Felicia Willow is the Director of Interims for Impact, a community of interim leaders and specialists supporting charities through transition, gaps and crisis. A former human rights lawyer and experienced interim CEO, she has led and advised charities on governance, strategy and crisis for more than a decade. She is also co-host of For Impact: The Charity Podcast, supported by the Benefact Group, whose episode “Public service or private privilege? What is really behind the resistance to paying Trustees?” led to the research referenced here, conducted by nfpResearch.
There’s something almost dystopian in some embedded sector reactions to the ‘paying Trustees’ debate, which this research directly challenges.
Those powerful voices often argue as if the public has a clear, informed, strongly held view – that Trustees must not be paid because that’s the basis on which our sector’s public confidence depends.
The problem is that the public does not, in fact, have a clear understanding of what Trustees do.
This research highlights how limited awareness of trusteeship really is. Only 40% even know what a Trustee is, and only 35% recognise that they are unpaid.
This is not a marginal gap in knowledge. It is a fundamental lack of understanding about the people responsible for governing charities.
We know how much parts of the media love to provoke outrage about charity pay, particularly at senior levels. Against that backdrop, this research suggests the public is more measured than this inflammatory narrative implies.
When respondents were asked about paying Trustees in specific circumstances, the picture was far more nuanced. Only 16% thought that there were never occasions to justify paying Trustees, and this was more likely to come from those who were older and are more likely to be wealthier and already well represented in the sector.
The sector has, in effect, built a set of constraints around itself based on a misreading of public sentiment.
This is not just about Trustee pay. Public misunderstanding of our sector undermines much of what we’re trying to do.
It can be seen in attitudes towards senior salaries, in the persistence of the overheads myth, and in the way parts of the corporate world continue to view the charity sector as less rigorous or less professional. It shows up inside boardrooms, where Trustees themselves sometimes bring these assumptions into governance discussions, shaping decisions in ways that are not always aligned with the realities of running complex organisations or those focussed on impact instead of profit.
There is a tension here that is rarely addressed directly. The sector positions itself as open, values-led, and accessible, yet continues to rely heavily on unpaid governance at the highest level. This shapes who is able to participate. It privileges those with the time and financial security to contribute without compensation, and excludes those who cannot.
It also, arguably, contributes to the lack of expectations on Trustees - they don’t have to bring any understanding or experience of the cause or the sector, they don’t have to be trained or have any relevant qualifications.
This is often justified as part of the moral fabric of the sector. But that framing deserves more scrutiny than it usually receives.
Our regulator exists to promote public trust in the sector. But if it doesn’t itself understand that trust, how can it promote it?
When we see outgoing Commission chairs declaring that charities are filled with ‘lovely people doing lovely things’, we see public trust being undermined, not promoted.
When we see Commission CEOs declaring that voluntary trusteeship is the ‘lynchpin of the public's trust in Charity’, we see public trust being misrepresented, not promoted.
At present, there is a reluctance to explain cost, complexity, and expertise in a way that challenges simplistic narratives. That reluctance has consequences. It allows misunderstandings to persist, and those misunderstandings are then cited as a reason not to change.
If anything, this research creates space for a more honest conversation about what good governance requires and how assumptions directly impact our work. It also creates an opportunity to address the wider issue of how the sector is perceived, and how those perceptions shape everything from funding decisions to governance practice.
Until that happens, the debate about paying Trustees will continue to be constrained by assumptions that are neither well evidenced nor particularly helpful.
Get the full picture:
Read nfp co-MD Tim's write-up of the Trustee research: The public’s understanding and perception of trustees
Read the Trustee research response from Penny Wilson (Governance Consultant)
Read the Trustee research response from Liz Lowther (Association of Chairs)