Why so many charities?

[MilsonNotWilson]

AIBU to wonder why there are so many charities that do essentially the same role or work in the same exact field? Surely they would be better off combining resources to help the same demographic?

Because money.

They don't do exactly the same jobs though. Many are local to certain areas etc. None can survive unless they are relevant to people.

Sometimes they do merge. Cancer Research UK is a merged charity.

Because it's an industry. An inefficient industry. I only give to small local charities. Bigger ones seem to exist to maintain themselves.

Because bigger charities aren't always better charities. Smaller charities might deal with similar issues but be targeted to a specific niche, be that a location or other speciality. Charities do often work together on projects where they can complement one another's work. It's similar to the corporate field. Why are there so many different supermarkets when tesco could do it all? Because that might not be best for the consumer (or in the charity sectors case, the beneficiary), each supermarket has its niche, it's speciality, however narrow, that its target audience appreciate.

Do you know how many charities are registered in the UK?
Over 160 000.
160 000!

YANBU.

Rich people like to set up their own charity to get the credit/satisfaction for themselves

A lot of small charities actually feed into one overall fund or allocate funds on a grant basis.

Large charities (such as the numerous cancer charities) work under an umbrella organisation that ensures work isn’t replicated.

Many local authorities have different ways of working that are funded in different ways so charities work locally very differently.

It’s a pretty complex web.

A lot of organisation you wouldn't expect have charitable status. I used to work quite closely doing consulting work with a few large and some small charities. I've always been a big supporter of charity and donated money and time over the years. My time working with them was an eye opening experience. As you would expect with any industry some are ran amazingly and others are an absolute joke. Throwing good money after bad on projects that get scrapped at the last minute. I'm very selective about who I support now.

I think it depends on the charity and cause.

I used to work for a cancer charity and Cancer Research UK is obviously the biggest one for research - they fund research for all types of cancer but not with equal grants. So while breast cancer may receive a huge percentage of funding per year, areas like pancreatic or oesophageal cancer only a receive a small fraction comparatively. There are lots of reasons for this, such as the number of dedicated researchers/labs in that area etc, but it also means some cancers aren’t receiving the same level of funding or attention as others.

So a charity that specifically focuses on pancreatic/oesophageal cancer would aim to address this. As well as fundraising specifically for those cancers they also promote awareness, and lobby for more research.

Don’t get me wrong, Cancer Research UK is very much a collaborative charity and I’m not saying it ignores those types of cancer. But I can understand why smaller charities with a more specific focus exist.

£££

No charity is going to merge if CEO's and ancillary staff lose their job to one individual.

The Charity sector needs sorting out. There are so many of them now. Dogs this, cats that, homeless this, homeless that, etc.

Now the only ones I support are Cancer Research UK and Women's Aid. The rest of them can feck right off. I'm very sorry if I offend anyone, but they are springing up all over the place.

Quite often the cost of administration is just a tiny bit less than the donations.

I wish them all well, I hope their hearts are in the right place.

Lots are also regional so it wouldn’t work.

The type of third sector service which is funded by local authorities (eg substance misuse, refuges) are retendered fairly regularly, often every 3 years or sometimes less. This encourages charities to tender against each other for contracts. A lot of these charities grew out of a small area but then will bid for contracts in other areas as they come up. They expand and contract over time.

Do you know how many of the 160k are tiny charities with no employees? If they are volunteer run then it’s more efficient (in terms of giving) than joining a big charity with paid staff.

I’m thinking about the ones I know through my church. A small foodbank that has stayed independent, a swimming group for the disabled, a club for people with learning disabilities. All of them are run by volunteers with a few trustee meetings per year to oversee operations. If the foodbank joined with the Trussell Trust (who run hundreds) then it would cost a money which isn’t worth it for a small operation (although is worth it for a bigger one and you get advice, training etc).

Things like your local playgroup might be a charity, or the school pta. It’s often easier to be small and independent.

So disappointing that many charities are actually doing the jobs that Government should do. I will never understand this.

YABU all those middle class white men need to find their large salaries from somewhere. And to feel good in the process, if they can grope staff or service users that is an extra bonus

It's not unusual for people who've suffered something terrible to start a charitable organisation afterwards to try and find a way for some good to follow. Essentially as a way to find meaning and purpose from whatever ripped through their life.

E.g. fundraising or campaigning for a rare condition that affected someone they loved, or providing support to people going through a specific tragedy they suffered and found there was no support (or not the right support)... etc etc.

Lots of interesting points on here. It was animal charities that got me thinking about this as I passed 3 different animal charity vehicles in 1 journey that dealt with the same animals.

I always wonder this too. I don't know anything about how they work but my ignorant theory is that an application to become a charity should have to prove that there isn't another one exactly like it doing the same job and should have to be under the umbrella of a bigger (perhaps government funded) charity as a regulator.

I also agree with a PP that it is atrocious that so many charities are having to step into a role that the government has opted out of. Things like food banks are amazing but why is this left to the charity sector?

According to the Tom Bowers book The Rebel Prince, Prince Charles has form for opening new charities on a whim which causes problems for his existing ones which then need to compete for resources.

Like a lot of celebs, PC likes doing charity work because it enables him to rub shoulders with the super rich eg Texan oil heirs etc

As a charity CEO can I just point out that the charity sector is hugely diverse and the 'mega charities' - the household names are not really representative of the wider sector. We are not all inefficient or paying massive salaries. During Covid we've seen immense mobilisation and agility of the vcse sector, including superb volunteers, but many face precarious futures as funding levels drop.

Lots of tiny little charities exist for historical reasons, often set up out of an individual's bequest. Many of those have no employees and just volunteer trustees. The chap who takes care of the ones attached to my church has succeeded in merging some of them, as they had the same purposes (eg helping the poor of the parish), but that has to be approved by the charities commission, and I think it took him quite a bit of work. The charities commission also have to approve any changes to what the charity is allowed to fund - often needed as whatever they were set up for is now irrelevant.

Merging larger charities than those may make some sense in some cases, but it may be problematic if there are differences in their underlying principles. I would guess that there are also some supporters who might not be so keen on supporting a larger enterprise.

£££
I’ve worked for charities for a long time.
Mostly ‘women’s’ ones, including the well known one.
I suspect it’s to drive down wages on the governments part with the retendering and charities having to scramble along with others. They don’t seem to lobby for better conditions or better conditions for their staff though.
Hence DV workers getting paid a pittance.
I do laugh at the message aimed at women from the women’s charities though ‘empowerment, fairness, equality’ blah blah. When most are paying their full time workers a wage that needs to be topped up by Universal Credit.