Global majority-led charities
About our sample and approach
This year, 72 charities in our sample are led by and for global majority communities, experiencing racial inequity. ‘Led by’ means that at least 75% of board members, senior leaders and staff are from global majority communities. 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’.
Our sample includes 36 charities led by and for global majority communities, 18 led by and for Black communities, and 14 that identified as both. We combined these groups in our analysis because responses from global majority-led and Black-led charities showed similar patterns, which also differed from the wider sample, echoing our 2025 findings. Given the overlap between groups and relatively small sample sizes, presenting them together provided a clearer basis for analysis. We refer to this group as ‘global majority-led charities’.
Most of the charities led by and for global majority communities in our sample are small organisations (82%). We have therefore compared their responses with other small charities and highlighted significant differences. Comparisons with 2025 are limited because last year’s survey focused on charities led by people with lived experience, rather than on leadership by specific communities.
Digital progress and priorities for global majority-led charities
- 74% of global majority-led charities are at an early stage with digital. Only 69% have made progress with digital this year (vs 77% of small charities).
- 38% offer digital services (higher than 28% of small charities).
- Digital progress is clearly important to global majority-led charities, as all priorities are rated higher than other small charities:
- Build digital skills (77%, vs 56% of small charities).
- Improve online presence and digital communications (71%, vs 58% of small charities).
- Secure funding for digital costs and projects (62%, vs 37% of small charities).
- Build digital skills (77%, vs 56% of small charities).
- Top digital communications aims this year are to:
- Revamp our website (50%, vs 38% of small charities).
- Grow our young supporter base (46%, vs 25% of small charities).
- Develop our social media strategy (54%, vs 39% of small charities).
- Revamp our website (50%, vs 38% of small charities).
Barriers to digital for global majority-led charities
Global majority-led charities face two significant barriers: squeezed organisational finances (68%) and needing to invest in infrastructure, systems and tools (42%, vs only 23% of small charities). Strengthening IT systems and infrastructure is a clear priority, with 46% saying this is an organisational focus for the year ahead (vs 26% of small charities in the wider sample). However, finances will be an ongoing challenge, with a higher proportion of 62% saying their priority is securing funding for digital costs and projects. However, only 24% have accessed funding for digital costs this year, with 18% accessing funds from grantmaking trusts and foundations.
Top 5 funding needs for global majority-led charities
- Training staff, volunteers, leaders or boards (45%).
- IT, devices and equipment (43%).
- Software and licences (42%).
- Dedicated digital roles or staff time (39%, vs 23% of small charities).
- Developing our use of AI (39%).
AI adoption amongst global majority-led charities
Overall, global majority-led charities are adopting AI tools and are slightly further ahead than small charities.
- 79% are using AI tools in their organisation.
- 68% say they are excellent, good or fair at using AI tools (vs 53% of small charities).
- 71% feel excited that AI tools will make their work more efficient and impactful (vs 58% of small charities).
- Organisationally, global majority-led charities are primarily using AI for grant fundraising (62%, vs 52% of small charities).
- On an everyday basis, 59% of global majority-led charities use AI for everyday tasks and administration, as well as to create documents, reports and presentations. 52% use AI tools for research and 44% use it for social media posts and content.
- 61% of global majority-led charities believe their culture encourages experimentation and new ways of working with AI tools, vs only 39% of small charities.
- Interestingly, 29% of global majority-led charities say they are upskilling clients or organisations to understand AI and use tools safely, vs only 9% of charities overall.
Moving forward with AI
- This group of charities has a clear ambition to move forward with AI with 38% upskilling staff and volunteers (vs 23% of small charities) and 39% seeking funding to develop their use of AI.
- Barriers to AI adoption include:
- Limited skills and technical expertise (55%).
- Lack of training or support to upskill ourselves (55%).
- Cost of AI tools and lack of budget (44%).
- Limited skills and technical expertise (55%).
- Similar to other small charities, only small proportions of global majority-led charities are concerned about the potential for bias and discrimination (26%), or lack trust in AI tools (26%). This is not due to a lack of knowledge or interest, given that 43% of global majority-led charities plan to improve accessibility, diversity and inclusion in and through their digital work this year (vs only 26% of small charities).
Support needs
- 45% say the sector-wide support for AI adoption they need most is funder plus support or funded specialists to provide support.
- Global majority-led charities are most likely to access digital guidance in training courses (48%) and events (41%), with lower proportions benefiting from reports and guides (34%) and sector newsletters (28%).
Neurodivergent-led charities
About our sample and approach
This year, 53 organisations in our sample are led by and for neurodivergent people. This means at least 75% of board members, senior leaders and staff are neurodivergent, inclusive of cognitive differences, learning disabilities and/or learning difficulties. These shared identities and lived experience are also central to the organisation’s purpose and the issues it addresses. We refer to this group as ‘neurodivergent-led charities’. Comparisons with 2025 are not possible, because we previously focused on charities led by neurodivergent people, without taking the organisation’s purpose into account.
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. However, similarities in findings may partly reflect this overlap.
Digital priorities for neurodivergent-led charities
- Neurodivergent-led charities in our sample are mostly small (87%) and primarily at an early stage with digital adoption (72%), making them comparable with other small charities. However, neurodivergent-led charities have broader digital ambitions than other small charities, specifying a wider range of digital priorities and work.
- Digital priorities include:
- Online presence and digital communications (73%, vs 58% of small charities).
- Digital skills of staff, volunteers and leaders (71%, vs 56% of small charities).
- Digital fundraising (63%, vs 49% of small charities).
- Data collection, analysis and use (60%, vs 47% of small charities).
- Secure funding for digital costs and projects (56%, vs 37% of small charities).
- Develop or update strategy (technology, digital, data or AI) (50%, vs 37% of small charities).
- Online presence and digital communications (73%, vs 58% of small charities).
- Inclusion is also higher on the priority list, with 37% saying they want to improve accessibility, diversity and inclusion in/through digital work (vs only 26% of small charities).
- The biggest barriers to moving forward with digital are squeezed organisational finances (67%, similar to 63% of small charities) and lack of headspace and capacity (60%, higher than 50% of small charities).
Social media
- Social media is a more challenging space and an important one for neurodivergent-led charities (similarly to disabled and deaf-led charities).
- 25% are focusing on protecting the wellbeing and safety of social media staff (compared to only 11% overall) and 35% are running education or advocacy campaigns (vs 19% overall). Linked to this, 47% are developing their social media strategy and 67% are focusing on storytelling with lived experience at the heart.
AI adoption
- 80% of neurodivergent-led charities are using AI tools, but only 39% feel they are responding to the opportunities and challenges surrounding AI adoption.
- AI tools are mostly used in everyday tasks (65%), documents (59%), research (55%) and ideas generation (47%).
- In addition, 41% are using AI tools to review work for quality, bias, compliance or accessibility (vs only 26% in our wider sample).
- Our qualitative data, highlighted in the ‘benefits of AI’ section of our report, highlights how AI tools are particularly helpful for neurodivergent staff in charities. They are helping make tasks more accessible, and are helping staff to process information, organise thoughts, improve the quality of their writing or communicate ideas.
- Linked to this, 56% are using AI tools in grant fundraising, indicating that AI tools are making this more accessible.
- However, 45% say their colleagues are hesitant or resistant to AI, which indicates tensions around using AI in neurodivergent-led charities.
Funding and support needs
- 53% of neurodivergent-led charities say the sector-wide support for AI adoption they need most is more funding for AI tools, much higher than small charities (32%), indicating the value of these tools to this group. 63% also say they need training for staff and 53% for leaders to use AI tools effectively.
- Overall, 24% have accessed funding for digital costs this year, with 19% accessing funding from grantmaking trusts and foundations. However, nearly half (48%) of neurodivergent-led charities say their biggest funding barrier is limited core cost funding, which is not sufficient to cover digital costs. This is nearly double the 25% of small charities in our wider sample.
- In terms of data, 56% of neurodivergent-led charities are looking for external support to use AI tools to analyse data, whilst 42% would like support to choose or review their CRM needs (vs only 23% of small charities), and 42% want to develop a data strategy (vs 22% of other charities). There is clearly a distinct need here.
- Top funding needs include:
- IT devices and equipment (57%, vs 33% of small charities).
- Training staff, volunteers, leaders or boards (57%).
- New digital/AI service development (45%, vs 25% of small charities).
- IT devices and equipment (57%, vs 33% of small charities).
- Neurodivergent-led charities would most like their CEO to develop a clear vision for digital (57%), improve their budgeting, resourcing and investment for digital and IT (51%), as well as engage with emerging trends, tech and AI tools (47%).
Disabled and deaf-led charities
About our sample and approach
This year, 48 organisations in our sample are led by and for disabled and deaf people. We refer to this group as ‘disabled and deaf-led charities’. This means at least 75% of board members, senior leaders and staff are deaf or disabled, inclusive of physical, mental and chronic disabilities, hearing loss or deafness. These organisations also have a core purpose to support deaf and disabled people.
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. However, similarities in findings may partly reflect this overlap. Comparisons with 2025 are not possible, because we previously focused on charities led by disabled and deaf people, without taking the organisation’s purpose into account.
Digital priorities for disabled and deaf-led charities
- Disabled and deaf-led charities in our sample are predominantly small (94%) and 75% are at an early stage with digital adoption, making them comparable with other small charities. However, they have broader digital ambitions than other small charities, specifying a wider range of digital priorities and work.
- Key priorities include:
- Grow our reach, online presence and social media engagement (68%).
- Build digital skills (67%).
- Increase online fundraising income (64%).
- Improve digital fundraising (61%).
- Secure funding for digital projects (50%).
- Develop our social media strategy (48%, vs 39% of small charities).
- Grow our reach, online presence and social media engagement (68%).
- Key barriers for disabled and deaf-led charities include:
- Squeezed organisational finances (61%).
- Lack of headspace and capacity (54%).
- Need to invest in infrastructure, systems and tools (41%, vs 23% of small charities).
- Poor resourcing and budgeting for digital (41%).
- Squeezed organisational finances (61%).
Digital services
- 73% of disabled and deaf-led charities support their communities with digital inclusion. Of these, 40% provide informal and unplanned support. It is worth noting that 43% most need funding to provide digital inclusion support.
- Accessibility, diversity and inclusion in digital services are a priority for 41% of deaf and disabled-led charities (vs 26% of small charities).
- 17% are upskilling clients or organisations to understand AI and use tools safely.
- Only 41% provide digital services.
Social media
- Social media is a more challenging space and an important one for disabled and deaf-led charities (similar to neurodivergent-led charities).
- 27% are focusing on protecting the wellbeing and safety of social media staff (compared to only 11% overall) and 30% are running education or advocacy campaigns (vs 19% overall). Linked to this, 48% are developing their social media strategy and 59% are sharing co-created content with lived experience at the heart.
AI adoption in disabled and deaf-led charities
- 79% of disabled and deaf-led charities are using AI tools in their organisations. AI is used in administration (48%), social media (48%) and grant fundraising (48%).
- 64% believe it could make their work more efficient and impactful; however, a high proportion of 45% are ‘neutral’ about whether their culture encourages this. Furthermore, 47% say their colleagues are hesitant or resistant to AI (vs 31% in small charities), which indicates that tension exists in disabled and deaf-led charities.
- Key barriers also include limited skills and technical expertise (62%), as well as a lack of training to upskill ourselves (50%).
Funding and support needs
- 31% of disabled and deaf-led charities have accessed funding from trusts and foundations this year. This is higher than 16% of other small charities.
- Developing our use of AI is a key funding need for 60% of disabled and deaf-led charities; this is slightly higher than neurodivergent-led charities (40%) and much higher than small charities (31%).
- Other priority funding needs include:
- Training staff, volunteers, leaders or boards (63%).
- IT devices and equipment (49%, vs 33% of small charities).
- Infrastructure or systems upgrade (43%, vs 23% of small charities).
- New digital/AI service development (40%, vs 25% of small charities).
- Training staff, volunteers, leaders or boards (63%).
- The biggest funding barrier for 46% of disabled and deaf-led charities is that core cost funding is not covering their core digital costs (vs 25% of other small charities).
- Deaf and disabled-led charities say the sector-wide support they need for AI is:
- More funding for AI tools (57%, much higher than 32% of small charities).
- Guidance on developing AI policies and governance (55%).
- Funder plus support or funded specialists to support AI adoption (52%, vs 32% of small charities).
- More funding for AI tools (57%, much higher than 32% of small charities).
- 64% most need external data support to help with using AI tools to analyse their data.
- 54% want their charity to recruit a digital trustee, whilst 46% want their trustees to better understand risks (cybersecurity, data protection, safeguarding).
- 54% want their CEO to improve their personal digital skills, confidence and ways of working, while 48% want their CEO to improve their budgeting, resourcing and investment for digital and IT.