Data report · Local infrastructure · England
251 LIOs, read in detail.
What 251 local infrastructure organisations (LIOs) report to the Charity Commission about their income, funders, services, partners and risks — aggregated from their latest annual accounts.
251 annual reports. £247.1M of income in the latest year. 2,085 distinct funders named. 4,022 partnerships disclosed.
Section 01
Where the money comes from
The structure of local infrastructure income, totalled across 251LIOs with finance data on file in the Charity Commission's latest extract. The chart below is the SORP statement-of-financial-activities view — “charitable activities” is the line that contains service contracts, training, fees and commissioned delivery.
Of which: government grants
£85.9M
Reported separately in the Part A annual return as income from government grants.
Of which: government contracts
£50.6M
Reported separately as income from government contracts.
Combined, government grants and contracts account for 55% of the total income reported by the 233 LIOs who disclosed a non-zero figure for either.
Section 02
The income trend, last 5 years
Each year of Part B annual returns, summed across LIOs reporting that year. Volumes shift slightly year to year because different LIOs file at different times — the share of income coming from government is the more stable signal.
Total income each year. Dark bar shows the share from government grants & contracts (Part A disclosure); light bar is the rest. Years where fewer than 30 LIOs filed are excluded.
Total expenditure, by year
Same cohort, same years, summed expenditure. Bars share a scale with the income chart above, so the shorter the expenditure bar relative to its income twin, the bigger the implied aggregate surplus for the cohort that year.
Red bars mark years where total expenditure exceeded total income across the cohort. The pandemic year (2021) shows expenditure conspicuously low relative to income — the surplus that year was driven by suppressed spending, not an income windfall — and the gap closes from 2022 onward as spending rebounds faster than income.
In surplus, or in deficit?
For each year, the share of filing LIOs whose income exceeded their expenditure (surplus) versus the opposite (deficit). The deficit share has risen every year since 2021.
Bar shows surplus (dark) vs deficit (red); count on the right is surplus / deficit LIOs.
…and by how much?
Distribution of each year's reported margin (income − expenditure / income) across filing LIOs. Box spans the interquartile range with the median marked; whiskers extend to the most extreme value within 1.5×IQR. Both the median and the lower whisker drift downward each year — the sector isn't just seeing more deficits, the deficits are getting deeper.
2021 median: +11% · 2025 median: +0%. Outliers beyond 1.5×IQR not drawn individually; reporting artefacts beyond ±200% margin already filtered out at build time.
Median income index, base year = 100
Each LIO with a filing in 2021 is indexed to 100 in that year. For each subsequent year, we plot the median of the per-LIO indexes — counting only LIOs that have a filing in both their base year and the year shown.
From 2021 to 2025, the typical LIO's income reached an index of 123 in nominal terms (+23%). In real terms (CPI-deflated) the index reached only 101 (+1%).
Growing or shrinking? Nominal vs real terms
For each of 247 LIOs with at least a 4-year filing history (median span), the change in total income between the earliest and latest year — both in cash terms and after CPI deflation.
Average nominal change in income: 103%. Average real change (CPI-deflated): 71%.
In real terms, 112 of 242 LIOs (46%) grew, 103 (43%) shrank. Nominally, 161 (67%) grew and 61 (25%) shrank. CPI deflation uses the ONS annual-average index, rebased to 2018 = 100.
Section 03
What LIOs sell
The detail underneath the “charitable activities” and “trading” lines — every distinct earned-income stream named in the 251 annual reports. AI extraction parses the notes that break down income from charitable activities, so we can see what specifically was sold.
| Stream | LIOs reporting | £ disclosed |
|---|---|---|
Other Earned Income e.g. “Income from providing advice, training and support services.” | 216 | £42.3M |
Service Contracts e.g. “Services provided under contract for Projects.” | 97 | £38.6M |
Room Hire e.g. “Provision of accommodation & support services to other charities, including room hire and service charges.” | 84 | £5.4M |
Consultancy e.g. “Income from community accounting services.” | 29 | £3.9M |
Grant Management e.g. “Income from local authority grants and service level agreements for grant administration.” | 7 | £2.3M |
Training e.g. “Services provided under contract for Training.” | 41 | £322k |
Events Conferences e.g. “All other trading income has been generated from Brierley Hill Civic Hall.” | 13 | £287k |
Membership Fees e.g. “Membership fees and membership additional fees received from Centre 70.” | 32 | £285k |
Retail e.g. “Income from the Charity Shop, which unfortunately did not show a profit this year.” | 9 | £182k |
“Other earned income” is a catch-all the model used where the underlying description didn't clearly fit a named category. Amounts shown are the sum of £ figures disclosed in the relevant notes; some streams are described qualitatively without a separate figure and contribute to the LIO count but not the £ total.
Section 04
Funders, in detail
Every funder named in any of the 251 annual reports — 2,085 distinct organisations after name normalisation. Each one appears in the accounts of one or more LIOs. The table is sortable by funder type — useful for separating government bodies from trusts from the Lottery.
| Funder | ||
|---|---|---|
National Lottery Community Fund also: National Lottery Unlocking Wellbeing (+4 more) | 142 | £9.0M 71/271 |
Integrated Care Board (regional) also: Kent & Medway Integrated Care Board · NHS SE London ICB (+3 more) | 61 | £4.3M 22/81 |
Community Foundation (UKCF network) also: Suffolk Community Foundation Food and Drink Fund (+4 more) | 60 | £480k 30/94 |
UK Shared Prosperity Fund also: UKSPF Community Grant · UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) (+3 more) | 53 | £4.4M 26/78 |
NHS England also: NHS · CW+/DHS Charities Together/NHS England · NHS Charities (+2 more) | 41 | £3.0M 12/72 |
Public Health also: Public Health Derbyshire | 16 | £325k 5/19 |
Sport England | 15 | £144k 7/15 |
City Bridge Foundation also: City Bridge Trust · The City Bridge Foundation | 14 | £331k 7/25 |
NAVCA | 13 | £33k 7/14 |
Derbyshire County Council also: Derbyshire County Council Public Health | 12 | £214k 6/37 |
National Lottery Heritage Fund also: Heritage Lottery Fund · The National Lottery Heritage Fund | 12 | £315k 6/17 |
Arts Council England also: Arts Council | 12 | £2.1M 4/16 |
Garfield Weston Foundation also: Garfield Western · Garfield Weston | 12 | £180k 10/12 |
Greater London Authority also: Greater London Authority Young Londoners Fund (+2 more) | 9 | £338k 4/14 |
Big Local also: Big Local Trust · Big Local fund · Big Local CIO | 9 | £317k 3/9 |
European Social Fund | 8 | £20k 1/8 |
GLA | 8 | £57k 2/8 |
Essex County Council | 7 | £75k 3/11 |
Henry Smith Charity also: Henry Smith · Henry Smith Foundation · Henry Smith Charitable Trust | 7 | £205k 5/9 |
Leicestershire County Council | 7 | £602k 5/8 |
Macmillan Cancer Support also: Macmillan | 6 | £78k 2/9 |
ACRE also: ACRE - Action with Communities in Rural England (+1 more) | 6 | £178k 3/8 |
DEFRA also: Defra | 6 | £146k 4/7 |
Cadent Gas also: Cadent · Cadent Gas Limited | 6 | £485k 5/7 |
Sir James Knott Trust also: The Sir James Knott Trust · Sir James Knott | 6 | £37k 6/7 |
NHS Charities Together | 6 | — |
Active Partners Trust also: Active Partners | 6 | £93k 6/6 |
Nottinghamshire County Council | 6 | £527k 6/6 |
Groundwork UK also: Groundwork | 6 | £66k 4/6 |
Devon County Council | 5 | £165k 4/22 |
Section 05
The money flowing back out
49% of LIOs (122 of 251) operate their own grant-making programmes — distributing money on to smaller local organisations. The accounts disclose 1,885 individual grants; where amounts are stated, the total is £25.1M (median grant: £5k).
Distribution by grant size · 1,355 grants with a £ amount disclosed
Section 06
Who LIOs work with
Annual reports from the 251 LIOs name 4,022 partner organisations. The LLM categorises each by type — categories below are what the trustees themselves described, not an external scheme.
Most-shared named partners (excluding singletons). Filter by type to see the specific bodies LIOs work with most.
| Most-shared partners across the sector | LIOs |
|---|---|
NAVCA | 46 |
NCVO | 34 |
NHS England | 14 |
Integrated Care Board | 12 |
Public Health | 11 |
Age UK | 11 |
Health and Wellbeing Board | 10 |
London Plus | 9 |
VCSE Alliance | 7 |
Derbyshire County Council | 7 |
Primary Care Networks | 6 |
Locality | 6 |
British Red Cross | 6 |
Citizens Advice | 6 |
Community Safety Partnership | 5 |
DWP | 5 |
police | 5 |
Healthwatch | 4 |
Nottinghamshire County Council | 4 |
NHS partners | 4 |
Partners named in only one LIO's accounts are excluded — the table shows where the same partner shows up across multiple LIOs, which is what makes the local-infrastructure network visible.
Section 07
Reserves cover
Months of operating cover reported by LIOs whose accounts state a months-of-reserves figure. 151 of 251LIOs disclose this in their trustees' report; the average across that group is 5.3 months.
7 LIOs disclosed an explicit going-concern uncertainty in their auditor's or trustees' report.
Section 08
How concentrated is each LIO's income?
For each LIO that names at least three funders with a £ figure, we compute the share of named-funder income coming from the single biggest source — a direct measure of “is one funder dominant?”.
Across the 149 LIOs in scope (median 8 named funders each) the average top-funder share is 47% — i.e., the typical LIO gets nearly half its named income from a single funder. (102 LIOs are excluded because they disclose fewer than three named funder amounts.)
In the “≥80% from one source” bucket (12 LIOs), who is the dominant funder?
It's not a single common dependency — each highly-concentrated LIO has its own specific bottleneck. Grouped by funder type:
4
Local authority
3
Lottery & NDPBs
2
National government
1
Other (named)
1
Trusts & foundations
1
NHS / Public Health
Show the named dominant funders (12)
- Sutton and Merton Clinical Commissioning Group · Other (named)£1.5M
- Summerfield Charitable Trust · Trusts & foundations£1.5M
- NHS England · NHS / Public Health£1.3M
- UK Shared Prosperity Fund · National government£1.0M
- Levelling Up Funds · National government£1.0M
- Arts Council England · Lottery & NDPBs£760k
- BCP Council · Local authority£552k
- Herefordshire Council · Local authority£526k
- Worcestershire County Council · Local authority£147k
- National Lottery Heritage Fund · Lottery & NDPBs£109k
- National Lottery Community Fund · Lottery & NDPBs£49k
- London Borough of Camden · Local authority£49k
In the “top funder 50–80%” bucket (47 LIOs), who is the dominant funder?
19
Local authority
10
Other (named)
9
Lottery & NDPBs
5
NHS / Public Health
2
National government
1
Trusts & foundations
1
Universities & education
Show the named dominant funders (39)
- National Lottery Community Fund · Lottery & NDPBs7 LIOs
- UK Shared Prosperity Fund · National government2 LIOs
- Integrated Care Board (regional) · NHS / Public Health2 LIOs
- London Borough of Barking & Dagenham · Local authority1 LIO
- Government grants · Other (named)1 LIO
- Big Local · Other (named)1 LIO
- Hampshire County Council · Local authority1 LIO
- Slough Borough Council · Local authority1 LIO
- Social Prescribing - Mental Health · Other (named)1 LIO
- Leicester City Council · Local authority1 LIO
- NHS Lincolnshire ICB · NHS / Public Health1 LIO
- London Borough of Richmond upon Thames · Local authority1 LIO
- LB Lewisham · Other (named)1 LIO
- Thurrock Council · Local authority1 LIO
- John Armitage Charitable Trust · Trusts & foundations1 LIO
- East Sussex County Council · Local authority1 LIO
- Hertfordshire County Council · Local authority1 LIO
- NHS CIOS ICB · NHS / Public Health1 LIO
- Contracts and Trusts · Other (named)1 LIO
- Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board · Universities & education1 LIO
- Cadent Gas · Other (named)1 LIO
- Health and Wellbeing Alliance · Other (named)1 LIO
- Sport England · Lottery & NDPBs1 LIO
- Arts Council England · Lottery & NDPBs1 LIO
- Rutland County Council · Local authority1 LIO
- Surrey County Council · Local authority1 LIO
- NHS England · NHS / Public Health1 LIO
- Wakefield Council · Local authority1 LIO
- Charitable trusts · Other (named)1 LIO
- Devon County Council · Local authority1 LIO
Section 09
Risks LIOs disclose, by theme
Trustees' reports describe principal risks in narrative form. The themes below are clustered from 837 risk descriptions across 251LIOs — quotes are pulled verbatim from the source documents, with the reporting LIO's name removed.
Specific contracts ending, single-funder dependency, in-housing
33 mentions · 28 LIOsSeveral LIOs flag named contracts ending without a successor — sometimes a council taking the service in-house, sometimes a commissioning model that simply stops. The single-contract dependency is a structural risk for infrastructure orgs.
- “Level of funds required to maintain service delivery in the event of a significant unanticipated loss of funding or shortfall in income, or other reasons of need (e.g., the unforeseen, far-reaching impact of Covid-19 including the implications of lockdown on funding and…”
- “Reductions in Public Sector Funding: Diminishing local and central government investment in the voluntary and community sector remains a critical concern. These reductions may limit opportunities for collaboration, commissioning, and grant funding, particularly in…”
- “Likelihood and impact of different income streams falling below, or associated expenditure exceeding, budget levels, including significant recent instances of long-standing grants being terminated (e.g., Kent County Council funding of befriending services).”
Fixed-price contracts vs inflation, NIC & wage pressure
31 mentions · 29 LIOsMulti-year contracts agreed at fixed prices — typical for local-authority commissioning — are exposed as wages, employer NICs and operating costs rise faster than the contract uplift.
- “Rising costs, wage pressures, and funding uncertainty forced many Voluntary Community Sector Enterprise (VCSE) organisations to review services. Increased demand for services (e.g. poverty, mental health, homelessness) stretched capacity and council funding pressures leading…”
- “It is harder for local charities to raise money than in previous years, with fewer sources of funding and grants not keeping pace with rising costs. This increases the number of applications and awards required to secure funding and the amount of monitoring and reporting,…”
- “Planned activity levels and organisational commitments and level of operating funds needed to cover essential associated management, administration, fundraising and support costs (including immediate concerns about the extent and timing of utility cost increases and their…”
Demand: cost-of-living, mental health, hate crime, climate
31 mentions · 26 LIOsSpecific local demand pressures named in trustees' reports — cost-of-living impact on member orgs and beneficiaries, mental health workload, rising hate-crime caseload, climate physical risk to vulnerable neighbourhoods.
- “Rising costs, wage pressures, and funding uncertainty forced many Voluntary Community Sector Enterprise (VCSE) organisations to review services. Increased demand for services (e.g. poverty, mental health, homelessness) stretched capacity and council funding pressures leading…”
- “Potential volatility in the value of, and uncertainty in the receipt of, sufficient annual funding grants, particularly unrestricted funds. This risk is heightened by ongoing economic challenges facing the UK, including the longer-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the…”
- “Planned activity levels and organisational commitments and level of operating funds needed to cover essential associated management, administration, fundraising and support costs (including immediate concerns about the extent and timing of utility cost increases and their…”
Safeguarding, regulation & compliance burden
24 mentions · 21 LIOsThe legal-and-regulatory environment — safeguarding obligations, health and safety, GDPR, employment law, equality duties — is getting denser; LIOs flag the compliance overhead and the consequences of a single failure.
- “Working in an environment where the weight and complexity of legal requirements in areas such as health and safety, safeguarding, employment law, equal opportunities and [the LIO] is growing. The "whole system approach" brings its own challenges, e.g., the need for technical…”
- “Non-financial risks in terms of adopting procedures to ensure legislative compliance with health and safety of staff, clients and visitors, employment law and equal opportunities.”
- “Financial mismanagement, inaccuracies, or non-compliance with regulatory standards, which could lead to financial losses, legal penalties, and damage to the company's reputation.”
Key-person dependency, staff transitions, recruitment
15 mentions · 15 LIOsLIOs are small. Many flag that the loss of one or two senior staff would materially affect delivery, with no ready-made replacements and limited capacity for handover or succession planning.
- “High level of dependency on key staff, exacerbated by the diversity of activities and high levels of specialism among senior staff. Significant risk if staff leave through resignation or illness, with no ready-made replacements beyond the short term.”
- “General cost of living pressures, impacting the ability of the charity to sustain current levels of support, including retention of staff and volunteer resource.”
- “Limited resources to recruit and retain staff to deliver programmes, compounded by high costs of living in London and salary constraints of local charities.”
Funder behaviour shifting
14 mentions · 13 LIOsGrants are getting smaller, shorter, and more reporting-heavy. Several LIOs flag that monitoring overhead is eating into delivery time, and AI in funder selection is starting to surface as both opportunity and threat.
- “Grant funding remains highly challenging, with funders continuing to focus on short-term grants, often for relatively small amounts but with increased expectations around reporting. Securing grant funding is highly competitive, with artificial intelligence both a help and a…”
- “It is harder for local charities to raise money than in previous years, with fewer sources of funding and grants not keeping pace with rising costs. This increases the number of applications and awards required to secure funding and the amount of monitoring and reporting,…”
- “External Financial Risks: [the LIO]'s income is generated through grants, contracts and direct, paid for, services. The landscape is changing nationally and locally with, for example, the abolition of NHS England, the restructure of the Integrated Care System and the…”
Volunteer recruitment & retention
12 mentions · 12 LIOsVolunteer numbers, demographics and engagement patterns are shifting — cost-of-living pressures, ageing volunteer pools, post-pandemic digital habits, and health/wellbeing constraints are all named.
- “Risks related to pay policy, trustee code of conduct, conflict of interest policy, trustee recruitment and retention policy, data protection policy, volunteer recruitment policy, ex-offenders volunteering policy, and revised recruitment policy.”
- “The nature of volunteering is changing, both locally and nationally, due to digital advances, the cost-of-living crisis, shrinking workforces, rising health and wellbeing challenges, cross-cultural needs, and other drivers.”
- “Recruitment of new volunteer drivers is the main issue for doing more journeys, leading to inability to do all journeys people need.”
NHS structural change & ICB clustering
8 mentions · 7 LIOsIntegrated Care Boards are merging with neighbours, NHS England is being wound down, and VCSE collaborative funding cycles end in 2025/26 with no certainty about what replaces them.
- “The current ICS VCFSE collaborative first two years of funding is due for renewal at the end of financial year 2025/26. With the clustering of [the LIO]'s with Worcestershire and Herefordshire, [the LIO] has not yet learned if there will any impact on year 3 and 4 funding for…”
- “All [the LIO]'s across England are moving towards clustering arrangements which may alter how they fund its current providers. Coventry and Warwickshire are to be clustering with Herefordshire and Worcestershire. This may alter the role of the VCFSE collaborative and…”
- “External Financial Risks: [the LIO]'s income is generated through grants, contracts and direct, paid for, services. The landscape is changing nationally and locally with, for example, the abolition of NHS England, the restructure of the Integrated Care System and the…”
Local Government Reorganisation & devolution
6 mentions · 6 LIOsCouncil mergers into unitary authorities, devolution deals and combined-authority restructures are rewriting how LIOs are commissioned — often by bodies that don't yet exist on the org chart.
- “Political and Structural Change: The evolving political landscape at both national and local levels introduces uncertainty for the sector. In particular, the Local Government Reorganisation and emerging devolution arrangements present both risks and opportunities. These…”
- “[the LIO] has been recognised by central government as an area expected to be part of devolution, moving towards a unitary authority, or with an arrangement that provides public services across Warwickshire. [the LIO] currently receives funding from all but one Council…”
- “External Financial Risks: [the LIO]'s income is generated through grants, contracts and direct, paid for, services. The landscape is changing nationally and locally with, for example, the abolition of NHS England, the restructure of the Integrated Care System and the…”
Pension scheme deficit exposure
5 mentions · 5 LIOsLIOs participating in multi-employer pension schemes face deficit-recovery payments and triennial valuations through 2025/26 — often disproportionate to current staff numbers.
- “Continued membership of WMPF for one long standing and several ex staff members presents an on-going financial challenge with a tri-annual actuarial valuation due to take place during 2025, as the level of contribution rates continue to increase.”
- “The charity is subject to a provision relating to additional contributions payable to The Pension Trust Pension Scheme until 2025 under an agreed deficit recovery plan. The additional deficit contribution for the year was £5,878.”
- “Risk associated with membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme (a defined benefit scheme). The final cessation deficit has been set to £215k.”
Cyber & data security
5 mentions · 5 LIOsIncreasing reliance on digital systems, combined with the sensitive nature of safeguarding and beneficiary data LIOs handle, makes cyberattack and data breach a named risk in many registers.
- “Working in an environment where the weight and complexity of legal requirements in areas such as health and safety, safeguarding, employment law, equal opportunities and [the LIO] is growing. The "whole system approach" brings its own challenges, e.g., the need for technical…”
- “Technological risk, arising from increasing reliance on digital systems exposes VANS to cyberattacks, data breaches, and system failures, leading to the loss of sensitive information, financial data, or critical operational systems, disrupting services, damaging trust, and…”
- “Risks related to pay policy, trustee code of conduct, conflict of interest policy, trustee recruitment and retention policy, data protection policy, volunteer recruitment policy, ex-offenders volunteering policy, and revised recruitment policy.”
Member organisation fragility (concentration risk for LIOs)
2 mentions · 1 LIOsA LIO's income often comes partly from its members. Several flag that members are reducing paid services or letting memberships lapse — a feedback loop where sector stress flows into the infrastructure body.
- “Financial Pressures on Member Groups: Many of our member organisations are experiencing increased operational and financial constraints, which may reduce their ability to access paid support services or maintain membership contributions, potentially affecting our income streams.”
- “Political and Structural Change: The evolving political landscape at both national and local levels introduces uncertainty for the sector. In particular, the Local Government Reorganisation and emerging devolution arrangements present both risks and opportunities. These…”
Bare risk-category counts (the LLM's coarse classification)
188
Operational
165
Funding
66
Governance
50
Recruitment
18
Regulation
16
Demand
14
Other
13
Reputational
10
Safeguarding
9
Cyber
7
Financial
1
Strategic
1
Going Concern
1
Business
Section 10
What LIOs plan to do next, by theme
Trustees' reports include a “plans for future periods” section. The themes below cluster 817 statements of forward intent across 251 LIOs — quotes are pulled verbatim, with reporting LIO names removed.
Health-system integration (ICBs, social prescribing, ICS)
224 mentions · 82 LIOsStrategic priorities tied to local Integrated Care Systems, social-prescribing networks, and VCFSE alliances — embedding the LIO in NHS commissioning.
- “Continue to strengthen the charity's role for the local VCSE sector, building on foundations laid in 2024/25, with a focus on collaboration, equity and community-led change.”
- “Establish a new place-based giving scheme for Redbridge through a co-production process involving local residents, VCSE organisations and statutory partners. The scheme will provide a platform to bring in resources (time, money and skills) to support community priorities,…”
- “Continue to develop youth participation work in health and care through partnership with the University of Hertfordshire and NHS North East London. This will involve supporting young people to shape and lead work, expanding the team of Young Advisors, conducting peer…”
Member services & capacity building
169 mentions · 96 LIOsPlans focused on growing the offer to local voluntary-sector members — training, networking, governance support, bid-writing help.
- “Help VCS organisations to practically implement more flexible volunteer roles and informal recruitment (e.g. micro-volunteering, virtual volunteering, one-off and ad hoc volunteering, 'taster' sessions); increase collaboration with institutions, organisations and initiatives…”
- “Key activities include: development work with new and changing VCS groups and social enterprises; encouraging and celebrating volunteering, linking volunteers with groups, and supporting training and development of volunteers; promoting financial accountability within VCS…”
- “Key activities include: developing and providing website blogs; offering financial services such as payroll and pension service; providing access to funding sources; administering local grant schemes; providing internet-based information service with links to relevant local…”
Influencing, advocacy & sector voice
115 mentions · 71 LIOsExplicit strategic priorities to represent the local voluntary sector to commissioners, councils, and national bodies.
- “Key activities include: promoting and representing local VCS interests locally, regionally & nationally; removing barriers to VCS involvement in local, regional, national work; keeping the local VCS informed about relevant changes and developments; responding to VCS needs and…”
- “Enabling change for the things that matter to our communities. This includes advocating for and championing a civil society covenant, leading state of the sector research and community insight work, leading collaborations to attract investment, and working through LACVS to…”
- “Engage widely with volunteers, volunteer managers, and volunteer involving organisations to develop vision and strategies for volunteering, with Community CVS as the co-ordinating voice. Move annual Community Volunteer Awards to Ewood Park and embrace the 6P framework.”
Volunteering development
92 mentions · 60 LIOsStrategic priorities about growing volunteer participation, brokering new opportunities, and reaching new volunteer demographics.
- “Raise awareness of who and what we are amongst more people and organisations across the borough who are involved in volunteering; understand what is needed to increase quality and quantity of volunteering; be recognised as a best practice model across London.”
- “Help VCS organisations to practically implement more flexible volunteer roles and informal recruitment (e.g. micro-volunteering, virtual volunteering, one-off and ad hoc volunteering, 'taster' sessions); increase collaboration with institutions, organisations and initiatives…”
- “Key activities include: development work with new and changing VCS groups and social enterprises; encouraging and celebrating volunteering, linking volunteers with groups, and supporting training and development of volunteers; promoting financial accountability within VCS…”
Diversity, equity, inclusion & lived experience
49 mentions · 37 LIOsPlans naming DEI commitments, lived-experience leadership, or specific work to reach under-represented communities.
- “Establish a new place-based giving scheme for Redbridge through a co-production process involving local residents, VCSE organisations and statutory partners. The scheme will provide a platform to bring in resources (time, money and skills) to support community priorities,…”
- “Continue to develop reputation in leadership and management training, focus on skilling under-represented population groups and industrial sectors, deliver flexible bitesize training with accredited units, and develop commercial training offer to support 6Ps delivery (e.g.,…”
- “To take the work of building networks, peer groups, collaborations, and partnerships further over the next three years, integrated into the central strand of future National Lottery Reaching Communities funding. This will involve building a culture of people-powered change,…”
Diversifying income / earned income strategy
48 mentions · 43 LIOsPlans naming a deliberate move into traded services, consultancy, or social enterprise — typically in response to grant volatility.
- “Continue to grow Team UP; create new offers that are fresh and relevant to help residents and organisations to achieve their goals; monetise/unlock financial value of these offers.”
- “Key activities include: development work with new and changing VCS groups and social enterprises; encouraging and celebrating volunteering, linking volunteers with groups, and supporting training and development of volunteers; promoting financial accountability within VCS…”
- “Develop thinking around new economic models that develop the role of civil society/social economy as part of the foundational economy and create new charities/social enterprises to meet gaps in provision.”
Premises, capital projects, community assets
43 mentions · 35 LIOsBuilding work, new premises, lease decisions, or asset transfers from the council — capital projects that show up as a strategic priority.
- “Work with people in recovery from alcohol or substance misuse, local authority, Spark Recovery Collaborative partners, and wider VCFSE, public, and commercial sectors to build community assets for a resilient recovery community.”
- “Building capabilities of individuals, organisations, and communities to lead change. This includes helping local communities develop responses to their needs, co-producing pathways and solutions, and developing new approaches to mobilising communities.”
- “Focus on building a longer-term sustainable legacy from short-term funding infrastructure development activity.”
Mergers, dissolutions, shared services
31 mentions · 28 LIOsLIOs explicitly planning to merge with another infrastructure body, wind up, transfer activities to a sister org, or share back-office functions with peers.
- “Consolidating the merger with Rushcliffe CVS, building on shared strengths, and continuing to serve communities with dedication and care over a larger area to widen impact and give a more secure future.”
- “Deliver an impactful platform that supports both beneficiaries of Social Prescribing and the VCSEF organisations delivering them, and working with the Health and Care Partnership on Integrated Neighbourhood Teams.”
- “Consolidate outreach infrastructure drop-ins: In community venues and libraries.”
Climate, sustainability & environment
29 mentions · 27 LIOsPlans naming net-zero targets, environmental work for the sector, or climate-resilience as a strategic priority.
- “Key activities include: implementing full cost recovery within VANEL funding bids; negotiating tailor-made charging structures with members for extra support; generating adequate reserves to develop and deliver new services and maintain reserves policy; encouraging VCS groups…”
- “Working with the climate change community across public, commercial and VCFSE sectors to create a climate action network. This includes widening awareness, education, participation, and developing new volunteer programmes for carbon literacy.”
- “Focus on building a longer-term sustainable legacy from short-term funding infrastructure development activity.”
Digital, AI & systems modernisation
17 mentions · 16 LIOsPlans to invest in CRM, data systems, digital platforms, or AI — both to streamline operations and to better serve members.
- “Creating an algorithm-driven and future-facing brand, with fluency in digital platforms, that modernises and improves access to shared information on community and youth.”
- “Deliver Technology and AI workshops: Delivering Technology and AI workshops to the sector.”
- “Continue to roll out the organisational development plan, including improvements to IT systems and introducing AI to day-to-day working.”
Section 11
What LIOs measure
Charity Commission trustees' reports include an “Achievements and Performance” section. Across the 251 LIOs in this cohort, 194 (77%) include at least one quantitative metric — between them stating 4,638 datapoints under 4,452 distinct metric names.
After categorising every metric name into a 60-code taxonomy (volunteer hours, training attendees, social-prescribing clients, SROI, etc.) and rolling those into the display buckets below, the headline finding is that activity counts vastly outnumber outcome measurement. Only 86 of 194 reporting LIOs (44%) report any outcome-shaped metric at all.
How many distinct metric types does each reporting LIO use?
Median reporting LIO uses 10 distinct metric types. Mean is 11.8 (skewed up by a small group with very-structured reports).
What gets measured — the bucket breakdown
| Bucket | LIOs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Volunteering | |||
Volunteers — people | 132 | ||
Volunteer roles & opportunities | 78 | ||
Volunteer hours given | 58 | ||
| Sector support | |||
Member orgs / VCSE support | 142 | ||
Funding & grants flow-through | 92 | ||
Sector voice / advocacy | 24 | ||
| Direct delivery | |||
People served (direct services) | 156 | ||
Practical help delivered | 30 | ||
Hours of support — to people | 28 | ||
Social prescribing | 27 | ||
Hours of support — to orgs | 9 | ||
| Engagement | |||
Events | 120 | ||
Communications & digital reach | 84 | ||
Publications & content | 27 | ||
| Outcomes | |||
Outcomes & impact | 86 | ||
Feedback & satisfaction | 33 | ||
Demographics breakdown | 15 | ||
| Internal capacity | |||
Staff & internal capacity | 27 | ||
Income raised by the LIO | 8 | ||
| Training | |||
Training delivered | 83 | ||
Training reach (attendees) | 81 | ||
| Other | |||
Uncategorisable | 46 | ||
Aggregate numbers, where the data permits
For a hand-picked subset of metric codes where the units are coherent enough across LIOs, here is what the median reporting LIO says — plus the 10th–90th percentile range. Each row first filters out values whose unit is wrong or whose magnitude is obviously parse-error territory (e.g. a single “1.1 billion volunteer hours” entry), then takes the maximum value disclosed per LIO to avoid double-counting prior-year comparatives.
These are not sector totals. Sums are dominated by outliers and only a self-selecting fraction of LIOs report any given metric, so the median (the typical LIO that publishes the figure) is the honest unit.
| Metric | LIOs | Median |
|---|---|---|
Volunteer hours given per year unit: hours · 15 rows dropped | 55 | 4,025 |
Volunteers on the books unit: people · 51 rows dropped | 70 | 200 |
Volunteers placed into roles unit: people · 41 rows dropped | 57 | 135 |
Community-transport journeys per year unit: journeys · 47 rows dropped | 36 | 5,991 |
Miles driven by volunteer drivers unit: miles · 4 rows dropped | 25 | 56,741 |
Social-media followers unit: followers · 14 rows dropped | 25 | 2,647 |
Newsletter / e-bulletin subscribers unit: subscribers · 16 rows dropped | 38 | 1,157 |
£ levered into member orgs unit: £ · 5 rows dropped | 56 | £484k |
Grants awarded by the LIO (count) unit: grants · 39 rows dropped | 12 | 62 |
Grants awarded by the LIO (£ total) unit: £ · 14 rows dropped | 31 | £288k |
Social return / value generated unit: £ · 25 rows dropped | 27 | £514k |
Referrals received per year unit: referrals · 19 rows dropped | 25 | 444 |
Events run per year unit: events · 66 rows dropped | 50 | 40 |
SROI claims — £ generated per £ invested
Of 194 LIOs that report any quantitative metric, only 4 publish a Social Return on Investment multiplier — the headline “£X of social value for every £1 we spend” claim. Below are every such claim in the cohort, verbatim. Academic SROI work usually lands in the 2–5× range; sector-reported figures more often cluster around 5–10×, and outliers can reach 30×+.
| Ratio | LIO |
|---|---|
| 8.73× | Cheshire West Voluntary Action |
| 7.73× | Sutton Borough Volunteer Bureau |
| 5.9× | The Wokingham Volunteer Centre |
| 4.95× | Community Action Suffolk |
SROI is sensitive to the choice of proxy values and counterfactual. Identical service inputs can yield very different ratios depending on the assumptions; figures aren't comparable between LIOs.
Who measures what — three cross-tabs
Measurement scales with org size, urbanness and government-funding share. Each cell shows how a slice of the cohort reports.
By income (terciles)
| Segment | Reporting |
|---|---|
| Bottom third (small) | 57/83 69% |
| Middle third | 60/83 72% |
| Top third (large) | 77/85 91% |
By settlement type
| Segment | Reporting |
|---|---|
| city | 87/103 84% |
| town | 58/82 71% |
| rural | 49/66 74% |
By government-funding share of income
| Segment | Reporting |
|---|---|
| 0–25% | 47/76 62% |
| 25–50% | 55/65 85% |
| 50–75% | 54/68 79% |
| 75%+ | 37/41 90% |
The genuinely uncategorisable — 77 unique metric names
These are the metric names that didn't fit any code in our 60-code taxonomy even after a second pass. Each appears in just one or two LIOs' accounts — a glimpse of the long tail of locally-specific things LIOs choose to count.
- bronze, silver, or gold seaqs awards awarded1 LIO
- charity independent examination of accounts carried out1 LIO
- city’s partnerships attended per quarter by salford cvs and vocal forum representatives1 LIO
- family halloween ‘live action' treasure trail participants1 LIO
- funding -deficit/+surplus1 LIO
- funding returned1 LIO
- housing needs surveys1 LIO
- individual income transactions managed monthly by managed service team1 LIO
- kits requested from face to face sessions1 LIO
- kits requested from telephone consultations1 LIO
- laptops donated for refurb it project1 LIO
- laptops gifted1 LIO
- laptops purchased for vcse groups1 LIO
- local businesses actively engaged1 LIO
- local employers for whom payroll bureau provided calculated pay1 LIO
- million distributed1 LIO
- new community activities advertised1 LIO
- new community building managers connected1 LIO
- new community listings (devon connect)1 LIO
- new partners joined food network1 LIO
- occupancy rate of the circle1 LIO
- on-demand learning views1 LIO
- one suffolk websites hosted1 LIO
- one-minute video views increase1 LIO
- online books sales1 LIO
- online matching system applications1 LIO
- operational costs of schemes1 LIO
- opportunities shared by hub1 LIO
- organisational answer cancer champions1 LIO
- organisations expressing interest in borough-wide volunteering strategy1 LIO
- organisations featured in alerts1 LIO
- organisations keen to attend similar event in future1 LIO
- organisations registered on open4community1 LIO
- organisations registered on salesforce database1 LIO
- organisations registered with easyfundraising1 LIO
- organisations signed up as organisational champions1 LIO
- organisations signed up for flourish youth award1 LIO
- organisations supported to receive lda friendly mark1 LIO
- organisations using islington funding toolkit1 LIO
- organisations working towards the bolton mark1 LIO
- other living beings and habitats as learning companions for 100 ways to be a good ancestor activities1 LIO
- overheads cost of providing services1 LIO
- pat testing hours1 LIO
- payments processed per month by managed service team1 LIO
- payslips produced1 LIO
- payslips produced per month by creative payroll solutions (average)1 LIO
- pension portals maintained for employers1 LIO
- pieces of equipment hired out by library of things1 LIO
- private puppet show clients1 LIO
- radio dacorum listening times1 LIO
- rags sales1 LIO
- ramadan calendars printed1 LIO
- received from passengers1 LIO
- referrals from central and north guildford gp surgeries (1 apr 24 7 oct 24)1 LIO
- returns submitted to hmrc on behalf of payroll clients1 LIO
- safeguarding standards developed1 LIO
- separate pension files uploaded to pension providers1 LIO
- site identifications completed for rural housing1 LIO
- support & social groups (church street centre)1 LIO
- support & social groups (headway)1 LIO
- support & social groups (wildgoose)1 LIO
- support & social groups (working world)1 LIO
- support sites launched (evisa transition programme)1 LIO
- tailored support packs distributed1 LIO
- tax returns submitted1 LIO
- teams challenges and skills matches with businesses1 LIO
- thank you cards sent during volunteers' week and trustees' week1 LIO
- trustee vacancies circulated via oxfordshire trustee leadership list1 LIO
- unique registrations on funding 4 suffolk portal1 LIO
- university students hosted for climate action projects and green network admin1 LIO
- unsuccessful applications for warm and welcoming spaces grant programme1 LIO
- urgent care focus groups1 LIO
- vcse organisations signed up to become formal family hub partners1 LIO
- vocal representatives acting as the sector’s voice and seeking to influence salford’s strategic partnership1 LIO
- volunteer assistance (monetary terms)1 LIO
- volunteers enjoyed taking part in volunteering activity (green spaces)1 LIO
- women and people brought together to discuss menopause topics1 LIO
Section 12
Direct delivery vs organisation support
Every project named in the annual reports is tagged against the 13 categories from section 04. Categories are either direct delivery (frontline service — social prescribing, transport, befriending, food banks, youth work) or organisation support (helping other charities — brokerage, training, funding advice, re-granting, back-office, sector voice). Each LIO is then placed in one of three tiers by the balance of its project mix.
65 LIOs are majority frontline-delivery. They show median income growth of +8.9%/yr but expenditure is growing faster (+11.7%/yr) — income up, costs up faster. That pattern holds in every group below.
Majority direct
65 LIOs
More than half of projects are frontline
persistent deficit (mean <-5%): 26% · trajectory deteriorating: 55%
Some direct (minority)
128 LIOs
At least one frontline project; support outweighs
persistent deficit (mean <-5%): 30% · trajectory deteriorating: 55%
No direct delivery
58 LIOs
Pure infrastructure — only org-support projects
persistent deficit (mean <-5%): 26% · trajectory deteriorating: 54%
Government share of income by delivery tier
Share of each group's total income drawn from government grants and government contracts (the two Part-A annual return lines). Majority- and some-direct LIOs sit at roughly 55% gov-funded; pure-infrastructure LIOs are 39% — and where they do get government money it's nearly all grants, not contracts.
Pounds-weighted across each group's total income. The grants/contracts split matters: contracts are commissioned delivery (NHS work, council outsourcing), grants are looser. Majority-direct LIOs carry roughly 28% of their income as contracts vs only 10% for pure-infrastructure LIOs.
Delivery mix by settlement type
Share of LIOs in each settlement type by delivery tier. Rural LIOs are markedly more likely to be majority-frontline (35%) than city (20%) or town (26%) LIOs — in dispersed areas the local-authority infrastructure model gives way to the CVS itself taking on commissioned frontline work.
Section 13
Government dependency, reversed
The prevailing narrative is that LIOs are at risk because they've become dependent on government commissioning. Bucketing the 251 LIOs by the share of their latest-year income coming from government grants + contracts shows the opposite. Heavier gov dependency is associated with faster growth and no more deficits than donation-led LIOs.
The heaviest gov-dependent quartile (≥75% from government) grows at +6.8%/yr with a 3-year median margin of +3.9% and 17% in persistent deficit (mean 3-year margin ≤-5%). The least gov-dependent bucket sits at +0.0% median margin with 38% persistently in deficit — heavier gov dependency is associated with both faster growth and a healthier balance sheet.
Section 14
Single-funder concentration vs growth
Using the same concentration measure as section 08 — each LIO's top funder's share of its named-funder income. Sorting the 149 LIOs that name at least three funders with amounts into the same four bands as section 08, and taking the median nominal income CAGR within each (latest-vs-earliest filed year, unweighted), the relationship is non-monotonic: the well-spread band (top funder <30%) is healthiest by a clear margin, and the squeezed middle (top funder 30–50%) carries the highest deficit rate.
(102LIOs excluded because they name fewer than three funders with £ amounts — typically the smallest orgs whose accounts don't break out funders individually.)
The well-spread band (top funder <30%, 34 LIOs) has a 3-year median margin of +1.3% with 24% in persistent deficit. The most concentrated band (top funder ≥80%, 12 LIOs) has a median margin of -2.1% and 42% persistently in deficit — a noticeably worse balance-sheet outcome than the diversified end, despite the headline nominal growth.
Single-funder dependency doesn't reliably predict shrinkage — there are growing concentrated LIOs and shrinking diversified ones — but the 3-year margin shows it clearly predicts a thinner financial margin when the contract is in flux.
Section 15
Who's actually in trouble
Flat “% in deficit” rates blur two different things: how deep the deficit is, and whether it's one bad year or a trend. We compute each LIO's mean 3-year margin(income − expenditure / income, averaged across its three most recent filed years) and group it into severe deficit (≤-10%), modest deficit (-10% to -1%), balanced (±1%), modest surplus (1-10%), or healthy surplus (>10%). Then we re-cut the 149 LIOs that name ≥3 funders with amounts by who their funders are: primarily NHS, primarily local-authority, both, or neither.
The LIOs in real trouble are the ones without a major government commissioner at all. That “neither” quadrant has 42% in persistent deficit and a median 3-year margin of -1.0%. At the other end, LIOs working primarily with NHS commissioners have only 20% persistently in deficit and a median margin of +2.7%.
The “deteriorating” column is the third move. We compare each LIO's last 2-year average margin to the prior 2 years (LIOs with ≥4 years of filings only). Across every quadrant ~50% of LIOs are deteriorating — a sector-wide downward drift that the single-year snapshot completely misses. Even the NHS-focused group, which sits in the healthiest band on the static measure, has 47% of LIOs trending down.
Funder-mix percentages here are the share of named-funder income(i.e. amongst the funders the LIO has explicitly named with £ amounts in its accounts), not the share of total income.
Section 16
Size of the sector, ranked
The 251 LIOs in this cohort together report £247.1M of income in the latest year. The distribution is heavy-tailed — most LIOs sit in the £500k–£2.5M band but a handful of large ones carry a disproportionate share.
Median income is £595k, the 90th percentile is £2.1M, and the top 10 LIOs by income together hold 25% of the sector total (£62.4M).
Income distribution
Bars show LIO count per band; right column is the band's share of total cohort income. p10 £86k · p99 £6.4M · max £17.0M.
Top 10 LIOs by income
| # | LIO | Income | Expenditure | Settlement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BIRMINGHAM VOLUNTARY SERVICE COUNCIL | £17.0M | £16.7M | south · city |
| 2 | ACTION TOGETHER CIO | £8.0M | £6.3M | north · city |
| 3 | SALFORD COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £6.4M | £6.3M | north · city |
| 4 | CORNWALL VOLUNTARY SECTOR FORUM | £5.7M | £2.0M | south · rural |
| 5 | INVOLVE KENT | £5.5M | £4.7M | south · town |
| 6 | SEFTON COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £4.8M | £4.8M | north · city |
| 7 | VOLUNTARY NORFOLK | £4.4M | £4.2M | south · city |
| 8 | VOLUNTARY ACTION SHEFFIELD | £3.7M | £2.6M | north · city |
| 9 | SUPPORT STAFFORDSHIRE | £3.4M | £3.2M | south · town |
| 10 | DUDLEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £3.4M | £3.2M | south · city |
Show all 251 LIOs, sorted by income
| # | LIO | Income | Exp. | Settlement | Delivery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BIRMINGHAM VOLUNTARY SERVICE COUNCIL | £17.0M | £16.7M | south · city | some |
| 2 | ACTION TOGETHER CIO | £8.0M | £6.3M | north · city | some |
| 3 | SALFORD COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £6.4M | £6.3M | north · city | some |
| 4 | CORNWALL VOLUNTARY SECTOR FORUM | £5.7M | £2.0M | south · rural | some |
| 5 | INVOLVE KENT | £5.5M | £4.7M | south · town | majority |
| 6 | SEFTON COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £4.8M | £4.8M | north · city | some |
| 7 | VOLUNTARY NORFOLK | £4.4M | £4.2M | south · city | majority |
| 8 | VOLUNTARY ACTION SHEFFIELD | £3.7M | £2.6M | north · city | some |
| 9 | SUPPORT STAFFORDSHIRE | £3.4M | £3.2M | south · town | some |
| 10 | DUDLEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £3.4M | £3.2M | south · city | some |
| 11 | VOLUNTARY ACTION ROTHERHAM | £3.3M | £3.9M | north · city | majority |
| 12 | COMMUNITY FIRST | £3.3M | £2.9M | south · rural | majority |
| 13 | BOLTON COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £3.1M | £3.7M | north · city | some |
| 14 | DACORUM COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £3.1M | £3.0M | south · town | some |
| 15 | COMMUNITY ACTION DERBY LTD | £3.1M | £3.3M | north · city | majority |
| 16 | COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SUPPORT CONWY | £3.0M | £3.4M | north · town | none |
| 17 | VOLUNTARY ACTION - LEEDS | £3.0M | £2.8M | north · city | some |
| 18 | COMMUNITY360 | £2.8M | £3.6M | south · town | majority |
| 19 | CVS Lincolnshire | £2.5M | £2.6M | north · city | majority |
| 20 | VOLUNTEER CORNWALL | £2.4M | £2.1M | south · city | some |
| 21 | HULL COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES LTD | £2.2M | £2.0M | north · city | some |
| 22 | COMMUNITY ACTION SUTTON | £2.2M | £2.3M | south · city | some |
| 23 | Connex Community Support | £2.1M | £2.0M | north · rural | majority |
| 24 | THIRD SECTOR LEADERS KIRKLEES | £2.1M | £2.0M | north · city | some |
| 25 | CoLab Exeter | £2.1M | £2.0M | south · city | none |
| 26 | BURNLEY PENDLE AND ROSSENDALE COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £2.1M | £2.2M | north · town | some |
| 27 | COMMUNITY ACTION ISLE OF WIGHT | £2.0M | £1.9M | south · town | some |
| 28 | VOLUNTARY ACTION LEICESTER | £2.0M | £2.1M | south · city | some |
| 29 | COMMUNITY ACTION SUFFOLK | £2.0M | £2.3M | south · town | none |
| 30 | WARWICKSHIRE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTION | £2.0M | £1.8M | south · town | some |
| 31 | NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | £1.9M | £1.7M | south · town | some |
| 32 | Connected Voice | £1.9M | £1.9M | north · city | some |
| 33 | ONE KNOWSLEY | £1.9M | £1.8M | north · city | some |
| 34 | HACKNEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.8M | £1.9M | south · city | some |
| 35 | VOLUNTARY SECTOR CENTRES | £1.7M | £1.7M | south · city | none |
| 36 | LINCOLNSHIRE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.7M | £1.5M | north · town | majority |
| 37 | YORK CENTRE FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.7M | £1.7M | north · city | some |
| 38 | OXFORDSHIRE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTION | £1.7M | £1.7M | south · city | none |
| 39 | COMMUNITIES 1ST | £1.6M | £1.6M | south · town | some |
| 40 | CROYDON VOLUNTARY ACTION | £1.6M | £1.7M | south · city | some |
| 41 | SPARK SOMERSET | £1.6M | £1.3M | south · rural | some |
| 42 | NOVA WAKEFIELD DISTRICT LIMITED | £1.6M | £1.8M | north · city | some |
| 43 | MERTON VOLUNTARY SERVICE COUNCIL | £1.6M | £1.7M | south · city | majority |
| 44 | NOTTINGHAM COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.6M | £683k | north · city | some |
| 45 | SANDWELL COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS (S.C.V.O.) | £1.6M | £1.6M | south · city | some |
| 46 | SOUTH DERBYSHIRE CVS | £1.5M | £1.5M | north · town | majority |
| 47 | Wolverhampton Voluntary and Community Action | £1.5M | £1.5M | south · city | some |
| 48 | EREWASH VOLUNTARY ACTION - COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.5M | £1.3M | north · town | majority |
| 49 | KINGSTON VOLUNTARY ACTION | £1.5M | £1.2M | south · city | majority |
| 50 | CUMBRIA COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.4M | £1.5M | north · city | some |
| 51 | SOUTHEND ASSOCIATION OF VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £1.4M | £1.3M | south · city | majority |
| 52 | COMMUNITY ACTION BRADFORD & DISTRICT LTD. | £1.4M | £1.4M | north · city | some |
| 53 | HALTON AND ST HELENS VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY ACTION | £1.3M | £1.7M | north · city | some |
| 54 | HASTINGS VOLUNTARY ACTION | £1.2M | £1.2M | south · town | majority |
| 55 | VOLUNTARY IMPACT NORTHAMPTONSHIRE LTD | £1.2M | £942k | south · town | majority |
| 56 | ONE WESTMINSTER | £1.2M | £1.3M | south · city | some |
| 57 | AMBER VALLEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.2M | £1.3M | north · rural | some |
| 58 | COMMUNITY SOUTHWARK | £1.2M | £1.1M | south · city | some |
| 59 | VOLUNTARY SECTOR NORTH WEST | £1.2M | £1.1M | north · city | some |
| 60 | TENDRING COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £1.2M | £1.7M | south · town | some |
| 61 | VOLUNTEER CENTRE HACKNEY | £1.2M | £1.2M | south · city | some |
| 62 | VOLUNTARY & COMMUNITY | £1.2M | £887k | north · city | some |
| 63 | THURROCK C.V.S (COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE) | £1.2M | £1.2M | south · town | some |
| 64 | Cheshire West Voluntary Action | £1.1M | £1.1M | north · city | some |
| 65 | BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.1M | £1.3M | north · town | some |
| 66 | Community Action Redbridge | £1.1M | £1.1M | south · city | some |
| 67 | VOLUNTARY ACTION MERTHYR TYDFIL | £1.1M | £961k | south · town | some |
| 68 | SUTTON BOROUGH VOLUNTEER BUREAU | £1.0M | £1.0M | south · city | majority |
| 69 | DURHAM COMMUNITY ACTION LIMITED | £1.0M | £1.2M | north · rural | some |
| 70 | SLOUGH COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £1.0M | £892k | south · town | some |
| 71 | Community Action Network | £1.0M | £3.0M | south · city | some |
| 72 | NUCLEUS COMMUNITY ACTION LTD | £1.0M | £948k | south · city | none |
| 73 | SOUTHERN BROOKS COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS | £1.0M | £1.2M | south · city | majority |
| 74 | LIFELINE COMMUNITY ACTION | £999k | £331k | north · town | majority |
| 75 | TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £992k | £848k | south · city | none |
| 76 | COMMUNITY ACTION NORTHUMBERLAND | £992k | £894k | north · rural | majority |
| 77 | JOHN STORER CHARNWOOD | £990k | £913k | south · town | majority |
| 78 | WARRINGTON VOLUNTARY ACTION | £987k | £986k | north · city | majority |
| 79 | EALING AND HOUNSLOW COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £977k | £689k | south · city | some |
| 80 | BURY VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY & FAITH ALLIANCE | £972k | £855k | north · city | none |
| 81 | BRIGHTON & HOVE COMMUNITY WORKS | £962k | £1.1M | south · city | none |
| 82 | TELFORD AND WREKIN COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £962k | £1.0M | south · town | some |
| 83 | GLOSSOP AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER BUREAU | £961k | £810k | north · rural | majority |
| 84 | MIDDLESBROUGH VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | £961k | £710k | north · city | some |
| 85 | ONE COMMUNITY EASTLEIGH | £952k | £1.3M | south · town | some |
| 86 | BEXLEY VOLUNTARY SERVICE COUNCIL LIMITED | £938k | £1.0M | south · city | some |
| 87 | COMMUNITY ACTION HAMPSHIRE | £936k | £916k | south · rural | some |
| 88 | NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE CENTRE FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE LIMITED | £916k | £809k | south · town | majority |
| 89 | VOLUNTARY ACTION CUMBRIA | £914k | £750k | north · rural | none |
| 90 | BASSETLAW COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £908k | £934k | north · town | some |
| 91 | UNITY (SOUTHERN) LTD | £887k | £1.0M | south · town | majority |
| 92 | ENFIELD VOLUNTARY ACTION | £884k | £802k | south · city | none |
| 93 | NORTH TYNESIDE VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | £876k | £1.1M | north · city | some |
| 94 | COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE (MEDWAY) | £873k | £812k | south · city | majority |
| 95 | COMMUNITY ACTION: MK | £841k | £571k | south · city | some |
| 96 | FOREST VOLUNTARY ACTION FORUM | £837k | £794k | south · rural | some |
| 97 | WIRRAL CVS | £820k | £643k | north · city | none |
| 98 | LEICESTERSHIRE VOLUNTARY SECTOR RESOURCE AGENCY | £806k | £795k | south · city | majority |
| 99 | LANCASTER DISTRICT COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SOLUTIONS | £766k | £882k | north · city | some |
| 100 | COAST AND VALE COMMUNITY ACTION | £758k | £809k | north · town | some |
| 101 | COMMUNITY LINKS BROMLEY | £746k | £533k | south · city | some |
| 102 | 3VA | £744k | £764k | south · rural | some |
| 103 | OSWESTRY COMMUNITY ACTION | £738k | £704k | north · rural | majority |
| 104 | READING VOLUNTARY ACTION | £723k | £739k | south · city | some |
| 105 | SURREY COMMUNITY ACTION | £695k | £666k | south · town | some |
| 106 | DERBYSHIRE VOLUNTARY ACTION | £691k | £775k | north · town | some |
| 107 | VOLUNTARY ACTION NORTH SOMERSET | £686k | £592k | south · town | some |
| 108 | Sector 3 Stockport | £683k | £573k | north · city | some |
| 109 | NEWARK AND SHERWOOD COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £673k | £934k | north · rural | majority |
| 110 | CASTLE POINT ASSOCIATION OF VOLUNTARY SERVICES LIMITED | £667k | £690k | south · town | majority |
| 111 | DORSET COMMUNITY ACTION | £666k | £655k | south · rural | majority |
| 112 | Crawley Community Action | £658k | £512k | south · town | some |
| 113 | BARNSLEY COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £658k | £746k | north · city | some |
| 114 | PETERBOROUGH COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £655k | £699k | south · city | some |
| 115 | VOLUNTARY ACTION COVENTRY | £653k | £668k | south · city | some |
| 116 | VOLUNTARY SUPPORT NORTH SURREY | £645k | £684k | south · town | some |
| 117 | HIGH PEAK CVS | £635k | £599k | north · rural | some |
| 118 | VOLUNTEER CENTRE KENSINGTON & CHELSEA | £630k | £644k | south · city | some |
| 119 | VOLUNTEER CENTRE BLACKPOOL WYRE AND FYLDE | £626k | £645k | north · town | majority |
| 120 | HAMBLETON COMMUNITY ACTION | £624k | £579k | north · rural | some |
| 121 | HEREFORDSHIRE VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS SUPPORT SERVICE | £619k | £575k | south · city | some |
| 122 | COMMUNITY IMPACT BUCKS | £617k | £712k | south · rural | some |
| 123 | VOLUNTARY ACTION SOUTH WEST SURREY | £613k | £561k | south · town | some |
| 124 | VOLUNTARY ACTION - SWINDON | £610k | £553k | south · town | none |
| 125 | THE JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL VOLUNTARY SERVICES COUNCIL | £602k | £556k | north · city | majority |
| 126 | SOUTH NORTHANTS VOLUNTEER BUREAU | £595k | £646k | south · rural | majority |
| 127 | COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES CHESHIRE EAST | £590k | £578k | north · town | none |
| 128 | BROMLEY CHILDREN AND FAMILIES VOLUNTARY SECTOR FORUM | £589k | £565k | south · city | majority |
| 129 | VOLUNTARY ACTION SOUTH LEICESTERSHIRE | £587k | £606k | south · rural | majority |
| 130 | MRC COMMUNITY ACTION | £572k | £558k | south · rural | none |
| 131 | COMMUNITY ACTION NORFOLK | £559k | £575k | south · rural | some |
| 132 | BASILDON, BILLERICAY AND WICKFORD COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £558k | £585k | south · town | some |
| 133 | BASINGSTOKE VOLUNTARY ACTION | £555k | £555k | south · town | none |
| 134 | GLOUCESTERSHIRE VCSE ALLIANCE | £540k | £510k | south · rural | some |
| 135 | VOLUNTARY ACTION EPPING FOREST | £537k | £512k | south · town | some |
| 136 | BULLION COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRE | £530k | £422k | north · town | some |
| 137 | BROMSGROVE AND REDDITCH NETWORK | £526k | £672k | south · town | some |
| 138 | ROTHER VOLUNTARY ACTION | £524k | £568k | south · town | none |
| 139 | SWALE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £513k | £557k | south · town | some |
| 140 | NORTH DEVON VOLUNTARY SERVICES LIMITED | £506k | £526k | south · rural | some |
| 141 | VOLUNTARY ACTION ISLINGTON LIMITED | £503k | £559k | south · city | none |
| 142 | CAMBRIDGE COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £496k | £511k | south · city | none |
| 143 | RUSHCLIFFE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £485k | £406k | north · rural | majority |
| 144 | WANSBECK CENTRE FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £478k | £409k | north · town | none |
| 145 | CHELMSFORD COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £466k | £433k | south · town | majority |
| 146 | ONE WALSALL LTD | £461k | £510k | south · city | none |
| 147 | REDCAR & CLEVELAND VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | £461k | £510k | north · town | majority |
| 148 | HART VOLUNTARY ACTION LIMITED | £455k | £488k | south · town | majority |
| 149 | COMMUNITY PEOPLE MID SUSSEX | £446k | £314k | south · town | some |
| 150 | BROMLEY VOLUNTARY SECTOR TRUST | £434k | £499k | south · city | none |
| 151 | WESSEX COMMUNITY ACTION | £427k | £432k | south · city | some |
| 152 | VOLUNTEER CENTRE DORSET | £422k | £479k | south · rural | some |
| 153 | HAMPSTEAD COMMUNITY ACTION LIMITED | £421k | £413k | south · city | majority |
| 154 | CENTRAL SURREY VOLUNTARY ACTION LIMITED | £420k | £340k | south · town | majority |
| 155 | COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY SERVICE BEDFORDSHIRE | £418k | £445k | south · town | some |
| 156 | WALTHAM FOREST COMMUNITY HUB | £413k | £448k | south · city | majority |
| 157 | MALDON AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £408k | £323k | south · rural | none |
| 158 | DERBYSHIRE DALES COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £404k | £670k | north · rural | some |
| 159 | ASHFORD VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £398k | £336k | south · town | some |
| 160 | VOLUNTARY ACTION CAMDEN | £389k | £352k | south · city | some |
| 161 | TRAFFORD COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE | £386k | £471k | north · city | none |
| 162 | BARKING AND DAGENHAM COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £375k | £376k | south · city | some |
| 163 | SUNDERLAND VOLUNTARY SECTOR ALLIANCE | £372k | £448k | north · city | some |
| 164 | Action Point Community Support Services | £362k | £348k | north · city | none |
| 165 | HYNDBURN AND RIBBLE VALLEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £355k | £317k | north · rural | some |
| 166 | MANSFIELD COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE (CVS) | £345k | £455k | north · town | some |
| 167 | CVS BRENT | £337k | £476k | south · city | none |
| 168 | THE RICHMOND UPON THAMES COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £335k | £333k | south · city | none |
| 169 | LINKS: THE CHESTERFIELD AND NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE AND ACTION LIMITED | £333k | £267k | north · town | none |
| 170 | COMMUNITY ACTION MALVERN AND DISTRICT | £333k | £357k | south · rural | some |
| 171 | VOLUNTARY ACTION ARUN AND CHICHESTER | £329k | £316k | south · town | majority |
| 172 | HINCKLEY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ACTION (HCCA) | £329k | £324k | south · town | some |
| 173 | VOLUNTEER CENTRE GREENWICH | £327k | £318k | south · city | some |
| 174 | COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY ACTION LEDBURY & DISTRICT | £326k | £235k | south · rural | majority |
| 175 | DROITWICH SPA AND RURAL COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £323k | £300k | south · rural | some |
| 176 | THE COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE UTTLESFORD | £320k | £527k | south · rural | some |
| 177 | VOLUNTARY ACTION - NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE | £318k | £362k | north · town | none |
| 178 | VOLUNTARY ACTION STRATFORD ON AVON DISTRICT | £314k | £344k | south · town | majority |
| 179 | WEST DEVON COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £309k | £343k | south · rural | some |
| 180 | HARROGATE AND AREA CVS LTD | £304k | £325k | north · town | some |
| 181 | COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECT | £293k | £211k | south · city | none |
| 182 | VOLUNTEER CENTRE WEST BERKSHIRE | £289k | £287k | south · town | some |
| 183 | KENT COAST VOLUNTEERING LTD | £285k | £381k | south · town | some |
| 184 | VOLUNTARY ACTION RUTLAND | £277k | £280k | south · rural | majority |
| 185 | CVS SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE | £274k | £284k | south · town | some |
| 186 | THE LEARNING CURVE VOLUNTARY SECTOR DEVELOPMENT | £270k | £185k | south · city | majority |
| 187 | ABERGELE COMMUNITY ACTION LTD | £268k | £391k | north · rural | majority |
| 188 | CAMDEN VOLUNTEER BUREAU | £261k | £249k | south · city | none |
| 189 | COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTION BLYTH VALLEY | £238k | £179k | north · town | none |
| 190 | INSPIRE SOUTH TYNESIDE | £225k | £185k | north · city | none |
| 191 | VOLUNTEER ACTION | £225k | £190k | south · rural | majority |
| 192 | NEW MILLS AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £224k | £192k | north · rural | majority |
| 193 | VOLUNTEER CENTRE TOWER HAMLETS | £214k | £187k | south · city | none |
| 194 | ASSIST TEIGNBRIDGE | £212k | £244k | south · rural | majority |
| 195 | COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE WEST LANCASHIRE | £211k | £237k | north · town | none |
| 196 | COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE NORTH WEST KENT | £209k | £189k | south · town | some |
| 197 | VOLUNTEER FRIENDS | £209k | £157k | south · town | majority |
| 198 | VOLUNTARY SECTOR MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS FORUM | £208k | £385k | south · city | some |
| 199 | ISLAND COMMUNITY ACTION | £207k | £189k | south · rural | some |
| 200 | THE WOKINGHAM VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £196k | £193k | south · town | some |
| 201 | RURAL COMMUNITY ACTION NOTTINGHAMSHIRE | £193k | £218k | north · town | some |
| 202 | VOLUNTARY ACTION NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE LIMITED | £190k | £174k | north · town | some |
| 203 | South Hams Community Action | £189k | £270k | south · rural | some |
| 204 | YSTRADGYNLAIS VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £187k | £208k | south · rural | some |
| 205 | INVOLVE - VOLUNTARY ACTION IN MID DEVON | £186k | £233k | south · rural | some |
| 206 | ASHFIELD VOLUNTARY ACTION | £178k | £209k | north · town | some |
| 207 | EAST RIDING VOLUNTARY ACTION SERVICES (ERVAS) LIMITED | £176k | £221k | north · rural | some |
| 208 | THE VOLUNTEER CENTRE- CHESTERFIELD AND NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE | £164k | £128k | north · town | some |
| 209 | CAFLO (COMMUNITY ACTIONS FOR LOCAL OPPORTUNITIES) | £163k | £105k | south · city | majority |
| 210 | COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP (LEICESTERSHIRE) | £158k | £140k | south · rural | majority |
| 211 | HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £145k | £135k | south · city | none |
| 212 | HAVERING VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £144k | £187k | south · city | some |
| 213 | PERSHORE AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £143k | £170k | south · rural | some |
| 214 | VOLUNTARY ACTION SURREY EAST (VASE) | £143k | £148k | south · rural | majority |
| 215 | SYSTON AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £132k | £156k | south · rural | none |
| 216 | AUDLEM AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY ACTION | £126k | £139k | north · rural | none |
| 217 | TEIGNBRIDGE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES | £122k | £1.2M | south · rural | majority |
| 218 | EVESHAM VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £122k | £127k | south · rural | majority |
| 219 | VOLUNTARY ACTION REIGATE & BANSTEAD LTD | £117k | £113k | south · town | none |
| 220 | HUNTINGDONSHIRE VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £115k | £143k | south · town | some |
| 221 | HALESWORTH VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £112k | £97k | south · rural | majority |
| 222 | LUTTERWORTH VOLUNTEER CENTRE LIMITED | £108k | £128k | south · rural | majority |
| 223 | BRENTWOOD COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE | £93k | £99k | south · town | majority |
| 224 | COMMUNITY ACTION NORWICH | £91k | £88k | south · city | majority |
| 225 | ADUR VOLUNTARY ACTION | £89k | £82k | south · town | some |
| 226 | THE BOSTON VOLUNTEER CENTRE CHARITY | £86k | £90k | north · town | none |
| 227 | 2000 COMMUNITY ACTION CENTRE | £86k | £108k | south · city | majority |
| 228 | VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY ACTION EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE | £85k | £83k | south · rural | none |
| 229 | Canterbury District Volunteer Centre LTD | £76k | £88k | south · town | some |
| 230 | COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE NORTHAMPTON AND COUNTY | £75k | £82k | south · rural | none |
| 231 | EAST LANCASHIRE COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECT | £72k | £77k | north · town | none |
| 232 | HUCKNALL AND DISTRICT VOLUNTARY SECTOR PARTNERSHIP | £69k | £65k | north · town | none |
| 233 | VOLUNTEERING BRADFORD | £63k | £95k | north · city | some |
| 234 | FORMBY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE LIMITED | £56k | £74k | north · city | majority |
| 235 | DEVON VOLUNTARY ACTION | £55k | £75k | south · rural | none |
| 236 | VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY ACTION SUNDERLAND | £49k | £80k | north · city | none |
| 237 | WEALDEN VOLUNTEERING | £48k | £45k | south · rural | none |
| 238 | BERINSFIELD INFORMATION AND VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £46k | £53k | south · rural | none |
| 239 | FISH VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £44k | £21k | south · rural | none |
| 240 | OPEN DOOR COMMUNITY ACTION TRUST | £43k | £50k | south · city | some |
| 241 | STUDENT COMMUNITY ACTION - VOLUNTEERS IN CAMBRIDGE (CAMBRIDGE SCA) | £40k | £57k | south · city | none |
| 242 | BOGNOR COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK | £24k | £20k | south · town | none |
| 243 | COMMUNITY ACTION MACHYNLLETH AND DISTRICT | £23k | £49k | south · rural | majority |
| 244 | WORCESTER COMMUNITY ACTION | £22k | £19k | south · city | none |
| 245 | THORNBURY VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £17k | £23k | south · rural | some |
| 246 | CORNHILL COMMUNITY ACTION | £16k | £13k | north · rural | none |
| 247 | ABINGDON AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £15k | £15k | south · rural | none |
| 248 | VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY ACTION TRAFFORD LTD | £14k | £29k | north · city | none |
| 249 | QUAKER VOLUNTARY ACTION | £13k | £11k | south · rural | none |
| 250 | PANGBOURNE AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE | £11k | £9k | south · rural | none |
| 251 | EYE AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE CIO | £11k | £9k | south · rural | none |
Expenditure colour: green = surplus margin, rose = deficit (≥1%). Delivery tier from section 11. 36 originally-matched bodies excluded for tighter focus on local infrastructure orgs in England: 1 national-tier (Wales CVA); 2 frontline/regeneration charities (Groundwork London, Connection Support); 4 international name-collisions (Nepal, Romania, Zimbabwe, Ghana); 4 national sector / research bodies (NAVCA, IVAR, VSSN, CIVA); 7 single-cause frontline charities (Hope Nottingham, Christian CAM, Hailsham Foodbank, CARAS, Dementia-Brent, MS Community Action, Community Action Sport); and 18 single-estate or village residents' groups matched on the “community action” string only.
Section 17
Versus matched peers
Every figure on this page so far describes the LIO cohort in isolation. To ask whether the financial stress shown above is unique to local infrastructure — or whether any heavily government-funded local charity looks like this in 2025 — we built two peer comparison groups from the Charity Commission register.
For each LIO we drew the three nearest local service charities by income and Area-of-Operation. Cohort A matches on size and area only. Cohort B additionally requires the peer to be in the same government-share bucket as its LIO, so the comparison controls for the fact that LIOs are unusually gov-dependent.
- Charities
- 251
- Median income
- £595k
- Gov share (£-wt)
- 55%
- Median gov share
- 44%
- Charities
- 729
- Median income
- £585k
- Gov share (£-wt)
- 29%
- Median gov share
- 0%
- Charities
- 712
- Median income
- £811k
- Gov share (£-wt)
- 51%
- Median gov share
- 44%
3-year mean margin, distribution
For each charity we average the last three years of (income − expenditure) ÷ income, then bucket that 3-year margin into five bands. The LIO cohort is visibly more skewed toward deficit than either peer group — and crucially, that gap persists even against Cohort B, which is similarly gov-funded.
Stress indicators, side by side
Four ways of looking at financial pressure. On every measure, LIOs are worse off than either peer cohort — and Cohort B (matched on gov share) is the closest comparator, not the furthest.
| Measure | LIO cohort | Peers — income × region | Peers — income × region × gov-share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent deficit (3-yr margin < −5%) | 27.9% | 20.2% | 16.6% |
| In deficit (latest reported year) | 46.2% | 32.8% | 34.0% |
| Margin trajectory deteriorating | 54.5% | 45.3% | 48.7% |
| Median income CAGR | +5.7% | +7.5% | +5.5% |
| Median expenditure CAGR | +8.9% | +10.8% | +8.5% |
Aggregate income vs expenditure, by year
Within each cohort, total income and total expenditure, summed across every charity reporting that year. Bars share a per-cohort scale (so the heights are comparable within each strip, not across strips). The LIO strip is the only one where expenditure catches up with income in the latest years.
exp £164.1M
exp £197.2M
exp £234.7M
exp £239.1M
exp £235.2M
exp £381.0M
exp £443.5M
exp £500.2M
exp £562.8M
exp £449.3M
exp £670.3M
exp £743.0M
exp £843.2M
exp £921.9M
exp £867.6M
Coloured bar = income, grey bar = expenditure. Within each cohort the bars share a scale; across cohorts they do not. Years where fewer than 30 charities filed are omitted.
Income & expenditure trajectory, indexed to 2021 = 100
Each charity is indexed to its own 2021 starting figure; the line is the median index across the cohort. Solid line is income, dashed line is expenditure. Where the dashed line sits above the solid line, the cohort is collectively spending faster than its income is growing. Each row shares a y-scale, so the widening gap between dashed and solid is comparable across cohorts.
Per-charity indexes, then median across cohort. In nominal terms every cohort's expenditure is outrunning its income; the gap is widest for LIOs. In real terms Cohort A (less gov-dependent peers) pulls clear on income, while LIOs and gov-matched peers track close to flat.
Bottom line
Matched peers — even when matched on government-share — are substantially healthier than LIOs across every measure. So the deficit story in this report is not just “heavily gov-funded local charities are struggling.” Other locally-rooted service charities with similar gov dependency are doing better. The pressure picked up by these figures is specific to the local infrastructure model.
How peers were matched
Donor pool:English charities with at least one specific Area-of-Operation entry (we drop “Throughout England”-only registrations), classified as service-delivery or advice/advocacy, with broad/poverty/health/disability purposes, and with annual income ≥ £50k.
For each LIO: from candidates sharing at least one specific Area-of-Operation entry, we picked the k=3 nearest by log-income, without replacement across LIOs. Cohort B additionally required the peer's government-funding-share to fall into the same band as the LIO's (<10%, 10–30%, 30–50%, 50–70%, ≥70%).
Caveats:the peer cohort is a stratified match, not full propensity scoring. Activity granularity is coarse (Charity Commission “What”/“How” classifications), so a peer may differ in mission. The signal is robust because it persists across both cohorts (size×region alone andsize×region×gov-share), not because any single match is precise.
Section 18
What this report is built from
Every figure on this page comes from public Charity Commission data. AI extraction parses the unstructured narrative inside each annual report into structured fields; the structured numbers come from the bulk register and Part A / Part B annual returns.
- 251
- Annual reports read
- 4,064
- Funders extracted
- 4,114
- Projects described
- 4,022
- Partnerships named
- 837
- Risks disclosed
- 1,612
- Forward plans
- 1,208
- Income streams
- 1,228
- Multi-year finance rows
The same method applied to a single borough — its members' accounts, monitoring reports, partner records — produces the same shape of evidence for the local sector. What used to require a six-week analyst engagement is now a one-day pipeline.