As funding challenges increase and demand grows, charities are turning to each other and proving that collaboration isn’t just possible, it’s powerful.
______________________________________________________________________

The charity sector has long been characterised by passion, purpose, and at times, fierce competition. Organisations compete for funding, for profile, and for the attention of policymakers and the public. Yet increasingly, charities are recognising that working together can deliver far greater impact than working alone. From grassroots partnerships to national coalitions, collaboration is proving to be one of the sector’s most powerful tools.

But collaboration isn’t always easy. It requires trust, time, and a willingness to share power. So what does successful collaboration look like in practice? And how can charities navigate the challenges to build partnerships that last?

Filling in the gaps

One of the clearest benefits of collaboration between charities is the ability to extend reach and fill gaps in provision. Few charities can cover every need or offer deep expertise across all aspects of their beneficiaries’ lives. Collaboration allows them to expand their knowledge base and reach without the added expense.”

At Teenage Cancer Trust, Rosie Vare, health and information manager explains how two-years ago, their collaboration journey began with Coppafeel who reached out for Breast Cancer Awareness month, wanting to share some information about the signs and symptoms on their channels.

“It gave us a pause for thought. If this worked really well, how else can we work with organisations to do something similar?” Vare says.

“Our expertise is young people with cancer… but there are so many other charities that work in specific areas we don’t have that level of content on. By working with others, we can signpost young people to the specialist support they need.”

Since then, Teenage Cancer Trust has collaborated with Anthony Nolan, Marie Curie, Brook Sexual Health and others, producing everything from social media campaigns to co-authored web pages.

For smaller charities, collaboration can be a lifeline.

Sew Positive, a small Cambridge charity, collaborates with CPSL Mind, Red Hen Project and the NHS to tackle health inequalities and social isolation through sewing, upcycling and mending.

“In Cambridge, just four miles can mean a 10-year life expectancy gap, so collaboration is essential,” says Melissa Santiago-Val, CEO and founder of Sew Positive. “Partnerships give small charities like ours the backing of larger organisations while we bring direct access to underrepresented groups.”

It allows each charity to play to its strengths, she adds, explaining that these partnerships have enabled Sew Positive to scale services, access infrastructure support, and co-deliver projects that reach families and individuals who might otherwise fall through the cracks. “There’s no duplication, only synergy,” SantiagoVal adds. “Each charity plays to its strengths.”

At the national level, The Richmond Group of charities, a coalition of major health charities including Mind, Age UK and Macmillan Cancer Support, shows how collaboration can influence policy and shape public health agendas. Formed in 2010, the group was created to give charities a collective voice on cross-cutting health issues.

“In working together, we can be much more powerful and effective as a coalition than an individual charity can,” says Duleep Allirajah, CEO of the group. “Everyone accepts the rules, one day it’s a Parkinson’s storyteller, another day it’s someone with arthritis. It’s about the collective impact.”

Working together, the coalition has been able to influence policy on multimorbidity and long-term conditions. He believes that by creating a single point of contact, it made talking about certain subjects easier. “From a Department of Health perspective, it was easier and more preferable to talk to one body rather than say, 15”.

Collaboration is also an excellent communications opportunity. When done well, it creates powerful stories of unity and solidarity, ones that charities can use in a time when fundraising means more than ever.

Hayley Knight, co-founder of PR agency Be Yellow, highlights the unique appeal for the public: “Charity collaborations are rooted in shared values and mission alignment rather than profit motivations. The storytelling is more impactful, because it centres on a shared narrative and goal.”

The storytelling and use of PR within charities means she’s seen a rise in intersectional collaborations, for example, women’s charities partnering with environmental organisations to highlight how climate change disproportionately affects women and girls. “These collaborations can unlock new audiences and funding streams, as well as more stories,” she says. “But they must feel natural, not forced.”

Negotiations

Despite the benefits, collaboration isn’t without its challenges. Differences in branding, tone of voice, and organisational culture can create friction. In fact, collaboration is sometimes romanticised as informal cooperation. But the reality is that effective partnerships require professionalism, structure and resources.

In a collaboration, almost every aspect requires negotiation. Even agreeing on language and design can take time, as Vare explains: “Minor challenges are just agreeing on copy, and it’s less of a challenge and more of a conversation… it’s part of the process.” Even visual branding takes time to pin into place, as co-branded content must look coherent across platforms without erasing each organisation’s identity.

And the power dynamics are always something to be kept in mind – particularly between larger organisations and smaller ones. Santiago-Val notes that for small charities, power balance and trust are key. “Large partners need to know we can deliver, and smaller partners need clarity on roles, budgets and responsibilities.

“Partnership agreements and SMART goals help avoid problems and keep accountability clear.”

Knight echoes this from a PR perspective. “Authenticity, equality and transparency are non-negotiable in communications. Collaborations where a larger charity overshadows a smaller one can create accusations of exploitation.”

Agreements and contracts also keep things clear, as Allirajah has found out. Further complicating matters is the turnover of member CEOs, an integral part of the Richmond Group’s design. “Chief executives come and go, and you’re constantly having to recontract… Keeping the coalition together is always a challenge because people will come and go and need to be brought into the idea.”

The funding challenge

Across all discussions within the charity sector, one barrier stands out: funding. Short-term, competitive funding cycles make collaboration harder to sustain. Multi-year, flexible funding is consistently highlighted as essential not only for charities individually, but to allow partnerships and collaborations to be successful.

As Santiago-Val explains: “Yearon-year grants make sustainability difficult, but multi-year opportunities would give us time to co-produce with communities and build lasting partnerships.”

Catherine Goodhall, policy manager at the Stroke Association, co-founder of Proud Changemakers and an expert in the area of charity collaborations agrees: “Standardising multi-year, sustainable funding for charities would free up time, resource and headspace for large numbers of charities to work together.”

She also encourages funders and commissioners to get actively involved, as they have a role to play. She urges them to provide full cost recovery, communicate openly, and give charities time to develop collaborative approaches.

It’s clear that collaboration will become essential in the years ahead. Not only for partnerships between similar-sized organisations, but for organisations of completely differing sizes. Small charities will have valuable insights for larger charities and vice versa, and it’s becoming increasingly important for the larger charities to support the smaller ones.

Allirajah reflects: “If we had a way of building the capacity of charities in disadvantaged communities, and the charities working together to do that, it would be game changing.”

Meet in the middle

So what makes a collaboration succeed? According to Goodhall it starts with honesty. “Have early, open conversations about whether collaboration is the right approach,” she advises. “It’s not always the best route, and that’s okay.”

She also emphasises the importance of planning, clarity, and cultural awareness. “Each organisation brings its own processes and practices. Exploring that early can help avoid friction later on.”

Leadership also plays a crucial role. Effective collaborative leaders, she says, are transparent, mission-focused, and willing to have difficult conversations. “Ego can get in the way. But when leaders focus on what’s best for the collective, the results can be transformative.”

In a large-scale collaboration such as the Richmond Group, this is evident. “If we’re not influential - if we’re not able to land any of this - that’s failure But then there’s the unwritten success criteria: all the chief executives need to be happy to play… We’re constantly thinking about where the red flags are, who’s disengaged etc.

“If people leave, it’s a sign the coalition isn’t working. Sometimes charities leave for good reasons, like f inancial pressures, but if we’re not delivering the value the coalition promises, that’s a deeper failure. Keeping the coalition together is a sign of success. Our chief executives meet formally every quarter, and if they stop coming, it means something’s wrong. People will walk away if it’s not working so we have to keep them engaged.”

As Santiago-Val puts it: “The biggest misconception about charities working together is that collaboration is easy – just ‘tea and cake’ – or that volunteers should do everything. In reality, partnerships require professionalism, funding and education about how charities operate.”

Stronger together

Charity collaborations are not always easy. They require diplomacy, professionalism, and patience. They can require more time, resources and staff commitment. But the rewards are clear: greater reach, deeper impact, stronger voices, and more resilient communities.

Goodhall sums it up: “Collaboration can be slower, more time consuming and more resource intensive than working in isolation. But the offset is often a bigger reach, deeper impact and better decision making.”

A social media comment on a Teenage Cancer Trust partnership adds: “My two favourite charities working together.” It’s a sentiment that captures the value of collaboration better than any report or metric: for beneficiaries, seeing organisations join forces is not just logical, it’s reassuring.

The challenge now is for funders, policymakers, and charities themselves to create the conditions where collaboration is not the exception, but the norm. Because in the end, charities are stronger together.

---