Why are charity boards still so unrepresentative?
UK charity boards remain overwhelmingly white, retired, and wealthy. We examine why trustee diversity has barely shifted since 2017 and what the evidence says about fixing it.
The debate in brief
Charity boards in England and Wales do not look like the people charities serve. The Charity Commission and Pro Bono Economics survey published in April 2025, based on 2,432 trustee responses, found that 92% of trustees are white, the median age is 65 to 69, just 1% are aged 30 or under, and over half are retired. These figures have barely changed since the Charity Commission's 2017 Taken on Trust research. The sector has spent years acknowledging the problem and almost no time solving it. What remains genuinely contested is why: whether the root cause is the voluntary model, recruitment practices, structural exclusion, or a combination of all three, and whether the fixes proposed so far are adequate.
Quick takeaways
| Question | Short answer |
|---|---|
| How diverse are charity boards? | 92% white, median age 65-69, just 8% from ethnic minority backgrounds versus 17% of the UK population (Charity Commission, 2025). |
| Has diversity improved? | Gender has shifted modestly (36% female in 2017 to 43% in 2025), but ethnic and age diversity have barely moved. |
| What is the main barrier? | Recruitment practice — one in three trustees are personally invited by the chair, creating self-replicating boards. |
| Would paying trustees help? | Possibly, but housing associations that pay boards still have significant diversity problems (National Housing Federation, 2023). |
| Do quotas work? | No UK charity regulator has mandated quotas, and there is no domestic evidence base to draw on. Norway's corporate board gender quotas achieved numerical targets but did not change underlying pipeline issues. |
| Is this a legal risk? | It can be. Boards that lack relevant lived experience may make decisions that fail the people they are meant to serve, raising questions about whether trustees are meeting their duty of care. |
The arguments
The case that recruitment is the real problem
The diversity gap is not primarily about who can afford to volunteer. The Charity Commission's 2025 research found that informal networks dominate trustee recruitment: 33% of trustees were personally invited by the chair, 27% were already known to the charity, and just 6% came through advertised vacancies. Getting on Board, the charity that works to open up trustee recruitment, has argued consistently that boards reproduce themselves in their own image because they recruit through word of mouth and personal contacts. If the existing board is older, white, and professional, the next generation of trustees will be too.
The evidence supports this. ACEVO's 2020 Pay and Equalities Survey found that 94% of charity CEOs are white, and boards tend to recruit from the same professional networks that produce those CEOs. The strongest objection is that changing recruitment alone may not be sufficient without also addressing the structural factors, including unpaid service, meeting times, and cultural norms, that make trusteeship unattractive or inaccessible to underrepresented groups.
The case for paying trustees
If the voluntary model systematically excludes people who cannot afford to give their time for free, then the model itself is a diversity barrier. This argument gained renewed traction after the 2025 Charity Commission data showed that people from working-class backgrounds make up just 29% of trustees against 39% of the working population. Paying trustees, or at minimum compensating for loss of earnings, would remove a financial barrier that disproportionately affects younger people, carers, and those on lower incomes.
The counterargument is that payment alone does not fix diversity. The housing association sector, where over 80% of the largest 60 organisations pay board members, still has boards where 59% of members are aged 55 and over and just 44% are female (National Housing Federation, 2023). Payment may help at the margins, but it does not address the recruitment pipeline or cultural factors that determine who gets asked.
The case for structural intervention
Some voices in the sector argue that voluntary, incremental approaches have been tried for decades and have demonstrably failed. The numbers have not moved. This position holds that without some form of structural intervention, whether quotas, mandatory diversity reporting, or regulatory expectations tied to registration, boards will continue to self-replicate.
International precedents exist. Norway introduced mandatory 40% gender quotas for public company boards in 2006, achieving near-full compliance within three years. However, research by Matsa and Miller (2013) found that the quotas changed board composition and led to fewer workforce reductions and higher labour costs, but did not resolve underlying pipeline issues about who enters and progresses through leadership careers. The strongest objection is that imposed targets can produce tokenism, where diverse trustees are recruited to fill a number rather than genuinely empowered to govern. The Charity Commission has shown no appetite for mandatory diversity requirements, preferring guidance and encouragement.
The evidence
The most comprehensive data comes from two Charity Commission surveys seven years apart. In 2017, the Taken on Trust research established a baseline showing trustees were overwhelmingly white, older, and from professional backgrounds. In 2025, the Commission and Pro Bono Economics survey of 2,432 trustees found almost identical demographics: 92% white (versus 83% of the general population), 8% from ethnic minority backgrounds (versus 17% nationally), median age 65-69, and just 1% aged 30 or under. Gender is the one area of meaningful change: 43% of trustees are now female, up from 36% in 2017. On socioeconomic background, 29% of trustees come from working-class backgrounds compared with 39% of the working population.
The recruitment data is revealing. One in three trustees were personally invited by the chair, and just 6% came through an advertised vacancy. This is not a pipeline problem. Getting on Board reported in 2023 that demand for its trustee matching service outstrips the supply of openly advertised roles, and that candidates from underrepresented groups are disproportionately represented among those actively seeking board positions.
A surprising finding: the nfpResearch survey of 1,000 UK adults (March 2026) found that lack of pay was not a leading barrier to trusteeship. Only 17% said they could not afford to give their time. Concerns about workload, legal responsibility, and not having relevant skills all ranked higher.
Current context
The Charity Commission's 2025 trustee survey has given the diversity debate its most robust evidence base in years, and the findings have been widely covered in sector media. At the same time, the Commission has shown no inclination to mandate diversity requirements, instead updating its CC11 guidance to encourage better recruitment practices and expense reimbursement.
Getting on Board has partnered with the Association of Chairs to promote open advertising of trustee roles. The Charity Governance Code, updated in November 2025, includes a stronger principle on equality, diversity, and inclusion, but compliance is voluntary and there is no enforcement mechanism.
The broader financial environment is working against progress. The employer NIC increase, estimated at an additional cost of around 1.4 billion pounds across the sector, is forcing charities to cut costs. Board diversity initiatives, never generously funded, are among the first things to lose priority when budgets tighten.
Last updated: April 2026
What this means for charities
The evidence points overwhelmingly to recruitment practice as the most actionable lever. If your board fills vacancies by asking the chair who they know, you will get the same kind of trustee you have always had. Advertising roles publicly, using platforms like Getting on Board, and actively approaching networks beyond the usual professional circles are low-cost changes that the evidence suggests would make a material difference.
Expense reimbursement remains underused. Many charities technically allow it but do not actively offer it, creating a de facto financial barrier. Covering travel, childcare, and care costs should be standard practice, not a favour.
Boards should also examine meeting culture. Daytime weekday meetings exclude anyone in full-time employment. Hybrid attendance, evening or weekend options, and realistic time commitments signal that the board is serious about welcoming people with different life circumstances.
Finally, track and publish your board demographics. If you cannot say how diverse your board is, you cannot credibly claim to be working on it.
Common questions
Why has trustee diversity not improved?
The simplest explanation is that recruitment practices have not changed. The Charity Commission's 2025 data shows that 33% of trustees are personally invited by the chair and only 6% are recruited through advertising. Boards that recruit through personal networks will reproduce their existing composition. Without deliberately changing how trustees are found, demographic shifts will not happen.
Are there legal requirements for board diversity?
There is no legal requirement for charity boards in England and Wales to meet specific diversity targets. The Charity Governance Code recommends that boards reflect the communities they serve, but the Code is voluntary and has no enforcement mechanism. Equality legislation applies to charities as employers, but trusteeship is not employment.
Would quotas work for charity boards?
There is no UK evidence to draw on. International evidence from Norway's corporate board gender quotas shows that mandated targets can achieve numerical representation quickly, but research by Matsa and Miller (2013) found that while quotas changed corporate behaviour, they did not resolve the underlying pipeline issues about who enters and progresses to leadership roles. The risk of tokenism, where diverse trustees are recruited to meet a number rather than genuinely shape governance, is a serious concern.
What is the Taken on Trust report?
Taken on Trust was the Charity Commission's 2017 research into the demographics, skills, and motivations of charity trustees in England and Wales. It established the baseline data showing that boards were overwhelmingly white, older, and from professional backgrounds, data that the Commission's 2025 follow-up survey showed had barely changed.
How can small charities improve board diversity?
Advertise trustee roles rather than relying on personal networks. Use free platforms such as Getting on Board to reach candidates outside existing circles. Actively offer expense reimbursement for travel and childcare. Hold meetings at times that do not exclude people in full-time work.
Key sources and further reading
Trusteeship: a positive opportunity — Charity Commission and Pro Bono Economics, April 2025. The most comprehensive recent survey of trustee demographics, covering 2,432 responses on age, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic background, and recruitment routes.
Taken on Trust — Charity Commission, 2017. The baseline study on trustee demographics that the 2025 survey effectively replicated, showing minimal progress over seven years.
ACEVO Pay and Equalities Survey — ACEVO, 2020. Data on charity CEO demographics showing that 94% of charity leaders are white, reflecting the same pipeline that produces trustee candidates.
Getting on Board annual reports — Getting on Board, ongoing. Evidence on trustee recruitment patterns and the demand from underrepresented groups for board positions.
Fewer than one in five people against paying charity trustees — Third Sector, March 2026. Coverage of the nfpResearch survey of 1,000 UK adults on attitudes to trustee remuneration and barriers to trusteeship.
National Housing Federation board diversity data — National Housing Federation, 2023. Comparative data from the housing association sector showing that paying board members has not resolved diversity challenges.
The Charity Governance Code — Charity Governance Code Steering Group, updated November 2025. The voluntary code of practice for charity boards, including principles on equality, diversity, and inclusion. The 2025 edition was the most significant update since 2017.
Matsa and Miller, "A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from Quotas" — American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2013. Research on the effects of Norway's mandatory gender quotas for corporate boards.
Trustee expenses and payments (CC11) — Charity Commission, April 2025. Updated guidance on trustee expenses and payment, including the Commission's position on voluntary trusteeship.