When we first explored public understanding of charitable trusts and foundations in the UK, the findings were stark. Despite their central role in funding charities, few people could explain what these organisations are or what they do. But how does this picture look elsewhere?

With fresh data from the US (August 2025) and Canada (December 2024), we can now compare levels of awareness, understanding and sentiment across three major charitable markets. The results show that even where awareness is higher, engagement remains limited – and that this lack of understanding could be shaping perceptions in ways that matter for the whole sector.

What does the data show us?

Awareness and understanding

Across all three countries, charitable foundations remain relatively unknown to the general public.

• United Kingdom: In December 2024, only 23% of the UK public said they had heard of charitable trusts and foundations and understood what they are. A further 45% had heard of them but didn’t know what they do, while 25% had never heard of them at all.
• United States: Awareness is stronger, with 45% saying they understand what charitable foundations are and 25% aware but unsure of what they do. Around 20% said they had never heard of them.
• Canada: Public knowledge is lowest. Only 15% said they understood what charitable foundations are, 27% had heard of them but didn’t know what they are and 46% had never heard of them.

Although US citizens are more likely to feel familiar with foundations, recognition still remains limited in absolute terms. The difference is one of degree rather than kind.

Name recognition

Low understanding is reflected in naming data.

In both the UK and US, around two-thirds of people (65–67%) could not name a single foundation when asked.

In the US, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was most frequently mentioned (13%), followed by the Ford Foundation (6%) and the Rockefeller Foundation (3%).

In Canada, 86% could not name any foundation. Most of the names offered were charities rather than philanthropic funders – for example, the Canadian Red Cross (2%), SickKids and UNICEF.

These figures underline the low public profile of foundations across all three countries, even those distributing substantial sums of money each year.

Understanding sentiment

Awareness is not the same as approval. Our findings show that higher understanding does not necessarily lead to more positive perceptions:

• In the UK, 51% believe trusts and foundations function to the benefit of society, while 33% think they primarily serve the interests of wealthy individuals or corporations.
• In the US, 52% see foundations as benefiting society, but 43% believe they function for the benefit of the wealthy – a higher proportion than in the UK.
• In Canada, where awareness is lowest, 36% believe foundations benefit society and 33% believe they serve wealthy interests.

Across all three contexts, high levels of “don’t know” responses indicate widespread uncertainty and disengagement. In Canada in particular, the most agreed-with statement was “I would like to know more about charitable foundations”, supported by 42% of respondents.

This suggests an important point: low familiarity does not equate to apathy. There is curiosity – but it is largely unmet.

What these patterns tell us

The picture across the UK, US and Canada is remarkably consistent. Foundations are influential funders, yet their public visibility is minimal. Even in the US, where philanthropy has a long history and foundations make up a significant proportion of charitable giving, only a small fraction of the population can name even one.

In all three countries, understanding is higher among more affluent or professionally engaged groups. This points to an equity issue: the people most likely to know about foundations are often those already close to the sector. Meanwhile, community groups, grassroots organisations and smaller charities may be missing out on potential funding simply because they do not know these sources exist.

From an attitudinal perspective, the data highlights a fragile narrative. When people lack clear information about how foundations operate, they are more likely to assume that they serve private rather than public interests. That perception can shape how the sector as a whole is viewed.

Implications for charities and funders

Low public and sector awareness of foundations matters for several reasons:

• Access and fairness: Limited knowledge can reinforce inequalities in who applies for and receives funding.
• Trust and transparency: If the public perceive foundations as secretive or elitist, confidence in their motives may weaken.
• Talent and engagement: Foundations that remain invisible may struggle to attract diverse staff or trustees who reflect the communities they serve.
• Narrative risk: Without proactive communication, misconceptions may fill the gaps left by low visibility.

These are not abstract concerns. The research indicates that millions of people in each country have little or no understanding of where a significant share of charitable funding originates. That disconnect affects not only foundations themselves but also the wider ecosystem of charities that depend on them.

Recommendations for the sector

Based on our findings, we suggest a number of practical steps for both foundations and charities:

• Integrate education into fundraising training. Equip charity staff and volunteers with knowledge about what foundations do and how to engage them.
• Encourage transparency and storytelling. Foundations should communicate their aims, grants and impact more openly, helping to build public trust.
• Collaborate with umbrella bodies. Sector networks can play a vital role in raising awareness and sharing good practice.
• Invest in accessible communication. Use plain language to explain how foundations work and why they matter to communities.
• Listen and respond. Data shows that curiosity exists. Meeting that curiosity with clear, relatable information could strengthen understanding and goodwill.