A trustee board self-assessment is a structured set of statements each trustee scores privately, then discusses as a board, to establish how the charity's governance measures against the Charity Governance Code. The template below gives you 40 statements mapped to the Code's eight principles, a scoring method, and the paragraph you put in the trustees' annual report afterwards.
Who this is for
Chairs, trustees and charity company secretaries in England and Wales running their own board review without an external facilitator. It suits charities with an income between roughly £500,000 and £15 million: large enough that governance needs a process, small enough that the process has to be run by people who already have other jobs.
It complements rather than replaces two tools worth knowing. NCVO's governance wheel gives a board a quick visual read on how it is functioning and is a sensible starting point for a Code-based review. The Chartered Governance Institute's guidance note "Trustee board effectiveness" sets out the wider governance arrangements a periodic review should look at. Use the wheel to open the conversation, this questionnaire to gather evidence, and the CGI note to check nothing structural has been missed.
What does the Charity Governance Code 2025 expect of a board review?
The Charity Governance Code 2025 asks for agreed processes for reviewing the performance of the board, ideally annually, along with the chair and individual trustees, and asks the charity to explain its board evaluation process in the trustees' annual report. For large charities only, the Code adds an external evaluation every three years.
The Code is not a regulatory requirement. It says so itself: it is the Charity Commission, other regulators where they apply, and charity law that tell charities what they must do. The Code works on "apply or explain", so a board can meet a principle differently and say why. What the Code does give you is a common vocabulary for what good looks like, which is exactly what a self-assessment needs. All wording here is from the Charity Governance Code 2025, checked on 4 September 2026.
Two changes in the 2025 edition matter for how you write your questions. The Code now opens with a Foundation principle covering trustees' understanding of their role, the governing document and charity law, which was previously implicit. And the former Integrity, Openness and Accountability principles have been drawn together into Ethics and culture, while Diversity has widened into Equity, diversity and inclusion. A questionnaire built on the earlier principle set will now map badly to the Code you cite in your annual report.
Underneath the Code sit the legal duties in the Charity Commission's guidance "The essential trustee: what you need to know, what you need to do" (CC3, last updated 3 May 2018): carrying out the charity's purposes for the public benefit, complying with the governing document and the law, acting in the charity's best interests, managing resources responsibly, acting with reasonable care and skill, and ensuring the charity is accountable. The Code's Foundation principle exists to check trustees actually understand those duties, and the Code itself asks that all trustees have access to CC3.
What the board needs to decide before it starts
- Who runs it. A chair-led review is normal; a vice chair or senior independent trustee should run the part that assesses the chair.
- Whether responses are anonymous. Anonymous scoring gets more honest numbers from newer trustees. Attributed comments get better follow-up. Many boards take anonymous scores and attributed free text by choice.
- Who else is asked. The chief executive and, where the charity has one, the senior leadership team see board behaviour the trustees cannot see. Ask them the Leadership and Decision making sections at minimum.
- What happens to the results. Agree in advance that the summary goes to the full board, that no individual score is quoted, and who drafts the action plan.
- Whether this is the external year. If the charity counts as large under the Code, work out when the last external evaluation was before committing to a self-assessment.
- What you will say publicly. Draft the annual report paragraph at the start, not at the end. It disciplines the exercise.
The trustee board self-assessment template
Score each statement 1 to 5, where 1 means not true of this board and 5 matches the "what a 5 looks like" description. Add "not sure" as a valid answer: a cluster of "not sure" responses on a governance statement is itself a finding. Every statement is mapped to the Code principle it evidences, so the results transfer straight into a Code-based report.
1. Foundation principle
| # | Statement | What a 5 looks like | Code principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I understand what my legal duties as a trustee are | Every trustee can name the six CC3 duties and say what each means for this charity | 1. Foundation |
| 2 | I have read our governing document within the past two years | Trustees can point to the clause that governs a decision under discussion | 1. Foundation |
| 3 | Induction prepared me for the role | New trustees get objects, legal duties, potential liabilities and charity-specific briefing before their second meeting | 1. Foundation |
| 4 | I have enough time to do this role properly | Time commitment is stated at recruitment and papers arrive early enough to read | 1. Foundation |
| 5 | Conflicts of interest are identified and managed | The register is current, declarations are made at each meeting, and the minute records how a conflict was handled | 1. Foundation |
2. Organisational purpose
| # | Statement | What a 5 looks like | Code principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | The board is clear about who and what the charity exists to serve | Decisions are tested against the objects, out loud, in the meeting | 2. Organisational purpose |
| 7 | We have a long-term vision the board developed together | The strategy names a horizon beyond the current funding cycle | 2. Organisational purpose |
| 8 | Shorter-term aims are agreed with a route to achieving them | Each strategic aim has a named owner, a measure and a date | 2. Organisational purpose |
| 9 | We can show the difference the charity makes over time | Impact data reaches the board at least annually and shows a trend, not a snapshot | 2. Organisational purpose |
| 10 | The board adapts the charity's approach when the environment changes | At least one documented change of course in the past two years, with the reasoning minuted | 2. Organisational purpose |
3. Leadership
| # | Statement | What a 5 looks like | Code principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | The roles of chair, board and chief executive are clear and respected | No trustee is doing the chief executive's job, and delegations are written down | 3. Leadership |
| 12 | The chair creates conditions in which every trustee can contribute | Quieter trustees speak on substantive items, not only on their specialism | 3. Leadership |
| 13 | The board supports and challenges senior staff in balance | Staff can name recent examples of both | 3. Leadership |
| 14 | Trustee behaviour matches the charity's stated values | Behaviour that falls short is addressed by the chair, promptly and privately | 3. Leadership |
| 15 | Trustees are clear about the difference between trusteeship and any volunteer role they hold | Trustees who volunteer operationally know which hat they are wearing and say so | 3. Leadership |
4. Ethics and culture
| # | Statement | What a 5 looks like | Code principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | The board has agreed values and expected behaviours, and lives by them | A written code of conduct signed annually, referred to in practice | 4. Ethics and culture |
| 17 | Ethical, social and environmental consequences are weighed in decisions | Board papers carry an ethical considerations line where relevant | 4. Ethics and culture |
| 18 | Complaints and concerns are taken seriously and used for learning | The board sees complaints and whistleblowing themes at least annually | 4. Ethics and culture |
| 19 | We are open about how the charity and its governance work | Trustee names, structure and the annual report are easy to find on the website | 4. Ethics and culture |
| 20 | Difficult subjects can be raised in this boardroom | A trustee has raised an unwelcome issue in the past year and was heard | 4. Ethics and culture |
5. Decision making
| # | Statement | What a 5 looks like | Code principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | It is clear which decisions belong to the board and which are delegated | A current scheme of delegation, reviewed within the past two years | 5. Decision making |
| 22 | Board time is spent on the right things | Agenda time is weighted to strategy and risk, not to reports already read | 5. Decision making |
| 23 | Papers give us the information and analysis we need | Papers arrive at least five clear days ahead, with a recommendation and options | 5. Decision making |
| 24 | We can track, review and learn from decisions we have made | A decision log exists and past decisions are revisited against outcomes | 5. Decision making |
| 25 | Different viewpoints are explored before the board unites behind a decision | Dissent happens in the room, and the board leaves with one position | 5. Decision making |
6. Managing resources and risks
| # | Statement | What a 5 looks like | Code principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | Every trustee understands the charity's finances well enough to question them | All trustees, not only the treasurer, ask questions about the management accounts | 6. Managing resources and risks |
| 27 | The board knows whether the current model is financially sustainable | Reserves policy and a multi-year forecast are reviewed annually against the strategy | 6. Managing resources and risks |
| 28 | Key risks to our aims are identified and actively managed | The risk register drives at least one board agenda item a year, with movement shown | 6. Managing resources and risks |
| 29 | We balance risk-taking with safeguarding people and assets | Safeguarding reaches the board directly, with a named lead trustee | 6. Managing resources and risks |
| 30 | Control and risk frameworks are effective and reviewed regularly | Independent assurance, whether audit, examination or internal review, reports to the board | 6. Managing resources and risks |
7. Equity, diversity and inclusion
| # | Statement | What a 5 looks like | Code principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | The board is a welcoming place for people of all backgrounds | New and less experienced trustees say they can contribute from their first meeting | 7. Equity, diversity and inclusion |
| 32 | We understand how inequality affects the charity, its users and the board | The board has discussed this with evidence, not only in principle | 7. Equity, diversity and inclusion |
| 33 | We have clear EDI aims with plans, resources and monitoring | Named aims, an owner, and progress reported to the board annually | 7. Equity, diversity and inclusion |
| 34 | Board decisions draw on genuinely diverse experience and expertise | Recruitment reaches beyond existing trustees' networks | 7. Equity, diversity and inclusion |
| 35 | People with lived experience of our work influence what the board decides | A structured route from service users to the board that is used, not just available | 7. Equity, diversity and inclusion |
8. Board effectiveness
| # | Statement | What a 5 looks like | Code principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 36 | The board has the mix of skills, knowledge and experience the charity needs | A current skills matrix drives recruitment, and gaps are named openly | 8. Board effectiveness |
| 37 | Trustee recruitment is open, advertised and made on merit against objective criteria | Vacancies advertised publicly, with a role description and selection criteria | 8. Board effectiveness |
| 38 | Succession and term limits are planned rather than reactive | An appointment and retirement cycle is mapped, and service beyond nine years is rigorously reviewed and explained in the annual report | 8. Board effectiveness |
| 39 | The board, the chair and individual trustees are reviewed regularly | An agreed annual process, with the chair reviewed by someone other than the chair | 8. Board effectiveness |
| 40 | There is a clear way to handle disputes between trustees, or between trustees and staff | A written process the board has agreed, before it is needed | 8. Board effectiveness |
How to score and report the results
Take the mean score for each principle rather than a single overall figure: a board average of 4.1 hides the principle scoring 2.6, which is the only number worth a board's time. Report four things per principle: the mean, the range, the count of "not sure" answers, and the sharpest gap between how the trustees and the executive answered the same statement.
| Signal | What it usually means | What to do about it |
|---|---|---|
| Mean at or below 3.0 | A genuine weakness the board already senses | Put it in the action plan with a named trustee and a date |
| Wide range (2 or more points) on one statement | Trustees are working from different information, not different judgement | Discuss before acting; the disagreement is the finding |
| Three or more "not sure" answers | The evidence exists but does not reach the board | Fix the reporting route before rescoring |
| Trustees score higher than the executive | A blind spot about how the board is experienced | Ask the executive for examples in the discussion, not in writing |
| Everything above 4.5 | The questions are too comfortable, or the scoring is not anonymous | Change one, then rerun next year |
Three outputs come out of the session: a one-page summary by principle for the board, an action plan of no more than five items with owners and dates, and the paragraph for the trustees' annual report. Five actions is a deliberate cap. Boards that leave with fifteen complete none of them.
Worked example: a mid-sized charity board
A regional disability charity with an income of £4.2 million and nine trustees ran this questionnaire in advance of its September board meeting. All nine trustees plus the chief executive and two directors scored the statements anonymously. The vice chair collated the results and ran the discussion, with the chair present but not leading.
| Principle | Trustee mean | Executive mean | Standout |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Foundation | 4.4 | n/a | Two trustees scored statement 2 at 2, having never read the governing document |
| 2. Organisational purpose | 4.1 | 3.9 | Impact evidence reached the board once, eighteen months earlier |
| 3. Leadership | 4.3 | 3.2 | The widest gap in the exercise |
| 4. Ethics and culture | 4.0 | 3.8 | Complaints themes had never reached the board |
| 5. Decision making | 3.1 | 2.8 | Papers routinely arrived two days before the meeting |
| 6. Managing resources and risks | 3.9 | 4.0 | Only the treasurer asked questions about the accounts |
| 7. Equity, diversity and inclusion | 3.4 | 3.0 | Four "not sure" answers on statement 33 |
| 8. Board effectiveness | 3.6 | n/a | No skills matrix since 2023 |
The Leadership gap turned out to be the useful finding. Trustees scored statement 13 at 4.3 and the executive at 2.9. In discussion, the directors explained that challenge arrived in the meeting itself, on papers they had not been asked about beforehand, so it read as ambush rather than scrutiny. The fix was procedural, not personal: a fortnightly chair and chief executive call, and questions on financial papers submitted 48 hours ahead so answers could be prepared.
Five actions came out of it: papers circulated five clear days ahead from January; the governing document circulated with a short briefing note; a skills matrix rebuilt before the next recruitment round; complaints themes added to the March and September agendas; and an EDI progress report scheduled for the June meeting. The board scheduled a rerun for the following September, scoring the same 40 statements so the movement would be comparable.
The paragraph for your trustees' annual report
The Code asks the charity to explain its board evaluation process in the trustees' annual report. That is a description of the process, not a score. This model paragraph is written to be adapted, and it says only what the example board could actually evidence.
The trustees have adopted the Charity Governance Code 2025 and review their performance against it annually. In September 2026 all nine trustees, together with the chief executive and two senior directors, completed a 40-statement self-assessment mapped to the Code's eight principles. Responses were anonymous and the results were collated and discussed by the full board, led by the vice chair. The review identified five priority actions, covering the timing of board papers, refreshing the board skills matrix, board oversight of complaints, and reporting on equity, diversity and inclusion. Progress against these actions will be reviewed in September 2027. The board considers that it applies the principles of the Code, with the exception of [principle], where the trustees have instead [explanation].
Delete the final clause if there is nothing to explain. Do not delete it if there is: "apply or explain" is only worth anything when the explaining actually happens.
External evaluation, and when a self-assessment is not enough
The Code carries a small set of practices marked "Applies to large charities only", and one of them sits under Board effectiveness: an external evaluation every three years to consider the board's effectiveness. A second, under Equity, diversity and inclusion, asks that any such external evaluation includes a review of the board's approach to EDI. The Code does not attach an income figure to "large" in these practice tables, so agree a working definition with your auditors or independent examiner and record the reasoning rather than assuming your charity falls outside it.
Even where the Code does not require it, a self-assessment reaches its limit in three situations: after a serious incident or a regulatory contact; when the chair is the subject of the concern; and when the same two or three actions have carried over for three years running. In each case the difficulty is that the board cannot see itself, and no questionnaire fixes that.
Common mistakes
- Reusing a questionnaire built on the previous principle set. The 2025 Code's Foundation principle and the merged Ethics and culture principle mean older forms no longer map to the Code the annual report cites.
- Scoring the charity instead of the board. Statement 9 asks whether the board can see the charity's impact, not whether the impact is good. Keep every statement about governance.
- Skipping the executive view. The widest and most useful gaps in this exercise are almost always between how trustees experience the board and how staff do.
- Publishing the scores. The annual report explains the process. Numbers out of context invite misreading, and next year's honesty drops accordingly.
- Treating the questionnaire as the review. The scores are preparation. The review is the conversation, and it needs an agenda slot of its own, not the last twenty minutes of a full meeting.
Next step
If you want a picture of where the charity stands before committing board time to the full exercise, the Governance Quick Check gives you a short diagnostic and a written summary you can put in front of the chair. Run it first, then use the 40 statements above for the full annual review.
For the wider version of this exercise beyond the charity sector, see our board effectiveness review questionnaire template, which covers the same ground against the UK Corporate Governance Code. Statement 36 above depends on having a current picture of who is around the table, and the board skills matrix template sets out how to build one, including how to handle lived experience alongside professional skills. If minute quality came up in your scoring of statement 24, the board meeting minutes template shows what a decision record needs to contain.
This page is maintained as guidance changes, and the annual update re-checks the Code's principle wording and the Charity Commission guidance cited here.
FAQ
How often should a charity board carry out a self-assessment?
The Charity Governance Code 2025 asks for agreed processes for reviewing the performance of the board, ideally annually, alongside the chair and individual trustees. Most mid-sized charity boards run a full self-assessment each year and a lighter check-in at the half-year point on the actions agreed.
Is a trustee board self-assessment a legal requirement?
No. Compliance with the Charity Governance Code is not a regulatory requirement, and the Code says so explicitly. Charity law and the Charity Commission set out what trustees must do. A self-assessment is how a board evidences that it is meeting the Code's Board effectiveness principle by choice.
Should trustee responses be anonymous?
Anonymous scoring usually produces more honest numbers, particularly from newer trustees and from anyone whose concern involves the chair. A common compromise is anonymous scores with optional attributed comments, so the board gets both a reliable picture and follow-up it can act on.
Who should see the results?
The full board sees the summary by principle and the action plan. Individual scores are never quoted or attributed. Where the chief executive and senior staff took part, they should see the same summary, because they will be asked to help deliver several of the actions.
What should the trustees' annual report actually say?
It should explain the board evaluation process: who took part, how it was run, what came out of it, and when it will next happen. It is a description, not a scorecard. The model paragraph above shows the level of detail that satisfies the Code without publishing numbers.
Does a charity need an external board review?
The Code marks an external evaluation every three years as applying to large charities only, and asks that it includes a review of the board's approach to equity, diversity and inclusion. Smaller charities are not expected to commission one, though an external facilitator helps after a serious incident or where the chair is part of the question.