How the Charity Sector Is Losing the Next Generation
Image Credit | Unsplash | Miles Peacock
Why does it matter if 94% of charity databases are white?
Lack of diversity in charity databases creates a significant impact problem.
Why does it matter if charity databases lack diversity?
Why does it matter when the voluntary sector has less ethnic diversity in its workforce than the private or public sectors?
Why does it matter that the average age of charity trustees is 65-69, and 54% are retired?
Why does it matter when middle-class voices dominate the narrative, the solution designs and leadership?
Why does it matter?
The reasons are many, varied and urgent.
But let’s take a step back and consider why charities exist first.
Charities exist to improve the lives and conditions of people, animals, nature and the planet.
To fill the gaps in what governments and the market choose not to or are unable to provide. To meet those needs without profit and exploitation.
And as a physical and compassionate manifestation of human empathy and morality.
At their best and most effective, charities bring people together in communities of shared interests to co-create and design new solutions to enduring issues that blight the human condition. But…
But data shows that in 2026, many UK charities are still not inclusive of all parts of society
They are governed (mostly) by retired, white people.
They are staffed by (mostly) middle-class white people with little to no lived experience of the causes they are working for.
They are supported by predominantly white people (a 12% skew relative to census proportions).
So why does it matter?
When charities lack diversity, they can't fully understand the problems they're trying to solve or design solutions that actually work for the communities they serve. There are missed opportunities everywhere.
Imagine if you can a world where charities truly reach all parts of society. Where everyone feels welcome, valued and can contribute no matter where they come from, how wealthy they are and what customs they practice.
Most (if not all) supporters, charity employees, and trustees want more radical solutions to the causes they support.
Any CEO of a homelessness charity would make themselves redundant tomorrow if you could present them with a lasting credible solution to the ongoing disgrace of people living in inadequate or no housing at all. I have no doubt about that. But at the moment, we are bound by the art of the possible.
Does a lack of lived experience lead to a lack of urgency to find radical solutions to issues most of us have never experienced? It’s a question worth posing. If we’re funded by, supported by, governed by and led by people with similar backgrounds and life experience - how many perspectives are we missing? And what is the cost of that monoview?
Further, if we’re products of an education system and society rooted in empire, racism, classism, ableism and misogyny, what stake do we have in dismantling those systems? Do we have a stake in perpetuating them? Can we convince ourselves that Turkeys do indeed vote for Christmas? I’m not sure that’s a credible point of view.
Why does diversity matter for charity fundraising?
When charity fundraising teams lack diversity, campaigns often fail to resonate with younger and more diverse supporters. Many charities are struggling to attract ‘younger’ supporters. Millennials, Gen Z, Gen A - you name them - we can’t recruit them.
And data show that younger generations are - all across the globe - more mixed in sexuality, ethnicity, disability, and neurodiversity.
If our Fundraising teams are staffed predominantly by white middle-class people, should we be surprised if we then don’t create campaigns that are rooted in the culture, beliefs and values of a deeply mixed demographic of people?
Further, if our trustee boards and leadership teams, looking at investment cases, often signing off topline campaign plans and setting key strategies, are staffed by people even further away from the target demographic, are we really surprised we’re not hitting the mark?
This has deep financial consequences. If we can’t attract Gen Z and Millennials at scale to support our causes, our finances will drop off a cliff.
Why does lack of diversity in charities affect impact?
But the consequences go far beyond finances. When we design solutions without the communities we're meant to serve, we don't just miss opportunities - we actively cause harm. Lack of diversity in charity leadership and service design directly affects who benefits from charitable interventions - and who is harmed by them.
Take mental health services. Traditional interventions have been designed primarily around white, middle-class experiences of distress. They assume people have private space at home for therapy, can take time off work for appointments, and feel comfortable discussing emotions openly with strangers. They focus on individual resilience while failing to recognise that racism, discrimination, and economic insecurity are themselves causes of mental distress - not personal failings to be overcome.
The result? Black British people are significantly more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act and far less likely to access early intervention services. They may reach crisis point before getting help.
Services designed without their experiences in mind don't just fail to help - they can traumatise through forced treatment and reinforce exactly the systemic barriers that contributed to distress in the first place.
When charities lack diversity in their teams, their trustees, their lived experience - they design solutions that reflect only one way of living, one set of assumptions, one narrow view of what help looks like. And people suffer as a consequence.
How do we change?
Not with another strategy document.
Not with another working group to discuss the problem.
We've had enough thinking, enough reports, enough hand-wringing about the lack of diversity in our sector.
We start with action.
We start by asking the communities we serve what they actually need - not what we assume they need. Real audience research that goes beyond demographics and listens to lived experience, cultural context, and the barriers we've created and built.
We start with co-creation. Not consultation where we design solutions and then ask people what they think. True co-creation where communities are at the table from the beginning, shaping the questions we ask, the problems we prioritise, and the solutions we build together.
We start by giving up power. By recognising that those closest to the problems are closest to the solutions. By accepting that our middle-class, white-dominated perspective - however well-intentioned - is incomplete.
This isn't about ticking boxes or meeting quotas. It's about fundamentally rethinking who gets to decide, who gets to lead, and whose voices shape the future of our causes.
The communities we serve are already organising, already solving problems, already innovating. The question is: will we join them, or will we keep working for them while falling short?
The choice is ours. And it matters.
Further reading on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the charity and nonprofit sector
This is in no way exhaustive or ordered - it is a collection of resources you may find useful.
1. Community Centric Fundraising (website & community)
2. UNCHARITABLE YouTube Channel (great resource full of provocations and fresh thinking)
3. Fundraising While Black: Harm, Happiness, Healing
4. Decolonising Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance – Edgar Villanueva (2018)
6. Civil society upholds oppression. So, let’s fix it
7. Inclusion on Purpose: An Intersectional Approach to Creating a Culture of Belonging at Work