Observation • General lens • High confidence

Several organisations operate indirectly by strengthening the organisations around them

Identified through direct analysis of source evidence.

Patterns

This Observation contributes to the following Patterns.

Recipient and intermediary mapping may be as important as provider mapping for understanding civic capacity

Organisations

Organisations the Atlas considered together.

Birmingham Nursery Schools Collaboration

Source evidence

Organisation: Through the work of our teaching school alliance we provide CPD, research and support to other practitioners.
Organisation: The Trust brings together 27 Maintained Nursery Schools to fulfil its charitable purposes.

Club Forge

Source evidence

Organisation: Its objects include providing training, advice, information and support to the voluntary sector.
Organisation: Its objects include facilitating partnership and co-operation in the voluntary sector.

Rotary Club Of Meriden Charity Trust Fund

Source evidence

Organisation: The organisation makes donations or grants from net incomes together with the provision of volunteer resources and support.

Sutton Coldfield Charitable Trust

Source evidence

Organisation: The Trust provides accommodation for older people of limited means and makes awards to individuals and community organisations.

What we noticed

Birmingham Nursery Schools Collaboration, Club Forge, Rotary Club Of Meriden Charity Trust Fund and Sutton Coldfield Charitable Trust each appear to create civic value partly through other organisations rather than only through direct support to individuals. Their mechanisms differ: professional development and research for early-years practitioners; training, advice and cooperation for voluntary sports organisations; grants and volunteer support; and grants to community organisations alongside individual support.

Why it is interesting

Taken together, these organisations suggest that part of the civic ecosystem is sustained through multiplier roles: improving practitioner capability, helping voluntary groups cooperate, and supplying flexible money or volunteer resource. This is different from a frontline-service model and may mean that their effects are dispersed across many settings and difficult to see in direct beneficiary figures.

Why this would be easy to miss

Viewed separately, the nursery collaboration can look like an education body, Club Forge like a sports organisation, and the two trusts like grant-makers. Looking across them reveals a shared but differently expressed role in maintaining the capacity of other local institutions.

Question

Do these organisations reach the same smaller community groups and neighbourhoods, or do their different forms of support leave particular types of organisation without access to training, connections or flexible funding?

Remaining uncertainties

There is no evidence that these organisations work with one another or serve overlapping areas.
The scale, accessibility and practical effects of their support for other organisations are unknown.
Rotary Club Of Meriden Charity Trust Fund may have a different principal geography from the Birmingham-based organisations.

Additional evidence needed

Lists of organisations receiving grants, training, advice or volunteer support.
Geographic data on where beneficiary organisations operate.
Evidence showing whether capacity-building support has led to improved services, sustainability or collaboration.

Useful comparisons

The Nursery Schools Collaboration's practitioner-development model compared with Club Forge's voluntary-sector support model.
Rotary Club Of Meriden Charity Trust Fund's combination of grants and volunteer resource compared with Sutton Coldfield Charitable Trust's grants alongside its housing role.
Grant-recipient and training-recipient profiles across the four organisations.

Find these organisations in the Atlas →

← Back to Discoveries