Section 1: Introduction

The charity sector has a problem with racial and ethnic diversity. Black, Asian and Minoritised¹ Ethnic (BAME) people are under-represented in the sector are also subject to discrimination and antagonism not faced by white colleagues.

The sector is not unique in terms of the relatively negative position of BAME people in it. In wider society BAME people, overall, experience in a variety of ways² lows that are lower and highs that are less high than the general white British population. This is a well-established and well-evidenced pattern that exists at the collective or aggregate level. However, this does not mean that every BAME life is at every turn thwarted by ‘race’ and racism; and, more importantly, BAME people individually and collectively are not helpless victims of racism but active agents in making their lives and remaking contexts.

At the same time, BAME people in the charity sector and wider society should not have to fight for the right to belong. People in and close to power need to play their part – especially in the charity sector, which is built on but does not always live up to higher ethical principles.

This report contains criticism of the ‘mainstream’ charity sector. It suggests that charity leaders have much to do to understand racism and deliver on diversity, equity and inclusion in the sector. But this report is not about blame: it is about facing some home truths about where the charity sector falls short and taking responsibility for what needs to be done. On diversity, we must now move from warm words to meaningful action in order to change the sector for good. To that end, this report is intended to be a spur and an aid to all those committed to making the charity sector a racially diverse and welcoming place for all – one where everyone’s face ‘fits’.

Diversity in the charity sector

Diversity is the presence, in a setting such as an organisation, of people who together have various elements of human difference,³ such as gender and gender identity, ‘race’ and ethnicity, faith, sexual orientation, disability classification, and class.

One practical argument for diversity is that it helps to make organisations and initiatives more effective. This argument is well made by advocates of the value of lived experience and lived-experience leaders being at the heart of social change (Sandhu, 2017). The approach helps to recognise and affirm the assets of people who might be too easily dismissed as beneficiaries of charities or groups that need to be consulted by ‘professionals’ rather than recognised as well-qualified architects of social change. Furthermore, it is a reminder that excellence, knowhow and leadership come in many different forms.

However, the relationship between diversity and performance may be complex. For example, there is an argument that it is not identity or experiential diversity that boosts productivity but cognitive diversity, i.e. how people think (Reynolds and Lewis, 2017). And that can simply boost the intake of more white people who are deemed to be ‘outside-the-box’ thinkers, at the expense of BAME or other people who might bring lived expertise to a cause.

Therefore, while diversity may be performance-enhancing (Rock, Grant and Grey, 2016), ultimately, diversity in the charity sector should be underwritten by values such as a commitment to justice – values that inform the sector when it is at its best.

There is no one way to measure how much diversity is ‘just right’. The answer depends on the nature of the work, location and mission of the charities involved. That said, the principle of ‘proportionality’ is one way to assess appropriate levels of diversity. In the context of an individual charity, this may lead to an expectation that its workforce ‘reflects’ certain populations, such as its ‘user’ group or the population of the local area in which the organisation is based. This logic implies that, for instance, an organisation supporting BAME young people with mental health issues in a diverse place like Leicester (BBC, 2012) should have a ‘significant’ proportion of BAME staff.

The reality is rather far away from proportionality of BAME presence in the charity sector as a whole.

Fewer than one in 10 voluntary sector employees (9 per cent) are from BAME backgrounds, a lower proportion than in both the public and private sectors (both at 11 per cent), and a lower proportion than in the UK population as a whole (14 per cent) (NCVO, 2019). There is even less racial diversity at executive and non-executive leadership level in charities (Wrixon, 2018). Inclusive Boards (2018) found that in the 500 largest charities by income, only 5.3 per cent of senior leadership teams were from an ethnic minority background. Green Park found that only 9.6 per cent of trustees in the top 100 charities by income were from a BAME background (Adams et al., 2019).

Progress in the area of racial and ethnic diversity in the charity sector is far too slow. But there appears to be growing interest in change. Initiatives include the pledge on racial diversity promoted by ACEVO and the Institute of Fundraising (ACEVO, 2018), and the Pillars of Stronger Foundation Practice developed by the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF, 2019). There has also been the rise of BAME voices outside of the charity sector, such as new media publication gal-dem, which foregrounds perspectives of women and non-binary people of colour.⁴ And within the charity sector, the critical and constructive campaigning of #CharitySoWhite is helping to make BAME absence an urgent issue.⁵ But there is still so much to do.

1. We use ‘minoritised’ rather than ‘minority’ ethnic in our version of BAME. In doing so we wish to indicate that the issue is not that one part of the population is in the majority and another in the minority. For example, blond-haired people are in the minority. Rather, the point is that people outside the category of ‘white British’ are subject to differential and disadvantageous treatment that can marginalise and constrain them.
2. For example, see statistics from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to accompany EHRC (2016b).
3. This definition borrows from ACF (2019). See also D5 Coalition (2014).
4. See gal-dem.com
5. See Civil Society (2019) and the Twitter account twitter.com/charitysowhite