Research and analysis

Charity transparency data research report

Published 2 December 2022

Applies to England and Wales

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Background and methodology

The Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW) is the independent regulator for the charity sector. This research focuses on the CCEW’s statutory obligation to increase public trust and confidence in charities. CCEW has been tracking the public’s level of trust and confidence in charities since 2005 ^{[footnote 1]}. Levels of trust in charities declined before plateauing in 2016 (in the midst of high-profile scandals 2014-2018) until very recently. The most recent research ^{[footnote 2]} suggests that trust in charities has increased, but that this trust remains unevenly distributed across the public.

Despite these improvements in public sentiment towards charities, the sector is still facing a challenge in this area. Trust really matters. We know that trust affects the public’s willingness to support ^{[footnote 3]} charities, particularly regarding repeat donations and volunteering. Research found that a significant proportion of those who reported changing levels of trust said this was impacting the amount they donate to charities, and that those who feel their trust has decreased are donating less money as a result ^{[footnote 4]}. Trust is therefore key to the success and survival of the sector. Research ^{[footnote 4]} has found that charity trustworthiness is driven by them showing:

• where the money goes: That a high proportion of charities’ money is used for charitable activity
• impact: That charities are making the impact they promise to make
• living their value (the ‘how’): That the way they go about making that impact is consistent with the spirit of ‘charity’
• collective responsibility: That all charities uphold the reputation of charity in adhering to these

When the public suspect charities are not showing good stewardship, living their values, and having a demonstrable impact, then trust decreases. However, when charities can show most donations reach the end cause and beneficiaries, and that they are creating positive results, both trust and self-reported likelihood to donate increase ^{[footnote 5]}.

The purpose of this research is to further explore public views on and needs from charity transparency data, with a view to informing work to grow trust in the sector. This research takes a qualitative approach and was undertaken in two stages: the first stage comprised of twelve focus groups, and the second stage a two-day online community. In total, 63 participants from across England and Wales took part in the focus groups and 62 participants went on to complete the online community. A purposive approach was taken to the qualitative sampling to ensure a diverse and inclusive sample which reflected aspects of the population. However, we note that the findings were largely consistent across the sample. Meaningful variation has been drawn out in the report where this did emerge.

1.2 Public trust in charities

What ‘charity’ means to the public

The term ‘charity’ was widely associated with supporting and helping those in need and others less fortunate than you. For some participants this was strongly associated with their lifestyle and values (such as supporting environmental charities) and for some it was closely connected to their religion and religious community. For some participants with lower levels of trust in charities, the term was also spontaneously associated with large, international and long running charities not seeming to create impact and with corruption meaning donations do not reach beneficiaries in other countries.

Across the research, there was a strong sense that participants felt they owned their donations, particularly when financial donations were felt to have been ‘hard earned’. They were keen to support a particular cause and wanted to see their support reach and make a difference at the front line and to beneficiaries to achieve this. Participants want to support causes rather than charities per se. Charities as organisations were therefore seen as conduits to them achieving this, which translate their support to impact and making a difference to the cause and at the frontline.

Levels of trust in charities

As a concept, charity was widely received positively, and participants were in favour of the idea. However, issues and challenges with how charity is delivered in practice were raised across the sample and there were mixed levels of trust in charities. Participants described how they had varying levels of trust in different types of charities, rather than an overall level of trust in the sector. There were three key drivers of trust: charity size, geographic scope, and closeness to the charity. Taken together, an overarching theme driving levels of trust was that of connection and a sense of ‘knowing’ a charity. There were higher levels of trust in smaller and local charities and those which participants felt a sense of personal, emotional or values-based closeness to – where they had higher levels of trust that their own donations were reaching beneficiaries and impacting the cause they cared about.

Previous experiences of searching for information about charities

Previous experience of looking up information about charities was limited. Across the groups the role of news as a source of information about charities emerged as a common theme, with information (usually negative) finding its way to them rather than being proactively sought out. The most common occasion for proactively seeking out information was when people were considering making more significant contributions, such as a larger or regular donation or volunteering their time regularly.

There were mixed experiences of searching for information about charities reported. Those who had searched had generally just looked on the charity’s own website and typically struggled to find information about smaller and local charities (although they could more easily see evidence of activity and impact in their local communities and areas). However, conversely, some participants said they were put off by the ‘slick’ websites of large and international charities where information was seen to be for marketing rather than transparency purposes – and they were therefore unsure how much to trust it.

1.3 Public views about charity transparency data

Views about transparency data as a concept

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was low awareness of the term ‘charity transparency data’ and it was largely meaningless to participants. However, once the concept was explained, participants were widely positive about it and what it could offer them when deciding whether to support an individual charity or not. In this sense, a transparent charity was seen as one where information about finances, activities, and impact is available and accessible. Across the sample, participants widely spontaneously suggested they wanted to know these three things to know where their ‘hard- earned money’ was going when they decided whether to support a charity or not. This suggests there is an important role here that charity data can play in helping to grow trust in charities.

What types of transparency data the public want – and why

Views about four types of charity data were explored: financial accounts, activities, staffing and salaries, and inclusion and diversity data. All four types of data considered were seen as important to the public. However, a clear hierarchy emerged, with financial information and evidence of impact being prioritised as most valuable to the public when making decisions about supporting charities. This was because participants wanted to be able to trace and be reassured about where their money would go and what difference it would make to their cause when it is given to a charity. Whilst participants understood that not all support would make it to the front line, they wanted to know that the amounts being spent of salaries, management, administration and marketing were appropriate and not ‘wasteful’. Inclusion and diversity data was seen as important to show that charities are living their values - and charities having beneficiaries represented on their boards and working / volunteering for the organisation was seen as important – but this was a lower priority for most participants than the other types of data.

Needs from charity transparency data

The role for information about charities was fairly focussed, as participants reported being interested in using these types of data to inform their decisions about whether to support individual charities, in particular for more substantial monetary donations or volunteering their time.

Overwhelmingly participants suggested that they would be unlikely to be seeking this information out of general curiosity, following a news report, or to inform decisions about more ad hoc or lower- level support (e.g., contributing to a donation bucket in the street; sponsorship of a friend, family member or colleague; or coin slot box).

How useful and impactful is charity transparency data

Overall, participant responses suggested information about charities could help people make decisions about giving more significant support to individual charities (i.e., larger/regular donations and volunteering), because it can contribute to a sense of ‘knowing’ a charity and where their money is going, which is a key driver of trust in charities. Whilst it was widely seen as useful for this purpose, information about charities only seemed to nudge trust in individual charities rather than the sector as a whole. Participants’ level of trust in the charity sector did not shift meaningfully after discussing the types of data available. In addition, some participants from both high and low trust groups said that a personal relationship or connection with a charity and/or sharing its values (i.e., religious, ethical) could potentially override findings from charity data.

How the public want to see transparency data presented

Whilst the concept and types of transparency data were generally received positively, the presentation of information about charities is key to its value and usefulness to the public. The presentation of data and ensuring that this is accessible for the public is central to how impactful it can potentially be. Some key principles for the presentation of these types of data include:

• present data in a simple and visual way, rather than as complex statistics and numerical figures (including complex financial accounts)
• communicate impact proactively: charities should proactively disseminate information, particularly on impact, to their supporters

Preferred formats and channels

There was a strong preference for highly visual formats to be used. For example, using infographics for statistics and other types of numerical data was suggested frequently as the most accessible and engaging format. A highly visual format commonly suggested across the groups were beneficiary and volunteer testimonials, and this was the preferred format for demonstrating charity impact.

In terms of their preferred channels, participants commonly said that they would expect information to be provided on charity websites in the first instance. However, having a link to an independent regulator website would add a layer of verification and increase legitimacy, and therefore trust, in the data. Clear and easy to follow signposting to channels hosting data was key, whether they started their search on a charity website or an independent regulator’s website. Participants across groups commented that making this information accessible would also require accommodating the needs of digitally excluded and vulnerable individuals (particularly elderly people).

1.4 Role of the CCEW

Overall, awareness of the CCEW and its role was low across the groups. Meanwhile, there was a widely expressed desire for more regulation of the charity sector. Participants, in both higher and lower-level trust groups, commonly mentioned wanting to see an independent body check, review and regulate charities. There was a desire for more activity from an independent regulator which would help to drive confidence that ‘their hard-earned money’ was reaching their desired cause when they decide to give their support.

When reflecting on their needs from charity data and considering the role that CCEW could play, there were three key areas that stood out: there was widespread agreement that validating charity data, providing greater visibility of investigations and accountability measures, and helping the public to make decisions about which charities to support were seen as important across the research. An independent regulator being seen to provide more oversight and validation of data could help to drive public confidence in the legitimacy of this data and subsequently levels of trust in individual charities.

1.5 Concluding Recommendations

The following recommendations have been derived from the insights provided:

• promote greater awareness of charity data amongst the public and encourage proactive engagement with this information more widely, but specifically when considering supporting individual charities
• highlight to the sector the key role that charity data can play to help grow trust in charities by letting the public ‘in’ and allowing them to feel they ‘know’ and understand the charity raise the profile of the CCEW as an independent body and any work being done to validate charity transparency data and around investigations and their outcomes

2. Methodology

2.1 Background and context

The Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW) is the independent regulator for the charity sector and the Registrar of charities in England and Wales. The Charities Act (2011) charges the CCEW with five statutory objectives related to: public confidence, public benefit, compliance, charitable resources, and accountability. The CCEW’s Statement of Strategic Intent (2018-2023) sets out the Commission’s purpose which is ‘to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society’4 and five objectives to help it achieve this purpose: hold charities to account, deal with wrongdoing and harm, inform public choice, give charities the understanding and tools they need to succeed, and keep charity relevant for today’s world.

This research focuses on the CCEW’s statutory obligation to increase public trust and confidence in charities. The CCEW has been tracking the public’s level of trust and confidence in charities since 2005 ^{[footnote 6]}. Levels of trust in charities declined before plateauing in 2016 (in the midst of high-profile scandals 2014-2018) until very recently. The most recent research suggests that trust has increased, but that this remains unevenly distributed across the public ^{[footnote 7]} . Whilst this increase is not directly attributed to any specific factors, the research highlights two other relevant findings: the first is that the high-profile scandals of 2014-2018 are receding; and secondly that the perceived importance of charities has risen in 2021 for the first time since 2012.

Despite this improvement in public sentiment towards charities, the sector still faces a challenge in this area. Trust really matters. We know that trust affects the public’s willingness to support charities ^{[footnote 8]}, particularly regarding repeat donations and volunteering. A significant proportion of those who reported changing levels of trust said this was impacting the amount they donate to charities, and those who felt their trust had decreased said they were donating less money as a result ^{[footnote 9]}. Trust is therefore key to the success of the sector. Research ^{[footnote 4]} has found that charity trustworthiness is driven by them showing:

• where the money goes: that a high proportion of charities’ money is used for charitable activity
• impact: that charities are making the impact they promise to make
• living their values: that the way they go about making impact is consistent with the spirit of ‘charity’
• collective responsibility: that all charities uphold the reputation of charity in adhering to these

When the public suspect charities are not showing good stewardship, living their values, and having a demonstrable impact, then trust decreases. However, when charities can show most donations reach the end cause and beneficiaries, and that they are creating positive results, both trust and self-reported likelihood to donate increase ^{[footnote 8]}. The public expects high standards of behaviour from charities which go beyond compliance with the law.

Charities need to show the public their donations are reaching beneficiaries and that they are having a positive impact. In research conducted in 2018 it was reported that of the people who said their trust in charities had decreased, thirty-two percent stated that they now do more research before deciding whether to support a charity or not ^{[footnote 10]}. Charity data demonstrating impact and how funds have been distributed could therefore help to build public trust in charities.

The CCEW collects and displays basic data about charities, such as whether they are registered. This information is available in the CCEW’s online Register of Charities ^{[footnote 11]} and includes what the charity does, trustees, financial information, and any actions the CCEW has taken against the charity. In addition, the CCEW publishes two other data sets from the register: 1) top 10 charities by income, expenditure or other criteria, and 2) graphical representation of data about the charity sector.

Initial research has suggested the public find charity transparency data ‘opaque’ ^{[footnote 12]}. It is therefore important for the CCEW to know more about what the public want and need from data. The purpose of this research is to further explore public needs from charity data with a view to informing work to grow trust in the sector.

2.2 Research aims and objectives

The aim of this research is to explore public views on charity transparency data. We understand charity transparency data to include, but not be limited to charity accounts, volunteer and staffing numbers and salary information, inclusion and diversity data, and activity and impact data.

Specifically, the research objectives are to explore:

1. If and when the public use information about charities (e.g., general curiosity, to make a donation or support decision, in response to news coverage)
2. What information about charities the public find useful and what other information they would like (which they do not currently have)
3. What formats and channels they would like to access this from (and any advice about making this information more accessible)

2.3 Methodology

Overall design

This research takes a qualitative approach and was undertaken in two stages of engagement bridged with an interim task. The first stage comprised of twelve focus groups, and the second stage a two-day online community. In total, 63 participants from across England and Wales took part in the focus groups and 62 participants went on to complete the online community. A purposive approach was taken to the qualitative sampling to ensure a diverse and inclusive sample which reflected aspects of the population. However, we note that the findings were largely consistent across the sample. Meaningful variation has been drawn out in the report where this did emerge (for example across socio-economic and ethnic groups).

Focus groups

The first stage of engagement comprised of twelve 2-hour online focus groups conducted via Zoom between 25th January and 3rd February 2022.

Before attending the groups, the participants completed a pre-task which asked them to reflect on:

• the last time they decided to support or considered supporting a charity
• what their motivations were
• whether they sought out any information to help them make their decision and how they found this process
• whether they would have liked to know anything more before making their decision.

The purpose of the focus groups was to explore public views about and needs from charity data in more depth, within the context of growing trust in the charity sector. The groups explored associations with the concept of ‘charities’, sources of information, previous experience of supporting and looking up information about charities, and levels and drivers of trust in charities. They then explored awareness of charity data, views about transparent charities, public needs from charity data (including questions about format and channels) and how this could impact levels of trust, before briefly touching on the role of the CCEW. The focus groups were led by Kantar Public moderators and each used stimulus and participatory tasks developed to facilitate the discussions.

Online community

Shortly after the focus groups, participants completed an interim task which asked them to think of two charities from the same sector that they would be most likely to consider supporting in the next year. They then spent around 15 minutes looking up information online about these chosen charities before reporting on their experiences in an online community and how it made them feel about supporting the charities. Participants could interact with each other in the community and also took part in a discussion board focused on how the CCEW could increase public trust in charities.

The online community was open between 7th – 9th February and asked participants to spend a minimum of 15 minutes engaging with the platform.

Sampling and recruitment approach

This research involved 12 focus groups and a follow up online community. In total, 63 participants from across England and Wales took part in the focus groups and 62 participants went on to complete the online community. As the project explores the public’s views, it was important the research had a diverse and inclusive sample. The research involved a purposive qualitative sample. This was structured primarily by geography to ensure representation from across England and Wales (with x2 groups from each of England North, England Midlands, England South, and London and x4 groups from Wales). For each region, half of the groups involved people with higher levels of trust in charities and half with people with lower levels of trust in charities to ensure a spread of views across this key variable. Beyond this, quotas were used to facilitate the inclusion of a range of demographics, including a spread of ages from 18 to over 55, a broad range of ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds. As well as types of engagement with charities, including people who had donated once, donated regularly, donated goods / services, volunteered, and never given to charity across the groups. We note that, some participants reported being or having been direct beneficiaries and/or having had immediate family members or friends be direct beneficiaries of charities and their support; however, this was not part of our sampling framework and therefore was not systemically screened for during recruitment.

A full breakdown of the achieved sample can be found in the appendix.

The recruitment was conducted via free find methods using an online panel. Participants received an incentive to thank them for their time completing each element of the research.

Whilst the sample included a range of socio-demographics, these were not found to be a key driver of variation in views across the research.

Qualitative analysis approach

A systematic thematic approach to qualitative analysis was taken, starting with the workshop recordings to ensure the insights were robustly derived from the data. The analysis process was comprised of two elements: a process-driven and interpretative element.

The process driven element used a matrix mapping framework technique, in which data from the recordings was coded and systematically summarised into an analytical framework organised by issue and theme. The framework was developed to reflect the research objectives, the workshop topic guides, and the themes which emerged from the workshops. This facilitated robust subgroup analysis.

The second element involved researcher analysis sessions which were used to support interpretation of the data, during which the research team came together to discuss and test emerging themes and insights. This interpretative element focused on identifying overarching features and patterns within the data, mapping the range and nature of data, finding associations, and defining concepts. This process created descriptive accounts and explanatory data, which came not only from aggregating patterns but by weighing up the salience and dynamics of issues and searching for structures within the data that have explanatory power.

2.4 Limitations of the research

There are two key limitations to keep in mind when reading this report:

• non-generalisable findings: The study used a qualitative sample with purposively selected participants. Findings are not representative and generalisable in a statistical sense but are reflective of views of the population for the research in a broader sense
• the participants became better informed about charity data over the course of the research: They were therefore better informed about the concept and the options available than the general public would be

3. Public trust in charities

This chapter addresses what charity means to the public, including participants’ spontaneous associations with the term ‘charity’ and sources of awareness and information regarding charities. It outlines public levels of trust in charities and explores key drivers of trust before discussing participants’ previous experiences of searching for information about charities.

The term ‘charity’ was widely associated with supporting and helping others in need and those who are less fortunate than you. Participants were keen to support particular causes and to see their donation reach the front line and beneficiaries. Importantly, they supported causes rather than charities as organisations per se. There was a strong sense that participants felt they owned their ‘hard earned’ donations and saw charities as conduits to translate their support to make a difference to the causes and beneficiaries they cared about. Participants had varying levels of trust in different types of charities, rather than an overall level of trust in the sector. Levels of trust were underpinned by three key drivers: charity size, geographic scope, and closeness to the charity.

Taken together, an overarching theme driving trust was that of connection and a sense of ‘knowing’ a charity. Yet, there was limited experience of looking up information on charities across the sample.

3.1 What ‘charity’ means to the public

Spontaneous associations with the term

The term ‘charity’ was widely associated with supporting and helping others in need and those who are less fortunate than you. There was little reference to the wider charity sector which includes arts, cultural and heritage focused organisations and foundations. The types of support for charities commonly reported included donating money and volunteering time (front line and charity support) as well as giving clothes, furniture and food, and animal adoption. The giving of money and time were the most prominent types of support reported across the groups and this focus in terms of support remained throughout the research.

Generally, sentiments regarding charitable acts were organised around two key themes, helping and thanking. However, it is worth noting that some participants highlighted that supporting charities was not always an entirely altruistic act with some vested benefits from, for example, donating clothes and furniture facilitating house clearances and mitigating potential removal expenses.

“The only reason I used [charity name] was specifically for that [service collection], because everybody else needed the items dropped off.” (South England, Lower trust group)

Firstly, charity was associated with helping other people who are in need and/or are in less fortunate situations. Here participants reported that charity is about resolving societal issues or shortfalls practically, through the giving of your time, money or resources.

“Providing a solution to a problem, typically through giving our money, time or resources.” (London, Lower trust group)

“Donating to do something useful to meet a shortfall.” (North England, Higher trust group)

The second theme to emerge was giving thanks. Participants frequently spoke about charitable support being about giving something back, specifically to charities whose work has helped either themselves, their friends or family members (for example supporting charities which had given good end of life care support to elderly family members which had been appreciated by some participants). Whilst this sentiment spanned demographics, for some participants this was strongly associated with their lifestyle and values (such as supporting environmental charities for those for whom this was particularly important). Meanwhile, for a minority of participants it was closely connected to their religion and religious community, particularly for minority ethnic groups in the sample.

“Charity is our way of expressing love to others who are in need, it’s biblical and a way of life for me.” (London, Lower trust group)

Importantly, for lower trust participants, initial spontaneous associations with the term ‘charity’ also included concerns, principally about the perceived lack of impact of large, long running charities and concerns about local and political corruption meaning donations do not get to the frontline and beneficiaries for international charities.

“I can remember [charity name] from a good 25 years ago…25 years of charity donations must have got a lot further than what they’ve done in that so far.” (South England, Lower trust group)

“I’m always concerned that there’s going to be something dodgy going on in the background – it ends up being hearsay or rumours in the end…but charities that are funnelling money to places I wouldn’t want it to go – I do look it up, but I do find it hard to find actual information, fact checking the rumours.” (South England, Lower trust group)

When considering what charity means, participants also communicated drivers underpinning why they select the charities and causes they do choose to support. Across the sample, consistently across demographic groups, the types of charities and causes participants said they selected to support were overwhelmingly reported to be underpinned by a personal, and often emotional, connection. Here participants commonly reported supporting a charity or cause because, either they themselves, a family member or a friend had a connection with the cause, for example having been through the same experience (e.g., an illness or experience such as homelessness). This meant the charities people were choosing to support, primarily through giving money or time, were close to their hearts.

“There’s so many of them, you’ve got to choose and draw some sort of line. I suppose it’s whatever jumps out at you, as oh yeah, I’ve got connections to that, that speaks to me.” (North England, Higher trust group)

“I also donate to [charity name] as I have needed their services in the past and could not commend them more for their work.” (Higher trust, online)

“[Charity name], this is a charity close to our hearts as they cared for my mother in-law in the lead up to her passing last summer.” (Higher trust, online)

In addition, across the groups, participants were keen to support particular causes and wanted to see their donation reach the front line and the beneficiaries to achieve this. There was a strong sense that participants felt they owned their donations, particularly when these were seen to have been ‘hard earned’; whilst expressed across the sample, this theme and language was stronger among lower socio-economic groups. Participants supported causes rather than charities as organisations per se. Charities as organisations were therefore seen as conduits to them supporting their cause of interest.

3.2 Sources of awareness and information

There was a high level of awareness of charities across the groups, and an expressed sentiment across the research that charity marketing is ubiquitous, with awareness raising activities finding their way into private as well as public spaces.

“[charity marketing is] pretty much everywhere you go.” (Midlands England, Lower trust group)

“You can’t really escape the marketing they do, and some charities are better at marketing than others.” (Midlands England, Higher trust group)

“I do one off contributions over the course of the year; these will be as a result of being asked. It might be as simple as a box being rattled when I go to the supermarket, or a Facebook post, or also lots of my friends are now going for birthday fundraisers, or doing activities (sky diving, running marathons etc) to raise money. I also support charity shops by donating goods and buying from charity shops. And then there are the charity raffles.” (Higher trust, online)

Across the research, participants reported a range of sources of awareness and information about charities. This are discussed below in order of how commonly they were raised across the sample.

TV:

All groups cited TV as a source of information, specifically the news and current affairs programmes, and this tended towards negative media stories, but also charity adverts and appeals.

Social media:

Again, all groups reported social media as a source of information about charities, citing posts from charities themselves as well as friends and influencer posts across Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, Just Giving and YouTube (ads). In addition, in the online community some participants mentioned having checked the comments sections of charity’s posts for insights.

Whilst social media was mentioned commonly across all age groups, concerns were raised among younger participants here regarding potential scams on social media related to influencers and cryptocurrency.

“You often find out about charities on social media, seeing friends posts about events or things they’re doing to fundraise, and there’s also the thing you can do on Facebook to raise money for a charity instead of getting presents on your birthday.” (Wales, Lower trust group)

Presence in the local area:

Across the groups, participants reported presence in the local area as a source of awareness and information about charities and this included: charity shops, especially since the impacts of Covid-19 are leading to more charity shops filling empty shop spaces, school and church activities, advertisements and coin collectors in supermarkets and around university campuses, as well as on-street collectors. Participants commonly responded negatively to on- street collectors, with some referring to them as ‘chuggers’, because this was seen as invasive and pressurising and some lower trust participants also questioned how they were being paid.

“I’ve found out about some of the smaller more local charities in the last year or walking onto the high street and seeing their charity shops. There’s a lot more in the town centre now since Covid and other shops closing down, they’re taking over their spaces.” (Wales, Higher trust group)

Word of mouth:

Frequently cited across the groups, word of mouth was an important source of awareness and information. Participants reported often finding out about charities through individuals they know that are collecting sponsorship, volunteering for, or indeed using charity services. In addition, participants had also heard about charities through individuals they knew working in the sector or for a particular charity, as well as through faith leaders and individuals setting up their own charitable foundations.

Radio:

Discussion about radio as a source of information was similar to that of TV, with news items and appeals or advertisements being heard, but this was less frequently cited by participants.

Charity Websites:

Although only a small number of participants reported explicitly seeking out information about charities, their websites were raised as a source of information in some groups. In these groups the perceived professionalism of the site and its impact on confidence was a point of debate with some participants seeing ‘flashy’ websites as evidence of ‘inappropriate use’ of donated funds, whilst others said these websites support confidence through the provision of clear information.

“Once you go to their website and you see that it’s poorly done work, it’s as if the people that put work into this didn’t put effort into actually making it easily accessible for people, and overall, just feeling like a lazy work done…that’s when you’re like, this seems a little bit fishy, I’d rather not trust this.” (North England, Higher trust group)

“I went onto the [charity name] website purely to see if and how they could support my dad. I was blown away by what they could offer, and by how professional they appeared. And so, I’ve gone on to donate to them since.” (Wales, Higher trust group)

Leaflets and bags dropped through letterboxes.

Finally, leaflets and donation bags dropped through letterboxes was the least reported source of awareness and information across the sample.

3.3 Levels of trust in charities

As a concept, charity was widely received positively, and participants were generally in support of charities broadly, and believed that the individuals involved in charities mostly had good intentions. However, participants discussed issues and challenges with how charity is delivered in practice and there were mixed levels of trust in individual charities in England and Wales. These discussions provide helpful insights when considering how to measure levels of trust in charities across the population.

Levels of trust in charities

Consistently across the sample participants described having varying levels of trust in different types of charities, rather than an overall level of trust in the sector as a whole. Across the groups, participants found it difficult to express an overarching level of trust in the sector because they said their levels of trust in individual charities varies. Higher trusting participants typically expressed that whilst most charities are trustworthy, there are ‘bad apples’ where poor practice occurs.

“I wouldn’t say that I implicitly trust all charities at all times in perpetuity, but generally speaking, I have very high levels of trust in charities, unless I hear something to the contrary.” (North England, Higher trust group)

Meanwhile for lower trust groups, there was a greater sense of scepticism of the sector focussed specifically on the distribution of monetary donations by charities. Here lower trust participants widely reported concern that monetary donations, especially in large and international charities, would not reach the front line and beneficiaries, to the cause where they wanted their money to go, but instead would go to the charity’s directors or senior staff (e.g., Chief Executive Officers).

“The larger charities, you can’t really see where the money is going. You can’t see where the changes are being made.” (Midlands England, Lower trust group)

Key drivers of trust

It was widely expressed that individuals’ levels of trust varied across different types of charities. Levels of trust in charities were differentiated by three key high-level factors: (1) charity size, (2) geographic scope, and (3) closeness to the charity. Taken together, an overarching theme driving trust was that of connection and a sense of ‘knowing’ a charity. Overwhelmingly, participants reported higher levels of trust in smaller, grassroots, and local charities as opposed to larger, corporate, and international charities. Trust here was reportedly bolstered by the potential to more easily observe the impact of local and small charities in the area. In addition, trust was higher where participants felt a sense of personal, emotional or valued-based closeness to a charity.

These three factors drove trust because they enabled participants to more easily see that their own ‘hard earned’ donations were reaching the frontline and beneficiaries and impacting the cause they cared about.

Charity Size

Overwhelmingly participants reported a spectrum of trust, with greater trust for smaller charities and lower trust in larger, more corporate-style charities. Trust was higher for smaller charities on account of a perception that individuals would more easily be able to observe the impact of their support (even if they didn’t have to access to data on this). That is, participants felt they would be/were able to see where monetary donations are going. Moreover, trust in smaller charities was premised on a perception that monetary donations to these charities goes directly to the cause.

“I prefer to support local charities, like [charity name] or the local scouts. You can see where your moneys going, and [charity name] I’m a member of and they’re essentially down the road so I can always pop into. I prefer that sort of thing rather than a big charity.” (London, Higher trust group)

“[donating to a local charity] I think it is just to see the actual work. It makes a difference because you see where your money is going.” (South England, Lower trust group)

“[with a smaller charity] my contribution would probably have a more direct impact.” (Higher trust, online)

Meanwhile larger charities were perceived to be both opaquer, with the impact of support being more difficult to observe, and that monetary donations were less likely to go directly to the cause ‘front line’. Whilst monetary donations to large charities were less likely to go to the cause, to the front line, but instead into overheads such as salaries and administrative, marketing or management costs.

“There’s too many ways to hide money and misuse money in bigger charities” (South England, Lower trust group)

“The bigger they get, the more overheads they get, the charities, and the more spend outs they’ve got to give out without it actually going to what’s needed.” (South England, Lower trust group)

High senior salaries were a specific concern highlighted by participants consistently across the research. Here participants, and in particular those from lower socio-economic groups, expressed a desire to see their ‘hard earned’ money go to the cause generating impact for the intended recipients (the beneficiaries). High senior salaries were commonly seen as a ‘misuse’ of their ‘hard-earned’ money which they have donated to the cause and beneficiaries, not to the charity as an organisation.

“[the] smaller the charity, maybe the better chance you’ve got of the money going where it should be, whereas if it’s a big organisation, the money tends to disappear into the back of CEO’s pockets.” (Midlands England, Low trust group)

“With [charity name], you’ve got the CEO on £350 Grand a year, how many front line members of staff that are probably going to make more of a difference could you get on board?” (Midlands England, High trust group)

Some participants were also highly negative about the use of celebrities, actors, and (for younger demographics in particular) social media influencers in marketing and impact communications such as videos. Participants commonly saw this as an inappropriate expense detracting from the money going to the cause, believing these individuals to probably have been highly paid for this work. Some participants appreciated that high-profile individuals such as actors may not be being paid for the work, but commonly still found it off-putting nonetheless, suggesting that these individuals would still be personally benefitting from the exposure which they saw as inappropriate.

Finally, here, some participants also highlighted that they felt that larger charities tended to be those most associated with scandals reported in the news. Consequently, large charities were often, although not entirely and more so for lower trusting participants, regarded with higher degrees of scepticism.

Geographic scope

The geographic scope of charities was also an important driver in trust. Across the groups, participants reported higher degrees of trust in local charities, particularly those perceived to be grassroots organisations. This local nature was associated with the ability to more easily be able to see the impact, specifically of their monetary donations (even if they didn’t have access to data to support this).

“I’ve had close family members have strokes and suffer from Alzheimer’s, and they had a lot of support from those charities. I could actually see the positive impact giving to those charities were having on the lives of my family members.” (Lower trust, online)

“It’s good for you to look after your little corner of the world, so you see where your money’s going.” (South England, Lower trust group)

Meanwhile, larger, national and international charities were commonly viewed with more scepticism, particularly by lower trust participants. Unease was primarily underpinned by an expressed inability to observe the impact that their support was generating; an inability to see what their money is doing. This was a particular issue for international charities, which were more likely to be associated with potential opportunities for corrupt governments and organisations to siphon off donations.

“[Charity name], they’re getting millions, but where is it actually going?” (Midlands England, Lower trust group)

“You’d like to know that your pound wholly goes to that charity, and it doesn’t always, especially in the third world countries”. (Midlands England, Higher trust group)

“I am predisposed to mistrust larger corporate charities as there seems to be more scope for corruption there.” (Lower trust, online)

In addition, with local charities some individuals were engaging directly with charities, volunteering and donating and therefore could see the difference being made. Alternatively, some participants reported knowing volunteers, board members, staff etc. and beneficiaries involved with more local charities. This localness of charities ties together geographic scope with the third key driver of trust, enabling a personal connection.

“Locally based charities are also a priority for me as they help the local community, and you can become directly involved more easily.” (Higher trust, online)

“I also volunteered during Covid with a small charity which took food donations and delivered them to families in need during the pandemic.” (Lower trust, online)

Closeness to charities

Participants expressed a higher level of trust in charities they feel they ‘know’ ^{[footnote 13]}. As outlined above, an individual’s personal connection to a charity is a key factor determining which charities they choose to support. This personal connection to charities is also an important element in an individual’s trust of charities. Having either a personal link, experiential understanding or a value alignment creates a foundation for closeness and feeling you know and can trust a charity.

• personal link: Individuals either know someone who has been a beneficiary of the charity or is directly engaged with the charity, including volunteering, being a trustee on the board or an employee. A personal link to the charity also includes invitations to support received from friends and family (e.g., Facebook birthday cause donations or JustGiving)
• experiential understanding: Personal experience of the cause being support, this includes direct experience as well as that of a family member or a friend (e.g., bereavement, Alzheimer’s, cancer or homelessness)
• value alignment: This is where a charity aligns with personal values, be they lifestyle, religious, moral etc. (e.g., animal charities, environmental charities, Women’s support and shelter, religious or faith-based charities)

These foundational connections enable individuals to feel that they know and understand the cause the charity is aiming to support. They then want to feel close to the charity itself. Making the charity, its personnel and activities tangible and accessible can help with this. Participants wanted to understand what the charity is aiming to achieve, the mechanisms for achieving the stated aims, and what impact should look like.

“I work with autistic adults, and I myself am autistic, so there’s certain charities within the autism world that I wouldn’t ever support because of the way that they talk and research autism, as if it’s a disease that needs to be eradicated.” (Midlands England, Higher trust group)

3.4 Previous experiences of searching for information about charities

Whilst levels of trust in individual charities varied, previous experience of looking up information about charities was limited across the sample and in the main participants were not actively seeking information. Indeed, participants overwhelmingly reported that they had not generally looked up charities prior to making small or one-off donations.

“If I’m going to be giving my money it will almost always be to organisations, I am familiar with or have supported in the past.” (Higher trust, online)

A minority of participants reported proactively accessing information provided by charities, (such as blog posts) out of interest in the topic; for example, one individual, passionate about environmentalism, reported reading blog posts from an environmental charity.

Amongst the groups, the role of news as a source of information emerged as a common theme, with information (usually negative stories) finding its way to them rather than it being proactively sought out. Rarely did participants report proactively seeking out further information after having seen or heard a news story regarding a charity, and those that had articulated varying levels of success in finding the types of information they were looking for.

Similarly, very few participants had previously searched specifically for charity data. Individuals that reported having done so came from both high and low trust groups and were largely doing so because they were considering making a more significant form of support: either to donate a large or sustained (i.e., repeat) amount of money, or to volunteer their time (and for some resources).

There were mixed experiences of searching for information about charities reported, with some participants reporting a general satisfaction with the information they found whilst others said they had struggled to find information, particularly when looking up smaller and local charities (although participants could more easily see evidence of impact of local charities in their communities and areas). Participants had generally looked at the charity’s own website. As highlighted above, in section 3.2, the professionalism of charity’s own websites was a point of contention. Some said they were put off by ‘slick’ websites of large charities where information was seen to be for marketing rather than transparency purposes – and were unsure how much to trust it. Meanwhile others suggested these more professional sites were trustworthy, particularly when they could locate all the information they were interested in easily.

“I know from past experience of looking at charities that [all the information being looked for being readily available] – this isn’t always the case.” (Lower trust, online)

“They might not be slick, like the [charity name] of this world, so I wouldn’t necessarily be put off if it was a slightly amateurish website.” (North England, Higher trust group)

3.5 Summary

In conclusion, the research identified a strong sense that participants feel they own their donations, that they were keen to support a particular cause, and wanted to see their donation reach the front line and the beneficiaries to achieve this. Charities as organisations were seen as conduits translating their support to help them achieve this, and participants supported causes rather than charities as organisations per se.

Participants related varying levels of trust in different types of charities, rather than an overall level of trust in the sector. There were higher levels of trust in smaller and local charities and those with which participants felt a sense of personal, emotional or values-based closeness too – because participants had higher levels of trust that their own donations were reaching beneficiaries and impacting the cause they cared about. Subsequently, the research highlights three key drivers of trust: charity size, geographic scope, and closeness to the charity. Taken together, an overarching theme driving trust was that of connection and a sense of ‘knowing’ a charity. Yet, there was limited experience of seeking out information about charities. This points to an opportunity for the CCEW to inspire trust and inform public choice ^{[footnote 14]} through greater awareness of charity data. In the next chapter we address public views about charity transparency data specifically.

4. Public views about charity transparency data

This chapter focusses on charity transparency data, outlining participant views on the concept before turning to the types of charity data the public want and why, what their needs are from charity data, the way in which this information would best be presented, and concluding with discussing the perceived usefulness.

Whilst there was low awareness of the term ‘charity transparency data’, once the concept was explained, participants were widely positive about it and what it could offer to them when deciding whether to support an individual charity or not. Participants spontaneously suggested wanting to know about charity finances, activities, and their impact, in order to know where their ‘own hard- earned money’ was going when they decided whether to support a charity or not. This highlights a key role that charity data could play to help grow trust in charities.

All four types of data explored with participants (financial accounts, activities, staffing and salaries, and inclusion and diversity data) were considered to be important. However, a clear hierarchy emerged, with financial information and evidence of impact being prioritised as most valuable to the public when making decisions about supporting charities; this was the central role for charity data, because it could contribute to a sense of ‘knowing’ charities and where their money is going, which is a key driver of trust in charities. However, whilst it was widely seen as useful, information on charities only seemed to nudge trust in individual charities rather than the sector as a whole. Finally, the research highlights that the way charity data is presented is key to its potential usefulness and this chapter outlines some key principles for good presentation.

4.1 Views about the concept of transparency data

There was low awareness of the term ‘transparency data’ across the groups and it was a largely meaningless term to participants. This perhaps reflects that few individuals had actively sought out information about charities prior to our engagement with them, as reported in the previous chapter. However, once the concept was explained, participants across the sample were widely and consistently positive about the concept and what it could offer to them when deciding whether to support an individual charity or not.

Despite low awareness of the term, throughout the research, participants highlighted that transparency was important for charities and that they wanted charities to be open and information about them accessible. Moreover, a transparent charity was seen as one where information about finances, activities, and impact was available and accessible. Across the groups participants commonly spontaneously suggested the need for data on finances, activities, and the impact of charities.

“A charity that you can actually understand from the ground up, one that you actually have all the answers to, you don’t have any questions left over. You know exactly what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, who it’s helped, how much they’ve put towards it, where your money’s gone.” (South England, Lower trust group)

Here participants consistently reported wanting to understand, in context, how charities spend monies raised and donated. This included a breakdown of money making it to the front line (the cause and beneficiaries) together with other overheads, specifically administration, salaries, and marketing. Critically participants wanted to know where their own ‘hard earned money’ was going and what was being done with it when they were considering supporting charities.

Significantly, participants suggested that transparency, and data that supports this, was more important for the charity sector than other organisations (in particular, among lower trust participants). This heightened importance was aligned with participants’ perspective of charities as the conduit, of their support, their money, being translated to the cause or front line. Interest in charity data, then, for participants was principally underpinned by a concern to know where their ‘own hard-earned money’ would be going when deciding whether to support a charity or not.

“I just feel the most important thing people need to know about is where their money is going.” (London, Lower trust group)

“[Showing the] percentage or monetary value of the income, whether from charitable donations, or money given from the Government etc, how much of that is actually then put towards the purpose of the charity.” (Midlands England, Higher trust group)

“There’s a higher level of trust that’s placed in charities because you’re potentially investing in them and you’re investing in somebody else’s future.” (North England, Lower trust group)

Throughout the research the need and desire for more access to charities’ finances, activities, and the impact of the charity was consistently returned to as a potential driver of increased trust in individual charities. This therefore suggests a key role that charity data can play in helping to grow trust in the charity sector.

4.2 What types of transparency data the public want – and why

In the research, we provided materials which explored participant views about four specific types of transparency data which were referred to as is outlined below as: accounts, activities undertaken by charities, staffing and salaries, and inclusion and diversity data.

Accounts:

Data on their accounts, including income, spending and how funds are distributed.

Activities undertaken by charities:

Information on the activities undertaken by charities in pursuit of their stated aims, including evidence of impact.

Staffing and salaries:

Data about volunteer and staffing numbers and salary information: including senior salaries, gender pay gap, and minimum wage statistics.

Inclusion and diversity:

Data about the spectrum of trustees and paid staff.

All four types of data were seen as important across the groups, and consistently across demographic groups. However, a clear hierarchy emerged with financial information and evidence of impact being prioritised as most valuable to the public when making decisions about supporting individual charities. Whilst lowest on individuals’ agendas, inclusion and diversity data was still important in some particular contexts

We note that, participants spontaneously suggested data fitting these four types in earlier stages of the groups (as highlighted above in section 4.1). Whilst it was probed, no further types of charity information were suggested to be of interest to participants.

Figure 1: Transparency data hierarchy

Inverted pyramid with the following text from top to bottom. Accounts inc. staffing and salaries, evidence of impact, inclusion and diversity.

Information regarding charity accounts was considered by far the most important and valuable type of data. Here participants in all groups highlighted a desire for information regarding charity finances, specifically an explicit outline of how much money is going into a charity, in terms of donations and other sources of support, and also where and how that money was ‘going out’.

These were the key elements participants were interested in, rather than greater detail of the full accounts themselves. This breakdown of outgoings included:

• money reaching the front line
• salaries
• marketing expenses
• management and administrative costs
• other overheads (such as travel expenses)

This financial data taken together was for participants about being able to trace their money and be reassured about where their money would go. Overwhelming, participants reported a priority desire to see explicit data about how much money is reaching the frontline. Participants understood that not all support would make it to the front line, and that some would be spent on overheads, but they were keen to see that this spending was appropriate and proportional. They wanted to know that the amounts being spent of senior salaries, management, administration, and marketing were appropriate and not ‘wasteful’.

“How can you trust the charity is good with money if you see them splurging on something unnecessary like an A lister [celebrity].” (South England, Lower trust group)

“Knowing the donation is actually making it to the people the charity intends on helping [is important], this way, if you know the majority of your donation is actually going to the people you are more inclined to donate.” (Lower trust, online)

“At the end of the day, if I donate money to a charity I want as much of it as possible to be actually spent on their charitable actions, not on their organisational costs.” (Higher trust, online)

Senior salary levels were a significant issue throughout the research, and a higher priority for lower trusting participants. Whilst participants were largely sympathetic to the need for salaries it was important to see that charities are focused on upholding the ethos of charity, supporting those in need and/or less fortunate. Subsequently, large senior salaries (meaning those in the hundreds of thousands) were perceived to be exorbitant and as going against the ethos of charity and seen as being inappropriate and ‘wasteful’ in nature.

“We [the focus group] always find that pay rates are much higher than we expect, and we all want value for money, more so with our charities and they should be held accountable for their pay packets.” (Higher trust, online)

“Anyone that’s on a six-figure salary, there should be information about that that’s easily accessible.” (Midlands England, Higher trust group)

Concerns about the other overhead categories (marketing, management and administrative costs and other overheads), were similarly about being able to assess if the charity is upholding the ethos of charity and using money (that is not going to front line) in an appropriate and proportional manner. Furthermore, an explicit breakdown of these outgoings, specifically expenses related to staff and trustee overheads, was seen as valuable for participants in their coming to know a charity; demonstrating that charities are living their values and that the charity’s values align with their own. For example, participants reported wanting to see that environmental charities were not spending large amounts of money on unnecessary and highly polluting travel (i.e., flights).

Data showing evidence of impact was also a top priority for participants, driven by a concern to be able to see what their money is or would be doing. Here participants were keen to see the benefit and impact to/for the recipients themselves and how the charity had meaningfully improved their lives. In addition, evidence of impact was a key element of trust mitigating the scepticism around large and long running charities. Here, for example, participants wanted to understand not just that a number of clean water taps that have been installed by a charity, but also what meaningful and tangible impact this has had on the lives of the people benefitting from them, and the benefits to that community.

“I would like to see how they spend, how this is money has improved someone’s life.” (South England, Lower trust group)

“[I] want to see that the money has reached the front line and they have benefitted from it.” (South England, Higher trust group)

Often drawn closely together with evidence of impact, participants also wanted to see the range of activities undertaken by charities. Here participants wanted to understand how charities were actually going about delivering on their stated mission and working to achieve their stated impact objectives. Moreover, participants said that insight into charities’ activities was important in getting to know the charity and understand the charity’s alignment to their own values (i.e., alignment in terms of best approach to the issue and conceptualisation of the issue at hand).

Finally, data on activities was in part, again, about seeing and understanding what charities are doing with the public’s money and donated funds that are not going directly to the front line.

“Making sure that [charities] buy the right equipment at the right price in the right place to do the right thing for the right people.” (North England, Higher trust group)

Inclusion and diversity data was seen as important to the demonstration of charities living their values. In these discussions, participants focused on wanting to see that the beneficiaries of the cause were reflected on the board and active in the charity as staff and/or volunteers, rather than other approaches to the idea of I&D data. Although this was a lower priority than the other types of data discussed, this type of information was seen to help ‘let in’ participants, so they can better know the charity and see that it is living its values, and that these values align to their own. Furthermore, participants wanted to see that the work of a charity is informed by individuals with relevant lived experience related to the cause, and therefore an understanding of the realities of the cause, and the lived experience of the beneficiaries the charity is aiming to support. This type of information was of more importance to participants when considering volunteering.

“It’s important that they value diversity and inclusion, in particular when it’s charities that work with minority groups or marginalised groups.” (Midlands England, Higher trust group)

“It gives them something to relate to, rather than just looking at a [LGBTQ+] charity board who are then saying that they feel this is where the money needs to go to, rather than the people who are on the other end, saying this is where the community needs this help.” (South England, Lower trust group)

“They wouldn’t know what a foodbank looks like, they probably wouldn’t even know what the sign looks like, why would they be on the board of directors? You need somebody who has come from that environment.” (South England, Lower trust group)

4.3 Needs from transparency data

The role for charity data was fairly focussed, as participants across the sample reported being interested in using these types of data to underpin their decisions about whether to support individual charities, in particular for more substantial monetary donation or volunteering time and/or resources. Overwhelmingly participants suggested that they would be unlikely to be seeking this information out of general curiosity, following a news report, or to inform decisions about more ad hoc or lower value support (e.g., contributing to a donation bucket in the street; sponsorship of a friend, family member or colleague; or coin slot box).

As outlined above, participants perceived charities as a conduit of their money to front line and the cause, and that monetary donations do not become only the charity’s money but remain also owned to some degree by the donating individual. Following this, charity data can play three key roles to meet the needs of participants to: 1) see where their money is going and what it is doing; 2) check that the right proportion of their money is going to the cause and not to (perceived) ‘wasteful’ overheads; and 3) better know the charity and its values. Overall, information about charities can help contribute to ‘letting people in’ and to a sense of ‘knowing’ charities.

“The trust issue I’ve got with any charity is understanding what my money is actually doing.” (South England, Lower trust group)

“If a charity is being forthright and they are disclosing the amount that they are receiving, or even something on their website to say that this is the total amount of donations that we receive, and out of that, this was the amount that was actually helping those in need – even that much information would definitely make us trust the charity.” (North England, Lower trust group)

Indeed, when exploring if participants would use charity data out of general curiosity, following news negative coverage or when considering a one-off donation, it was overwhelmingly suggested that it was unlikely they would proactively look for the information in these scenarios. However, participants consistently reported that the types of data that facilitated a greater understanding of the charity’s values and activities, would be useful when considering donating more significant amounts or volunteering.

Importantly, what emerges here is that the degree to which information about charities would in fact be used by individuals was limited, reflecting our earlier findings regarding participants’ previous experience of seeking out information (as outlined in chapter 2). Crucially, though, it was clear that participants unanimously felt that charity transparency data should exist and be available for the occasions when they did want to use it to make support decisions.

4.4 How useful and impactful is charity transparency data

For the online community, participants were asked to complete an interim task of looking up information about two charities. When reflecting on their experiences, participants commented on what information they were able to find, how easy it was to find, and what they found most helpful. Overall, the key pieces of information they were able to find that were most impactful were about the history of the charity, beneficiary stories and the financial trail. Participants found that the availability and ease of finding these key pieces of information varied across charities.

Overall, participants generally found it easy to access information about the history of the charity, particularly how long it has been in operation and why it was initially set up. Finding information about beneficiaries’ stories and the process for achieving impact or making a difference was also reported to be relatively easy to find within the charities’ websites or in google searches. This information was both useful and impactful for participants, as it helped them to learn about the charity and to get a sense of the work, they have been doing to make a difference for a particular cause.

“I found out that both charities have been around for a while and have built a lot of credibility with their charitable work.” (Higher trust, online).

“Straight forward to find the information I would normally be looking for, the history, the families and causes they support, as well as stories from families and children they have been able to help.” (Higher trust, online).

Furthermore, participants reported that finding some information about finances was also generally relatively straightforward. Learning more about the charities’ spending on specific activities helped them to understand how the charity is achieving its goals and allowed them to see the process of achieving impact.

“Relatively easy to find financials for the charity which is important to see”. (Lower trust, online).

“I gained a greater understanding of the actual projects they funded. I learned how these projects tied into their overall mission. I gained a greater perspective on the causes both charities were looking to eliminate.” (Higher trust, online).

However, charity transparency is not just about data but also about how quick and easy it is to find it. Participants, across higher and lower trust levels, commented that the more time it takes to find information, makes it less useful, less impactful and led to more scepticism about the charity. Whereas, if they were able to find information quickly and easily, they tended to find it more useful and impactful. The easier it is to navigate the website and find the information they are looking for, the more trusting participants were of the individual charity.

“Seems like they are not trying to hide info, easy to navigate and gave a breakdown on incoming donations and outgoing money for fundraising, advertising etc. I found the [large charity] almost like it was deliberately making it harder to find this type of info in comparison.” (Lower trust, online).

In addition to the priority charity data, there were a few types of information that participants wanted to see more of. For example, statements about involvement in corruption, more information about trustees and staff and an external verifier of information. Having this information available and easily accessible would demonstrate greater transparency and help participants to make a decision about supporting a particular individual charity.

“I think charities who have been accused of corruption or have been portrayed negatively in the press should look to address this with a statement or section on their website.” (Lower trust, online)

“Even with my personal involvement in the charity work I do, there are still elements of doubt as I cannot give enough time to check every possible line of information given.” (Lower trust, online).

“I’m surprised the trustees wasn’t included and their governance arrangements.” (Higher trust, online).

Overall, across the research, participant responses suggested charity data could help them to make decisions about giving more significant support to individual charities (i.e., larger/regular donations and volunteering), because a sense of knowing charities is a key driver of trust in them. However, it was seen as less useful for smaller and one-off donations.

“Both charities gave enough information to answer questions, about history, structure, projects, and ways to support. Information was inspirational and affected my decision to support them.” (Higher trust, online).

Whilst it was widely seen as useful, there are limits to the potential impact of charity data. Consistently across the sample it only seems to nudge trust in individual charities rather than the sector as a whole. Participants’ level of trust in the charity sector as a whole did not shift meaningfully after being presented with the types of charity data available and discussing these. Among those who already had higher levels of trust in charities it could nudge them towards being more trusting of the sector and individual charities. However, for those participants with lower trust levels, these types of data would only nudge them slightly or not at all when considering individual charities and was not thought to be likely to change their minds about the sector significantly. Furthermore, some participants with very low trust levels remained sceptical of charities’ motivations, assuming that they would be keeping information out of public reach on purpose.

“The fact that information is apparently out there but it’s not accessible makes me even more sceptical, because it’s like they don’t want anyone to know the truth.” (Midlands, Lower trust group).

In addition, high and low trust participants expressed that a personal relationship, or connection and or having shared values (i.e., religious, ethics) with a charity or a particular cause could potentially override charity data. This could be the case for some participants, even if data shows a low level of impact. Some participants said a connection with a cause could mean they would still support a local church or donate to a charity to support a friend’s fundraising activities or support a charity that has helped themselves or someone they know in this scenario.

“It wouldn’t affect my decision as I know people who are personally involved with these charities. Smaller charities don’t have the resources, or the skill set behind them to sell themselves. If I know that good intention is there, it wouldn’t stop me supporting them.” (Lower trust, online).

“I don’t think it would affect my decision, as I said I would be inclined to support homeless charities anyway.” (Lower trust, online).

Finally, we note that there is also some associated risk with providing transparency information for charities themselves. This was seen in the online community task, in which participants were asked to look into two charities online and compare them. For some participants, across both high and low trust levels, their level of trust decreased after completing the task and finding information about a charity which they were not happy with. Some participants researched charities they had supported in the past but at the time they did not carry out research into, and found the information discovered during the task made them question their support.

“There were quite a few negative reviews which did make me think twice about supporting them again in the future, but I did support them by feeding 250 orphans in Palestine.” (Lower trust, online)

4.5 How the public want to see transparency data presented

Whilst the concept and types of transparency data were generally received positively, it was clear that presentation is key to its value and usefulness to the public. The Ensuring this is accessible for the public is central to how impactful it could potentially be.

It was widely agreed across the sample that for people to be able to engage with charity data and for it to be useful to them, it needs to be presented in a simple and visual way, rather than as complex statistics and numerical figures (including complex financial accounts). If faced with a lot of statistics and figures, participants said they would be likely to experience information overload and to disengage. However, if charity data is presented as a high-level summary of the key aspects they care about (i.e., finance and impact data), they are more likely to engage with it and make use of the data in their decision-making.

“They had a simple pie chart of their expenses which was great. Only 4.8% of revenue went to management and general administration which makes me want to support the society more as the value isn’t too high.” (Lower trust, online).

“Streamline to make it just a simpler presentation of the financial information.” (Higher trust, online).

Providing charity data in a simple and visual way was seen to go a long way in making the data user friendly and easily digestible and was seen to help remove barriers to access while still providing key information of interest. For participants across the sample, it was key that charities strike a balance between offering the information they want, such as information about charities’ finances, impact and activities, without presenting dense and complex statistics and figures, which they felt would be overwhelming. However, participant responses did suggest that providing a link to more detailed information could help to reassure them of legitimacy by showing that the depth is there if needed and is available for those who do want to and feel able to investigate it further.

Key principles

The following three key principles for good presentation of charity transparency data emerged from across the research.

Firstly, across the sample, participants widely expressed that they wanted a visual summary of key information on finances and impact, such as infographics for financial figures and pictures or video footage of the charity in action and testimonials from beneficiaries on the website. This would serve to communicate impact and to demonstrate the value of the charity’s work. Participants wanted this to show how their donation/support is tangibly and meaningfully making a difference on the front line.

A highly visual format commonly suggested across the groups were beneficiary and volunteer testimonials. This was the preferred format for demonstrating impact. Participants with high and low levels of trust wanted to see photos and videos of volunteer and/or beneficiaries talking about the tangible and meaningful impact that the charity, with donor support, has had for individuals and their lives (for example, what did installing a water tap or well in a village mean for the residents and how did it change their lives). This speaks to participants’ desire for connection and proximity to the cause they care about and the charity working towards making a difference for that cause.

“Give me visual evidence to prove the money has reached the front line. Testimonials from recipients or volunteers. If they were building a school, show us the school. If they were planting trees, show us them being planted. Show me this on your website, or even on the TV ads as well, to prove you’ve done it before well, but you’d also need to explain why you’re still asking for help with it now as well.” (London, High trust group)

A second key principle for how to present charity data was to contextualise it. Participants overwhelmingly wanted to understand how their money is being used; for example, they wanted a breakdown on how much gets to the front line and how much is spent on marketing, management, and administration and information on what these activities consist of. Providing this type of breakdown was seen as a way for supporters to stay involved, to stay connected and to follow the trail of support, from the point that they give their support to the point at which it reaches the front line and makes a difference. For example, showing how much, it costs to house and care for an animal per year and how many animals were cared for in that year or a ‘pence in the pound’ strapline or infographic (e.g., 50p in the pound goes to the front line / beneficiary).

“I want to see that the money has reached the front line and they have benefitted from it, getting a newsletter or something showing the benefit.” (South England, Higher trust group).

“The fact [charity name] spend 80p in every pound directly on the work and explained that 90 percent of their funding comes from the public was the sort of information I wanted.” (Lower trust, online).

Thirdly, communicating impact proactively was another key principle for presenting information about charities. There was a widespread view across both high and low level trust participants, that charities should proactively disseminate information on finances and impact to their supporters and that it is important for supporters to receive this without having to seek it out. They considered charities to be the link (or conduit) between the supporter and the beneficiaries, and their key role, as an organisation, is to keep supporters engaged by being transparent about how their support is making an impact.

“I like the way when we get a tax letter from HMRC each year, it breaks down how our taxes are being used. Perhaps charities should do similar, for every £10 or £100 donated, show us the breakdown of how that gets distributed across the charity.” (Wales, Higher trust group)

4.6 Preferred channels

In terms of their preferred channels, participants consistently expressed that they would expect charity data to be provided on charity websites in the first instance. However, for an extra layer of verification having a link to an independent regulator website also with charity data would provide reassurance and credibility. Participants, particularly in the lower trust groups, were of the view that it was not enough to have the data only available on a charity website as they didn’t know how accurate it was or whether they could trust it. While it would make sense for the charity website to be the first source of data, it would be further legitimised by having a link to an independent regulator for the industry. Some participants commented that the CCEW could play a role in this, but we note that there was limited awareness of the CCEW and what it does before participants engaged in the research. Some participants said they would also need to know more about the independent regulator before trusting it.

Across the groups participants were of the view that being seamlessly directed to the transparency information was essential, regardless of which channel they start with. Clear signposting to channels hosting information was key, whether they started their search on a charity website or an independent regulator’s website. This would reduce the time spent digging for information and would potentially increase their trust in the charity and because this was seen to help demonstrate that the charity is not trying to hide or bury information.

“If I was interested in a charity and the information was not readily available with minimum effort for me to find answers, I would simply move on to the next charity.” (Lower trust, online).

When looking at channels and formats for presenting charity data, some lower trust participants expressed that, while websites are the primary channel expected, it is also important to consider those that are digitally excluded and/or vulnerable (particularly elderly people). Participants across groups commented that making information accessible would require accommodating for the needs of these individuals. This might mean considering providing offline versions or other formats that would give them access to information about charities, with one suggestion being to have a phoneline for people to call if they want to check information, particularly if they were concerned about being targeted by a scam or after someone had called at their door to ask for money.

4.7 Summary

While there was low awareness among participants of the term ‘transparency data’, they quickly grasped the concept and felt it was important for charities to provide this data, in order to build trust and have support continued engagement from donors. There were certain types of data that were prioritised, namely financial and impact data about the charities, that they wanted to be readily available. Participants wanted this information to be easily and quickly accessible in an engaging, visual and simple format that would allow them to learn about and to ‘know’ the charity and develop a closer understanding of how the organisation is going about making a difference to the cause that they care about.

5. Role of the CCEW

This chapter explores initial awareness of the CCEW and its role, and the role participants thought it could play in helping people make decisions about supporting individual charities. There was wide desire for an independent body, such as the CCEW, to play a role in validating data, increasing visibility of corruption and accountability measures, and helping people feel confident in their decisions about which charities to support. However, with overall awareness of the CCEW being low, it was suggested that there was a need to raise awareness of the regulator and its work to help with this. Participant views on the use of CCEW badges and the online register are also explored in this chapter.

5.1 Awareness of CCEW

Overall, awareness of the CCEW was consistently low across the sample and most had not heard of the organisation before being recruited and engaging with the research and those who had knew little about it. There was very low awareness of the CCEW’s role, including as the regulator and of its role around investigations. However, throughout the research, there was a widely expressed desire for more regulation of the charity sector. Participants, in both high and low level trust groups, frequently mentioned the need for having an independent body to check, review and regulate charities. Frequently highlighted was a desire for something similar to OFSTED for schools in the charity sector.

“If there was a governing body for all charities, perhaps via a .gov website, that showed statistics with respect to their finances and accounting. You’d know you could trust this information if it was on a government website.” (London, Lower trust group).

5.2 Desired role for the CCEW

Given the widespread suggestions and desire for an independent body to help regulate and distil information about charities to the public across the research, this suggests there is a need to raise awareness of the CCEW and its work as its profile could inspire greater trust in charities and the sector. As an independent regulator, participants thought the CCEW can play a role in demonstrating the trustworthiness of charities and the sector as a whole.

When reflecting on their views and needs from charity data, and considering the role that the CCEW could play, there were three key areas that stood out among participants. There was widespread agreement that validating charity data, providing greater visibility of investigations and accountability measures, and helping the public to make decisions about which charities to support were the areas of focus most important to participants across the groups.

Validation of transparency data

Validation of charity data from an independent regulator, such as the CCEW, was seen to give greater legitimacy to the data being presented by a charity itself. Participants expressed that they would be more likely to trust information if it was verified by multiple sources, ideally an independent source that people are aware of and trust. Generally, there was a view that ‘rubber stamping’ the data is important, and they liked the idea of a regulator publishing figures and/or cross referencing to ensure that information is accurate, trustworthy and not fabricated. This was particularly important for lower trust participants.

“’A charity’s website is of course going to be massively glowing so it might not give accurate data on what they really are.” (Wales, Lower trust group).

“If the charity commission were to produce reports with transparency data about the charities that would be a good way of improving trust in the charities, as it’s come from an independent body.” (Wales, Higher trust group,).

However, to give this greater legitimacy, there is also a need for the public to know more about the independent body that is ‘rubber stamping’ the data and how they are doing so. Without awareness and trust of the independent body, the ‘rubber stamp’ held less meaning for participants.

“The crux of the problem is that we don’t know what the Charity Commission is, or how they’re funded, we don’t know what they do…there’s a lack of information about the Charity Commission really.” (Wales, Lower trust group)

Providing greater visibility of investigations and accountability measures

Providing greater visibility of investigations and accountability measures was seen as a key role for the CCEW. Participants across the groups were aware of scandals taking place in the charity sector and this was a key concern for them when considering oversight and regulation. There was an expressed desire, particularly among lower trust participants, for more information about how scandals are being investigated and the outcomes. Participants wanted sight of investigations taking place and what the results were, i.e., how are charities being held accountable and what happens when things have gone wrong. Overall, participants expressed that if the CCEW can demonstrate how they are part of investigating and holding charities accountable more visibly, it would give great meaning to their role as a regulator for the sector.

Helping the public make decisions

Across the research, there was widespread interest in the CCEW helping the public to make decisions about which charities to support and to feel confident in their decisions. Validating charity data and giving greater visibility to scandals and accountability measures were both seen as ways to help the public make decisions about supporting charities. Additionally, there was an expressed desire for an independent body and trusted source to provide scores or ratings of charities to help them to make decisions – particularly when choosing between charities. There was widespread agreement among participants, across the demographics and variables, that a score or rating from a trusted and impartial source would reduce the need for them to look for and use charity data. Therefore, less time spent digging for information would enable them to make a quick, easy decision and to feel more confident they are supporting charities which really make a difference to the causes they are interested in. Participants commonly suggested the need for an independent body that would recommend the most impactful charities. An example commonly cited by participants across the groups was Which?. Participants appreciated it’s easy to use and understand reviews and rankings for products, and its independence was a key reason that participants said they trusted this source of information.

“Transparency is important. More important, if there aren’t respectable trustworthy sources to endorse the charity, as for me this would be a big factor as to whether or not I would support.” (Higher trust, online).

5.3 Response to the badges

Regulator supplied badges are one way to raise awareness of the CCEW’s profile and to increase levels of trust in charities.

Figure 2: Focus group stimulus 10: Charity Regulator Badges

Images showing charity example of Charity Commission logos with text Registered charity 123456. Also logo of Scottish Charity Regulator with text Registered charity SC000000.

Figure 3: Online community Stimulus: Charity Badge ranking exercise

Images showing charity example of Charity Commission logos with text Registered charity 123456. Also logo of Fundraising Regulator.

When presented with the CCEW’s public information campaign charity regulator badges, the reception was low key, online and in all focus groups. There was a mixed response, across the groups and online, about whether they would currently take note of the badges when considering supporting a charity – largely because they were not aware of the CCEW.

Some participants with higher levels of trust stated that they would likely take note of the badges, whereas other lower trust participants stated that the concept, in theory, was good but they still may not take note of the badges, particularly when they are unaware of the regulator. In general, the concept was seen as good, stating that the industry needs a regulator to oversee it and badges have the potential to offer a seal of approval and to further increase trust when awareness of the regulator and its independence is higher.

“They all have equally small bearings on any decision I would make.” (Lower trust, online).

When assessing the three badges shared, there was a clear preference, across the groups and online, for the badge with both the charity registration number and the ‘Gov.uk’ website, as this enables cross reference checks. For higher trust participants, the concept of badges provides some reassurance and would be more likely to increase confidence. However, the impact on trust was limited, among high and low-level trust participants, with questions being raised regarding the meaning of the accreditation. Overall, participants wanted more information about what is required from charities to acquire the badge/status, and there was some concern that the logo could easily be copied on websites to fake accreditation among very low-level trust participants.

“It is a bit like a rubber stamp, could give some people a sense of security, because it is a stamp, but then again it leaves unanswered questions, what have they done to get the badge?” (South England, Higher trust group).

“I would rank the CCEW Badge (ii) the highest as it gives you a link where you can research what it does. I think this is important for people who aren’t as familiar as others in this sector.” (Higher trust, online)

“The registration number is reassuring. It can be easily looked up; it definitely gives more confidence. If I was going to raise or donate large amounts of money although the badge is reassuring, I would still do my research.” (Higher trust, online)

Furthermore, participants expressed that they would still need to know more about the CCEW in order to trust it’s ‘rubber stamp’ and, specifically they wanted to understand its role in registering charities and allocating the badges. This is an opportunity for the CCEW to demonstrate its place and influence as a regulator of the sector. Participants expected transparency from the CCEW about who they are and how they regulate charities as a way to increase awareness and demonstrate their value, as a regulator, to the public. Providing a link to the website within the badge was seen, by most participants, as a way to open up to the public and allow them to get to know the CCEW and its role.

“The badge provides a level of stability that some kind of party is governing the charity – but obviously we’d need to know more about who they are first, because I’ve never heard of the Charity Commission before today, so right now it doesn’t mean much to me.” (London England, Lower trust group)

5.4 Response to the online charity register

There was very low awareness of the online charity register and this was not mentioned spontaneously by participants. A small number of participants suggested they had heard of it previously, but they did not use it, and there were a very small number of participants that had used the register to check on charities, for example after a scandal or because they were looking to support a charity for religious reasons. Of those that were not aware of it, there was an assumption that charities would be registered or accredited in some way in order to operate, however they had no understanding of the process, so some expressed that it would not hold meaning for them without this.

“I would not bother to check if a charity is registered as I assume it is similar to registering a company – easy to do and doesn’t necessarily mean much.” (Lower trust, online).

Participants did not spontaneously engage with the register when asked to look up information about two charities for the interim task, instead commonly going directly to the charity websites or using Google to search for information. However, when prompted and asked to explore the online charity register in the online community, there was a mix of responses. Most participants commented that it was a useful tool, but they thought they had little need for it and would not be likely use it. Whereas some participants that were looking to support a charity for their jobs, for religious reasons, or family reasons stated they would likely use it as they wanted an extra layer of trust in the charity they were deciding to support.

“Would be very useful and would definitely be utilised when selecting which charities to opt for, particularly with Ramadan slowly approaching, Muslims tend to donate even more.” (Lower trust, online).

5.5 Summary

While awareness of the CCEW was low, there was a clear desire for an independent body, such as the CCEW, to play a role in helping the public to make decisions about supporting individual charities. There was significant importance placed on the role of validating and legitimising data provided by charities, and of providing visibility of investigations and accountability measures for charities. With greater transparency about who the CCEW is and what is does within the sector, it has the potential to become a trusted source for the public and to subsequently help to grow trust and confidence in supporting individual charities.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter summarises the key conclusions from the research and some suggested recommendations that have emerged as a result.

6.1 Conclusions

Overall, the research underlines that charity is important to the public, with it being intimately tied up with individuals’ experiences, lifestyles, values and personal connections (friend and family based). But as we know from this and previous research, there is work to be done in terms of public levels of trust in charities, despite some recent improvements in this area.

This research contributes an understanding of trust as individuated – associated with individual charities as opposed to the sector as a whole. Here higher levels of trust were reported in smaller and local charities and those which participants felt a sense of personal, emotional or values-based closeness too – and therefore had higher levels of trust that their own donations were reaching beneficiaries and impacting the cause they cared about. Subsequently, three key drivers of trust were identified: charity size, geographic scope, and closeness to the charity. Taken together, an overarching theme driving trust was that of connection and a sense of ‘knowing’ a charity.

Most importantly, the research identifies that people support causes rather than charities as organisations per se. It found that the participants felt they owned their support donated to charities, past the point of submission to a charity, and that charities as organisations are seen as conduits of their money to the front line and beneficiaries. This led participants to want to know more about a charity’s finances, activities, and their impact, in order to better know and trust where their ‘own hard-earned money’ was going when they decide whether to support a charity or not.

Previous experience of looking up information about charities was limited, with information finding its way to participants rather than being proactively sought out. Despite this limited experience (and little interest in accessing information for any purpose other than when considering supporting a charity through a monetary donation or volunteering), participants were widely positive about the concept of charity transparency data. All four types of charity data discussed – financial accounts, activities, staffing and salaries, and inclusion and diversity data – were considered to be important. However, a clear hierarchy emerged, with financial information and evidence of impact being prioritised and seen as most valuable to the public when making decisions about supporting individual charities.

The research outlines that charity data serves three core purposes, meeting the needs of participants to: 1) see where their money is going and what it is doing; 2) check that the right proportion of their money is going to the cause and not to (perceived) ‘wasteful’ overheads; and 3) contribute to a sense of ‘knowing’ charities and where their money is going. Furthermore, participants wanted information about charities to be easily and quickly accessible and presented in an engaging, visual and simple formats that would allow them to learn about the charity and develop a closer understanding of how they are going about making a difference for the causes that they care about. Importantly though, the research also highlights that whilst charity data was widely seen as useful, it only seemed to nudge trust in individual charities rather than in the sector as a whole.

Significantly, the data suggests a clear desire for an independent body, such as the CCEW, to play a role in validating data, increasing visibility of corruption and accountability measures, and helping people decide and ultimately feel confident in their decisions about which charities to support.

However, there was little awareness of the CCEW. With greater awareness about who the CCEW is and what is does within the sector, it has the potential to become a trusted source for the public and subsequently increase confidence in supporting of individual charities as a result.

6.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations have been derived from the insights provided:

• promote greater awareness of charity data among the public and encourage proactive engagement with this information more widely, but specifically when considering supporting individual charities
• highlight to the sector the key role that charity data can play to help grow trust in charities by letting the public in and allowing them to feel they know and understand the charity
• raise the profile of the CCEW as an independent body and any work being done to validate charity transparency data and around investigations and their outcomes

7. Appendices

Appendix A: Focus Groups Achieved Sample

Appendix B: Online Community Achieved Sample

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/research-charity-commission ↩

2. Public trust in charities and trustees’ experience of their role ↩

3. Supporting charities includes, but is not limited to one-off donations, regular donations, giving cash to street collections, volunteering time, fundraising through running a marathon or other equivalent, committing to including a charity in a will ↩

4. Trust in Charities 2018 ↩ ↩² ↩³

5. Trust in Charities 2018 ↩

6. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/research-charity-commission ↩

7. Public trust in charities and trustees’ experience of their role ↩

8. Supporting charities includes, but is not limited to one-off donations, regular donations, giving cash to street collections, volunteering time, fundraising through running a marathon or other equivalent, committing to including a charity in a will. ↩ ↩²

9. Public trust in charities and trustees’ experience of their role ↩

10. Public trust in charities and trustees’ experience of their role ↩

11. Register of Charities ↩

12. Charity Commission Strategy 2018-2023 ↩

13. This term was used by participants themselves and understanding of this was developed through the analysis process. ↩

14. As per CCEW’s Statement of Strategic Intent (2018-2023) ↩