The public dataset is the foundation. Commissioned reports go deeper — sub-indicator narratives, peer comparisons, trend analysis, scored recommendations, and political context. Available for countries, councils, regions, and custom scopes.
Most policy and political analysis relies on the analyst's judgement, their network, and their prior assumptions. Civix21 reports start somewhere different: from independently sourced, formula-driven scores that predate the commission and cannot be adjusted to produce a preferred outcome.
If a country scores poorly on governance effectiveness, that is what the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators say — not what we think. If a council's LGO upheld complaint rate is above the national average, that is what the Local Government Ombudsman's published data shows. The interpretation is ours. The underlying numbers are not.
That distinction matters — particularly for organisations that need analysis they can publish, cite, or act on without worrying about the methodology being challenged on the grounds of bias or vested interest.
Four core report formats, each built on the public dataset. Scope, depth, and format adapted to the commission.
A full Tier 1 analysis for a single country — structural and relational scores, Trust Gap calculation, quadrant classification, and sub-indicator narrative. Goes significantly beyond the public scorecard to explain the story behind each number.
Rule of law and governance effectiveness — top quartile globally despite recent political turbulence.
Media trust at critical level — seventh lowest in the Council of Europe dataset.
Full narrative in commissioned report
Teaser only · Full report available on commission
A detailed governance analysis for a specific English local authority. Sub-indicator narratives, peer group benchmarking against comparable council types, and the precise baseline the current administration has inherited.
43-point gap between financial governance and service delivery — largest structural divergence in the London borough dataset.
Teaser only · Full report available on commission
All councils in a defined region compared and ranked — composite scores, sub-indicator breakdowns, financial risk flags, and cross-council peer analysis. Built for combined authorities, regional bodies, and journalists covering a defined geography.
North East · North West · Yorkshire · East Midlands · West Midlands · East · London · South East · South West
Combined authority areas · Counties and their districts · Any custom council grouping you define
Baseline governance records by party · May 2026 administration changes · Performance trajectory from October 2027
Custom analysis cutting across country groups, quadrants, or specific indicator clusters. For organisations that need comparative intelligence across a defined scope — a region, a political grouping, a specific dimension of civic health — rather than a single-country or single-council output.
Media trust across EU member states · Trust Gap trends in G20 democracies · Rule of law indicators across ASEAN · GCC structural scores compared
International NGOs · Media organisations · Academic research projects · Government affairs teams covering multiple markets · Foundations assessing programme geographies
The public dataset covers 90 countries and 318 English councils. If your work requires coverage we don't yet publish — additional countries, a different level of government, a sector-specific adaptation — we can build it.
Countries not yet in the public dataset can be scored to V2.1 methodology on commission. The full scoring documentation is available for peer review. Scored countries can be added to the public dataset or kept exclusive to the commissioning organisation for a defined period.
The Local Council Monitor methodology is designed to be adapted. If your organisation needs a similar framework applied to a different tier of government — regional authorities, health trusts, combined authorities — we can scope it.
The two-pillar Trust Gap architecture — structural capacity versus relational legitimacy — can be applied to specific sectors: healthcare systems, judicial institutions, police and justice, education. The methodology transfers. The indicators change.
Because all scores use absolute rather than relative benchmarks, they are directly comparable over time. A commissioned tracking programme — scoring a defined set of countries or councils at regular intervals — produces a proprietary dataset that compounds in value as it grows.
All custom work uses the same primary sources, methodology, and scoring rules as the public framework — and is documented to the same standard. Custom commissions can be published under Civix21 co-authorship, licensed exclusively, or kept internal. Scope and terms by agreement.
Discuss a custom datasetUse the contact form to describe the scope — which country or council, what question you're trying to answer, who the output is for, and any timeline constraints. The more context you give, the more useful our response.
We'll respond with a clear scope proposal — what the report will cover, what it won't, the format, and a quote. For standard report types we can usually turn a quote around within 48 hours. Custom dataset work requires a more detailed scoping conversation.
Every report is produced to the same methodological standard as the public framework — primary sources, formula-driven scoring, explicit assumptions. We share a draft for factual review before final delivery. We do not adjust scores on the basis of the client's preferred outcome.
Reports are delivered as a structured document with full source appendix. Usage rights — publication, citation, internal use only — are agreed as part of the commission. Co-publication under the Civix21 brand is available where appropriate.
One thing we will never do: adjust a score, weight, or finding to produce an outcome the commissioning organisation prefers. The value of these reports is their independence. A report that flatters its subject is worth nothing to anyone — including the subject.
Commission a report