Research and analysis

Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI) R&D Programme - what works report

Published 11 July 2025

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

Methodology and project design

The purpose of Work Package 3 was to address research question 4: What factors and models are effective in strengthening LCSI?

The research consisted of nine 60-minute online interviews and one 75-minute workshop which sought to explore what participants felt were the most important contributors to the relative strength or weakness of LCSI.

Three interviews were with policy leads from national umbrella/membership organisations who represent and/or support providers of LCSI. Six interviews were held with people who had current or recent experience of leading LCSI organisations in England.

The workshop brought together contributors from relevant national umbrella/membership organisations alongside representatives from national funders, academia and experts in place-based change

We identified the interviewees from LCSI organisations through a purposive sampling approach. This involved establishing a long list of geographical areas in England which had experienced significant change in the provision of LCSI in recent years.

The long list was based on three sources of information:

• The knowledge of the research team.

• Insights from three national umbrella organisations participating in interviews.

• Other infrastructure organisations who have contributed to previous work packages, such as the TOC development, and in doing so identified potential suitable participants.

The team then narrowed this down to a shortlist of six priority geographical areas and identified individuals who would be approached for interview.

Following the completion of fieldwork, interview transcriptions were analysed and synthesised into a number of themes and key findings which are outlined in Section 2 below.

What factors and models are effective in strengthening LCSI?

There are no universally accepted definitions of what is meant by the strength of LCSI, nor are there any agreed ways of measuring it. Subsequently the insight and evidence generated through this work package have had to account for the open nature of the enquiry. To do so it has applied a broad and flexible definition to the concept of strength. This encompasses participants’ general reflections on how certain conditions help or hinder the strength, quality, effectiveness or sustainability of LCSI and reflects findings from Work Package 1, which identified how such concepts are often used interchangeably.

Summary

Interviews with LCSI organisations and umbrella bodies identified two key factors affecting the strength or weakness of LCSI – funding and relationships. The strength of LCSI is largely dependent on the quantity and quality of its funding, how effectively that funding is used and the nature, quality and condition of the relationships between key stakeholders locally.

A summary of the key findings of Work Package 3 are below:

• The quantity and quality of funding available is pivotal to the strength of LCSI, but the effectiveness with which funding is used is also important.

• A number of factors inherent to the funding system contribute to a weakening of LCSI. These include increasing scarcity, unclear responsibility, weak incentives and poor-quality evidence of effectiveness.

• Stakeholders have deployed a variety of responses to these challenges. While some have been successful, they are likely to be limited in scope and sustainability.

• The root causes of the problems within the funding system remain unaddressed and it is unlikely that stakeholders operating at the local level have sufficient scope, resources or power to resolve them effectively.

• Local operating environments contain a complex mix of providers, funders and beneficiaries of LCSI. A lack of centralised authority and decision-making means that the system is highly relational and political. As a result, the quality of relationships between key stakeholders has a large impact on the strength of LCSI.

• A wide range of high-quality relationships with the public sector, particularly local government, was seen as particularly important to the strength of LCSI. These relationships can only be developed and sustained where decision-makers take a strategic interest in local civil society, understand the purpose of LCSI and are convinced of its value. Capacity and capability among key stakeholders were seen as vital to enabling relationships to be established, developed and sustained.

• Participants were able to identify a limited range of methods and approaches which they felt were effective to building buy-in from the public sector, but these were varied in their success and hampered by poor quality evidence.

• Relationships of sufficient quality and strength were identified as key enablers to their formalisation through boards, meetings or other forums as well as wider collaboration with the public sector. This helped to mitigate risks inherent in the complexity of the system of local stakeholders.

• Relationships with front-line organisations were also deemed important to the strength of LCSI as they conferred legitimacy on providers and supported the generation of insight, collaboration and funding.

• Establishing and maintaining good quality relationships with front-line organisations was largely dependent on how LCSI organisations were perceived to operate. This included views on the extent to which they used their position of power and influence for the benefit of others, and how effective they were in delivering services.

Funding

The quantity and quality of funding plays a fundamental role in the strength of LCSI

The quantity of funding available to organisations was consistently identified as a key factor affecting the strength of LCSI. Participants felt that having sufficient income and resources to make LCSI organisations viable and sustainable was a key element of their strength as it plays a pivotal role in being able to acquire and deploy further resources to deliver the functions of LCSI.

[Some places are] working with reduced resources. So I would say you’ve had an overall weakening and a reduction in the capacity of that [infrastructure] support, obviously, that’s a negative thing.

    – Interview, national umbrella organisation

The quality of funding also plays a significant role in affecting the strength of LCSI. Throughout the research various descriptions of what constitutes quality were identified by participants. These included the length of time that funding was provided for, the consistency at which it was provided and the flexibility or level of conditionality attached to it.

At the organisational level, longer term funding was seen as providing increased levels of security and stability, enabling organisations to plan with greater certainty and focus on longer term goals. Security of funding was also thought to make LCSI organisations more attractive places to work for current or prospective employees, making recruitment and retention easier and enabling skills, knowledge, and relationships to be built and retained.

Similarly, the consistency of funding within a geographical area was also thought to affect the strength of LCSI. The consistent funding of LCSI by local government was seen as vital to providing stability and continuity of provision. It was generally felt this was most effective when consistent funding facilitated a local LCSI organisation or organisations to become deeply locally embedded, enabling them to develop the necessary relationships, knowledge, trust and credibility that enables them to be effective. Conversely a lack of consistency increased the risk of an instability of provision, leading to either a complete absence of provision or provider ‘churn’. This in turn meant the need to restart the process of embedding locally.

Good LCSI will be deeply embedded… it takes a long time to understand the place, have that sense of belonging, [and] understanding deep relationships.

    - Workshop participant

The flexibility of funding was also seen as contributing to the strength of LCSI. The provision of core funding was generally conceived as the ‘holy grail’ of good quality funding as it gave recipients more control over how resources could be deployed. Additionally, the willingness of a funder to be flexible in terms of how restricted funds were used was identified as being an important facilitator of innovation and supported a cycle of adaptation, learning and continuous improvement. It was felt that ultimately this enables LCSI to better meet local needs.

[The funder] flexed and flexed and flexed… if you’re really going to truly do it for the sake of the people and not the commissioners… you have to be able to flex and negotiate.

    - Interview, LCSI organisation

Conversely one former CEO of a ‘start up’ LCSI organisation highlighted how inflexible conditions applied by funders in relation to accessibility of funding undermined the viability of their organisation, making stability and growth all but impossible. In this way, the bureaucracy surrounding funding could act as a barrier to stronger LCSI.

One of the things that I found a real battle was that as a new startup organisation and an infrastructure organisation, it was impossible to get funding from anywhere. Because you’ve got no track record and [no evidence of] business viability. They look for… all the stuff that you would do for due diligence to ensure that, you know you’re investing into a sound business.

    – Interview, LCSI organisation

Factors inherent to the funding system create a series of complex challenges which can undermine the strength of LCSI

When discussing the quantity and quality of funding, participants tended to highlight how the nature and condition of the funding system impacted the resourcing and subsequent strength of LCSI. While local government was generally identified as the ‘traditional’ funder of LCSI (sometimes at both upper and lower-tier level simultaneously) it was recognised that financing is also derived from other sources such as local health systems, trusts and foundations and fees paid by front-line organisations.

It was generally felt that the financial environment in which these potential funders operate has deteriorated in recent years, with local government particularly affected. As a consequence, funding of LCSI has become scarcer and funders are perceived as increasingly risk-averse, potentially shortening funding timeframes and increasing conditionality. Issues resulting from increasing financial scarcity have been exacerbated by what participants identified as a lack of a clear responsibility for the funding of LCSI.

Given the precarity of local authority funding, vagaries of health funding and others… who is responsible for local civil society infrastructure? There’s no easy answer to that, but it isn’t just one set of stakeholders only

    - Workshop participant

In this context the historical reliance on local government funding was thought to be particularly problematic. This was due to the perceived risk that decisions about the financing of LCSI can be heavily influenced by individual perspectives and trade-offs with wider priorities.

When a council portfolio holder with responsibility for the VCSE sector has a budget reduction to meet. It’s a lot easier politically to slash another 10 or 15% of the funding for infrastructure support than it is to slash the same off the frontline support.

    – Interview, national umbrella organisation

Increased scarcity coupled with a lack of clear responsibility has resulted in a system in which the ability and incentive to fund LCSI are reduced, while the risk of behaviours which could lead to a weakening of LCSI, such as free riding^{[footnote 1]}, have been elevated.

In our networks’ experience, the NHS can make almost infinite demands of sector infrastructure and won’t ever contribute to it.

    - Workshop participant

For some, the condition of the funding system was also seen to be contributing to the weakening of LCSI in other ways. Perceptions were that increasing scarcity was leading to greater financial competition between LCSI and front line organisations. The most common example of this was LCSI organisations securing grants or contracts to deliver services outside of the generally established functions of infrastructure. For example, activities related to digital inclusion and social prescribing. They highlighted that while this diversification of income improved financial security and stability in the short term, it could also negatively affect relationships with local front-line organisations. Many felt that being in competition with local front-line organisations would likely weaken LCSI by eroding trust both from those organisations and other important public sector stakeholders.

[Delivering non-infrastructure services] would put us in direct competition with our members… I’m fairly sure that there would be a vocal kickback if we had lost that trust, and if that message was getting through to the statutory bodies and other funders, then we would lose money, but also we would potentially start to lose that trusted place at the table when we are talking to those organisations.

    - Interview, LCSI organisation

Others identified how growing scarcity within the financial system was leading funders to place greater emphasis on LCSI organisations demonstrating impact in order to access funding. While it was agreed that in theory this represented good practice, in reality it presented an insurmountable challenge for many LCSI organisations. Methodological, capacity and capability-related barriers to demonstrating impact are a long-standing issue for LCSI organisations. In the context of a more constrained financial system, the inability of LCSI organisations to make a case for investment and demonstrate value for money is felt by many to be a significant weakness of LCSI.

I am never going to be able to say, for every one pound you invest in [this LCSI organisation], you’re saving the Chancellor of the Exchequer £12 … I’d love to be able to do that, but it’s meaningless… and I do worry that as money gets tighter, that becomes more of an issue.

    - Interview, LCSI organisation

Broader challenges in relation to evidence and data were also thought to influence the funding of LCSI. Difficulties in being able to objectively measure, quantify and apportion outcomes to LCSI activities make it challenging to understand where funding is being used effectively. At the macro level this makes it difficult to identify where LCSI is relatively weak and to direct investment to strengthen it.

At the micro level it affects the ability for funding relationships to be supported by effective and credible accountability and evaluation mechanisms. The absence of objective ways to analyse the impact of LCSI can result in a greater reliance on subjective or opaque judgement. In some instances, this can lead to decision-making being driven by the quality of personal relationships between funders and providers, which could potentially lead to sub-optimal use of funding. Conversely it could also be destabilising and damaging to relationships, particularly in circumstances where funding decisions created clear ‘winners’ and ‘losers’.

Stakeholders have deployed a variety of strategies in response to these challenges

The challenges of increasing scarcity, unclear accountability, growing competition with front-line organisations and the quality and availability of evidence are likely to be felt in different ways in different parts of the country. This is partly because the underlying conditions differ, and partly because responses will vary among the actors involved.

The following section outlines some examples of different stakeholders seeking to use or influence the quantity and quality of funding available to strengthen LCSI.

LCSI organisations

The funding relationship between LCSI organisations and local government was generally considered to be the most important financial mechanism through which LCSI could be strengthened. Typically, this would involve contract or grant agreements, with funding flowing from local government into an LCSI organisation or organisations to finance certain functions of infrastructure.

Participants identified ways in which they have or can try to influence the funding decisions of local authorities to strengthen LCSI:

• Developing and curating relationships with key decision-makers within the local authority and trying to influence their decision-making about LCSI funding. This could cover a wide range of roles including political leaders, operational leaders and commissioners.

• Engaging with strategic reviews, consultations or tendering processes in relation to LCSI.

• Collection and reporting of quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate activity and output, including to meet grant requirements.

• Securing funding from grant makers outside of a local authority to pump-prime delivery of infrastructure functions with a view to demonstrating the benefits of infrastructure provision to local government.

To a lesser but seemingly growing extent, health systems were also cited as a potential source of income for LCSI. Strategic decisions to engage civil society in the development of health systems and services, setting priorities or initiating projects or programmes of work has in many places naturally led to increased connectivity and joint working between Integrated Care Systems and LCSI. Funding has sometimes been used to support LCSI’s engagement and participation in this work, although concerns about the variable quality of funding were raised.

There are 42 different ICBs [Integrated Care Boards], some of which are quite good at funding infrastructure support, but we can number those on less than two hands out of 42… there’s a long way to go with that.

   - Workshop participant

Separately from local government, participants also identified a broader set of funding strategies including generating income through membership fees or by charging for services such as training courses. While this may help diversify the funding for infrastructure, participants suggested it could also limit reach by making paid for memberships or services less appealing or accessible to front-line organisations, particularly smaller organisations with the least ability to pay.

Local government

Participants also identified ways in which local authorities use financial mechanisms to affect the provision of LCSI. By awarding grant agreements or contracts, local authorities can determine or heavily shape the nature of provision.

Organisations providing infrastructural support are doing it under something that looks much more like a contract with the public sector, which has the effect of the public sector defining what is going to be made available through infrastructure organisations.

   – Interview, national umbrella organisation

The funding mechanisms used by local authorities can also strengthen LCSI in other ways. One participant offered an example of an area in which LCSI was perceived to lack dynamism, had poor relationships with local government and only interacted with a small cohort of ‘friendly’ front-line organisations. In this circumstance, the council used its financial leverage to reduce funding and used tighter control over the conditions attached to it to encourage organisational improvement. Ultimately this resulted in the council managing a provider out of the market entirely, allowing a more effective organisation to take their place, thus acting as a catalyst for the strengthening of LCSI. This perhaps suggests that it is important to contextualise the impact of funding on the strength of LCSI within broader considerations of effectiveness.

There’s been a process, in some areas, of a weakening of those more historical, ossified organisations and their functions being taken over by other perhaps more dynamic, more responsive organisations, or they have gone through a process of internal reform… You’ve a weakening and a reduction in capacity. Sometimes that has been as part of a process of reform and renewal, which needed to happen anyway.

   – Participant from national umbrella organisation

Participants also discussed examples of local authorities using their financial power to redesign the configuration of LCSI within their area. This was often the case where council boundaries had changed, such as the creation of unitary authorities. Most commonly this would be achieved through a shift to a single contract or grant agreement across the new geography, which would in effect consolidate provision through a single existing provider, or by stimulating a start-up or merger of providers.

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

• Increased risk for local authorities resulting from larger financial commitments and longer-term funding.

• Reduced funding for multiple LCSI organisations, resulting in greater concentration of support.

• A loss of local identity or an imposition of an ‘outsider’ on the local area.

• Reduced independence of LCSI organisations if heavily reliant on a single funding source such as the local authority.

• Increased impact where an incumbent provider is of poor quality or becomes insolvent.

Trusts, foundations and grant making organisations

Participants identified how some trusts, foundations and grant making organisations were seeking to act as a catalyst for the development and strengthening LCSI in areas where it was thought to be weak or absent.

One participant described how their organisation had been contacted by a national funder who had identified an abnormally low level and quality of grant applications from the area in which they operated. This led to the LCSI organisation securing a grant to undertake a local needs assessment in relation to funding support and resulted in a longer-term funding relationship between the two organisations.

A funder described how the need and appetite to address gaps in infrastructure provision had emerged as part of their strategic work to support communities in England. Part of this was to convene a group of funders to finance a tender for infrastructure provision.

Different approaches, levels of success and limitations on local stakeholders’ ability to address some of the underlying challenges contributes to variance in the strength of LCSI

In terms of addressing the challenges that arise from the funding system, underlying conditions combined with the responses taken by stakeholders are likely to contribute to variance in the strength of LCSI. Complexity, local specificity and lack of systematic evidence makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions as to which approaches, if any, are most successful in strengthening LCSI.

Many of the responses described by participants were often limited in scope and sustainability, perhaps more akin to ‘sticking plaster’ approaches rather than solutions to the root cause of the problems. Ultimately this means that any strengthening of LCSI that results from these approaches is likely to be limited in impact, precarious in nature and variable from place to place.

It also indicates that stakeholders’ ability to solve rather than treat these problems is limited. While it is unrealistic to believe that systemic problems within the funding of LCSI can be irrevocably resolved, it perhaps identifies a role for other stakeholders, such as central government, in helping to address the root causes of the funding problems which weaken LCSI.

The point I have to make about [local] government having no money and [a] lack of certainty of funding… we are at the point where we have been promised multi-year settlements for councils… so potentially that’s an opportunity

   - Workshop participant

Relationships

Participants were unanimous in the belief that the strength of LCSI is heavily dependent on the breadth and quality of its relationships. The following section explores some of the reasons as to why relationships are so important for LCSI. It then outlines participants’ perspectives on which relationships are particularly important and explores the characteristics that are associated with good quality. Next it draws together insight on the key enablers of good quality relationships. Finally, it explores various methods by which stakeholders have sought to strengthen LCSI.

The complexity of local places means that LCSI works in a highly relational operating environment

Factors such as levels of poverty and deprivation, a settled or transitory population, the area’s age profile, levels of population diversity and the degree of rurality were cited as factors which contribute to variations in needs of local populations. The nature and make-up of civil society locally largely develops in response to these needs. Subsequently the needs of these local organisations play a significant role in shaping the nature and activities of LCSI.

You have areas of significant deprivation, areas with very transitory populations, generally urban areas, very high levels of poverty and other specific needs that often, I think, leads to a need for a much, much greater density and depth of infrastructure support. Because often [this] leads to a wider range of smaller VCSE organisations.

   - Interview, national umbrella organisations

The natural geography of an area plays an important role in shaping stakeholders’ views on what they consider to be ‘local’. The location of major towns and the nature and ease of travel between places shapes what local actors conceive to be their natural operating territory and can affect the configuration of provision in an area.

We have this very strange county where right the way through the middle, we have [a large geographical feature]. It’s a very odd thing. It’s a psychological thing… from my perspective we are divided between the north and west and the south.

   - Interview, LCSI organisation

While these local conditions play a formative role in shaping the nature, activities and configuration of LCSI, other forces and factors are also at play. One of the most important of these is the local landscape of LCSI providers, funders and a broader set of influential or interested stakeholders.

In any one place the functions of infrastructure can be delivered by multiple organisations from across the public, civil society and private sectors. Local funding arrangements for LCSI can involve a number of funders, and a variety of specifications, requirements and objectives. What can result is a highly complex local system of front-line organisations, LCSI providers and public sector and other funders. Stakeholders are likely to have differing perspectives on what constitutes ‘local’ as well as the purpose, function, benefits and quality of LCSI. Each may also be seeking to influence, shape and derive benefit from its activities. Consequently, LCSI operates in a context in which there is no centralised point of power or decision-making, and no universally agreed perspective on what it should do, how it should do it, and how well it is doing.

In the absence of a consensus, negotiation, balancing interests, making trade-offs and concessions across multiple stakeholders become important features of decision-making and action. In this context, the nature and quality of relationships between the individuals and organisations that constitute the local system play a significant role in how successfully it operates. Consequently, where these relationships are perceived to be good, LCSI is generally considered to be strong.

Challenges around power dynamics put local infrastructure bodies in the middle between statutory bodies and other organisations, and so they’re sort of that piggy in the middle… And having the tensions and how they manage that [effectively] is how you get to the point where you have really good local infrastructure.

   - Workshop participant

Being able to effectively build and sustain these relationships is largely dependent on the capacity and capability of the individuals involved. It was felt that stronger relationships are more likely to develop where people have the requisite skills and resources to invest in them, and can be compromised where actors have insufficient expertise, knowledge and time.

Some of the things that matter here are to do with skills, experience, capabilities, in terms of relationship building… that being sort of compromised by capacity constraints of people who are often overwhelmed.

   - Workshop participant

A wide range of high-quality relationships with key parts of the public sector locally were seen as vital for strong LCSI

Participants emphasised the importance of strong relationships between LCSI organisations and the public sector locally. While funding constituted a significant part of that relationship, participants highlighted the value of connections going beyond simply the financing of LCSI organisations.

If you can’t have a relationship with those statutory organisations in your area… if they won’t fund you, if they won’t listen to you, if they won’t invite you to the table, then you really are on a hiding to nothing.

   - Interview, LCSI organisation

Local authorities were considered the most important statutory stakeholder, and participants identified the importance of these relationships spanning all layers of a council’s hierarchy. Strategic relationships with council leaders and senior managers were considered particularly crucial. The notion of LCSI organisations being ‘at the top table’ or ‘in the room’ with the most senior decision makers was a common theme among participants. This arose in part because it made them feel as if their organisation was considered an equal and they could demonstrate that position to front-line organisations. But in addition, it could enable them to be influential in policymaking, particularly in those areas most relevant to civil society locally.

Furthermore, operational relationships were identified as important to the strength of LCSI. Having effective relationships with council officers across a wide range of local authority functions were also seen as important. This was particularly so among those functions in which local civil society was considered an important contributor to public services.

I think where infrastructure fits within the overall Council remit is important as well. So I think some of the more constructive conversations and connections were at the sort of strategic director level discussions which had input from employment, from adult social care, from health, from leisure. So we got that oversight… you could see how things could fit together.

   – Interview, LCSI organisation

The quality of these relationships was seen as a vital contributor to the strength of LCSI. In describing them either negatively or positively, participants revealed a number of common themes. Hierarchy and power imbalance were generally considered negative traits of relationships between LCSI and the statutory sector. Parity of esteem, mutual respect and collaboration were seen as the key characteristics of positive relationships, with participants generally describing them with terms such as ‘partnership,’ ‘equal,’ ‘grown up’, ‘respectful’, ‘trusting’. In contrast,

To be fair to our local government partners, there are really great relationships, and that makes a massive difference, because it does feel as though we are in it together. It might be tough, but we are trying to pull in the same direction, and we want the same things.

   - Interview, LCSI organisation

Buy in from public sector decision-makers was seen as key to establishing and building good quality relationships

For many, the quality of relationships with the public sector rested upon the extent to which decision-makers within those organisations had an interest in developing them. ‘Buy in’ was thought to emerge where stakeholders were sympathetic towards LCSI, including views on the value and importance of local civil society, perspectives on the utility of LCSI and their thoughts on the credibility and competency of LCSI providers and their senior leaders.

Positive relationships emerged where decision-makers within the statutory sector ‘bought into’ the importance of local civil society either as a general principle or in its potential role in helping the public sector realise its objectives. An appreciation of the functions of LCSI and its role in supporting statutory bodies to further their strategic interest was therefore seen by participants as fundamental to developing the kind of positive relationships that strengthen LCSI.

I’ve certainly seen places where that sort of [positive] relationship has been developed… it’s about increasing the awareness of the value and role of VCSE action.

   – Interview, national umbrella organisation

Participants identified two methods which they felt contributed to helping support the generation of buy-in among public sector decision-makers locally: working through local champions and demonstrating effectiveness during crisis and change.

Working through local champions

Participants highlighted the importance of ‘local champions’ as key to generating buy-in. These tended to be individuals or groups of individuals operating within local authorities who believed in the importance of local civil society as a key contributor to meeting local needs and understood the role of LCSI organisations in helping the local authority to utilise this. Building relationships with these individuals was seen as a way of influencing underlying organisational perspectives towards civil society and LCSI.

How you achieve that buy in is having [council] officers who are invested [in civil society] … so it’s not simply a transactional relationship… It’s about building those long-term relationships with officers who engage with the sector and the infrastructure supporting that sector on a daily, weekly basis… Having that kind of officer buy in leads in turn to political buy in.

   – Interview, national umbrella organisation

Demonstrating effectiveness during crisis and change

Demonstrating the effectiveness of LCSI through delivery was identified as a mechanism by which LCSI organisations could influence local authority decision-making. The pandemic was frequently cited as an example where perspectives on the value of civil society and the strategic importance of LCSI were positively transformed. Participants identified how the ability of local public services to effectively meet community needs was at times limited and civil society was a key mechanism for filling these gaps. The need for coordinated action across sectors meant that the strategic importance of LCSI organisations was enhanced, and their ability to deliver effectively built credibility and buy-in among local government stakeholders.

I think [the] experience of Covid has reawakened in local government an understanding and knowledge and realisation of the vital [work] that VCSE organisations do, and therefore, by association, the vital work [and] the importance of infrastructure.

   – Interview, national umbrella organisation

Similarly, transformation of local health systems through the establishment of Integrated Care Boards and the development of Integrated Care Systems has also created a dynamic in which an appreciation of the role of civil society in meeting local needs has become more prevalent. Participants described how the role of LCSI organisations as a strategic node for the development and effectiveness of these systems had brought with it renewed appreciation of its importance and therefore contributed to the cultivation of positive relationships.

Good quality relationships can be a key enabler of more formal and collaborative approaches to developing and strengthening LCSI.

Participants frequently portrayed good quality relationships as a desirable outcome which resulted from the level of local buy-in. They also tended to consider these relationships as an enabler for a more formalised and collaborative approach to LCSI. These were often seen as desirable as they could help to mitigate some of the risks that arise from the complex and relational nature of the system locally. Some examples of this were where key stakeholders had established formal meetings or forums in order to better manage their relationships and/or to develop and deliver shared plans, strategies and funding mechanisms in relation to LCSI.

In part formal structures were desirable because they were seen to imbue the relationship with a sense of importance and solidity. Participants also identified that relationships held solely between individuals created risks from people changing roles or organisations. As such, there was a general consensus that augmenting personal relationships between individuals with more formalised relationships between organisations was an important method by which LCSI could be strengthened.

I think councils that do this really well will often have formal meetings of the senior leadership of the council, local infrastructure organisation leadership and major VCSE [organisation] leadership.

   – Interview, national umbrella organisation

In local systems where provision was absent or had broken down, good quality relationships were seen as vital to enabling the system to come together in a conscious attempt to strengthen LCSI. For example, one participant described the importance of relationships in navigating how to provide collaborative funding opportunities. They highlighted that where they have the right relationships, coordination can help to simplify and reduce tensions including potentially competing agendas within which LCSI is operating.

[In some of the areas we work] alliances of people have come together and identified they want to strengthen their sector infrastructure… do[ing] a bit of reimagining of what that might look like, including thinking about what the [LCSI] tender looks like… there’s a group of about six funders who came together to fund the tender.

   - Workshop participant

Another participant described developing a broad-based coalition of local ‘anchor’ organisations. This coalition comprised of a mixture of public sector, LCSI and front-line organisations that have come together to jointly implement systemic change through collaborative delivery of infrastructure functions. This included activities such as developing networks for funding distribution and innovation approaches to organisational development through joint training programmes.

A network of organisations working at place level… with a shared set of principles… to enable system change at the place level, based in community development practice, [and] capacity building… enabling the ecosystem of smaller organisations around them.

   – Interview, national umbrella organisation

Relationships with front-line organisations were also considered an important factor affecting the strength of LCSI

The extent and quality of relationships with front line civil society organisations locally was also identified as an important contributor to the strength of LCSI. These relationships were considered important for a number of reasons.

  1. They were thought to provide legitimacy for LCSI organisations in their role as representatives of and advocates for the wider sector, which in turn contributed to the strength of relationships with statutory organisations.
  2. They enable LCSI organisations to generate insight and intelligence about the needs and challenges facing front-line organisations. Collating and communicating this insight and intelligence was considered a vital part of LCSI functionality which was valued by stakeholders and enhanced their reputation and perceived utility.
  3. They help to improve coordination, reduce duplication and stimulate collaboration among front-line organisations, which was considered an important contributor to the effectiveness and sustainability of local civil society.
  4. Relationships with front-line organisations were thought to contribute to the financial strength of LCSI as they could help to build a customer base for paid for services which in turn could contribute to income diversification and financial sustainability. Although as noted earlier there are indications that the ability of some, particularly smaller, front line organisations to do so is limited by the scarcity of funding

Notions of trust, transparency, independence, and neutrality were seen as important behavioural markers supporting high quality relationships with the sector, which in turn would help to underpin relationships with the public sector and therefore contribute to the strength of LCSI.

In contrast, poor quality relationships with the wider sector tended to be described as ones which lacked trust and transparency, were lacking in reach or engagement with a broad cross section of front-line organisations or were insufficiently dynamic to respond to emerging or changing need. As highlighted in earlier sections, the perception of LCSI as a financial competitor was seen by some to be damaging to relationships and a contributor to weaker LCSI. However, this was not a universally held opinion.

Good quality relationships with front-line organisations are shaped by perceptions about the behaviour and effectiveness of LCSI.**

Behaviour in relation to power and funding

Participants identified that the position and role afforded to LCSI organisations gave them a degree of power and influence. The way in which they used and shared that power had a significant impact on how they were perceived by front-line organisations and the subsequent quality of relationships.

We are quite privileged in some of the meetings that we go to represent the sector, where you do hear about funding opportunities or new possibilities or new plans. And if every time we were saying, ‘Give us that money and we’ll run that project’, then very soon, our relationship with our members and our wider sector would deteriorate because they would just see us lining our pockets.

    -Interview, LCSI organisation

Consistent delivery of high-quality services

Relationships with front-line organisations were also shaped by perceptions of organisational performance, utility and connection. The ability to be helpful, responsive and to deliver effective services mediated through trusted relationships between individuals also played a role in forming effective relationships with front-line organisations.

Relationships [with the sector] are built up by the staff team. …that ability to shine and be successful is about that whole staff team being good at what they do and being responsive and being knowledgeable and being approachable.

    - Interview, LCSI organisation

Participants identified good organisational practices such as investment in staff development, flexible management and good leadership as contributing to building and retaining an effective workforce. For one participant the foundation of their team’s effectiveness was their approach to recruitment, which they described as ‘values based.’ This was seen as contributing to high-quality service delivery.

I can teach someone the skills they need to be a development worker. I can’t teach them the love and the interest in the voluntary and community sector and the work of small organisations.

    - Interview, LCSI organisation

Conclusions

The strength of LCSI is largely dependent on the quantity and quality of its funding, how effectively that funding is used and the nature, quality and condition of the relationships between key stakeholders locally.

Challenges inherent to the funding system for LCSI have contributed to both a weakening over time and variance between places. In response, stakeholders have deployed a variety of methods, tactics and strategies to shape the delivery and quality of LCSI within this context. While some have identified areas of success, these are likely to be limited in their impact and sustainability and there is no systematic or comparable evidence by which we can judge their effectiveness.

Additionally, stakeholders seem to have limited ability to address the root causes of the problems that exist within the funding system. Left unresolved it is likely that LCSI will not be sufficiently and sustainably strengthened and further decline and continued geographical variation in coverage and quality is likely to be the result.

The complexity and relational nature of the local context that LCSI operates in means that relationships between key stakeholders play a fundamental role in the strength of LCSI. Relationships with public sector organisations, particularly local government, are vital. Much of the variance in the quality of these relationships derives from views among decision-makers about the inherent value of civil society and the utility and quality of LCSI provision.

Much of this indicates that sustainably strengthening LCSI in a way that addresses variance in coverage and quality requires a significant intervention in terms of addressing the root causes of the problems in the financial system, developing strategic relationships between the public sector and civil society locally and developing a more robust evidence base in relation to impact and effectiveness.

Areas for further exploration

Research question	Main gaps in understanding	Actions
RQ4: What factors and models are effective in strengthening LCSI?	The WP3 interviews highlighted how there is no agreed definition of LCSI strength amongst stakeholders. It was also challenging to identify specific models for strengthening LCSI that could be applied across different contexts. It will also be important to gather insights from other groups including frontline organisations and the public sector to understand how they perceive LCSI, including the conditions that influence strength or weakness.	Work Package 6 (Local case study research) can capture further reflections on LCSI in each locality including from frontline and public sector organisations.

1. Free-riding is a type of market failure whereby a beneficiary of a public good can enjoy those benefits even where they do not contribute financially. For example, front-line organisations may benefit from the advocacy work of LCSI even if they do not pay for them or statutory bodies could benefit from LCSI’s capacity building or convening activities even if they do not provide funding. ↩