The Charity Commission says that public trust and confidence in charities is stable and quite high: so what?

Last month, the Charity Commission published its latest research on public trust and confidence in charities, which concludes that public trust and confidence in charities measures 6.5 out of 10.  

Only doctors, at 7.1, did better – whereas government ministers and MPs wallowed at the bottom with 3.4. In between and below charities were banks, with 5.9, police with 5.7, private companies with 5.0, local councils with 4.7, and newspapers with 4.0. The measure for charities has been roughly the same since 2020. 

What does it all mean? Even if we charity folk might wish to pat ourselves on the back, a heavy dose of scepticism about these headlines is in order. 

Pinches of salt 

For a start, one thing that the Commission’s research has clearly established over the years is that a large percentage of the public does not know what are, and are not, charities. In past years, when pressed to name charities, even a sample of thousands have come up with no more than about nine household names.  

People don’t know much about the multitudes of smaller, local charities. Their idea of charities often excludes whole huge categories such as faith, education, environment and conservation, arts and sports organisations. In 2016, when asked if they had received any services from a charity in the recent past, only 19% thought they had. When the same sample was shown an actual list of charities, that figure rose to over 90%. That knowledge gap constitutes a huge red flag when interpreting what the public thinks about charities. 

Secondly, when the index dipped to 5.7 for charities in 2016 and 5.5 in 2018, public trust remained steady among a substantial majority of respondents, especially those familiar with charities. It was the third or so of the sample who were least familiar with charities, whose trust and confidence were most affected by learning about a few specific charity scandals in the national media. If it was wrong to read too much into those dips, it would be wrong to read too much into subsequent years’ better news. 

Trust is related to expectations  

Thirdly, as the philosopher Onora O’Neill has repeatedly shown, “trust” exists in relation to expectations, and what we mean by it varies. So, trust in doctors relates to trust in their medical knowledge and disinterestedness, but I wouldn’t trust their use of my donations or political wisdom. My “trust” in my local council is affected by whether it’s run by my favoured political party or whether my bins are emptied efficiently. 

“Private companies” is such a vast and varied category that it’s near meaningless to attach a single measure of public trust to it. And the ordinary man or woman in the street, with a trust measure of 5.2, is so totally unknown that I have no idea what I am trusting them to do or say at all. So this comparative analysis of trust is to an uncomfortable extent comparing apples, pears and bananas. 

Encouragement to engage with government 

On the other hand, the Commission’s research series has been in the hands of a new research agency since 2023 and the latest analyses is more circumspect and limited in the conclusions it draws. It draws relatively more on focus groups that explore public attitudes in more depth. 

As we find ourselves engaging with a new Government and Legislature, and with needs and expectations rising all over the country, another interesting bit of data is worth mentioning. Charities’ involvement in political activity does not feature in the reasons focus groups give for low trust. On the contrary, “Acting as a voice for the people or causes it supports” is right up there with some of the most important reasons the focus groups give for backing charities. 

Finally, spare a thought for Ministers and MPs, with whom we hope to engage, with their miserable 3.4 trust rating. Some have not done themselves any favours by displaying poor standards, but the main reason for the low scores is surely the nature of their job. We charities focus on the particular needs and interests of our chosen cause, but politicians can’t do that.  

They have to address contradictory interests and be accountable to the whole electorate, suffer the party whip, and must make hideous choices and endure chronic frustration as they encounter endless obstacles. We need to understand and respect that rather than feel ourselves to be on a higher moral plane. 

Don’t miss the DSC Engage Conference, on Thursday 17 October! 

All of this important context is relevant to DSC’s timely Engage Conference on 17 October (which I shall have the privilege of chairing), where we will explore all aspects of the new government and parliament and hear from a range of experts. 

Let’s not allow our egos or any sense of self-righteousness be tickled by the results of the Charity Commission research, but let’s also be encouraged and resolved to use that voice, and engage with Government and Legislature, to the very best of our ability.  

And please do join us to discuss how on 17 October!