Charities with shared aims should join forces

SIR – I believe Karl Wilding presents a weak case when he argues against the amalgamation of smaller charities (Letters, September 7). While it makes no sense to combine charities that lack common goals, the merger of those with mutually beneficial goals makes a lot of sense, irrespective of location.

A few years ago I was the chairman of a small medical charity which, initially, spent much time and effort competing for funds with a number of small, like-minded charities. We eventually united our efforts, bringing about significant financial advantages.

Sadly, we never got as far as merging our separate administrations, meaning that we continued to carry four sets of overheads.

Although it might seem healthy that people can set up a charity where they perceive a need, this also carries financial pitfalls. For example, in my town there are two charity shops with very similar objectives, within a few yards of each other, that not only compete for funds but also duplicate rent, rates and staff costs.

The public has a right to expect better use of its donations.

Peter Brown

Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire SIR – Most charities are small and local, writes Karl Wilding. But his justification for the number of charities overlooks one problem: how easy it is for small charities to avoid scrutiny.

Charities with an income of £25,000 or less aren’t required to submit accounts to the Charity Commission. Without accounts, there is usually very little information about small charities on the public record. The opacity can be attractive to those wishing to hide what they’re doing in the name of “charity”.

Dr Alex May

Manchester