Plinth

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.

69%
15%
Charitable activities (services, contracts, fees)
£170.0M · 68.8%
Donations & legacies
£37.8M · 15.3%
Trading
£5.9M · 2.4%
Investments
£3.8M · 1.6%

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.

£182.7M
2021
42% gov
241 LIOs
£222.3M
2022
55% gov
243 LIOs
£241.9M
2023
52% gov
244 LIOs
£239.3M
2024
54% gov
247 LIOs
£240.9M
2025
55% gov
233 LIOs

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.

£164.1M
2021
90% of inc
241 LIOs
£197.2M
2022
89% of inc
243 LIOs
£234.7M
2023
97% of inc
244 LIOs
£239.1M
2024
100% of inc
247 LIOs
£235.2M
2025
98% of inc
233 LIOs

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.

2021
81%
18%
196 / 44
2022
74%
26%
179 / 64
2023
56%
44%
136 / 107
2024
53%
47%
132 / 115
2025
51%
49%
119 / 114

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.

-40%-30%-20%-10%+0%+10%+20%+30%+40%02021+11%2022+6%2023+2%2024+1%2025+0%
Surplus-leaning year (median > 0) Deficit-leaning yearBox: p25–p75 · Vertical line: median · Whiskers: most extreme within 1.5×IQR

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%).

9011013020212022202320242025123101
NominalReal (CPI-deflated)225 LIOs in the cohort

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%.

Shrinking sharply
Nominal
41
Real
66
Shrinking
Nominal
20
Real
37
Roughly flat (±5%)
Nominal
20
Real
27
Growing
Nominal
32
Real
34
Growing sharply
Nominal
129
Real
78

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.

StreamLIOs 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.

A note on the £ totals. Most accounts name a funder without stating an exact amount. The Total £ column sums only mentions where a figure was given; the coloured pill below each total shows that disclosure rate. Read the totals as relative magnitudes, not final figures.
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
Showing 30 of 2085 funders

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

Under £500
47
£500–£2k
269
£2k–£10k
546
£10k–£50k
400
£50k–£250k
82
£250k+
11

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 sectorLIOs
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.

Under 1 month
0
1–3 months
7
3–6 months
73
6–12 months
60
12+ months
11

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.)

Single funder ≥ 80% of named income
Effectively one source
12
Top funder 50–80%
Dominant single funder
47
Top funder 30–50%
One large funder among several
56
Top funder under 30%
Well-spread funder mix
34

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 LIOs

Several 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 LIOs

Multi-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 LIOs

Specific 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 LIOs

The 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 LIOs

LIOs 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 LIOs

Grants 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 LIOs

Volunteer 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 LIOs

Integrated 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 LIOs

Council 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 LIOs

LIOs 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 LIOs

Increasing 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 LIOs

A 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 LIOs

Strategic 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 LIOs

Plans 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 LIOs

Explicit 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 LIOs

Strategic 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 LIOs

Plans 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 LIOs

Plans 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 LIOs

Building 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 LIOs

LIOs 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 LIOs

Plans 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 LIOs

Plans 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?

1 metric only
95%
2–5 metrics
4222%
6–15 metrics
8041%
16–30 metrics
6131%
31+ metrics
21%

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

BucketLIOs
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.

MetricLIOsMedian
Volunteer hours given per year
unit: hours · 15 rows dropped
554,025
Volunteers on the books
unit: people · 51 rows dropped
70200
Volunteers placed into roles
unit: people · 41 rows dropped
57135
Community-transport journeys per year
unit: journeys · 47 rows dropped
365,991
Miles driven by volunteer drivers
unit: miles · 4 rows dropped
2556,741
Social-media followers
unit: followers · 14 rows dropped
252,647
Newsletter / e-bulletin subscribers
unit: subscribers · 16 rows dropped
381,157
£ levered into member orgs
unit: £ · 5 rows dropped
56£484k
Grants awarded by the LIO (count)
unit: grants · 39 rows dropped
1262
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
25444
Events run per year
unit: events · 66 rows dropped
5040

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×+.

RatioLIO
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)

SegmentReporting
Bottom third (small)57/83
69%
Middle third60/83
72%
Top third (large)77/85
91%

By settlement type

SegmentReporting
city87/103
84%
town58/82
71%
rural49/66
74%

By government-funding share of income

SegmentReporting
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

Median income£602k
Income vs expenditure (median growth/yr)
Income
+8.9%
Exp
+11.7%
3-year margin (mean of last 3 years)median +0.7%
15%
28%
31%
18%

persistent deficit (mean <-5%): 26% · trajectory deteriorating: 55%

Income mix83% charit · 13% dons

Some direct (minority)

128 LIOs

At least one frontline project; support outweighs

Median income£723k
Income vs expenditure (median growth/yr)
Income
+5.4%
Exp
+8.6%
3-year margin (mean of last 3 years)median +0.6%
16%
30%
34%
13%

persistent deficit (mean <-5%): 30% · trajectory deteriorating: 55%

Income mix76% charit · 20% dons

No direct delivery

58 LIOs

Pure infrastructure — only org-support projects

Median income£318k
Income vs expenditure (median growth/yr)
Income
+1.3%
Exp
+8.3%
3-year margin (mean of last 3 years)median +0.2%
17%
24%
14%
26%
19%

persistent deficit (mean <-5%): 26% · trajectory deteriorating: 54%

Income mix82% charit · 13% dons
Charitable activities Donations Trading Investments

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.

Majority direct
65 LIOs
26%
28%
45%
55% gov
Some direct
128 LIOs
39%
19%
42%
58% gov
No direct delivery
58 LIOs
29%
10%
61%
39% gov
Government grants Government contracts Non-government income

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.

city
103 LIOs
20%
54%
25%
20% maj.
town
82 LIOs
26%
55%
20%
26% maj.
rural
66 LIOs
35%
41%
24%
35% maj.
Majority direct Some direct (minority) No direct delivery

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.

Gov-income bucketLIOsMedian income CAGR /yrgrowth3-year margin distributionmedian
Gov < 25%76
+4.3%
20%
26%
11%
28%
16%
+0.0%
Gov 25–50%65
+5.6%
12%
35%
32%
12%
-0.2%
Gov 50–75%68
+6.7%
16%
28%
34%
15%
+1.0%
Gov ≥ 75%41
+6.8%
12%
20%
10%
34%
24%
+3.9%
Severe deficit (≤-10%) Modest deficit Balanced Modest surplus Healthy surplus (>10%)

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.)

Top-funder share bandnMedian income CAGR /yrgrowth3-year margin distributionmedian
Top funder ≥80%12
+6.7%
42%
25%
17%
17%
-2.1%
Top funder 50–80%45 with ≥2-year growth47
+1.9%
15%
30%
32%
17%
+0.7%
Top funder 30–50%56
+3.9%
14%
30%
13%
34%
9%
-0.4%
Top funder <30%34
+8.1%
15%
18%
15%
35%
18%
+1.3%
Severe deficit (≤-10%) Modest deficit Balanced Modest surplus Healthy surplus (>10%)

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%.

Funder mixLIOs3-year margin distributionmedianpersistent deficitdeteriorating
NHS-focused
Named NHS income ≥15%, council <15%
15
13%
20%
40%
20%
+2.7%20%47%
Both NHS & LA
Both ≥15% of named funder income
29
34%
34%
17%
+1.3%21%57%
Council-focused
Named council income ≥15%, NHS <15%
62
19%
26%
13%
32%
10%
+0.6%26%52%
Neither (small grants / lottery / donations)
Both NHS and council <15%
43
21%
30%
28%
16%
-1.0%42%56%
Severe deficit (≤-10%) Modest deficit Balanced Modest surplus Healthy surplus (>10%)

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

Under £25k
100% of £
£25k–£100k
191% of £
£100k–£250k
342% of £
£250k–£500k
477% of £
£500k–£1M
6820% of £
£1M–£2.5M
5434% of £
£2.5M–£5M
1419% of £
£5M–£10M
410% of £
£10M+
17% of £

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

#LIOIncomeExpenditureSettlement
1BIRMINGHAM VOLUNTARY SERVICE COUNCIL£17.0M£16.7Msouth · city
2ACTION TOGETHER CIO£8.0M£6.3Mnorth · city
3SALFORD COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SERVICES£6.4M£6.3Mnorth · city
4CORNWALL VOLUNTARY SECTOR FORUM£5.7M£2.0Msouth · rural
5INVOLVE KENT£5.5M£4.7Msouth · town
6SEFTON COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£4.8M£4.8Mnorth · city
7VOLUNTARY NORFOLK£4.4M£4.2Msouth · city
8VOLUNTARY ACTION SHEFFIELD£3.7M£2.6Mnorth · city
9SUPPORT STAFFORDSHIRE£3.4M£3.2Msouth · town
10DUDLEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£3.4M£3.2Msouth · city
Show all 251 LIOs, sorted by income
#LIOIncomeExp.SettlementDelivery
1BIRMINGHAM VOLUNTARY SERVICE COUNCIL£17.0M£16.7Msouth · citysome
2ACTION TOGETHER CIO£8.0M£6.3Mnorth · citysome
3SALFORD COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SERVICES£6.4M£6.3Mnorth · citysome
4CORNWALL VOLUNTARY SECTOR FORUM£5.7M£2.0Msouth · ruralsome
5INVOLVE KENT£5.5M£4.7Msouth · townmajority
6SEFTON COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£4.8M£4.8Mnorth · citysome
7VOLUNTARY NORFOLK£4.4M£4.2Msouth · citymajority
8VOLUNTARY ACTION SHEFFIELD£3.7M£2.6Mnorth · citysome
9SUPPORT STAFFORDSHIRE£3.4M£3.2Msouth · townsome
10DUDLEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£3.4M£3.2Msouth · citysome
11VOLUNTARY ACTION ROTHERHAM£3.3M£3.9Mnorth · citymajority
12COMMUNITY FIRST£3.3M£2.9Msouth · ruralmajority
13BOLTON COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES£3.1M£3.7Mnorth · citysome
14DACORUM COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£3.1M£3.0Msouth · townsome
15COMMUNITY ACTION DERBY LTD£3.1M£3.3Mnorth · citymajority
16COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SUPPORT CONWY£3.0M£3.4Mnorth · townnone
17VOLUNTARY ACTION - LEEDS£3.0M£2.8Mnorth · citysome
18COMMUNITY360£2.8M£3.6Msouth · townmajority
19CVS Lincolnshire£2.5M£2.6Mnorth · citymajority
20VOLUNTEER CORNWALL£2.4M£2.1Msouth · citysome
21HULL COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES LTD£2.2M£2.0Mnorth · citysome
22COMMUNITY ACTION SUTTON£2.2M£2.3Msouth · citysome
23Connex Community Support£2.1M£2.0Mnorth · ruralmajority
24THIRD SECTOR LEADERS KIRKLEES£2.1M£2.0Mnorth · citysome
25CoLab Exeter£2.1M£2.0Msouth · citynone
26BURNLEY PENDLE AND ROSSENDALE COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£2.1M£2.2Mnorth · townsome
27COMMUNITY ACTION ISLE OF WIGHT£2.0M£1.9Msouth · townsome
28VOLUNTARY ACTION LEICESTER£2.0M£2.1Msouth · citysome
29COMMUNITY ACTION SUFFOLK£2.0M£2.3Msouth · townnone
30WARWICKSHIRE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTION£2.0M£1.8Msouth · townsome
31NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION£1.9M£1.7Msouth · townsome
32Connected Voice£1.9M£1.9Mnorth · citysome
33ONE KNOWSLEY£1.9M£1.8Mnorth · citysome
34HACKNEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.8M£1.9Msouth · citysome
35VOLUNTARY SECTOR CENTRES£1.7M£1.7Msouth · citynone
36LINCOLNSHIRE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.7M£1.5Mnorth · townmajority
37YORK CENTRE FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.7M£1.7Mnorth · citysome
38OXFORDSHIRE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTION£1.7M£1.7Msouth · citynone
39COMMUNITIES 1ST£1.6M£1.6Msouth · townsome
40CROYDON VOLUNTARY ACTION£1.6M£1.7Msouth · citysome
41SPARK SOMERSET£1.6M£1.3Msouth · ruralsome
42NOVA WAKEFIELD DISTRICT LIMITED£1.6M£1.8Mnorth · citysome
43MERTON VOLUNTARY SERVICE COUNCIL£1.6M£1.7Msouth · citymajority
44NOTTINGHAM COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.6M£683knorth · citysome
45SANDWELL COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS (S.C.V.O.)£1.6M£1.6Msouth · citysome
46SOUTH DERBYSHIRE CVS£1.5M£1.5Mnorth · townmajority
47Wolverhampton Voluntary and Community Action£1.5M£1.5Msouth · citysome
48EREWASH VOLUNTARY ACTION - COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.5M£1.3Mnorth · townmajority
49KINGSTON VOLUNTARY ACTION£1.5M£1.2Msouth · citymajority
50CUMBRIA COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.4M£1.5Mnorth · citysome
51SOUTHEND ASSOCIATION OF VOLUNTARY SERVICES£1.4M£1.3Msouth · citymajority
52COMMUNITY ACTION BRADFORD & DISTRICT LTD.£1.4M£1.4Mnorth · citysome
53HALTON AND ST HELENS VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY ACTION£1.3M£1.7Mnorth · citysome
54HASTINGS VOLUNTARY ACTION£1.2M£1.2Msouth · townmajority
55VOLUNTARY IMPACT NORTHAMPTONSHIRE LTD£1.2M£942ksouth · townmajority
56ONE WESTMINSTER£1.2M£1.3Msouth · citysome
57AMBER VALLEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.2M£1.3Mnorth · ruralsome
58COMMUNITY SOUTHWARK£1.2M£1.1Msouth · citysome
59VOLUNTARY SECTOR NORTH WEST£1.2M£1.1Mnorth · citysome
60TENDRING COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY SERVICES£1.2M£1.7Msouth · townsome
61VOLUNTEER CENTRE HACKNEY£1.2M£1.2Msouth · citysome
62VOLUNTARY & COMMUNITY£1.2M£887knorth · citysome
63THURROCK C.V.S (COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE)£1.2M£1.2Msouth · townsome
64Cheshire West Voluntary Action£1.1M£1.1Mnorth · citysome
65BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.1M£1.3Mnorth · townsome
66Community Action Redbridge£1.1M£1.1Msouth · citysome
67VOLUNTARY ACTION MERTHYR TYDFIL£1.1M£961ksouth · townsome
68SUTTON BOROUGH VOLUNTEER BUREAU£1.0M£1.0Msouth · citymajority
69DURHAM COMMUNITY ACTION LIMITED£1.0M£1.2Mnorth · ruralsome
70SLOUGH COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£1.0M£892ksouth · townsome
71Community Action Network£1.0M£3.0Msouth · citysome
72NUCLEUS COMMUNITY ACTION LTD£1.0M£948ksouth · citynone
73SOUTHERN BROOKS COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS£1.0M£1.2Msouth · citymajority
74LIFELINE COMMUNITY ACTION£999k£331knorth · townmajority
75TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£992k£848ksouth · citynone
76COMMUNITY ACTION NORTHUMBERLAND£992k£894knorth · ruralmajority
77JOHN STORER CHARNWOOD£990k£913ksouth · townmajority
78WARRINGTON VOLUNTARY ACTION£987k£986knorth · citymajority
79EALING AND HOUNSLOW COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY SERVICE£977k£689ksouth · citysome
80BURY VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY & FAITH ALLIANCE£972k£855knorth · citynone
81BRIGHTON & HOVE COMMUNITY WORKS£962k£1.1Msouth · citynone
82TELFORD AND WREKIN COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£962k£1.0Msouth · townsome
83GLOSSOP AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER BUREAU£961k£810knorth · ruralmajority
84MIDDLESBROUGH VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY£961k£710knorth · citysome
85ONE COMMUNITY EASTLEIGH£952k£1.3Msouth · townsome
86BEXLEY VOLUNTARY SERVICE COUNCIL LIMITED£938k£1.0Msouth · citysome
87COMMUNITY ACTION HAMPSHIRE£936k£916ksouth · ruralsome
88NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE CENTRE FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE LIMITED£916k£809ksouth · townmajority
89VOLUNTARY ACTION CUMBRIA£914k£750knorth · ruralnone
90BASSETLAW COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE£908k£934knorth · townsome
91UNITY (SOUTHERN) LTD£887k£1.0Msouth · townmajority
92ENFIELD VOLUNTARY ACTION£884k£802ksouth · citynone
93NORTH TYNESIDE VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY£876k£1.1Mnorth · citysome
94COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE (MEDWAY)£873k£812ksouth · citymajority
95COMMUNITY ACTION: MK£841k£571ksouth · citysome
96FOREST VOLUNTARY ACTION FORUM£837k£794ksouth · ruralsome
97WIRRAL CVS£820k£643knorth · citynone
98LEICESTERSHIRE VOLUNTARY SECTOR RESOURCE AGENCY£806k£795ksouth · citymajority
99LANCASTER DISTRICT COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SOLUTIONS£766k£882knorth · citysome
100COAST AND VALE COMMUNITY ACTION£758k£809knorth · townsome
101COMMUNITY LINKS BROMLEY£746k£533ksouth · citysome
1023VA£744k£764ksouth · ruralsome
103OSWESTRY COMMUNITY ACTION£738k£704knorth · ruralmajority
104READING VOLUNTARY ACTION£723k£739ksouth · citysome
105SURREY COMMUNITY ACTION£695k£666ksouth · townsome
106DERBYSHIRE VOLUNTARY ACTION£691k£775knorth · townsome
107VOLUNTARY ACTION NORTH SOMERSET£686k£592ksouth · townsome
108Sector 3 Stockport£683k£573knorth · citysome
109NEWARK AND SHERWOOD COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE£673k£934knorth · ruralmajority
110CASTLE POINT ASSOCIATION OF VOLUNTARY SERVICES LIMITED£667k£690ksouth · townmajority
111DORSET COMMUNITY ACTION£666k£655ksouth · ruralmajority
112Crawley Community Action£658k£512ksouth · townsome
113BARNSLEY COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES£658k£746knorth · citysome
114PETERBOROUGH COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£655k£699ksouth · citysome
115VOLUNTARY ACTION COVENTRY£653k£668ksouth · citysome
116VOLUNTARY SUPPORT NORTH SURREY£645k£684ksouth · townsome
117HIGH PEAK CVS£635k£599knorth · ruralsome
118VOLUNTEER CENTRE KENSINGTON & CHELSEA£630k£644ksouth · citysome
119VOLUNTEER CENTRE BLACKPOOL WYRE AND FYLDE£626k£645knorth · townmajority
120HAMBLETON COMMUNITY ACTION£624k£579knorth · ruralsome
121HEREFORDSHIRE VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS SUPPORT SERVICE£619k£575ksouth · citysome
122COMMUNITY IMPACT BUCKS£617k£712ksouth · ruralsome
123VOLUNTARY ACTION SOUTH WEST SURREY£613k£561ksouth · townsome
124VOLUNTARY ACTION - SWINDON£610k£553ksouth · townnone
125THE JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL VOLUNTARY SERVICES COUNCIL£602k£556knorth · citymajority
126SOUTH NORTHANTS VOLUNTEER BUREAU£595k£646ksouth · ruralmajority
127COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES CHESHIRE EAST£590k£578knorth · townnone
128BROMLEY CHILDREN AND FAMILIES VOLUNTARY SECTOR FORUM£589k£565ksouth · citymajority
129VOLUNTARY ACTION SOUTH LEICESTERSHIRE£587k£606ksouth · ruralmajority
130MRC COMMUNITY ACTION£572k£558ksouth · ruralnone
131COMMUNITY ACTION NORFOLK£559k£575ksouth · ruralsome
132BASILDON, BILLERICAY AND WICKFORD COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£558k£585ksouth · townsome
133BASINGSTOKE VOLUNTARY ACTION£555k£555ksouth · townnone
134GLOUCESTERSHIRE VCSE ALLIANCE£540k£510ksouth · ruralsome
135VOLUNTARY ACTION EPPING FOREST£537k£512ksouth · townsome
136BULLION COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRE£530k£422knorth · townsome
137BROMSGROVE AND REDDITCH NETWORK£526k£672ksouth · townsome
138ROTHER VOLUNTARY ACTION£524k£568ksouth · townnone
139SWALE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES£513k£557ksouth · townsome
140NORTH DEVON VOLUNTARY SERVICES LIMITED£506k£526ksouth · ruralsome
141VOLUNTARY ACTION ISLINGTON LIMITED£503k£559ksouth · citynone
142CAMBRIDGE COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£496k£511ksouth · citynone
143RUSHCLIFFE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE£485k£406knorth · ruralmajority
144WANSBECK CENTRE FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£478k£409knorth · townnone
145CHELMSFORD COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£466k£433ksouth · townmajority
146ONE WALSALL LTD£461k£510ksouth · citynone
147REDCAR & CLEVELAND VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY£461k£510knorth · townmajority
148HART VOLUNTARY ACTION LIMITED£455k£488ksouth · townmajority
149COMMUNITY PEOPLE MID SUSSEX£446k£314ksouth · townsome
150BROMLEY VOLUNTARY SECTOR TRUST£434k£499ksouth · citynone
151WESSEX COMMUNITY ACTION£427k£432ksouth · citysome
152VOLUNTEER CENTRE DORSET£422k£479ksouth · ruralsome
153HAMPSTEAD COMMUNITY ACTION LIMITED£421k£413ksouth · citymajority
154CENTRAL SURREY VOLUNTARY ACTION LIMITED£420k£340ksouth · townmajority
155COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY SERVICE BEDFORDSHIRE£418k£445ksouth · townsome
156WALTHAM FOREST COMMUNITY HUB£413k£448ksouth · citymajority
157MALDON AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY SERVICE£408k£323ksouth · ruralnone
158DERBYSHIRE DALES COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£404k£670knorth · ruralsome
159ASHFORD VOLUNTEER CENTRE£398k£336ksouth · townsome
160VOLUNTARY ACTION CAMDEN£389k£352ksouth · citysome
161TRAFFORD COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE£386k£471knorth · citynone
162BARKING AND DAGENHAM COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£375k£376ksouth · citysome
163SUNDERLAND VOLUNTARY SECTOR ALLIANCE£372k£448knorth · citysome
164Action Point Community Support Services£362k£348knorth · citynone
165HYNDBURN AND RIBBLE VALLEY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£355k£317knorth · ruralsome
166MANSFIELD COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE (CVS)£345k£455knorth · townsome
167CVS BRENT£337k£476ksouth · citynone
168THE RICHMOND UPON THAMES COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£335k£333ksouth · citynone
169LINKS: THE CHESTERFIELD AND NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE AND ACTION LIMITED£333k£267knorth · townnone
170COMMUNITY ACTION MALVERN AND DISTRICT£333k£357ksouth · ruralsome
171VOLUNTARY ACTION ARUN AND CHICHESTER£329k£316ksouth · townmajority
172HINCKLEY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ACTION (HCCA)£329k£324ksouth · townsome
173VOLUNTEER CENTRE GREENWICH£327k£318ksouth · citysome
174COMMUNITY VOLUNTARY ACTION LEDBURY & DISTRICT£326k£235ksouth · ruralmajority
175DROITWICH SPA AND RURAL COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE£323k£300ksouth · ruralsome
176THE COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE UTTLESFORD£320k£527ksouth · ruralsome
177VOLUNTARY ACTION - NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE£318k£362knorth · townnone
178VOLUNTARY ACTION STRATFORD ON AVON DISTRICT£314k£344ksouth · townmajority
179WEST DEVON COMMUNITY & VOLUNTARY SERVICES£309k£343ksouth · ruralsome
180HARROGATE AND AREA CVS LTD£304k£325knorth · townsome
181COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECT£293k£211ksouth · citynone
182VOLUNTEER CENTRE WEST BERKSHIRE£289k£287ksouth · townsome
183KENT COAST VOLUNTEERING LTD£285k£381ksouth · townsome
184VOLUNTARY ACTION RUTLAND£277k£280ksouth · ruralmajority
185CVS SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE£274k£284ksouth · townsome
186THE LEARNING CURVE VOLUNTARY SECTOR DEVELOPMENT£270k£185ksouth · citymajority
187ABERGELE COMMUNITY ACTION LTD£268k£391knorth · ruralmajority
188CAMDEN VOLUNTEER BUREAU£261k£249ksouth · citynone
189COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTION BLYTH VALLEY£238k£179knorth · townnone
190INSPIRE SOUTH TYNESIDE£225k£185knorth · citynone
191VOLUNTEER ACTION£225k£190ksouth · ruralmajority
192NEW MILLS AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE£224k£192knorth · ruralmajority
193VOLUNTEER CENTRE TOWER HAMLETS£214k£187ksouth · citynone
194ASSIST TEIGNBRIDGE£212k£244ksouth · ruralmajority
195COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE WEST LANCASHIRE£211k£237knorth · townnone
196COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE NORTH WEST KENT£209k£189ksouth · townsome
197VOLUNTEER FRIENDS£209k£157ksouth · townmajority
198VOLUNTARY SECTOR MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS FORUM£208k£385ksouth · citysome
199ISLAND COMMUNITY ACTION£207k£189ksouth · ruralsome
200THE WOKINGHAM VOLUNTEER CENTRE£196k£193ksouth · townsome
201RURAL COMMUNITY ACTION NOTTINGHAMSHIRE£193k£218knorth · townsome
202VOLUNTARY ACTION NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE LIMITED£190k£174knorth · townsome
203South Hams Community Action£189k£270ksouth · ruralsome
204YSTRADGYNLAIS VOLUNTEER CENTRE£187k£208ksouth · ruralsome
205INVOLVE - VOLUNTARY ACTION IN MID DEVON£186k£233ksouth · ruralsome
206ASHFIELD VOLUNTARY ACTION£178k£209knorth · townsome
207EAST RIDING VOLUNTARY ACTION SERVICES (ERVAS) LIMITED£176k£221knorth · ruralsome
208THE VOLUNTEER CENTRE- CHESTERFIELD AND NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE£164k£128knorth · townsome
209CAFLO (COMMUNITY ACTIONS FOR LOCAL OPPORTUNITIES)£163k£105ksouth · citymajority
210COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP (LEICESTERSHIRE)£158k£140ksouth · ruralmajority
211HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM VOLUNTEER CENTRE£145k£135ksouth · citynone
212HAVERING VOLUNTEER CENTRE£144k£187ksouth · citysome
213PERSHORE AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE£143k£170ksouth · ruralsome
214VOLUNTARY ACTION SURREY EAST (VASE)£143k£148ksouth · ruralmajority
215SYSTON AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE£132k£156ksouth · ruralnone
216AUDLEM AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY ACTION£126k£139knorth · ruralnone
217TEIGNBRIDGE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICES£122k£1.2Msouth · ruralmajority
218EVESHAM VOLUNTEER CENTRE£122k£127ksouth · ruralmajority
219VOLUNTARY ACTION REIGATE & BANSTEAD LTD£117k£113ksouth · townnone
220HUNTINGDONSHIRE VOLUNTEER CENTRE£115k£143ksouth · townsome
221HALESWORTH VOLUNTEER CENTRE£112k£97ksouth · ruralmajority
222LUTTERWORTH VOLUNTEER CENTRE LIMITED£108k£128ksouth · ruralmajority
223BRENTWOOD COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SERVICE£93k£99ksouth · townmajority
224COMMUNITY ACTION NORWICH£91k£88ksouth · citymajority
225ADUR VOLUNTARY ACTION£89k£82ksouth · townsome
226THE BOSTON VOLUNTEER CENTRE CHARITY£86k£90knorth · townnone
2272000 COMMUNITY ACTION CENTRE£86k£108ksouth · citymajority
228VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY ACTION EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE£85k£83ksouth · ruralnone
229Canterbury District Volunteer Centre LTD£76k£88ksouth · townsome
230COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE NORTHAMPTON AND COUNTY£75k£82ksouth · ruralnone
231EAST LANCASHIRE COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECT£72k£77knorth · townnone
232HUCKNALL AND DISTRICT VOLUNTARY SECTOR PARTNERSHIP£69k£65knorth · townnone
233VOLUNTEERING BRADFORD£63k£95knorth · citysome
234FORMBY COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE LIMITED£56k£74knorth · citymajority
235DEVON VOLUNTARY ACTION£55k£75ksouth · ruralnone
236VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY ACTION SUNDERLAND£49k£80knorth · citynone
237WEALDEN VOLUNTEERING£48k£45ksouth · ruralnone
238BERINSFIELD INFORMATION AND VOLUNTEER CENTRE£46k£53ksouth · ruralnone
239FISH VOLUNTEER CENTRE£44k£21ksouth · ruralnone
240OPEN DOOR COMMUNITY ACTION TRUST£43k£50ksouth · citysome
241STUDENT COMMUNITY ACTION - VOLUNTEERS IN CAMBRIDGE (CAMBRIDGE SCA)£40k£57ksouth · citynone
242BOGNOR COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK£24k£20ksouth · townnone
243COMMUNITY ACTION MACHYNLLETH AND DISTRICT£23k£49ksouth · ruralmajority
244WORCESTER COMMUNITY ACTION£22k£19ksouth · citynone
245THORNBURY VOLUNTEER CENTRE£17k£23ksouth · ruralsome
246CORNHILL COMMUNITY ACTION£16k£13knorth · ruralnone
247ABINGDON AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE£15k£15ksouth · ruralnone
248VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY ACTION TRAFFORD LTD£14k£29knorth · citynone
249QUAKER VOLUNTARY ACTION£13k£11ksouth · ruralnone
250PANGBOURNE AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE£11k£9ksouth · ruralnone
251EYE AND DISTRICT VOLUNTEER CENTRE CIO£11k£9ksouth · ruralnone

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.

LIO cohort
The 251 LIOs in this report.
Charities
251
Median income
£595k
Gov share (£-wt)
55%
Median gov share
44%
Peers — income × region
Local service charities matched on Area-of-Operation × income decile.
Charities
729
Median income
£585k
Gov share (£-wt)
29%
Median gov share
0%
Peers — income × region × gov-share
Same as above, but also matched on government-funding-share bucket.
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.

LIO cohort
251 charities · median +0.2%
16%
28%
9%
31%
16%
Peers — income × region
729 charities · median +3.5%
13%
19%
9%
28%
32%
Peers — income × region × gov-share
712 charities · median +2.8%
8%
22%
11%
33%
27%
Severe deficit (≤-10%) Modest deficit Balanced Modest surplus Healthy surplus (>10%)

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.

MeasureLIO cohortPeers — income × regionPeers — 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 deteriorating54.5%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.

LIO
inc £182.7M
exp £164.1M
2021
241 orgs
inc £222.3M
exp £197.2M
2022
243 orgs
inc £241.9M
exp £234.7M
2023
244 orgs
inc £239.3M
exp £239.1M
2024
247 orgs
inc £240.9M
exp £235.2M
2025
233 orgs
Peers · income+region
inc £432.0M
exp £381.0M
2021
552 orgs
inc £473.8M
exp £443.5M
2022
594 orgs
inc £526.6M
exp £500.2M
2023
615 orgs
inc £591.7M
exp £562.8M
2024
645 orgs
inc £471.5M
exp £449.3M
2025
469 orgs
Peers · +gov-share
inc £731.8M
exp £670.3M
2021
469 orgs
inc £783.9M
exp £743.0M
2022
479 orgs
inc £860.9M
exp £843.2M
2023
520 orgs
inc £950.7M
exp £921.9M
2024
575 orgs
inc £883.5M
exp £867.6M
2025
504 orgs

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.

Nominal (cash terms)
LIOs
10011012013014015016020212022202320242025123141
Peers · income+region
10011012013014015016020212022202320242025132150
Peers · +gov-share
10011012013014015016020212022202320242025120135
Real (CPI-deflated to constant prices)
LIOs
9010011012013020212022202320242025101115
Peers · income+region
9010011012013020212022202320242025108123
Peers · +gov-share
901001101201302021202220232024202598111
income (solid)expenditure (dashed)

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.