How CVSs and TSIs can measure their impact

Measuring the hidden impact of local voluntary-sector infrastructure

The impact of a Council for Voluntary Service (CVS), Third Sector Interface (TSI) or other local infrastructure organisation often emerges through the charities, community groups, volunteers and partnerships it supports.

A useful measurement framework separates this impact into three levels:

1. Direct outcomes, such as stronger governance, greater confidence and improved organisational capability.
2. Enabled outcomes, such as a supported organisation securing funding, improving a service or reaching more people.
3. System outcomes, such as stronger collaboration, greater community influence and a more resilient local voluntary sector.

Clear contribution pathways and proportionate evidence can demonstrate this value without attributing the entire impact of supported organisations to the infrastructure body.

Why infrastructure impact can be difficult to measure

A community organisation delivers a service and sees the effect on the people taking part. The route between activity and outcome may be relatively clear.

The work of a CVS or TSI often sits further upstream.

A development officer may help trustees improve their governance. A volunteer centre may connect someone with a local charity. A TSI may bring organisations together around a health inequality or represent the sector in local planning.

The eventual benefits may appear months later and several steps away:

• the charity becomes more resilient;
• a new service receives funding;
• more residents receive support;
• volunteers develop confidence and skills;
• local decision-makers gain a better understanding of community needs;
• services become more responsive to lived experience.

This creates a genuine measurement challenge. The infrastructure organisation made a contribution, while other organisations, individuals and circumstances also influenced the result.

Activity data remains useful. The number of organisations supported, training sessions delivered, funding applications reviewed, volunteers registered and partnerships convened helps show the scale and reach of the work. A fuller impact account also considers what changed as a result.

Begin with the functions of local infrastructure

The terminology varies across the UK. Organisations may be known as Councils for Voluntary Service, Third Sector Interfaces, voluntary action organisations or local infrastructure organisations.

Their core functions have considerable overlap.

NAVCA describes four functions of local voluntary-sector infrastructure:

• leadership and advocacy;
• partnerships and collaboration;
• capacity building;
• volunteering.

The TSI Scotland Network describes the role of Scotland’s 32 TSIs through four closely related functions:

• building capacity;
• providing knowledge;
• connecting partners;
• giving the sector a voice.

These functions provide a useful starting point for impact measurement. Each can be developed into a pathway connecting activity with immediate change, subsequent organisational outcomes and wider effects across a place.

Separate three levels of impact

The distinction between direct, enabled and system outcomes helps an infrastructure organisation explain where its influence sits.

1. Direct outcomes

Direct outcomes are the changes experienced by organisations or people receiving support from the CVS or TSI.

These might include:

• trustees having greater confidence in their responsibilities;
• staff improving their knowledge of funding or governance;
• a community group becoming better able to plan and evaluate its work;
• a volunteer finding a suitable opportunity;
• organisations developing stronger relationships with potential partners;
• community representatives feeling better equipped to contribute to local decisions.

These outcomes are usually closest to the infrastructure activity and can often be evidenced through follow-up questions, assessments, service records and participant feedback.

2. Enabled outcomes

Enabled outcomes occur when direct support helps another organisation achieve something further.

For example:

• governance support contributes to a charity retaining a service contract;
• funding advice helps a community group secure a grant;
• volunteer brokerage enables an organisation to expand its activities;
• partnership development leads to a new joint service;
• evaluation support helps an organisation demonstrate its results to a funder;
• training improves the quality or reach of services delivered to residents.

The infrastructure organisation has helped create the conditions for these outcomes. The evidence needs to show the connection between the support provided and the subsequent change.

3. System outcomes

System outcomes concern wider changes in relationships, structures, influence and collective capacity across a place.

These may include:

• stronger collaboration between voluntary and statutory organisations;
• community knowledge influencing policy or service design;
• gaps in provision being identified earlier;
• smaller organisations gaining access to decision-making;
• reduced duplication between local services;
• stronger volunteering infrastructure;
• a more connected and resilient local voluntary sector.

System change often takes longer to emerge and rarely has a single cause. Evidence may come from partnership records, policy changes, funding decisions, stakeholder interviews and examples of changed practice.

Build a contribution chain

A contribution chain describes how one stage of change may lead to another. It gives the organisation a structure for deciding what to measure and where evidence is needed.

A simple chain might look like this:

Activity → direct outcome → enabled outcome → wider community or system outcome

Example 1: governance support

Activity: A development officer advises a small charity on governance and trustee responsibilities.

Direct outcome: Trustees report greater confidence and adopt clearer policies and decision-making processes.

Enabled outcome: The charity becomes more resilient and successfully renews a significant funding agreement.

Wider outcome: A valued community service remains available to local residents.

Example 2: volunteering infrastructure

Activity: A volunteer centre helps a resident identify and access a suitable role.

Direct outcome: The volunteer gains confidence, experience and social connection.

Enabled outcome: The host organisation increases its capacity and supports more people.

Wider outcome: The community benefits from stronger local services and greater participation.

Example 3: community voice

Activity: A TSI gathers evidence from community groups and people with lived experience and presents it to a local partnership.

Direct outcome: Decision-makers gain a stronger understanding of barriers experienced by residents.

Enabled outcome: The partnership changes its approach, funding priorities or service design.

Wider outcome: Local services become more accessible or responsive.

Writing the chain does not establish that every stage occurred. It sets out the relationship to be tested through evidence.

Decide what you can reasonably claim

Credible impact measurement recognises the contribution of other organisations and external factors.

Four questions are particularly useful:

1. What would probably have happened without our support?
2. Who else contributed to the outcome?
3. How clearly can we connect our activity with the subsequent change?
4. Does the strength of the evidence justify including the outcome?

A charity may secure funding after receiving bid support from a CVS. Its own staff, the quality of the project, existing relationships and the funder’s priorities may also have influenced the decision.

The CVS could record:

• the type and intensity of support provided;
• what changed in the application;
• whether the organisation believed the support improved its prospects;
• the amount secured;
• the contribution of other advisers or partners;
• whether the application was already likely to succeed.

SROI approaches address this through impact adjustments such as deadweight and attribution. Deadweight considers the proportion of the outcome that would have happened anyway. Attribution considers the contribution made by other organisations or factors.

These adjustments are especially important when the outcome sits several stages beyond the original infrastructure support.

Collect evidence without creating another reporting burden

CVSs and TSIs often work with organisations that already face extensive reporting requirements. Impact measurement should be proportionate to the significance of the activity and the decisions the evidence will inform.

Use existing information first

Useful evidence may already exist in:

• customer relationship management systems;
• training and event records;
• volunteering platforms;
• grant-support records;
• partnership minutes;
• funding announcements;
• service reviews;
• consultation responses;
• policy documents;
• correspondence from supported organisations.

Reviewing current information can reveal gaps before new surveys or reporting forms are introduced.

Ask short questions at sensible points

A short follow-up after three or six months may reveal more than a long satisfaction survey sent immediately after support.

Questions could include:

• What has changed since you received support?
• What have you been able to do that you could not do before?
• How important was our support to that change?
• Who or what else contributed?
• Do you have any evidence you can share?
• What difference has this made to your organisation or community?

The timing should reflect the type of outcome. Confidence may change quickly, while organisational resilience, funding success or influence on public services may take longer. Our guide to low-friction stakeholder surveys explores how to collect useful evidence without making participation unnecessarily difficult.

Use case studies to examine the pathway

A case study can show how support contributed to change, particularly where outcomes are complex or difficult to reduce to a single indicator.

A useful case study includes:

• the organisation’s starting position;
• the support provided;
• immediate changes;
• subsequent organisational or community outcomes;
• the contribution of other parties;
• supporting evidence;
• challenges or outcomes that did not occur.

Case studies can also test whether the assumed contribution chain reflects what organisations actually experience.

Create a proportionate evidence framework

A simple evidence matrix can bring the approach together.

This framework can be adapted to different services without requiring every team or member organisation to collect the same volume of information.

Measure network-level impact carefully

A CVS or TSI may want to bring together evidence from dozens of member organisations. A shared framework can reveal the collective contribution of the local sector, particularly when organisations are working towards related outcomes.

Consistency is useful in areas such as:

• outcome definitions;
• reporting periods;
• geographical boundaries;
• stakeholder groups;
• evidence standards;
• treatment of repeat beneficiaries;
• attribution and deadweight;
• recording of delivery partners.

The reporting structure should keep three things visible:

1. the outcomes created by individual member organisations;
2. the contribution made by the infrastructure body;
3. the combined picture across the network.

Clear ownership helps prevent the same outcome being counted several times. For example, a charity may report the wellbeing outcomes experienced by its service users. The CVS may separately report the organisational capability developed through its support. Where the CVS contributed to the charity’s service-user outcomes, that relationship can be explained and adjusted rather than adding the full value to both organisations’ totals.

A network-wide picture becomes more credible when readers can see how the figures were assembled and where responsibilities sit.

When should financial valuation be used?

Financial valuation can help express outcomes in comparable terms, support funding discussions and examine the relationship between investment and social value.

It is most useful when:

• the outcome is material to stakeholders;
• there is credible evidence that the change occurred;
• a relevant and defensible financial proxy is available;
• contribution and deadweight can be considered;
• the result will inform a real decision.

Some infrastructure outcomes, particularly influence, trust and system change, may require a mixture of quantitative evidence, qualitative findings and carefully selected indicators. The method should reflect the nature of the outcome. For an overview of the approach, read our guide to Social Return on Investment (SROI).

Devon Communities Together, for example, uses the Social Value Engine to apply a consistent approach across a varied portfolio that includes village hall support, digital inclusion and transport access. The common framework helps bring diverse community activity into a clearer evidence base for funders.

Use impact evidence to make better decisions

Impact measurement provides the greatest benefit when it informs future choices.

A CVS or TSI should be able to use its findings to ask:

• Which forms of support lead to the most significant changes?
• Which organisations or communities are currently missing out?
• Where does a short intervention create lasting capability?
• Which partnerships are producing useful results?
• Where is reporting effort disproportionate to the insight gained?
• What evidence would strengthen future funding or commissioning decisions?
• Which outcomes should shape the next strategy or service plan?

This turns the impact process into a source of organisational and place-based learning.

Conclusion

Local voluntary-sector infrastructure creates value through advice, volunteering, connections, representation and the patient work of building stronger organisations and relationships.

Much of that value becomes visible through the achievements of others. A framework based on direct outcomes, enabled outcomes and system outcomes can trace that contribution more clearly.

The resulting account should show what changed, how the infrastructure organisation contributed, what other factors were involved and how strong the evidence is. This gives funders, partners and communities a more credible picture of the role CVSs and TSIs play in helping local organisations and places thrive.

Local Infrastructure Impact Map

Use the downloadable worksheet to connect your activities with direct, enabled and system outcomes, identify suitable evidence and consider how much of each outcome you can reasonably claim.