How charities stopped centring service users

Fundraising has changed drastically in the past fifteen years. We’ve seen a reduction in government funding, loss of grant-funding opportunities, an expansion of restricted funding, and decreases in public donations. The fundraising changes largely stem from political and economic decisions, often in response to tough social and environmental circumstances. And the changes have led to new ways of fundraising, new responses to funding challenges.

 

But new methods of fundraising are not necessarily the best. There are wrong ways to fundraise – and these typically arise when charities face pressure – such as presenting service users as dependent, practicing paternalism rather than empowerment, and focussing on sympathy rather than showcasing resilience. In contrast, the right way to fundraise often involves campaigns and grant-funding applications that empower and centre service users.  

 

In this article, we look at recent changes to fundraising, starting with a brief history of the past fifteen years and the way that political decisions have impacted charities. Then we explore the best ways to get fundraising right, by centring service users, telling their story, affording them the dignity and agency they deserve. Let’s begin at the beginning, with a little history.

 

 

Rising demand, sinking supply

 

The UK has faced nearly fifteen years of austerity, deemed an inescapable consequence of the great recession, an economic collapse caused by the de-regulation of financial institutions and incentivised risk. Politicians “had to” make “tough decisions” after 2008. “Tough decisions” often meant the vulnerable faced cuts, paying for mistakes largely made by the most powerful.

 

“Tough decisions” meant a new framework of responsibility. Former Prime Minister David Cameron’s “Big Society” symbolised the shift, integrating the reduction of state spending with a “paternalistic” social contract, drawing on ideals harking back to philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke. The state would help less – a consequence of “tough decisions” – but the public would provide further support, rely on communities, champion volunteerism, and so on.

 

The Brexit vote in 2016 led to a slow loss of EU funding, such as the European Social Fund (ESF), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and Horizon 2020. The government aimed to plug that hole – though a smaller hole remained – with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. But Brexit created other problems, such as a reduction in trade, stifled growth, decline in foreign direct investment (FDI), and inflationary pressures, all of which created issues for charities. And Brexit, often touted as a huge win for the reduction of bureaucracy, created bureaucracy for charities, as they navigated new options for funding and struggled to meet new regulatory challenges.

 

Then, in 2020, came the pandemic: the restrictions, the lockdowns. Nearly all charities were impacted by COVID-19. According to research, more than nine-in-ten charities suffered negative impacts on service delivery, finances, employment, all of which stemmed from the months of uncertainty. The sector proved resilient, adapting their service delivery, often moving services to the digital space, and taking other actions to keep their charities afloat. But, despite resilience, despite innovative approaches to service delivery, roughly 40% of charities, according to research, had to dip into reserves and many others had to cut staff and expenditure.

 

Then came the cost-of-living crisis. The cost of everyday essentials, like energy and food, rose faster than average incomes. Contributing factors included the legacy of austerity, supply chain issues following Brexit, the effects of the pandemic, and the conflict in Ukraine. Charities had to provide more services with fewer funds. Again. According to UK Fundraising, for example, 55% of the public stated that their current financial situation made it difficult to donate. According to the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF), one in eight donors had to consider cutting back on donations.

 

And that brings us to the present day, when charities are recovering from myriad crises. And they need more funding. According to CAF, for example, nearly a third (31%) of charity leaders think the sector is unhealthy in 2024, with charity leaders calling for better overall funding (55%) and improved funding from the government (32%) to improve the sector’s health. And the latest government changes, as seen in the Chancellor’s 2024 budget, may add new financial pressures on charities due to rises in the national living wage and a drop in NIC thresholds.

 

In an ideal world, charities would not exist. We’d have no need for them. Society would look after every citizen, ensuring they had access to the right provisions, ensuring they receive the care they deserve. But charities are needed. They play a vital role in our society. And limited funding, as we’ve seen over the past fifteen years, can put immense pressure on charities. That pressure can lead to poor decision-making, especially around the ways in which charities raise funds.

 

 

The paradox of restricted funding

 

Years of economic hardship, hastened by political and economic choices and an unprecedented health crisis, has led to an ever-widening void, one “Big Society” evidently failed to fill. Charities are often tasked with filling that void. And they have to fill it with less income. Government income to charities has declined in real terms, for example, particularly for charities with an income of under £100k. Charities are increasingly reliant on public donations and grant-funding.

 

But we’ve seen grant funding decrease, especially since the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. And the nature of grant-funding has changed in the past few decades. We’ve seen a rise in restricted grants, usually with the expressed aim of promoting outcome-based results, minimising admin, and allocating funds to the most impactful and measurable areas.

 

The changes likely follow from recent history. Many commercial organisations, due to the abovementioned economic pressures, have less disposable income, less to give away. They want to see maximum impact with charitable donations. They want to look good, to showcase their great work, which is perfectly understandable but can lead to an embrace of restricted funds.

 

Restricted funds are often counter-intuitive. They can prevent outcome-based results: the restriction prioritises process, not results. They can create admin, as charities have to delineate time, resource, and cost associated with each person and project. The pursuit of maximum impacts with restricted funds poses a paradox, as non-restricted funds are often more impactful.

 

Narratives around grant-funding have changed. Too many funders now aim to demonstrate maximum impact rather than achieve maximum impact. And that means charities prioritise the demands of the funder over the needs of the service user, putting together proposals with funders firmly in mind. To meet requirements, they spend time justifying the work done rather than impact made. And, in our experience, service users too infrequently feature in the conversation.

 

 

The rise of the deficit narrative

 

It isn’t just funders. Charity fundraising teams also sideline their service users,  sometimes under the guise of raising money for those very service users. Fundraising campaigns often employ narratives that disempower service users rather than focus on justice and solidarity.

 

We’ve seen that more in recent years, as charities aim to raise more money in times of economic hardship. One frequent issue is the pursuit of sympathy. Many charities, in their quest to raise funds, present deficit narratives that reduce service users to their most vulnerable experiences, failing to build clear pictures of individuals. Deficit narratives invite sympathy with one-dimensional representation, removing the complexity of experience, reinforcing stereotypes of helplessness. Such narratives deny service users agency and undermine their resilience.

 

Charity campaigns with the expressed aim of generating sympathy often come across as paternalistic. They focus on perpetuating dependency, removing agency, asserting power over charity users. Donors are not saviours. Nor are charities. And service users are not helpless.

 

Charities should empower service users and abandon paternalism. Service users, with support from charities, can transform their lives. Service users overcome so many challenges, many of which are created by an unfair society. Charities should avoid deficit narratives, focussing instead on journeys of transformation, highlighting how fundraising supports that journey.

 

As we’ve seen above, the past years have been profoundly difficult for charities – and far more difficult for service users. Many people across the UK are struggling. Charities have fewer resources to provide support. But the entire charity sector should focus on the needs of service users – and that starts with centring service users in calls for funding.

 

 

Service users to the front

 

As we explored above and in an earlier article, charities should not treat service users as objects in their fundraising campaigns and should avoid misrepresenting tragedy to garner sympathy.

 

They should instead present service users as individuals with unique experiences, facing unique circumstances. Here we explore three ways to centre service users in your campaigns.

 

 

Get feedback for your campaigns

 

You can get service user feedback through beneficiary feedback mechanisms (BFMs). BFMs are typically used for improving services but can be used to better define fundraising proposals and campaigns, ensuring that your service users are effectively and ethically represented.

 

BFMs gather service users’ feedback, allowing charities to improve their campaigns, boosting accountability and transparency around implementation. BFMs come in various forms, ranging from suggestion boxes to hotlines, from focus groups to feedback committees.

 

Charities need to decide on the best BFM for service users to voice their opinions. You should consider digital inclusion when picking your BFM: hotlines or SMS feedback might prove the wrong option if service users have low digital literacy or face high levels of poverty. In such instances, the safest option, as shown by UK Aid, might be the face-to-face BFM.

 

Employing several BFMs rather than a sole instrument can prove beneficial, especially for larger charities. And remember to always make the purpose of the BFM clear and specifically guide service users through the process. Ensure repeat feedback at appropriate times, allowing you to make incremental changes to service delivery and to improve your fundraising campaigns.

 

Ensure the feedback proves diverse. Seek feedback from marginalised, minoritised, and underrepresented groups. Diversity in feedback will ensure diversity in storytelling, ensuring your campaigns effectively represent all service users and resonate with a broader audience.

 

 

Involve service users in storytelling

 

Involve service users in storytelling. Or, better still, just let them tell the story. You can address hardships and challenges, but do not inflate hardship, without context of the person’s assets and autonomy, to garner sympathy. Hardship too often seems the default. Charities should instead focus on aspirations in campaigns and present proposed outcomes, exploring the way the funds might be used to carve a better future.

 

Highlight the progress your mission has made. Mention a milestone it’s reached, for example, and note how funds can help it go further. Show service users’ strengths and their contribution. Service users are not simply vulnerable. They are complex, unique human beings, with a variety of experiences and perspectives. Help them claim a stake in resolving problems they experience and have a say in how they are represented to others.

 

 

Do not individualise the structural

 

Another concern around hardship is the individualising of social problems. Service users turn to charities because of structural issues, issues that often stem from political, social, and economic decisions. Society is a creation. We have created it. Barriers we face are likewise created, directly or indirectly. Hardships are often the result of created structures and systems.

 

So, ensure your comms, campaigns, and grant-funding applications address problems as such. They are not individual issues: they are social issues. The focus should be on system and structural change, not the modification of individual behaviour. Inform donors that donations will tackle the root causes of issues, providing short-term relief with long-term solutions.

 

 

Reimagining services

 

The charity sector has faced a difficult fifteen years. And, in times of economic hardship, charities have proved strong, robust, and resilient. But at times we’ve forgotten who we serve: not ourselves, not grant-funders, not even public donors, but service users. It’s time that we worked more with service users to carve out a better future, with users firmly at the centre.

 

So, in 2025, we’re launching a new campaign, focussing on the ways charities provide services. Our Reimagining Services campaign seeks to re-centre service users throughout charity operations, from service delivery to fundraising to volunteering. We’ll provide sector knowledge-sharing and digital advice to help charities reimagine their service delivery.