Research and analysis

Public trust in charities 2026

Published 8 July 2026

Applies to England and Wales

Prepared for the Charity Commission for England and Wales by BMG Research

Note: Where tables show year on year data, (+) indicates a significant increase in 2026 and (-) shows a significant decrease in 2026. Where tables show 2026 data amongst different subgroups, (+) indicates significantly higher than Total and (-) indicates significantly lower than the total.

Executive Summary

Trust in charities remains resilient

Overall trust has held steady at a high level since 2020, with 57% having high trust, and charities continue to outperform almost all other institutions. However, there has been a small rise in those with low trust in charities since 2024 (9% in 2024, 11% in 2026). Those with less contact with charities and lower awareness of the Commission are more likely to have low trust. This reinforces the link between visibility, understanding and trust.

Trust, engagement and giving form a virtuous (and vicious) cycle

High trust is associated with donating, volunteering and other forms of contact, while lower trust tends to be linked to disengagement or informal support (e.g. helping individuals directly). Those with high trust of charities, but who are not donating are still often supportive in other ways, whereas medium-trust groups are more likely to disengage due to affordability pressures. High trust is also correlated with higher frequencies of financial donation.

Money reaching the end cause remains the most important driver of trust

But perceptions that charities ‘make a real difference’ and act as a voice have grown in importance. This reflects a shift from a narrow focus on financial efficiency towards a broader expectation that charities demonstrate purpose, relevance and outcomes.

Tolerance for overheads exists, but only when impact and restraint are visible.

While focus group participants accepted that charities must invest in staff, fundraising and infrastructure, this acceptance was highly conditional. High CEO pay appears to be a focal symbol of mistrust, not just as a cost issue, but as a perceived misalignment with charitable values. Where overheads appear excessive or poorly justified, they can undermine confidence. Strong opposition to paying trustees also underscores a broader public expectation that charity roles should be values-based.

Financial pressures are suppressing giving, but concerns about value also have a role to play

The proportion using charity shops or taking part in charity campaigns has fallen this year. The cost-of-living crisis is the primary reason given for reduced donations, affecting both individual behaviour and perceptions of national giving trends. However, donations to local charities and causes with personal relevance are more likely to be protected as donors seek greater visibility of impact.

The proportion using charity services has fallen

For the first time since the pandemic, the proportion attending charity-run community facilities, using other charity services and receiving food, financial, medical or similar help has declined. This suggests an easing of pressure for some households. However, longer-term declines in the public assisting with campaigning, volunteering and some forms of giving indicate a narrowing base of ‘active’ supporters, increasing reliance on those with high trust and capacity to engage.

The Charity Commission’s presence reassures in principle, but there continues to be limited understanding of its role

Around half of the public are more likely to support charities after learning about the Commission’s role yet focus group findings reveal uncertainty about how charities are regulated in practice. This gap highlights a distinction between knowing the Commission exists and understanding what the Commission actually does and what its remit is.

Overall Trust in Charities

Overall trust remains in line with previous years.

Overall Trust in Charities over time (mean score):

	Mean scores
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
2022	6.2
2023	6.3
2024	6.5
2025	6.5
2026	6.5

N.b. 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).

Over half (57%) say they have high trust in charities while 1 in 10 have low trust, in line with 2025. Those with higher education and contact with charities continue to be more likely to trust charities.

Trust in charities (Scale):

	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026
Summary: High Trust (7 – 10)	51%	55%(+)	51%(-)	54%(+)	58%(+)	57%	57%
Summary: Medium Trust (4 – 6)	39%	36%(-)	38%	36%	34%	33%	32%
Summary: Low Trust (0 – 3)	10%	10%	11%	10%	9%	10%	11%

High trust in charities is higher among:

• those with a degree or higher (69%)
• socio-economic grade AB (69%)
• least deprived (63%)
• doing well financially (71%)

Having knowledge of the charity sector also increases high trust:

• heard of the Charity Commission (63%)
• high knowledge of the Charity Commission (80%)
• donated money to charity in the last 12 months (66%)

Trust in charities still ranks very high compared to other organisations, with only trust in doctors continuing to rank higher.

Trust in other organisations:

		Summary: Low trust (0-3)	Summary: Medium trust (4-6)	Summary: High trust (7-10)	Mean:
	Doctors	7%	24%	69%	7.1
	Charities	11%	32%	57%	6.5
	Banks	15%	34%	51%	6.2
	Police	21%	34%	45%	5.7
	Social Services	26%	41%	33%	5.1
	Ordinary man/ woman on the street	21%	49%	30%	5.1
	Private companies	23%	48%(-)	29%	5.1
	Local Council	34%(+)	39%(-)	27%	4.6
	Newspapers	41%	36%	23%	4.2
	Government Ministers	52%	31%	17%(+)	3.5
	MPs	53%	32%	15%	3.4

Drivers of Trust in Charities

Donations reaching the end cause remains the top selected driver of trust, but the charity making a difference and being a voice for those it supports have increased in importance.

Importance in whether to trust a charity or not:

	2025	2026
Most of the money raised is spent directly on the causes the charity supports	53%	55%
The charity makes a real difference to the people and communities that it serves by achieving its stated purpose	45%	51%(+)
It is easy to see how much the charity has raised, and how this money has been spent	39%	40%
That it operates to high ethical standards	30%	29%
The charity is a voice for the people or causes it supports	25%	27%(+)
That it keeps its staff, volunteers and people who use its services safe from harm	21%	21%
It is clear who runs the charity and is responsible for making decisions	21%	20%
The charity listens to feedback from their supporters and people that use their services	18%	18%
The people that run the charity have a range of different backgrounds and skills	15%	13%(-)

Participants in focus groups stressed the importance of money going the end cause, and agreed the “end cause” is what directly benefits those the charity supports (from qualitative research).

• What “donations being spent on the end cause” means:
  • Participants understood “end cause” spending as anything directly benefiting those in need/the cause, not administration or overheads. For animal charities, this meant things like food, veterinary care, litter, heating, shelter facilities, or rehoming support. For health charities, it meant medical care, research, equipment, or hospice services.
  • Quote: “I would say the end cause is the actual help… the actual help reaching people or communities in need. Things like providing food to the hungry, paying for medical treatments, funding education, building shelters, or delivering clean water… basically the direct impact that improves someone’s life.”
• Importance of money going to the end cause:
  • Money reaching the end cause was extremely important to most people. Many said it was “paramount” that donations go to the end cause rather than administrative costs. Participants explained that when they give money, they expect it to make a difference to the cause, not be spent on salaries and admin costs.
  • Some said they want to know how much of their pound reaches the cause, similar to a “GoFundMe” style breakdown. Others noted that previous media stories about low proportions reaching the cause had made them far more cautious of charity donations.
  • Quote: “I don’t want it to go to anything else… I don’t want it to go on admin costs and salaries. I want it to go to the actual nitty‑gritty of trying to find something that helps.”
  • Quote: “I like to know the breakdown… like you get on GoFundMe where it shows exactly where the money is going.”

Participants understood overheads were necessary, but felt they should be limited where possible (from qualitative research).

Overheads

• Participants generally accepted some overhead spending is necessary. They acknowledged the need for costs that directly support service delivery and operational costs:
  • Spend on staff that deliver the charity services
  • Fundraising and advertising to raise awareness and future income
  • Investment in technology that keeps donor data secure
  • Basic administration (e.g. finance)
• Participants also noted that acceptable overhead levels vary by charity size and complexity, as larger organisations often require more infrastructure.
• Overall, there was a preference for keeping overheads as low as possible without undermining impact, with many favouring around 10% or less, though some accepted 20–25% as realistic for larger or more complex charities.
• Quote: “Fundraising raises awareness for next year… you have to put a certain portion into fundraising… If you stop spending money on fundraising, outreach, and administration costs, then you wouldn’t have anything to run the next year.”
• Quote: “Ideally most of the donation, around 70 to 80%, should go directly to helping people or funding projects. The remaining 20 to 30% can be used for necessary overheads like staff and administration, as long as it’s reasonable and transparent.”

Concerns about duplication in overheads

• A strong theme across the groups was the belief that many charities are duplicative, leading to unnecessary overheads and wasted donor money. Participants felt that there are multiple charities working on the same issue but each have their own overhead costs that take away from the end cause. Some argued that charities tackling similar causes could merge or combine infrastructure, so donors’ money could be used more efficiently on overheads and more reaches the end cause.
• Quote: “There seems to be quite a proliferation of charities… how much of that… is just duplicated and lost that could actually be going to those end causes.”
• Quote: “There are so many charities all doing the same thing… all that is being multiplied by admin costs.”
• Quote: “Why couldn’t you have animal charities where you’ve got shared infrastructure costs?”

High CEO pay was seen to detract from money going to the end cause, and could deter the public from donating money (from qualitative research).

Some see CEO pay as excessive and inappropriate for a charity:

• Several participants perceived high CEO salaries in large national charities as “appalling” and “ridiculous”, arguing that charity CEOs should not be earning figures comparable to the private‑sector. They felt this level of pay contradicts the values of a charitable organisation.
• Quote: “The average CEO for a [large] charity gets the best part of £200,000 a year, which is appalling in my eyes, nobody should be working for a charity getting paid that level of money.”
• Participants said that if a CEO earns a high salary it would reduce their willingness to donate, and some would stop donating entirely.
• Quote: “It would affect my willingness to donate, as does the knowledge that CEOs get paid that fat‑cat salary because you do feel like you’re funding their BMW or whatever.”
• Participants also felt some charity leaders could behave irresponsibly and still earn a high salary which increased their scepticism in charity salaries and reduced their trust in how charities were using donations.

Salaries were seen as diverting money away from the end cause:

• Participants believed that large CEO salaries take funds away from frontline services and the beneficiaries of the charity.
• While they acknowledged that charities have overheads and need to be efficient, they were not happy with the idea of charities paying similar salaries to businesses.

Private sector rates are seen to be unacceptable:

• Participants expected charities to hire leaders who are motivated by the charity cause, not the salary.
• Quote: “The best people for the job wouldn’t accept that salary they’d care about the charity and do it for less.”
• A few participants suggested CEOs could be paid a lower salary with bonuses tied to performance (e.g. hitting fundraising goals). Others felt CEOs should earn much less than private sector equivalents as a matter of principle.
• A small minority recognised that leadership roles are demanding and require skill but still believed salaries should be reasonable and reflect charitable values. They felt senior leaders should accept lower pay if they are genuinely committed to the cause.
• Quote: “I think they should be committed to the cause and therefore know they’re only going to earn 75% of what they would in the private sector.”

Most think charities they know about are making a real difference, as well as acting as a voice for the people or causes they support. 

The extent charities they know about are…:

	Very much so	To some extent	Only a little	Not at all	Don’t know	Summary: Happening to at least some extent
Making a real difference for the people and communities they serve by achieving its stated purpose	30%	40%	18%	3%	9%	70%
Acting as a voice for the people or causes it supports	30%	39%	19%	4%	9%	68%
Keeping their staff, volunteers and people who use their services safe from harm	28%	39%	15%	3%	15%	67%
Operating to high ethical standards	26%	39%	18%	4%	12%	66%
Spending most of the money raised directly on the causes the charity supports	27%	36%	20%	6%	11%	63%
Listening to feedback from their supporters and people who use their services	17%	45%	22%	4%	12%	62%
Making it easy to see how much the charity has raised, and how this money has been spent	23%	34%	24%	9%	10%	57%
Ensuring the people that run the charity have a range of different backgrounds and skills	17%	39%	22%	5%	17%	56%
Making it clear who runs the charity and is responsible for making decisions	21%	33%	24%	10%	12%	54%

Generally, positive perceptions of charities increased in 2025, and have held stable in 2026.

Happening to at least some extent in the charities they know about…

	2024	2025	2026
Making a real difference for the people and communities they serve by achieving its stated purpose	69%	70%	70%
Acting as a voice for the people or causes it supports	66%	68%	68%
Keeping their staff, volunteers and people who use their services safe from harm	61%	67%	67%
Operating to high ethical standards	61%	66%	66%
Spending most of the money raised directly on the causes the charity supports	57%	64%	63%
Listening to feedback from their supporters and people who use their services	59%	61%	62%
Making it easy to see how much the charity has raised, and how this money has been spent	53%	57%	57%
Ensuring the people that run the charity have a range of different backgrounds and skills	57%	56%	56%
Making it clear who runs the charity and is responsible for making decisions	49%	55%	54%

Supporting charities

Donating goods, money and using a charity shop are the most common forms of contact with a charity, while far fewer volunteer, raise funds or take part in a charity campaign.

Charity contact:

Donated goods	50%
Donated money	48%
Used a charity shop	44%
Volunteered for a charity	15%
Raised funds for a charity	15%
Taken part in a charity campaign	12%
Attended a place of worship	11%
Attended a charity-run community facility	8%
Received food, financial, medical or similar help from a charity	7%
Worked for a charity	6%
Used other charity services or facilities	6%
Attended an academy school, faith school or university	5%
Other	1%

Those more likely to have had contact with charities tend to be:

• Female
• Aged 25-34
• Educated to degree level or above
• High trust in charities
• Have heard of the Charity Commission

This aligns with data in the latest UK Giving Report from Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) where 50% of UK adults say they donated money in 2024 and 2025 CAF UK Giving Report 2026.

For the first time since Covid we have seen a fall in the proportion using charity services, although some forms of charitable giving continue to decline:

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%
2025	48%	46%	16%	15%	7%
2026	70%*	44%(-)	15%	12%(-)	6%

*In 2026 ‘donated money’, ‘donated goods’ and ‘raised funds’ were asked as separate codes. Results are not directly comparable to previous years. 2026 results: donated money (48%), donated goods (50%), raised funds (15%).

Receiving from charities over time:

	Attended a charity- run community facility (e.g. club or community centre)	Used other charity services (e.g.  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%
2025	10%	8%	9%
2026	8%(-)	6%(-)	6%(-)

Of those that donated money, the majority donated monthly or every few months. Higher trust in charities is correlated with more frequent donation.

Frequency of donating money:

Weekly	4%
Monthly	39%
Every few months	30%
Annually	9%
Only at certain times of the year (e.g. Christmas, Ramadan)	10%
Less often than once a year	5%
Don’t know	2%
Prefer not to say	1%

73% are donating at least every few months

Frequency of donating money by levels of trust in charities:

	High trust (7-10)	Medium trust (4-6)	Low trust (0-3)
Weekly	4%	4%	3%
Monthly	44%	33%	17%
Every few months	30%	29%	36%
Annually	8%	11%	11%
Only at certain times of the year (e.g. Christmas, Ramadan)	9%	13%	10%
Less often than once a year	3%	6%	15%
Don’t know	1%	4%	5%
Prefer not to say	1%	1%	2%

The main reasons for donating money were believing in the cause and the impact the charity makes, but knowing a charity was registered plays a part.

Reasons for donating money:

I believe in the cause that this charity supports	54%
The charity makes a positive difference	45%
The charity does important work in the UK	37%
I knew it was a registered charity	27%
The charity tackles an issue that directly affects me or the people close to me	25%
The charity does important work in the area where I live	21%
A friend or family member asked me to (e.g. as a sponsorship or gift)	13%
I saw or heard an effective advert or appeal	11%
The charity does important work overseas	11%
I donated because it was Christmas	11%
I donated for religious reasons	10%
The fundraiser was persuasive or admirable	9%
I donated because it was Ramadan	3%
Other	3%
Don’t know	3%

The main reason for not donating money in the past year was not being able to afford to, although a sizeable minority prefer to support in other ways.

Reasons for not donating money:

	Among those that didn’t donate money	Among total population
I couldn’t afford to donate	40%	21%
I prefer to support family or friends directly	18%	9%
I give in other ways (e.g. volunteering, fundraising)	17%	9%
I didn’t see a cause I wanted to donate to	11%	6%
I don’t trust charities	9%	5%
I was not asked to or prompted to donate	9%	5%
I don’t donate to charities	9%	4%
I don’t have time to donate	6%	3%
I find fundraisers off putting	5%	3%
Other	4%	2%
Don’t know	9%	5%

In the latest CAF report, 28% did not donate because they are not interested in charities, higher than 9% that reported that do not donate to Charites CAK UK Giving Report 2026.

Having a personal connection was the main motivation for donating to charity, but adverts and certain times of the year also motivated people to give (from qualitative research).

Motivations for donating:

1. Personal connection: Participants were most likely to donate when a cause touches participants or their families directly, particularly around illnesses or experiences with local hospitals and hospices. Others were moved by experiences with animal charities, especially when they had adopted a pet  or volunteered locally and “saw the situation physically”, which cemented long‑term loyalty.
2. Advertising and appeals: Participants were motivated by advertising, social media posts and emotional campaigns. Examples included adverts showing neglected animals or end‑of‑life care, or social media content about mental health or suicide. Adverts prompted donations even when the cause wasn’t personally connected.
3. Time of the year: Those with Christian beliefs described giving more at Easter and Christmas because these times symbolise showing love and generosity. Those with Islamic beliefs said donating is encouraged and expected during Ramadan so their giving increases at this time. Others without religious beliefs were also motivated by the Christmas season as it is a period of joy and they were prompted to think of people who had less than them.
4. Heightened emotion: Participants were motivated to donate in response to emergencies and crises (wars, floods, international appeals), although some were cautious and checked charities carefully first. Participants were also motivated to make donations related to personal life events, such as grief-related dates.

Donating money vs. time:

• Personal connection was also the main motivator for donating time to a charity, but secondary motivations differed from giving money.
• Personal interest was a secondary driver for donating time. Some participants took on sponsored challenges because they enjoyed the activity and they were able to put their skills to good use. Others volunteered so they could see the impact the charity was making and provide more practical help (e.g. volunteering at an animal shelter).
• However, not all participants could donate time. Many felt they didn’t have the time to volunteer or fundraise, and some felt uncomfortable asking for sponsorship from others and would rather donate their own money.  Instead, participants would find other ways to support charities like reposting appeals online.

Financial pressure was the main reason participants had reduced their donations (from qualitative research).

How participants giving habits have changed:

• Most participants had reduced their charitable giving in recent years for the following reasons:

1. Cost of living pressures: less disposable income and needing to cut back on non-essential spend. Some choose to shop in charity shops instead of donating money.

2. Change in personal circumstances: retiring or having children so having less money available to spend on charity.

3. Feeling disillusioned with large charities: concerns over high CEO pay, admin costs and not seeing a visible impact from their donation.

4. Perceived increased pressure to donate: Charities phoning asking for an increase in their donations leading to participants cancelling altogether.

• Only those who had seen a large increase in their salary have increased their giving.
• Where participants donated more irregularly they hadn’t noticed a change in their charitable giving as their donations tend to be more reactive.

How participants choose which charities to keep supporting:

• Participants mainly prioritise causes with personal significance. This included:
  • Charities linked to family/friend/personal health issues
  • Animal charities they have personally interacted with (e.g., adopting a pet)
  • Local organisations where they can “see the impact”
• Participants also favour charities they perceive to be transparent and trustworthy:
  • Are transparent with finances
  • Provide regular updates or newsletters showing clear impact
  • Have a good reputation
• Participants were most likely to cut donations to large national charities. This was due to low visibility of impact and perceptions they get lots of donations from others.
• A smaller group said they’d rather give smaller amounts to all their current charities than stop supporting any of them outright.
• Quote: “I would possibly donate small amounts to a range of charities I already do, rather than cut anyone out.”

Participants also hypothesised on why donations have fallen nationally. Their suggested reasons closely aligned with their own reasons for reducing donations; cost-of-living pressures, possible erosion of trust and confidence in charities, public fatigue from constant appeals, feeling overwhelmed by the number of charities, and competing priorities and wider pressures.

Non-regular donors felt they couldn’t donate regularly due to financial pressures, but did find other ways to support charities (from qualitative research).

Barriers to regular donating:

• Most who didn’t donate regularly did infrequent one-off donations. Reasons for not donating regularly echoed earlier concerns about charities and reasons for reducing donations:
  • Financial pressures and competing priorities: Several participants said that the current cost of living makes it difficult to commit to even small regular donations.
  • Not feeling donations have much impact: Many worried that their money would not reach the end cause and therefore not make a difference. Participants spoke about charities being inefficient, wasting resources, or paying high executive salaries.
  • Too many charities and ‘charity fatigue’: Participants felt overwhelmed by the number of charities, TV adverts, doorstep fundraisers and street collectors, describing the experience as being “bombarded” and “off putting”. Some questioned why there are so many charities working on the same issues, and whether this leads to duplication and wasted admin costs.
  • Not wanting to be tied in: Some simply didn’t want to be signed up to a monthly direct debit, preferring to give when something personal comes up rather than committing long‑term.

Other ways participants support charities:

• Most who didn’t donate regularly tried to support charities in other ways:
  • Donating items such as books, food, clothes, or toys to charity shops or local families
  • Shopping in charity shops
  • Volunteering time at local charities, libraries, athletics clubs or community organisations
  • Fundraising participation such as taking part in fundraising nights like pub quizzes. “it makes it more fun donating when everyone enjoys themselves.”
  • Helping neighbours or local people informally
• Participants said these forms of support felt more accessible than donating, and also benefited them as well, for example buying an item, decluttering their home or going to a social event with friends. They didn’t have to worry about a financial commitment.

Of those that volunteered/family volunteered, 4 in 10 had long term involvement with the charity. Long term volunteer involvement has remained stable with 2025 (41%).

Length of volunteer involvement:

	Among those who have volunteered	Among total population
Long-term (e.g., ongoing or for a year or more)	42%	6%
Short-term (e.g., a few weeks or months)	34%	5%
One-off (e.g., a single event or project)	28%	4%
Don’t know	2%	0%
Other	2%	0%

Over a third heard about the chosen charity though friends or family, with one in five hearing about them from each social media, TV, radio or newspaper adverts and the charities website.

Where they heard about the charity:

Through friends and family	35%
Social media	19%
TV, radio or newspaper advert	19%
Charity website	19%
At an event	14%
Online advert	12%
Through work or school	10%
Through a place of worship	10%
Other	11%
Don’t know	8%

Charities campaigning either makes participants more likely to support the charity or makes no difference, though more say it makes no difference compared to 2025.

Impact on campaigning support:

	2025	2026
It makes me more likely to support the charity	44%	41%(-)
It makes no difference	47%	51%(+)
It makes me less likely to support the charity	3%	3%
Don’t know	6%	5%

Analysis:

• The impact of charities campaigning on support differed by the following:
  • Age: 16 – 34-year-olds more likely to support (56%), 65+ are more likely to say it makes no difference (70%)
  • Country: Respondents in England more likely to support (42%) compared to those in Wales (36%)
  • Education: those degree educated are more likely to support (54%), those with no qualifications more likely to say it makes no difference (58%)
  • Donated money: those that have donated are more likely to support (46%), those who have not donated are more likely to say it makes no difference (53%)
• For those that are less likely to support a charity after it campaigns, they are more likely to be in Wales (5%) and have no contact with charities (6%).

Charities in the news

A third have seen something in the news about charities recently, a decline since 2025. Most coverage remains around fundraising, but fewer mention charity scandals.

Heard/read/seen charities in the news recently:

	2024	2025	2026
Seen charities in the news recently	34%	35%	33%(-)
Not seen charities in the news recently	58%	57%	59%(+)
Don’t know	8%	8%	8%

What has been heard/seen about charities in the news (coded responses):

	2024	2025	2026
Requesting donations (fundraising)	11%	10%	11%
Positive perception of charities	4%	7%	8%
Charities helping vulnerable people/people in need	8%	8%	7%
Struggling charities (lack of funding/donations)	5%	6%	6%
Ads/information about charities in general	10%	10%	6%(-)
Ads/information about specific charities	4%	2%	4%(+)
Cancer Research	4%	2%	3%
Misuse of money/wasting money	4%	7%	2%(-)
Charities/UN actions in Gaza/Palestine/Israel	5%	2%	2%
Captain Tom foundation	3%	5%	0%(-)
Don’t know/can’t remember	14%	14%	16%

New comments this wave included high CEO pay, perceived politicisation of charities, charities struggling due to the cost of living and charities involving celebrities.

Despite fewer seeing charities in the news, where it has been seen it has left the public feeling more positive about charities

How what they have seen has changed opinions of charities:

	2024	2025	2026
It made me a lot more positive about charities	23%	28%	31%
It made me a little more positive about charities	25%	25%	26%
It made no difference to my opinion of charities	34%	30%	31%
It made me a little more negative about charities	9%	8%	5%
It made me a lot more negative about charities	6%	6%	5%
Don’t know	2%	2%	3%
Summary: Positive	48%	53%	56%(+)
Summary: Negative	15%	15%	10%(-)

Awareness and knowledge of the Charity Commission

Around half continue to have heard of the Commission and a fifth claim to know the Commission well.

Awareness of the Charity Commission:

	Have heard of the Commission	Know the Commission well
2020	53%	19%
2021	54%	19%
2022	50%	18%
2023	48%	17%
2024	47%	19%
2025	49%	21%
2026	48%	20%

Qualitative analysis:

• Participants’ awareness of the Charity Commission varied. Some had heard of it in name only and were unsure what it did, while others were moderately aware, describing it as a regulator similar to Ofsted, Ofgem or Companies House. A few participants were already familiar with its role, especially those who had checked whether charities were registered before donating. For those who donated less frequently, they were less aware of the Charity Commission.
• Participants generally believed the Charity Commission’s role was to oversee charities, make sure they are properly run, and ensure they file accounts and comply with rules.

Fewer have heard, read or seen something about the Commission recently, driven by fewer high-profile charity scandals.

What they have seen recently about the Charity Commission (coded responses):

	2024	2025	2026
Charity regulation/monitoring	8%	8%	14%(+)
It is good/important (general positive)	11%	16%	12%
Recently heard about them	12%	9%	9%
They do charity investigations/checks	9%	10%	7%
They support charities	4%	1%	4%
Help people in need	5%	6%	4%
Appointment of new Chair/leadership changes	0%	0%	3%
Register charities	2%	2%	3%
Fundraising activities/donations	3%	3%	3%
Captain Tom charity investigation	5%	13%	1%(-)
Don’t know/can’t remember	19%	19%	18%
Other	10%	12%	15%

This wave there have been new mentions of SORP 2026 changes, budget increase, guidance on digital/online governance and high-profile investigations.

21% of those aware of the Charity Commission heard/read/saw something about them recently, a decline from 2025 (25%).

Qualitative analysis:

• Some saw the Commission as responsible for investigating wrongdoing but were unsure how it did this. For some, the Commission’s role felt vague or distant, with participants saying they only hear about it when a scandal hits the news.

The impact the Charity Commission has on trust

Half are more likely to support charities after learning about the role of the Charity Commission, in line with previous waves.

Likelihood to support charities after learning about the Charity Commission:

	2024	2025	2026
A lot more likely	13%	16%	17%
Somewhat more likely	36%	34%	34%
Neither	47%	45%	44%
Somewhat less likely	1%	2%	2%
A lot less likely	1%	2%	1%
Don’t know	1%	2%	2%
Summary: More likely	50%	49%	50%

However, participants from the focus groups needed to understand more about the Commission before they felt it would increase their trust in the charity sector (from qualitative research).

Does the Charity Commission increase trust in charities?

• Participants generally felt that the Charity Commission existing does not automatically increase trust. Although most had heard of it, they lacked clarity about how it monitors charities, what criteria it uses, how often checks happen, and whether all charities are reviewed or only those reported for wrongdoing.
• Quote: “We know of the Charity Commission, but we don’t know what they do, how they do it, or the basis upon which they do it… we don’t know how often they look at these people, whether it’s yearly, five‑yearly, ten‑yearly, or if they send random checkers.”
• This uncertainty left many unsure how effective the Commission really is as they weren’t sure if all charities were being monitored and how closely.
• Quote: “People don’t know how they look at these charities or how often… so you don’t know what standards they’re being held to.”
• Some also compared the Commission to other regulators that they felt were ineffective. Due to the lack of clarity around the role, they questioned whether it prevents waste, duplication, or inefficiency across the sector.
• As a result, participants said that the regulator alone does not boost trust. Instead, they wanted clearer evidence of what the Commission checks, how investigations work, what actions are taken when issues are found and how often charities must demonstrate compliance.
• They felt without monitoring being more transparent and visible, it is difficult to rely on the Charity Commission as a meaningful assurance that a charity is well‑run or that donations are used properly.

What could the Charity Commission do to increase trust in charities?

• Participants wanted to see more of how the Commission monitor charities:
  • Publish how charities are monitored, what criteria is assessed, what wrongdoing has been found, and what penalties have been issued
  • More visible enforcement, including shutting down or penalising charities that misuse funds or fail to meet reporting requirements
• However, participants did say they were unlikely to go seek this information themselves. They didn’t want to view long reports the  Commission published, instead they wanted something more easily accessible. Participants discussed public‑facing information, such as a simple, recognisable hygiene‑rating‑style score that quickly shows whether a charity is well‑run, transparent, and efficient.
• Across all groups, participants talked about how much money is wasted in the charity sector. They were frustrated by the amount of duplication, with many charities doing the same thing and competing for the same donations. Several felt the Commission could take a role in reducing this inefficiency, for example by discouraging the creation of multiple charities with the same purpose or even encouraging mergers to cut duplication and admin costs. They generally didn’t recognise that this was beyond the Commission’s remit.
• Quote: “Surely they should be saying we already have four charities doing this, don’t make another one.”

The recent increase in positive sentiment towards the Commission based on news coverage has been sustained in 2026.

How what they have seen has changed opinions of the Charity Commission:

	2024	2025	2026
It made me a lot more positive about the Charity Commission	30%	45%	45%
It made me a little more positive about the Charity Commission	36%	31%	32%
It made no difference to my opinion of the Charity Commission	24%	19%	17%
It made me a little more negative about the Charity Commission	4%	2%	3%
It made me a lot more negative about the Charity Commission	3%	1%	1%
Don’t know	2%	1%	1%
Summary: negative	7%	4%	5%
Summary: positive	67%	76%	77%

Register of Charities

The charity register is still where the majority would go to verify if a charity is real, but there has been a decline since 2025.

How they would check a charity was real:

	2024	2025	2026
Summary: Charity register*	55%	56%	52%(-)
Look at the charity’s website	44%	44%	45%
Look for a charity number	33%	32%	31%
Contact the Charity Commission	26%	22%	23%
Look for factual information on third party websites	22%	22%	23%
Contact the charity directly	21%	20%	21%
Search for information about the good cause through television, radio, newspapers and magazines	18%	18%	18%
Search for information about the good cause shared on social media	18%	19%	20%
Ask family or friends	17%	16%	17%
Look for a badge	10%	10%	10%

Participants in focus groups had lots of ways they checked charities before deciding to donate to them (from qualitative research).

1. Check if the charity is real. Participants would check a charity is real by looking it up online, checking the register, or checking it has a charity number. a.Quote: “It’s easy nowadays to look online and find out if it’s [a charity] regulated and where money is going.”
2. Reputation and brand familiarity. Participants would consider how well-known charities are, how well they personally knew the charity and if it had a good reputation a.Quote: “With the big names, you just tend to trust them anyway…just going by the name.”
3. Look for proof of impact. Participants would look to see that the charity was making a difference by looking at newsletters or social media posts a.Quote: “I always want to know the breakdown of the activities done on a monthly basis…if truly the organisation is actually doing what they portray themselves to do.”
4. Charity size and spend. Some participants would stay away from charities where they feel their donation would be swallowed up by admin, or that running costs are high a.Quote: “I check the salaries and…negative reports about the charity…you really want to make sure that your resources are genuinely going to help the cause that you want to help.”

Knowledge of the register has declined after an increase in 2025, however the proportion accessing the register of charities has remained stable.

Knowledge of the register of charities:

	2024	2025	2026
A lot	6%	8%	8%
A little	31%	31%	28%(-)
Heard of, but don’t know anything about it	34%	35%	34%
Not heard of	28%	25%	29%(+)
Don’t know	1%	1%	1%
Summary: A lot/little	37%	39%	36%(-)
Summary: heard of but don’t know/heard of	62%	60%	63%(+)

Accessed the register of charities:

Yes	14%
No	84%
Don’t Know	3%

Access is in line with 2024 and 2025 (13% and 14%)

Trustees

Participants were largely against trustees being paid, but some did see some value in a small payment (from qualitative research).

Participants mostly knew what trustees were and their role. They believed trustees oversaw the activities of a charity, such as finances, decisions, and setting priorities. They also believed they act as a layer of governance ensuring money is spent correctly and there is no mismanagement of funds.

• Most participants were against the idea of trustees being paid for the following reasons:
  • As much money as possible should be going to the end cause
  • Trustees should be motivated by the charity’s cause without getting pay
  • Charities should not be run like a corporation where everyone is paid for their time
  • Paying trustees may deter people from donating
  • The public volunteer their time to charities without pay so trustees should be treated the same way
• While most did not want trustees to be paid a salary, participants did think it was fair that trustees were paid expenses so they were not out of pocket.
• Quote: “If they want the public to volunteer and not be paid, they should be in the same position themselves.”

• Quote: “It needs to be voluntary otherwise it’s just another job with charity money paying for it.”

• Some participants were more open to trustees being paid, although they thought pay should be capped around £5,000 - £10,000. Reasons in favour included:
  • Trustees do valuable work as they ensure the charity sector is run properly
  • A small salary or bonus could improve motivation for trustees and therefore improve the performance of the charity
  • Payment could help attract more skilled trustees
  • Payment could attract a wider range of people as currently only those who can afford to give their time for free are trustees
• Quote: “Give them a little stipend, a bonus… it encourages them and keeps the whole organisation running smoothly.”
• Quote: “If they’re bringing real expertise and giving lots of time, maybe a small payment is fair.”

Participants said paying trustees may impact their willingness to donate to charities (from qualitative research).

• For the most part, if trustees started receiving a salary it would reduce participants’ willingness to donate to charity:
  • There was a feeling that donations would be funding salaries instead of causes
  • There was concern that the charity becomes “too corporate” and loses the values that makes it a charity
  • Trustee pay could indicate charities have poor priorities and are no longer prioritising the right things
• Quote: “That’s the sort of thing that makes me stop donating it feels like my money is being swallowed up.”
• Quote: “I wouldn’t want to give if I thought the trustees were getting paid.”
• Quote: “If donations are going into wages, that puts me off.”

• Quote: “If the money’s going to the trustees, I’d rather give directly to the people who need it.”

• There were some participants who said it would not affect their  willingness to donate, but only IF the following conditions were met:
  • The payment was small
  • The charity was transparent about the payment and the amount
  • Trustees raised more money than they cost, or ran the charity very efficiently so more money went to the end cause
• There were a few participants where the charity meant so much to them due to a personal connection that nothing could stop them donating
• Quote: “If he raised four times his salary and made the charity better, maybe then he’s worth it.”
• Quote: “If the charity is run well and money gets where it needs to go, I don’t mind as much.”

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, from 2024 to 2026. Impact measures were updated in 2025.

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. 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 17 participants overall. Each group had a mix of genders, ages, ethnicities and regions. The focus groups were split into those who had donated money to charity and not donated money to charity.

Fieldwork dates

Quantitative fieldwork took place between the 6th and 9th of January and the focus groups took place between the 12th and 19th of March.

Number of completes

4681 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. Additionally completes were collected in Wales to give larger base sizes for analysis, but down weighted to be in line with regional targets.

Comparability Over Time

It is important to note that the survey contents, and its administration have undergone several changes in 2024. 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.