Reviewed and updated 22 August 2026.
By Aneeta Prem MBE
Charity trustees are used to thinking about finance, safeguarding, reputation and service delivery. Increasingly, some also have to think about hostility directed at the charity simply because of the people it helps or the issues it addresses.
The Charity Commission now has evidence that this is not confined to a few high-profile organisations.
What the Charity Commission found in 2026
Research published by the regulator in July 2026 found that one in four charities said they had been affected by polarisation and division in society.
The reported effects included vandalism, protests, reduced support and changes to or suspension of services. Two per cent of trustees surveyed said their charity’s staff had been threatened in person.
The Commission said charities working on causes including human rights, religious harmony and racial harmony were among those most likely to report an impact.
This follows the regulator’s 2025 work with charities facing hostility and its guidance on how organisations can respond to a hostile environment.
Criticism is not the same as intimidation
Charities that campaign or speak publicly should expect disagreement. Lawful criticism, protest and scrutiny are part of democratic life.
Threats, stalking, violence, vandalism or intimidation are different.
Trustees need to preserve that distinction. Labelling every critic a threat damages accountability. Treating genuine threats as ordinary criticism can expose staff, volunteers and beneficiaries to avoidable harm.
The trustee duty starts with risk assessment
The Charity Commission’s guidance does not tell every charity to adopt the same security measures. It asks trustees to make reasonable decisions based on the risks their own organisation faces.
That means asking:
- Who could realistically be targeted — staff, volunteers, trustees, beneficiaries or visitors?
- Are addresses, travel routines or personal details unnecessarily exposed?
- Does the charity have a clear process for threats, abuse or suspicious contact?
- Do staff know when to involve police?
- Can services continue safely if a building, event or online channel is disrupted?
- Are safeguarding, communications and security plans joined up?
A proportionate plan is better than either panic or denial.
Protect trustees without hiding accountability
Trustees are public stewards of charitable assets and should expect appropriate transparency.
But the Commission also recognises that there can be legitimate safety reasons for limiting the publication of personal information where credible risk exists.
The principle should be necessity, not convenience. Privacy measures should protect people from genuine harm without becoming a way to avoid public accountability.
Charities must still be able to speak
The regulator’s hostile-environment guidance is also important for another reason: it reaffirms that charities may campaign on policy issues where doing so furthers their charitable purposes and is in the charity’s best interests.
Fear should not silently rewrite a charity’s objects.
Trustees may decide to change how, where or when an organisation communicates because of security. That is different from abandoning lawful work because intimidation has made it uncomfortable.
My own experience of contentious safeguarding work
I co-founded Freedom Charity with Lord Toby Harris in 2009. Its work addresses forced marriage, FGM and related abuse — subjects that can attract strong views and sometimes attempts to portray safeguarding as an attack on culture or faith.
The answer is neither provocation nor retreat.
It is to keep the work evidence-led, legally accurate and focused on the behaviour causing harm rather than on whole communities.
That approach matters even more in a polarised environment. A charity should be able to explain exactly what it is saying, why it falls within its purposes and what evidence supports it.
Staff and volunteers need more than reassurance
If somebody has received a threat, telling them simply to be resilient is not enough.
Organisations need practical systems: who records the incident, who assesses risk, when police are contacted, whether working arrangements need to change and what support is available afterwards.
Boards should also consider the cumulative effect of repeated abuse on staff and volunteers. A hostile inbox, repeated threatening messages or fear around travelling to work may not appear in a conventional safeguarding dashboard unless somebody deliberately asks.
Governance questions every board should revisit
The Commission’s findings make this a governance issue, not merely a communications issue.
Trustees should ensure that serious incidents can reach the board quickly, that risk registers reflect current threats, that insurance and business-continuity arrangements remain adequate and that decisions are documented.
They should also know the limits of their expertise. Physical security, cyber threats, stalking or extremist risk may require specialist advice.
Final word
Charities exist because society contains needs that do not disappear when public debate becomes hostile.
Trustees therefore have two responsibilities at once: keep people safe and keep the charity capable of delivering its lawful purpose.
Courage in governance is not ignoring risk. It is understanding the risk well enough that intimidation does not make the organisation abandon the people it exists to serve.
Sources and further reading
- Charity Commission: 2026 research on division and hostility
- Charity Commission: responding to the current hostile environment
- Charity Commission: charities in an age of hostility
