Trust, Confidence, and Gaps: What UK and US Data Say About Nonprofit Governance
- Helen Vaterlaws
- Jul 31
- 6 min read
Updated: Aug 4
UK–US evidence from 2025, translated into proportionate, board-ready practice.
Trustees often work out of sight giving time, judgement and expertise so charities can deliver. I’ve lived the highs and lows on both sides of the table; late nights juggling family commitments and a stack of board papers on one side, keeping services afloat and explaining trade‑offs with limited time and imperfect data on the other. As boards adopt AI for faster briefs, minutes and risk summaries, the basics matter more. What’s unclear now may simply be amplified with automation.
That’s why the 2025 trust metrics matter more than ever. They show real strengths while highlighting familiar gaps. None of this questions effort or intent; it signals a need for practical, human‑centred governance calibrated to how decisions really happen. Without calibration, AI is just as likely to overlook blind spots than close them.
Quick Links — Jump to What Matters
The Signal Beneath the Headline Numbers
In 2025, both the UK Charity Commission and the US Independent Sector released major trust‑and‑governance studies. Despite different question wording and contexts, the patterns are strikingly consistent making this a good moment for shared learning.
In the UK, around 57% of people report high trust in charities (~10% low trust), keeping charities among the most trusted institutions. Similarly, 57% of Americans report high trust in nonprofits, higher than any other sector, while trust in wealthy philanthropists is lower at 29%.
Scepticism appears to increase when donations are entangled with politics. In the US, learning that nonprofits receive significant government funding reported reduced high‑trust scores. However, confidence rises when organisations transparently show how funds reach intended causes, how decisions are made, and how accountability operates, findings echoed in the UK trust report.
UK trustees report very high overall confidence (99%), with slightly lower confidence in managing finances (89%) and safeguarding (91%). Understanding of legal responsibilities remains patchy: only 57% recognise the board’s joint duty to file accurate regulatory information. Nonetheless, trustees maintain strong confidence in the regulator (85% trust it to uncover wrongdoing, and 92% believe it will deal with issues appropriately) creating conditions that support clear, rules‑aligned practice, while highlighting areas to close proactively.
Together, these findings offer a clear brief: make decisions legible, show clearly how money flows, and align governance to real‑world constraints.
Note: UK and US figures are directionally comparable but reflect differently worded questions and sampling methods.
What Most Boards Are Not Watching…..Yet
The next evolution is AI-native governance: continuous decision tracking, auto-prompted policy reviews, and regularly updated public snapshots of funding and key decisions. Most foundational elements already exist in common tools. The work now is embedding these systematically, proportionately, and with human ease in mind. A practical start: concise decision logs, scheduled policy-review prompts, and lightweight, category-level funding snapshots published with a short lag.
Why This Matters Now
Demand is intensifying. As traditional income stalls, boards must rapidly redesign delivery while safeguarding continuity of care.
Decisions are accelerating. Governance based on memory or goodwill alone can’t handle today’s complexity and pace.
Trust is steady yet fragile. Sector scandals quickly cross geographic and digital borders, amplifying scrutiny.
Boards are already adapting. Recent UK research shows many organisations have changed operations, anticipate further change, and are seeking new funding. Expectations are rising for governance that is swift, accurate, and visible.
Signals to watch (2025–2027)
Expect audiences to reward regularly updated, aggregate funding views, short public decision summaries for material choices, and simple donor‑safeguards that show how the organisation prevents harm. Boards that scan participation and influence patterns as routinely as finance will improve challenge quality and retention.
Guardrails: publish aggregates only, avoid personal or special‑category data, apply a publishing lag, name a data owner, AI drafts with human oversight.
Even with clean systems, governance falters if only a few voices shape the room.
Social Glue Without Clique Risk
Informal bonds help boards move quickly and speak candidly. The same bonds can harden into in‑groups that silence dissent and narrow options. These dynamics rarely appear in minutes; they shape who speaks first, who frames choices, and what never reaches the agenda.
Nearly half of UK trustees spend time together socially. The benefits are real for candour and retention, but there are risks of exclusivity if voice isn’t actively designed for. In one committee I was involved with, three voices dominated. A simple round‑robin for first responses and time‑boxed challenge rounds lifted contributions from newer and quieter members, surfaced a better reporting approach, and reduced habit‑driven steering.
How to spot it: decisions pre‑cooked offline, repeated deference to the same few voices, sensitive items always ‘out of time.’
Practical moves
Rotate chairing of agenda items.
Use round‑robin first responses; schedule a 5‑minute challenge round per major decision.
Quarterly, scan who is influencing which calls and who is consistently silent.
Healthy social glue still needs clear rules; the next risk is assuming guidance will live in people’s heads.
Guidance Is Not Optional
Regulators provide clear expectations. Yet boards relying solely on institutional memory will inevitably drift, policies age, conflicts go unrecorded, and risks multiply. These gaps are fixable.
Practical moves
Translate lengthy guidance into clear triggers: simple one-page go/no-go checklists for common decisions (campaigning, reserves, conflicts).
Schedule policy reviews visibly (safeguarding, finance, conflicts annually), assigning clear owners and noting changes.
Keep a concise decision log for significant choices (decision, rationale, risks, recusals, review date).
Clarity around governance rules matters, particularly in shaping your organisation’s public voice.
Campaigning as a Relevance Test
Fewer than a quarter of UK charities campaign, often because it feels unrelated to purpose. Yet if your mission addresses systemic causes underlying frontline issues, advocacy can become central rather than peripheral.
Practical moves
Clearly map connections from services → systems → outcomes. If advocacy aligns with your charitable purpose, it may be worth exploring.
Pre-approve language linking advocacy to clear outcomes and beneficiary impact.
Consistently follow local regulations (UK Charity Commission; US 501(c)(3)) regarding campaigning activity, particularly during election periods.
Even with clear roles established, operational friction remains a common and often overlooked governance risk.
Operational Friction Is a Nonprofit Governance Risk
Routine banking updates, contract approvals, and onboarding seem trivial until delays disrupt payroll or service delivery. Two in five UK trustees report banking issues; updating signatories is the top concern. Boards don’t run day-to-day operations, but must ensure organisational resilience under pressure.
Practical moves
List critical operational processes (bank signatories, payroll, beneficiary payments, incident escalation, data access).
Quarterly, monitor performance and log any exceptions clearly.
Assign trustee sponsors to each critical process to oversee and unblock issues.
Maintain concise, monitored standard operating procedures for key processes like signatory changes.
None of this requires heavy tooling just consistent, human-centred routines and strong nonprofit governance processes.
For Sector Leaders and Advisors
This is an architecture problem more than a training one. Tools and AI help only when grounded in how boards actually work. Aim for governance that is humane and high‑fidelity: transparent where it counts, adaptive under pressure, and honest about what it cannot yet see.
If You Want to Locate Your Blind Spots Fast, Start Here
Which decisions in the last year would be hard for a new trustee to trace from paper to outcome?
When did you last review conflicts of interest, and how are recusals recorded?
How many routine actions rely on a single person’s memory?
Where is campaigning mission-critical, and where does it distract?
Which operational processes would stall if one person left tomorrow?
Who never speaks first in meetings, and why?
Which pieces of guidance and policy have you embedded into workflow rather than filing away?
Worried this sounds like more work?
You’re not alone. The goal isn’t to do more.
It’s to make what you already do visible, valued, and sustainable.
Explore our consultancy support options or drop us a message to start a conversation.
Sources: Public Trust in Charities 2025, Charity Commission for England & Wales; Research with Trustees 2025, Charity Commission for England & Wales; Trust in Nonprofits & Philanthropy, 2025 Independent Sector
AI note: Any AI examples are illustrative. Follow your organisation’s data-protection policies and keep personal or special-category data out of third-party tools.
