The issue of remuneration keeps coming up for various reasons: could it help in encouraging the recruitment of trustees from lower income backgrounds, or freelancers, or those with caring responsibilities?
There is also the intractable issue that NCVO describes as the ongoing “trustee crisis”. Reports in 2024 revealed that 80% of charities are operating with a least one vacancy at board level and 43% of charities with vacancies said that they were struggling to follow good governance principles as a result.
Given this situation, we thought that it might be a good time to ask: could trustee payment be the solution?
What does the guidance say?
The Charity Commission says that the payment of trustees is normally only acceptable when a trustee’s work extends beyond the typical remit of trusteeship. This can include providing goods or services for a charity, such as plumbing, painting, secretarial work or any specialist service like IT consultancy. Expenses incurred in the carrying out of trustee duties can be remunerated as well.
Payment is also possible in “exceptional circumstances… when paying a trustee clearly brings a significant advantage to the charity over other options”. Here the Commission references the unexpected departure of a CEO, or responding to an external review, or identifying the need for rapid restructuring. However, we must be mindful of conflicts of interest and reputational issues.
That said, when it comes to paying trustees to carry out their duties, the guidance is different. The Charity Commission states that: “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.”
If a charity wants to transform trusteeship from a voluntary to paid role, it must either have this provision outlined in its governing document or seek permission from the Charity Commission. It must also show that it has considered all other options and is encouraged to draw up written agreements which will cover the trustee role and outline what is expected.
Should all trustees be volunteers?
According to Civil Society, Trusteeship is worth around £3.5bn a year to the charitable sector, if you factor in the time commitment for the role (an average of 4.88 hours a week for each trustee, paid at a median hourly wage).
Yet a key argument for keeping trustees unpaid, is that it fits with the ethos of the sector. When the Charities Act Review was conducted in 2012, some leaders from the charity sector rejected the call for payment on the grounds that “voluntarism is a defining characteristic of charity” and a crucial way of preserving public trust.
This sentiment continues today. As the Charity Commission’s guidance references, public opinion can be fiercely critical of those who seek to make personal gain from a charity. Just think of the recent news and enquiry into the Captain Tom Foundation. What would the consequences be for public support, if trustees were seen to be supplementing their income through trusteeship?
Another concern is whether paying trustees would mean that trusteeship was no longer reserved for those with a genuine passion for the charitable cause that they represented. Whilst there are certainly trustees today who join boards solely for social cache, would payment see this increase and extend to individuals who are more concerned with making money than they are with helping the charity achieve its mission?
A key issue for me also seems to be the one of time. Would trustee payments ever be sufficient, to offset the time constraints of trusteeship encroaching on working hours and caring commitments? Very few charities would be able to remunerate trustees to such an extent that they could work less or afford more caring support. As such, would remuneration end up going to the individuals who would have more easily been able to volunteer their time anyway?
There are also the practicalities. If a charity finds itself struggling to fundraise and running down its reserves, would trustees continue to be paid whilst operations were reduced? Similarly, would smaller charities be outbid by larger rivals that could pay trustees more, and find themselves in a similar “trustee crisis” to now, unable to offer the necessary financial incentives to strengthen their boards?
What is the case for paying trustees?
UK charity trustees face a huge level of responsibility as volunteers. They must be clued up on finances and accounting, charity and company law, safeguarding, fundraising, and marketing to name but a few areas. For large charities, this can come alongside deep public scrutiny and responsibility for activities and programmes worth millions of pounds. In smaller charities, trustees are often on the frontline, volunteering and taking active roles in daily operations. Given this responsibility and workload, is it not fair that we pay individuals willing to take this on?
Whilst only a few charities would be able to pay sufficiently to free up an individual’s time, this is not to say that even limited financial support could not have some impact. Even a small fee could allow more individuals to get involved in charity governance and to offset their time.
The work of Art & Homelessness demonstrates this. In April 2024, the charity gained permission from the Charity Commission to pay its trustees, citing that 50% of its board were, or had been homeless, and as such, some remuneration would help those facing financial barriers to take on governance roles. The charity now pays small sums to trustees with lived experience of homelessness who are not on a full-time salary, reporting that this has allowed individuals to take up and hold onto trustee roles in greater numbers.
Large charities are already paying trustees. In 2017, 18 of the top 100 UK charities reported paying at least one trustee. This recognises the scale of the work that trustees at these organisations undertake and could also help with trustee retention.
Are there other ways to tackle the trustee recruitment crisis?
If remuneration serves to be too high a barrier to overcome, we need to make more of the non-financial benefits that trusteeship can bring and invest additionally in training and upskilling young, diverse and new trustees.
Trusteeship can, and should, be about supporting a cause that you are passionate about and gaining valuable experience and expertise at the same time. Charities should do more to celebrate their ability to incubate, as well as utilise talent. Black Swan Arts and Beam Arts provide strong and simple examples of this, offering training, support and exciting incentives for those looking to take on the role.
Writing in 2019, Grant Taylor of Peridot Partners made the case that improving recruitment processes for trustees could have more impact than financial incentives. Trusteeship is still frequently passed through the ‘tap on the shoulder’ method, seeing small social groups fill large numbers of trustee roles. Would recruitment improve if charities more effectively advertised positions, invested in trustee training, and celebrated the wealth of non-financial benefits that a trustee position can bring?
There are also innovative models of payment/financial reimbursement to explore. Could new forms of support, like social impact bonds, be utilised to both fund charity action and remunerate trustees? Or how could corporate CSR and volunteering agendas be aligned with the need to recruit trustees with strong financial and other professional backgrounds? If corporates built charitable trusteeship as an option as standard into their company volunteer programmes, we could see a whole swathe of new trustees with the skills and time to contribute to the charitable sector.
It’s a polarising debate – paying trustees might solve some immediate problems, but whether it would provoke sustained and transformative change still feels up for dispute.