The Geography of Social Good
Regional Trends in giving differ across the UK
When we talk about philanthropy, there’s a worrying negative cache about what it means to give back to a good cause. There's a difference between fundraising and philanthropy. Is it bad to want to do good?
Whether you are chipping in a tenner for your bestie who is doing the Great North Run or investing in deep systemic changes as a funder, giving as an economic indicator is estimated to generate over £12billion per year according to a recent report from Rob Johnson at the Centre for Cities, the UK’s leading independent think tank helping cities and towns address the economic opportunities they face.
The big data is fascinating but what lies beneath is a narrative about the geography of UK regions and the identity of cities within them. This report is not only a picture of where wealth is based, but how people give at different levels. The crowd has power, and big philanthropy can make a monumental difference. But should they be aligned more?
The Centre for Cities report hints at how industrial decline in former “rust belt” communities has impacted generosity and who benefits. It’s also, for me, about place and regional spirit and the ecosystem of charities and causes which have grown to respond to need in a specific place.
A Concentration of Capital
Data from New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) shows that over 65% of foundation funding from the UK’s largest grant-makers goes to organisations based in London and the South East. Meanwhile, the North East receives under 2%.
Further research from the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) at the University of Birmingham shows that London-based charities receive over 70% of all voluntary income reported to the Charity Commission. The infrastructure, fundraising capability, and profile of major organisations are clustered where power already sits but where service need is greater.
Rural Hinterlands
In rural areas, the picture is even starker. A recent Local Trust study found that only 2% of philanthropic funding reaches rural communities. Despite the clear value of rural heritage, cultural spaces, and the need for greater community cohesion, these organisations do not have the infrastructure to scale up fundraising. The prospect of it is overwhelming and complex to navigate.
Big Funders and Small, Regular Donors
While philanthropic giving often speaks to the language of inclusion and justice, its patterns of investment reveals a different reality. Arguably big funding gravitates round a reef of large organisations with existing civic capital - those with existing networks and links to wealth: for example, universities. This sets smaller charities at a disadvantage because their volunteer capacity is low. How do they mobilise themselves to fundraise and utilise public relations tactics? But as we all know there are big transitions at these larger organisations which means they will be leaner and likely a bit meaner as they look inward to core business. This creates opportunities for others to pull up a seat at the social good table. It’s a levelling up period.
In his Revisionist Podcast “My Little Hundred Million” Malcolm Gladwell talks about how a major donation to Glassboro State University in 1992 by alumnus and entrepreneur Hank Rowan made a transformational difference to a small New Jersey based public university. This was at the same time as Phil Knight, founder of Nike, who gave $400 million to his alma mater Stanford. It's a choice for funders which they need to think through strategically: do you give to the high performing elites who are well oiled machines, or do you want to make a a wider systemic difference by supporting the weakest members of the team. Gladwell’s ‘soccer’ versus ‘basketball’ sentiment is that change happens when the focus is not just on the top performers.
A Nation of Donations
Based on the findings of the Centre for Cites report by Rob Johnson it is clear that charitable giving in the UK is geographically uneven, with donation patterns closely tracking income rather than local need.
Wealthier regions such as London and the South East contribute the highest total sums, yet often fall short when giving is measured proportionally against income. Meanwhile, parts of the UK with the greatest levels of deprivation (particularly in the the urban North, Midlands, and Wales) see far lower levels of giving and receive less charitable investment. This imbalance reinforces existing inequalities, as communities with fewer resources are less able to fund services or attract national attention.
The report identifies notable outliers that buck the trend. Blackburn, for example, has low average incomes but ranks among the top ten areas for proportion of residents giving to charity. This highlights a strong local culture of generosity and in some case is also linked to faith communities. Similarly, areas in the North East show above-average giving relative to income. These examples suggest that income is not the only driver; civic identity, community cohesion, and religious or cultural values also play a role. However, these efforts are often under-recognised in national funding streams, pointing to the need for a more regionally responsive approach to philanthropy.
The report makes recommendations around match funding through charitable action zones, the role of local authorities in delivery programmes and cites the great work of the Greater Manchester Mayor’s Fund and the role of stronger place based partnerships to tackle critical challenges.
Rob Johnson, Analyst, Centre for Cities says:
Mayoral funds seem to be a fruitful option to better balance the geography of giving. 56% of the people we surveyed said they would give more to local causes if there was a broad fund set up for a specific cause in their area.
Mayors, with their ever-growing powers and local visibility, are best placed to bring in charitable funds from outside, raise local giving, and channel these proceeds towards the causes that are important in their patch. And this would ideally work with, not against, local charities, using their expertise while building their capacity to make tangible impact.
How can you engage in this agenda?
Please take a look at the more detailed report and check out our channels for an opportunity to hear from Rob in real time in the autumn: Subscribe now.