Archive for category: News

As the world witnesses unprecedented growth in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, it’s essential to consider the potential risks and challenges associated with their widespread adoption. AI is being touted as a great capacity saving platform for the Charity sector, and we all know the issues we have around resource and just having too much to do within a limited time frame.

However, the application of AI needs some serious thought and can lead to a raft of issues if not sourced or applied correctly.

The first issue is one of Transparency: Lack of transparency in AI systems, particularly in deep learning models that can be complex and difficult to interpret, is a pressing concern. This opaqueness obscures the decision-making processes and underlying logic of these technologies. When people are unable to comprehend how an AI system arrives at its conclusions, it can lead to distrust and resistance to adopting these technologies.

Bias and discrimination: AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate or amplify societal biases due to biased training data or algorithmic design. To minimize discrimination and ensure fairness, it is crucial to invest in the development of unbiased algorithms and diverse training data sets.

Privacy: AI technologies often collect and analyse large amounts of personal data, raising issues related to data privacy and security. To mitigate privacy risks, organisations need to be clear of the risk and impact.

The Art of the Ethical: Instilling moral and ethical values in AI systems, especially in decision-making contexts with significant consequences, presents a considerable challenge. Researchers and developers must prioritize the ethical implications of AI technologies to avoid negative societal impacts.

Security: As AI technologies become increasingly sophisticated, the security risks associated with their use and the potential for misuse also increase. Hackers and malicious actors can harness the power of AI to develop more advanced cyberattacks, bypass security measures, and exploit vulnerabilities in systems. The rise of AI-driven autonomous weaponry also raises concerns about the dangers of rogue states or non- state actors using this technology — especially when we consider the potential loss of human control in critical decision-making processes. To mitigate these security risks, governments and organizations need to develop best practices for secure AI development and deployment and foster international cooperation to establish global norms and regulations that protect against AI security threats.

Job displacement: AI-driven automation has the potential to lead to job losses across various industries, particularly for low-skilled workers (although there is evidence that AI and other emerging technologies will create more jobs than it eliminates). As AI technologies continue to develop and become more efficient, the workforce must adapt and acquire new skills to remain relevant in the changing landscape.

AI can clearly be a power for good if used correctly and appropriately. However, early adoption for early adoptions sake may not always be the best path to follow. There’s a multitude of articles in the public domain about AI, and how useful it is. There is also plenty casting doubt on AI, especially if sourced and used inappropriately. Ultimately, and in our world, a decision about its use will come from Trustee Boards. Its not a decision to be taken lightly. If you are thinking about AI for your organisation, seek as much advice as you can, and from as many different sources as you can. Information about digital poverty can be found here

The Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) have published the findings of a 12-month research project, carried out in 2024, on Local Civil Society Infrastructure (LCSI). The purpose of the research was to develop the evidence base on LCSI in England by identifying the positive impacts of effective LCSI, the negative impacts of its absence and the conditions and approaches for building effective LCSI in areas where it is weak or non-existent.

‍

This research is good news for local infrastructure and strongly supports the case for local, quality provision.

Headlines
‍

1.  There is no agreed definition of the organisations and functions of LCSI.
‍

2. LCSI was identified to have five functions: facilitating funding, organisational development, advocacy, volunteering and community participation, and convening.

‍

3. The most direct benefits from LCSI accrue to frontline VCSE organisations; with benefits to local communities through stronger frontline organisations and increased volunteering activities; and statutory bodies gain a greater insight of local needs, improvements in commissioning processes and local policy decisions.
‍

4. LCSI is sufficient when it is characterised by the quality of the provision and the adaptation to the local context rather than by the extent of coverage.

‍

5. The most important factor in the quality of LCSI provision is being knowledgeable about the local area.

‍

6. LCSI organisations were seen as an effective bridge that can support open and honest communication between the VCS and public bodies especially in context of funding or commissioning relationships.

‍

7. LCSI activities led to three broad outcome pathways of: better targeted resources, improved policy making, and increased community trust, empowerment and belonging.

‍

8. There are no simple or straightforward answers to the question of how best to organise, support and strengthen LCSI.

‍

9. Local infrastructure operates in a context in which there is no centralised point of power or decision-making and no universally agreed perspective on what it should do, how it should do it and how well it is doing.

‍

10. LCSI works best when there is a close relationship with the public sector. This is easiest to achieve when decision-makers in local government and health systems take a strategic interest in LCSI that comes from a recognition of its value and its ability to contribute to their own priorities.

‍

11.  Strengthening LCSI will almost certainly continue to rest on taking a local first approach and on ensuring that any reform is delivered with patience, sufficient resource and recognition of local concern and sensitivities.

‍

12. Enabling strong LCSI is based on a combination of factors: funding, local knowledge, effective relationships and local buy-in.

How is Local Civil Society Infrastructure defined?

‍There is no agreed definition of the organisations and functions of LCSI. For the purposes of this research, it is defined either by ‘organisation first’— the functions and activities of a dedicated organisation serving a geographical area or a community of interest; or as ‘function first’ — the purpose and functions of LCSI carried out by a range of organisations. The functions are facilitating funding, organisational development, advocacy, volunteering and community participation, and convening.

‍

Included in this research were: general local infrastructure organisations (such as NAVCA members), volunteer centres, specialist providers, service providers e.g. community accountancy.

‍

There were an estimated 530 organisations delivering LCSI functions active in 2023.

‍

What functions fall within local civil society infrastructure?

‍

Five functions were identified, which correspond with the four functions of infrastructure developed by NAVCA and used by many members.
‍

· Facilitating funding such as providing information about opportunities, influencing the design and targeting of grants or other forms of funding and coordinating local bids.

‍

· Community participation including advice and signposting, promoting community activities, volunteer brokerage and capacity building.

‍

· Organisational development such as support for operational management and strategic development, training for frontline staff and bespoke work with organisations.
‍

· Convening including bringing together networks of frontline organisations, building collaborations and partnerships across, between and within sectors and arranging community-led activities.
‍

· Advocacy such as contributing to strategic cross-sector meetings, intelligence sharing with decision makers and the local VCFSE sector and representing the views of the local sector and decision makers.
‍

How can we measure whether sufficient LCSI is present in the local area?
‍

Sufficiency of LCSI is characterised by the quality of the provision and the adaptation to the local context rather than by the extent of coverage. Relevant factors included:
‍

· Being knowledgeable about the area

· Being well connected

· The quality of relationships, which are reliant on the extent to which decision makers in local government and public sector, value LCSI.
‍

Funding
‍

LCSI funding was analysed as a proxy for its ability to deliver support. Areas with larger numbers of civil society organisations tended to have higher total LCSI expenditure per capita. There was no evidence linking higher LCSI expenditure to increased foundation or survival rates of civil society organisations.

‍

Stakeholders emphasised the need for sufficient, consistent, and flexible funding to enable LCSI organisations to fulfil their core functions effectively. Funding also needs to be long term and sustainable. With funding, LCSI organisations can become fully embedded in the local landscape, build knowledge, skills, and credibility, and establish strong relationships with stakeholders. This contributes directly to legitimacy and trust. Without sustainable funding it becomes more difficult to deliver core functions and show impact and could lead to competition with frontline organisations.

‍

Quality

‍

The most important factor in the quality of LCSI provision is being knowledgeable about the local area. Other factors contributing to quality of LCSI provision include:
‍

· The dedication of leaders to be involved and understand local needs with strong connections to and trusted relationships with the VCS

· Strong relationships with the public sector and local stakeholders, where there is parity of esteem, mutual respect and collaboration, particularly with local authorities and health systems

· The LCSI organisations is recognised by public sector partners as having the potential to help achieve their objectives and support local communities

· Being independent of public bodies

· Being collaborative in nature, connecting with VCS, statutory bodies and funders.

‍

LCSI organisations were seen as an effective bridge that can support open and honest communication between the VCS and public bodies especially in context of funding or commissioning relationships. Relationships with VCS organisations could be undermined where infrastructure organisations were heavily funded by statutory authorities, not seen as independent, or without adequate reach or connections to smaller grassroots groups.

‍

Participants from LCSI organisations emphasised how in-depth knowledge and strong relationships require sufficient staff and retention planning. Case study participants from LCSI organisations believed that typically, they are reliant on a few key staff, meaning staffing changes were a risk to the sustainability of the organisation.

Absence of strong LCSI
‍

The absence of strong LCSI coupled with limited resources and capacity among key stakeholders, meant there was no strategic overview or knowledge of the scale, scope, potential and priority needs for support of the VCS. Knowledge about and support for the sector remained patchy, ad hoc, and improvised. Communication flows about and through the VCS were limited, and stakeholders reported that initiatives were often developed in isolation.

‍

A weakened LCSI led to a ‘disjointed’, ‘fragmented’, ‘dispersed’ and ‘uncoordinated’ VCS, with perceived consequences for duplication of services and competition within the sector. Without strong coordination, participants noted that information flowed less readily, and organisations were not as aware of each other’s work. There was seen to be ‘no big picture’ view of what was happening in the locality and how people could connect. Smaller and newer frontline organisations, often lacking the capacity and connections to engage, might be further disadvantaged by the lack of LCSI sharing information and opening opportunities in an area. Additionally, the locality becomes a ‘cold spot’ in terms of successfully sourcing funding for the VCS, making fewer applications for funding with potential implications for the VCS and community needs. Without effective LCSI there were limited routes for the VCS to work with statutory partners.

‍

What are the impacts, benefits and costs associated with strong or weak LCSI and to whom do they fall?
‍

Assessing the impact, costs, and benefits of LCSI is inherently difficult due to complex attribution chains, a wide range of activities, and diverse organisational structures. Through the development of a Theory of Change, the research project identified how LCSI activities led to three broad outcome pathways:

‍

1. better targeted resources

2. improved policy making

3. increased community trust, empowerment and belonging.

‍

The Theory of Change shows how these ultimately lead to a broader impact of:

‍

· More capable VCFSE organisations

· Stronger place-based systems

· More resilient communities.

‍

LCSI organisations responding to a survey identified with a higher level of confidence that their work led to positive short and medium term outcomes including:

‍

· Increased funding for VCSE organisations

· Stronger relationships between VCSE organisations and strategic partners

· Better alignment between VCSE services and local needs.

‍

In the survey responses, LCSI organisations had a lower level of confidence regarding their outcomes on policymaking, community engagement practices and diversity within VCSE organisations. However, the findings of the case studies offer a more nuanced understanding demonstrating stronger evidence that LCSI activities resulted in better targeted resources and improved policy making.

‍

From the case studies where there was well-established LCSI provision (three of the five areas) key benefits were:

· Frontline VCSE organisations have increased access to funding sources, greater connections, and increased confidence to take ideas to decision-makers

· This may benefit local communities through stronger frontline organisations and increased volunteering activities

· Statutory bodies gain a greater insight of local needs, improvements in commissioning processes and local policy decisions.

‍

The evidence for a direct link between LCSI and local communities is weaker than for other beneficiary groups, reflecting how LCSI organisations tend to be one step removed from activities within local communities.

What factors and models are effective in strengthening local infrastructure?
‍

There is limited evidence on what works in strengthening LCSI. This research emphasises the importance of working with the grain of local context, as the environment in which organisations operate plays a significant part in shaping, enabling and constraining actions and interventions.

Stakeholders consistently identified three approaches to support the improvement of LCSI:

‍

· Addressing challenges within the funding system

· Enhancing strategic buy-in

· Building on good quality relationships to develop more formal structures.

‍

Approaches to improvement in LCSI need to reflect and work within the complexity of the local context. Local infrastructure operates in a context in which there is no centralised point of power or decision-making, and no universally agreed perspective on what it should do, how it should do it and how well it is doing.

‍

Strengthening LCSI will almost certainly continue to rest on taking a local first approach and on ensuring that any reform is delivered with patience, sufficient resource and recognition of local concern and sensitivities.

Implications

There are no simple or straightforward answers to the question of how best to organise, support and strengthen LCSI. LCSI is, by its very nature, local and so:

‍

· LCSI is fundamentally embedded in and related to local context and history of the VCS, the communities in which it operates, relationships with statutory stakeholders

· The value of LCSI is negotiated amongst multiple stakeholders and realised in each place in the legitimacy, trust and connections LCSI makes and facilitates

· LCSI is at its best when it meets the needs of a local place through:

– Forging relationships to build bridges across and between sectors

– Understanding and working through the power dynamics within the VCS sector and with statutory bodies and funders

· LCSI’s strongest claims for impact are in strengthening and joining at the VCS to better target resources to meet the needs of communities.

‍

LCSI varies hugely in configuration, activities, coverage, strength, and impact. Whilst it is positive in demonstrating responsiveness to local context, it also raises questions about spatial equity and a post code lottery. If the perceived strength and resources available to LCSI differ between areas, what implications does this have for VCS organisations seeking to access support in different places? What are the implications for the strength of the VCS, its access to resources and its work with communities?

‍

Strong LCSI is based on a combination of factors, drawing on funding as well as local knowledge, relationships and local buy-in. This research on strengthening and improving LCSI suggests a need for a balanced approach, between:

‍

· Principles that can helpfully be debated at the national level and conversations and decisions that must occur locally.

· Leaning into the nimble, organic, responsive strength that characterises so much of civil society, and developing structures and frameworks that embed good practice and guard against the loss of key personnel.

· Prioritising near-term cost-savings and investing in future effectiveness.

‍

Reflecting these themes, stakeholders identified three areas that can support the improvement of LCSI:

‍

· Addressing key challenges within the funding system

· Enhancing strategic buy-in from local decision-makers, including by:

· Building on good-quality relationships to develop more formal structures, increasing resilience to change and reflecting the local context, supported by a formal approach to ensuring the inclusivity of LCSI that supports all communities and organisations.

The Children and Young People’s Team within Public Health at West Northamptonshire are seeking a provider to deliver the Perinatal Mental Health and Parent-Infant Relationship Service.

VCSE organisations should note that the Request for Quotation (RFQ) has officially gone live today on the Find a Tender Service, and Public Health expect that potential providers would begin to submit their respective quotes.

The link to this programme can be found here: Parent-Infant Relationship Service.

Submissions need to be made via the West Northamptonshire E-Procurement Portal.

Please note the following:

Description:

West Northamptonshire Council are seeking a provider to provide support for families during the antenatal and postnatal periods, with a focus on improving emotional wellbeing, parent-infant relationship, and overall family health and wellbeing.

Total value (estimated):

£135,000 excluding VAT

£162,000 including VAT

VCSE organisations should also note the contract dates which are 1^st October 2025 to 1^st October 2027 with a possible 12-month extension.

The Government has published its new Civil Society Covenant, a national commitment to improving relationships between government and civil society.

Civil Society Covenant: programme – GOV.UK

The Covenant recognises that Voluntary Sector Partnerships often happen at the local level, with councils, health systems, and other public bodies. It sets out principles for how civil society should be respected, supported, and involved in decision-making, and includes case studies from areas like Greater Manchester and Calderdale.

Importantly, The Department of Culture Media and Sports (DCMS) has also announced a Local Covenant Partnerships Programme to support partnership working, including training, grant funding and capacity-building. A new mutual learning programme will also promote secondments between Government and civil society to share knowledge and strengthen collaboration.

A Joint Civil Society Covenant Council will oversee this work.

Maddy Desforges, CEO at NAVCA states:

Enabling the voice of communities and their agency to make change is the life blood of civil society and it is at the local level where the interaction between communities, civil society and government is most keenly felt. We welcome the specific inclusion of strategic authorities, local councils, and health systems in the Covenant. The Local Covenant Partnerships programme is an important opportunity to change the local landscape for partnership and commissioning, and we look forward to working with central and local government, health systems and others to shape and develop this programme to make a real difference to local voluntary, community, and social enterprise organisations.
 
SAWN states:

It’s useful to read and understand the new Civil Society Covenant. Any move towards a closer relationship between the powerbrokers in Whitehall and our VCSE must be applauded. However, actions speak louder than words. If the LCPP does indeed strengthen collaboration and cast a light on Co-Production and Commissioning it will be a boon for all, including the residents and beneficiaries we all serve.

 

The Department of Culture, Media and Sports has just completed a 12-month research project on Local Infrastructure across the UK.

The headline themes are detailed here:

• Across the UK there was considered no agreed definition of Infrastructure. Infrastructure and its role appear to be agreed locally, against local priorities and needs.
• Infrastructure was identified to have five functions: facilitating funding, organisational development, advocacy, volunteering, and community participation, and convening or representation.
• The most direct benefits from Infrastructure accrue to frontline VCSE organisations; with benefits to local communities through stronger frontline organisations and increased volunteering activities; and statutory bodies gain a greater insight of local needs, improvements in commissioning processes and local policy decisions. The most important factor in the quality of Infrastructure provision is being knowledgeable about the local area.
• Infrastructure organisations were seen as an effective bridge that can support open and honest communication between the VCS and public bodies especially in context of funding or commissioning relationships. Infrastructure activities led to three broad outcome pathways of: better targeted resources, improved policy making, and increased community trust, empowerment and belonging.
• There are no simple or straightforward answers to the question of how best to organise, support and strengthen local Infrastructure. Infrastructure works best when there is a close relationship with the public sector. This is easiest to achieve when decision-makers in local government and health systems take a strategic interest in Infrastructure that comes from a recognition of its value and its ability to contribute to their own priorities.
• Strengthening Infrastructure will almost certainly continue to rest on taking a local first approach and on ensuring that any reform is delivered with patience, sufficient resource and recognition of local concern and sensitivities. Enabling strong Infrastructure is based on a combination of factors: funding, local knowledge, effective relationships, and support.

SAWN’s comments:

There is nothing new about these headline themes. Most worrying is that after many decades of having Infrastructure across the UK the DCMS have not worked with local organisations to arrive at a definition. The very fact that there isn’t one nationally is a weakness and detracts against the fantastic work that Infrastructure organisations do across the UK. SAWN is clear about the essential aspects of its work: Supporting Community organisations to survive and thrive: Delivering volunteering initiatives: Advocating for the sector (never more needed in these challenging times): Representing the sector as honest brokers and proffering the VCS as a solution to some of the issues the Local Authority and out Health colleagues face. Infrastructure needs support though: It needs support from the rest of the VCS so we can stand together and exert pressure on our systems to examine us in closer detail and use us as agents of service delivery. It also needs funding appropriately. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and as more of the VCS is required to prop communities, Infrastructure needs to be there to provide that wrap around support.