Our Reports
Resilience in Motion
The State of London’s Black-led Impact Organisations in 2024
Packed with insights, evidence-based recommendations, and a call to action, this report is essential reading for funders, policymakers, and advocates working to support Black-led impact organisations in building long-term resilience and success.
About Do it Now Now
Do it Now Now (DiNN) is a pioneering organisation dedicated to empowering Black-led charities, social enterprises, and grassroots organisations across the UK. As part of its commitment to fostering equity and social justice, DiNN launched the London Now Now campaign, a transformative initiative aimed at addressing the unique challenges faced by Black-led organisations in London. Through this campaign, DiNN has created pathways for financial support, capacity building, and systemic change, ensuring that Black communities are equipped with the tools, resources, and opportunities they need to thrive. The London Now Now campaign is not just about responding to immediate challenges—it's about building a future where Black-led organisations are recognised, resourced, and resilient, poised to create lasting impact in the communities they serve.
Contact us to find out more about what we are doing to challenge the status quo and increase opportunities for equitable outcomes in the UK’s Black community.
1.1 Introduction
Black-led charities and social enterprises (CSEs) in London have been navigating a series of complex challenges over the past few years. The effects of systemic inequality, coupled with the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, have left many Black-led organisations struggling to survive. As part of ongoing efforts to understand and address these difficulties, in late 2024 a comprehensive Organisational Health Check was conducted, assessing 35 Black-led CSEs. This report builds upon the findings from the 2023 Cost of Living Crisis Report, focusing on how the funding crisis has compounded governance, financial, and operational challenges for the organisations in our community.
Our Organisational Health Check was designed by the researchers in our organisation, to evaluate the operational and financial resilience of charities and social enterprises. Conducted by trained and experienced assessors, the assessment provides a structured and evidence-based analysis of an organisation's health, ensuring objectivity and reliability. It focuses on key areas essential for organisational sustainability, including governance, financial management, human resources, operational systems, strategic planning, and programme effectiveness.
Each organisation was evaluated through a combination of structured interviews and document reviews, with assessors using a predefined set of questions to maintain consistency and comparability across all assessments. The methodology aligns with best practices in nonprofit evaluation, incorporating recognised standards in financial oversight, compliance, and strategic growth planning. By applying these rigorous benchmarks, the Organisational Health Check offers a clear and actionable roadmap for organisations to strengthen their internal systems, address gaps, and enhance long-term sustainability.
The Organisational Health Check revealed several core themes: governance weaknesses, financial instability, and operational inefficiencies, all of which are exacerbated by limited access to funding. This report examines these findings in detail and provides recommendations for addressing these systemic issues.
1.1 Summary
Using the 2024 Organisational Health Check, we assessed 35 Black-led charities and social enterprises based in London, aiming to explore the financial and operational health of these organisations amidst a growing funding crisis. Qualified assessors conducted structured interviews, focusing on key areas such as governance, financial management, human resources, and programme management. The assessment tool used was based on UK standards of nonprofit organisational evaluation, ensuring a consistent and thorough review.
The methodology of the Health Check is grounded in practices widely used across the UK nonprofit sector, including those recommended by organisations like NCVO (National Council for Voluntary Organisations) and ACEVO (Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations). These evaluations, commonly referred to as "health checks" in the sector, assess organisational capacity and readiness to deliver impact. The focus on both qualitative and quantitative data in this health check aligns with sector-wide best practices, as seen in evaluations conducted by major UK charities and funding bodies such as the Charity Commission and CAF (Charities Aid Foundation).
Comparing the results of the 2024 Health Check with findings from other UK-based non-profit assessments reveals important insights into the structural inequalities faced by Black-led organisations. This section compares the findings from the Health Check we designed and delivered to general trends in the UK voluntary and community sector, particularly those highlighted in the NCVO’s UK Civil Society Almanac, CAF UK Giving Report, and The Charity Commission’s Annual Reports.
1.1.1 Governance
Sector Norms: Governance challenges are not uncommon across UK charitable organisations. According to the Charity Commission, one in five charities in the UK lacks strong governance structures, particularly around areas like board diversity and strategic oversight. Governance failures are often cited as a leading cause of organisational instability, especially in smaller, community-led organisations.
Comparison: The 2024 Health Check found that governance issues were more acute for Black-led CSEs. Governance Q1, which assesses succession planning, had the lowest scores, with some organisations scoring 0, indicating that many Black CSEs lack formal processes for leadership transitions. This is below UK sector norms, where succession planning, while often lacking in smaller charities, is more commonly addressed by larger and better-resourced organisations. In the broader sector, particularly among larger charities, succession planning is considered a crucial element of sustainability, according to ACEVO’s Pay and Equalities Report (2023).
1.1.2 Financial Stability
Sector Norms: Financial stability has been a major concern for UK charities in recent years, with the Charity Commission reporting that nearly half of all UK charities are facing financial difficulties. The CAF UK Giving Report (2023) also highlights that income diversification and reserve building are key financial health indicators, yet many charities, particularly smaller ones, struggle to maintain sufficient reserves.
Comparison: The financial challenges reported in the 2024 Health Check are consistent with sector-wide trends but are particularly severe for Black-led CSEs. Over 70% of these organisations had less than six months of operational reserves, compared to the broader UK norm where many charities aim to have at least three to six months of reserves. This reflects findings in the Small Charities Coalition’s 2022 Survey, which notes that smaller, community-focused charities often lack the financial resilience of larger charities. However, Black-led organisations also face additional barriers, such as systemic bias in funding allocation, which exacerbate these financial challenges compared to their counterparts.
1.1.3 Human Resources
Sector Norms: Staffing issues are widespread across UK charities, particularly in recruitment, retention, and volunteer management. The NCVO UK Civil Society Almanac indicates that nearly 40% of small and medium-sized charities rely heavily on volunteers due to limited financial resources, leading to challenges in workforce stability and capacity.
Comparison: The 2024 Health Check found significant variability in human resources management among Black-led CSEs, with staffing challenges more pronounced than sector norms. Only 35% of the organisations assessed had robust recruitment and volunteer management systems. In contrast, many UK charities, particularly those with more resources, have more formal HR structures, even when reliant on volunteers. The ACEVO Leadership and People Management Report (2022) also highlights that larger UK charities typically have more structured staff performance and recruitment systems in place, which helps to mitigate the challenges smaller charities face.
1.1.4 Operational and Programme Management
Sector Norms: Operational management in UK charities tends to vary widely based on the size and resources of the organisation. Larger charities often have well-documented IT systems, policies, and procedures, as noted by the NCVO Almanac (2023). However, smaller charities frequently struggle with formalising these processes due to resource constraints, which impacts their ability to scale and manage programmes effectively.
Comparison: The 2024 Health Check found that Black-led CSEs generally performed well in basic operational management but lacked formal documentation of processes. Only 40% of the organisations had fully documented IT systems and operational policies, which is below the sector norm, where larger charities typically have such formal structures in place. According to CAF’s Charity Landscape Report (2022), the absence of formal documentation can significantly limit an organisation’s ability to respond to changing funder requirements and scale effectively.
1.1.5 Fundraising and Revenue Diversification
Sector Norms: Across the UK, small charities face significant challenges in diversifying income sources, with many relying heavily on grant funding. According to the CAF UK Giving Report, 65% of UK charities depend on grants for a significant portion of their income, making them vulnerable to changes in funding priorities. Diversifying revenue streams through fundraising, social enterprises, or individual giving is considered key to financial sustainability, but remains a challenge for many smaller organisations.
Comparison: Black-led CSEs in London exhibit an even greater reliance on narrow funding sources. The 2024 Health Check found that most organisations are heavily dependent on short-term, project-based grants, with little capacity to diversify income. This reflects the Charity Commission’s Annual Report, which noted that smaller charities, particularly those serving marginalised communities, struggle to access unrestricted funding or develop alternative revenue streams. Black-led organisations, in particular, face additional barriers due to systemic racial inequities in funding access, further compounding their financial vulnerability.
In comparison to broader UK sector norms, Black-led CSEs in London face similar challenges, but often with greater severity due to additional barriers such as systemic funding inequities and limited access to capacity-building resources. Governance, financial management, and human resource issues are common across the UK charity sector, but these challenges are more acute for Black-led organisations. These findings suggest a pressing need for targeted interventions, including unrestricted funding and capacity-building programmes, to ensure that Black-led CSEs can overcome these challenges and thrive in the long term.
2. Characteristics of Respondents
The organisations we assessed are legally incorporated nonprofits based in Greater London, specifically focused on addressing the needs of Black and Global Majority communities. To qualify, at least 75% of their governing bodies—such as directors or trustees—must come from these communities, ensuring that leadership reflects the people they serve. These organisations typically fall within the small to medium-sized range, with annual incomes between £30,000 and £150,000. They are characterised by a clear commitment to reducing reliance on grants by diversifying income streams through trading income and social investment. Additionally, the organisations often have leadership teams with lived experience, providing them with a deep understanding of the challenges their communities face and positioning them as vital agents of change.
The 35 organisations included in this assessment represent a diverse group of Black-led charities and social enterprises. They range from small community interest companies (CICs) to more established charities, with a majority operating on micro to small business scales. Many organisations are deeply embedded in the communities they serve, providing services that address vital needs such as mental health, education, social inclusion, and economic empowerment.
2.1. Organisational Demographics and Focus Areas
The organisations involved represent a diverse range of sectors, including mental health, youth development, education, employment support, and environmental sustainability.
A significant number of organisations focus on Black and Global Majority communities, ensuring that their leadership, staffing, and beneficiaries reflect these groups.
Many organisations operate as small-to-medium-sized enterprises, with varying levels of financial turnover, typically within the lower funding brackets.
Some organisations are relatively new, still in the early stages of development, while others have more established structures.
2.2 Funding and Financial Position
Heavy Reliance on Grant Funding: The majority of organisations depend on short-term grant funding rather than generating revenue through social enterprise or corporate partnerships.
Limited Access to Unrestricted Funding: Many organisations have funding that is tied to specific projects, making it difficult to cover core costs such as staffing, operational infrastructure, and long-term sustainability.
Emerging Efforts in Income Diversification: Some organisations are beginning to explore alternative revenue streams, such as offering services, launching products, or establishing partnerships with businesses.
2.3 Governance and Leadership
Majority Black-led Governance: At least 75% of governance teams across participating organisations are from Black and Global Majority backgrounds, ensuring representation and lived experience in decision-making.
Varying Levels of Governance Maturity: Some organisations have well-developed governance structures with active boards, while others are still developing formalised processes for decision-making, risk management, and strategic oversight.
Challenges in Leadership Succession: Several organisations lack clear succession plans, which could create instability if key leaders transition out of their roles.
2.4 Organisational Capacity and Growth Readiness
Limited Staffing and HR Infrastructure: Many organisations operate with small teams or volunteer-heavy models, which can limit their ability to scale operations effectively.
Some Gaps in Operational Systems: While many organisations are doing impactful work, some lack formal IT systems, financial management tools, and policy documentation needed for long-term stability and compliance with funder requirements.
Strong Community Engagement and Trust: Despite capacity challenges, the organisations have deep community roots, making them trusted service providers in their respective fields.
2.5 Emerging Opportunities for Growth
Social Enterprise and Revenue Diversification: Some organisations are actively seeking to expand their income streams through trading activities, consultancy services, or product-based social enterprises.
Strategic Partnerships with Corporations and Government: A growing number of organisations are looking to collaborate with private sector partners, local authorities, and larger non-profits to expand their funding and resource base.
Capacity-Building and Leadership Development: Many organisations recognise the need for leadership training, governance strengthening, and operational support to improve their resilience and effectiveness.
3. Key Findings
This section explores the key findings from the health check across governance, administration, human resources, financial management, and programme management. It highlights both strengths and areas for improvement within the assessed organisations.
3.1 Governance and Leadership
Governance emerged as a critical challenge for many organisations. The Health Check revealed significant gaps in areas such as board oversight and succession planning. Governance Q5, which assessed the organisations’ ability to ensure smooth operations in the event of leadership changes, had the lowest scores, with some organisations receiving a score of 0.
Most organisations scored relatively well in understanding the basic principles of governance, but they struggled with deeper strategic issues such as long-term planning and board development.
Succession Planning: 65% of the organisations had no formal succession plan, which poses risks to long-term sustainability.
Board Effectiveness: While most boards were found to meet periodically, only 40% of the organisations demonstrated clear oversight mechanisms that ensure accountability and strategic guidance.
3.2 Financial Stability
Financial instability was a recurring theme, with many organisations reporting limited reserves and a lack of diversified revenue streams. The financial management scores were relatively consistent, but the overall picture suggests that most organisations are in a precarious financial position. The standard deviation for financial management scores was 0.834, indicating moderate variability in performance.
Limited Reserves: More than 70% of organisations had less than six months of operational reserves.
Financial Planning and Budgeting: Only 30% of organisations had a well-documented financial strategy aligned with their mission and goals.
3.3 Operational Management
Organisational and programme management showed variability across organisations, with the Administration section being the most consistent in terms of performance, having a standard deviation of 0.769. This suggests that most organisations had basic administrative processes in place, such as IT systems for managing data, but they often lacked documentation of policies and procedures.
IT Systems: 60% of organisations used functional IT systems, but only 40% had well-documented policies guiding the use of these systems.
Programme Management: Programme performance management was inconsistent, with many organisations lacking comprehensive tools for tracking and evaluating impact.
3.4 Human Resources
Staffing and human resources management emerged as the area with the most variability across organisations, with a standard deviation of 1.01. Organisations face challenges in recruiting, managing, and developing both employees and volunteers.
Recruitment and Volunteer Management: Only 35% of the organisations had robust systems in place for recruiting staff and volunteers, and managing their roles effectively.
Staff Performance Appraisal: Less than 30% of organisations conducted regular staff appraisals, which may hinder their ability to retain high-quality personnel.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The Organisational Health Check confirms that Black-led CSEs in London are facing a multi-faceted crisis, driven by a combination of governance challenges, financial instability, and operational inefficiencies. These challenges are compounded by the ongoing funding crisis, which has left many organisations without the resources they need to strengthen their systems and ensure sustainability.
4.1 Conclusions
Governance Weaknesses: Many Black-led organisations lack robust governance structures, particularly in the areas of board oversight and succession planning.
Financial Instability: The financial health of these organisations is fragile, with most relying on short-term project funding and lacking sufficient reserves to weather crises.
Operational Gaps: While administrative processes are relatively consistent, there are gaps in IT documentation, human resources management, and programme performance tracking.
Staffing Challenges: Recruitment and volunteer management are significant pain points, which affect the organisations' ability to scale their operations and deliver impact.
4.2 Recommendations
Strengthening Governance Structures: Funders should prioritise providing resources and capacity-building support for governance. Training programmes for board members on strategic oversight and leadership succession should be encouraged.
Increasing Access to Unrestricted Funding: Unrestricted funding is crucial to help Black-led CSEs address their core operational needs. Funders should ensure that a portion of their grants is directed towards operational stability, allowing these organisations to build reserves and invest in their long-term growth.
Building Capacity in Financial Management: There is a need for tailored financial management training to help organisations improve their budgeting, planning, and reserve-building processes. Providing financial advisors or mentoring schemes could support Black-led CSEs in developing more sustainable financial strategies.
Enhancing HR and Volunteer Management Systems: Organisations should be supported in developing better HR practices, including recruitment, performance appraisal, and volunteer management. Access to HR tools and systems, as well as workshops on managing diverse teams, would greatly benefit these organisations.
Leveraging Technology for Operational Efficiency: Black-led organisations should be supported in documenting their IT systems and administrative processes to improve overall efficiency. Funders could provide grants specifically aimed at enhancing the technological infrastructure of these organisations, helping them better manage data and operations.
5. Future Outlook
The findings of the Health Check suggest that, without significant intervention, the challenges facing Black-led charities and social enterprises in London will continue to grow. The funding crisis has already placed immense pressure on these organisations, and without unrestricted funding and capacity-building support, many may struggle to survive.
As the funding landscape for Black-led charities and social enterprises (CSEs) in London becomes increasingly complex, there is a growing need for targeted interventions that can ensure both financial sustainability and organisational resilience. Drawing from evidence presented by organisations such as 360Giving, it is clear that intermediary grantmaking and in-depth capacity building should be central to future funding strategies. These approaches not only improve access to funding but also provide the support necessary for these organisations to scale and deliver long-term impact.
5.1 Intermediary Grantmaking
Intermediary grantmaking, where funding is distributed through organisations that have close relationships with the communities they serve, has proven highly effective in addressing structural inequalities in funding. As is well known Black-led organisations receive disproportionately low levels of funding compared to their white-led counterparts, despite their critical role in supporting underrepresented communities. This imbalance stems in part from the fact that many traditional funders are disconnected from the grassroots level, where these organisations operate.
By using intermediaries—such as organisations like Do it Now Now—funders can ensure that resources reach those who understand the unique challenges and needs of Black and Global Majority communities. Intermediaries are well-positioned to build trust, offer culturally relevant guidance, and simplify the application process for smaller organisations that might otherwise struggle to access larger funding bodies. Evidence from LocalMotion also supports the effectiveness of this model, noting that intermediary grantmaking fosters deeper connections with grantees and leads to more equitable distribution of funds. By prioritising intermediary based funding models, funders can better support underfunded communities and reduce systemic barriers to grant access.
5.2 In-Depth Capacity Building
In addition to intermediary based funding, there is a clear need to place increased importance on in-depth capacity building that goes hand-in-hand with intermediary grantmaking. Smaller charities, particularly those led by underserved groups, often lack the operational infrastructure needed to grow and achieve long-term sustainability. Funding alone is insufficient if organisations lack the tools and knowledge to manage their growth, develop strong governance structures, or diversify their income streams.
Internationally, capacity-building programmes have shown significant success. For example, the Ford Foundation’s BUILD initiative in the U.S.A provided multi-year funding paired with deep organisational support, allowing grantees to strengthen their core capacities and become more resilient. Similarly, in the UK, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation has embedded capacity building into its Ideas and Pioneers funding model, recognising that investing in skills, leadership, and operational systems is crucial for organisations to sustain themselves beyond initial grants.
For Black-led CSEs in London, in-depth capacity building is particularly crucial. As highlighted in the 2024 Organisational Health Check, many of these organisations face challenges in governance, financial management, and human resources, which undermine their ability to achieve their missions. Targeted capacity-building support—whether through training in financial management, governance, or fundraising—will enable them to strengthen their foundations and operate more effectively. Investment in capacity building not only boosts organisational resilience but also enhances their ability to attract further funding.
6. Call to Action
It is imperative for funders, policymakers, and support organisations to recognise the unique challenges faced by Black-led CSEs. By providing targeted, unrestricted funding and capacity-building resources, we can ensure that these vital organisations are not only able to survive the current funding crisis but also thrive in the long term.
Looking ahead, funders must adopt a dual approach that combines intermediary grantmaking with robust capacity-building programmes. By doing so, they can address both the immediate financial needs of Black-led CSEs and their long-term organisational development. Funders like City Bridge Foundation and Impact On Urban Health have already begun integrating these strategies into their programmes, and further expansion of these models is critical.
For Black-led CSEs, this would mean access to funding that is more tailored to their needs, alongside the expertise and resources necessary to build capacity. This approach not only promotes equity but also ensures that these organisations can continue to deliver vital services to their communities, helping to bridge the gap in social and economic inequality in the long run.
In conclusion, the case for intermediary grantmaking and in-depth capacity building is clear. As funders and policymakers look to the future, embracing these strategies will be essential in creating a more just and sustainable funding ecosystem for Black-led charities and social enterprises in the UK and beyond.
Join DiNN Community
DiNN Community is a safe and intentional online platform available to all Black individuals and leaders wanting to access resources, network, and share research and lived experiences.
Get in touch with Ozias for more
information
Want to get more involved, ask a question, or share some ideas? Feel free to get in touch.