Local Needs Databank

What the Local Needs Databank set out to do 

The databank was built to help answer a simple but important question: where is need showing up locally, and how can we understand it well enough to act? It brought together government and other official data with information shared by charities, making it easier to explore local patterns and connect national trends with frontline experience. What began as a response to the pandemic became a broader attempt to make data more useful to the people making decisions about funding, services, and support. 

What it helped make possible 

The Local Needs Databank showed what is possible when different kinds of evidence are brought together in one place. It helped users explore patterns in poverty, deprivation, health, advice and support services, and grant availability, while also drawing on data contributed by charities. That mattered because it made the picture of need more useful. Organisations could use the databank to strengthen funding bids, target support, understand changing demand, and make a stronger case for action. It also showed that charity data has real public value: not as a nice-to-have addition, but as an essential part of understanding what communities are experiencing. 

Through the databank and the work around it, NPC was able to use shared data to analyse issues in a much more grounded way. It supported analysis of local pressures and how they varied from place to place, helped make sense of patterns emerging in Covid-19 data shared by Buttle UK, and informed work on fuel poverty and the ongoing energy crisis using data from British Gas Energy Trust. These examples showed the value of combining official statistics with charity data: not just to describe need in the abstract, but to understand how it was changing, where it was most acute, and what that meant for decision-making. 

What we learned 

One of the clearest lessons from the databank is that data is most useful when it is shared, interpreted in context, and connected to the insight of people working closest to the issues. We learned that charities do not need more noise or complexity—they need tools and analysis that help them make sense of what they are seeing. We also learned that bringing together open data, administrative data, and charity data creates a much stronger understanding of local need than any one source can offer on its own. For NPC, that points towards something bigger than shared datasets alone: moving from shared data to shared intelligence, where organisations combine evidence, insight, and judgment to respond more effectively. 

Why we are closing the databank 

We are closing the Local Needs Databank because this phase of the work is complete. The experiment has shown what it needed to show. It demonstrated that there is real demand for accessible, practical data tools across the social sector. It showed that charity data can sit alongside official statistics to create a more grounded and responsive picture of need. And it helped move the conversation on from whether shared data matters to how it can be used well. We are proud of what the databank achieved, and of the role it played in testing a different, more open way of working. 

What comes next 

The databank may be ending, but the case for openness with data is not. If anything, the challenges facing communities make it more important to share data responsibly, confidently, and with a clear sense of purpose. Better shared data helps charities understand the people they serve, helps funders back the right responses, and helps policymakers see pressures sooner. We hope one of the databank’s lasting contributions will be greater confidence across the sector to share data, use it well, and work together to turn evidence into action. 

We are grateful to everyone who contributed data, tested ideas, shared feedback, and used the Local Needs Databank in practice. This was never just a platform. It was a shared effort to make better use of evidence in the service of better decisions. That effort should continue. The experiment is complete, but the need for stronger shared evidence, greater openness, and better collective intelligence remains.