How to Coordinate a Network of Local Charities

Coordinating a network of local charities is one of the most important -- and most difficult -- functions an infrastructure organisation can perform. Done well, it reduces duplication, improves service quality, strengthens the sector's collective voice, and unlocks resources that individual organisations could never access alone. Done poorly, it creates meeting fatigue, bureaucratic overhead, and resentment among the organisations it is supposed to serve.

TL;DR: Effective network coordination requires clear purpose, lightweight governance, shared technology, consistent communication, and tangible value for member organisations. The most common failure mode is over-structuring: too many meetings, too much process, too little practical benefit. The most common success factor is a shared platform where organisations can see each other's work, share referrals, and contribute to collective reporting without attending yet another meeting.

What you'll learn: How to design, launch, and sustain a network of local charities, with practical guidance on governance, communication, technology, and measuring network effectiveness.

Who this is for: Infrastructure organisation leaders, community foundation programme managers, local authority partnership leads, and anyone tasked with bringing local VCSE organisations together.

Why Networks Matter

Individual charities operating in isolation face structural disadvantages. They compete for the same funding, duplicate each other's services, miss referral opportunities, and lack the collective data to influence commissioning decisions.

Scale without merger: Networks allow small organisations to achieve scale benefits -- joint training, shared procurement, collective impact data -- without losing their independence or community rootedness. NCVO data shows that approximately 85% of registered charities in England have an annual income below £100,000, making them too small to invest individually in infrastructure, training, or technology.

Referral efficiency: A coordinated network enables organisations to refer clients to each other when needs fall outside their own remit. Without coordination, individuals fall through gaps between services. Research by the King's Fund on social prescribing found that the effectiveness of referrals depended heavily on whether the referring organisation had current, accurate knowledge of what other services existed locally.

Collective voice: A network of 50 charities speaking together carries more weight with commissioners and policymakers than 50 individual voices. Infrastructure organisations that can demonstrate sector-wide consensus on priorities are more effective advocates.

Resilience: When one organisation in a network faces difficulties (funding loss, staff turnover, premises issues), others can absorb some of its work, refer its clients, or share resources. During COVID-19, areas with strong VCSE networks mounted faster and more effective community responses than those without.

Step 1: Define the Network's Purpose

Every network needs a clear reason to exist. "Bringing local charities together" is not specific enough. Define what the network will achieve that its members cannot achieve alone.

Common Network Purposes

Thematic coordination: Organisations working on a shared issue (mental health, youth provision, homelessness, food poverty) coordinate to reduce duplication and improve pathways. Example: a mental health network ensuring that someone discharged from crisis care has a clear route to community support.

Geographic coordination: All VCSE organisations in a defined area (ward, neighbourhood, local authority area) coordinate to ensure comprehensive coverage. Example: a neighbourhood network ensuring that every estate has access to at least one community group.

Programme delivery: Organisations coordinated to deliver a specific programme, such as the CRF Strand 3 resilience services or a social prescribing link worker scheme. Example: five charities delivering different resilience services under a single CRF commission, coordinated through a shared platform.

Sector development: Organisations come together for mutual support, learning, and capacity building. Example: a network of small charities sharing governance training, HR advice, and fundraising tips.

Networks that try to do everything for everyone typically achieve nothing for anyone. Start with one clear purpose and expand only when that purpose is well served.

Step 2: Design Lightweight Governance

Network governance must be light enough that participation is not a burden, but structured enough that decisions can be made and actions followed through.

Governance Models

Governance Principles

Minimum viable structure: Only create the governance that the network actually needs. A quarterly steering group meeting and a shared communication channel may be sufficient. A 12-person board with terms of reference, standing orders, and subcommittees is almost certainly too much.

Rotating leadership: Where possible, rotate chairing and hosting responsibilities among member organisations. This distributes ownership and prevents the network from being perceived as controlled by the infrastructure organisation.

Decision-making clarity: Be explicit about what the network can and cannot decide. Can the network commit its members to a joint statement? Can it allocate shared resources? Can it set standards for member organisations? Ambiguity on these points causes conflict.

Accountability without bureaucracy: Members should be accountable for their commitments (attending meetings, sharing data, accepting referrals) but not burdened with reporting requirements that serve the network more than them.

Step 3: Build Shared Communication

Communication is the lifeblood of a network. Without it, the network exists on paper but not in practice.

Communication Channels

Regular newsletter or bulletin: A concise, scannable update covering funding opportunities, policy changes, network news, and member achievements. Keep it short -- infrastructure organisation newsletters with completion rates above 50% are typically under 500 words. According to Mailchimp's benchmark data, nonprofit email open rates average approximately 25%, so make every word count.

Shared online space: A platform where members can see each other's activities, share resources, and communicate asynchronously. This is more sustainable than relying on in-person meetings for all coordination. Plinth provides this through its partner CRM and shared platform features.

Thematic forums: Regular (quarterly or bimonthly) meetings or calls focused on specific topics. Keep meetings to 60-90 minutes with a clear agenda and action items. Virtual attendance options significantly improve participation -- NAVCA reported that hybrid meeting formats increased attendance by 35-40% compared with in-person only.

Peer connections: Facilitate direct connections between member organisations that could benefit from working together. This broker role -- introducing organisations, suggesting collaborations, identifying complementary services -- is one of the highest-value functions of network coordination.

Crisis communication: A rapid communication channel (group messaging, email alert list) for time-sensitive information. Essential during emergencies, policy changes, or safeguarding concerns.

Step 4: Implement Shared Technology

Technology is the infrastructure that makes network coordination scalable. Without it, coordination depends entirely on the infrastructure organisation's staff capacity, which is always limited.

What Shared Technology Enables

Shared service directory: Members can see what other organisations in the network offer, reducing duplication and enabling referrals. A searchable directory replaces the informal knowledge that individual staff hold (and lose when they leave). Plinth's AI service directory allows both professionals and residents to search by describing what they need, rather than knowing which organisation to look for.

Referral pathways: Digital referral routes between network members, with tracking to ensure referrals are accepted and acted upon. Without technology, referrals happen via email or phone and are impossible to track at network level.

Collective data dashboard: A real-time view of what the network is collectively achieving -- total beneficiaries, sessions delivered, volunteer hours, outcomes. This data is essential for the infrastructure organisation's reporting to commissioners and funders.

Shared resource library: Training materials, policy templates, good practice guides, and funding opportunity databases that members can access without duplicating effort.

Event and training coordination: A shared calendar and booking system that prevents scheduling conflicts and helps members find relevant training.

Technology Adoption

Getting member organisations to adopt shared technology is the hardest part. Strategies that work:

Solve their problem, not yours. A platform that helps a small charity manage its volunteers, track its outcomes, and list its services is worth adopting. A platform that only requires them to submit data for your reporting is not.

Provide training and support. Budget dedicated staff time for onboarding member organisations. One-to-one sessions are more effective than group training for smaller organisations.

Phase the rollout. Start with 10-15 enthusiastic early adopters. Use their experience to refine the approach, create peer advocates, and build momentum.

Make it the default. Once the platform is established, route communications, referrals, and data requests through it rather than through email. This creates a natural incentive to engage.

Step 5: Enable Referrals and Collaboration

The practical test of a network: can one member organisation seamlessly refer a client to another, and does the infrastructure organisation know it happened?

Building Effective Referral Pathways

Map what exists: Before building new referral pathways, map how referrals currently happen (formally and informally). You may find that significant referral activity already occurs through personal relationships -- the goal is to formalise and track it, not to replace it.

Define referral protocols: For each common referral type, clarify: Who can refer? What information should accompany the referral? What is the expected response time? What happens if the receiving organisation cannot accept the referral?

Digital referral tracking: Use a shared platform to send, receive, and track referrals. This provides the infrastructure organisation with data on referral volumes, pathways, and outcomes -- intelligence that is valuable for commissioners and for the network itself.

Feedback loops: Ensure that the referring organisation receives feedback on the outcome of the referral. This builds trust between network members and helps identify when referral pathways are not working.

No-wrong-door policy: Any member organisation that receives a request for help it cannot provide should be able to route the person to an appropriate service within the network. This requires every member to have basic knowledge of what others offer -- which in turn requires a current, searchable service directory.

Step 6: Measure Network Effectiveness

How do you know whether the network is working? Measure both the health of the network itself and the collective outcomes it produces.

Network Health Indicators

Collective Outcome Indicators

These depend on the network's purpose but typically include:

• Total beneficiaries reached across the network
• Number and quality of inter-organisational referrals
• Reduction in service duplication (measured through service mapping)
• Collective impact data (see How Infrastructure Organisations Can Track Collective Impact)
• Influence on commissioning decisions (qualitative)
• Resources unlocked through collaboration (joint bids, shared procurement savings)

Common Failure Modes

Meeting-driven coordination: If the network's primary activity is meetings, it will fail. Meetings should be occasional, purposeful supplements to continuous digital coordination and bilateral relationship-building.

Infrastructure-centric design: If the network exists primarily to serve the infrastructure organisation's reporting needs, members will disengage. The network must visibly benefit its members, not just its coordinator.

Ignoring power dynamics: Networks include organisations of vastly different sizes, funding levels, and influence. If larger organisations dominate governance and decision-making, smaller ones will disengage. Active facilitation is required to ensure inclusive participation.

No tangible value: If a member organisation cannot point to a specific benefit they receive from network membership -- a referral, a funding opportunity, a training event, a piece of intelligence -- the network is not delivering value.

Over-formalisation: Networks that require signed memoranda of understanding, annual membership fees, and compliance with detailed standards before organisations can participate create barriers to engagement. Start informal and formalise only where specifically needed.

Technology imposition: Mandating a platform without demonstrating its value and providing support leads to resentment and workarounds. Technology adoption must be voluntary initially and driven by clear benefit.

Case Study: What Good Looks Like

An effective charity network in a London borough coordinates 85 VCSE organisations. Key features:

• Shared platform (Plinth) used by 62 of 85 members for service listing, activity recording, and referral management
• Quarterly thematic forums on mental health, youth, and older people, averaging 25 attendees each
• Monthly e-bulletin with 68% open rate (significantly above sector average)
• Digital referral network processing approximately 450 referrals per quarter between member organisations
• Collective impact dashboard showing 42,000 beneficiaries served, 180,000 volunteer hours contributed, and measurable wellbeing improvement across the network
• Commissioner engagement: Collective data used in three successful commissioning bids by network members in the past year

The infrastructure organisation staffs this coordination with 2.5 FTE, plus the Plinth platform. Without the shared technology, the same coordination would require an estimated 5-6 FTE.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many organisations make a viable network?

There is no minimum, but networks below 10 members tend to be informal partnerships rather than structured networks. Networks of 20-80 members are the most manageable. Above 100, consider thematic or geographic sub-networks with a coordination layer.

How do we fund network coordination?

Common funding sources include: local authority infrastructure contracts, National Lottery Community Fund grants, trust and foundation funding for partnership work, membership fees (typically modest), and programme-specific funding (e.g., CRF Strand 4 community coordination funding). The most sustainable approach combines multiple income streams.

How do we handle organisations that join but do not participate?

Distinguish between passive members (receive communications, attend occasionally) and non-engaged members (no interaction at all). Passive membership is fine -- not every organisation needs to be deeply involved all the time. For non-engaged members, a periodic check-in to understand barriers is more productive than removing them from the network.

Should the network have legal status?

In most cases, no. The infrastructure organisation provides the legal and financial framework. A separate legal entity for the network adds complexity without clear benefit unless the network needs to hold contracts, employ staff, or manage significant funds.

How do we prevent the network from becoming a talking shop?

Focus on action, not discussion. Every meeting should produce specific commitments with named owners and deadlines. Route collaboration through digital tools rather than meetings. Celebrate concrete outcomes (successful joint bids, effective referrals, collective data milestones) rather than process milestones (meetings held, terms of reference agreed).

What role should the local authority play?

Local authorities should participate as partners, not controllers. They bring intelligence about commissioning intentions, policy changes, and strategic priorities. They benefit from the collective data and coordination the network provides. But if the local authority dominates governance or dictates the network's agenda, VCSE organisations will disengage.

Recommended Next Pages

• What Is a Local Infrastructure Organisation? -- Understanding the infrastructure organisation role.

• How Infrastructure Organisations Can Track Collective Impact -- Measuring what the network achieves.

• Best Software for Infrastructure Organisations -- Platforms for network coordination.

• Infrastructure Organisations Use Case -- See Plinth's network coordination features.

• Plinth for Infrastructure Organisations -- Tailored platform features for LIOs.

• What Is the Crisis and Resilience Fund? -- Relevant for CRF Strand 4 community coordination.

Last updated: February 2026

For more information about coordinating local charity networks with Plinth, contact our team or schedule a demo.