was fairly evenly distributed across the categories. The majority of LCSI organisations were spending 25% or under of their staff time on each activity as shown in figure 3.2.

The mean percentage of time suggests that facilitating funding is the activity LCSI organisations spent the most time on, at 18.7%. This was closely followed by volunteering and community participation (17.4%), organisational development (15.6%), convening (15.7%), and advocacy (12.4%). Participants reported spending 10.2% of their time undertaking activities in the VCSE sector that were not listed, and 9.2% of their time undertaking other activities unrelated to programme work, such as HR or administration.

The differences between how often activities are conducted and the amount of staff time devoted to an activity could suggest that more staff time is spent on certain elements of facilitating funding even if these activities are not conducted as frequently as others.

Question: Q6. Thinking about the types of activities you’ve been shown, what percentage of overall staff time at your organisation was spent on these activities in the last 12 months? Base: All participating LCSI organisations (115). *CAUTION LOW BASE

LCSI organisations were asked to identify their top three most frequently undertaken activities over the past 12 months. Overall, the top three activities were:

• 30% of LCSI organisations stated contributing to cross-sector meetings (categorised under advocacy).
• 23% of LCSI organisations stated building collaborations or partnerships (categorised under convening).
• 21% of LCSI organisations stated tailored support to help frontline organisations (categorised under organisational development).

While 60% of LCSI organisations conducted volunteering activities, only 37% ranked a volunteering activity among their top three. This discrepancy suggests that while volunteering is a common activity, other specific activities are top-of-mind in terms of frequency.

The range of activities undertaken by LCSI organisations spans all LCSI categories. However, no single activity is predominantly conducted by a majority of organisations – which suggests that LCSI organisations are conducting a wide variety of different functions.

Question: Q8. From the activities below that your organisation has undertaken in the last 12 months, which three activities were undertaken most often? Base: All participating LCSI organisations (115). *CAUTION LOW BASE, For clarity statements have been reduced and only the top two activities per category are included.

3. LCSI outcomes and impact

3.1 Introduction

LCSI organisations were asked to consider whether the activities they deliver led to positive outcomes across the five activity categories.

3.2 Summary

• A majority of LCSI organisations report positive outcomes from their LCSI activities.
• Across those who had delivered different types of LCSI activities, organisations were most likely to say that these activities contributed to outcomes related to increased connections and relationships between VCSE organisations, and stronger relationships between VCSE organisations and their strategic partners.
• Advocacy activities were seen as effective in increasing connections, meeting local needs, and strengthening strategic partnerships. While less impactful on policymaking and diversity than other activities, advocacy activities were perceived to be more effective in influencing policy than organisational development or convening activities.
• Although a majority reported that LCSI activities contributed to improved policymaking on local priorities, LCSI organisations were consistently less likely to say that their activities contributed towards achieving this outcome - especially organisational development activities.

3.3 Facilitating funding

An overwhelming majority (78% - 91%) of LCSI organisations thought activities that facilitate funding led to positive outcomes, with very few (between 5% to 11% depending on the outcome) reporting that they thought it led to positive outcomes either “hardly” or “not at all”. LCSI organisations were most likely to say facilitating funding activities led to increased connections and relationships between VCSE organisations (91%). This includes 43% who said their activities contribute towards increased connections and relationships to a great extent, and almost half (48%) who said to some extent. 98% of participants representing Councils for Voluntary Services said their activities related to facilitating funding led to this outcome to a great/some extent.

85% of LCSI organisations reported that their activities related to facilitating funding led to increased funding for local VCSE organisations. This includes half (50%) who said this happened to a great extent.

By contrast, although almost four in five (78%) reported that facilitating funding led to improved financial management of frontline organisations or other VCSE organisations, only one in five said that these activities contributed towards the outcome to a great extent (21%). This discrepancy highlights a consistent trend: while a majority of LCSI organisations perceive facilitating funding activities as contributing to positive outcomes, the degree of perceived contribution varies considerably.

Table 8 Extent of positive outcomes of facilitating funding activities

All LCSI organisations who undertook a facilitating funding activity (n=107) *	Increased connections and relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations	Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs	Improved ways of working within frontline organisations	Increased funding for local Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations	Improved financial management of frontline organisations or other Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations
To a great extent	43%	43%	25%	50%	21%
To some extent	48%	45%	61%	36%	56%
Not applicable	2%	4%	4%	2%	7%
Don’t know	1%	4%	3%	5%	4%
Net: To a great extent/ some extent	91%	88%	86%	85%	78%
Net: Hardly/ not at all	7%	5%	7%	8%	11%

Base (unweighted): all LCSI organisations who conducted a facilitating funding activity in the last 12 months (107). Question: Q9. To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to facilitating funding (i) have contributed to achieving the following positive outcomes? *CAUTION LOW BASE

3.4 Volunteering and community participation

At least four in five LCSI organisations that undertook volunteering and community participation activities reported them contributing either to some or a great extent towards the four key outcomes specified. This ranged between 81% to 92% across the different outcomes.

92% said that activities related to volunteering and community participation led to VCSE organisations being able to better meet local needs. This includes 41% who said to a great extent (51% to some extent). Among these, 98% of organisations who act as a Volunteer Centre, and 96% who act as a Council for Voluntary Services said that they thought their activities related to volunteering and community participation have contributed towards VCSE organisations being able to better meet local needs.

Although an overwhelming majority of LCSI organisations reported that their activities related to volunteering and community participation contributed towards the remaining three outcomes (increased trust, improved approach to community engagement and better reflecting diversity) organisations were more likely to say they contributed to some extent, rather than a great extent. This is especially the case for better reflecting diversity – where fewer than one in five (17%) thought their activities improved this to a great extent.

For instance, although over four in five LCSI organisations said that their activities related to volunteering and community participation contributed to frontline organisations and other organisations having an improved approach to community engagement (86%), they were much more likely to say this happened to some extent (67%) than to a great extent (20%). This is compared to outcomes for facilitating funding where there was greater variety in the extent of attributed positive impact.

Organisations that act as a Council for Voluntary Services were significantly more likely than the average LCSI organisation to say that they thought their activities related to volunteering and community participation contributed to: VCSE organisations being better able to meet local needs; frontline organisations and other organisations having an improved approach to community engagement; and organisations and/or volunteers better reflecting the diversity of the communities they serve.

Table 9 Extent of positive outcomes of volunteering and community participation activities

All LCSI organisations who undertook a volunteering and community participation activity(n=102) *	Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs	Increased trust within or between communities	Frontline organisations (or other organisations in the VCSE sector) have an improved approach to community engagement	Organisations and/or volunteers better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve
To a great extent	41%	28%	20%	17%
To some extent	51%	59%	67%	65%
Not applicable	4%	5%	6%	5%
Don’t know	2%	2%	4%	1%
Net: To a great extent/ some extent	92%	87%	86%	81%
Net: Hardly/ not at all	2%	6%	4%	13%

Base (unweighted): all LCSI organisations who conducted a volunteering and community participation activity in the last 12 months (102). Question: Q10. To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to volunteering and community participation (i) have contributed to achieving the following positive outcomes? *CAUTION LOW BASE

3.5 Organisational development

Most LCSI organisations report that their organisational development has had positive outcomes. 94% said that activities contributed towards increased connections between VCSE organisations. 43% said this happened to a great extent, 51% to some extent.

Likewise, nine in ten LCSI organisations who undertook an activity related to organisational development said that these activities helped to achieve: improved ways of working with frontline organisations (91%); VCSE organisations being better able to meet local needs (91%); and stronger relationships between VCSE organisations and their strategic partners (90%).

Around three quarters (78%) said that organisational development contributed towards organisations better reflecting the diversity of the communities they serve and improved financial management of frontline organisations or other VCSE organisations (73%). Despite a majority agreeing that their activities helped to achieve these outcomes, 14% for diversity and 17% for financial management thought their activities had hardly any or no impact.

Three in five (64%) LCSI organisations who undertook an activity related to organisational development said this contributed towards achieving improved policymaking on local priorities. Across all outcome questions asked by the survey, the link between organisational development and improved policymaking was the weakest. Just over a quarter (28%) said that their organisational development activities did not contribute towards improved policymaking on local priorities.

Table 10 Extent of positive outcomes of organisational development activities

All LCSI organisation who undertook an organisational development activity(n=108) *	Increased connections and relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations	Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs	Improved ways of working within frontline organisations	Stronger relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations and their strategic partners	Organisations better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve	Improved financial management of frontline organisations or other Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations	Improved policymaking on local priorities
To a great extent	43%	32%	29%	31%	12%	19%	11%
To some extent	51%	58%	62%	58%	66%	54%	53%
Not applicable	1%	1%	1%	3%	5%	6%	5%
Don’t know	1%	4%	3%	3%	4%	5%	4%
Net: To a great extent/ some extent	94%	91%	91%	90%	78%	73%	64%
Net: Hardly/ not at all	5%	5%	5%	5%	14%	17%	28%

Base (unweighted): all LCSI organisations who conducted an organisational development activity in the last 12 months (102). Question: Q11. To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to organisational development (i) have contributed to achieving the following positive outcomes? *CAUTION LOW BASE

3.6. Convening

95% of participants stated that their activities related to convening had helped to achieve increased connections and relationships between VCSE organisations, including 58% who said to a great extent. Likewise, almost all (94%) of LCSI organisations said that their convening activities had helped to achieve stronger relationships between VCSE organisations and their strategic partners.

LCSI organisations were again slightly more sceptical that their activities had helped to achieve improved policymaking on local priorities compared to the other outcomes – 72% thought these activities had helped to at least some extent to achieve the outcome. However, almost a quarter (23%) thought their convening activities hardly or did not at all help improve policymaking.

Table 11 Extent of positive outcomes of convening activities

All LC organisation All LCSI organisations who undertook a convening activity(n=106) *	Increased connections and relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations	Stronger relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations and their strategic partners	Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs	Improved ways of working within frontline organisations	Improved policymaking on local priorities
To a great extent	58%	46%	36%	33%	16%
To some extent	37%	48%	55%	57%	56%
Not applicable	1%	1%	5%	3%	4%
Don’t know	1%	1%	1%	2%	2%
Net: To a great extent/ some extent	95%	94%	91%	90%	72%
Net: Hardly/ not at all	3%	4%	4%	6%	23%

Base (unweighted): all LCSI organisations who conducted a convening activity in the last 12 months (106). Question: Q12. To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to convening (i) have contributed to achieving positive outcomes for the following…? *CAUTION LOW BASE

3.7 Advocacy

Almost all LCSI organisations who took part in activities related to advocacy said they contributed to increased connections (98%). This includes 46% to a great extent, and 52% to some extent. Participants on behalf of Councils for Voluntary Services (72%) and Volunteer Centres (61%) were more likely than average to think advocacy activities had contributed to a great extent.

Likewise, over nine in ten LCSI organisations who deliver activities related to advocacy, said that they contributed towards supporting VCSE organisations to better meet local needs (95%) and achieving strong relationships between VCSE organisations and their strategic partners (92%).

LCSI organisations were slightly less likely to say that advocacy contributed towards improved policymaking on local priorities (76%) and organisations better reflecting the diversity of the communities they serve (75%).

Organisations who undertook activities related to advocacy were more likely to say these activities had helped to achieve improved policymaking on local priorities compared with those who had undertaken organisational development (64%) and convening activities (72%). Likewise, participants on behalf of Councils for Voluntary Services were more likely than average to say their advocacy activities had helped to achieve improved policymaking (86%).

Table 12 Extent of positive outcomes of advocacy activities

All LCSI organisations who undertook a convening activity(n=110) *	Increased connections and relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations	Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs	Stronger relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations and their strategic partners	Improved ways of working within frontline organisations	Improved policymaking on local priorities	Organisations better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve
To a great extent	46%	31%	37%	24%	13%	11%
To some extent	52%	64%	55%	64%	64%	64%
Not applicable	1%	3%	1%	5%	2%	4%
Don’t know	-	2%	-	1%	2%	5%
Net: To a great extent/ some extent	98%	95%	92%	87%	76%	75%
Net: Hardly/ not at all	1%	1%	7%	7%	20%	17%

Base (unweighted): all LCSI organisations who conducted an advocacy activity in the last 12 months (110). Question: Q13. To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to advocacy (i) have contributed to achieving positive outcomes for the following…? * CAUTION LOW BASE

3.8 Impacts

LCSI organisations were asked whether there were any outcomes or impacts that happened as a result of their activities, which had not been addressed in questions 9-13. Around half of participants shared an open-text response. A number of these overlapped with outcomes from questions 9-13, so they will not be addressed in detail here.

One emerging theme was that LCSI activities led to improvements in resilience and an overall improved experience of frontline or other organisations within the VCSE sector. Organisations mentioned improved resilience and experiences of organisations and their staff, as well as communities. For organisations and their staff, this included having an increased confidence in being able to deliver the services they offer, an increase in skills and knowledge, and a reduction in isolation of organisations and their staff.

“Increased confidence, skills & knowledge in charity leaders and teams.”

“Increase in knowledge and skills. Increased participation. Increased confidence.”

“Staff in VCS organisations feel less isolated and lonely. People feel supported and listened to.”

As a result of staff and organisations being more confident to deliver their services, participants felt this would lead to more resilient communities and an improvement in their 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’.”

“Improvement in the quality of peoples’ lives whether as volunteers or as service users.”

“Increased visibility for the organisations in the borough (many of whom are grassroots, lived experience-led and reaching those most marginalised in our diverse communities).”

Although funding was covered in question 9, a small number of participants offered additional considerations on outcomes and impacts of their activities. Some of these responses aligned with resilience, as organisations being better funded (or able to identify funding opportunities) could help to secure their survival.

“To improve the financial footing of all types of community/charitable organisation through providing funding.”

“Improved capacity of the VCS to absorb and secure funding.”

Other responses related to funding suggested that an impact of LCSI work was that funders themselves would have a better understanding of communities and VCSE organisations.

“Funders understand 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.”

4. LCSI strength and how LCSI can be supported

4.1 Introduction

This chapter explores participants’ attitudes towards how they perceive the sufficiency of LCSI provision in terms of coverage and quality in their local area. It further analyses the perceived sufficiency of the number of providers and the quality of services offered, categorised by LCSI activity type: facilitating funding, volunteering and community participation, organisational development, advocacy, and convening. Additionally, the chapter investigates the elements for ‘strong LCSI’ both in terms of effective LCSI support provision and potential areas for further support.

4.2 Summary

• Most organisations generally felt their local area had sufficient providers and good quality services. However, this varied by activity type. Facilitating funding was consistently rated lower in both number of providers and quality of service compared to other activities, especially by organisations with lower expenditures.
• Local knowledge was highlighted as a particularly important component of strong LCSI. However, most components were rated highly by the majority of LCSI organisations.
• Long-term funding was identified as the most important way to further support the LCSI sector, enabling longer-term planning and reducing competition within the sector.

4.3 Sufficient LCSI

Determining how to measure ‘sufficient’ LCSI was a core part of questionnaire design of Work Package 5. Coverage as a concept was broken down into two components – the number of providers and the quality of services. This was done to answer the research question: to what extent do LCSI organisations perceive the coverage of LCSI activities to be sufficient?

Participating LCSI organisations were asked to rate:

• The number of providers in their local area on a scale from completely sufficient to completely lacking
• The quality of the services on a scale from excellent to terrible.

This was to understand how sufficient the provision of LCSI was in their local area and to examine any differences by the type of activities.

4.3.1 Quantity of LCSI provision by activity

The majority of participating LCSI organisations rated the number of infrastructure providers in their local area as sufficient but there were nuances in these perceptions as shown in Figure 4.1.

Only a small proportion (ranging from 11% to 18% across activity categories) considered the provision “completely sufficient,” and only about a third (29% to 33%) rated it as either “completely” or “mostly” sufficient. This indicates a gap between general sufficiency and complete satisfaction with the current provision of LCSI services.

The perception of sufficiency also varied across different activities. A higher proportion of participants rated the number of providers for Volunteering and Community Participation sufficient (63%) compared with those for facilitating funding (43%). This disparity was further underscored by a larger proportion of participants 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)

There are some differences in how LCSI organisations rate the number of providers in their local area (regardless of the LCSI activity). In the analysis below, we have provided sub-group analysis where relevant for the levels of sufficiency across LCSI activities. This includes by region, expenditure levels, and the type of organisation. Due to low number of responses across the different regions of England and the expenditure levels, these results should be treated as indicative and are not intended to be seen as representative of the LCSI sector as a whole.

There were expenditure and geographic differences in perceptions towards the provision of infrastructure facilitating funding. LCSI organisations with lower expenditure (£499,999 or less) were more likely than those with an expenditure over £1 million to report the number of facilitating funding providers in their local area was lacking (56% compared to 29%). There were also geographic differences – those in the North of England (including the North-East, North-West and Yorkshire & Humber) were more likely to rate the number of providers of facilitating funding as sufficient (61% compared to 50% in the Midlands and 29% in London and the South).

There were differences in the perceptions of the LCSI provision of volunteering and community participation by type of organisation, by whether that organisation thought they were part of LCSI and across geographic areas. Organisations that act as an umbrella or resource body were more likely to rate the provision of volunteering and community participation as sufficient (69% compared to 63% of all organisations). Organisations that considered themselves part of LCSI were also more likely to rate the number of providers for volunteering and community participation as sufficient (70% compared to 63% of all organisations). There were also some geographic differences – organisations located in London, or the South were more likely to not know (18% compared with 10% of all organisations) whether the numbers of providers for volunteering and community participation were sufficient.

There were differences by deprivation level and frequency of activities conducted in perceptions of the LCSI provision of organisational development. Organisations that work in the most deprived areas (IMD quintile is 1) were more likely to think the provision was lacking (49% compared to 35% of all organisations). Organisations that undertook organisational development activities more than once a week were more likely to rate the number of providers delivering organisational development as sufficient (72% vs 46% who conduct activities less frequently).

There were differences by type of LCSI organisation in perceptions of the LCSI provision of convening. LCSI organisations that act as an umbrella/resource body (65%), or a Council for Voluntary Services (70%) were both more likely to think that the number of providers conducting convening activities was sufficient (58% overall). Organisations in the North of England were more likely to think the number of providers for convening was sufficient (73% compared to 58% of all organisations). Those that considered themselves part of LCSI (63%) and those LCSI organisations that conduct activities more frequently (75%) were also more likely to think the number of providers for convening was sufficient (58% of all organisations). LCSI organisations with lower expenditure (£499,999 or less) were more likely to think that the number of providers conducting convening activities was lacking (47% compared to 31% overall).

Perceptions towards the number of providers conducting advocacy activities were very similar to convening. LCSI organisations that act as an umbrella / resource body (61%) or a Council for Voluntary Services (66%) were more likely to think it was sufficient (54% of all organisations). Those in the North of England were also more likely to think the number of providers provided advocacy services was sufficient (70% compared to 54% of all organisations). Those who considered themselves part of LCSI (59%) were also marginally more likely to think the number of advocacy providers was sufficient (54%).

4.3.2 Quality of LCSI provision by activity

The quality of LCSI services (regardless of activity) was considered to be at least good by a majority of respondents. Volunteering and community participation services in particular stand out with 77% considering them good and only one in ten (11%) rating them as poor.

Question: Q16. How if at all, would you rate the quality of services in your local area for the following types of activities? Base: All participating LCSI organisations (115). For clarity don’t know/ prefer not to say responses are excluded. *CAUTION LOW BASE

There were fewer distinctive differences by type of LCSI activity. Across almost all activities (with the exception of facilitating funding) those who conducted activities more frequently, considered themselves part of LCSI, or described themselves as a Council for Voluntary Service or Volunteer Centre were more likely to rate the services as ‘good’. There were fewer geographic differences in the quality of the service compared to the number of providers.

For the quality of services related to facilitating funding, there were very few differences by organisation information. LCSI organisations with lower expenditure (£499,999 or less) were more likely to think the quality of facilitating funding was ‘poor’ (40% compared with 16% of those with expenditure of £1 million or above).

For the quality of services related to volunteering and community participation, there were some differences - organisations that work in this space were more likely to rate the quality of services highly. 92% of Councils for Voluntary Services and 93% of Volunteer Centres rated volunteering and community participation as good. Organisations that conducted activities more frequently were also more likely to rate the service as ‘good’ (91% compared to 72% conducting activities less frequently).

There were few specific differences in perceptions towards the quality of organisational development. Those whose expenditure was between £500,000 to £999,999 were more likely than those on lower expenditure to rate organisational development as ‘good’ (83% compared to 60% of those with expenditure of £499,999 or less). Those who consider themselves part of LCSI (74%), act as a Council for Voluntary Services (78%), or conduct activities more frequently (84%) were all more likely to rate organisational development as good (68% of all organisations).

There were no unique differences in perceptions towards the quality of convening. Organisations that identified as a Council for Voluntary Service (80%), act as a Volunteer Centre (83%), consider themselves part of LCSI (73%) or conduct activities more regularly (84%) were all more likely to rate the convening activities as good (69% overall). Those whose expenditure was between £500,000 to £999,999 (90%) were more likely to rate convening activities as good compared to those with lower expenditure of £499,999 or less (65%).

Similarly, there were few unique differences in perceptions towards the quality of advocacy. Those organisations which identify as a Council for Voluntary Services (78%) and those who conduct activities more frequently (91%) were both more likely to rate the quality as ‘good’. Those whose expenditure was between £500,000 to £999,999 (83%) were more likely to rate advocacy activities as good compared to those with lower expenditure of £499,999 or less (60%).

4.4 Strong LCSI

Participating LCSI organisations were asked how important they considered several components to be for effectively providing support for frontline or other organisations within the VCSE sector. The survey created bespoke components for what comprised ‘strong’ LCSI – this was based on the Theory of Change workshops and the evidence review.

4.4.1 Components of strong LCSI

The vast majority of participating organisations thought that all elements presented were important to be effective.

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

Being knowledgeable about the local area was viewed as very important by 92% of organisations. Being present for a long-time was least likely to be seen as very important (41%) but half (50%) still recognised it as fairly important.

This consensus that all components were important means there are very few differences in perceptions between LCSI organisations. Those small differences that do exist are not substantive – and tend to be based on the type of LCSI organisation the participant answered on behalf of.

Organisations that act as an umbrella / resource body (95%) or a Council for Voluntary Services (98%) were both more likely to say being knowledgeable about the local area was very important. The overwhelming majority of participants thought knowledge about the local area was very important in providing effective support.

Being well-funded was perceived as particularly important for those who act as a Council for Voluntary Services (92% compared to 83% of all organisations rated being well-funded as very important).

Organisations that act as an umbrella/ resource body were more likely to think being independent was very important (69% compared to 63% of all organisations). Those who act as an umbrella/ resource body (69%), a Council for Voluntary Services (80%) and generally those who provide support (68%) were more likely to say speaking on behalf of the sector was very important (compared to 63% of all organisations). Organisations that act as a Council for Voluntary Services (84%) were more likely to say having a good reputation with local civil society is very important (compared to 75% overall). Organisations that act as a Council for Voluntary Services (80%), as a Volunteer Centre (83%) or provide support / resources (70%) were all more likely to say having a good reputation with policymakers was very important (compared to 67% overall).

4.4.2 Support for LCSI organisations

LCSI organisations were asked about how they could be further supported to understand what could help make LCSI ‘strong’.

A major theme highlighted was funding. Participants emphasised the need for more sustainable, long-term funding. This included both securing funding for longer durations to support extended projects, and reducing the amount of time spent seeking funding, so resources could be allocated to other activities.

“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.”

“Organisations providing support to the front line are facing cuts to [local authority] funding, some may close. Existing players who may survive are not all effectively delivering a quality service to the VCSE sector even now - some [removed] organisations have “mission drifted” away from their core support service due to chasing funding, and as a result the standard of advice given can be poor. The key problem is the lack of secure funding to enable the [removed] organisations to develop effectively themselves.”

“Long term, core funding to be able to plan services over a proper period that can enables adaptation to the needs of local organisations and statutory bodies.”

Another key theme was the precarity of funding meant that sometimes infrastructure organisations were competing for funding against the VCSE organisations they supported.

“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.”

“If these services are not core funded then they will either seek to charge already beleaguered organisations for fees (there are already many that do this) or they will spend a significant proportion of their time seeking funding which will syphon off the available funding in an area.”

The lack of funding was also seen as having an impact on the ability of LCSI organisations to develop their own skills and capacity.

“Organisations need proper resourcing. This could mean financial resources, or the time and skills development to allow them to support the organisations that they are trying to serve.”

Another area of further support identified by LCSI organisations was around recognition for the role they play. Participants felt this recognition could come from policymakers and funders, along with wider profile raising of the LCSI sector.

“Recognition by national policy makers and funders - including recognition of integrated nature of their support.”

“Profile raising their importance. Not being on the frontline means what we deliver is perhaps not as noticeable as those who directly support individuals. The reality is most infrastructure organisations can demonstrate a direct line of sight from what they deliver to the benefits felt by communities and often their impact is substantial.”

Five local government councils completed the survey and have been excluded from the rest of this report. Their answers on how LCSI organisations could be further supported suggest similar views to the responses from LCSI organisations. They highlight access to longer-term funding, capacity building and recognition.

“They need core funding, to ensure they are able to provide support to smaller community-based VCS organisations and also to not be in competition with them for projects.” Council

“More capacity building initiatives. For staff development, leadership training, and to improve skills. Longer term, flexible funding for VCSE organisations. Offering core funding, rather than project-based funding. Knowledge sharing online and at event opportunities where VCSE organisations can share resources, experiences, and best practices. Recognition across the city of the great work that is happening. Access to mental health resources for staff and volunteers in VCSE organisations”. Council

5. Summary conclusion

5.1 What activities do LCSI organisations undertake, and how frequently?

LCSI organisations engage in a diverse range of activities, spanning all LCSI categories identified in the ToC framework. The advice / sign-posting function of LCSI is the most commonly undertaken activity for organisations facilitating funding, supporting volunteering and community participation and delivering organisational development activities.

The most common activities within each category include:

• Facilitating Funding: Signposting funding sources, engaging with funders, providing bid information/insights, and capacity building for funding access.
• Volunteering and Community Participation: Providing advice/signposting about volunteering, capacity building for volunteers, and promoting community participation.
• Organisational Development: Providing advice/signposting on operational management, providing templates/resources, and offering tailored support to frontline organisations.
• Convening: Building cross-sector collaborations, bringing together networks of frontline organisations, and organising community-led activities.
• Advocacy: Contributing to cross-sector meetings, representing local sector views to decision-makers, and researching/providing data on local communities/ Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector.

No single activity dominates in terms of how often LCSI organisations conduct each activity. Volunteering and community participation are the most frequently undertaken category of activity, often delivered multiple times per week. Organisational development activities are also common, with over half of organisations engaging in them more than once a week. While convening is the least frequent activity category. Facilitating funding consumes the most staff time compared to how often LCSI organisations reported delivering the activity, suggesting these activities may be more resource intensive.

5.2 What are the outcomes and impact of LCSI activities?

A majority of LCSI organisations report positive outcomes from their activities. Organisations were consistently most likely to say their activities contributed to outcomes related to increased connections and relationships between VCSE organisations, and stronger relationships between VCSE organisations and their strategic partners. This held across those who reported delivering different types of activities.

The link between LCSI activities and improving policymaking was weakest, although the majority still reported some impact between the two.

The most common outcomes by activity include:

• Facilitating Funding: LCSI organisations suggested this leads to increased connections and funding for VCSE organisations to a great extent. However, while many report improved financial management in frontline organisations, this is lower than other outcomes related to funding activities.

• Volunteering and Community Participation: LCSI organisations overwhelmingly agree these activities improve the ability of VCSEs to meet local needs. However, contributions to diversity and community engagement, while positive, are perceived as less impactful.

• Organisational Development: This was linked to increased connections, improved working relationships, and better local needs fulfilment. However, the impact on diversity and financial management was less pronounced, and the link to improved policymaking is weakest.

• Convening: LCSI organisations report positive impacts on connections and relationships with strategic partners but are less convinced about its effect on policymaking.

• Advocacy: This was perceived as highly effective in increasing connections, meeting local needs, and strengthening strategic partnerships. While less impactful on policymaking and diversity than other activities, participants still considered it more effective in influencing policy than organisational development or convening.

5.3 How to understand strong LCSI and how can LCSI be further supported?

While most organisations surveyed did identify as part of the LCSI sector, a small percentage had not heard of the term LCSI and some who conduct LCSI activities did not consider themselves part of the sector. This represents a challenge in fully understanding ‘strength’ where the actors involved are not clear whether they are part of the sector.

Strong LCSI was broken down into two dimensions: the quality of the LCSI activities provided and the number of LCSI organisations providing these activities. This is just one way to understand ‘strength’ as discussed further in other Work Packages.

Most LCSI organisations generally felt their local area had sufficient providers of infrastructure and good quality services. Facilitating funding was consistently rated lower in both number of providers and quality of service, especially by organisations with lower expenditures.

The survey sought to understand LCSI organisations’ perceptions of what constitutes strong LCSI. Local knowledge was highlighted as a particularly important component of strength. However, most organisations rated all potential components of strong LCSI as important.

Long-term funding was the main way identified to further support the sector. The impact of precarious funding on LCSI organisations was highlighted by participants as creating multiple effects, both in terms of not being able to fund longer-term projects but also competing against other organisations in the VCSE sector. Greater recognition of the LCSI sector by policymakers, funders and a wider profile more generally was also highlighted as an area for support.

Appendix 1: Sample breakdown

This report presents findings from a survey of 115 LCSI organisations. Due to the inherent challenges in identifying and defining LCSI organisations, this study should be considered exploratory and its findings interpreted as indicative rather than definitive. Base sizes are small throughout this survey and caution should be exercised when reviewing data by subgroups below.

Table 13 Subgroups of surveyed organisations

Crossbreak	Crossbreak	Definition	Base
Type of organisation	Act as umbrella/resource body	Answered ‘Act as an Umbrella or Resource body (advocating for, supporting, and facilitating networking)’ to S4	84
Type of organisation	Provide support or resources	Answered ’Provide support or resources to other charities or voluntary bodies’ to S4	103
Type of organisation	Act as a Council for Voluntary Service	Answered ‘Act as a Council for Voluntary Services (an overarching organisation which seeks to support and promote local civil society)’ to S4	50
Type of organisation	Act as a Volunteer Centre	Answered ‘Act as a Volunteer Centre (promoting and brokering volunteer opportunities and best practice in managing volunteers)’ to S4	46
Consider themselves part of LCSI	Yes	Answered Yes – Fully’ or ‘2. Yes – Somewhat’ to	97
Consider themselves part of LCSI	No	Answered ‘No’ to Q19	10
England region	North East/North West/Yorkshire & Humber	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	33
England region	East/West Midlands/East	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	30
England region	London/South East/South West	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	51
Urbanity	Urban	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	101
Urbanity	Rural	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	13
IMD quintiles	1 – Most deprived	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	35
IMD quintiles	2	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	32
IMD quintiles	3	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	21
IMD quintiles	4	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	16
IMD quintiles	5 – Least deprived	Based on the postcode the organisation was registered in.	10
Expenditure	499,999k or less	Based on 2022 expenditure due to significant gaps in 2023 data.	43
Expenditure	500k to 999,999k	Based on 2022 expenditure due to significant gaps in 2023 data.	30
Expenditure	1m or above	Based on 2022 expenditure due to significant gaps in 2023 data.	31
How often activities are undertaken	At least every two weeks	Answered ‘1. More than once a week’ or ‘2. Once every 1-2 weeks’ for all activities to Q7	32
How often activities are undertaken	Mixed frequency	All who didn’t answer ‘1. More than once a week’ or ‘2. Once every 1-2 weeks’ for all activities to Q7	82

Appendix 2: Survey Questionnaire

Sample groups

There are two sample groups. The first is the list identified through WP4, with personalised links to ensure that we can link back answers from WP5 to aid the secondary analysis. The second is an open link to share with umbrella organisations.

Info buttons definitions

FOR THE INFO BUTTONS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

Facilitating funding: Includes the following types of activities: providing advice or signposting towards funding sources; providing information and insights to include in bids; capacity building to support access to funding; engaged with funders; co-ordinating local bids; and grant distribution

Volunteering and community participation: Includes the following types of activities: providing advice or signposting about volunteering and community organising; promoting community participation; coordinating volunteers and facilitating volunteer engagement; and capacity building for volunteers.

Organisational development: Includes the following types of activities: providing advice or signposting to information about operational management and strategic development; providing templates and resources; training or developing frontline staff; tailoring support to help frontline organisations; and supporting the use and management of community assets.

Convening: Includes the following types of activities: bring networks of frontline organisations together or managing relationships in the sector; building collaborations and partnerships across, between or within sectors; and organising community-led activities for the benefit of the local community.

Advocacy: Includes the following types of activities: contributing to cross-sector meetings, forums, or partnership; intelligence sharing with decision makers or other organisations; representing or advocating for local sector’s views to decision makers; sharing decision maker’s perspectives with the local sector; developing a strategic sector voice; researching or providing data on local communities or the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector; and advocating within your sector for diverse communities.

Consent

Base: All respondents

CONSENT

Thank you for agreeing to take part in the Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) Survey. This survey is part of a broader programme of research supported by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

For the best experience, complete this survey on a desktop computer, laptop or tablet. You can also complete this survey on a smartphone. If you have an accessibility requirement, please get in touch with Ipsos via email [REMOVED] or call [REMOVED] and someone will get in touch to help complete the survey.

FOR SAMPLE GROUP 1: The organisation that you work for has been identified through publicly available databases as one that either works within or does work for local civil society infrastructure.

FOR SAMPLE GROUP 2: You have received the invitation to participate in this survey because you work for an organisation that: is a member of an umbrella organisation; has been invited due to your involvement in other programmes of work; or you saw this survey advertised through a conference or on social media.

We want to hear from the person who has the best overview of all activities undertaken by your organisation. Feel free to forward this link to another member of your organisation if they are more suitable to answer these types of questions.

Ipsos UK, an independent research agency, has been commissioned by DCMS to conduct this research. Ipsos UK is a member of the Market Research Society and acts in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). All information that you give us will be treated in the strictest confidence and your answers will be pseudonymised.

Taking part is voluntary and you can change your mind at any time. The survey should take 10 minutes to complete, depending on your answers.

If you would like to read our Privacy Policy, you can access it at [LINK]. This explains the purposes for processing your personal data as well as your rights under data protection regulations to access your personal data, withdraw consent, object to processing of your personal data and other required information.

Are you happy to continue with the survey? SINGLE CODE Please select one answer only.

1. Yes, continue to survey
2. No, I do not want to complete the survey [CLOSE]

If CONSENT = 2 SHOW: Thank you for registering that you do not wish to participate in this survey.

Screener

Base: All respondents

INTRO_SCREENER

The next few questions are about you and the organisation that you work for.

Base: All respondents in sample group 1 S1.A SINGLE CODE

Our understanding is that you work for <ORGANISATION PULL IN FROM SAMPLE>. Is this correct?

1. Yes
2. Yes – but name needs minor edits [SPECIFY]
3. No
4. Don’t know

Base: All respondents in sample group 2 or S1.A = 3 or S1.A=998 S1.B OPEN-ENDED

Please confirm the name of the organisation you work for.

Organisation: [OPEN TEXT BOX] 999. Prefer not to say [CLOSE]

Base: All respondents S3 SINGLE CODE

Where is your organisation located?

Please think about where your organisation is registered. If your organisation works across multiple sites, then please think about where your organisation does most of its activities.

Please select one answer only.

1. England
2. Wales [CLOSE]
3. Scotland [CLOSE]
4. Northern Ireland [CLOSE]
5. Prefer not to say

Base: All respondents CLOSED SINGLE CODE

Has your organisation been active in the last 12 months?

Please select one answer only.

1. Yes
2. No – Temporarily stopped operations
3. No – Permanently stopped operations [CLOSE]
4. Don’t know
5. Prefer not to say

Base: All respondents screened out at screener (S1.B=999 OR S3 = 2-4 OR CLOSED = 3 ) SCREEN OUT2 Thank you for your interest in this survey. Unfortunately, your organisation does not meet the criteria to participate. Thank you for your time.

Base: All respondents S4 MULTI CODE

Does your organisation do any of the following…?

Please select all that apply.

1. Act as an Umbrella or Resource body (advocating for, supporting, and facilitating networking)
2. Provide support or resources to other charities or voluntary bodies
3. Act as a Council for Voluntary Services (an overarching organisation which seeks to support and promote local civil society)
4. Act as a Volunteer Centre (promoting and brokering volunteer opportunities and best practice in managing volunteers)
5. Act as a Rural Community Council (advocating for rural issues, and providing services / support to rural communities, including support for village halls)
6. None of the above [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]
7. Don’t know

Base: All respondents S5 SINGLE CODE

Which of the following, if any, best describes your day-to-day role at work?

Please select one answer only.

Senior Management e.g. CEO, Executive Director etc. Management e.g. overall manager of a specific department Fundraising or business development Program and Service Delivery Communications and Marketing Administrative and Accounting Human Resources Volunteer Management / Volunteer Coordinator / Volunteer Brokering 996. Other [SPECIFY] 999. Prefer not to say

LCSI activities Base: All respondents INTRO_LCSI

Thank you for your answers. We are now going to ask you some questions about the activities your organisation does. We want to think specifically about the activities that your organisation does to support other organisations, for example frontline organisations, or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector.

For some activities we have provided examples to help explain what they are. These examples are not exhaustive and there could be other ways an organisation is doing these types of activities.

Please think about all activities across your organisation, regardless of whether you have personally worked on them.

SCRIPTING: RANDOMISE ORDER SHOWN OF Q1 – Q5

Base: All respondents Q1 MULTICODE

Which, if any, of the following activities related to facilitating funding has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months, for or on behalf of frontline organisations or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector?

Please select all that apply.

ROTATE 1-6

1. Provided advice or signposting towards funding sources, for example, providing information about grant or contract opportunities
2. Provided information or insights to include in bids, for example, providing technical support to improve bid writing
3. Capacity building to support access to funding, for example, training around grants or contracts
4. Engaged with funders, for example, influencing the design and targeting of grants or contracts
5. Co-ordinated local bids, for example, identifying local partnerships
6. Grant distribution
7. Other activities related to facilitating funding [SPECIFY]
8. None of the above. [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]
9. Don’t know. [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]

Base: All respondents Q2 MULTICODE

Which, if any, of the following activities related to volunteering and community participation has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months for or on behalf of frontline organisations or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector?

Please select all that apply.

ROTATE 1-4 1. Provided advice or signposting about volunteering and community organising, for example, provided information on volunteer management 2. Promoted community participation, for example, developed a strategy for volunteering or participation 3. Coordinated volunteers or facilitated volunteer engagement, for example, vetting, matching volunteers to organisations 4. Capacity building for volunteers, for example, developing specific skills 996. Other activities related to volunteering and community participation [SPECIFY] 997. None of the above. [EXCLUSIVE, FIX] 998. Don’t know. [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]

Base: All respondents Q3 MULTICODE

Which, if any, of the following activities related to organisational development has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months for or on behalf of frontline organisations or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector?

Please select all that apply.

ROTATE 1-5 1. Provided advice or signposting to information about operational management, business planning and strategic development 2. Provided templates or resources, for example, templates for legally compliant policies 3. Trained or developed frontline staff, for example, delivered equality, diversity and inclusion training 4. Tailored support to help frontline organisations, for example, helped clarify missions and objectives, business planning, demonstrated value or supported equality diversity and inclusion 5. Supported the use or management of community assets 996. Other activities related to organisational development [SPECIFY] 997. None of the above [EXCLUSIVE, FIX] 998. Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]

Base: All respondents Q4 MULTICODE

Which, if any, of the following activities related to convening has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months?

Please select all that apply.

ROTATE 1-3

Brought networks of frontline organisations together or managed relationships in the sector Built collaborations or partnerships across, between or within sectors Organised community-led activities for the benefit of the local community 996. Other activities related to convening [SPECIFY] 997. None of the above [EXCLUSIVE, FIX] 998. Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]

Base: All respondents Q5 MULTICODE

Which, if any, of the following activities related to advocacy has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months?

Please select all that apply.

ROTATE 1-7

1. Contributed to cross-sector meetings, forums, or partnerships, for example, sharing priorities or defining problems
2. Intelligence sharing with decision makers or other organisations, for example, early warning systems, identifying policy gaps
3. Represented or advocated for local sector’s views to decision makers
4. Shared decision maker’s perspectives with the local sector
5. Developed a strategic sector voice, for example, coordinated a local sector consensus about a policy
6. Researched or provided data on local communities or the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector
7. Advocated within your sector for diverse communities, for example, championing diversity
8. Other activities related to advocacy [SPECIFY]
9. None of the above [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]
10. Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]

Base: All who say 997 or 998 to all Q1 to Q5 questions (Q1=997 or 998 AND Q2= 997 or 998 AND Q3 = 997 OR 998 AND Q4 = 997 or 998 AND Q5 = 997 or 998) NOTA_FOLLOWUP OPEN-ENDED

What activities, if any, has your organisation undertaken in the last 12 months which supports frontline organisations or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector?

OPEN-ENDED BOX

1. My organisation has not undertaken any activities which support other organisations
2. Don’t know

Base: All respondents who gave one valid answer at Q1-Q5. E.g. Gave a valid answer (excluding don’t know and none of these) Q6 OPEN-ENDED PERCENTAGE ONLY BOX

Thinking about the types of activities you’ve been shown, what percentage of overall staff time at your organisation was spent on these activities in the last 12 months?

Please put your estimate for the percentage of staff time that was spent on each type of activity. This estimate can be a ballpark and you can give a very rough breakdown. Please include all staff at your organisation including full-time and part-time staff.

Codes	Scripting hold order from order of questions show to respondents. If respondent did not give answer to Q1 – Q5 below autocode answer 0%.	SCRIPTING BOX FOR PERCENTAGES. 100% MAXIMUM. SHOW AUTO-CALCULATOR OF PERCENTAGES
1	Facilitating funding (i) (Q1)
2	Volunteering and community participation (i) (Q2)
3	Organisational development (i) (Q3)
4	Convening (i) (Q4)
5	Advocacy (i) (Q5)
995	Other activities in the VCSE (i) sector not included in the list above
997	Other activities unrelated to program work, for example human resources or admin

1. Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]

Base: All respondents who gave a valid answer at Q1 to Q5. Q7 COLLAPSIBLE GRID

SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

How often in the last 12 months, has your organisation undertaken the following types of activities?

Please select one answer per activity.

ACTIVITIES

Codes	Scripting hold order from order of questions show to respondents. ONLY SHOW CODE IF RESPONDENT GAVE A VALID ANSWER AT THE QUESTION.
1	Facilitating funding (i) (Q1)
2	Volunteering and community participation (i) (Q2)
3	Organisational development (i) (Q3)
4	Convening (i) (Q4)
5	Advocacy (i) (Q5)

SCALE – FORWARD / REVERSE 1-6 1. More than once a week 2. Once every 1 – 2 weeks 3. Once a month 4. Once every 3 – 6 months 5. Once a year 6. Less often 998. Don’t know [FIX]

Base: All respondents who gave more than 3 answers at Q1 to Q5. Q8 MULTICODE – MAXIMUM 3 ANSWERS

From the activities below that your organisation has undertaken in the last 12 months, which three activities were undertaken most often?

Please select three answers only.

PIPE IN ALL RESPONSES FROM Q1 TO Q5 – EXCLUDING OTHER (996), NONE OF THE ABOVE (977) AND DON’T KNOW (998). KEEP ORDER SHOWN FROM Q1 TO Q5.

IF RESPONDENT HAS LESS THAN THREE ANSWERS DO NOT SHOW QUESTION BUT AUTO-PIPE IN THE ANSWERS THEY GAVE.

1. None of the activities are conducted more often than others [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]
2. Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE, FIX]

LCSI Outcomes and Impact

Base: All respondents who gave answers at Q1-Q5 INTRO_OUTCOMES

We now want you to think about the outcomes and impacts of the activities your organisation has undertaken over the last 12 months.

SCRIPTING ONLY SHOW RELEVANT ACTIVITIES: We still want you to think about the following types of activities: facilitating funding (i), volunteering and community participation (i), organisational development (i), convening (i), and advocacy (i).

SCRIPTING HOLD ORDER QUESTIONS Q9 TO Q13 AS Q1 TO Q5. E.g. if Q1 shown first (facilitating funding) then Q9 is shown first.

Base: All respondents who did a facilitating funding activity (Q1= 1-996) Q9 COLLAPSIBLE GRID SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to facilitating funding (i) have contributed to achieving the following positive outcomes?

Please select one answer per statement

STATEMENTS RANDOMISE 1-5 1. Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs 2. Increased funding for local Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations 3. Improved ways of working within frontline organisations 4. Increased connections and relationships between Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations 5. Improved financial management of frontline organisations or other Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations

SCALE – FORWARD / REVERSE 1-4 1. To a great extent 2. To some extent 3. Hardly at all 4. Not at all 997. Not applicable to the activities my organisation did [FIX] 998. Don’t know [FIX] 999. Prefer not to say [FIX]

Base: All respondents who did a volunteering and community participation activity (Q2= 1-996) Q10 COLLAPSIBLE GRID SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to volunteering and community participation (i) have contributed to achieving the following positive outcomes?

Please select one answer per statement This report details the results of an online quantitative survey conducted with Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) organisations (from 3rd September to 7th October 2024). It sought to understand: the activities LCSI organisations undertake, how frequently they conduct them, the potential outcomes generated, perceptions towards the coverage of LCSI, and ways LCSI can be further supported.

The survey was informed by wider research including a literature review exploring the impact of LCSI and Theory of Change (ToC) workshops designed to understand the activities LCSI organisations undertake and the resulting outcomes. The survey used the categories of activities, and their associated outcomes developed through these earlier stages of research. As such they are mentioned throughout this report. These categories are:

• Facilitating funding
• Volunteering and community participation
• Organisational development
• Convening
• Advocacy

This is part of a wider research programme being supported by the R&D Science and Analysis Programme at DCMS.

This report details the results of an online quantitative survey conducted with Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) organisations (from 3rd September to 7th October 2024). It sought to understand: the activities LCSI organisations undertake, how frequently they conduct them, the potential outcomes generated, perceptions towards the coverage of LCSI, and ways LCSI can be further supported.

The survey was informed by wider research including a literature review exploring the impact of LCSI and Theory of Change (ToC) workshops designed to understand the activities LCSI organisations undertake and the resulting outcomes. The survey used the categories of activities, and their associated outcomes developed through these earlier stages of research. As such they are mentioned throughout this report. These categories are:

• Facilitating funding
• Volunteering and community participation
• Organisational development
• Convening
• Advocacy

This is part of a wider research programme being supported by the R&D Science and Analysis Programme at DCMS.

STATEMENTS RANDOMISE 1-4

1. Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs
2. Increased trust within or between communities
3. Frontline organisations (or other organisations in the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector) have an improved approach to community engagement
4. Organisations and / or volunteers better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve

SCALE – FORWARD / REVERSE 1-4

1. To a great extent
2. To some extent
3. Hardly at all
4. Not at all
5. Not applicable to the activities my organisation did [FIX]
6. Don’t know [FIX]
7. Prefer not to say [FIX]

Base: All respondents who did a organisational development activity (Q3= 1-996) Q11 COLLAPSIBLE GRID SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to organisational development (i) have contributed to achieving positive outcomes for the following…?

Please select one answer per statement

STATEMENTS RANDOMISE 1-7

1. Organisations better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve
2. Improved policy making on local priorities
3. Stronger relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations and their strategic partners
4. Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs
5. Improved ways of working within frontline organisations
6. Increased connections and relationships between Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations
7. Improved financial management of frontline or other Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations

SCALE – FORWARD / REVERSE 1-4

1. To a great extent
2. To some extent
3. Hardly at all
4. Not at all
5. Not applicable to the activities my organisation did [FIX]
6. Don’t know [FIX]
7. Prefer not to say [FIX]

Base: All respondents who did a convening activity (Q4= 1-996) Q12 COLLAPSIBLE GRID SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to convening (i) have contributed to achieving positive outcomes for the following…?

Please select one answer per statement

STATEMENTS RANDOMISE 1-5

1. Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs
2. Improved ways of working within frontline organisations
3. Increased connections and relationships between Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations
4. Stronger relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations and their strategic partners
5. Improved policy making on local priorities

SCALE – FORWARD / REVERSE 1-4

1. To a great extent
2. To some extent
3. Hardly at all
4. Not at all
5. Not applicable to the activities my organisation did [FIX]
6. Don’t know [FIX]
7. Prefer not to say [FIX]

Base: All respondents who did an advocacy activity (Q5= 1-996) Q13 COLLAPSIBLE GRID SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

To what extent, if at all, do you think the activities your organisation did related to advocacy (i) have contributed to achieving positive outcomes for the following…?

Please select one answer per statement

STATEMENTS RANDOMISE 1-6

1. Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations better meet local needs
2. Improved ways of working within frontline organisations
3. Increased connections and relationships between Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise organisations
4. Stronger relationships between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations and their strategic partners
5. Improved policy making on local priorities
6. Organisations better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve

SCALE – FORWARD / REVERSE 1-4

1. To a great extent
2. To some extent
3. Hardly at all
4. Not at all
5. Not applicable to the activities my organisation did [FIX]
6. Don’t know [FIX]
7. Prefer not to say [FIX]

Base: All respondents who gave a valid answer at Q1 to Q5. Q14 OPEN-ENDED – MAX 5000 CHARACTERS

SCRIPTING ONLY SHOW RELEVANT ACTIVITIES: Still thinking about the same types of activities, mainly facilitating funding (i), volunteering and community participation (i), organisational development (i), convening (i), and advocacy (i). We’ve discussed what impacts these activities have had on a range of areas.

Are there any other impacts or outcomes, not yet mentioned, that you associate with these activities?

Do not include any outcomes or impacts that were covered in the questions before. Please write in any outcomes or impacts.

OPEN-ENDED BOX

1. All outcomes or impacts covered in the questions before
2. Don’t know
3. Prefer not to say

Sufficient and strong LCSI

Base: All respondents INTRO_SUFF We want you to keep thinking about the provision of support for frontline organisations, or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector (VCSE) in your local area.

SCRIPTING RANDOMISE ORDER OF Q15 AND Q16 Base: All respondents Q15 COLLAPSIBLE GRID SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

How, if at all, would you rate the number of providers in your local area for the following types of activities…?

By local area, we mean the area your organisation works within most of the time, this could be at the local authority level, combined authority level or something else.

Please select one answer per activity.

ACTIVITIES

Codes	SCRIPTING - HOLD ORDER FROM Q1 – Q5
1	Facilitating funding (i)
2	Volunteering and community participation (i)
3	Organisational development (i)
4	Convening (i)
5	Advocacy (i)

SCALE FORWARD / REVERSE 1-6

1. Completely sufficient
2. Mostly sufficient
3. Somewhat sufficient
4. Somewhat lacking
5. Mostly lacking
6. Completely lacking
7. Don’t know [FIX]
8. Prefer not to say [FIX]

Base: All respondents Q16 COLLAPSIBLE GRID SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

How, if at all, would you rate the quality of services in your local area for the following types of activities…?

By local area, we mean the area your organisation works within most of the time, this could be at the local authority level, combined authority level or something else.

Please select one answer per activity.

ACTIVITIES

Codes	SCRIPTING - HOLD ORDER FROM Q1 – Q5
1	Facilitating funding (i)
2	Volunteering and community participation (i)
3	Organisational development (i)
4	Convening (i)
5	Advocacy (i)

SCALE – FORWARD / REVERSE 1-6

1. Excellent
2. Very good
3. Fairly good
4. Fairly poor
5. Very poor
6. Terrible
7. Don’t know [FIX]
8. Prefer not to say [FIX]

Base: All respondents Q17 COLLAPSIBLE GRID SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

We still want you to think about the organisations that provide support to frontline organisations, or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector (VCSE). Support can be provided through the following types of activities: facilitating funding (i), volunteering and community participation (i), organisational development (i), convening (i), and advocacy (i).

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)?

Please select one answer per statement.

COMPONENTS – RANDOMISE 1-8

1. Being independent of the government or local statutory authorities
2. Speaking on behalf of a sector
3. Having a good reputation with local civil society
4. Having a good reputation with policymakers
5. Being knowledgeable about the local area
6. Being present in a local area for a long time
7. Being well-funded
8. Being well connected to other organisations

SCALE – FORWARD / REVERSE 1-4

1. Very important
2. Fairly important
3. Not very important
4. Not at all important
5. Don’t know [FIX]
6. Prefer not to say [FIX]

Base: All respondents Q18 OPEN-ENDED

How, if at all, do you think that the organisations providing support to frontline organisations, or other organisations within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector could be supported themselves?

[OPEN TEXT BOX, MAX 500 CHARACTERS]

1. No further support is necessary
2. Don’t know

Base: All respondents Q19 SINGLE CODE

Do you think of your organisation as being part of the local civil society Infrastructure sector?

Please select one answer only

1. Yes – Fully
2. Yes - Somewhat
3. No
4. Never heard of local civil society infrastructure sector
5. Don’t know

Analysis of Outcome and impact work

Base: All respondents LINKS OPEN-ENDED

If your organisation has any existing reports or documentation on the outcomes and impacts of your activities, if possible, could you provide links to these documents?

This could include annual reports, evaluation reports or other documents. Please put one link in per box. To create new boxes please select the plus sign.

LINKS: [OPEN TEXT BOX] SCRIPTING ALLOW RESPONDENT TO ADD MORE TEXT BOXES WITH + SYMBOL. MAXIUMUM 20 ROWS.

1. My organisation has not published any reports
2. None of my organisation’s reports can be shared
3. Don’t know
4. Prefer not to say

Close Survey Base: All respondents RECONTACT

Thank you for participating in this survey. Would you be willing to be contacted again by Ipsos, or an organisation working on our behalf, about further research on Local Civil Society Infrastructure in the next 12 months?

Please select one answer only.

DO NOT RANDOMISE/ROTATE. SINGLE CODE. 1. Yes 2. No

Base: AGREE TO RECONTACT (RECONTACT = 1) C1 OPEN-END

So we know who to get in contact with, can you please provide your name?

Name: [OPEN TEXT BOX] 999. Prefer not to say

Base: AGREE TO RECONTACT (RECONTACT = 1) C2 OPEN-END

So we know who to get in contact with, can you please provide your email?

Email: [OPEN TEXT BOX] 999. Prefer not to say

Base: All respondents THANKYOU

Thank you for your time today on this survey. It is really appreciated. If you do have any further comments or queries related to this survey. Please contact: lcsi-survey@ipsosresearch.com

[^1] Although 9% of respondents said that they did not consider themselves as part of the sector, we have included their responses in the analysis throughout the report. This is because, although they might not consider themselves as part of the sector, they fulfil the functions that would be typical of organisations within the LCSI sector. This question was asked towards the end of the survey, after respondents had reported against the different activities and outcomes specified.