Penny Wilson is an inclusive charity governance consultant.

New findings from nfpResearch challenge the charity sector’s long-standing resistance to the idea of paying trustees.

In my view, there are perfectly reasonable arguments against paying trustees. Budgets are tight and some charities are simply too small to have the funds. Conflicts of interest need careful handling. Payment also demands proper governance processes and securing the appropriate permissions. These aren’t trivial concerns.

However, what this research challenges is the assumption that the public would erupt in outrage at the idea of paying trustees.

nfpResearch polled 1,000 members of the public:

• Only 16% believed trustees should never be paid
• Just 35% correctly identified trustees as volunteers
• The remainder assumed trustees were already paid or were unsure.

Importantly, this did not seem to translate into diminished trust. The most common terms associated with trustees included “committed”, “kind-hearted” and “community-minded”.

The Charity Commission states “Being a trustee is generally a voluntary role. This is what makes the charity sector unique and promotes trust and confidence in charities. As a result, external reaction to paying trustees is often negative.”

This research suggests that assumption deserves re-examination.

Another argument I hear frequently is that paying trustees would not solve our trustee recruitment woes. Yet the loudest proponents of this claim are already trustees. As people who are serving as trustees, we’re simply the wrong people to ask about barriers to trusteeship. Those who are serving are not best placed to identify the barriers that prevent others from stepping forward.

The research suggests payment could make a difference for some groups:

• 17% said they could not afford to volunteer as a trustee
• 18% said payment would motivate them to become a trustee
• Among 16–24 year olds, this rose to 37%. Among 25–34 year olds, it was 26%.

By contrast, only 4% of those aged 65+ said payment would motivate them.

Of course, the research also shows that payment is not the only lever available. There are other ways to improve the diversity on trustee boards. These include:

Advertising trustee roles openly: We recruit behind closed doors. Recent research found that 6% of trustees found their role through an advert, compared to more than 50% who were personally invited to become a trustee. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that 19% of respondents reported that a barrier to becoming a trustee was never seeing charities advertising for trustees.

Paying out-of-pocket expenses: 19% said expenses would help them become a trustee. Paying reasonable out-of-pocket expenses like travel and childcare is allowable and should be standard practice.

Providing training and support: this was the highest ranked motivator, with 32% saying that training and support would motivate them to become a trustee. Yet most trustees receive little training or support.

These are practical, achievable ways to attract more people to trusteeship. They are neither radical nor controversial - and yet they remain far from universal practice.

If we are serious about widening access to our boards to strengthen governance, we should reconsider our assumptions about trustee payment and let evidence, not inherited anxiety, guide the debate.

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 Felicia Willow (Interims for Impact)

• Read the Trustee research response from Liz Lowther (Association of Chairs)