“Unearthing the Third Sector: How UK Charities’ Project Evaluations Can Fuel Public Health Research”

It is increasingly recognised that third-sector organisations (charities, community groups, social enterprises) in the UK hold a vast but under-used repository of knowledge in their project evaluation reports. These reports—often tucked away in organisational archives—constitute a form of grey literature that could provide rich baseline data, inspire new research ideas, and strengthen the evidence base in public health and social care.

The Current Challenge: Barriers to Meaningful Collaboration

Despite policies encouraging community involvement from the earliest stages of research, such as those from major funders like the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), there are enduring practical and structural obstacles:

• Time, resources and incentives: For both academic researchers and third-sector organisations, collaborating on research design can be time-consuming. Communities often lack the budget or capacity to engage meaningfully even if approached, unless the researching body comes with a meaningful budget, even then, lack of research may hinder meaningful partnership.

• Consultation fatigue: Many charities report being repeatedly asked to help with recruitment or consulted for ideas, without appropriate recognition, compensation, or shared ownership of the research.

• Reluctance around “research”: Many third-sector bodies see research as the domain of academia. There can be unease around academic processes or the jargon of research, limiting deeper engagement.

• Inaccessible evaluation reports: Even when third-sector organisations conduct thorough project evaluations, their findings may not be disseminated widely, or formatted in a way that is accessible or useful to researchers.

Yet, this situation represents a missed opportunity. The wealth of evaluative data generated by third-sector projects could be systematically harnessed, if approached in a more structured, collaborative way.

Why the Untapped Knowledge Matters

1. Baseline evidence for research

   
   

   Evaluation reports from third-sector projects can act as baseline evidence. They often contain rich qualitative insights (e.g., beneficiary feedback, challenges encountered) and quantitative data (outcomes, reach, demographics) that researchers can build upon when developing research questions and hypotheses.

2. Grey literature as a research resource

   
   

   Despite being non-traditional academic outputs, these reports can inform grant proposals, literature reviews, and policy recommendations. Systematically leveraging this “grey literature” can lead to more contextually grounded research.

3. Building trust and capacity

   
   

   Enabling third-sector organisations to co-produce evaluations or design their reports with a research lens helps build their capacity. This mutual learning fosters trust and can demystify “research” for non-academic partners.

4. Policy impacts

   
   

   Well-structured, evidence-rich evaluation reports are more likely to influence policymakers. By aligning third-sector evaluations with research standards (we don’t need to use the word research), funders and policymakers can better understand the real-world impact of interventions. It is true that there are many third sectors reports, that are structured, and it doesn’t mean undermining evaluation reports produced my many agencies.

   
   

A Sustainable, Collaborative Model: Proposal for Change

To realise this potential, I propose a coordinated UK-wide framework involving academia, third-sector organisations, research funders, and other funding bodies. Key components:

1. Regional Academic–Third Sector Partnerships

• A University in each UK region establish formal alliances with third-sector agencies.

• Allocate dedicated budgets for partnership development and capacity building.

• Co-create research training programmes for third sector: covering research design, basic qualitative and quantitative methods, and evaluation planning.

2. Structured Project Design and Evaluation

• At project inception, third-sector organisations adopt a lightweight research protocol approach, integrating clear aims, methodology, and evaluation metrics.

• If necessary and viable, depending on the agency and the project, provide ongoing methodological support during project delivery to ensure that evaluation broadly aligns with research standards. Yet, without diluting the actual project aim and delivery by the agency.

• Emphasise accessible, co-produced evaluation reports that can double as grey-literature resources.

3. A Centralised UK (or Regional) Community Research Portal

• Develop a web platform (or regional equivalents) listing third-sector partners, their evaluation reports, project themes, and data summaries.

• Include training toolkits, webinars, and online guides for third-sector organisations, researchers, and funders.

• Maintain a searchable researcher-organisation directory to facilitate collaboration.

4. Funding Mechanisms and Incentives

• Research funders (e.g., NIHR, UKRI):

  • Co-fund the academic–third sector partnership units.

  • Set aside dedicated budget in calls for community-involved research.

  • Provide direct grants to third-sector organisations with research capacity, conditional on partnering with academic institutions.

• Funding agencies (e.g., National Lottery, institutional funders):

  • Include a small but ring-fenced portion of grants to support research design and structured evaluation.

  • Require grantees to produce evaluation reports in the agreed research-friendly format, ensuring transparency and data accessibility.

Benefits of This Model

• Unlocking knowledge: Leverage the hidden wealth of community-level insights that third-sector evaluation reports contain.

• Improved evidence base: Enable researchers to draw on more granular, contextually rich data when writing grant proposals, designing interventions, and publishing findings.

• Capacity building: Empower third-sector organisations to contribute more meaningfully to research, enhancing their confidence, legitimacy, and sustainability.

• Stronger partnerships: Create long-term, equitable relationships among academia, third-sector organisations, and funders, grounded in mutual benefit and co-ownership.

Challenges and Mitigations

• Resource constraints: Third-sector organisations may lack staffing or time to engage fully; this can be mitigated through targeted funding and training support.

• Sustainability: Consistent funding and commitment are required to maintain partnerships; embedding relationship-building into institutional structures helps.

• Buy-in: Not all third-sector organisations or researchers may immediately see the value. Pilot projects and champions can demonstrate benefits and build momentum.

Conclusion

The third sector in the UK holds a treasure trove of experiential evidence in the form of evaluation reports, that remains largely untapped by the research community. By building structured partnerships, embedding research principles into project design and evaluation, and creating a shared infrastructure, we can transform this latent knowledge into actionable evidence. This would not only enrich public health research but also empower charities.