Research and analysis

Public trust in charities 2021: web version

Published 15 July 2021

Applies to England and Wales

This report was prepared by Yonder, on behalf of the Charity Commission.

Summary

No one can say quite what the longer term impact of the coronavirus pandemic will be, but we do know that the past 18 months have concentrated public attention on the ways in which national institutions and prominent organisations have responded in a time of crisis.

Where the national spotlight has fallen on charity, it has been on the positive difference it can make, for example on charities’ role supporting those living in food poverty, on the importance of medical research, or on the public generosity inspired by the late Captain Tom Moore.

Given this context, it is perhaps not surprising that we have seen modest but significant improvements in public attitudes towards charities over the past 12 months. As high-profile scandals involving charities recede in public memory, trust and confidence in charities continues gradually to improve. After almost a decade of decline there has also been a slight increase in the proportion of people who consider charities as important to society. These are steps in the right direction.

But there is no room for complacency. While the context in which charities have operated since March 2020 has changed, people’s fundamental attitudes towards charity have not.

There remains significant consensus within society that a high proportion of funds raised by charities should be spent on beneficiaries, that the impact promised should be delivered, that being a charity means acting charitably too, and that all charities have a collective responsibility to uphold the good name of charity by doing all these things. People disagree on much when it comes to charities, but these basic expectations are shared now, as they were before COVID-19.

That is why those running charities must continue to ensure they can show they are making a difference while demonstrating high standards of probity. And it is why the Charity Commission’s role remains vital in helping charities to get it right, and holding those that fall short to account.

Who are ‘the public’ and what does ‘charity’ mean to them?

A recap

In last year’s report we introduced a more sophisticated way of understanding public opinion.

Public opinion is not monolithic.

We are all products of our backgrounds and circumstances. These go a long way in explaining differences of opinion and behaviour. They also help to explain why these differences can be difficult to handle.

If you associate only with people from your own social and educational background, you risk two things: overestimating the extent to which people outside your direct experience agree with you; and demonising those who don’t.

We can avoid this by acknowledging our differences and carefully analysing them. As last year, we use a map of the country where people are defined not by latitude or longitude but by how high or low they score relative to the rest of the country on two independent measures derived from census data.

These two measures are security, combining measures of health, wealth and wellbeing such as income, occupation and education; and diversity, a combination of factors including ethnicity, culture and population density which determine how close you are to your neighbour in distance or background.

Using these measures, the country can be broken down into four ‘quadrants’ across the socio-demographic map:

• Top Left: high security and high diversity
• Top Right: high security and low diversity
• Bottom Left: low security and high diversity
• Bottom Right: low security and low diversity

Other data – like polling data – can then be plotted onto the quadrant map we’ve created.

Take something like media consumption.

We can plot the average position on the diversity/security map of a representative sample of England and Wales of those who say they get their news at least once a week across all platforms from various news sources. This plotting exercise shows that the average reader of different news sources cluster in different parts of the map.

You can of course find readers or viewers of any particular source anywhere on the map, but these plot points show where you are more likely to encounter them.

For example, the plot shows that the average reader of the Guardian, the average Channel 4 News viewer, and the average user of Twitter for news are all found in the ‘Top Left’ quadrant (high security and high diversity).

Contrastingly, the average reader of The Sun, ITV News, and the Daily Mail are all found in the ‘Bottom Right’ or ‘Top Right’ (low diversity quadrants).

The public and charity

The same is true when it comes to points of view about charities.

Whether people prefer charities with a local or international focus, whether it is acceptable for their work to overlap, whether they should be run by professionals or volunteers – you can encounter different points of view on issues like these anywhere in the population, but certain perspectives are more prevalent among some parts of the public than others.

Those prevalences reflect the different experiences and circumstances that shape people’s thinking and behaviour.

For example, the average person who thinks that ‘it is right that some charities in the UK focus on giving aid overseas’ is found in the Top Left quadrant (high security, high diversity), while the average person who thinks that ‘charity begins at home and too many charities in the UK focus on giving aid overseas’ is found in the Bottom Right (low security, low diversity).

The differences are real and worthy of our respect but it is important to keep them in proportion and to understand that some issues involving charities transcend them.

Because on some of the most significant matters involving charities, there is broad agreement across different parts of the population – a set of shared expectations about how charities should behave.

These expectations underpin our analysis of trust in charities.

What is the public opinion landscape for charities post-pandemic?

A further rise in public trust over time

For the second year running, public trust in charities in England and Wales is on the rise, approaching its 2014 peak.

However, the journey to restoring public trust following scandals involving household name charities between 2014 and 2018 remains a gradual one. The difference in trust this year compared to last is small, and comparable uplifts occurred for nearly all other sectors tested.

The public continues to hold high expectations of charities. Meeting those public expectations will be crucial in advancing the ongoing recovery of trust and ensuring that the collective reputation of charity can thrive.

Year	Mean trust and confidence in charities (out of 10)
2005	6.3
2008	6.6
2010	6.6
2012	6.7
2014	6.7
2016	5.7
2018	5.5
2020	6.2
2021	6.4

From 2018 onwards, the survey was conducted online rather than via telephone. This question, however, was also asked on a concurrent telephone survey as a comparison in 2018, giving a mean score of 5.7 out of 10 (a difference of +0.2).

Charities retain their trusted status above most other parts of society

Sector or group	Mean trust and confidence (out of 10)	Change from 2020
Doctors	7.7	+0.4
Police	6.5	0
Charities	6.4	+0.2
Banks	5.8	+0.3
Social services	5.7	+0.4
The ordinary man or woman in the street	5.6	+0.1
Your local council	5.4	+0.4
Private companies	5.3	+0.2
Newspapers	4.3	+0.3
Government ministers	4.1	+0.3
MPs	4.0	+0.2

Quotes from research

“In general I do trust charities. There’s not been any crazy scandal that I’m aware of, or that’s come across my screen. We’re living in such a climate where everything is so heavily regulated and monitored that I don’t see how there’s a big gap in the market for fraudulent behaviour or people taking a bit too much money out of the jar.”

“I’ve always had trust in charities. I am trying to think if there has ever been a scandal. But nothing really springs to mind.”

The high-profile scandals of 2014 to 2018 are receding

This research programme has consistently demonstrated that high profile governance scandals can have a dramatic effect on public trust. Between 2014 and 2018, the mean overall trust score fell from 6.7 to 5.5. We know that when the public think of ‘charity’, they often think of individual household name charities or local charities that they know well.

In previous qualitative conversations, high profile scandals involving individual charities were front of mind for the public and directly influenced many people’s propensity to support not just the charities in question but the charity sector as a whole.

Now, with 3 years passing since the 2018 Oxfam Haiti scandal, and longer still since the Kids Company and Age UK revelations were first publicised, our conversations with the public demonstrate those memories are beginning to recede, allowing public trust to slowly re-grow.

But the lasting impact is still detectable. The trust of those who do easily recall those incidents is still dented, while others sometimes refer to governance issues in generalised terms.

Expectations of charities are great, and therefore so too is the effect on trust when those expectations are not met.

Quotes from research

“Any news stories about charities? Nothing springs to mind.”

“Charity has to conduct itself impeccably. We all know the massive damage caused by certain actions with Oxfam in Haiti. It almost effectively wiped Oxfam off the charity map.”

“Some of the larger charities that have had negative publicity have affected the choices I make when I donate my time or money.”

Trust in charities has increased across the public

Trust in charities remains unevenly distributed. The high security, high diversity quadrant of the public (top left) trusts charities much more than other quadrants. Meanwhile, less than half of the bottom right quadrant trusts charities.

‘Quadrant’ of the public	Percentage who trust charities (with a score of 7 to 10 on a 0 to 10 scale)	Change from 2020
All	55%	+4%
High security and high diversity	70%	+8%
High security and low diversity	53%	+3%
Low security and high diversity	56%	+2%
Low security and low diversity	44%	+4%

The perceived importance of charities has also risen

For several years, the proportion of the public who thought that the role charities play in society was ‘essential’ or ‘very important’ was trending downwards, from a high of 76% to a low of 55%. For any research into social attitudes, this is a large shift in a short period of time.

But for the first time since 2012, we have seen that percentage move back in favour of the importance of charities.

That shift is also apparent among both the top left quadrant and the bottom right quadrant of the population.

It still remains the case that the bottom right is much less likely to view charities as a fundamentally important part of society, but things are moving in the right direction for all parts of the public.

Year	Percentage who describe charities as ‘essential’ or ‘very important’
2008	72%
2010	67%
2012	76%
2014	75%
2016	69%
2018	58%
2020	55%
2021	60%

From 2018 onwards, the survey was conducted online rather than via telephone. This question, however, was also asked on a concurrent telephone survey as a comparison in 2018, giving a percentage of 62% (a difference of 4%, and confirming the significant decrease).

COVID-19 has changed our lives, but it has not fundamentally changed how we see charity

For some, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of charity

Our quantitative data shows that there has been a small rise in the perceived importance of charities post-pandemic.

Our qualitative data supports this and helps to explain the reasons. Covid has not produced wholesale changes in the way people view or talk about the charity sector, but it has brought home, for some, the harsh realities that many charities seek to address.

Food poverty has been highlighted for some members of the public in the past 12 months, along with the impact of medical vulnerabilities. Many mention the role played by food banks for those who have faced economic hardship during the pandemic.

Though they rarely bring this up in qualitative conversations until asked specifically about how COVID-19 may have changed their view of charities, the pandemic has for some underscored problems in society that can’t always be solved by government or the private sector.

Quotes from research

“Certainly the last year has brought them far more into focus. During the first lockdown there were a number of stories about food banks being set up because people have lost their jobs and couldn’t afford to buy food.”

“During COVID-19 we’ve seen even more stuff on TV about food banks. All the media channels are doing stories about it. It opens your eyes a bit more to some charities.”

“Research is ever-expanding and getting more complex and they’re making breakthroughs. Monetary support is more vital than ever to carry it on.”

But it is important to keep this in perspective

While COVID-19 has increased the perceived importance of charities to some degree, it would be easy to overestimate the impact that the pandemic has had on views of charities.

A minority – often located in the high security, high diversity ‘top left’ quadrant of the public – are acutely aware of the role charities play and are primed to notice the essential contributions they make.

But it is clear from our qualitative conversations that the sector is not front of mind for most when they think about the pandemic.

They want charities to succeed and lives to be enriched by charities’ work, but they don’t see things so readily through the filter of what charities are doing. The proportion of those who agree ‘charities are more important in today’s society than they’ve ever been’ has increased, but only by 3% (from 67% last year to 70% this year).

For the most part, members of the public only notice the work of charities they support, and they notice when things go wrong in any high profile charity – in the small number of cases when charities don’t uphold the standards they expect. That’s why good governance and transparency continue to be fundamental to public trust overall – with or without a crisis.

Quotes from research

“To be honest, since the pandemic started, there’s been nothing on charity. Nothing’s really been widely spoken about charity. All you see is about Covid. I’ve been focused on that more than anything.”

“I haven’t really seen anything of late [involving charities], but it’s just that the Oxfam one was [in the news] for quite a while. I wouldn’t say I paid a lot of attention to it, but when you see the negative stuff, it pulls you away from it.”

“No, I haven’t [noticed any news relating to charities], because I really have just had my head down because of Covid. There isn’t always time to absorb all the media because there’s so much of it. You hear publicity somewhere along the line, and you realise that not everything that you’re donating is going to where it needs to go. I think that some charities have muddied the waters for others.”

The public continues to hold charities in high regard. With this comes high expectations

The public values the role charities play in society, and continues to hold charities in high regard. The perceived importance of charities has slightly risen.

More people view charities as the best way of channelling support to good causes (56%) than those who think there are better ways of doing so (20%). Moreover, more people think that it has never been easier to get involved or support a local community by contributing to charity (51%) than those who think it seems harder than it used to be to do so (19%).

The special and distinct nature of charity leaves the public with high expectations of both charities they know and the wider sector. The public wants charities to succeed, and to know that charities it supports are channelling donors’ funds in the most effective way. The conduct of the highest profile charities in particular is often used by members of the public as a heuristic to assess the standards of conduct and behaviour in the sector more generally.

Last year, we introduced four key public expectations of charities. These expectations transcend areas where the public might disagree about the role of charities, and set out clear standards of conduct and behaviour that are expected of them.

These expectations are clear when analysing both quantitative and qualitative data from across our research programme. It is because of how important the public think charities are to society that they have such high and consistent expectations.

Despite the impact of COVID-19, these expectations have remained the same. How charities are seen to perform against these is far more important in determining public trust than the immediate effects COVID-19 has had on the sector.

Meeting these four key expectations is therefore crucial in inspiring trust in the sector.

Public expectations of charities include four key factors

These expectations are drawn from quantitative and qualitative data from across the research programme:

• 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
• the ‘how’: that they 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

How charities are seen to perform against these is far more important in determining public trust than the immediate effects COVID-19 has had on the sector.

Where the money goes

This is the most firmly-held expectation.

Ensuring that a ‘high proportion of the money a charity raises goes to those it is trying to help’ remains by far the most important and firmly-held expectation for how a charity should operate. It influences much of the public’s broader perceptions about charity.

For some, this means maximising how much of donors’ money directly reaches those it is trying to help, while keeping operational, staffing, and fundraising costs to a minimum.

There has been little change in opinion since last year’s research – this remains the expectation the public feels most strongly about.

In qualitative conversations, participants understand that running a successful charity requires operational investment of various forms. In their mind, it is acceptable for a sizeable minority of a charity’s income to be used for running costs and other expenditures, provided that a clear majority of its income goes straight to those it is trying to help.

Important factors in how a charity operates	Percentage that chose this factor as one of their top 3 most important	Change from 2020
That a high proportion of the money it raises goes to those it is trying to help	77%	-2%
That it operates to high ethical standards	53%	-1%
That it’s making an impact	51%	+1%
That it’s well-run	34%	-3%
That it treats its employees well	18%	0
That it’s doing work central and local government can’t or won’t do	18%	+2%

Impact

Once again, that charities are making an impact is important across the 4 quadrants of the public.

In the public’s mind, ‘impact’ is closely tied to the expectation that a high proportion of a charity’s funds should reach its beneficiaries.

Impact is not simply taken for granted. The responsibility is placed with charities to demonstrate the impact they have with regards to the cause they serve.

Reassurances include statistics demonstrating how much of the money donated is reaching beneficiaries, and real-life stories or case-studies.

The ‘how’

Charities are distinct. The public believes that charities are special and distinct from other businesses or organisations because of their purpose. Therefore, they believe they should be held to high ethical standard.

Opposing statements	Percentage who agreed more with each statement than the other
The way charities go about meeting their charitable purpose is as important as whether they fulfil it or not	59%
It is more important that charities fulfil their charitable purposes than how they go about doing so	29%

Once again, this expectation is tied to the belief that charities must ensure a high proportion of the money they receive goes to the beneficiaries, alongside treating staff fairly and being transparent with the public.

Encouragingly, most feel the majority of charities do this already, though lingering concerns often remain.

Quotes from research

“If you’re going to donate money, you want to make sure that the charity is being managed properly and things are being done right, rather than putting all your trust in them [regardless].”

“Trust to me is how much you can believe in what they say and what they’re doing. That’s it in a nutshell for me.”

“They have to act legally, but they have ethical and moral obligations as well, for example treating volunteers fairly. Because they are a charity, you expect them to do the right thing.”

Collective responsibility

The public hold the belief that registered charities have a collective responsibility to uphold the reputation of charity. This expectation has remained consistent year-on-year.

This means demonstrating that charities are adhering to both public expectations and what the law and the Charity Commission require. In reality, well-known charities bear more of the burden in demonstrating good conduct because they are more visible to the public and are more often taken to represent the whole.

Qualitative conversations suggest previous scandals are receding in the public’s mind, helping the trust recovery to continue. Our tracking of trust in charities over time demonstrates the impact that governance issues within one charity can have on the reputation of the majority.

‘Quadrant’ of the public	Opposing statement 1: if you are a registered charity and enjoy the benefits of that status, you have a collective responsibility to uphold the reputation of charity more generally	Opposing statement 2: if you are a registered charity your only responsibility is to uphold the reputation of your own organisation
All	64%	19%
High security and high diversity	69%	16%
High security and low diversity	57%	23%
Low security and high diversity	70%	15%
Low security and low diversity	62%	18%

Looking ahead and inspiring trust further

The opportunity to inspire trust further

Overall, the public feel the sector has risen to the exceptional circumstances brought about by COVID-19. Combined with slow increases in trust and confidence, this is a welcome indication of progress. Most agree that charities are meeting their key expectations.

However, there is still room for charities to better demonstrate their performance against the public’s key expectations.

Currently, only 17% are completely convinced that a high proportion of charity funds raised goes to the end cause. The public would like to see a more proactive approach to elucidating how and how much of their money reaches beneficiaries, for instance by publishing regular statistics or case studies. In order to convince those outside of the most secure, diverse quadrant that charities deserve public trust, evidence is crucial.

There have been no significant changes in the proportion who think that charities are delivering against key expectations like making an impact and ensuring a high proportion of the money they raise reaches the end cause.

In qualitative conversations, all agree that charities must show they are listening to the public. There is further room to reassure that charities both prioritise the ‘how’ as much as delivering the promised impact.

Registered status plays an important role in upholding public trust, offering further reassurance that a charity will adhere to the public’s key expectations.

While taking comfort that charities in England and Wales are registered at an overall level, most of the public do not proactively check registration status when deciding whether to give support to an individual charity, relying instead on the opinion of friends or family, or the impression they take from a charity’s website.

Most think that charities are meeting key expectations, but there is room for improvement

This table shows to what extent respondents said charities they know about do the following important things in how a charity operates. There have been no major changes since last year.

Important factors in how a charity operates	Very much so	To some extent	Only a little	Not at all	Don’t know
Making an impact	23%	51%	14%	2%	11%
Well-run	15%	49%	14%	3%	19%
Operating to high ethical standards	17%	47%	11%	3%	22%
Delivering a high proportion of the money they raise to those that they are trying to help	17%	42%	17%	5%	19%
Treating their employees well	14%	38%	9%	2%	37%

The public is yet to be fully convinced that a high proportion of the money charities raise delivers their end cause

This table shows to what extent respondents thought that charities they know about are delivering a high proportion of the money they raise to those they are trying to help.

‘Quadrant’ of the public	Very much so	To some extent	Only a little	Not at all	Don’t know
All	17%	42%	17%	5%	19%
Top left	19%	51%	11%	2%	17%
Bottom left	19%	41%	18%	5%	18%
Top right	15%	43%	19%	4%	18%
Bottom right	15%	36%	20%	9%	20%

Registration plays a role in upholding trust and confidence

Registered status remains a powerful marker of charities doing the right thing in the public mind.

A majority believe a charity is more likely to be making an impact, maximising its donations and operating ethically if it is registered and regulated by the Charity Commission.

Important factors in how a charity operates	Percentage have more confidence about each factor if they know a charity is registered	Change from 2020
That a high proportion of the money it raises goes to those it is trying to help	78%	-1%
That it operates to high ethical standards	75%	-4%
That it’s making an impact	78%	0
That it’s well-run	71%	-6%
That it treats its employees well	67%	-2%
That it’s doing work central and local government can’t or won’t do	68%	+1%

Quotes from research

“I trust them now more than ever because of my understanding of what the Charity Commission does, that they have to report to them every year. They have to have accounts. They have to be transparent in their practices and they have to show how they’re using funds.”

While drawing confidence from the badge of registration, most are unlikely to seek out this information proactively

In reality, the public often assume charities are registered, and do not go out of their way to check. In qualitative conversations, few say they have used the charity register or the Commission’s website.

Their decision as to whether or not to support a charity is currently influenced more by the impression taken from the charity’s website (used by 63%), recommendations from friends and family (69%) or media stories (60%).

Given the influence of word of mouth and news stories in determining attitudes towards charities, there is an opportunity to make greater use of registered status in order to reassure the public.

Quotes from research

“I know they each have a number. I’ve never actually gone anywhere or know where to go to look for that number, to check if it’s genuine or not.”

“I tend to go off hearsay and if I recall any past discrepancies or news articles regarding those charities.”

“I think there is something where the charities should be registered because you normally see registered numbers and registered charities, but I don’t know very much about it.”

In reality, the public relies more on the opinion of friends or family, the charities’ own website, and the media when deciding whether to donate to an individual charity.

Source of information	Percentage who would be confident in each as a source of information	Percentage who actually use them to decide if to donate (‘always’ or ‘sometimes’)
Knowing that the good cause was a registered charity	87%	35%
Checking information on the Charity Commission’s register of charities	85%	35%
Opinions of friends and family	82%	69%
The good cause’s own website	78%	63%
Factual information about the good cause on third party websites	76%	51%
Information about the good cause through television, radio, newspapers and magazines	76%	60%
Information about the good cause shared on social media	56%	44%

How the regulator can help uphold public trust and help the sector thrive

The public also expects the regulator to do more than just manage the register.

In last year’s research and again in 2021, we asked the public whether they think the regulator should make sure charities fulfil their wider responsibilities, or just make sure they stick to the letter of the law. This year, as last, the public favours by a 2 to 1 margin the regulator trying to make sure charities fulfil their wider responsibilities.

In qualitative conversations with the public, it is clear that nothing in the past year has changed their view in this regard. Many would like the Commission to make sure that charities live up to public expectations – for example, by making sure charities are evidencing the impact they have and the use they make of donations.

Quotes from research

“We need to monitor what’s going on. Just because one person is doing something brilliant it doesn’t mean that somebody else isn’t trying to take a little bit off the top.”

“They are the policeman, making sure that charities satisfy all those [factors of trust] before they could declare themselves charities.”

“Charities can be dealing with large sums of money and I think someone independent has got to have an eye on that.”

Opposing statements	Percentage who agreed more with each statement than the other
The charity regulator should try to make sure charities fulfil their wider responsibilities to society as well as sticking to the letter of the laws governing charitable activity	52%
The charity regulator should confine its role to making sure charities stick to the letter of the laws that govern charitable activity	27%

Awareness of the Charity Commission instils confidence

The regulator’s visible presence within the media has the potential to have an effect in upholding public trust.

Those who trust charities are more likely to have heard of the Commission, and a majority (62%) of those aware of the Commission are aware because of its presence in the media.

At an overall level, awareness of the Charity Commission remains in line with last year: 54% have heard of it (vs 53% last year) and 35% of those people say they know very well or fairly well what it does (vs 36% last year).

Mean trust in charities among those who have heard of the Commission is 6.5 out of 10. Trust among those who have not heard of the Commission is slightly lower, at 6.2 out of 10.

Qualitatively, as last year, there is limited recall of the Charity Commission by name and awareness of what it does also remains limited (especially among younger people).

Quotes from research

“I feel more confident. I’m glad that there is an institution…a Commission that is overseeing charities.”

“It’s important you hear from the Charity Commission every so often, just as reassurance that they are taking thing seriously when necessary.”

Methodology

Quantitative data and analytics

Yonder surveyed a demographically representative sample of 4,037 members of the English and Welsh public between 18 and 21 January 2021. The survey was conducted online.

Answer options were randomised and scales rotated. All questions using opposing statements were asked using a sliding scale.

The data was analysed using Yonder’s ‘Clockface’ model to help understand the various elements of public opinion and ensure the Charity Commission’s work is rooted in an understanding of the social and economic dynamics at play across the English and Welsh public.

Qualitative data

Yonder conducted 20 in-depth interviews with members of the public from across the Clockface model’s two-dimensional map of ‘security’ and ‘diversity’ and with a geographical spread across England and Wales. Interviews were conducted between 10 and 18 February 2021.

Each interview lasted around 30 minutes.