Board effectiveness review

The rule: principle 8 of the Charity Governance Code

The standard for a charity board effectiveness review is principle 8 of the Charity Governance Code, Board effectiveness: “The board works well together, using an appropriate balance of skills, experience, backgrounds and knowledge. It reviews its performance on a regular cycle and takes steps to improve.” Among the outcomes that show it is working: “There are constructive and regular processes for reviewing the performance of individual trustees, the chair, and the board as a whole.”

The practice the Code suggests is specific. “There are agreed processes for reviewing the performance of the board (ideally annually) and the chair and individual trustees.” “The charity explains its board evaluation process in the trustees' annual report.” And, for large charities only, “There is an external evaluation every three years to consider the board's effectiveness”, which the Code's Equity, diversity and inclusion principle expects to include “A review of the board's approach to EDI”. The evidence it suggests is “A record of regular reviews of the board, chair and individual trustees, with staff input (where relevant)” and “Evidence of feedback being welcome and acted upon”.

None of this is law. The Code says of itself that “Compliance with the Code is not a regulatory requirement”, and recommends an apply or explain approach. The law's version is broader: the Charity Commission's The essential trustee (CC3) says trustees should be able to show that their charity is “legally compliant, well run and effective in carrying out its purposes”, and suggests reviewing “your charity's compliance and good practice using: the Charity Governance Code; a quality standard, such as PQASSO, or another standard that is suitable for your charity; benchmarking (comparing and learning) with another organisation; an independent review by a suitably qualified adviser”. Its checklist, 15 questions trustees should ask, asks under “Are we an effective trustee body?”: “Have we recently reviewed our performance as a trustee body?”

What a board evaluation covers

A charity governance review can be wide (compliance, structure, governing document, policies) or narrow (the board itself). A board effectiveness review is the narrow version: it looks at the board as a working group. Most cover:

1. Purpose and strategy. Does the board spend its time on the charity's purposes and long-term direction, or on operational detail? The 15 questions ask whether the board is “using our time together as a board efficiently and effectively”.
2. Decision making. Are papers clear and on time? Are options and risks set out? Are decisions recorded with reasons, and does the board revisit them?
3. Meetings. Length, frequency, agenda, chairing, attendance, preparation, and whether every trustee contributes.
4. Culture and behaviour. The Code's Board effectiveness behaviours include “Trustees make a positive contribution to team dynamics”, “Trustees are willing to give, receive and act on feedback” and “The board takes steps to reflect, learn and improve”.
5. The relationship with staff. For a charity with staff, whether the board supports and challenges the executive in the right balance, and how the chair and chief executive work together.
6. Composition and succession. Size (the Code suggests “typically between five and 12 trustees”), terms, diversity and the skills audit, and whether “The appointment and retirement cycle of trustees is mapped”.
7. Oversight. Risk, finance and safeguarding: does the board get the information it needs, and act on it?
8. Disputes. The Code expects “clearly defined processes for managing disputes and differences between trustees, and between trustees and staff members”.

The Charity Governance Code itself is the obvious framework: NCVO's Carrying out a governance review says it offers “a clear set of principles and practice. For most charities, this will be the most suitable framework.” A board can work through all eight principles in one review, or take two or three a year so that the whole Code is covered over a cycle.

A wider charity governance review adds the organisation around the board: whether the governing document still fits and is being followed, whether the policies are current (the Code's Ethics and culture evidence includes “An up-to-date document summarising policies for board review, with review dates”), how the members are involved where there is a voting membership, the risk register, and the charity's impact. CC3 expects that last one in any case: trustees “should periodically review what the charity is achieving, and how effective the charity's activities are”. Many boards alternate, with a governance review every few years and a lighter board performance review in between.

Running the review: self-assessment or external evaluation

There are three common methods, and most reviews combine two:

• A questionnaire. Each trustee rates statements (for example the Code's outcomes) and adds comments. It is quick and gives everyone a voice, but it measures opinion, and a board that agrees with itself will score itself well. Keep it anonymous where candour matters, and include free-text questions: what should the board stop, start and continue?
• Interviews. One-to-one conversations with each trustee, and with the chief executive and perhaps one or two senior staff, led by the chair, the vice chair or an outsider. They surface what a questionnaire cannot: the dynamics, the unspoken disagreements, the trustee who has stopped contributing.
• Evidence review and observation. Reading a year of agendas, papers and minutes, and watching a meeting. This tests what the board says against what it does: how long the finance item took, who spoke, whether the minutes show reasons.

Small charities can do all of this internally. A sensible pattern is a short questionnaire on the Code's outcomes before the summer meeting, a facilitated discussion of the results at that meeting, and three agreed actions. Larger charities following the Code should commission an external evaluation every three years. NCVO notes that an external reviewer is independent and can “act as a facilitator. This means all internal views can be factored.” NCVO also recommends “always gathering input from all trustees and senior managers”, and considering “wider consultation with staff, funders, partners and the people the charity exists to serve”.

Agree the objectives, scope, method, timetable and who sees the results before starting, and minute the decision. Timing matters too. NCVO points out that findings can inform budget, strategy and recruitment decisions, and that “It's also important that trustees have enough experience of the board to help input”: a review two months after half the board changed will mostly measure first impressions.

Reviewing the chair and individual trustees

The Code asks for three levels of review, not one: “the board as a whole”, “the chair” and “individual trustees”. Its Leadership principle lists “Regular appraisal of the chair and trustees” among the suggested evidence.

The chair. Someone other than the chair has to lead it. The Code suggests the board “considers appointing a trustee or vice chair who can: provide a sounding board for the chair; help with concerns about the relationships within the board, or between the board and senior staff; organise appropriate appraisal of the chair”. A short process is enough: the vice chair collects views from each trustee and the chief executive, discusses them with the chair, and reports a summary and any agreed changes to the board. The Code's behaviours run both ways: “The chair offers feedback and encouragement to trustees” and “Trustees offer feedback and encouragement to the chair”.

Individual trustees. An individual trustee review is a conversation, usually with the chair, about the trustee's contribution, attendance, development needs and whether they want to continue. The Code expects that “The chair seeks to understand the motivations, strengths and areas for development of trustees and supports them to address their development needs”. Link it to the end of a term: the Code says that “Where a trustee has served for more than nine years, their reappointment is subject to a rigorous review, and explained in the trustees' annual report”.

Individual reviews hold personal data and candid opinion about named people, so agree who keeps the notes and for how long. They are also where a board learns early that a trustee is struggling, disengaged or in conflict with a colleague, which is cheaper to address in a review than in a code of conduct breach.

Findings, the action plan and the annual report

A review that ends with a discussion has not ended. The record should show:

• the board's decision to review: scope, method, who led it and when
• a summary of findings, with individual comments anonymised
• an action plan of a few changes, each with an owner and a date
• the minute in which the board considered the findings and agreed the plan
• progress against the plan at later meetings, and what changed as a result

The Code's suggested evidence is exactly that: “A record of regular reviews of the board, chair and individual trustees” and “Evidence of feedback being welcome and acted upon”. Then report it. The Code says “The charity explains its board evaluation process in the trustees' annual report”, and charities that adopt it are “encouraged to publish a brief statement in their annual report explaining their use of the Code”. For most charities a paragraph in the structure, governance and management section of the trustees' annual report covers both: how the board reviewed itself, what it found and what it changed.

Then start the next cycle. NCVO's point is that “Achieving good governance is a process of continuous improvement”; in practice, that means starting each review by checking last year's actions.

Be careful with what is shared outside the board. NCVO notes that “findings from governance reviews can be sensitive information and so careful consideration should be given to how best to communicate the outcomes.” Publish the process and the main actions; keep comments about individuals within the board's own records.

The board that meets in more than one place

Every board effectiveness review asks some version of the same questions. Does every trustee contribute? Are disagreements aired? Are decisions taken in the meeting, on the papers? The honest answer increasingly depends on conversations the review never sees.

Three trustees who live near each other have their own group chat, where the chair's proposals are discussed before the meeting and a common line agreed. The chair and the treasurer settle the budget by message the week before it reaches the board. A newer trustee who disagreed with a decision said so in a direct message to one colleague rather than at the table. When the reviewer asks “are decisions taken in the meeting?”, the minutes say yes. The interviews, if they are good, say otherwise, and the reviewer then hears about a channel that some trustees were in and others were not.

Those conversations are records of how the board actually governs, and they matter beyond the review: they shape decisions, they may hold conflicts of interest that never reached the register, and they sit on personal phones. A review is the right moment to ask about them, because it is the one exercise designed to look at how the board works rather than what it decides.

A question for the next board meeting: how much board business happens in conversations that not every trustee is part of, and would our next review be able to see it?

Questions people ask

What is a board evaluation?

A board evaluation is a structured review of how well a board performs as a group: its focus, decision making, meetings, culture and composition, followed by agreed improvements. For charities in England and Wales, the Charity Governance Code suggests “agreed processes for reviewing the performance of the board (ideally annually) and the chair and individual trustees”.

How often should a charity board review its effectiveness?

The Charity Governance Code suggests that a charity board reviews its performance “ideally annually”, with an external evaluation every three years for large charities. The Code is voluntary, so a small charity can take a lighter approach and explain it, but no review at all is hard to square with its Board effectiveness principle.

What are the key principles of good governance for charities?

The Charity Governance Code 2025 sets eight principles of good governance for charities: the Foundation principle, Organisational purpose, Leadership, Ethics and culture, Decision making, Managing resources and risks, Equity, diversity and inclusion, and Board effectiveness. The Code says they “build on the assumption that a charity is meeting its legal and regulatory responsibilities as a foundation”; the Charity Commission's The essential trustee (CC3) sets those responsibilities out.

What is a trustee review?

In a charity, a trustee review is an individual conversation, usually with the chair, about a trustee's contribution, attendance, development needs and whether they wish to continue. The Charity Governance Code expects “constructive and regular processes for reviewing the performance of individual trustees, the chair, and the board as a whole”, and a “rigorous review” before reappointing anyone who has served more than nine years.

Does a charity have to report its board evaluation?

No law requires it, but the Charity Governance Code suggests that “The charity explains its board evaluation process in the trustees' annual report”, and encourages charities that adopt the Code to publish a brief statement there on how they use it.

Official guidance and your next step

Read principle 8 of the Charity Governance Code in the 2025 edition, which the Code's website offers as a download, alongside section 9 of the Charity Commission's The essential trustee (CC3) and question 10 of 15 questions trustees should ask. NCVO's governance review guidance covers practical choices; its references to the Code's review cycle predate the 2025 edition, so check them against the Code itself. Quotations are from those documents as published on 3 October 2026.

This guide is a summary for charities in England and Wales, not legal advice. Charities in housing, sport and other sectors with their own governance codes should follow those where they take precedence, as the Code itself suggests.

Then do one thing: put “How did this meeting go?” as the last five minutes of the next board agenda, minute the answers, and use them as the first evidence for this year's review.