Hello! We are mySociety
The Economist Intelligence Unit's annual Index1 tracks the global state of democracy, reporting a figure of only 25 full, unflawed democracies across a total of 167 countries.
Notes ():
The 2025 V-Dem Democracy report2 notes a "weakening of democracy in some established liberal democracies, breakdown of democracy in countries that were democratic for most of the 21st century, as well as deepening of autocracy in already autocratic states."
Notes ():
The news out of Washington, Moscow, Beijing and other ‘strong man' hotspots make it clear that authoritarians are deploying technology to further their own, undemocratic ends.
Empowered citizens
That same V-Dem report also points out that autocracy isn't a one-way train, that there are countries around the world bucking the trend, either gradually or dramatically. There remains work to do everywhere, and every small win makes a difference.
Our global TICTeC community is a network of civic tech organisations who hold the values of democracy dear — and have the technological skills to resist the increasingly urgent and democratic backsliding around the world.
But they're operating in a changing online environment, fighting for transparent and open government practices across complex political landscapes.
This year, we've added opportunities for knowledge-sharing, learning and — more urgent than ever — actionable insights, through our Communities of Practice.
The Office for National Statistics report that 57% of people in the UK have "low or no trust in the government" and 44% of people said they had "little or no confidence in their ability to participate in politics."3
Equally concerning is the Edelman Trust Barometer 2026's assessment that only 36% of people in the UK "trust government to do what's right."4
Notes ():
Our services increase people's confidence by making it extremely easy to take first steps towards engaging with power. If you can send an email, you can contact an elected representative or make an FOI request; and if you know your postcode you can scrutinise local climate action through the Scorecards or see how your MP has voted.
For those exercising their rights under FOI for the first time, our new beginners' guides provide reassurance and guidance. And this year we're working to understand more about how and why people contact their politicians, insights that will help us make it still easier to get the right message to the right place.
mySociety is…
…a charity. An example to government of how things could be done. A way for citizens to have their voices heard. A provider of tools, data and support to campaigns and pressure groups. A research hub. A convenor of the global civic tech community. A longstandingpart ofthe UK's digital landscape.
For more than 20 years, we've been building and maintaining online technologies that empower people to play an active part in society, breaking down barriers to democratic participation, equipping everyone to take action and drive meaningful change.
Here's how:
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Publishes everything that happens in the UK Parliaments — and now, data from external sources, too — giving everyone an easy way to keep up with debates, see how their MP has voted, and understand more about the lobbyists and funders that might be affecting politicians' decisions.
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Breaks down the barriers to making contact with your elected representatives, whether to resolve personal issues or to campaign for wider, societal change. Especially useful for first time correspondents as well as grassroots campaigns, WriteToThem guides users to email the representative that's most relevant to their issue.
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Empowers everyone to access information from our public authorities, with an easy-to-use interface and guidance for beginners — and, because the requests and responses are public, that information is available to everyone in a huge online archive. The Alaveteli codebase helps others to run similar sites worldwide.
Responsive institutionsEmpowered citizens
Provides a simple way to spruce up your neighbourhood, whether by reporting graffiti and vandalism, or highlighting dangerous paving and broken streetlights. Councils increasingly rely on citizen reports made via FixMyStreet, with many using it as their main reporting service.
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Makes it easy to combine and compare datasets around democracy and climate, either at the local level or nationwide. It's easy to use and an extraordinarily powerful tool for focusing campaign efforts and conversations on the issues that matter to your local MP.
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Run in partnership with Climate Emergency UK, surface the data around what councils are, and are not, doing towards decarbonisation. In just a few years they have become an invaluable tool for councils and citizens alike, increasing accountability around climate action.
Equipped civil society
Spreads our own knowledge, and those of organisations like ours, around the world, multiplying its impact and lessening the time needed for small organisations to have an outsized effect as they promote and defend democracies everywhere.
Equipped civil society
Bring together an international network of organisations around a vital area of work: this year we've facilitated learning and connections through the ATI Network and the Democratic Transparency Network.
Welcome
mySociety was founded on a clear blue wave of optimism about the ways in which the World Wide Web could create opportunity for participative citizenship. Today the technology wave is altogether muddier. Democratised access to information has not been a pure benefit. It has swept a mess of litter to the shore of citizenship in the shape of misinformation and disinformation, polarisation and popularism, rumour and abuse. These things existed before, but now they move at speed across vast distances in a world of increased geopolitical unpredictability. And then there is AI. The dynamics and real-world effects AI will have over the coming decades are still unclear, but its concentrated ownership structures are not.
In this vast sea, mySociety consistently delivers reliable, efficient, cost-effective digital services for the public benefit, helping people navigate the choppy waters of politics and technology.
There is something to be said for trying to apply subsidiarity in technology in similar ways to its application in politics. Decision-making and oversight should, perhaps, sit at the lowest possible level, where citizens can best understand the use of new technology and have a reasonable chance to influence it.
Here mySociety is well-placed as an organisation that does practical work with Local Authorities and parishes – the oldest continuous administrative units in the UK – supporting them to run efficient and accessible citizen services. Hype about superintelligence is a rather different thing to the work of alerting the council to potholes, fly tipping or abandoned cars, but people remain as concerned about these things as they did before the invention of Twitter, chatbots and smart toasters.
Citizens also remain concerned about the actions of government, national and local, and transparency is both vital and contested. FOI is under pressure and in this area mySociety's most widely-used tools remain as important as they ever were.
As technology continues to morph and change, mySociety's work has not diminished in importance or impact. It operates where that technology's implementation directly affects citizens. New applications mean new challenges that the team always address with commitment, thoughtfulness, experience and knowledge. With a solid track record behind us, there are busy years ahead.
Genevieve Maitland Hudson
Chair of Trustees
I'm delighted to be able to share this Impact Report with you. In an era of rapid technological change, to me the key questions are what problems we apply technology to, and how we use it safely and productively. I couldn't be more proud that at mySociety we use digital tools to empower people in the civic aspects of their lives, and that we work to enable collective conversations about the kind of society we want to live in.
This year we've been able to quickly respond to an increasingly volatile technological and democratic environment with colleagues around the world through international forums, like our TICTeC impacts of civic technology programme, and the Access to Information network.
In this changing environment, I'm also particularly interested in places where the scale of our services means we can give unique insights into the many reasons that bring people to participate, and the barriers they hit when they do. Our new WriteToThem Insights project gives a fascinating look at what people write to their representatives about, and through the Making Contact project we're ensuring that that experience works better for everyone involved.
Finally, partnership projects like our ongoing work with Climate Emergency UK on the Council Climate Scorecards, and our new exploration of strategic data use with End Violence Against Women allow us to extend our reach — and positively impact more, and more kinds of, people. This report comes as ever with huge thanks to the community of partners, collaborators, supporters and volunteers who make this work possible, alongside an incredibly dedicated and hardworking team.
Louise Crow
Chief Executive
At a glance:
- 39 million sessions across all of our websites. Each session represents someone accessing information, communicating with their political representatives, improving their neighbourhood or understanding more about the workings of democracy.
- We empowered 3,000+ organisations around the world through our training, communities of practice and data services.
- We opened access to 154,496 government documents about decisions that affect people's lives.
- Nearly one third of users were submitting their first request.
- 160 views per request on average, massively amplifying the utility and impact of the information released.
- 260 users added news stories, campaigns and research papers to the site, showing the results their requests had brought: see all citations here.
"It may still be surprising to say that most of the people who use WhatDoTheyKnow don't make FOI requests. Most of our users are consumers of information who may not even know that has been through FOI."
— Louise Crow at FOI Fest
This year, FOI requests on WhatDoTheyKnowinformed news abouttech firms lobbying the government; firms lobbying the government underpinneda project to identify wherepublic clocks across the nation have become uncared-for, private assets; revealedcrucial data about safeguarding in schools…and there's lots more.
Launched the UK's first FOI Network, to strengthen access to information nationally.
- 153 people attended FOI Fest, celebrating Freedom of Information's 21st birthday, with a one-day conference to discuss its achievements, challenges, and future.
- 22 speakers — including both of the UK's Information Commissioners, plus investigative journalists, researchers, campaigners and activists — contributed to the conversation.
- We had 21 individuals and organisations are running Access to Information sites based on our Alaveteli codebase around the world.
- 1,741,205 public requests for information.
- 14 of them running the Pro add-on for journalists, researchers and campaigners.
- 86,594 private requests have been made across sites belonging to the ATI Network.
- 69 members and 34 countries.
- 52% are from countries in the Global South/less-free democracies.
Big stories generated by member organisations this year include a cross-border investigation into immigrant detention; an investigation of mayoral spending in France; investigation into contaminated drinking water supplied to kindergartens in Georgia; and revelations on how Russianoligarchs' oil and gas interestsare evading scrutiny in Ukraine.
We enabled 82,204 people to track when issues they care about were being discussed in parliament.
Our open data facilitates new parliamentary monitoring projects, like ukgovscan, which uses our data on MPs' financial interests; and ParliAI which is tracking mentions of the Office for National Statistics in Parliament.
"You fill a gap, and make it so much easier to contact MPs — for people who have never done this before to pop a toe into the water."
"I have found your service extremely useful for keeping track of parliamentary activities that are not always covered by national media."
"It's so helpful to get this info without having to search for it, and to have access to it so that we can hold our politicians to account. This has never been so important."
AI, democracy & transparency
mySociety was founded on one seismic technological change: the arrival of the internet, bringing radical new possibilities to the ways in which we engage with democracy.
Now we're seeing a second upheaval, just as potentially explosive: the wide adoption of generative AI and machine learning tools — particular kinds of artificial intelligence — not least by the UK government, who have made a commitment to see AI "mainlined into the veins of the nation5".
So, how is AI being deployed in the public authorities that have control over our lives? A recent LGA survey showed that 44% of councils are using AI in adult health & social care, with 31% using it in children's services6. As we write, debate is going through Parliament over whether photographs from the driving licence database should be fed into police facial recognition systems7. The DWP is using AI to detect recipients ‘most likely' to be committing fraud, with biases baked into the algorithm8.
Without transparency and accountability infrastructure around AI use, harm becomes hard to detect, hard to prove, and harder still to remedy. Poorly governed AI systems risk creating an algorithmic underclass.
But auditing capacities across civil society and the public sector are not keeping pace with the rapid rate of technological change and adoption, with a surprising lack of evidence on the effectiveness and impact of AI tools.
Responsive institution
With the widespread adoption of AI systems in government, existing transparency laws are insufficient: they must adapt, or we face a catastrophic decline in accountability. We must ensure that there is a clear path to understanding — and questioning — the decisions public authorities make about us, especially when these decisions are made by algorithms.
In October, we embarked on a significant new strand of work to explore how AI technologies interact with democratic processes and institutions, and how to ensure that AI is deployed for the good of all.
We believe everyone should be able to easily see where AI is being used in democratic decision-making — from welfare and healthcare to policing — and the effects that it is having on their lives. With that in mind, our Chief Executive, Louise Crow's piece in PublicTechnology magazine, explains how our transparency laws need to change to adapt to the current era.
Responsive institutionsEmpowered citizens
Our understanding of AI systems is not theoretical; rather, it's based on practical experience. mySociety's developers are experimenting with, and — where appropriate — incorporating large language model-based technologies into clearly-defined parts of our work.
AI is helping us with long-standing, labour-intensive challenges of running civic tech projects — such as weeding out requests made though WhatDoTheyKnow that contain personal information, and so should not be published; or cutting through the sometimes obscure descriptors of Parliamentary votes for TheyWorkForYou.
But AI is not the right tool for every task: there are instances, such as gathering information about MPs' sources of income, where we've found the human touch is required.
We've been documenting it all, putting our working methods in public, so that others can benefit from what we discover.
- Open LLM models: we posit a more ethical approach to using AI for the civic tech community.
- Using LLM tools: scraping information on APPGs required a part manual, part agentic approach.
- LLMs to classify parliamentary data: our account of experimenting with grouping Early Day Motions.
Through our TICTeC programme, the global civic tech community shared insights about how organisations like ours, in countries around the world, are using AI technologies to make democracy more accessible; to increase understanding of climate action; and to combat the spread of misinformation. And there were thoughts on how to use AI ethically, outside the frameworks of big tech.
- Code for Pakistan showed how they've deployed AI so citizens can query dense policy documentation and get answers that are easy to understand.
- Bertelsmann Stiftung explained the concept of public AI, a means by which to break the monopolies of tech giants and boost civic empowerment.
- The Civic Tech Field Guide showed how to run a community-led audit, testing AI models — including predictive algorithms in the criminal justice system — for bias.
Democracy
Authoritarian governments are nothing new, but the strongman tactics emanating from the White House have had repercussions across the western world, emboldening the rise of extremist politicians everywhere. Add into the mix the increasing power — and lack of regulation — of big tech companies, and the principles of democracy feel more at risk than ever, at home and abroad.
Remember the bright, optimistic early days of the internet, where we celebrated it as a place for the global community to come together with mutual understanding? Today, it's increasingly an arena for the rapid dissemination of misinformation, hate speech and division.
But the spirit from those early days has not been entirely lost — it's what mySociety was founded on back in the early '00s, and we're still here, still developing data and tools for the public good. We're not alone: civic tech groups everywhere are using digital tools and platforms to defend and sustain democratic principles. In coming together, we are stronger.
"Democracy," as someone once said, "is not a spectator sport." And now, more than ever, we need to be playing our part to protect this precious fundamental right.
There were 1,172,442 visits to debates and representatives' pages on TheyWorkForYou this year.
Equipped civil society
TheyWorkForYou was built on the principle that if we share the proceedings of Parliament in an accessible format, more people will be empowered to interact with them. This year, we've gone further than ever before, with new data sources to create even greater transparency around Government decision making.
Responsive institutions
As longstanding observers of Parliament, we have experience and insights that can make it work better — for everyone. We have been pleased to contribute to inquiries, committees and calls for evidence that accord with our knowledge, from how oversight is working, to where procedures can be improved.
Equipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
We don't just collate data for TheyWorkForYou: we make the ever-increasing flow of parliamentary information — often assembled for the first time, or cleaned up into usable formats — available to all, as open data. In this way, we contribute to a vibrant ecosystem of research and civic tech development, supporting a wealth of new projects.
Equipped civil society
TICTeC and our Democratic Transparency Community of Practice are effective networks for making connections, learning from peers and sparking new ideas. Defending democracy can be exhausting, dispiriting; but with the support of others who have faced the same challenges, our power increases.
WhoFundsThem
Equipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Our project around money in politics continues, gathering and sharing data on donations, gifts and second jobs — so that everyone can see, at a glance, the sources of their MP's funding.
We've provided the information that helps people understand MPs' motivations and financial interests, sourcing more data to show the groups that MPs are a member of (with details of APPGs collected by a mixture of scrapers and volunteers in a crowdsourcing exercise) and the open letters they've signed — all useful context in understanding the motivations and context of an MP's activities.
So now, visitors to TheyWorkForYou can look up their MP and see their entries on the Register of Interests; discover who made election donations; and find out what gifts they have received from which sources.
Diving more deeply into the factors that might shape their MP's decisions, they can go on to explore the groups they are a member of, and the open letters they might have signed. All of this enriches our understanding of the information we've historically published: MP's contributions to debates, and their votes.
- The Data Science Campus is supporting their colleagues in the Office for National Statistics with a new AI-based tool that uses data from TheyWorkForYou.
- A new, independent transparency project uses our data on MPs' financial interests as part of its information on money, lobbying, and Parliament.
Equipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Many thousands of individuals and organisations rely on TheyWorkForYou's alert emails, which let users know when their chosen keyword has been mentioned in Parliament; or when their representative has spoken or voted.
Alerts mean that campaigns can keep track of when their cause is under debate; journalists can follow a topic; and individuals can see what their representatives have been doing in Parliament. This year, we've made the sign-up interface much more intuitive, so this service is more accessible than ever.
"I work nationally for a charity on a niche policy area which has little media attention. I use the email alerts and share these with other people working/volunteering in my field. We could not afford to pay for this service. It's an absolute gem — otherwise I would never know who/when has been raising this topic in the Houses."
"As leader of a local voluntary lobbying group, I monitor parliamentary activities relating to public transport as used / needed by physically disabled people in order to make more effective representations to transport providers, including railway operators."
"Just at a fundamental level it feels wrong for sewage to be going into rivers": a website that started life as a pet project is harnessing the power of WriteToThem to campaign against sewage spills. Discover more here.
Back in 2012, we helped a group in Ghana to modify and reuse the code that underlies TheyWorkForYou to set up their parliamentary monitoring site, Odekro.
This year we heard from one of the co-founders that a report they produced, using data from the platform, caused 14 MPs to lose their seats because their site made it clear that they had never spoken in Parliament.
Supporting better engagement in Wales
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Thanks to new funding from the Welsh Government's Democratic Engagement Grant, we are helping people in Wales make better contact with their elected representatives through WriteToThem. This is both an opportunity for us to improve the site, and to help get our tools into the hands of people who can extend their impact.
As first steps, we've been:
- Interviewing representatives and community groups to understand barriers to constructive communication
- Translating every part of the WriteToThem user flow into Welsh
- …and there's more to come!
Speaking up
Responsive institutions
Running services that provide a bridge between people and politicians, and working intensively with Parliamentary information, gives us a unique perspective on where systems are working as intended, and where they are not; where there are gaps in data and where it is fragmented.
We don't keep these insights to ourselves. This year we've published reports, given evidence to Parliament and shared our findings with civil society groups via interactive webinars.
What we learned, and what could be better, about the systems for reporting election donations. Read the report or watch the launch video.
Based on our WhoFundsThem work, we were invited to give evidence to the House of Commons' Standards Committee. See our summary.
A key moment in Scotland's lawmaking allowed us to input both written and spoken evidence, supporting the effort to make public information more accessible. Read our summary.
Our report analyses the extent to which citizens can understand, scrutinise, or influence Mayors and combined authorities. Read the report.
Discovering more about the reasons people contact their representatives: top themes in casework include housing, local services, health, and anti-social behaviour; in campaigning, issues such as Gaza, climate policy, and digital ID predominate. Read the report.
Abuse and intimidation of elected representatives damages the openness and trust that a democratic culture needs to function. This report explores approaches we could implement through WriteToThem to be part of addressing the problem. Read the report.
We delve into why and when some correspondents write to politicians on behalf of others – we found that the largest group was people who were writing on behalf of family. Read the report.
We submitted evidence to a Parliamentary inquiry, making the case for more alignment between FOI requests and Parliament's Written Questions system. See our submission.
Monitoring parliaments, worldwide
Equipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Oversight of Parliaments has never been more vital, and civic tech organisations around the world are stepping up to track promises, uncover corruption, increase transparency, correct misinformation — or simply disseminate what representatives have said in Parliament.
Parliamentary Monitoring Organisations — PMOs — have an important role to play in the current era. mySociety, as a global convener of the international civic tech community, is in an excellent position to support their work through the creation of the Democratic Transparency community of practice. It's a space for knowledge exchange, fostering collaboration and sharing challenges.
Speakers from Cloudflare, the Engine Room and IRI shared tips on cybersecurity for civic tech projects. Watch the video.
Outreach happens beyond websites, as we heard from civic tech organisations in Uganda, Nigeria and Georgia.Watch the video.
ForSet, in Georgia, took us through how they worked with social media influencers, in a meticulously-planned and highly effective electoral information campaign. See the slides.
DPI usually means "digital public infrastructure" but in this session, Richard Gevers and Sanna-Kaisa Saloranta extend it to a more participative vision of government. Watch the video.
"By the end, I felt a renewed sense of purpose and collective energy to dream big—because over the next 5 to 10 years, we want to go from pushing for change to shaping the system itself."
"I enjoyed both gatherings I attended. Learnings from these are helping with our project planning, and I've connected with organisations similar to us since the gatherings, namely Political Watch in Spain, Code for Pakistan, and mySociety."
— Open Knowledge Brazil
TICTeC
Equipped civil society
In 2025, we were delighted to reconvene the civic tech community, in person — with an option to attend virtually — in Mechelen, Belgium.
This marked ten years since the first TICTeC, during which time, it has grown to become much more than just a conference. TICTeC has spawned two Communities of Practice, the online Knowledge Hub, countless connections between attendees, and now, as we reach the end of the three-year TICTeC Communities project, an in-depth landscape report documenting the current global state of civic tech.
Read the landscape report — or dip into one of the chapters:
- The arms race: approaches to defensive pro-democratic tech
- The new wave: Constructive democratic tech
- Access to Information as democratic infrastructure
- Supporting global democratic transparency
- Digital infrastructure: foundations for democratic futures
- Distributing democracy: having impact through reaching mass audiences
- Evaluating and understanding AI
- Sustainable tech: balancing ease of development with user experience
"TICTeC 2025 was more than a conference — it was a laboratory of hope. Our challenges are shared, and so are the solutions."
— Miguel Alor, Plaza Civica (Peru)
In light of these exceptional political times, TICTeC 2025's focus was on pro-democracy technology, exploring the impact of innovations across several critical themes: Access to Information and open data; Democracy, people and politics; and climate change.
In each of these areas, we explored defensive approaches, safeguarding the openness democracy needs to operate; and constructive approaches, supporting the engine of democratic progress.
"The conversations were both sobering and energising – exactly what our field needs right now. The parallel sessions were incredibly rich. I wished I could have attended them all!"
— Caroline Khene, Institute of Development Studies
"It's so nice to see that we are not alone with our problems, and that we can look for the common solutions, and that is possible to have some real change."
— Marzena Błaszczyk, Citizens Network Watchdog, Poland
Our main funder for TICTeC 2025, the National Endowment for Democracy, was badly affected by the Trump administration's freeze on Federal funding, and broke the news in January that they could no longer provide the support for TICTeC that they had previously committed to.
After a period of uncertainty, in February we were able to announce the good news that another funder had stepped in to save the day — but still, many who had planned to attend in person were unable to come, as their organisations were hit by the same severance of funds.
Fortunately we were also live-streaming — and NED eventually had their funding reinstated, meaning they've been able to support our ongoing TICTeC Communities of Practice.
TICTeC in numbers
- Over 212 delegates (in person and online) came to TICTeC, from 37 countries.
- 23% of presenters and 18.6% of attendees were from the Global South/less-free democracies.
- 90.9% said they made new connections, and 63.6% said they deepened existing connections at TICTeC.
- They had 57 sessions to choose from, with 70 presenters representing 23 countries.
- 100% said they gained new insights, knowledge, or skills during TICTeC 2025.
- 100% said they would recommend it to a friend.
- 72.7% said they have applied new skills or knowledge they learned at TICTeC.
More unmissable TICTeC moments
- Defending democracy with/from tech: Setting the topic for the conference as a whole, with a global set of perspectives. Watch the video
- Empowering young voters: This session, from the Tree Company, Belgium, was one of the most popular of the event. Watch the video
- A sneak preview of Pol.is 2.0: Colin Megill gave TICTeC the first look at this technology for helping resolve issues where there are many different views. Watch the video
ATI network
Equipped civil society
Access to Information (ATI) laws are powerful tools by which citizens, journalists, and civil society organisations can obtain information to scrutinise governments.
Alaveteli, named after the birthplace of Freedom of Information in Finland, is our platform that makes ATI accessible and effective, supporting society to engage in democratic decision making and hold power to account. When communities have access to credible evidence, they can change the policy agenda and improve the quality of public debate which builds a stronger resilience to disinformation; more primary-source documents in circulation supports fact-checking, reduces speculation, and strengthens evidence-based journalism and advocacy.
The NGOs managing each Alaveteli site are operating in a changing online environment, fighting for transparent and open government practices across complex political landscapes, and the technical infrastructure for enabling ATI is at risk from threats such as cyberattacks.
Against this landscape, the second of our two Communities of Practice brings together FOI activists around the world, connecting the 21 orgs who run Alaveteli to other FOI platforms, activists, high-impact users and regulators from 34 countries.
With regular online meetings, the network has collaborated on cross-border investigations, technical projects and peer learning sessions have increased the knowledge of all.
At the end of a three-year funded period, we're able to look back and see everything that has been achieved — and seek funding to keep those successes coming.
"This partnership enables us to have FOI contacts and exchange knowledge across almost all of Europe and even worldwide — and, perhaps most importantly, to stay motivated."
— Liset Hamming, SPOON
- Evaluating how FOI is working in practice: Three expert speakers explain their approaches for how to assess whether legislation matches reality. Watch the video
- Tackling the climate crisis with ATI: How transparency laws are used to push for stronger environmental protections across Europe. Watch the video
- Understanding AI decision-making with ATI: The power of FOI rights to expose the realities of AI and automated decision-making in government. Watch the video
Equipped civil society
ATI Network members running FOI sites in 12 different legislatures — Brazil, Europe, France, Georgia, Hungary, Mexico, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Spain, Uganda and the UK — stayed an extra day after TICTeC, for a rare chance to catch up in person.
We shared successes, learned new skills, and decided what should be the next topics of discussion for the network.
Just some of the incredible items that French Mayors bought on expenses — and which made national news after being uncovered via FOI site Ma Dada. Read the whole story.
Stats and uncomfortable truths were uncovered by Maldita, an investigative journalism and fact-checking foundation in Spain. Read more here.
Hungarian journalists had a big win using FOI to uncover a 900m HU Florins ($3 million) state railway contract, and asking what the contractors do for the money.
A Ukrainian daily news programme reported that the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Councilis not considering sanctions against JKX Oil & Gas, despite links to Russian oligarchs.
In Georgia, investigations have covered police use of Russian software and forensic technology, and the supply of contaminated drinking water to homes, schools and kindergartens across multiple towns.
In Moldova, investigative journalists exposedfrustrating delays and lack of outcomes in medical malpractice investigations.
In Croatia, FOI requests resulted in a scathing report on the failure ofa massive health IT project in the daily newspaper, bringing the facts to the public eye.
Information wants to be free
See lots more examples of where Access to Information has brought impactful change, on our new showcase page: FOI in action around the world.
WhatDoTheyKnow
In 2022, we found that one in ten peoplehave used their right to know under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK.
That number may now be higher — we heard at FOI Fest (see page 40) that both authorities and regulatory bodies are dealing with more requests than ever before.
This increase in the numbers of FOI requests has opened a space for pushback from the state: in March '26, we're hearing of plans to lower the cost limit of requests, a move which we believe would deter some of the most vital uses of FOI, while doing little to actually cut authorities' overheads.
"Throughout my work, the mySociety platform WhatDoTheyKnow has proved itself to be an invaluable and trusted tool. Through its gateway, information and correspondence with authorities is released directly into the public domain in a way which is transparent and accessible to all. Mainstream journalists have instant access to original documentation and can extend the reach of revelations far beyond the voice of a single campaigner. Without amplification, a scandal may lurk unseen and untouchable."
— Eleanor Shaikh, citizen campaigner who uncovered vital facts in the UK Horizon Post Office scandal
This year, our impact at home has manifested in many ways: in our support of other organisations to access their rights to information; in our advocacy for better FOI practices from UK authorities; in the stories our users have uncovered via the site; and in the technical improvements we've continued to make.
"The FOI Act is fundamental to our investigations, and our best work has been sparked by information that we have obtained under the Act. FOI will generate stories that are going to be politically damaging, but exposing that type of wrongdoing is vital for democracy and accountability."
— Jenna Corderoy, Democracy for Sale
WhatDoTheyKnow is the longest-running of all the Alaveteli sites, supporting people to make Freedom of Information requests to over 48,000 UK authorities.
"Research from the ICO has shown that more than 10 million people have made an FOI request over the years. The fact that that many people have used FOI, and that the vast majority of that is to their local government, to their school, to their hospital, whatever it might be to find out something that is really important and matters to them? I think it's a great success."
— Warren Seddon, ICO
Working with the charity End Violence Against Women (EVAW), we built a prototype of the UK's first VAWG Data Hub, helping them to:
- share the data they need to gain support from MPs
- monitor patterns that official bodies might miss
- help their members make the case for increased local funding to address violence against women and girls
EVAW's deep knowledge of the VAWG sector complemented mySociety's expertise in data services as we prototyped this solution to the persistent issue of fragmented data.
We created a pilot version of the VAWG Data Hub and undertook a project to uncover new data via Freedom of Information requests about safeguarding referrals in schools. In the course of this work, we helped EVAW to use Freedom of Information to gather some of the data that isn't already in the public realm — and discovered a concerning gap in what is being collected by local authorities around child safeguarding incidents. The mapping of this data can both build an important picture of the VAWG landscape across the UK, but also enable targeted campaigning which is both more efficient and effective in influencing the policies that bring about real change to make women and girls safer.
At the end of 2025, we looked back on a year of outreach, working with groups representing minoritised communities on using FOI to support their aims.
Among these were SCALP and Netpol (The Network for Police Monitoring), who we helped use batch FOI requests to uncover policing practices around protests. The resulting report, From Scotland to Gaza, combined the data they received from these requests with testimonies from protesters to make a compelling case that helped shape media coverage and public debate.
FOI requests made on WhatDoTheyKnow have brought all sorts of stories into the public eye — tales of injustice, poor practice, systems failure or corruption. Here are just a few from the last year:
- A 2022 report on sexual harassment and assault in the army remained unpublished until it was made public through FOI – informed by this FOI request
- Hospital canteens and snack booths in Scottish hospitals sell £1 million's worth of sugary drinks and snacks a year – informed by this batch request
- This report found that people experiencing mental ill health face specific problems claiming benefits – informed by this FOI request
- UK's AI ambitions clash with its climate goals – informed by this FOI request
- Ministers spent £2.4m fighting to keep huge Afghan data breach a secret – informed by this FOI request
- Councils are increasingly referring those who don't pay their council tax to bailiffs – informed by this batch request
Advocating for FOI
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
One of the best ways we can make impact is by speaking directly to the institutions that have the power to make change.
This year, we've been in discussion with the Information Commissioner's Office to highlight problematic practices by public authorities around FOI. Thanks to the large public archive of requests on WhatDoTheyKnow, we're able to provide unique insights into FOI practice.
The ICO have now updated their official guidance, to clarify that authorities should not require requesters to use third-party, login-gated portals to access FOI responses — a change that strengthens accessibility, reduces friction for requesters, and reinforces the principle that access to information should be barrier free.
FOIFest
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
FOI users, overseers, campaigners, journalists and academics with an interest in Freedom of Information came together for FOI Fest — and this conference was also the launch for a new FOI Network in the UK.
"It was great to meet so many likeminded people doing such pioneering work across the board."
- 82% agreed that FOI Fest made them feel that their work is part of a bigger movement around Freedom of Information.
- 92% of attendees said their understanding of FOI rights was "significantly" or "somewhat" improved.
"It felt like a ‘moment' for moving FOI forward."
The current situation with FOI in the UK, and how it has shaped power and public life over the last 21 years. Watch now
Climate
The warnings over human-caused global warming have become increasingly dire, with the planet "heating faster than ever before" and the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C limit "likely to be breached before 2030" according to the latest research.
And yet, seven and a half years after Bristol became the first UK council to declare a Climate Emergency, with 87% of all councils following suit, the initial burst of enthusiasm — dulled by stretched finances and, in some cases, by the election of climate denialists — has seemingly waned.
Six councils have now retracted previous commitments to attain Net Zero, while several have delayed the target date. But, according to the latest report from the government's climate advisors, the Climate Change Committee, it's wise to consider more than just the immediate costs of decarbonisation. They calculate that "every pound spent on Net Zero will bring benefits worth 2.2 – 4.1 times as much", while a transition to sustainable energy also avoids the volatility of oil and gas price spikes caused by events such as war in the Middle East and Ukraine.
What's more, the UK public have not lost their desire for climate change to be tackled — most want the UK to cut emissions to Net Zero by 2050 or sooner9.
As our partners on the Council Climate Action Scorecards, Climate Emergency UK, found in their recent Local Climate report:
- 90% of local authorities have reduced mowing or created wildflower habitat in their area.
- 70% of authorities published an annual climate report.
And thanks to Climate Emergency UK's campaigning, the Local Government Association has agreed to support a statutory duty for council climate action, meaning that specific climate and nature responsibilities would be codified in law, with associated central funding expected to follow.
- 18% of planning authorities have policies to build Net Zero homes — a rise of 4%.
Council Climate Action Scorecards
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
The Council Climate Action Scorecards, a joint project from mySociety and Climate Emergency UK, mark councils across approximately 90 areas where they could be taking action, from decarbonisation of vehicle fleets to sustainable practices in food production, and increasing biodiversity in green spaces.
- Upwards of 35% of all UK councils are using the Scorecards to inform their climate strategies.
- 76% of UK councils participated in the Scorecards' Right of Reply process.
- Between the 2023 and the 2025 Action Scorecards, scores increased by 6% for single tier authorities.
- 56 councils attained scores of over 80% in some sections.
From their start in 2021 as an assessment of local councils' plans rather than action, to the launch of the second set of Action Scorecards in 2025, the project has had an increasingly significant impact on the way councils assess, compare and plan their decarbonisation activities. Many have expressed gratitude for the framework which allows them to bring colleagues on board, and to quantifiably measure progress across different strands of activity.
62 UK councils scored over 50% across the board.
The Scorecards were inspiring for the Climate Reality Project in Europe — so much so that they used it as the basis for their own guidebook, informing and equipping citizens to assess climate action in their own cities across the continent.
How Scorecards bring change
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
We know how useful the Scorecards are, because we regularly speak to Climate Officers and activists, and hear the stories of how they've transformed the ways in which they work, campaign — and communicate.
- Norfolk County Council explained that Scorecards have helped them "strive for greater transparency and accessibility in our climate action efforts". Read the case study
- Volunteering as a Scorecards marker inspired this resident to ask questions at her council's cabinet meetings, helping them see climate action in a more holistic light. Read the case study
- The Climate Emergency Coalition are campaign group that has a productive and long-term relationship with their local council. Read the case study
- A keen Scorecards volunteer brought campaigners, press and his local council together to make sure their climate action hit the news. Read the case study
- A Climate Ambassador for the Women's Institute explains how she's been involved with carbon literacy training at her local council. Read the case study
Data in action
Equipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
Over the last year, we've been adding more useful data to Local Intelligence Hub, our platform for activists who want to know where best to concentrate their actions, built in collaboration with The Climate Coalition (TCC).
The Hub already offered a wealth of relevant data for both local areas and the nation as a whole, including total carbon emissions; signifiers such as rates of fuel poverty and debt; and levels of support among the population for Net Zero and sustainable energy sources.
The site, intuitive to use, allows campaigners to combine datasets to discover the most relevant facts for their area; or, conversely, discover the areas of the country most likely to be receptive to their message.
Now, we've added these new datasets to the mix, providing even more nuance for each constituency:
- Percentage of poorly insulated households
- M2 of green space per person
- Percentage of households with polluted air
- Number of people at risk of flooding
- MPs' APPG and select committee memberships
- Improved data on MPs' roles in Parliament
- MP's voting stances on climate-related issues
- Insights from MRP polling data
- The 2025 Council Climate Action Scorecard scores
- Indication of which are coastal constituencies
Community
Responsive institutionsEmpowered citizens
When it comes to looking after our communities, the challenges come from all sides. We can see it in our local towns and cities: against a background of ever-more stretched council budgets, authorities are "fighting a losing battle" against a "massive pothole backlog."10
Notes ():
Unsurprisingly, the decline of our common spaces has a knock-on effect on how the public feel about their surroundings. A recent DCMS survey11 indicates that 76% of adults don't believe they can personally influence decisions affecting their local area; and 89% say that their neighbourhood has not improved in the last two years.
Notes ():
Research into who feels empowered to engage with planning decisions12 indicates that 57%_ of people do not feel proud of their neighbourhood_; almost a third (31%) believe their local area is declining; and just7% have taken active stepsto help shape its future.
Notes ():
12: RTPI report
Just to add to the mix, there's Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) on the horizon — with potential to bring confusion over who to report such issues to, leading to still more disappointment and disengagement.
But that's just potential, right? Because while LGR could cause these figures to plummet further, it could also be a unique opportunity to drive a renewed sense of engagement, belonging and responsibility, if the tech and processes are properly thought-through.
SocietyWorks,the commercial division of mySociety, is doing that thinking. Thanks to our community-centric tech, councils need not give up on transparent and approachable communication.
Through FixMyStreet, the open-source project that we also make available to public authorities as SaaS, we've been empowering citizens to take simple steps to improve their own neighbourhoods for a long time; and thanks to our MapIt software managing the routing under the hood, everything is in place and ready to send users' reports to the right authorities to get them fixed — before and after LGR.
Meet Michael, who believes "we can all be improvers of our built environment" — and is putting that belief into practice with FixMyStreet. Broken paving slabs, trees needing protection, badly-placed bollards or broken kerbstones: you name it, Michael's helped to get it fixed.
"FixMyStreet has allowed so many people to report so many issues that directly affect their lives, and get them fixed without delay, being able to hold councils to account by its transparency and nature."
SocietyWorks
Responsive institutionsEquipped civil societyEmpowered citizens
We can all agree that pride in one's local area, and willingness to play a part in its improvement, are fundamental to community. We know we're only part of the solution; and it's important that our software eases rather than exacerbates the problem. To this end, SocietyWorks is in constant contact with authorities, developing features that help them as well as helping citizens.
SocietyWorks helps the public sector better serve citizens through interoperable, intuitive and responsible technology.
And in doing so, it extends mySociety's impact — as can be seen in these figures:
- 40 councils and public bodies are using SocietyWorks solutions to bridge gaps between themselves and members of the public:
- 35 public bodies integrate with FixMyStreet or FixMyStreet Pro.
- 7 use WasteWorks, our "front door to local waste collection services."
- 1.1 million+ reports were sent via FixMyStreet and FixMyStreet Pro in 2025.
- 32,000+ bulky waste collections were booked through WasteWorks last year.
Read more in: SocietyWorks' own Impact Report for 2025.
- FixMyStreet Pro handles an estimated 200,000+ updates a year for Lincolnshire County Council. Read their experience.
- Northumberland County Council wanted to address increasing highways drainage issues more efficiently and sustainably – discover how FixMyStreet Pro helped.
"This platform not only streamlines reporting but also gives residents the chance to directly participate in the care and enhancement of their community."
— Councillor Ashley Baxter, Leader of South Kesteven District Council
"FixMyStreet is a classic for a reason. It's a clean, practical tool that opens a direct line between people and local government. But what struck me was the deeper shift it invites: it makes place-based maintenance visible, collective, and reportable."
— Newspeak House Political Technology Awards.
- Sometimes it's more intuitive to start with the visuals, so now you can begin making your FixMyStreet report with a photo.
- For many years, FixMyStreet has been a great option for borough, county and city councils…and now it's for parish councils, too.
- WasteWorks keeps waste services simple, whether booking a bulky waste collection or subscribing to a small waste collection for things like batteries and coffee pods, too.
What next?
Our plans for 2026/7 reflect the changing world around us. In the UK, Freedom of Information is under threat, with anonymously briefed proposals to restrict what kinds of requests will receive a response. We'll be working with the other members of the FOI Network to make sure that FOI remains a flexible, accessible and effective right, so that it can continue to reveal vital information about the decisions that are affecting people's lives today. With AI being rolled out rapidly in public authorities, we'll also be showing how FOI is being used to show the extent to which algorithmic systems are deployed in coming to those decisions — now, and in the future. You can catch us at Data Justice 2026 in Cardiff in June talking about this work in more detail. We'll also be bringing together people inside and outside the government for conversations about what effective and transparent technology use in public authorities looks like, and how we can get there.
In many countries where Alaveteli operates, across Europe and beyond, transparency laws are undermined by weak implementation. We'll be using the codebase to collect, analyse, and share data on how authorities handle information requests, helping sites make evidence-based arguments for improvements in practice, accountability and reform. We'll also be building on the support it provides for journalists, campaigners and other professional users, and making the platform easier to install and run for the transparency advocates around the world who use it.
We'll be applying what we've learned through developing WriteToThem Insights, our live analysis of the reasons why people contact their representatives, to WhatDoTheyKnow and Alaveteli. Live topic analysis will both get site users the information they need in the most straightforward possible way, and allow us to generate an ongoing pulse-check of the information they seek, and the barriers they encounter in getting it.
Alongside that technical work, we'll be sharing the lessons that we've learned on enabling high-impact use across Europe through the last few years of the ATI Network with civic tech organisations in Latin America. We look forward to exchanging regional context and technical expertise, identifying new opportunities to deploy platforms and working together to amplify journalistic impact globally.
As geopolitical alliances change and democracies need to engage their citizens more than ever, the European Commission has committed to creating a European Civic Tech Hub as part of their Democracy Shield programme, to boost societal resilience, citizens' engagement and European digital sovereignty. Our latest TICTeC work to help improve the impacts of civic technology takes the form of a collaboration with Sitra (the Finnish Innovation Fund): we're working with them to understand how a European Civic tech hub could best support safe and scalable citizen oriented tech.
Closer to home, through our Making Contact project, we'll be working to ensure that more people across Wales, and particularly from the most deprived areas, are supported to contact their elected representatives for the first time, with improved guidance on WriteToThem, tailored to the devolved nations, so that their message will get to the right person straight away.
And, we'll be building on our work this year using the Local Intelligence Hub to explore data sharing and use with groups working to end gender-based violence, starting with a series of conversations with organisations working with young people, on how better access to shared data could support their work.
Thank you to everyone who makes our work possible
Thank you to the grantmaking organisations whose support enables us to transform ideas into meaningful impact. Your willingness to recognise the potential in our work — often at its earliest stages, when it exists only as a proposal — demonstrates both insight and trust. Your partnership is invaluable, and our impact would not be possible without you:
- The Adessium Foundation, Swedish Postcode Foundation and Isocrates Foundation, supporting our Access To Information network across Europe.
- The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, making possible our work to enable FOI use by marginalised groups.
- The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust for helping make the inaugural FOI Fest and UK FOI Network happen.
- The John Ellerman Foundation for multi-year support of our Climate Action Scorecards project.
- Mr John Cross, for funding the development and deployment of solutions using AI technology in our services.
- Stichting NLnet – enabling technical developments on Alaveteli, including GDPR compliance, in partnership with Open Knowledge France.
- The Indigo Trust and The Paragon Trust for enabling the WhoFundsThem project, helping people understand UK MPs' motivations and financial interests.
- The National Endowment for Democracy and Stichting Benevolential (Porticus), supporting our TICTeC Communities programme.
- The Patrick J McGovern Foundation, helping us integrate AI into our FOI software, enabling journalists and advocates to more easily find information about government activities.
- The Welsh Government Democratic Engagement Grant, supporting people in Wales to have constructive engagement with the democratic system.
- We are also incredibly grateful to The Dulverton Trust and Stiftung Auxilium (Porticus) for providing unrestricted funding to support the core aspects of our work and develop organisational resilience during challenging times.
We are equally grateful to every individual who has chosen to support our work through their generosity. Whether through a one-off gift or ongoing contributions, and regardless of size, each donation plays a vital role in advancing our mission. Your support enables us to empower individuals and strengthen civil society in building a better world – thank you.
- £5 could enable access to a previously hidden government document
- £10 could help someone speak to power for the first time
- £40 could support 1000 people to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives
"I support mySociety because the services you provide are useful in a really practical way; they empower people to become active and engaged citizens"
To the volunteers who help run WhatDoTheyKnow: thank you for giving your free time, knowledge and energy to improve our data and services. Your efforts are magnified many thousands of times over as they empower and educate our sites' visitors.
- Martyn Dewar
- William Fitzpatrick
- Matt Knight
- Doug Paulley
- Ganesh Sittampalam
And equal thanks to all the volunteers who didn't want to be named publicly.
Thank you to our board of trustees, who help guide our direction. We appreciate your experience, time and inputs.
In his approach to work, and to life, he made a significant difference to all who knew him, and his work continues to have resonance. Read our tribute here.
Financial overview
For the year ended 31 March 2026
| Company number | 03277032 |
|---|---|
Charity number | 1076346 |
Registered office and operational address | 483 Green Lanes, London, N13 4BS |
Chief executive officer | L Crow |
Bankers | Lloyds Bank 27–31 White Hart Street, High Wycombe, HP11 2HL |
Auditors | Godfrey Wilson Limited Chartered accountants and statutory auditors Blok, 2nd Floor - South, One Castle Park, Tower Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA |
Trustees, who are also directors under company law, who served during the year and up to the date of this report were as follows:
- A Adewunmi
- N Ball
- A Brown
- R Gidoomal
- T J Hughes
- G Maitland Hudson
- D O'Shaughnessy
- A C Scales
- A Scott
- S Skelton
- J Thornton
- A J Tibbitt
Reference and administrative information set out on page 57 forms part of this report. The financial statements comply with current statutory requirements, the Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Statement of Recommended Practice – Accounting and Reporting by Charities (effective from January 2019).
mySociety is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee under a Memorandum & Articles of association, and is registered as a charity in England and Wales (registered charity no. 1076346).
mySociety is governed by a board of volunteer trustees. Trustees serve four-year terms, and may be reappointed for one further four-year term after completion of their first. Trustees are generally recruited through an open call for applications, or may occasionally be directly appointed following a period of service as an observer of one of the board's committees. Following their appointment trustees participate in a series of briefings with key staff and fellow trustees as part of their induction; which includes briefings on financial procedures, our priority areas of work, ongoing strategy and organisational setup.
mySociety operates a number of civic and democratic websites, and has a wholly owned commercial subsidiary, SocietyWorks Ltd, governed by its own board of directors comprising a combination of trustees from mySociety, executive directors and independent non-executive directors. Trustees and non-executive directors are not remunerated.
Day-to-day management of mySociety and its subsidiaries is delegated to the Chief Executive except for the following matters which are reserved to the trustees:
- Approval of strategy, values and policy;
- Establishing and disbanding committees of the board;
- The creation, selection and appointment to any post with a total remuneration package of £60,000 p.a. or greater, or FTE equivalent;
- Approval of the group's annual report and accounts; and
- Significant financial commitments as set out in a delegations policy.
At any one time, mySociety typically employs around 30 permanent members of staff and a small additional number on temporary contracts. SocietyWorks Ltd employs no staff directly, but buys in labour as required from mySociety.
There is an annual review of pay for all staff members, encompassing two elements:
- Cost of living; and
- Performance
The Chief Executive makes recommendations to the board of trustees based on performance, affordability and the financial health of mySociety, and changes in averages of salaries for comparable roles, except for the Chief Executive's own pay and that of the Managing Director of SocietyWorks Ltd, which is discussed by the board of trustees alone. The board of trustees either accepts or amends the recommendations, and makes the revised pay offer to the staff.
Salary ranges for new roles are set using both industry benchmarks and salaries of staff members already employed by the organisation in similar roles.
In 2024 we updated our charitable objectives with the Charity Commission to reflect the ways in which our work, and charity law, have changed over the last 20 years. Our updated objectives are to advance for the public benefit:
- education in the subjects of climate change, citizenship, civic responsibility and community development by, without limitation:
- using information and communication technologies to:
- develop the public's individual capabilities, skills and understanding in these subjects
- increase the accessibility of information from and about public authorities, building capacity and knowledge within communities
- conducting and publishing research and providing structured information on citizenship and democratic processes
- using information and communication technologies to:
- civic responsibility, good citizenship and community development in particular but not exclusively by:
- facilitating informed participation by the public in democratic processes and decision-making within their communities
- innovation in the effective use of information and communication technologies for these purposes.
Our ambition is to repower democracy: using our digital and data skills to put more power in more people's hands. In 2025/6 we continued working towards the goals defined in our2022-27 strategy, which we believe will enable us to realise our ambition to significantly and sustainably grow the positive impact our services have for citizens:
- Reach more, and more kinds of people with our services, focusing on those underserved by democracy and by our services.
- Get democratic institutions to meet citizens' needs, using insights from our services and support from the communities that use them.
- Help drive the democratic transition we need in response to the climate crisis by developing new services or service changes across our core areas of work.
- Build UK partnerships targeting citizen reach or specific institutional change to which we can uniquely contribute through our services.
- Use our research, international network and events to inform and share our practices.
- Create and sustain supporter and volunteering programmes to build capacity and strengthen our connection to our wider UK community.
We have referred to the guidance in the Charity Commission's general guidance on public benefit when reviewing our aims and objectives and in planning our future activities. In particular, the trustees consider how planned activities will contribute to the aims and objectives they have set.
Total group income in 2025/26 was £2.223m, a decrease of 15% from the £2.628m recognised in 2024/25. Restricted income of £0.402m (2024/25: £1.008m) has dropped by 60% reflecting the challenges in the current philanthropic funding environment that is impacting the charity sector. Unrestricted charitable income has decreased marginally from £0.117m in 2024/25 to £0.112m in 2025/26. While we are seeing a gradual increase in individual giving donations, the funding environment for unrestricted grants continues to follow the trend of recent years and is becoming increasingly challenging.
Income from other trading activities increased by 14% to £1.710m (2024/25: £1.503m) mainly driven by growth in core product revenue in SocietyWorks alongside an increase in its local authority client base.
Total group expenditure of £2.368m is 6% less than the previous financial year (2024/25: £2.529m). Despite increasing profits in our commercial business, we have managed our expenditure budgets closely in an uncertain funding environment and a challenging economic climate with inflationary pressures evident in the rising costs of services.
2025/26 saw a net deficit outturn of -£0.145m (2024/25: £0.099m surplus). Profits from SocietyWorks of £0.463m (2024/25: £0.299m) combined with an unrestricted net deficit in the charity of -£0.448m (2024/25: -£0.074m) has led to a small surplus in unrestricted funds of £0.015m (2024/25: £0.225m). Total funds at the year end were £1.160m (2024/25: £1.305m) made up of unrestricted funds of £0.888m (2024/25: £0.873m) and restricted funds of £0.272m (2024/25: £0.432m).
Over the past four years we have focused on increasing our unrestricted reserves through growing our commercial profit contribution from SocietyWorks. This was in recognition of large multi-year grants ending and amidst an increasingly uncertain and challenging philanthropic funding environment. Our increase in unrestricted reserves will provide some security in the next two financial years as we navigate the challenge of securing funding to meet the expenditure required to deliver ongoing impact.
mySociety's major charitable supporters in 2025/26 are listed on page 53.
mySociety's commercial subsidiary, SocietyWorks Ltd, provides sustainable commercial income streams within each of our practice areas, building on and related to the work we do charitably. In particular, our FixMyStreet Pro commercial contracts generate substantial multi-year income streams aligned with our overall mySociety mission and work with local authorities. Profits made from trading activity are distributed to the charity, with income and expenditure from trading activity consolidated in the group accounts as unrestricted funds.
The trustees consider that the charity will continue as a going concern for a period of at least 12 months from the date on which these financial statements are approved for the following reasons:
- The charity held unrestricted funds of £0.888m at 31 March 2026.
- 41% of funding against the charity's budgeted expenditure for the upcoming 12 months was already secured at the financial year end.
- The trading subsidiary has £1.004m of multi-year contract commitments from commercial customers to be recognised in the 2026/27 financial year.
The trustees therefore consider it appropriate to adopt the going concern basis of preparation of the accounts, as detailed in note 1(c) to the financial statements.
mySociety operates a comprehensive risk management framework that supports informed decision making around the risks that threaten our ability to achieve our goals. Our risk register is reviewed regularly by the Senior Management Team, with formal review by the Board of Trustees at least bi-annually. Risks are categorised by type, and assessed by probability and impact creating a gross risk score. Mitigations are reviewed and identified as relevant to deliver a net risk score that is within acceptable risk tolerance thresholds of the Board of Trustees. Contingencies are also identified if mitigations were to fail. Our approach to risk management is designed to manage, rather than eliminate, the risks to delivering our goals.
The key risks, alongside impact, mitigation, and contingency strategies for the organisation are as follows:
- Risk: Failure to acquire sufficient future funding to sustain the organisation.
- Impact: Failure to deliver mission impact.
- Mitigation: Charity funding is a primary focus for the organisation; the SocietyWorks team is focused on growing sustainable profits from commercial activity; quarterly financial forecasts are prepared to ensure timely information is available to support critical decision making; relevant consideration will be given to any reductions to the cost base.
- Contingency: Reduce the cost base to ensure the charity remains solvent.
- Risk: Cyber attack
- Impact: Failure to meet data protection standards; negative impact to reputation; operational sustainability at risk; failure to meet contractual commitments.
- Mitigation: Strong password policies; access to servers limited; encrypted hard drives; hosting with suppliers experienced in dealing with DOS attacks; segregation of systems to prevent potential contagion.
- Contingency: Work to identify source of access, close security hole, consider restoration of site from most recent backup, consider public disclosure; use a CDN to stop the impact of a DOS attack; contact social media service providers to regain access to accounts.
- Impact: Failure to meet financial and operational commitments and deliver to mission.
- Mitigation: Long-term forward financial planning to enable any failure to be addressed by future cost reductions in a timely manner and ensure the organisation remains solvent; cash flow forecasting; robust credit control processes.
- Contingency: Reduce the cost base to ensure the charity remains solvent.
Risk: Loss of key staff and volunteers
- Impact: Failure to meet commitments and our ambitions for impact due to lack of capacity; loss of critical institutional knowledge for sustaining services.
- Mitigation: Skill sharing across teams to ensure that there is no organisational dependency on a single individual; identify and address staff concerns; open culture, focus on limiting working hours, and flexible approach to working; Health, Safety & Wellbeing policies and practises implemented and monitored; process mapping and documentation of key knowledge; Digital Service Manager focused on maintaining a healthy culture between staff and volunteer team; funding and resource allocation to reduce the administrative burden on WhatDoTheyKnow; clear guidelines on ways of working.
- Contingency: Backfilling functions with remaining staff; recruiting replacement.
- Risk: Failure to update services to respond to new technical and societal developments makes our services irrelevant
- Impact: Gradual loss of overall impact against goals.
- Mitigation: Development of new strategy; consideration of projects that will allow us to update services or create new services to reflect new external developments; monitor quantitative and qualitative use of services as indicators of impact; AI strategy and framework including regular monitoring for developments.
- Risk: Inadequate capacity in SMT leads to escalation of other risks.
- Impact: Significant challenges in capacity in small management team lead to increases in other risk areas due to delayed or inadequate response, or loss of key staff due to burnout
- Mitigation: Focus on skill and experience development in other staff, flexible trading off of work between SMT members, regular discussion of approaches.
- Contingency: Co-option of staff into SMT.
In order to responsibly and effectively manage the Group finances, mySociety holds reserves to manage the financial impact of organisational risk, including working capital commitments. We aim to ensure that our work is protected from the risk of disruption at short notice due to a lack of funds, while at the same time ensuring that income is spent appropriately on activities to deliver strategic impact and is not retained for longer than it should be. We operate a tiered approach to financial risk management for monitoring reserves that layers our aims for monthly operating cost cover, cessation costs for mySociety and SocietyWorks, and opportunity reserves.
At a minimum, the charity aims to hold a minimum of three months operating costs plus earmarked cessation costs as free reserves (£0.4m). At a maximum, the charity aims to hold six months operating costs across the group, earmarked cessation costs across the group, as well as an opportunity reserves fund that may be designated to support strategic programmes (£1.5m).
As at 31 March 2026, mySociety held free reserves of £0.871m, which covers three months of group operating costs plus earmarked cessation costs for the group.
mySociety solicits donations from the public via its websites, and does not engage in any follow-up activity with individual donors unless consent has been given for further contact. We do not employ outside fundraisers, and are not bound by any voluntary scheme for regulating fundraising, but will keep this under review as our fundraising work develops. No complaints have been received about our fundraising activity.
The trustees (who are also directors of the charity for the purposes of company law) are responsible for preparing the trustees' report and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards, including Financial Reporting Standard 102: The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).
The trustees are required to prepare financial statements for each financial year, which give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the charity and the group and the incoming resources and application of resources, including the net income or expenditure, of the charity and the group for the year. In preparing those financial statements the trustees are required to:
- select suitable accounting policies and then apply them consistently;
- observe the methods and principles in the Charities SORP;
- make judgements and accounting estimates that are reasonable and prudent;
- state whether applicable accounting standards and statements of recommended practice have been followed, subject to any material departures disclosed and explained in the financial statements; and
- prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the charity will continue in operation.
The trustees are responsible for keeping proper accounting records which disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the charity and the group and which enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Companies Act 2006. The trustees are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charity and the group and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.
In so far as the trustees are aware:
- there is no relevant audit information of which the charitable company's auditors are unaware; and
- the trustees have taken all steps that they ought to have taken to make themselves aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that the auditors are aware of that information.
The trustees are responsible for the maintenance and integrity of the corporate and financial information included on the charitable company's website. Legislation in the United Kingdom governing the preparation and dissemination of financial statements may differ from legislation in other jurisdictions.
Members of the charity guarantee to contribute an amount not exceeding £1 to the assets of the charity in the event of winding up. The trustees are members of the charity but this entitles them only to voting rights. The trustees have no beneficial interest in the charity.
Godfrey Wilson Ltd were appointed as the charitable company's auditors during the year and have expressed their willingness to act in that capacity.
Approved by the trustees on 25 June 2026 and signed on their behalf by
A. Brown(Trustee) and G. Maitland Hudson(Chair, Trustee)
We have audited the financial statements of mySociety (the ‘parent charity') and its subsidiary (the ‘group') for the year ended 31 March 2026 which comprise the consolidated statement of financial activities, consolidated and parent charity balance sheets, consolidated statement of cash flows and the related notes to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies.
The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards, including Financial Reporting Standard 102: The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and the Republic of Ireland (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).
In our opinion, the financial statements:
- give a true and fair view of the state of the group and parent charity's affairs as at 31 March 2026 and of the group's incoming resources and application of resources, including its income and expenditure, for the year then ended;
- have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice; and
- have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006.
We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)) and applicable law. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor's responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements section of our report. We are independent of the group and parent charity in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in the UK, including the FRC's Ethical Standard, and the provisions available for small entities, in the circumstances set out in note 9 to the financial statements, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that the trustees' use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate.
Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the group and parent charity's ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue.
Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the trustees with respect to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this report.
The other information comprises the information included in the annual report other than the financial statements and our auditor's report thereon. The trustees are responsible for the other information. Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and, except to the extent otherwise explicitly stated in our report, we do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon.
In connection with our audit of the financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If we identify such material inconsistencies or apparent material misstatements, we are required to determine whether there is a material misstatement in the financial statements or a material misstatement of the other information. If, based on the work we have performed, we conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information, we are required to report that fact.
We have nothing to report in this regard.
In our opinion, based on the work undertaken in the course of the audit:
- the information given in the trustees' report, which includes the directors' report prepared for the purposes of company law, for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements; and
- the directors' report included within the trustees' report has been prepared in accordance with applicable legal requirements.
In the light of the knowledge and understanding of the group and parent charity and their environment obtained in the course of the audit, we have not identified material misstatements in the directors' report included within the trustees' report. We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters in relation to which the Companies Act 2006 requires us to report to you if, in our opinion:
- adequate accounting records have not been kept by the parent charity, or returns adequate for our audit have not been received from branches not visited by us; or
- the parent charity financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or
- certain disclosures of trustees' remuneration specified by law are not made; or
- we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit; or
- the trustees were not entitled to prepare the financial statements in accordance with the small companies regime and take advantage of the small companies' exemptions in preparing the trustees' report and from the requirement to prepare a strategic report.
As explained more fully in the trustees' responsibilities statement set out in the trustees' report, the trustees are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view, and for such internal control as they determine is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, the trustees are responsible for assessing the group and the parent charity's ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless the trustees either intend to liquidate the group or the parent charity or to cease operations, or have no realistic alternative but to do so.
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.
Irregularities, including fraud, are instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations. We design procedures in line with our responsibilities, outlined above, to detect material misstatements in respect of irregularities, including fraud. The procedures we carried out and the extent to which they are capable of detecting irregularities, including fraud, are detailed below:
- We obtained an understanding of the legal and regulatory framework that the charity operates in, and assessed the risk of non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Throughout the audit, we remained alert to possible indications of non-compliance.
- We reviewed the charity's policies and procedures in relation to:
- Identifying, evaluating and complying with laws and regulations, and whether they were aware of any instances of non-compliance;
- Detecting and responding to the risk of fraud, and whether they were aware of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud; and
- Designing and implementing internal controls to mitigate the risk of non-compliance with laws and regulations, including fraud.
- We inspected the minutes of trustee meetings.
- We enquired about any non-routine communication with regulators and reviewed any reports made to them.
- We reviewed the financial statement disclosures and assessed their compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
- We performed analytical procedures to identify any unusual or unexpected transactions or balances that may indicate a risk of material fraud or error.
- We assessed the risk of fraud through management override of controls and carried out procedures to address this risk. Our procedures included:
- Testing the appropriateness of journal entries;
- Assessing judgements and accounting estimates for potential bias;
- Reviewing related party transactions; and
- Testing transactions that are unusual or outside the normal course of business.
Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, there is a risk that we will not detect all irregularities, including those leading to a material misstatement in the financial statements or non-compliance with regulation. Irregularities that arise due to fraud can be even harder to detect than those that arise from error as they may involve deliberate concealment or collusion.
A further description of our responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial Reporting Council's website at: www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of our auditor's report.
This report is made solely to the charity's members, as a body, in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the charity's members those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor's report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the charity's members as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.
Date: 25 June 2026
Dougal Howard ACA (Senior Statutory Auditor)
For and on behalf of:
GODFREY WILSON LIMITED
Chartered accountants and statutory auditors
Blok, 2nd Floor - South
One Castle Park
Tower Hill
Bristol
BS2 0JA
mySociety · For the year ended 31 March 2026
| Note | The group 2026 £ | The group 2025 £ | The charity 2026 £ | The charity 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fixed assets | |||||
Tangible assets | 12 | 12,819 | 17,017 | 12,819 | 17,017 |
Intangible assets | 13 | 4,076 | 16,783 | - | - |
Investments | 14 | – | – | 1 | 1 |
16,895 | 33,800 | 12,820 | 17,018 | ||
Current assets | |||||
Debtors | 17 | 310,192 | 252,399 | 651,700 | 521,259 |
Current asset investments | 20,123 | – | 10,062 | ||
Cash at bank and in hand | 1,781,063 | 1,878,762 | 574,513 | 853,684 | |
2,111,378 | 2,131,161 | 1,236,275 | 1,374,943 | ||
Liabilities | |||||
Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year | 18 | (967,853) | (859,588) | (91,430) | (89,343) |
Net current assets | 1,143,525 | 1,271,573 | 1,144,845 | 1,285,600 | |
Net assets | 20 | 1,160,420 | 1,305,373 | 1,157,665 | 1,302,618 |
Funds | 21 | ||||
Restricted funds | 272,490 | 432,016 | 272,490 | 432,016 | |
Unrestricted funds | |||||
General funds | 887,930 | 873,357 | 885,175 | 870,602 | |
Total charity funds | 1,160,420 | 1,305,373 | 1,157,665 | 1,302,618 |
These accounts have been prepared in accordance with the special provisions applicable to companies subject to the small companies' regime.
Approved by the trustees on 25 June 2026 and signed on their behalf by:
A. Brown(Trustee) and G. Maitland Hudson(Chair)
mySociety · For the year ended 31 March 2026
| Total 2026 £ | Total 2025 £ | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Cash flows from operating activities: | |||
Net movement in funds | (144,953) | 99,259 | |
Adjustments for: | |||
Depreciation charges | 7,272 | 7,249 | |
Amortisation charges | 12,707 | 26,481 | |
Dividends, interest and rents from investments | (2,849) | (2,711) | |
Loss on disposal of fixed assets | 2,520 | - | |
(Increase) / decrease in debtors | (57,793) | 103,524 | |
Increase / (decrease) in creditors | 108,265 | (46,610) | |
Net cash (used in) / provided by operating activities | (74,831) | 187,192 | |
Cash flows from investing activities: | |||
Dividends, interest and rents from investments | 2,849 | 2,711 | |
Purchase of tangible fixed assets | (5,594) | (2,501) | |
Net cash (used in) / provided by investing activities | (2,745) | 210 | |
(Decrease) / increase in cash and cash equivalents in the year | (77,576) | 187,402 | |
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year | 1,878,762 | 1,691,360 | |
Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the year | 1,801,186 | 1,878,762 |
| Cash and cash equivalents comprises: | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Current asset investments | 20,123 | - | |
Cash at bank and in hand | 1,781,063 | 1,878,762 | |
1,801,186 | 1,878,762 |
Note: The charity has not provided an analysis of changes in net debt as it does not have any long term financing arrangements.
a) Basis of preparation and general information:
mySociety is a charitable company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales. The registered office address is 483 Green Lanes, London, N13 4BS.
The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Accounting and Reporting by Charities: Statement of Recommended Practice applicable to charities in preparing their accounts in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland (FRS 102) (effective 1 January 2019) – (Charities SORP (FRS 102)), the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland (FRS 102) and the Companies Act 2006.
mySociety meets the definition of a public benefit entity under FRS 102. Assets and liabilities are initially recognised at historical cost or transaction value unless otherwise stated in the relevant accounting policy note.
b) Group accounts
These financial statements consolidate the results of the charitable company and its wholly-owned (controlled) subsidiary on a line by line basis. Transactions and balances between the charitable company and its subsidiary have been eliminated from the consolidated financial statements. Balances between the two companies are disclosed in the notes of the charitable company's balance sheet. A separate statement of financial activities, or income and expenditure account, for the charitable company itself is not presented because the charitable company has taken advantage of the exemptions afforded by section 408 of the Companies Act 2006.
c) Going concern basis of accounting
The accounts have been prepared on the assumption that the charity is able to continue as a going concern, which the trustees consider appropriate having regard to the current level of unrestricted reserves. There are no material uncertainties about the charity's ability to continue as a going concern.
1. Accounting policies (continued)
d) Income
Income is recognised when the charity has entitlement to the funds, any performance conditions attached to the item of income have been met, it is probable that the income will be received and the amount can be measured reliably.
Income from the government and other grants, whether ‘capital' grants or ‘revenue' grants, is recognised when the charity has entitlement to the funds, any performance conditions attached to the grants have been met, it is probable that the income will be received and the amount can be measured reliably and is not deferred.
Income received in advance of provision of invoiced consultancy and software services is deferred until criteria for income recognition are met.
Recharges of staff costs between the charitable company and its subsidiary SocietyWorks Ltd have not been recognised as income in the charitable company's statement of financial activities, and are instead netted off against expenditure. This has no impact upon the consolidated figures, in which intercompany transactions are eliminated.
e) Donated services and facilities
On receipt, donated professional services and donated facilities are recognised on the basis of the value of the gift to the charity which is the amount the charity would have been willing to pay to obtain services or facilities of equivalent economic benefit on the open market; a corresponding amount is then recognised in expenditure in the period of receipt.
Donated professional services and donated facilities are recognised as income when the charity has control over the item, any conditions associated with the donated item have been met, the receipt of economic benefit from the use by the charity of the item, is probable and the economic benefit can be measured reliably. In accordance with the Charities SORP (FRS 102), general volunteer time is not recognised.
f) Interest receivable
Interest on funds held on deposit is included when receivable and the amount can be measured reliably by the charity: this is normally upon notification of the interest paid or payable by the bank.
g) Funds accounting
Unrestricted funds are available to spend on activities that further any of the purposes of the charity. Designated funds are unrestricted funds of the charity which the trustees have decided at their discretion to set aside to use for a specific purpose. Restricted funds are donations which the donor has specified are to be solely used for particular areas of the charity's work or for specific projects being undertaken by the charity.
1. Accounting policies (continued)
h) Expenditure and irrecoverable VAT
Expenditure is recognised once there is a legal or constructive obligation to make a payment to a third party, it is probable that settlement will be required and the amount of the obligation can be measured reliably.
Irrecoverable VAT is charged as a cost against the activity for which the expenditure was incurred.
i) Grants payable
Grants payable are recognised as expenditure on the earlier of a) when the charity has a present obligation to transfer resources; and b) when the charity ceases to control the resource (e.g. via transferring funds to the grant recipient).
j) Allocation of support and governance costs
Support costs are those functions that assist the work of the charity but do not directly undertake charitable activities. Governance costs are the costs associated with the governance arrangements of the charity, including the costs of complying with constitutional and statutory requirements and any costs associated with the strategic management of the charity's activities. These costs have been allocated between cost of raising funds and expenditure on charitable activities on the basis of direct costs, as follows:
| 2026 | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
Raising funds: raising charitable donations | 15.1% | 6.9% |
Charitable activities | 84.9% | 93.1% |
k) Tangible fixed assets
Depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write down the cost of each asset to its estimated residual value over its expected useful life. The depreciation rates in use are as follows:
| Item | Description |
|---|---|
Computer equipment | 3 – 5 years straight line basis |
l) Intangible fixed assets
Product development expenditure is capitalised only if the expenditure can be measured reliably, the product or process is technically feasible, future economic benefits are probable and the company intends to and has sufficient resources to complete development and to use or sell the asset. Otherwise, it is recognised in the profit and loss account as incurred. Subsequent to initial recognition, product development is measured at cost less accumulated amortisation and any accumulated impairment losses.
Amortisation is provided at rates calculated to write down the cost of intangible assets over the estimated period that economic benefit attributable to the asset is expected to flow to the company. The amortisation rates in use are as follows:
| Item | Description |
|---|---|
Software development | 3 years straight line basis |
m) Investments
Investments in subsidiaries are held at cost less impairment.
n) Debtors
Trade and other debtors are recognised at the settlement amount due after any trade discount offered. Prepayments are valued at the amount prepaid net of any trade discounts due.
o) Current asset investments
Current asset investments represent amounts held in short term deposit accounts with maturity or notice periods of above three but less than twelve months.
p) Cash at bank and in hand
Cash at bank and cash in hand includes cash and short term highly liquid investments with a short maturity of three months or less from the date of acquisition or opening of the deposit or similar account.
q) Creditors
Creditors and provisions are recognised where there is a present obligation resulting from a past event that will probably result in the transfer of funds to a third party and the amount due to settle the obligation can be measured or estimated reliably. Creditors and provisions are normally recognised at their settlement amount after allowing for any trade discounts due.
1. Accounting policies (continued)
r) Financial instruments
The charitable company only has financial assets and financial liabilities of a kind that qualify as basic financial instruments. Basic financial instruments are initially recognised at transaction value and subsequently measured at their settlement value with the exception of bank loans which are subsequently recognised at amortised cost using the effective interest method.
s) Pension costs
The charitable company operates a defined contribution pension scheme for its employees. There are no further liabilities other than that already recognised in the SOFA.
t) Foreign currency transactions
Transactions in foreign currencies are translated at rates prevailing at the date of the transaction. Balances denominated in foreign currencies are translated at the rate of exchange prevailing at the year end.
u) Accounting estimates and key judgements
In the application of the charity's accounting policies, the trustees are required to make judgements, estimates and assumptions about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. The estimates and underlying assumptions are based on historical experience and other factors that are considered to be relevant. Actual results may differ from these estimates.
The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis. Revisions to accounting estimates are recognised in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision affects only that period, or in the period of the revision and future periods if the revision affects both current and future periods.
The key sources of estimation uncertainty that have a significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements are described below.
As described in note 1k to the financial statements, depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write down the cost of each asset to its estimated residual value over its expected useful life.
As described in note 1l to the financial statements, amortisation is provided at rates calculated to write down the cost of each asset to its estimated residual value over its expected useful life.
| Restricted £ | Unrestricted £ | Total 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|---|
Income from: | |||
Donations | 1,007,984 | 90,886 | 1,098,870 |
Charitable activities | – | 22,850 | 22,850 |
Other trading activities | – | 1,503,417 | 1,503,417 |
Investments | – | 2,711 | 2,711 |
Total income | 1,007,984 | 1,619,864 | 2,627,848 |
Expenditure on: | |||
Raising funds: raising charitable donations | – | 91,256 | 91,256 |
Raising funds: trading activity | – | 1,204,702 | 1,204,702 |
Charitable activities | 1,133,326 | 99,305 | 1,232,631 |
Total expenditure | 1,133,326 | 1,395,263 | 2,528,589 |
Net income / (expenditure) and net movement in funds | (125,342) | 224,601 | 99,259 |
| Donor | Restricted £ | Unrestricted £ | Total 2026 £ |
|---|---|---|---|
Patrick J. McGovern Foundation | 112,350 | –- | 112,350 |
Porticus | 110,865 | –- | 110,865 |
National Endowment for Democracy | 59,719 | –- | 59,719 |
John Ellerman Foundation | 50,000 | –- | 50,000 |
Dulverton Trust | – | 40,000 | 40,000 |
NL Net Foundation | 22,660 | – | 22,660 |
Welsh Government | 18,285 | –- | 18,285 |
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust | 17,718 | -– | 17,718 |
Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust | 9,982 | -– | 9,982 |
Other donations | – | 47,586 | 47,586 |
Total income from donations | 401,579 | 87,586 | 489,165 |
| Donor | Restricted £ | Unrestricted £ | Total 2025 £ |
|---|---|---|---|
Patrick J. McGovern Foundation | 231,533 | – | 231,533 |
National Endowment for Democracy | 143,603 | – | 143,603 |
National Lottery Community Fund | 123,960 | – | 123,960 |
Adessium Foundation | 82,950 | – | 82,950 |
Swedish Postcode Foundation | 76,645 | – | 76,645 |
Isocrates Foundation | 74,890 | – | 74,890 |
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust | 69,289 | – | 69,289 |
Porticus | 63,000 | – | 63,000 |
John Ellerman Foundation | 50,000 | – | 50,000 |
The Dulverton Trust | – | 35,000 | 35,000 |
J and H Cross | 35,000 | – | 35,000 |
JRSST Charitable Trust | 31,114 | – | 31,114 |
The Indigo Trust | 25,000 | – | 25,000 |
Other donations | 1,000 | 55,886 | 56,886 |
Total income from donations | 1,007,984 | 90,886 | 1,098,870 |
| Activity | 2026 £ | 2025 £ |
|---|---|---|
TICTeC ticket sales | 11,350 | 12,850 |
Research consultancy | 10,065 | 10,000 |
Total income from charitable activities | 21,415 | 22,850 |
All income from charitable activities in the current and prior period was unrestricted.
| Activity | Total 2026 £ | Total 2025 £ |
|---|---|---|
Sale of software and IT consultancy | 1,708,968 | 1,503,417 |
Sponsorship | 1,000 | – |
Total income from other trading activities | 1,709,968 | 1,503,417 |
All income from other trading activities in the current and prior period was unrestricted.
The charitable company receives government grants, defined as funding from The Welsh Government (2026 only) and The National Lottery Community Fund (2025 only) to fund charitable activities. The total value of such grants in the year ending 31 March 2026 was £18,285 (2025: £123,960). There are no unfulfilled conditions or contingencies attaching to these grants in the current or prior year.
| Raising funds: charitable donations £ | Raising funds: trading activity £ | Charitable activities £ | Support & governance costs £ | Total 2026 £ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Staff costs (note 10) | 129,756 | 1,058,483 | 627,091 | 143,313 | 1,958,643 |
Servers and subscriptions | - | 49,706 | 30,626 | - | 80,332 |
TICTec and TICTec local events | - | - | 67,661 | - | 67,661 |
Team meetings and retreats | - | 26,448 | - | 24,639 | 51,087 |
Legal, financial and insurance | - | 15,104 | - | 36,440 | 51,544 |
General administration costs | - | 6,920 | - | 21,629 | 28,549 |
Partner payments (note 8) | - | - | 4,807 | - | 4,807 |
UK travel and subsistence | - | 15,052 | - | 11,399 | 26,451 |
Desk rentals and meeting rooms | - | 15,684 | - | 13,882 | 29,566 |
Amortisation | - | 12,707 | - | - | 12,707 |
Depreciation | - | - | - | 7,272 | 7,272 |
Training | - | 4,092 | - | 1,537 | 5,629 |
Loss on disposal of fixed assets | - | - | - | 2,520 | 2,520 |
Marketing | - | 41,582 | - | - | 41,582 |
Sub-total | 129,756 | 1,245,778 | 730,185 | 262,631 | 2,368,350 |
Allocation of support and governance costs | 39,628 | - | 223,003 | (262,631) | - |
Total expenditure | 169,384 | 1,245,778 | 953,188 | - | 2,368,350 |
Total governance costs were £20,547 (2025: £14,160).
| Raising funds: charitable donations £ | Raising funds: trading activity £ | Charitable activities £ | Support & governance costs £ | Total 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Staff costs (note 10) | 81,093 | 1,014,155 | 822,728 | 48,252 | 1,966,228 |
Servers and subscriptions | - | 49,517 | 29,975 | - | 79,492 |
TICTec and TICTec local events | - | - | 80,953 | - | 80,953 |
Team meetings and retreats | - | 22,021 | - | 20,068 | 42,089 |
Legal, financial and insurance | - | 13,190 | - | 27,686 | 40,876 |
General administration costs | - | 1,782 | - | 8,576 | 10,358 |
Partner payments (note 8) | - | - | 168,016 | - | 168,016 |
UK travel and subsistence | - | 15,183 | - | 10,457 | 25,640 |
Desk rentals and meeting rooms | - | 13,872 | - | 14,744 | 28,616 |
Amortisation | - | 26,481 | - | - | 26,481 |
Depreciation | - | - | - | 7,249 | 7,249 |
Training | - | 2,169 | - | 3,621 | 5,790 |
Marketing | 469 | 46,332 | - | - | 46,801 |
Sub-total | 81,562 | 1,204,702 | 1,101,672 | 140,653 | 2,528,589 |
Allocation of support and governance costs | 9,694 | - | 130,959 | (140,653) | - |
Total expenditure | 91,256 | 1,204,702 | 1,232,631 | - | 2,528,589 |
Included within "partner payments" in note 7 are sub-grant "partner payments" made to the following institutions:
| 2026 £ | 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|
Access Info Europe | - | 69,908 |
Atlatszo | - | 6,475 |
Open Knowledge Foundation Deutschland | - | 48,476 |
Open Knowledge Foundation France | - | 8,352 |
OpenUP SA | - | 7,909 |
Superbloom Design | - | 10,691 |
SPOON | - | 16,205 |
6 grants payable <£5,000 (2025: Nil) | 4,807 | - |
Total | 4,807 | 168,016 |
No grants were paid to individuals in the current or prior period, and no support costs have been allocated to grant-making activities.
This is stated after charging:
| 2026 £ | 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|
Amortisation | 12,707 | 26,481 |
Depreciation | 7,272 | 7,249 |
Loss on disposal of fixed assets | 2,520 | - |
Trustees’ remuneration | Nil | Nil |
Trustees’ reimbursed expenses | 55 | 618 |
Foreign exchange gains | 53 | 3,073 |
Auditors’ remuneration | ||
Statutory audit | 12,400 | 11,450 |
Statutory audit (prior year under accrual) | 300 | - |
Other services | 4,423 | 350 |
Trustees' reimbursed expenses comprised payments to 1 trustee (2025: 2 trustees) for travel expenses.
In common with other charities of our size and nature we use our auditors to assist with the preparation of the financial statements. They also completed a grant audit for the charity within the year.
| 2026 £ | 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|
Salaries and wages | 1,677,142 | 1,710,591 |
Social security costs | 204,271 | 180,913 |
Pension costs | 68,695 | 67,163 |
Contractors | 8,535 | 7,561 |
1,958,643 | 1,966,228 |
The number of employees whose annual emoluments were £60,000 or more were:
| Salary band | 2026 (No. of employees) | 2025 (No. of employees) |
|---|---|---|
£60,001 to £65,000 | 1 | 2 |
£65,001 to £70,000 | 4 | 7 |
£70,001 to £75,000 | 2 | - |
£80,001 to £85,000 | - | 1 |
£85,001 to £90,000 | 2 | 1 |
£90,001 to £95,000 | 1 | 1 |
The key management personnel of the charitable company comprise the Trustees and the Chief Executive Officer. The total employee benefits of the key management personnel were £113,749 (2025: £107,133).
| Description | 2026 (No.) | 2025 (No.) |
|---|---|---|
Average number of employees | 31 | 32 |
Redundancy and termination payments of £11,047 were paid during the year and included within staff costs above (2025: £15,000).
The charity is exempt from corporation tax as all its income is charitable and is applied for charitable purposes. The charity's trading subsidiary, SocietyWorks Ltd, has gift aided its available profits to the charity.
| Cost | Computer equipment £ |
|---|---|
At 1 April 2025 | 38,441 |
Additions in year | 5,594 |
Disposals | (12,898) |
At 31 March 2026 | 31,137 |
Depreciation | |
At 1 April 2025 | 21,424 |
Charge for the year | 7,272 |
On disposals | (10,378) |
At 31 March 2026 | 18,318 |
Net book value | |
At 31 March 2026 | 12,819 |
At 31 March 2025 | 17,017 |
| Cost | Software Development £ |
|---|---|
At 31 March 2026 | 181,509 |
Amortisation | |
At 1 April 2025 | 164,726 |
Charge for the year | 12,707 |
At 31 March 2026 | 177,433 |
Net book value | |
At 31 March 2026 | 4,076 |
At 31 March 2025 | 16,783 |
All intangible assets are held within the trading subsidiary, SocietyWorks Ltd.
| The group2026 £ | The group2025 £ | The charity2026 £ | The charity2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Investment in subsidiary company | – | – | 1 | 1 |
The investment represents 100% of the ordinary share capital of SocietyWorks Ltd, whose principal activity is to carry out trading activities in support of the charity. A summary of the financial results and position of SocietyWorks Ltd is given below (see note 15).
SocietyWorks Ltd (company number 05798215) is a wholly owned trading subsidiary of mySociety. It trades in software and IT consultancy.
| 2026 £ | 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|
Turnover | 1,707,852 | 1,503,417 |
Cost of sales | (762,073) | (722,656) |
Gross profit | 945,779 | 780,761 |
Administrative expenses | (483,704) | (482,045) |
Profit on ordinary activities | 462,075 | 298,716 |
Interest receivable | 1,116 | - |
Corporation tax | - | - |
Profit for financial year after taxation | 463,191 | 298,716 |
Changes in equity | ||
Total retained profit brought forward | 2,755 | 2,755 |
Total comprehensive income for the year | 463,191 | 298,716 |
Gift aid distribution to parent charity | (463,191) | (298,716) |
Total retained profit carried forward | 2,755 | 2,755 |
The aggregate of the assets, liabilities and funds was: | 2026 £ | 2025 £ |
Assets | 1,444,439 | 1,157,872 |
Liabilities | (1,441,683) | (1,155,116) |
Funds | 2,756 | 2,756 |
The parent charity's gross income and results for the year are disclosed as follows:
| 2026 £ | 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|
Gross income | 977,619 | 1,423,148 |
Results for the year | (144,953) | 99,260 |
| 2026 Group £ | 2025 Group £ | 2026 Charity £ | 2025 Charity £ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Trade debtors | 145,260 | 104,640 | - | - |
Accrued Income | 139,407 | 117,083 | 77,253 | 117,083 |
Prepayments | 25,525 | 29,777 | 9,188 | 18,407 |
Amounts owing by group undertakings | - | - | 565,259 | 384,870 |
Other debtors | - | 899 | - | 899 |
310,192 | 252,399 | 651,700 | 521,259 |
| 2026 Group £ | 2025 Group £ | 2026 Charity £ | 2025 Charity £ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Trade creditors | 4,822 | 2,505 | 2,932 | 615 |
Accruals | 15,940 | 28,360 | 10,741 | 24,360 |
Other taxation and social security | 151,771 | 136,924 | 57,048 | 44,460 |
Other creditors | 20,709 | 19,907 | 20,709 | 19,908 |
Deferred income (Note 19) | 774,611 | 671,892 | - | - |
967,853 | 859,588 | 91,430 | 89,343 |
| 2026 Group £ | 2025 Group £ | 2026 Charity £ | 2025 Charity £ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
At 1 April 2025 | 671,892 | 711,873 | - | - |
Deferred during the year | 774,611 | 671,892 | - | - |
Released during the year | (671,892) | (711,873) | - | - |
At 31 March 2026 | 774,611 | 671,892 | - | - |
Deferred income relates to contract income invoiced by SocietyWorks Ltd in advance of provision of services.
| Restricted funds £ | General funds £ | Total funds £ | |
|---|---|---|---|
Tangible fixed assets | - | 12,819 | 12,819 |
Intangible fixed assets | - | 4,076 | 4,076 |
Current assets | 272,490 | 1,838,888 | 2,111,378 |
Current liabilities | - | (967,853) | (967,853) |
Net assets at 31 March 2026 | 272,490 | 887,930 | 1,160,420 |
| Restricted funds £ | General funds £ | Total funds £ | |
|---|---|---|---|
Tangible fixed assets | - | 17,017 | 17,017 |
Intangible fixed assets | - | 16,783 | 16,783 |
Current assets | 432,016 | 1,699,145 | 2,131,161 |
Current liabilities | - | (859,588) | (859,588) |
Net assets at 31 March 2025 | 432,016 | 873,357 | 1,305,373 |
| Fund | At 1 April 2025 £ | Income £ | Expenditure £ | Transfers between funds £ | At 31 March 2026 £ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Restricted funds | |||||
ATI in Europe | 93,217 | - | (93,217) | - | - |
J and H Cross | 35,000 | - | (2,256) | - | 32,744 |
John Ellerman Foundation | 50,000 | 50,000 | (50,000) | - | 50,000 |
The Indigo Trust | 12,452 | - | (12,452) | - | - |
Porticus (TICTeC) | 60,939 | - | (60,939) | - | - |
Porticus (Resilience) | - | 110,865 | - | - | 110,865 |
The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust | 1,701 | 17,718 | (19,419) | - | - |
JRSST Charitable Trust | - | 9,982 | (9,365) | - | 617 |
National Endowment for Democracy | 7,327 | 59,719 | (67,046) | - | - |
NL Net Foundation | - | 22,660 | (22,150) | - | 510 |
Patrick J McGovern Foundation | 171,380 | 112,350 | (205,976) | - | 77,754 |
Welsh Government | - | 18,285 | (18,285) | - | - |
Total restricted funds | 432,016 | 401,579 | (561,105) | - | 272,490 |
Unrestricted funds | |||||
General funds | 873,357 | 1,821,818 | (1,807,245) | - | 887,930 |
Total unrestricted funds | 873,357 | 1,821,818 | (1,807,245) | - | 887,930 |
Total funds | 1,305,373 | 2,223,397 | (2,368,350) | - | 1,160,420 |
| Project | Description |
|---|---|
ATI in Europe | A project co-funded by grants from Adessium Foundation, Swedish Postcode Foundation and Isocrates Foundation. The project aims to build a cohesive, wide and activated community that is working to strengthen the right of access to information across the European region, so that Access to Information (ATI) delivers the information needed for democratic debate and accountability. |
J and H Cross | Cross is a fund from a private donor and it is restricted for use on the development, acquisition, maintenance, licensing, and access of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology in support of the charity’s work on transparency and democracy. |
John Ellerman Foundation | Provided a grant to fund a project encouraging councils to create sustainable communities. |
The Indigo Trust | Provided a grant restricted to WhoFundsThem – a project to bring information about MPs’ financial interests to the public in an accessible way, resourcing campaigns for transparency and public accountability across the sector. |
Stichting Benevolentia (Porticus, TICTeC) | A grant to support the delivery of TICTeC 2025. |
Stiftung Auxilium (Porticus, Resilience) | A grant to enable mySociety to build greater organisational resilience. |
The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust | Provided a grant to fund mySociety’s Transparency programme, ensuring the right to information can be used by all. |
JRSST Charitable Trust | Provided a grant to strengthen freedom of information through creating a stronger civic campaign in defence of information rights, advocating by demonstration for their vital role in our democratic system. |
National Endowment for Democracy | The National Endowment for Democracy provided a grant to promote learning, knowledge exchange, and collaboration among civic technology organisations to undertake effective, evidence-based, impactful work enhancing public participation, transparency, and accountability via Civic Tech Field Guide, Communities of Practice and two hybrid TICTeC Conferences. |
NL Net Foundation | Provided a grant to fund improvements to the data architecture and GDPR compliance of Alaveteli, the software that powers over 25 Freedom of Information websites worldwide. |
Patrick J McGovern Foundation | Provided grants to enhance the Local Intelligence Hub and amplify public data collaboration for scalable solutions, and to fully integrate AI into Alaveteli, enabling journalists and advocates to more easily find information about government activities, including compliance with government transparency laws. |
Welsh Government | Awarded a grant to increase the number of people in Wales having constructive engagement with the democratic system, both in the lead up to elections and in general. |
| At 1 April 2024 £ | Income £ | Expenditure £ | Transfers between funds £ | At 31 March 2025 £ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Restricted funds | |||||
ATI in Europe | 117,393 | 234,485 | (258,661) | - | 93,217 |
Aurora Trust | 50,000 | - | (50,000) | - | - |
J and H Cross | - | 35,000 | - | - | 35,000 |
John Ellerman Foundation | - | 50,000 | - | 50,000 | |
The Indigo Trust | - | 25,000 | (12,548) | - | 12,452 |
Porticus | - | 63,000 | (2,061) | 60,939 | |
WhoFundsThem | - | 1,000 | (1,000) | - | - |
The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust | (4,238) | 69,289 | (63,350) | - | 1,701 |
JRSST Charitable Trust | - | 31,114 | (31,114) | - | - |
National Endowment for Democracy | 9,303 | 143,603 | (145,579) | - | 7,327 |
Patrick J McGovern Foundation | 237,633 | 231,533 | (297,786) | - | 171,380 |
Quadrature / National Lottery Community Foundation | 147,267 | 123,960 | (271,227) | - | - |
Total restricted funds | 557,358 | 1,007,984 | (1,133,326) | - | 432,016 |
Unrestricted funds | |||||
General funds | 648,756 | 1,619,864 | (1,395,263) | - | 873,357 |
Total unrestricted funds | 648,756 | 1,619,864 | (1,395,263) | - | 873,357 |
Total funds | 1,206,114 | 2,627,848 | (2,528,589) | - | 1,305,373 |
Footnotes
3 Office for National Statistics: Trust in government, UK: 2023
4 Edelman Trust Barometer 2026
5 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-sets-out-blueprint-to-turbocharge-ai
6 https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/state-sector-artificial-intelligence
7 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2026-03-09b.130.2
8 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1167946/annual-report-accounts-2022-23-web-ready.pdf
9 https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/uks-sense-of-urgency-on-net-zero-and-support-for-climate-policies-falls-sharply-study-finds
10 The Asphalt Industry Alliance