£12.7 billion was donated to charity in the UK in 2022. This is equivalent to one fifth of local government financing.
This could represent a significant resource for local economic development – the 2022 Levelling Up White Paper highlights the voluntary sector as part of building ‘social capital’ in left behind areas. But to what extent does charitable giving in the UK support tackling regional inequalities?
To answer this question, this report sets out the geography of charitable giving in the UK, how it relates to local economic performance, and investigates whether the geography of giving meets the geography of need.
The landscape of giving
There is untapped giving capacity and missing generosity in many richer, southern places in the UK
There is a clear geography to giving in the UK.
The map below shows that the proportion of people giving – the ‘propensity to give’ – is highest in the Greater South East (though excluding many parts of London). It is lowest in the urban areas of Yorkshire and the North West.
Figure 1: The propensity to give is higher in the Greater South East (outside of London) than in the North
The propensity to give is clearly linked to incomes – people in more affluent areas are more likely to give. But this is not the whole story.
Figure 2: There is a giving gap between the Greater South East and the rest of the UK in the middle of the income distribution
This shows that for places in the UK with typical incomes, those in the Greater South East are up to 15 per cent less likely to donate to charity compared to those in the rest of the UK with the same income. There is a ‘giving gap’ at this geography.
There is also ‘missing generosity’ among donors in the Greater South East, where in many places people donate a smaller share of their income than in the rest of the UK. Typical residents of Chelsea and Fulham donate half as much of their income than those living in Middlesbrough (0.6 per cent versus 1.2 per cent), while having almost double their incomes on average (£40,900 versus £21,800).
Unmet need
The geography of charitable activity does not meet the geography of need in the UK
The geography of need varies across the UK – the highest deprivation is seen in the North, West Midlands, and Wales.
But local donations do not match this geography. Wales, Yorkshire, and the West Midlands see the lowest donations per donor to local causes. The North East and North West give more locally, but their high deprivation limits the total amount donors can give. And London donors give the most to local causes, but have the lowest local need.
Figure 3: Wales, Yorkshire, and the West Midlands are least generous to local causes, despite high local need
The types of local causes donated to also do not reflect local need. In the North, Midlands, and Wales, donors are more likely to support local animal and environmental charities than those helping to alleviate local poverty. Local poverty charities are most popular in London, the region with the lowest local deprivation.
It’s the same story with the geography of charitable organisations. There are more charities per head in the Greater South East. There are even fewer charities specifically focused on local economic needs in more income deprived areas.
Implications for levelling up
There is a mismatch between places with potential ability to give to charity, and places with high local need
So what does all this mean in the context of levelling up?
Figure 4: There are a number of affluent cities that have a high propensity to give, but are less generous than less affluent cities
First, more giving could be unlocked in many places. These are the light green dots in the bottom right quadrant (e.g., Brighton, Reading, Southend, Bournemouth): affluent cities where high shares of people give but amounts given per donor are relatively low. These cities have the potential to increase generosity in line with less affluent cities in the top left quadrant, where donors give a higher share of their income.
Figure 5: Fewer people donate and fewer charities are located in cities where need is highest
But in general it is these more affluent places, with the least need for charity, that have the highest concentrations of charitable activity. This is because geography of charitable activity in the UK reflects an area’s ability to give, rather than its need. In other words, redistribution to places with high need via local giving is constrained by local incomes.
Overall, the geography of charitable activity in the UK does not complement the levelling up agenda to its full potential.
What to do
There are actions for national and local government, as well as large national charities if charitable giving is to be active in levelling up the UK
Above all, the economy drives the ability to give. A sluggish economy hits incomes: in Centre for Cities’ survey, 59 per cent of those not donating cited financial constraints, by far the most common reason given.
So to increase the total amount of charitable giving in the long term, particularly in poorer areas, national government must get the economy firing again in the UK:
In the meantime, the following actions can be taken:
For national government
- Incentivise giving from richer areas to specifically benefit places in need. Onward’s suggestion of ‘Charitable Action Zones’ are a potential example.
- Develop a strategy on how charitable giving can support levelling up in the UK as a continuation of the work set out in the White Paper.
For local government
- Set up broad local funds which could divert donations to local charities under the umbrella of a wider cause. The Greater Manchester Mayor’s Fund is an already active and successful example of this.
- Tailor approaches based on existing variation in preferences for local giving.
For large national charities
- Undertake ‘Levelling Up Charity Partnerships’. These schemes would see national charities partnering with local charities pursuing similar causes in high need areas, diverting donations and helping to overcome local economic constraints.
- Increase transparency and share data on where donations are spent. This would help fill existing evidence gaps.
