Toxic Culture in UK Charities: What’s Going On and What You Can Do About It

I want to start by saying something clearly: I love this sector. The extraordinary work that charities do and the remarkable people who choose to do it are why I set up Raise + Recruit to work exclusively with them. The vast majority of organisations I work with are genuinely values-led, well-governed and committed to looking after their people.

This article is not written to be critical for the sake of it. It is written because I care — about the people who work in charities, about the organisations that depend on great leadership, and about a sector that deserves to be honest with itself when something is going wrong.

And something is going wrong.

There is a conversation happening in the UK charity sector that nobody particularly wants to have. It is about culture — specifically, the growing evidence that some charities are not living the values they espouse, and that the people working inside them are paying the price.

Whistleblowing disclosures to the Charity Commission almost doubled in two years, reaching 546 in 2024–25. Governance failures — bullying, harassment, poor EDI handling, silenced staff — were the single largest category reported. High-profile cases at World Vision UK, NCVO, the Alan Turing Institute and Birmingham LGBT Centre have all made headlines in the past eighteen months, each with their own specific circumstances but sharing recognisable patterns: concerns ignored, people afraid to speak, leadership accountability gaps.

This is not a new problem. But it is getting harder to ignore.

Why now? The five-year context

The rise in reported toxicity didn’t come from nowhere. Several pressures have been building across the sector since 2020, and they have compounded each other in ways that create the conditions for culture to deteriorate.

Funding pressure and financial instability. Years of squeezed statutory funding, rising demand for services, and the aftermath of the cost-of-living crisis have left many charities operating on margins that leave no room for error. When organisations are financially precarious, the pressure on leaders intensifies — and that pressure often flows downward. Short-term contracts, redundancies and restructures have become routine, and with them comes the job insecurity and blame culture that typically precede reports of toxic behaviour.

Burnout at scale. A 2026 CharityJob survey found 78% of charity staff felt emotionally exhausted or burnt out at least sometimes. Among Millennials and Gen Z, more than a third reported burnout as a frequent experience. A workforce that is chronically exhausted is more vulnerable to incivility, more likely to disengage, and less able to raise concerns or seek support. Burnout and toxic culture feed each other.

The values gap. Charities occupy an unusual position. They ask staff to work for lower salaries because the mission matters. They attract people who care deeply. When the culture of an organisation contradicts the values it espouses — when the charity working on inclusion has a bullying problem, or the mental health charity has poor staff wellbeing — the sense of betrayal is acute. That gap between stated values and lived experience is one of the most common drivers of the toxic culture reports now reaching the regulator.

Governance weaknesses. Boards in the charity sector are often less equipped to scrutinise culture than their counterparts in other sectors. Trustee roles are voluntary, turnover is high, and the information flowing up to boards frequently paints a rosier picture than the reality on the ground. The Charity Commission data reflects this: governance failures are where the problems cluster.

A sector not yet equipped to respond. The UK lacks dedicated anti-bullying legislation. The Worker Protection Act 2023 strengthens harassment protections, but general bullying remains less clearly regulated. Many charities have strong written policies and weak follow-through. HR capacity is limited. Whistleblowing routes that exist on paper are not always safe in practice.

Recognising a toxic environment

Toxic cultures rarely announce themselves. They accumulate through small signals that can be rationalised individually but form a pattern when seen together.

Signs to look for include: high staff turnover, particularly concentrated in specific teams or under specific managers; a visible gap between formal policy and actual behaviour; concerns being raised and then disappearing without explanation; decisions made in informal networks rather than through proper governance; people describing a fear of speaking up; exclusionary behaviour — favouritism, cliques, differential treatment — that is tolerated rather than challenged; and senior leaders who accept no accountability for conduct or culture.

The most important signal is often the simplest: how people feel when they walk into work. A culture where staff feel psychologically unsafe — where they self-censor, avoid raising concerns, or watch colleagues leave without understanding why — is a culture with a problem, regardless of what the policy documents say.

What to do if you find yourself in one

If you are working in an environment that feels toxic, the options are not always straightforward, but they are real.

Document what you observe. Keep a record of specific incidents, dates, what was said and who was present. This is not about building a case — it is about giving yourself clarity on what is actually happening, rather than internalising the doubt that toxic environments often generate.

Use formal channels, but do so carefully. Most organisations have grievance and whistleblowing procedures. Before using them, understand what protections they offer and whether previous reports have been handled well. If the organisation has a serious culture problem, those channels may not be safe. If that is the case, the Charity Commission’s whistleblowing route is available for concerns about governance.

Seek support outside the organisation. The whistleblowing charity Protect offers free, confidential advice. Acas provides guidance on workplace rights. A trusted colleague, a professional network, or a union representative can offer perspective and support.

Know when to leave. This is easier said than done, particularly if financial security is a concern. But staying in a toxic environment has a real cost — to mental health, to professional confidence, and to the quality of work you can do. If the organisation is not willing to change and you have exhausted reasonable options, leaving is not failure.

A checklist for boards and leaders

The following questions are designed for boards, senior leaders, and anyone taking on a new role at a charity who wants to understand the culture they are walking into.

Governance and oversight

• What culture information reaches trustees routinely — not just headlines, but grievance rates, turnover trends, and whistleblowing outcomes?
• When was the last time culture evidence was independently tested, rather than self-reported?
• Is there board-level ownership of an action plan, with clear accountability?

Psychological safety

• Do staff feel safe raising concerns without fear of retaliation?
• What has happened to people who have raised concerns in the past — and is that known across the organisation?
• Are managers held accountable for their conduct, or only for their outputs?

Data and patterns

• What does turnover data show by team and manager, not just as an organisation-wide average?
• What do exit interviews actually say, and does anyone act on the themes?
• How are EDI complaints tracked, investigated, and reported to the board?

Fairness and transparency

• Can the organisation evidence that promotion, pay, and development opportunities are applied fairly?
• Are decisions explained clearly, with space for questions?
• Is there an inner circle, and does it operate outside normal governance?

Early resolution

• What mechanisms exist to resolve conflict before it escalates to grievance?
• Are managers trained in having difficult conversations?
• How many grievances were upheld last year, and what changed as a result?

The charity sector exists to do good. The overwhelming majority of people working in it are trying to do exactly that, often under significant pressure and for less than they could earn elsewhere. That commitment deserves to be protected — and one of the ways we protect it is by being honest about the conditions in which people are being asked to work.

Raising these issues is not an attack on the sector. It is an act of respect for it. The organisations that take culture seriously, that create genuinely safe and supportive environments, attract better people, retain them longer, and ultimately do more good. That is the outcome worth working toward.

If any of this resonates — whether you are a trustee, a CEO, a staff member, or someone considering their next move — I am always happy to have a conversation. This stuff matters.