Civic Strength Index - The voluntary and community sector and civic strength
Karl Wilding
Voluntary organisations and community groups are widely viewed as contributing to strong communities. In London, this has been captured using a tool called the Civic Strength Index. It draws upon existing research to assess how different factors shape civic strength, via social connections, democratic engagement and physical infrastructure. By combining these indicators, the Index shows differences in civic strength – and points to where the voluntary and community sector might strengthen it.
Developing indicators to capture the contribution of these organisations is beset by issues of definition and data. Some contributions are easier to measure in principle – such as levels of grant funding or expenditure – but harder to put into practice, particularly at local level. We don’t always have the data available for a changing sector that spans different sources of data.
Amidst a sector with blurred boundaries, we also need to be clear on who or what we are measuring. Which organisations or grants should we include when assessing resources such as volunteering or expenditure? And how can we put into practice any definition? Such questions matter, particularly as efforts to show the contribution of the voluntary and community sector are more valuable if we can compare them.
MyCake and SuperHighways, with the support of the Greater London Authority, have sought to address these questions of data and definitions. By reviewing academic literature, existing mapping studies, and interviewing London stakeholders, we have developed criteria to more clearly focus on organisations and grantmaking that contribute to local civic strength.
Our work highlights several issues. First, there is a lack of clarity about what we mean by the voluntary and community sector. Some organisations with charitable status—such as statutory bodies, or national headquarters based in London but operating elsewhere—may not significantly enhance social connections, democratic engagement. Their infrastructure may not be a base for local action. Secondly, not all grantmaking to a place supports local voluntary and community organisations. Trusts and foundations, and statutory grantmakers, support a broader range of organisations and purposes, including statutory organisations. And finally, we have highlighted that data quality remains a challenge: public registers and data such as 360Giving are invaluable but incomplete, particularly in relation to geography.
This approach produces a focused, and we believe, more realistic view of the sector’s contribution to local civic strength. Using 2022-23 data for registered charities in London we excluded:
61% by number
89% by expenditure
76% of individual grants
98% by value
These proportions differ between inner and outer London.
These exclusions create a more accurate picture of the resources available to strengthen London's communities. They highlight that many of the formal resources in the sector are located in larger organisations that are ‘above the radar’. Conversely, smaller informal (and sometimes transient) ‘below-the-radar’ organisations that are likely to contribute to civic strength are rarely captured in such assessments.
We think that further development and standardisation of data and definitions is useful. Simple steps include more organisations publishing grantmaking data, and the use of commonly agreed indicators and definitions. A more ambitious goal is better data on informal community activity.
We think these steps will enable policymakers and funders to better understand how they can support communities. They will also help people and organisations in the local sector to set out their strengths and where more support can make a difference. The role and purpose of the voluntary and community sector continues to change – having a clear sense of what we most value about it is more important than ever.
You can access the full report below.