Background to the Research

Digital stages

The majority of charities responding to the survey are at an early stage with digital. Our sample includes 32% at the earliest (curious) stage with digital and 39% slightly further ahead at the starting out stage. In total, 71% are still at an early stage with digital. This is a significant increase from 56% last year. The same trend can be seen for both large and small charities:

• Large charities: 56% are early stage, up from 32% last year.
• Small charities: 78% are early stage, up from 68% last year.

We believe this indicates that our sample has changed and that the survey has attracted more responses from charities at an earlier stage with digital this year. 

Diversity, equality and inclusion in our sample

We ask respondents for detailed information about the population groups represented by their board and leadership, as well as their target groups. We do this in order to:

• Understand whose voices and which groups are represented in the survey.
• Identify gaps to inform our outreach while the survey is live and for next year’s survey.
• To examine any differences in digital priorities, barriers, funding and support needs. 

The intention is to inform funding, support, research and campaigns that tackle structural inequality, institutional racism and sexism in the sector, which have contributed to chronic underfunding for some groups. 

Charities led by and for specific marginalised groups

This year, we changed how we asked about charities connected to specific marginalised groups. In previous surveys, including 2025, we simply asked all respondents whether they were led by people from particular groups, regardless of who the charity served. 

In 2026, we define an organisation as led by lived experience when at least 75% of its board members, senior leaders and staff share identities or lived experiences that are central to the organisation’s core purpose and the issues it addresses.

For this reason, we first asked whether organisations were led by people with lived experience of the issues they address. We then asked those organisations whether they were both led by and for specific marginalised groups.

Because of these changes to the question structure and definitions used, the 2025 and 2026 samples are not directly comparable. For example, while our 2025 report focused on charities led by deaf and disabled people regardless of the organisation’s purpose, our 2026 report focuses on charities that are both led by and seeking to benefit deaf and disabled people.

Specific marginalised groups we ask about include:

• • Global majority communities experiencing racial inequity. Global majority is a shortened version of the term ‘people of the global majority’. We use it to refer to all ethnic groups except white British and other white groups, including white minorities. This includes people from black, Asian, mixed, and other ethnic groups who are often racialised as ‘ethnic minorities’. In the survey, respondents could also indicate if their organisation was led by Black groups.

     

  • Black led organisations refers to organisations led by and for people from Black, African, Caribbean, Black British and Black Mixed communities. We wanted to collect data specifically about Black led organisations, in recognition that Black groups experience both general racial oppression and targeted racial oppression. Long standing evidence from our previous reports, as well as the Runnymede Trust, Do it Now Now and the Funders for Racial Equality Alliance also highlight how Black-led organisations receive disproportionately less funding and operate in an environment of structural inequality. Respondents could also select if they described their organisation as led by global majority communities.

     

  • Disabled or deaf people. Disabled is used as an umbrella term for physical, mental and chronic disabilities. It can also overlap with the category of neurodivergent people, including those with cognitive differences, learning disabilities and learning difficulties. Deaf includes people who have significant hearing loss, are hard of hearing or may have other hearing loss as well as people who have been born Deaf.

     

  • Neurodivergent includes people with cognitive differences, learning disabilities and learning difficulties. This is inclusive of people with developmental disabilities, cognitive disabilities, neurological disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and psychosocial disabilities, such as autism, ADHD, Tourettes, dyslexia and dyspraxia. This umbrella and non-medical term is inclusive to the expansive spectrum of neurodivergent communities and conditions (with or without a formal diagnosis).
  • LGBTQIA+ people. We use the expanded term LGBTQIA+ that represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and agender, plus all other identities that fall under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella.

     

Our sample of charities led by people with lived experience

Overall, 397 charities (50% of responses) in our sample are led by people with lived experience of the issue they address. This is an increase from 28% in 2024, and is likely to reflect both a growing sample of small charities and the way the question was asked this year as a standalone yes/no filter question rather than a list of options.

Of those led by lived experience, 83% are small charities, compared with 71% in the wider sample. We found no significant differences in responses between charities led by lived experience and those that are not. However, there were differences in responses for charities that are both led by and for specific marginalised groups.

Our 397 charities led by and for specific marginalised groups predominantly represented: 

• Women and girls (26%): 104 charities.
• Older people aged 65+ (15%): 61 charities (of which 92% are small charities).
• People with a specific health concern (15%): 58 charities.
• Neurodivergent people (13%): 53 charities.
• People facing a specific social issue/situation (13%): 51 charities.
• Global majority communities (13%): 50 charities (rising to 72 when including Black-led charities).
• Disabled or deaf people (12%): 48 charities (of which 94% are small charities).

We only had a small sample of charities led by and for the following groups:

• Black communities (9%): 36 charities (14 also selected global majority-led).
• Young people (8%): 32 charities.
• Asylum seekers, refugees and migrants (6%): 22 charities.
• LGBTQIA+ (6%): 22 charities.

For these under-represented groups, we have looked at any differences in responses for them as a core target group and have included these in the report. 

Reporting and analysis approach

In the diversity, equality and inclusion section of the report, we provide profiles for specific marginalised groups, where sample sizes allow for meaningful analysis and where there are clear differences in responses. This year we have featured:

• Global majority-led charities: In our analysis, we identified clear differences in responses from global majority-led and Black-led charities compared with the wider sample, echoing our 2025 findings. Given the small sample sizes and similar patterns in responses across these overlapping groups, we combined them for analysis, creating a combined sample of 72 charities.

   

• Disabled and deaf-led charities: Despite the smaller sample (48 charities), we identified clear differences in responses from small charities, echoing our 2025 findings.

   

• Neurodivergent-led charities: 53 charities. We do have a significant overlap between our sample of disabled and deaf-led charities and neurodivergent-led charities, with around half of organisations appearing in both groups. We have nevertheless presented these groups separately, as they represent distinct identities and organisational focuses. Similarities in findings may partly reflect this overlap.

   

On our website, we also publish our datatables detailing the responses in full for these groups (as well as others) for further investigation. We have also found differences in responses for some questions (but not all) for both women and girls-led charities, as well as for health charities (led by people with a specific health condition). We have noted these where relevant in the main report.