How Britain stopped giving
Go Beyond – a small, dedicated charity giving disadvantaged children the chance to visit the countryside and enjoy outdoor exercise – had an entirely different business model 10 years ago.
Then, donations came from multiple sources – from thriving charity stores in cities across the South West, from bucket collections outside supermarkets, from sponsored events and a quarterly email appeal. Now, the stores are all closed, the buckets are largely empty, the events are sparsely attended and email donations have dropped 20 per cent.
'The cost-of-living crisis has really affected the way people support charities,' says Sara Shearman, the director of fundraising at Go Beyond. 'It used to be something people did quite naturally; now, it is seen as a luxury.'
Sadly, it is far from alone in its struggles. Last week, the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) released its latest UK Giving Report, which backed up what floundering charities have been saying for months – that the number of people donating has dropped to critical levels, as the wider British public becomes significantly less generous.
The figures are stark: 55 per cent of the nearly 14,000 people surveyed said they had donated to a charity in the previous year – a drop of 10 per cent from 2019. At a national level, that means 5.2 million fewer people reaching into their pockets. Donation rates were down across the board but particularly among young adults: less than a third of under-25s now support any charity.
The CAF's findings also revealed a reduction in volunteering. In 2023, 7.1 million people helped out in some capacity. Last year, that figure had fallen to 5.6 million. Overall, the number of people supporting charities – whether through donations, sponsorship or time – has fallen to the lowest levels recorded since the CAF began tracking such trends in 2016.
'We are living through a time of real income pressure with budgets needing to go much further, so you'd naturally expect charitable giving to be constrained a little,' says Neil Heslop, the chief executive of the CAF. 'What is concerning is that this trend seems to go beyond this specific economic situation, with people now simply getting out of the habit of giving up their time or money, and the proportion of the public that donates to charity in steady decline.'
Lauren Weymouth, the editor of Charity Times, believes we are in an era of giving fatigue. 'There was a huge fundraising surge during the pandemic, and people did donate generously,' she says, 'but five years on, it has gotten to the point where they are looking at the increase in costs in everything and thinking, 'Well, I have done a lot recently, so I am going to pause on that.''
For Shearman, there are more profound factors at play too. Traditionally, she notes, charities would collect money outside supermarkets – something that has been all but destroyed by our increasingly cashless society. 'Fundraising is mostly online now,' she says, 'but charities have suffered from this. Most of them have invested in technology to accept card payments via the internet, but it is tough on the very small charities that don't have the infrastructure.'
Similarly, there are fewer ways to give money casually than there were before, which is why Shearman has introduced a button on her website allowing people to donate £3.50 to buy a child an ice cream – something she likens to throwing a few coins in a bucket.
These trends have coincided with the rise of the subscription economy, which has spelt trouble for organisations historically reliant themselves on consistent contributions from supporters.
'We think that charities' biggest competitors are other charities but because they rely on subscriptions, it is actually companies like Netflix or Spotify,' says Weymouth. 'People are looking at the money coming out of their accounts each month additionally and thinking, 'Well, Spotify has gone up, but I need that, so I'll cut back on Oxfam.''
Time, too, appears to be more of a premium than ever before. 'We organised a zip wire event but found it really difficult to get people to enter,' says Shearman. 'The money just isn't there and people are much more particular with their time now, which means we have to work so much harder to get the same income.'
And then there is the rise of second-hand-clothing apps, which has proved disastrous for charity shops.
Stephanie Moore is the founder and CEO of Reach Out to the Community, an independent charity shop in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester, which aims to combat homelessness and food poverty. Since founding the organisation in 2016, she has seen donations drop in quality and quantity as people have turned to online marketplaces such as Vinted.
'Times have changed and people are selling much more online,' she says. Her shop survives only thanks to donations from older people, who give far more generously than younger generations. Annie Dodd, a volunteer at Reach Out, echoes this. 'Older people are more conscious of not wanting to waste things,' she says. 'I think a lot of young people use [apps such as Facebook Marketplace].'
Similarly, the quality of donations has fallen off a cliff as people increasingly drop off items they cannot sell.
'At the moment, we're getting a lot of stuff we're having to dispose of – cracked plates or broken games consoles, stuff like that; stuff that really shouldn't come to a charity shop,' says Moore.
'Generally I'll only bring stuff in [to charity shops] when I'm moving – I don't know if that's bad, it's just a thing,' says Felix Woods, 22. 'I sell the odd thing, and I know people who do – it's a good way to recycle clothes.'
For Go Beyond, this shift meant it became too difficult to keep its stores open. 'The charity shop is dying,' says Shearman. 'There is a huge amount of competition to attract the dwindling number of good donations left out there, so we decided to close the shops and invest more in fundraising.'
Another issue affecting donations is the damaging perception that charity executives are overpaid. Many such roles come with six-figure salaries, and the median annual salary for those heading the UK's 100 largest charities now stands at just shy of £200,000, according to industry research.
'People feel like they are giving to an organisation that is paying executives more money than they will ever make and it really bothers them,' says Weymouth.
For Nick Connolly, the chief executive of homelessness charity EveryYouth, getting donations from the general public is now too arduous. 'The amount of money you need to invest to make individual giving work is beyond our capability, because to make it worthwhile you need people to give regular gifts – and for that you need to advertise, which costs a lot.'
Instead, Connolly is sourcing money from corporations and fundraisers – but that is not without its own issues. 'Whereas in the past, I would be competing against 20 or 30 other charity organisations, now the number is usually over 100,' he says, noting that Labour's tax raid on employers has only worsened an already dire situation. 'Add to that national insurance increases from the Government and you get a very difficult environment indeed.'
As pressure on the sector (which employs approximately a million people) increases, certain types of organisations are faring better than others. The CAF survey found that people favoured health charities, which scooped up an estimated £2.22 billion of donations last year.
'Health charities are the ones doing the best because people can see the effect Covid had on the health sector and because they can relate to them – everyone knows someone who has been affected by cancer or Alzheimer's,' says Weymouth. 'Meanwhile, environmental charities are really struggling, because while people know that climate change is happening, they're not as closely linked to the cause.'
Weymouth notes that any charities focusing on diversity or inclusion are also suffering more than most – this might be because, statistically, the donors who are still giving a significant amount are more likely to be white and middle class, and may have been put off by overt identity politics.
Similarly, homelessness charities are having a difficult time. 'Homelessness is becoming more prevalent but unfortunately no less stigmatised, so people can be unsure how to respond – if at all,' says Laura Herring, the director of fundraising and communications at St Mungo's. 'The cost-of-living crisis also means that people aren't able to give as much, or as often, as they would like to.'
All in all, it is a bleak situation – except for one area. Charity bequests are up by a significant amount, as people donate less in life but more in death. In the past 20 years, money bequeathed to charity in people's wills has risen from £1.7 billion a year to £4 billion, totalling about 15 per cent of all donations.
'It is a brilliant way of giving because it costs you nothing now,' says Richard Radcliffe, the founder of Radcliffe Consulting, which specialises in legacy fundraising. 'This is an ageing society and so it makes sense. It's incredibly convenient, there are inheritance tax benefits, and it makes you feel really happy because you can choose a charity close to your heart.
'We call it life-driven, death-activated. Honestly, I think it is the future of the sector – and increasingly the only way for many charities to survive.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British woman accused of drug offences appears in Sri Lanka court
A British woman accused of attempting to smuggle a large quantity of cannabis into Sri Lanka has appeared in court in the country. Charlotte May Lee, 21, from south London, was arrested earlier this month after authorities allegedly found 46kg of the drug in her suitcases when she arrived on a flight from Thailand. She has not yet been charged, but has previously denied knowing the alleged drugs were in her luggage. If found guilty, she could face up to 25 years behind bars. Speaking to the BBC from prison before her court appearance, Ms Lee said she had travelled from Bangkok to the Sri Lankan capital of Colombo to renew her Thai visa. The former flight attendant arrived at Negombo Magistrate's Court on Friday wearing a white knee-length dress, her long hair parted to the side. She was making a procedural court appearance while the investigation into her alleged offences continues. Ms Lee was held in a cell at the back of the courtroom before being brought to the witness box. She was visibly upset as she stood with her hands crossed behind her back, facing the magistrate. Authorities wheeled in a large brown box containing the alleged 46kg of cannabis found in Ms Lee's luggage. The narcotics division of the Sri Lanka police told the court they intend to file an update on the investigation. Ms Lee's lawyer, Sampath Perera, asked if the alleged drugs had been examined by the relevant government authorities to ascertain if the materials were in fact an illegal substance. The magistrate ordered it to be tested and for a report to be submitted to the court as soon as possible. Speaking to the BBC from a prison an hour outside of Colombo, Ms Lee appeared to be in good spirits. She described her living conditions, saying she shares a cell with five other women and sleeps on a thin mattress on the concrete floor, using whatever clothes she has as a pillow. That is where she spends most of her day, she said, although she does get to go outside for fresh air. "I can't compare it to anything," she said. "I have never been to prison and I've never been to Sri Lanka. This heat and just sitting on a concrete floor all of the time." Ms Lee said she tries not to dwell too much on her current predicament. "I am not trying to think about it. If I think, then I feel bad. I'll still rather not process it." Ms Lee said she is concerned for the other women who are also in prison. "There are people from so many different countries who have been here for two years, two-and-a-half years. And it's still just waiting and no-one actually knows anything." She has managed to find other English-speaking women with whom she has developed a kinship. But she has not been able to speak with her family since her arrest. Speaking to the BBC from outside the courthouse after the hearing, Mr Perera said the next step is to make a bail application for Ms Lee, which could take three months. Under Sri Lankan law, people being held on remand must appear before a judge every 14 days. Ms Lee is being held on suspicion of keeping illegal drugs in her possession and drug smuggling. Her next court appearance will be on 13 July. Additional reporting by Charlotte Scarr
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gerry Adams awarded £84,000 in BBC libel case
Gerry Adams has been awarded €100,000 (£84,000) in damages after winning a libel case against the BBC. The former Sinn Fein leader said that a BBC Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official and MI5 agent Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. On Friday, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour. It also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and that it had not acted in a fair and reasonable way. Donaldson was shot dead in Co Donegal in 2006, months after admitting his role as a police and MI5 agent over 20 years. In the programme broadcast in September 2016, an anonymous source given the pseudonym Martin claimed the shooting was sanctioned by the political and military leadership of the IRA and that Mr Adams gave 'the final say'. In 2009, the dissident republican group the Real IRA claimed responsibility for the killing and a Garda investigation into the matter remains ongoing. Mr Adams said the allegation was a 'grievous smear' while the BBC has described the legal action as a 'cynical attempt to launder his reputation'. Speaking outside court, Mr Adams said: 'From my perspective, taking this case was was about putting manners on the British Broadcasting Corporation. 'I know many, many journalists. I like to think that I get on well with the most of them, and I wish you well, and I would uphold your right to do your job. 'But the British Broadcasting Corporation upholds the ethos of the British state in Ireland, and in my view it's out of sync in many, many fronts with the Good Friday Agreement. 'It hasn't caught on to where we are on this island as part of the process, the continuing process, of building peace and justice, and harmony, and, hopefully, in the time ahead, unity.' The high-profile republican sought damages of at least €200,000 from the BBC. However, the broadcaster had argued it would be a 'cruel joke' to award the former Sinn Fein president any damages. The jury determined that Mr Adams should be awarded €100,000, which the jury heard falls on the medium scale for defamation. Mr Justice Owens sent the jury out to begin deliberations at 10.25am on Thursday morning, in the fifth week of proceedings. The jury was tasked with determining whether the words in the BBC Spotlight programme and accompanying article, on which Mr Adams brought the complaint, mean that he sanctioned and approved the murder of Donaldson. Mr Justice Owens said they were to consider whether it was 'more likely than not' that a 'hypothetical reasonable reader' would take that meaning from the words. The BBC had argued that the jury should not find that this was the meaning of the words, instead saying the claim had been put forward as an allegation that was immediately followed by Mr Adams's denial. Having agreed with Mr Adams on that point, the jurors then had to consider whether the BBC's actions were fair and reasonable as well as whether it acted in good faith. They determined that the broadcaster had not acted in such a manner. They returned with their verdict on Friday, after six hours and 49 minutes of deliberations. Mr Justice Owens told the jury that the BBC had put forward the position that Mr Adams had 'no reputation at all' and the broadcaster had argued to the jury that it should award only nominal damages, putting forward the option of just one euro. Mr Adams's team had argued that the defamation fell within the 'very serious' or 'exceptional' end of the scale – seeking at least €200,000. Adam Smyth, director of BBC Northern Ireland, expressed disappointment at the outcome. Speaking outside court, he said: 'The implications of their decision, though, are profound. As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it is hard to see how anyone's could, and they warned how today's decision would hinder freedom of expression.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment
Political activists occasionally propose a new constitutional convention, which would gather delegates from the states to craft amendments to the nation's founding document. It's a long and convoluted process, but the Constitution itself provides the blueprint. Article V allows such a confab if two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures call for one. These days, conservatives are the driving force for the idea, as they see it as a means to put further limits on the federal government. Sometimes, progressives propose such a thing. Their goals are to enshrine various social programs and social-justice concepts. Yet anyone who has watched the moronic sausage-making in Congress and state legislatures should be wary of opening Pandora's Box. I'd be happy enough if both political tribes tried to uphold the Constitution as it is currently drafted. It's a brilliant document that limits the power of the government to infringe on our rights. Without the first 10—the Bill of Rights—this would be a markedly different nation. For a sense of where we might be without it, I'd recommend looking at Great Britain and its approach to the speech concepts detailed on our First Amendment. Our nation was spawned from the British, so we share a culture and history. Yet, without a specific constitutional dictate, that nation has taken a disturbing approach that rightly offends American sensibilities. As Tablet magazine reported, "74-year-old Scottish grandmother Rose Docherty was arrested on video by four police officers for silently holding a sign in proximity to a Glasgow abortion clinic reading 'Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.'" Thousands of Brits are detained, questioned, and prosecuted, it notes, for online posts of the type that wouldn't raise an eyebrow here. The chilling effect is profound. This isn't as awful as what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia, where the government's critics have a habit of accidentally falling out of windows. But that's thin gruel. Britain and the European Union are supposed to be free countries. Their speech codes are intended to battle disinformation/misinformation, but empowering the government to be the arbiter of such vague concepts only destroys everyone's freedoms. In 1998, Great Britain approved Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It protects a citizen's "right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference." But it comes with limits and conditions. The authorities may quash such speech to "protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety," or "prevent disorder or crime," or "protect health or morals," or "maintain the authority and impartiality of judges." One may not express "views that encourage racial or religious hatred." Those are open-ended terms, which has led to bizarre prosecutions. Our First Amendment includes these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." A constitutional amendment stating "no law" is more protective than a statute with asterisks and exceptions. With the political Left devoted to limiting speech based on its fixations on race and gender and the political Right's willingness to, say, deport students who take verboten positions on the war in Gaza and malign reporters as enemies of the people, I'd hate to see how speech protections would fare in a refashioned constitution. Traditionally, the Left has taken a "living and breathing" approach, insisting its plain words and founders' intent are up for reinterpretation. Sadly, modern conservatives, who previously defended originalism, seem ready to ditch the Constitution when it hinders their policy aims. Just read their dissing of due process—as stated in the 5th and 14th amendments, when it comes to immigration policy. When asked about habeas corpus during a Senate hearing, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said it's "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country." It's the opposite, as habeas corpus requires the government to explain why it's detaining people—and forbids it from holding them indefinitely. MAGA apparently believes the words of the Constitution mean the opposite of what they say. Frankly, I wouldn't want either side to be near a constitutional convention that's empowered to rewrite a document penned by men more brilliant and civic-minded than our current lot. "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards," wrote Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1927 free-speech case, Whitney v. California. "They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. … If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." We don't need to revisit the Constitution, but to uphold the protections already within it. This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment appeared first on