Why isn’t there just one main charity for every cause to minimise overheads & simplify donations?

Question

There are over 170,000 charities in Britain. Some are run well, some are run very badly and some are even bogus charities and a total fraud (like most ‘can shakers’ that go around Pubs & Bars asking for donations.)

Every charity has admin costs, like staff pay, marketing costs, real estate office rental, tax accountancy, IT management, etc. So a big chunk of every pound / Dollar donated is lost to overhead costs.

So why not have one charity for every cause, all overseen by the Charities Commission? It saves duplication of overhead costs, saves public confusion, maximises benefit to the causes, stops con men, etc. etc.

According to charityfacts.org, Britain has over 600 different cancer charities registered. Why not just one or two?

Am I missing something, or onto something here?

Breanden - I didn't mean one charity to cover all churches. One charity for each cause.

That still means your church can have a charity.

What I mean is why have hundreds of charities dedicated to unwanted pets and hundreds for disabled children.

My idea is really to reduce the wasted money and help the needy more. Not reduce choice.

Answer 1

Sure it would make a lot of sense in many areas and as a qualified accountant I am only too aware of the benefits that could be obtained through the merger of charities which serve a similar goal in terms of overhead reductions and other cost savings.

However, my experience of working in the field of charities for several years tells me that in many cases this could not be achieved. For example, for several years I have worked on the finance team of the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). The best way to look at this particular charity is in terms of an umbrella organisation. It uses its size and clout in order to raise money from individuals and organisations all over the world in order to carry out work globally with regard to animal welfare.

However, many of the projects which its funds are actually implemented by smaller charitable concerns such as, for example, a charity which has been set up in Turkey to rescue so called 'dancing bears'. It would be unrealistic for WSPA to merge with all of these smaller charitable concerns because due to the breadth of its work both geographically and in terms of the different areas of animal welfare in which it is engaged the whole organisation would soon become both cumbersome and difficult to control.

It therefore makes sense for these smaller charitable entities to remain separate and distinct in order that decisions can be made locally by people who fully understand the nature of the problems they face.

I do, however, fully appreciate your argument with respect to many charities. Do we really need 600 cancer charities within the UK? I think not as most of them will be competing with one another in an area where competition serves no purpose.

I would, however, dispute your claim that the problems of 'bogus charities and fraud' are a major problem. Charities are subject to stringent controls and checks. Their financial accounts are subject to annual audits which are much more stringent that those applied to normal companies.

One area which you highlighted where there is a major problem is in the area of 'can shakers'. Certainly, if an individual walks into a pub on a Friday night stating that he is collecting for a charity there is no way that you can be sure that this is the case or even if it is that the money will reach its intended target.

I read a rather disturbing article in the Financial Times last week which looked at church donations in catholic churches within New York, USA. This research was carried out by one of the USA's leading universities and it found evidence that up to 80% of donations in some catholic churches are stolen. The main reason given for this is that no controls are in place in these churches to help reduce the risk of theft. It was stated that it was often felt that because this was 'the church' then people could just be trusted without imposing the checks and controls which a normal business would make sure were in place to reduce the risk of fraud and theft. However, this research clearly showed that this trust was misplaced.

Answer 2

Because if I give money to a church, I want it to be my church not an Islamic or Jewish church or Anglican or Methodist church. How would that be divided?
What if I want to give money to a pro-Abortion group and my neighbor wants to give money to an anti-Abortion group. How would that money be divided?
If I give money to a church's collection box or sent it to my choice of charity I am making the determination of where it should go. If I don't want to make a determination I can send it to a super-charity like the United Way and they can decide. Either way I am making that determination. It is also up to me check and see how much overhead each charity has. In America these are easy things to do so I assume there is something similar in the UK.

Answer 3

Because it's a bleedin' industry, thats why. I give to Orbis. They have a plane fully kitted out as an eye hospital, and they fly to wherever they are needed, and save peoples eysight. In most cases, the cure is cheap, simple and fast. But without it, blindness results. Think about it. About 50p saves someone from a life of blindness. What better gift!
I dont want to pay for people to go on beanos to the south of France, for so-called 'conferences', with entertainment and lavish meals thrown in!

Answer 4

Try the Charities Aid Foundation at West Malling. They set up about twenty years ago for that very reason.

Answer 5

It is not possible because though we have one word "charity" but they are of different aims and objectives. Having one main charity, it would cause a lot of problems in terms of sharing according to priorities. Continue to give, there are lots of rewards for giving.

Answer 6

What you are missing is that big organisations are always inefficient and bureaucratic. Arguments like yours led to the nationalisation of UK industry after 1945. It was a costly mistake. Your argument appears logical, but practical experience shows that it does not work.

Answer 7

Because, sad as it is to relate, people can make a good living out of charity work.

Answer 8

This does make sense but then again all would have to benefit from this and i doubt with the way the world is how can this be done? no one agress with what and where the money is to be spent so that is why there are so many.

Answer 9

Maybe choice must come into the equation so why not
have catagories ?? but one Govening body like United Nations?

Answer 10

people like to give to a specific cause not a pot that is divided between every needy charity that would stop people giving