Executive Summary
Overall trust in charities has been stable since 2020, with new analysis showing that levels are quite high. For some, trust is implicit until proven otherwise, driven mostly by a charity’s aim to do good. For others, low trust stems from media coverage, contact with charities or disagreement with a charity’s actions.
Media coverage is particularly influential in leading to distrust in charities, but generally the public are cautious to not let the actions of one charity influence how they feel about others. However, for any charities where the media uncovers wrongdoing, there is little they can do to redeem their reputation; once sullied the trust is lost.
The majority want information about charities to be available, and information tends to lead to greater trust. However, not all would access the information, knowing that it there tends to be enough. Ease of access of information and signposting to it could be important. Financial transparency is an important type of information in driving trust.
Awareness of and claimed knowledge about the Charity Commission are stable with around 1 in 5 claiming they know the Commission well. Most of those who claim to know the Commission well have a broad grasp of its role. However, the intricacies of the Commission’s role are less well understood, and the public have questions about how the Commission regulates all charities.
Around half are more likely to support charities after learning about the role of the Charity Commission. Having a body to regulate charities reassures that the sector is operating to a high standard. The existence of the register also reassures that the information they need is out there and accessible. However, there is a belief that the Commission can’t forensically monitor all charities due to the resources this would require and so it is likely there is wrongdoing that is going undetected.
Knowing a charity is registered continues to reassure the public, although most people don’t check the register; just seeing a registration number or the charity claiming to be registered tends to be enough to drive trust. Most would only check the register if they suspected any wrongdoing and if they were to look, they would like to see financial information about charities.
Overall Trust in Charities
Overall trust in charities has been relatively stable since 2020
Overall Trust in Charities over time (mean score):
|
High Trust (7-10) |
Mean scores |
| 2005 |
|
6.3 |
| 2008 |
|
6.6 |
| 2010 |
|
6.6 |
| 2012 |
|
6.7 |
| 2014 |
|
6.7 |
| 2016 |
|
5.7 |
| 2018 |
|
5.5 |
| 2020 |
51% |
6.2 |
| 2021 |
54% |
6.4 |
| 2022 |
55% |
6.2 |
| 2023 |
55% |
6.3 |
| 2024 |
58% |
6.5 |
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 5.7/10 (a difference of +0.2).
In 2024, almost 6 in 10 say they have high trust in charities while 1 in 10 have very low trust
Trust in charities
| 0 (Don’t trust them at all) |
2% |
| 1 |
1% |
| 2 |
2% |
| 3 |
3% |
| 4 |
5% |
| 5 |
16% |
| 6 |
13% |
| 7 |
23% |
| 8 |
21% |
| 9 |
7% |
| 10 (Trust them completely) |
7% |
| Summary: High Trust (7 – 10) |
58% |
| Summary: Medium Trust (4 – 6) |
34% |
| Summary: High Trust (1 – 3) |
9% |
Trust in charities differs between different demographics and experiences:
- men are more likely to have low trust in charities (10% vs. 7% of women)
- those with a degree or higher are more likely to have high trust in charities (65% vs. 57% below degree and 39% with no qualifications)
- those that have recently seen/heard charities in the news are more likely to have high trust in charities (64% vs. 54% that haven’t)
- those that have heard of the Charity Commission are more likely to have high trust in charities (63% vs. 52% that have not heard)
Trust in charities ranks very high compared to other organisations, with only trust in doctors ranking higher
Trust in other organisations
| |
Summary: Low trust (0-3) |
Summary: Medium trust (4-6) |
Summary: High trust (7-10) |
Mean: |
| Doctors |
7% |
25% |
68% |
7.1 |
| Charities |
9% |
34% |
58% |
6.5 |
| Banks |
17% |
38% |
45% |
5.9 |
| Police |
20% |
37% |
44% |
5.7 |
| Social Services |
24% |
43% |
32% |
5.2 |
| Ordinary man/ woman on the street |
20% |
49% |
31% |
5.2 |
| Local Council |
31% |
44% |
25% |
4.7 |
| Private companies |
23% |
52% |
25% |
5.0 |
| Newspapers |
42% |
40% |
18% |
4.0 |
| Government Ministers |
53% |
32% |
15% |
3.4 |
| MP’s |
54% |
33% |
14% |
3.4 |
There has been very little change in trust since 2022, with charities being the second most trusted organisation type
Trust in other organisations over time (mean scores)
| |
2018 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
| Doctors |
7.4 |
7.3 |
7.7 |
7.2 |
7.1 |
7.1 |
| Charities |
5.5 |
6.2 |
6.4 |
6.2 |
6.3 |
6.5 |
| Police |
6.4 |
6.5 |
6.5 |
5.8 |
5.5 |
5.7 |
| Banks |
4.9 |
5.5 |
5.8 |
5.6 |
5.6 |
5.9 |
| Ordinary Man/ Woman on the street |
5.7 |
5.5 |
5.6 |
5.5 |
5.5 |
5.2 |
| Social Services |
5.3 |
5.3 |
5.7 |
5.3 |
5.3 |
5.2 |
| Local Council |
4.8 |
5 |
5.4 |
4.9 |
4.9 |
4.7 |
| Private Companies |
5.0 |
5.1 |
5.3 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
| Newspapers |
3.9 |
4.0 |
4.3 |
3.9 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
| MP’s |
3.6 |
3.8 |
4.0 |
3.4 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
| Government Ministers |
3.7 |
3.8 |
4.1 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
3.4 |
Sources of Low Trust
- those with less knowledge of the Charity Commission tended to be less trusting of charities in general
- national charities tend to be trusted less
- disagreement with the charity’s actions can lead to distrust, such as the RSPCAs use of euthanasia, the RNLI picking up migrants crossing the channel and Children in Need using celebrities to ‘take money’ from the public
- lack of financial information on charities also contributes to lower levels of trust, as does low visibility and transparency
- some spontaneously mentioned door knocking and chugging as causes of lower trust in specific charities
- negative news stories can lead to lower trust, but in most cases, this is limited to the specific charity the story is about
Sources of High Trust
- those with more knowledge of the Charity Commission tended to be more trusting of charities in general
- local and smaller charities tend to be trusted more
- reasons for higher trust include the charitable cause aligning with individual’s views and seeing the impact of the charities work
- charities that are seen to achieve their purpose well tend to be trusted more, as are those that are seen to maximise how much money reaches the end cause
- transparency is also key to trust, particularly in relation to the financial aspect of charities and who is running the charity
- quote from respondent: “Trust is based on visibly seeing what the charity does”
- quote from respondent: “In general, I have high trust with charities and am willing to give them the benefit of doubt until they do something wrong”
Drivers of Trust in Charities
Whether seen charities in the news recently
| Seen charities in the news recently |
34% |
| Not seen charities in the news recently |
58% |
| Don’t know |
8% |
What has been heard/seen about charities in the news (free text responses)
| Requesting donations (fundraising) |
11% |
| Ads/information about charities in general |
10% |
| Charities helping vulnerable people/people in need |
8% |
| Struggling charities (lack of funding/donations) |
5% |
| Charities/UN actions in Gaza/Palestine/Israel |
5% |
| Misuse of money/wasting money |
4% |
| Ads/information about specific charities |
4% |
| Cancer research |
4% |
| Positive perception of charities |
4% |
| Captain Tom foundation (including the recent issues) |
3% |
| Immoral activities/bad press/scandals (not money related) |
3% |
| Macmillan |
3% |
| Cancer charities |
2% |
| Red cross |
2% |
Most recent news coverage of charities has left the public feeling more positive about charities or indifferent - just 15% said it left them feeling more negative
How what they have seen has changed opinions of charities
| It made me a lot more positive about charities |
23% |
| It made me a little more positive about charities |
25% |
| It made no difference to my opinion of charities |
34% |
| It made me a little more negative about charities |
9% |
| It made me a lot more negative about charities |
6% |
| Don’t know |
2% |
| Summary: Positive |
48% |
| Summary: Negative |
15% |
The Untrusting and Uninvolved segment were more likely to not think any differently about charities (43%) after seeing/reading/hearing something about them, whereas Trusting Helpers were more likely to feel positively (51%).
Disengaged Donors were more likely to feel negatively about charities after seeing something about them (23%).
- when reflecting on charities in the media, negative stories tended to stick out in participants minds. Examples of negative stories were misuse of funds and impersonating charities
- negative stories tended to lead to some distrust in charities, but, particularly for those with lower knowledge of the Charity Commission, distrust in the media muted this impact. There was agreement that the media often sensationalises stories and only picks the negative cases, saying “good news doesn’t sell stories”
- some said they don’t hear about the outcomes of charities that have been accused of wrongdoing, such as Oxfam, as the media only portray part of the story
- quote from respondent: “I don’t know what happened with Oxfam, I think Oxfam should respond to the allegations and the findings should come out”
- local news is also seen to be important and to be beneficial to smaller charities – something also uncovered with trustees. There was also discussion around the power which the local media has in regards to keeping charities ‘in line’ and that reporting on local charities acts as an incentive for other charities to want to feature
- when asked whether participants think that negative news stories have a lasting impact on charities, there was some agreement that while individual charities may be approached with more caution than they would have previously, it is important “not to tarnish everybody with the same brush”
- participants generally felt that if serious wrongdoing is uncovered for a charity, the charity was unable to redeem their reputation. Participants felt they only way back would be a complete rebrand and change of personnel, but most charities would not be able to recover
Importance in whether they trust a charity or not
|
Very Important |
Fairly Important |
| The people that run the charity have a range of different backgrounds and skills |
31% |
43% |
| The charity does work that central or local government can’t or won’t do |
36% |
40% |
| The charity pushes for change in society |
37% |
40% |
| It is clear who runs the charity and is responsible for making decisions |
44% |
37% |
| The charity listens to feedback from their supporters/people that use their services |
48% |
37% |
| It is easy to see how much the charity has raised, and how this money has been spent |
54% |
31% |
| The charity is a voice for the people or causes it supports |
54% |
32% |
| That it keeps its staff, volunteers and people who use its services safe from harm |
54% |
31% |
| That it operates to high ethical standards |
58% |
27% |
| The charity makes a real difference to the people and communities that it serves |
59% |
28% |
| The charity does a good job in achieving its purpose |
59% |
28% |
| Most of the money raised is spent directly on the causes the charity supports |
66% |
21% |
There are some discrepancies in how important aspects are to whether the public trust a charity and whether charities they know about are displaying these attributes
Extent charities you know about are…. and the importance of each aspect
|
Extent charities are.. |
Importance |
Gap between importance and extent it is happening |
| Spending most of the money raised directly on the causes the charity supports |
57% |
87% |
30% |
| Operating to high ethical standards |
61% |
86% |
25% |
| Keeping their staff, volunteers and people who use their services safe from harm |
61% |
85% |
24% |
| Acting as a voice for the people or causes it supports |
66% |
86% |
20% |
| Making a real difference for the people and communities they serve |
69% |
87% |
18% |
| Doing a good job in achieving the purpose of the charity |
71% |
87% |
16% |
- participants with high knowledge were interested in most aspects of the charity, such as why it was set up, the end cause, how they achieve the end cause, who runs the charity and how money is used
- those who had very low knowledge of the Charity Commission only wanted information from a charity about what was raised and how much was spent
- they wanted a clear breakdown of how much money reached the end cause and how much was paid to those running the charity
- they also wanted to understand where every pound they donated ended up
- quote from respondent: “I want to know how much they raise and how much goes to the cause”
Across knowledge levels, there was consensus that they wanted stories and examples of the charities work
- most participants agreed they wanted “a story they could connect with”
- those with high knowledge wanted to see why a charity was set up, who it had helped and statistics on what it had achieved
- those with lower knowledge were also interested in examples, such as “x amount has been raised which has resulted in x amount of wells being built and x amount of lives changed”
- participants wanted to see the tangible difference charities were making, and stories were a good way to connect with the audience
- there was agreement that there is a ‘right’ amount of information which can be provided by charities
- some felt that too much information provided by charities can make them less inclined to donate to those charities, though a certain amount is needed in order to trust
- “quality over quantity” was discussed, as information needs to be simple, digestible and contain what they are looking for
- “you don’t want to be overwhelmed by information, there can be too much”
- for those with high knowledge of the Charity Commission, having all types of information was beneficial and led to higher trust
- for those with low knowledge, just knowing the information was available was enough and they would only check it if they thought there might have been wrongdoing
- quote from respondent: “Knowing that the information is out there is enough, I would only check for more when I think there might be wrongdoing”
- television adverts were a form of media which participants felt compelled them to involve themselves with charities
- there was specific mention of adverts and charities relating to malnourished children – something which Comic Relief may have primed them to think about
Leaflets from charities
- there was some discussion around leafleting from charities, which participants did not feel were useful sources of information – participants tended to agree that leaflets get discarded as soon as they arrive
Being approached by charities
- charities using techniques such as door knocking would lead them to be more distrusting of the charity, and less inclined to donate
- charities who door knock and/or stop people on the street were seen to be less trusted, though no specific charities were mentioned
- quote from respondent: “’Chuggers’ ambush you in the high street…they position themselves near a cashpoint”
The majority didn’t have any suggestions for what more the Charity Commission could do to increase trust, but of those that did, transparency around finances and limits to salaries were the main suggestions
What more the Charity Commission could do to increase trust
| More transparency on finances/proof of where money is spent incl. admin, marketing, salaries |
6% |
| Control salaries given to charity directors/CEO/senior executives incl. capping of salaries |
3% |
| More advertisement/promotion incl. explain what they do |
3% |
| Generally be more open/honest/transparent |
3% |
| Take tougher action/be proactive in dealing with illegal/rogue charities |
2% |
| Auditing/vetting/investigating charities |
2% |
| Communicate more/provide more information |
2% |
| Certify charities of good practice |
1% |
| No, none, nothing |
50% |
| Don’t know |
26% |
6% say that transparency around finances would lead to higher trust in charities, and think this is something the Charity Commission could facilitate. This is more likely to be suggested by those that are more sceptical about charities, for example they have medium trust in charities (8%) and recent news stories about charities have made them feel more negative about charities (12%).
Those that can’t think of anything that the Charity Commission can do either already have high trust in charities (53%) or are part of the No Interest segment (59%).
Participants from focus groups felt the Charity Commission could do more to increase awareness and let the public know what role they could play
1) Increase Awareness
- among those with higher knowledge, awareness of the role of the Charity Commission links to increased trust in charities as they knew they were regulated
- however, there was an understanding that the Charity Commission does not have the resources to forensically investigate all charities, especially among the low knowledge group
- participants wanted to know how the Charity Commission discover wrongdoing and what actions it takes
- they also wanted to understand if it was possible for all wrongdoing to be found by the Charity Commission, as many believed several charities could be getting away with wrongdoing or mismanagement of funds
- participants wanted more understanding of the role of the Charity Commission and how it can regulate all charities in England and Wales to reassure them that charities can not get away with wrongdoing
- quote from respondent: “I want to know how the Charity Commission decide who to investigate, is it just those that are high profile and get a lot of media attention?”
2) The Public’s Role
- participants also felt the Charity Commission should do more to let the public know what role they can play in monitoring charities
- general consensus was that the Charity Commission could not possibly be across all wrongdoing, so they were unclear when wrongdoing was uncovered how it came to the Commission’s attention (many thought it was just media stories it investigated)
- participants wanted the public to be able to get in touch and report any wrongdoing they believed was happening, so it was not just the Charity Commission’s investigations they were relying on to stop misconduct
- this raises the possibility of a comms piece around how the public can report any wrongdoing they suspect, to reassure the public it is not just the Commission that has a say on which charities need investigating
- quote from respondent: “We only hear about the high-profile cases, they can’t be across all charities… I don’t know of any way I can contact them to let them know about charities”
Contact with charities also correlates with trust - post-Covid, fewer people are donating to charity or using charity shops, while demand for charities’ services has risen
Charitable giving over time
|
Donated money or goods, or raised funds for a charity |
Used a charity shop |
Volunteered for a charity |
Taken part in a charity campaign |
Worked for a charity |
| 2020 |
62% |
58% |
17% |
11% |
7% |
| 2021 |
54% |
44% |
14% |
17% |
7% |
| 2022 |
54% |
49% |
12% |
17% |
5% |
| 2023 |
52% |
52% |
15% |
16% |
7% |
| 2024 |
47% |
47% |
16% |
14% |
9% |
Receiving from charities over time
|
Attended a charity-run community facility (for example club or community centre) |
Used other charity services (for example advice, animal welfare, outdoor space) |
Received food, financial, medical or similar help |
| 2020 |
9% |
7% |
3% |
| 2021 |
5% |
6% |
4% |
| 2022 |
6% |
6% |
4% |
| 2023 |
7% |
6% |
5% |
| 2024 |
9% |
8% |
8% |
Heard of the Charity Commission
Around half of the public have heard of the Charity Commission, with a slow decline in awareness since 2021
Heard of the Charity Commission
|
Aware |
Unaware |
| 2024 |
47% |
48% |
| 2023 |
48% |
47% |
| 2022 |
50% |
44% |
| 2021 |
54% |
40% |
| 2020 |
53% |
42% |
Those that are older and live in less deprived areas tend to be more likely to have heard about the Charity Commission:
- 65+ (67%)
- live in the least deprived areas (58%)
- have a degree or higher (58%)
- social grade AB (61%)
- had contact with a charity in the past year (51%)
Surprisingly, those belonging to the Untrusting and Uninvolved and Disengaged Donors segments tend to have higher awareness than average, despite having low engagement/involvement.
Trusting Helpers are also more likely to be aware of the Charity Commission, but this group have high trust and high involvement with charities.
What they have seen recently about the Charity Commission
| Recently heard about them (unspecific information) |
12% |
| It is good/ important (general positive) |
11% |
| They do charity investigations/checks |
9% |
| Charity regulation/Monitoring |
8% |
| Help people in need |
5% |
| Captain Tom charity investigation |
5% |
| They support charities |
4% |
| Fundraising activities/donations |
3% |
| Register charities |
2% |
| Report publication |
1% |
| Don’t know |
19% |
| Other |
10% |
Qualitative participants awareness of the Charity Commission tended to come from media cases of charities being investigated for wrongdoing, or being involved in charities and therefore knowing the importance and the role of the Commission.
How what they have seen has changed opinions of the Charity Commission
| It made me a lot more positive about the Charity Commission |
30% |
| It made me a little more positive about the Charity Commission |
36% |
| It made no difference to my opinion of the Charity Commission |
24% |
| It made me a little more negative about the Charity Commission |
4% |
| It made me a lot more negative about the Charity Commission |
3% |
| Don’t know |
2% |
| Summary: Positive |
67% |
| Summary: Negative |
7% |
Not many differences were seen among segments, apart from Untrusting and Uninvolved, who were less likely to feel positively about the Charity Commission after reading/seeing/hearing something (46%), but no more likely to feel negatively (9%).
Claimed depth of knowledge of the Charity Commission
Despite awareness of the Charity Commission declining, claimed depth of knowledge has remained steady
Percentage that claim to know the Charity Commission well
|
Among those that have heard of the Charity Commission |
Among total population |
Heard of Charity Commission |
| 2020 |
36% |
19% |
53% |
| 2021 |
35% |
19% |
54% |
| 2022 |
35% |
18% |
50% |
| 2023 |
34% |
17% |
48% |
| 2024 |
40% |
19% |
47% |
Those who claim to know the Charity Commission well are more likely to be:
- male (47%)
- 16 – 34 (61%)
- live in London (57%)
- live in the most deprived areas (47%)
- social grade AB (50%)
- high trust in charities (45%)
- have had contact with a charity in the past year (43%)
- no Interest segment (52%)
Those that are 16 – 34 and in the No Interest segment are more likely to claim they know the Charity Commission well, but when asked what the role of the Charity Commission is, they were more likely to only select incorrect answers.
The majority of those who claim to know the Charity Commission well have a good grasp of the role, although some think it fines charities or campaigns on their behalf
The role of the Charity Commission (among those with claimed depth of knowledge)
| Regulate charities across England and Wales |
66% |
| Look into complaints & hold charities to account when things go wrong |
60% |
| Maintain a register of all charities across England & Wales |
59% |
| Provide guidance to the people that run charities about how they should run their charities |
58% |
| Register new organisations that meet all the conditions for charitable status |
55% |
| Give charities advice or permission if they need it |
49% |
| Make charities pay a fine if they break the rules |
33% |
| Campaign or lobby on behalf of charities |
22% |
| Give money to charities |
14% |
| None of the above |
1% |
| Summary: Incorrect and Correct |
49% |
| Summary: Correct (Only) |
45% |
| Summary: Incorrect (Only) |
6% |
Those aged 16 – 34 (11%) and the No Interest segment (17%) were the most likely to only select incorrect answers.
Most of the public believe the balance of the Commission’s focus should be more on identifying and dealing with wrongdoing
The Charity Commission’s Focus
|
Should focus on |
Is focussing on |
| Identifying and dealing with wrongdoing by charities |
57% |
44% |
| Giving charities advice and guidance to ensure they follow the law |
50% |
46% |
| Keeping a public register of charities up to date |
44% |
49% |
| Enabling charities to be more effective |
36% |
27% |
| Informing the public about charities |
25% |
23% |
| Don’t know |
1% |
5% |
In 2023, the majority (61%) said the balance of the Charity Commissions work ought to lie equally on identifying and dealing with wrongdoing and on supporting charities to do the right thing. Question wording has changed since 2023 so cannot be directly compared.
The public believe charity law has the largest influence on the Commission, followed by the charity sector
Extent the Charity Commission is influenced by each group among those that know the Charity Commission well
|
Summary: Isn’t influenced |
Middle |
Summary: Is influenced |
Don’t know |
Summary: Is influenced (2023) |
| Charity law |
7% |
18% |
72% |
2% |
78% |
| The charity sector |
11% |
19% |
66% |
4% |
61% |
| The public |
17% |
26% |
54% |
4% |
42% |
| The media |
22% |
24% |
49% |
4% |
41% |
| Politicians |
22% |
26% |
48% |
4% |
40% |
Half are more likely to support charities after learning about the role of the Charity Commission, but a similar proportion are not impacted at all
Likelihood to support charities after learning about the Charity Commission
| A lot more likely |
Somewhat more likely |
Neither |
Somewhat less likely |
A lot less likely |
Don’t know |
| 13% |
36% |
47% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
Half of respondents say they are more likely to support charities after reading about the role of the Charity Commission and just under half (47%) say it makes no difference.
Those that are more likely to support charities after reading about the role of the Charity Commission tend to be educated to degree level or above (58%), in socioeconomic grade AB (53%) and have high trust in charities (60%).
The opposite is seen for those that are not impacted by reading about the role of the Charity Commission, for example they are educated below degree level (49%), social grade DE (49%) and have low trust in charities (64%).
The Untrusting and Uninvolved segment (65%) and the No Interest segment (55%) were more likely to not be influenced by knowledge of the Charity Commission (selected neither), suggesting information does not increase trust for these segments, while the Trusting Helpers were more likely to support charities after learning about the role of the Charity Commission (56%).
In focus groups, participants’ views were also mixed depending on how much they knew about the Charity Commission
Low knowledge of the Charity Commission
- for those with less knowledge of the Charity Commission, learning about the role of the Charity Commission did not increase trust in charities
- participants felt that charities would be registered and set up properly with the oversight of the Charity Commission, but did not think the Charity Commission could oversee all charities in England and Wales, therefore misconduct and mismanagement would still happen across charities
- participants needed reassurance that the Charity Commission could monitor all charities, and to understand how the Charity Commission could do this
- quote from respondent: “They can’t easily be across all charities… they can’t have enough staff to monitor all these charities”
- quote from respondent: “I trust that they only register charities that meet the criteria, but it is the after bit that has the question marks. Once the charity is set up I’m not sure the confidence is there that the Charity Commission can be on top of monitoring them all, they are looking into it once the damage is done”
High Knowledge of the Charity Commission
- those with more knowledge of the Charity Commission tended to have more trust in charities from knowing about the role of the Charity Commission
- having a body to regulate charities reassured them that the charity sector, as a whole, would be operating to a high standard
- existence of the register also reassured them that the information they needed was out there and accessible should they need to use it
Understanding of what a trustee does is relatively high and a sizeable minority would consider being a trustee
What is a charity trustee? Someone who is…:
| checks that the charity is being run as it should be |
43% |
| is responsible for directing and governing a charity |
42% |
| is responsible for making decisions about the running of the charity |
41% |
| checks the charity is helping the people or causes it is supposed to |
35% |
| provides advice to the charity |
24% |
| does the day-to-day running of the charity |
20% |
| receives support or money from the charity |
13% |
| Don’t know |
13% |
Would you consider becoming a trustee?
| Yes |
13% |
| Maybe |
35% |
| No |
44% |
| I already am |
1% |
| Don’t know |
7% |
Unsurprisingly, those most engaged in the charity sector are more likely to consider becoming a trustee:
- 16 - 34 (20%)
- degree educated (22%)
- high trust in charities (16%)
- contact with a charity in the past year (16%)
- trusting Helpers (14%)
- heard of the Charity Commission (19%)
Register of Charities
6 in 10 said they would use the charity register to check a charity is real, although checking a charity’s website is also a common way of verifying a charity
How would you check a charity was real?
| Summary: Charity register |
55% |
| Look at the charity’s website |
44% |
| Look for a charity number |
33% |
| Contact the Charity Commission |
26% |
| Look for factual information on third party websites |
22% |
| Contact the charity directly |
21% |
| Search for information about the good cause through television, radio, newspapers and magazines |
18% |
| Search for information about the good cause shared on social media |
18% |
| Ask family or friends |
17% |
| Look for a badge |
10% |
Close to 4 in 10 have at least some knowledge of the register of charities, but just 13% have ever accessed it
Knowledge of the register of charities
| A lot |
A little |
Heard of, but don’t know anything about it |
Not heard of |
Don’t know |
Summary: A lot/a little |
Summary: Heard of but don’t know/not heard of |
| 6% |
31% |
34% |
28% |
1% |
37% |
28% |
Those with high trust in charities are more likely to have knowledge of the register of charities (42%).
Accessed the register of charities
| Yes |
13% |
| No |
84% |
| Don’t Know |
3% |
The majority of participants in the focus groups would not look at the charity register unless they suspected wrongdoing
The majority would not tend to look at the charity register
- there tends to be implicit trust that a charity is real so the public don’t feel they have to check if a charity is set up correctly, as by virtue of being a charity, it already should be
- having a charity number on display is usually enough reassurance that they don’t need to verify if the charity number is real or not
- understanding the end cause of the charity is more of a priority over checking if the charity is legitimate or not
Most would only use the register if they suspected wrongdoing
- most would only consider using the register if they suspected there was wrongdoing as they feel they have no reason to check it otherwise
- those with high knowledge of the Charity Commission are most likely to use the register as they know it exists and some see it as authoritative
- discussing the register left a lot of participants intrigued and they were interested to see what was on it, suggesting more awareness of the register may increase interest
- they wanted to be able to see information about finances in a simple and digestible format, however there was criticism that the register didn’t highlight misuse of money which is what participants wanted to be able to check for themselves
Knowing that a charity is registered is now more likely to make the public think positively about the charity across a number of factors, in particular that it’s well run
Knowing a charity is registered also makes the public more confident that it is financially responsible. % that feel slightly/a lot more confident about each aspect after learning it is registered as a charity
|
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
| That it operates to high ethical standard |
79% |
75% |
74% |
76% |
81% |
| That a high proportion of the money it raises goes to those it is trying to help |
79% |
78% |
78% |
79% |
81% |
| That it’s well-run |
77% |
71% |
70% |
74% |
81% |
| That it’s easy to see how much the charity has raised, and how this money has been spent |
|
|
|
|
80% |
| That it’s making an impact |
78% |
78% |
76% |
77% |
79% |
| That it treats its employees well |
69% |
67% |
65% |
69% |
75% |
| That it’s doing work central and local government can’t or won’t do |
67% |
66% |
66% |
68% |
73% |
Segmentation
Public Trust in Charities Segmentation
In 2024, a new segmentation was created to help the Charity Commission understand drivers of trust in Charities and how these differ by different groups in the population.
The segmentation divides respondents into groups based on their answers to the following questions:
- Importance of factors in trust in charities:
- C2.2. The people that run the charity have a range of different backgrounds and skills
- C2.3. It is easy to see how much the charity has raised, and how this money has been spent
- C2.6. The charity pushes for change in society
- C2.8. The charity does work that central or local government can’t or won’t do
- C2.10. It is clear who runs the charity and is responsible for making decisions
- A1. Trust and confidence in charities overall
- B7. Know the Charity Commission and what it does
- E1. Level of contact with a charity in the last year
Not all statements at C2 were used as they did not provide enough differentiation between segments. (There was overall agreement on which were the most important.)
A breakdown of the demographics for each segment, and a further exploration of their differences can be found in the appendix.
% of population
| Untrusting and Uninvolved |
Disengaged Donors |
No Interest |
Trusting Helpers |
Trusting Receivers |
| 8% |
8% |
14% |
62% |
8% |
Segment Profiles
Segment 1 - Untrusting and Uninvolved (8% of population)
This segment are less trusting of charities overall and tend not to have any involvement with them. Transparency is important to them.
- 43% have high trust in charities
- 22% know the Charity Commission
- 74% Have had contact with charities
- 51% Have donated
- 10% Have volunteered
| Drivers of Trust |
% |
| Diversity among leadership |
52% |
| Transparency around finances |
99% |
| Pushes for change in society |
1% |
| Fills the gaps of the government |
53% |
| Transparency in responsibilities and decision making |
92% |
Segment 2 - Disengaged Donors (8% of population)
Overall trust in charities is relatively low, as is contact, but they are more likely to have donated money or goods to a charity.
- 55% have high trust in charities
- 19% know the Charity Commission
- 79% Have had contact with charities
- 54% Have donated
- 13% Have Volunteered
| Drivers of trust |
% |
| Diversity among leadership |
0% |
| Transparency around finances |
95% |
| Pushes for change in society |
95% |
| Fills the gaps of the government |
76% |
| Transparency in responsibilities and decision making |
99% |
Segment 3 - No Interest (14% of population)
This segment have low trust and contact with charities, and information about the charity in any form does not tend to drive trust.
- 39% have high trust in charities
- 17% know the Charity Commission
- 65% Have had contact with charities
- 23% Have donated
- 12% Have Volunteered
| Drivers of trust |
% |
| Diversity among leadership |
26% |
| Transparency around finances |
9% |
| Pushes for change in society |
29% |
| Fills the gaps of the government |
25% |
| Transparency in responsibilities and decision making |
27% |
Segment 4 - Trusting Helpers (62% of population)
This segment has high trust and involvement (volunteering both time and money) with charities. The more information the better.
- 64% have high trust in charities
- 20% know the Charity Commission
- 82% Have had contact with charities
- 16% Have campaigned
- 17% Have Volunteered
| Drivers of Trust |
% |
| Diversity among leadership |
99% |
| Transparency around finances |
98% |
| Pushes for change in society |
97% |
| Fills the gaps of the government |
92% |
| Transparency in responsibilities and decision making |
99% |
Segment 5 - Trusting Receivers (8% of population)
This segment mainly have contact with charities to receive goods, money or services. They tend to trust charities and want transparency.
- 61% have high trust in charities
- 16% know the Charity Commission
- 82% Have had contact with charities
- 13% Attended a facility
- 11% Received help
| Drivers of Trust |
% |
| Diversity among leadership |
62% |
| Transparency around finances |
91% |
| Pushes for change in society |
75% |
| Fills the gaps of the government |
72% |
| Transparency in responsibilities and decision making |
0% |
Possible Actions by Segment
| Untrusting and Uninvolved |
Transparency around finances and who is responsible for decisions are likely to build trust |
Engaging with this group will be difficult as they don’t like to be too involved with the sector |
Make the information as widely available and digestible as possible to reach this segment |
| Disengaged Donors |
They want transparency around how the charity operates and where the money goes, and to know the charity is pushing for change |
Getting this segment to engage with this information will be difficult as they have relatively low trust |
Consider if there is a way to offer the information they need at the point they are making a donation, or making a decision about a donation |
| No Interest |
There are no easy wins for this group – this group are not trusting or engaged with the charity sector |
Getting them to engage with the charity sector |
Don’t take action with this group as there is likely to be little gain from lots of resources |
| Trusting Helpers |
They want access to all types of information, make it easy for them to access it and ensure it is clearly signposted |
Making it easy to access all the information in an easily digestible way and making it available where they would expect it to be |
Keep it simple so they can take in a range of information |
| Trusting Receivers |
They want transparency from the charity around finances and to know that the charity helps the end cause |
Providing transparency around finances in a simple way |
Provide case studies of how money has been spent and how it has helped the end cause. Clearly signpost financial information. |
Background and Methodology
Background and Methodology
-
Background: The Charity Commission has been collecting data on public trust in charities since 2005. BMG Research were commissioned by the Charity Commission to run 3 waves of their public tracker, starting with the 2024 wave. 2024 marks the last year of the current Charity Commission strategy so impact measures are tracked back where possible.
-
Research objectives: To understand public trust in charities, what affects public trust in charities, and awareness and knowledge of the Charity Commission.
-
Methodology: Research was split into two phases, a quantitative and qualitative phase. In the quantitative phase, an online panel was used to achieve a nationally representative split of participants from England and Wales. A boost was conducted to achieve a higher number of Welsh completes to allow for analysis for nation. Weighting has been applied to give a representative view of England and Wales. The qualitative phase was then conducted to explore the themes from the data. 3 focus groups were conducted with between 5 and 7 participants in each group. Each group had a mix of genders, ages, ethnicities and regions. The focus groups were split into those with high knowledge of the Charity Commission, medium knowledge and low knowledge.
-
Fieldwork dates: Quantitative fieldwork took place between the 12th of January and 2nd of February 2024 and the focus groups took place between the 17th of April and 2nd of May.
-
Number of completes: 4599 completes were achieved.
-
Weighting: The data was weighted by age by gender, region, education and ethnicity.
Checks were also carried out to ensure the data collected was broadly representative by IMD and urban/rural. Targets were set to be nationally representative.
Comparability Over Time
It is important to note that the survey contents, and its administration have undergone a number of changes compared to previous years. These changes were necessary to improve the relevance and robustness of the data collected, and to facilitate a new research partner.
Throughout this report comparisons are made to previous waves where there have been no substantial changes to the question wording or routing. However, these comparisons should be treated as indicative only as there is likely to be some impact on the data from the changes detailed below. A such, statistical significance testing across waves has not been carried out.
The changes include:
-
A number of new questions: These have been added to reflect the current needs of the Charity Commission. As new questions have been added at various points throughout the survey there is a risk that responses to existing questions could have been impacted by the presence of the new questions. Some questions from previous waves have also been removed from the survey.
-
Some small changes to existing questions: These changes have been made to improve the quality of the data collected, and include changes such as adding in ‘don’t know’ options to allow respondents to answer more accurately. Direct comparisons to previous years data for questions have not been made.
-
A change in research partner: BMG were commissioned as a new research partner in 2023. Due to this change in research partner, there has also been a change in the panel providers that have been used. Although quotas have been used to ensure the sample is as representative of the population as possible, and a mix of panels have been used, each panel introduces their own inherent bias.
-
Likely change in weighting criteria: Although the survey results have been weighted to population statistics in previous years it was not clear what weighting criteria were used. Therefore, it was not possible to replicate the weighting scheme used previously.
Appendix
Untrusting and Uninvolved segment
| Age: |
Total |
Untrusting and Uninvolved |
| 16 - 34 |
30% |
22% |
| 35 - 64 |
48% |
42% |
| 65+ |
23% |
36% |
| Gender: |
Untrusting and Uninvolved |
| Male |
62% |
| Female |
38% |
| Contact with Charities: |
Total |
Untrusting and Uninvolved |
| Had contact |
79% |
74% |
| Donated/raised funds |
47% |
51% |
| Used a charity shop |
47% |
47% |
| Volunteered for a charity |
16% |
10% |
| Worked for a charity |
9% |
4% |
| Education: |
Total |
Untrusting and Uninvolved |
| Degree or above |
27% |
28% |
| Below degree |
67% |
63% |
| No qualifications |
6% |
9% |
| Ethnicity: |
Total |
Untrusting and Uninvolved |
| White |
85% |
88% |
| Mixed |
2% |
1% |
| Asian |
7% |
8% |
| Black |
3% |
1% |
| Other |
2% |
2% |
| Media Consumption: |
Total |
Untrusting and Uninvolved |
| TV/Online |
69% |
71% |
| Radio |
23% |
24% |
| Tabloids |
23% |
27% |
| Broadsheet |
34% |
42% |
| None of the above |
6% |
4% |
| Trustee Consideration: |
Total |
Untrusting and Uninvolved |
| Yes |
13% |
9% |
| Maybe |
35% |
29% |
| No |
44% |
57% |
| I already am |
1% |
1% |
| Don’t know |
7% |
5% |
Disengaged Donors segment
| Age: |
Total |
Disengaged Donors |
| 16 - 34 |
30% |
29% |
| 35 - 64 |
48% |
47% |
| 65+ |
23% |
24% |
| Gender: |
Disengaged Donors |
| Male |
50% |
| Female |
49% |
| Contact with charities: |
Total |
Disengaged Donors |
| Had contact |
79% |
79% |
| Donated/raised funds |
47% |
54% |
| Used a charity shop |
47% |
47% |
| Volunteered for a charity |
16% |
13% |
| Taken part in a charity campaign |
14% |
13% |
| Education: |
Total |
Disengaged Donors |
| Degree or above |
27% |
31% |
| Below degree |
67% |
67% |
| No qualifications |
6% |
2% |
| Ethnicity: |
Total |
Disengaged Donors |
| White |
85% |
86% |
| Mixed |
2% |
1% |
| Asian |
7% |
7% |
| Black |
3% |
1% |
| Other |
2% |
3% |
| Media consumption: |
Total |
Disengaged Donors |
| TV/Online |
69% |
73% |
| Radio |
23% |
22% |
| Tabloids |
23% |
22% |
| Broadsheet |
34% |
34% |
| None of the above |
6% |
5% |
| Trustee consideration: |
Total |
Disengaged Donors |
| Yes |
13% |
13% |
| Maybe |
35% |
35% |
| No |
44% |
45% |
| I already am |
1% |
2% |
| Don’t know |
7% |
5% |
No Interest segment
| Age: |
Total |
No Interest |
| 16 - 34 |
30% |
42% |
| 35 - 64 |
48% |
47% |
| 65+ |
23% |
10% |
| Gender: |
No Interest |
| Male |
59% |
| Female |
40% |
| Contact with charities: |
Total |
No Interest |
| Had contact |
79% |
65% |
| Donated/raised funds |
47% |
23% |
| Used a charity shop |
47% |
26% |
| Volunteered for a charity |
16% |
12% |
| Attended an academy/faith school or university |
6% |
10% |
| Education: |
Total |
No Interest |
| Degree or above |
27% |
23% |
| Below degree |
67% |
66% |
| No qualifications |
6% |
9% |
| Ethnicity: |
Total |
No Interest |
| White |
85% |
82% |
| Mixed |
2% |
2% |
| Asian |
7% |
10% |
| Black |
3% |
3% |
| Other |
2% |
1% |
| Media consumption: |
Total |
No Interest |
| TV/Online |
69% |
50% |
| Radio |
23% |
17% |
| Tabloids |
23% |
20% |
| Broadsheet |
34% |
26% |
| None of the above |
6% |
13% |
| Trustee consideration: |
Total |
No Interest |
| Yes |
13% |
11% |
| Maybe |
35% |
34% |
| No |
44% |
43% |
| I already am |
1% |
1% |
| Don’t know |
7% |
11% |
Trusting Helpers segment
| Age: |
Total |
Trusting Helpers |
| 16 - 34 |
30% |
26% |
| 35 - 64 |
48% |
49% |
| 65+ |
23% |
25% |
| Gender: |
Trusting Helpers |
| Male |
43% |
| Female |
56% |
| Contact with charities: |
Total |
Trusting Helpers |
| Had contact |
79% |
82% |
| Donated/raised funds |
47% |
52% |
| Used a charity shop |
47% |
52% |
| Volunteered for a charity |
16% |
17% |
| Taken part in a charity campaign |
14% |
16% |
| Education: |
Total |
Trusting Helpers |
| Degree or above |
27% |
27% |
| Below degree |
67% |
68% |
| No qualifications |
6% |
5% |
| Ethnicity: |
Total |
Trusting Helpers |
| White |
85% |
86% |
| Mixed |
2% |
2% |
| Asian |
7% |
7% |
| Black |
3% |
4% |
| Other |
2% |
2% |
| Media consumption: |
Total |
Trusting Helpers |
| TV/Online |
69% |
74% |
| Radio |
23% |
25% |
| Tabloids |
23% |
23% |
| Broadsheet |
34% |
35% |
| None of the above |
6% |
5% |
| Trustee consideration: |
Total |
Trusting Helpers |
| Yes |
13% |
14% |
| Maybe |
35% |
35% |
| No |
44% |
43% |
| I already am |
1% |
1% |
| Don’t know |
7% |
8% |
Trusting Receivers segment
| Age: |
Total |
Trusting Receivers |
| 16 - 34 |
30% |
48% |
| 35 - 64 |
48% |
41% |
| 65+ |
23% |
10% |
| Gender: |
Trusting Receivers |
| Male |
50% |
| Female |
50% |
| Contact with charities: |
Total |
Trusting Receivers |
| Worked for a charity |
9% |
14% |
| Attended a charity-run facility |
9% |
13% |
| Received food/financial etc help |
8% |
11% |
| Used other charity services |
8% |
11% |
| Attended an academy/faith school or university |
6% |
12% |
| Education: |
Total |
Trusting Receivers |
| Degree or above |
27% |
27% |
| Below degree |
67% |
68% |
| No qualifications |
6% |
5% |
| Ethnicity: |
Total |
Trusting Receivers |
| White |
85% |
83% |
| Mixed |
2% |
3% |
| Asian |
7% |
7% |
| Black |
3% |
5% |
| Other |
2% |
2% |
| Media consumption: |
Total |
Trusting Receivers |
| TV/Online |
69% |
67% |
| Radio |
23% |
23% |
| Tabloids |
23% |
26% |
| Broadsheet |
34% |
31% |
| None of the above |
6% |
7% |
| Trustee consideration: |
Total |
Trusting Receivers |
| Yes |
13% |
15% |
| Maybe |
35% |
42% |
| No |
44% |
37% |
| I already am |
1% |
1% |
| Don’t know |
7% |
6% |
