This report introduces the Civic 6 Framework, a strategic typology designed to map and understand the diverse ways in which UK universities organise and deliver civic, place-based, and public policy engagement.
Drawing on comparative case studies of selected major UK institutes, including City-REDI, the Heseltine Institute, Insights North East, Y-PERN, the Institute for Collective Place Leadership, the Productivity Institute, Policy@Manchester, the Wales Centre for Public Policy, Public Policy|Southampton, and the Bennett Institute — the framework identifies six core models: Civic-Embedded Regional Development Institutes; Civic Engagement and Public Policy Institutes; Networked Regional Policy Collaboratives; Single Policy Issue Institutes; Interdisciplinary Public Policy Think Tanks; and Translational Policy Communication Platforms.
The report evaluates each model against ten critical success factors for places (Taylor et al., 2024), examines hybrid and adaptive approaches, analyses the risks of institutional failure and closure, and addresses equality, diversity and inclusion in civic engagement.
It also reviews the four LPIP pilots, YPIP, Cymru Wledig Rural Wales, EPIC Futures Northern Ireland, and Forth H2O, against the framework, and provides practical guidance on how to apply the Civic Six Framework for strategic planning, benchmarking, and evaluation, including a step-by-step process for universities starting from scratch.
“The Civic 6 Framework offers a powerful lens through which to understand and support the evolving landscape of university-based civic and policy engagement in the UK.”
Professor Rebecca Riley
The report sets out eight recommendations for universities, funders, and policymakers. These include: adopting the Civic 6 Framework as a strategic tool for mapping, benchmarking, and developing civic engagement initiatives; encouraging model flexibility and evolution as institutes adapt to changing funding, partnerships, and regional needs; supporting hybrid and networked approaches that combine strengths from multiple models; investing in long-term capacity building including staff development, data infrastructure, and civic engagement tools; enhancing national coordination platforms such as UPEN, NCCPE, and the LPIP Hub; promoting inclusive and participatory policy development, especially with underrepresented communities and rural areas; expanding translational policy communication to ensure research reaches policymakers in accessible formats; and encouraging cross-institute learning and evaluation.
The report also provides diagnostic tools and a step-by-step framework for universities at any stage of development, from those starting from scratch to established institutes seeking to benchmark and evolve their approach.
Key findings
1 – UK universities are adopting increasingly diverse civic and policy engagement models
Universities are testing and trying approaches and have been for several years. Models change over time and to suit funding and partnership arrangements. Institutional approaches vary significantly in mission, funding structure, governance, and engagement style.
Key takeaway
This diversity reflects both local needs and universities’ strategic choices. The ten case studies examined — including City-REDI, the Heseltine Institute, Insights North East, Y-PERN, ICPL, The Productivity Institute, Policy@Manchester, WCPP, Public Policy|Southampton, and the Bennett Institute — demonstrate a wide spectrum of approaches to civic and policy engagement.
2 – The Civic 6 Framework effectively categorises this diversity
The Civic 6 Framework is a broad typology with variation in the detail included. The typology enables universities to test and move through the typology. The six models capture the spectrum of activity from deeply embedded regional institutes to communication-led platforms.
Key takeaway
The six models — Civic-Embedded Regional Development Institutes, Civic Engagement and Public Policy Institutes, Networked Regional Policy Collaboratives, Single Policy Issue Institutes, Interdisciplinary Public Policy Think Tanks, and Translational Policy Communication Platforms — create a shared language for comparison and planning.
3 – Effective civic institutes align strongly with critical success factors for places
University-based investments with a civic purpose deliver better on government missions locally. The report evaluates each model against ten critical success factors for places (Taylor et al., 2024), including shared political will, long-term capacity, and evidence-based monitoring.
Key takeaway
Institutes that support shared political will, long-term capacity, robust local knowledge, and evidence-based monitoring deliver more impactful regional engagement.
4 – Hybrid models are increasingly common and advantageous
Hybrid models are sustainable and offer long-term benefits. Most institutes examined do not conform purely to a single typology but blend elements of multiple models. This adaptability is a strategic strength rather than a weakness.
Key takeaway
Hybrid institutes pivot in response to funding opportunities, policy windows, and/or institutional restructuring. Flexibility strengthens resilience.
5 – Networked and meta-platforms amplify impact
Various networks exist that can support these different models; however, many are aimed at professional services roles. There is a gap around the academic research leadership networks. The LPIP Hub has provided networked capacity across academic leadership in thematic areas.
Key takeaway
Organisations like UPEN and NCCPE provide coordination, training, matchmaking, and shared tools that institutional models rely on to avoid duplication and strengthen national capacity.
6 – Short-term funding cycles remain a significant barrier
The funding environment for this type of activity — which is both building infrastructure and delivering on government missions — is very unstable and creates vulnerability in the systems that could deliver UKRI objectives.
Key takeaway
A dependence on a constant cycle of unstable project-based or time-limited funding undermines continuity, capacity building, and sustained regional partnerships. It is noteworthy that in a LPIP event in early 2026 bringing place programmes together, it became evident that programmes currently supporting place are coming to an end in 2026.
7 – Monitoring and evaluation practices vary widely
Depending on the model and approach, different structures may or may not capture impact and key performance indicators. Evidence of delivery and impact is variable and might relate to specific projects rather than the team or institute as a whole.
Key takeaway
Data-rich institutes aimed at achieving REF impact (e.g., City-REDI, the Heseltine Institute) have strong quantitative and qualitative impact measures, while engagement-led models rely more on qualitative or internal ad hoc evidence, making comparison challenging.
About the Author
Professor Rebecca Riley
Professor Rebecca (Bec) Riley is Co-Director of City-REDI, Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Regional Engagement, Director of the Local Policy Innovation Partnership (LPIP) Hub, and Professor of Enterprise, Engagement, and Impact at the University of Birmingham’s Business School.
Bec joined the University of Birmingham nine years ago to set up City-REDI, to build a distinctive local, regional, national and international research platform through the development of a Birmingham approach to understanding and facilitating growth in city regions. This systemic approach in identifying and conceptualising the interdependencies within and between regional economies has provided new opportunities for understanding, conceptualising, modelling, evaluating and comparing economic activity and business trends at the city-region level.
As the newly announced Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Regional Engagement, Bec will lead on setting the civic and regional vision for the University, while building on the work she has been doing with the University’s Regional Engagement Group. Alongside her new role, Bec remains the Principal Investigator (PI) and Director of the LPIP Hub, addressing nationwide issues through local partnership and place.
Bec’s research interests focus on regional economic development, including research to develop policy and regional strategies, monitoring frameworks, economic forecasting, skills and labour market analysis, and strategic business cases and project evaluation. She applies a mixed methods approach in her research, with a strong focus and record of impactful policy-relevant applied research and stakeholder engagement. She is an experienced lead on research projects, with over 200 research projects carried out across academia, policy, and consultancy roles.