RNID and British deaf association are not the same.
RNID concentrates across the spectrum - many of my Deaf friends see it as Really Not Interested in Deaf. Far more people with hearing problems than Deaf people.

So you get one large organisation that goes across a spectrum and another organisation that concentrates on only a small part of that spectrum but in more detail.
Could merge, like any charities could. But would then lose the focus each has.

Just like my local charity could join with a homeless charity a few miles away that offers similar services. But where do you draw the line for resources? By geographic area? By number of individuals helped? By usage (which is different from individuals)?

Martin

Hmmm, a bit harsh. However I understand the sentiment. I often think there are too many charities working in the same space and that they really should look at merging. Surely our end goal is to achieve our missions, and well if that is the case, surely we can achieve more working together (idealistic I know, but I think charities need to look in that direction). If you dont want to merge, test it out, partner up.

Adam,

I'd be interested in whether you think organisations like RNID and the British Deaf Association should merge, or SANE and MIND. The difference these organisations have is that although they are working broadly with the same client groups and same objectives, their approaches are different (and arguably conflicting).

Similarly, international NGOs all have the same desire-in-principle but have different strategies and areas of expertise.

Plurality in the third sector helps individuals who want to see a social change put funding into what they feel is the most appropriate organisation to do it.

The allows, as you suggest, organisations who aren't up to scratch to be removed without significant detriment to the very people they are trying to help.

As for Help the Aged and Age Concern... presumably you've see this Community Care

Olly

Matslats, I think you've put your finger on a really interesting point: the difference between charities and businesses. And I'm not convinced that the analogy between charities and businesses holds in this instance: if there was a real marketplace for donations, then yes - maybe competition would be an unalloyed good (as it is, usually, in business). But that 'giving marketplace' doesn't yet exist - which is why I think emphasizing duplication rather than competition is important. 

Your point, thought, that  multiple charities doing similar work insures against scandals etc is a good one. But I would say that charities would be best served if they put in place procedures to mitigate risks like that in the first place - which very often they neglect to do. 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Would you say that business also shouldn't duplicate? Having more than one organisation doing the same thing surely leads to duplication but it also insures the cause's progress against scandals and failed funding drives which kill organisations all the time.
The two bowel cancer charities would, in my view, have a moral obligation to work together to reduce duplication. Competing businesses rarely do that!