What trustees are being asked to evidence about AI and digital decision-making

Trustees of charities and foundations are increasingly aware that digital and AI-assisted systems can materially influence decisions about funding, eligibility, prioritisation, and service delivery.

Alongside this awareness is a growing expectation that trustees can evidence how those systems are governed in practice, particularly when questions are raised by funders, auditors, or regulators.

The changing accountability landscape for trustees

Charities operate in a high-trust environment. Public confidence, regulatory compliance, and funder expectations all depend on transparent and defensible decision-making.

As digital systems play a greater role in shaping outcomes, trustees are increasingly asked questions such as:

How are digital systems governed?
Who is accountable for their use?
How are risks identified and managed?
What evidence exists of trustee oversight?

These questions often arise during audits, funding reviews, or following complaints or incidents.

Where AI and digital systems affect charitable decisions

Across the sector, charities and foundations increasingly use digital systems to support:

Grant allocation and prioritisation
Eligibility and needs assessment
Fraud detection and risk management
Safeguarding and vulnerability identification
Operational triage and resource planning

Even when these systems are described as supportive rather than determinative, they can significantly shape outcomes.

The structural challenge trustees often face

Trustees frequently discover that governance exists but is difficult to evidence clearly. Information may be:

Embedded in policies rather than system records
Held across multiple teams or advisors
Not documented at the level of individual systems
Hard to reconstruct retrospectively

As a result, trustees may rely on assurance rather than evidence — a distinction that becomes critical under external scrutiny.

Why funders and regulators increasingly expect evidence

External reviewers are not assessing good intentions. Their role is to assess whether trustees can demonstrate responsible oversight through records that can be independently reviewed.

This shifts expectations away from high-level statements toward documented governance decisions and accountability.

What proportionate governance evidence looks like for charities

Evidence-based governance does not require complex systems or heavy compliance processes. In practice, it involves:

A clear register of digital and AI-assisted systems
Named accountability and ownership
Documented governance and risk decisions
Time-stamped records of review and change
Evidence suitable for funder or regulatory review

This supports trustee confidence and protects public trust.

Why this matters now

As scrutiny of digital decision-making increases, trustees are increasingly judged on their ability to demonstrate oversight, not just assert it.

Organisations that prepare governance evidence in advance are better positioned to respond calmly and transparently when questions arise.

About this briefing

This briefing reflects conversations with trustees, charity executives, and advisors navigating evolving expectations around digital and AI governance.

It is intended to support trustee-level reflection rather than prescribe regulatory or compliance frameworks.