Too much of what mental health charities do remains missing from the evidence used to plan services. Decisions can therefore be made without a full understanding of community provision, the people it reaches, or what would be lost if it disappeared.

Data is part of the answer, but it is not enough on its own. We also need the knowledge held by providers, the experience of people using support, research that reflects community models, and an understanding of local context. Our evidence work brings those forms of knowledge together.

When the same concern appears across services, places, or member types, it tells us something important. We gather that information through member meetings, surveys, networks, one-to-one conversations, service examples, and targeted evidence calls, then test what it means before using it nationally.

This approach has informed our work on CQC regulation, commissioning, neighbourhood health, social care, the Mental Health Strategy, and the independent prevalence review.

Community models are not always well represented in conventional academic evidence. Evaluations may be commissioned locally, published outside journals, or held by providers. We work with researchers and policy teams to widen the evidence they consider and connect research questions with the realities of service delivery.

People's experience is knowledge in its own right. It should shape the questions we ask, the way evidence is interpreted, and the decisions made from it - particularly where inequality or exclusion means national data gives only part of the picture.

We use evidence in submissions, briefings, policy meetings, commissioning discussions, research, and public communications, and we report back to members on what happens next. Where an outcome is still uncertain, we say so.