Watch our Video
We carried out a range of literature reviews and surveys over a period of 6 months and this will be used to drive the design of our planned upgrade in our services to better meet the needs of charities and other non profits.
We think what you do is fantastically useful and can't think of anything
This web page is Part 2 of our work in bringing this together. Read Part 1 (Small Charity Crisis - Vital and Under Threat) for the background and context.
We are publishing this work as part of our ongoing work to champion and support small charities who make up 95% of the sector and also to give them data to help strengthen their funding applications.
With thanks to GSR Foundation whose funding makes our work possible.
We carried out surveys to determine the infrastructure support charities need and want.
Ease of finding the support needed.
59% of charities describe finding the support they needs as a struggle or really difficult and 5% don’t know where to look. Only 2% say they can find the help they need easily.
Animal charity completely funding by the public. Get next to no help at all with anything. All none paid vols, don't know where to turn for help needed and trustee support
Impact if the right help could be found.
Nearly three quarters (74%) said finding the help they need would make either make a real impact or have major impact. Less than 3% felt it would have little or no impact.
We are encountering increasing overhead costs and using up our reserves. We will close if this is not rectified!
I rated national infrastructure support as I did, not because it's not important but because it currently doesn't seem to be there! By far the most valuable support we receive or see is thanks to the wonderful networks like SIDCN and the amazing CEF resources!
| Support Provided | Weighted Average | Strong Support | Weak
Support |
| Functional support (e.g. volunteering, fundraising): | 8.3 | 74% | 8% |
| Local infrastructure support | 7.9 | 58% | 10% |
| Cause‑related support groups and networks: | 7.6 | 53% | 11% |
| Professional bodies for individuals | 5.6 | 13% | 33% |
| National infrastructure bodies | 4.6 | 16% | 41% |
We’re fed up of endless online volunteer sites with no local bureau or ‘recruitment agency’ for matching and attracting volunteers.
Charities are clear that what they want is practical, ideally local support for specific functional activities and skills, such as volunteering and fundraising. Cause related groups and networks are also strongly valued but not professional bodies for individuals or, lowest of all, national infrastructure bodies.
The Local Government Association is explicit that working with local infrastructure organisations is essential, not optional. They enable representative engagement, empower smaller VCSE organisations to overcome capacity barriers, and translate council priorities into effective local action. (Source: Local Government Association, Working with Local Infrastructure Organisations).
Yet independent analysis shows an increasingly fragile infrastructure ecosystem. The 360Giving Infrastructure Analysis Report identifies around 700 infrastructure bodies, of which the majority are local or regional. Despite this, funding is heavily concentrated: the 20 largest organisations receive 37% of all infrastructure spending, while 80% have income below £1 million, and 29% below £100,000. Many of the largest bodies are national and London‑based. (Source: 360Giving, 2023.)
Moreover, over the last 20 years, the number of charities and other non-profits has grown significantly, increasing the need. The numbers of national charity infrastructure bodies has fallen a bit. Those lost include the Small Charities Coalition and the FSI, who supported the small and often very local charities. Charity Excellence is the last of the national bodies that provide broad based support to all UK smalls. Even more worryingly, the number of local bodies has declined significantly.
Local VCSE infrastructure organisations need more than funding alone to be effective. The report highlights the central importance of trust‑based relationships with VCSEs and statutory partners, the challenge of managing capacity and competing expectations, and the need for leadership and connection to sustain credibility and legitimacy in complex local systems. These findings underscore the need for support that strengthens relationships, peer connection and sector-wide capacity, alongside financial resources. (Source: NAVCA, Walking a Tightrope).
Each closure results in the permanent loss of local knowledge, relationships and institutional memory, weakening the entire sector and making it harder to reach the charities and communities that most need support. Local infrastructure charities need both funding and other support.
Respondents were asked to rate how helpful a range of 8 potential resources would be. Responses show strong overall interest, but with clear variation by type of support. In part this was due to not all of the resources being applicable to all infrastructure bodies. For example, supporting income generation through promotion of trading and/or membership fees. Nearly a quarter (23%) rated this 10/10. Not all provide paid for services or membership but for those who do, it’s seen as very valuable.
Across all options, respondents consistently favour tools that increase visibility, voice, and access to funding, while more technical or embedded digital tools attract less interest but also hesitation. However, for even the lowest rated, the use of AI agents, nearly a quarter (23%) rated this 10/10. Our 2026 AI survey showed that charities see AI as very important but that they are still at early-stage adoption, without the oversight and management in place to fully exploit AI safely.
Nearly 63% believe that providing the support proposed would have a real or major impact. Only a small minority (5%) believe it would make little difference.
Responses to the statement “We feel financially secure and confident in our long‑term sustainability” reveal significant financial fragility. Only around 31% express clear confidence. In contrast, around 33% actively disagree, indicating they feel financially at risk. Within this group, around 5% describe themselves as very financially at risk, selecting the lowest possible score (1/10).
The 360 Giving data shows the number of small infrastructure charities closing over many years. We do not know but it seems reasonable to speculate that the ongoing crises since 2020 will have accelerated this. If world events trigger another crisis as our analysis has identified they may well do, then this will almost certainly be even deeper and longer than the previous ones. We currently assess the risk of another crisis to be high with recovery unlikely before 2028, if it were to occur. That would accelerate the rate of infrastructure charity closures.
In 2025, we created an Infrastructure search category in Funding Finder specifically to support infrastructure charities in securing funding.
The most important income stream is from trusts and foundations, followed by government contracts, with corporate funding and other fundraising less important but both more important than membership fees and income from services.
Securing funding is a critical issue but many infrastructure charities do not offer paid for services and/or fee paying membership. Consequently, these options are not relevant to many but are seen as very important by those who do.
In our survey, there is very strong agreement that infrastructure charities hold unique local or specialist knowledge that is not currently visible at a national level. This is being built into our design but we've taken 2 immediate steps in response:
Charity Excellence.
Literature Review Part 1
Literature Review Part 2
A registered charity ourselves, the CEF works for any non profit, not just charities.
Plus, 60+ policies, 8 online health checks, the Quality Mark and the huge resource base. Our AI Ready programme and our 11 free online AI training courses.
Find Funding, Free Help & Resources - Everything Is Free.
