Should charity trustees be paid?
The UK's 170,000 registered charities depend on unpaid trustees, but critics argue voluntary boards exclude younger, less wealthy, and more diverse candidates. We examine the evidence on both sides.
The debate in brief
England and Wales have roughly 170,000 registered charities overseen by more than 900,000 trustees, almost all of whom serve without payment. The Charity Commission regards voluntary trusteeship as fundamental to public confidence in charity, and charity law reflects that position: trustees may only be paid in limited, authorised circumstances.
Critics argue this creates boards that are disproportionately white, retired, and wealthy, shutting out the people charities exist to serve. Charity Commission research published in 2025 found the median trustee age is between 65 and 69, only 8% are under 44, and 92% are white. Advocates for reform say paying trustees would widen the pool and professionalise governance. Defenders of the status quo say it would erode the public trust that makes charities distinctive, and that the evidence from sectors that do pay board members is far from conclusive.
| Question | Short answer |
|---|---|
| Are trustees usually paid? | No — voluntary service is the legal default in England and Wales. |
| Can trustees ever be paid? | Yes, but only under specific statutory authorisations, such as Section 185 of the Charities Act 2011. |
| Does paying trustees improve diversity? | Evidence is mixed: housing associations that pay boards have not resolved their own diversity challenges. |
| Can trustees claim expenses? | Yes — reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses (including travel and childcare) is permitted without special authorisation. |
| What does the Charity Commission say? | That voluntary trusteeship is the "lynchpin of public trust in charity" and must be actively guarded. |
The arguments
The case for paying trustees
Charity boards do not look like the UK population, let alone the communities most charities serve. If the voluntary principle is producing boards where just 1% of trustees are aged 30 or under (Charity Commission and Pro Bono Economics, 2025), then the principle is failing on its own terms. Paying trustees would remove a structural barrier for people who cannot afford to give their time for free, including working-age professionals, carers, and people from lower-income backgrounds.
The argument goes further than diversity. Charities now manage complex services, multi-million-pound budgets, and significant regulatory obligations. Charity trustees carry legal responsibilities comparable to non-executive directors in the corporate sector, yet the voluntary model assumes these responsibilities can be met by people fitting governance around their day jobs or retirement hobbies. New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) has argued that the Charity Commission should invite charities to make the case for remunerating board members where it would improve governance, rather than actively discouraging the practice.
The strongest objection to this position is cost. Most charities operate on tight budgets, and diverting funds to trustee pay rather than frontline services is a hard case to make to donors.
The case for voluntary trusteeship
The Charity Commission's position is unambiguous. David Holdsworth, the Commission's CEO, told the Trustee Exchange conference in April 2025 that "voluntary trusteeship is the lynchpin of public trust in charity, and we must guard it fiercely." The updated CC11 guidance, published the same month, reaffirms that trusteeship is a voluntary role and that this is what makes the charity sector distinctive.
The argument is not merely traditional. Unpaid trustees signal to the public that those governing charities are motivated by mission, not personal gain. Andrew Purkis, writing in Civil Society in March 2025, framed this as a social contract: the public confers tax advantages and special status on charities in return for understanding that they are run by people who are "in it for love, not for self-interest or financial reward." Paying trustees risks breaking that contract.
On the diversity question, defenders of the voluntary principle point out that expense reimbursement, including transport and childcare costs, is already permitted without special authorisation. Holdsworth has argued that "voluntary service has proven to be no barrier to diversity," pointing to progress on gender balance (43% of trustees are now female, up from 36% in 2017) and suggesting that the real barriers are inadequate recruitment practices, not the lack of a fee.
The middle ground
Charity law already permits payment in specific circumstances. Section 185 of the Charities Act 2011 allows trustees to be paid for providing goods or services to their charity, provided the payment is reasonable and the board has determined it to be in the charity's best interests. Trustees can also be compensated for loss of earnings in some cases. The question is whether these existing exceptions are sufficient, or whether a broader shift is needed.
Some have proposed a tiered approach: maintaining the voluntary default for most charities while allowing larger organisations with complex governance needs to make a case for remuneration. This mirrors how housing associations have moved, where over 80% of the largest 60 now pay their board members, with average chair remuneration just under £18,000 per year (Grant Thornton, undated).
The evidence
The most comprehensive recent data comes from the Charity Commission and Pro Bono Economics research published in April 2025, based on a survey of 2,432 trustees conducted in July-August 2024. The headline figures on demographics are stark: 92% of trustees are white (compared to 83% of the general population), 8% are from ethnic minority backgrounds (compared to 17% nationally), and fewer trustees have disabilities (17%) than the wider population (24%). Over half of trustees are retired, and those from working-class backgrounds make up just 29% of trustees against 39% of the working population.
On recruitment, the same research found that one in three trustees were invited to join directly by the chair, while only 6% of trustee recruitment came from advertising. This suggests that informal networks, not just the voluntary principle, are a major driver of who ends up on boards.
Perhaps the most surprising finding comes from a 2026 nfpResearch survey of 1,000 UK adults (conducted January 2026, published March 2026). Only one in five members of the public said trustees should remain unpaid, meaning the sector's attachment to voluntary trusteeship may be stronger than the public's. However, the same survey found that lack of pay was not a leading barrier to trusteeship: only 17% said they could not afford to give their time. Concerns about workload, legal responsibility, and a lack of relevant skills ranked higher.
The housing association sector offers a partial comparator. Over 80% of the 60 largest housing associations in England now pay their board members, and two-thirds of those paying report a positive impact on board performance (Grant Thornton, undated). However, paying board members has not resolved housing associations' own diversity challenges: only 44% of board members are female and 59% are aged 55 and over (National Housing Federation, 2023). This complicates the argument that payment alone would diversify charity boards.
Evidence gaps remain significant. There is no controlled study comparing charity governance outcomes between paid and unpaid boards. The housing association data is suggestive but not directly transferable, given the different regulatory and funding environments.
Current context
The Charity Commission published a comprehensive revision of its CC11 guidance on trustee payments in April 2025, splitting it into clearer scenario-based guidance. The legal framework has not changed, but the updated guidance makes the Commission's position clearer: trusteeship is voluntary, payment requires specific legal authority, and charities must demonstrate it is in their best interests.
The Commission's large-scale trustee demographics research, also published in 2025, has given the diversity argument fresh data to work with. The findings that boards remain overwhelmingly older, whiter, and wealthier than the population they serve have been widely cited in sector media.
Meanwhile, the broader financial pressure on charities, including the employer NIC increase estimated at an additional £1.4 billion cost across the sector, makes the practical case for paying trustees harder. When charities are struggling to fund frontline services and retain staff, adding trustee remuneration to the cost base is a difficult ask.
Last updated: April 2026
What this means for charities
For most charities, paying trustees is neither legally straightforward nor financially realistic. But the debate is worth engaging with because it surfaces a real governance challenge: if your board does not reflect your beneficiaries, your decision-making is likely to have blind spots.
The practical takeaway is not about payment. It is about recruitment. The Charity Commission's own research shows that the biggest driver of who becomes a trustee is who gets asked, and the asking happens overwhelmingly through personal networks. Charities serious about board diversity should be advertising trustee roles, using platforms that reach beyond existing networks, and actively reimbursing expenses, including childcare and travel, to remove financial barriers that already have a legal solution.
Boards should also be honest about whether voluntary trusteeship is genuinely working for their charity. If you cannot recruit the skills or diversity you need, and if expense reimbursement alone is not solving the problem, then exploring the existing legal routes to payment for services or loss of earnings may be a legitimate next step, done carefully and transparently.
Common questions
Can charity trustees claim expenses?
Yes. Reimbursing trustees for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses — including travel, childcare, and subsistence costs incurred in carrying out their duties — is permitted without any special legal authority and does not count as "payment" under charity law. The Charity Commission's CC11 guidance treats expense reimbursement as entirely separate from remuneration, and actively encourages charities to reimburse expenses as a way of removing financial barriers to trusteeship.
Why aren't charity trustees paid?
The rule reflects both law and principle. Charity law requires specific authorisation before trustees can receive any financial benefit from their charity, and the Charity Commission's position is that voluntary service is what distinguishes charities from other organisations. The argument, articulated clearly by the Commission's CEO David Holdsworth in 2025, is that unpaid trustees signal to the public that those governing charities are motivated by mission rather than personal gain — and that this public trust is the foundation of the sector's legitimacy and tax advantages.
How diverse are charity boards?
Not very, by most measures. The Charity Commission and Pro Bono Economics survey published in April 2025 (2,432 trustees, surveyed July–August 2024) found that 92% of trustees are white (versus 83% of the general population), only 8% come from ethnic minority backgrounds (versus 17% nationally), the median trustee age is 65–69, and just 1% of trustees are aged 30 or under. Over half of trustees are retired, and those from working-class backgrounds are underrepresented at 29% of trustees versus 39% of the working population. One positive trend: 43% of trustees are now female, up from 36% in 2017.
Does paying board members improve diversity?
The evidence from comparable sectors suggests payment alone is not enough. More than 80% of the 60 largest housing associations in England now pay their board members, yet only 44% of those board members are female and 59% are aged 55 and over (National Housing Federation, 2023). The Charity Commission's own research suggests that informal recruitment — one in three trustees were personally invited by the chair — is a bigger driver of who ends up on boards than the presence or absence of a fee.
Should I pay my trustees?
For most charities, the practical answer is no — it requires specific legal authority, and for smaller organisations the cost is hard to justify to donors and regulators. The more actionable question is whether your charity is removing the barriers it legally can: reimbursing all reasonable expenses, advertising trustee roles publicly rather than relying on personal networks, and actively seeking candidates from outside the usual circles. If your charity is large, has genuinely complex governance needs, and cannot recruit the skills or diversity it requires through other means, exploring the existing statutory routes to payment (such as Section 185 of the Charities Act 2011) with proper legal advice may be a legitimate step.
Key sources and further reading
Trustee expenses and payments (CC11) — Charity Commission, April 2025. The definitive guidance on when and how charities can pay trustees, updated and restructured into scenario-based advice.
Trusteeship: a positive opportunity — Charity Commission and Pro Bono Economics, April 2025. The most comprehensive survey of trustee demographics, skills, and motivations, based on 2,432 responses.
Primacy of voluntary trusteeship stressed in new payment guidance — Charity Commission (GOV.UK), April 2025. Press notice setting out the Commission's position on voluntary trusteeship.
Andrew Purkis: Paying trustees must not become the norm — Civil Society, March 2025. The strongest published case against normalising trustee payment, framed around public trust and the social contract.
Fewer than one in five people against paying charity trustees — Third Sector, March 2026. Coverage of the nfpResearch survey of 1,000 UK adults (conducted January 2026) on attitudes to trustee remuneration.
Should trustees be paid? — New Philanthropy Capital (NPC). NPC's argument for allowing charities to make the case for trustee remuneration.
Charities Act 2011, Section 185 — legislation.gov.uk. The statutory power allowing payment for services provided by trustees, with conditions.
UK: Over 80 per cent of large housing associations pay board members — Scottish Housing News. Coverage of the Grant Thornton research on housing association board remuneration and its reported effects. Note: the Grant Thornton source is undated.