This has been drawn to my attention and I think it worth sharing. It is a statement issued by Cllr Helen Evans who was head of safeguarding at Oxfam and who spoke on Channel 4 News last night:
I choose to draw attention to her conclusion:
Am I shocked by the apparent prevalence of abuse? Yes, of course I am. Who would not be? But then I have always been shocked by data on the prevalence of abuse from wherever it comes. Facing the reality of the pervasiveness of this issue is always hard, even if necessary.
I reiterate though, do I think Oxfam did as well as it might? No: and it has said so.
Do I also think it learned? Yes: there is evidence of that.
Can more be done? Emphatically so.
But the question then becomes what needs to be done?
What would be wholly inappropriate to say that this issue is only Oxfam's. It is not.
And what would be wholly inappropriate would be to end all aid. That would compound the issue.
And what would also be wrong would be to close Oxfam when so many have done so much good there.
Just as it would be wrong to stop charities speaking out. After all, who then would speak for the abused when it is very clear that in this case the government and Charity Commission turned a complete blind eye, unlike Oxfam, when they knew of the issue?
What is required is better safeguarding. All of society has to pay for that.
And what is required beyond that is a change of culture: a completely holistic reform.
But reinforcing the status quo of predominantly white male power inherent within modern capitalism, whose power structures have been copied within far too many charities, is not going to deliver that change. But that is what The Times wants.
The case for reform is made.
But the reform has to be the right one.
Right now the demand looks like it will be for the wrong one. Enforcing silence - as The Times wants - permits abuse. And that then is exactly the wrong solution.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
As you know Richard this Island – Jersey – spent nearly £25 millions on an Independent Inquiry led by a UK QC and two others from the UK to investigate child abuse since the war.
Their Report is now being digested and supposedly implemented but it dealt a great deal with an examination of the “Jersey Way” and how it can be reformed. Central to their finding was that of removing the Bailiff (like an old fashioned Lord Chancellor in UK terms) from the States Assembly but this is being resisted at every turn by so many who simply cannot contemplate changing the “institutions”.
I feel sure that OXFAM has experienced similar difficulties over the past decade but as you constantly write it is part of the problem for professional organisations too. How can high standards be moved from the theoretical file into the active one in any organisations? Who can be relied upon to police standards?
I’ve only just seen this as I have commented on your previous blog about the Government and legislature creating the context for improved NGO and business sectors.
I am prima facie pleased to see that Oxfam knew it had problems and wanted to address them. But the behaviour of the Charities Commission – well – it says it all really. It’s inexcusable in my opinion. They just did not want to know – that’s how it comes across to me.
“It’s inexcusable in my opinion. They just did not want to know”
Are you referring here to Helen Evans’ comments on the response to her december 2014 paper to Oxfam’s CEO leadership team?
Or the response of Oxfam trustees to her report on child sex abuse and sexual exploitation in UK shops?
No, Of course not. Another cop out. Another attempt to shift the blame to the charity commission. As if you’d excuse the big 4 any lack of action if any of it’s staff were sexually abusing children in offices. You’d be calling for arrests. Denying any case that the blame lay anywhere else but with the organisation.
So say this. If the word Oxfam were replaced by KPMG and it was their staff abusing and exploiting – where would you say the blame lay?
Of course I would call for arrests if a member of staff of the Big 4 was breaking the law
But if the Big 4 had taken appropriate steps I would not be calling for it within the Big 4
Your apparent utter inability to notice that Oxfam has taken action wher4e others have not is not, I suspect, staggeringly incompetent but is sign of wilful intent
And that is what my comments have always been about
Alex
Calm down dear.
It’s very simple really.
A well known NGO that is there to help people and is funded by Government to do so reveals that it has significant problems within its operations and then when does what it should do and goes to the people it should tell (a regulator set up by Government), it is ignored by said regulator.
A Government Agency regulator it seems that is underfunded by Government who set it up.
But everyone wants to slag off the NGO. Despite what seems to be a more systemic failure emerging in the NGO sector.
This is issue is more than about Oxfam Alex.
Is that better? Now go and have a nice cup of tea eh?
That Oxfam recruited a Head of Safeguarding to address concerns about abuse is clearly a good thing. If she was under resourced and effectively ignored – by senior management, the trustees, the Charity Commission, and by government – that is shameful.
This account is not consistent with Oxfam using its best endeavours to address the issues.
Clearly she felt aggrieved. But it’s clear Oxfam had made progress. The annual report reflects that fact. So best endeavours? No. But maybe better than some, quite probably.
Re your point regarding inappropriateness to end all aid. Again I disagree in that to my mind the traditional third way should
be followed i e ;
As has traditionally happened even before the growth of large modern registered charities the main vector for raising funds was voluntary giving. This remains the way in most religious communities although I concede historically this was not so before the tithe system was abolished in Christianity and sadly has been superceded in some of the more openly gullible cults by sone form of ” membership fee” ( Scientology, Mormons, American evangelists, Muslim religious teachinog et al).
So– the solution . Continue the modern practice of registering / monitoring all charitable entities large and small. Allow them by dint of their own motivational efforts to appeal directly to the public at large and/ or orporate entities for thefuture funding of their works. But prohibi any form of ” safety net” or kther cushioning in the form of ensured regular State aid.
This has the effect of keeping the movement focused on its supporters and tightening its own admin cost / staff control knowing that any sag in performance could eventually cause a drop in funding and conceivably a termination of the activity in toto.
So you’re saying the state has no role in assisting the relief of poverty?
Why?
Richard, I reference your own site, and the incomparable Clement Atlee:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/04/15/clement-attlee-on-charity/
Certainly it should have no no role in exfoliating taxpayers of their money for use as a hypothecated predetermined figure to be doled bountifully to foreign jurisdictions over which it has no sovreignty or control and a substantial part of which largesse has been shown in the past to be recycled from the hands of their ruling classes to ” financial centre” accounts in offshore settlements , without so much as whetting the lips of the true / needy constituency .
To say that is a partisan view of aid as a whole is to be kind, in the extreme
oxfam is the tip of the iceberg,this could run for awhile.
Underlying all this Oxfam outrage is a very successful divide and rule policy which I can say with some conviction I can see at ‘street level’.
I’m picking-up comments, even before the excrement hit the fan over Oxfam about the supposed iniquity of foreign aid while Britain is so poor we can’t afford …doctors, education, and whatever else the government says we can’t afford while we strive on with our (mindless) austerity policies which are themselves a deeply fraudulent attack on poor and disadvantaged peoplein our own country.
This effectively sets our own poor against even poorer and more insecure individuals in countries which really are struggling financially. Meanwhile the distraction of fighting for crumbs enables the wealthy elites to get on with screwing everybody.
It is a truly sickening spectacle.
This Andy is how the British are ruled: Divide and Conquer.
Too many of us fall for it time after time.
It is now becoming embarrassing, spelt B-R-E-X-I-T .
Picking up on the point about ‘state supported’ charities – it’s an example of just how poorly most of the public understands the economics and drivers of charities today. I’ve had this debate many times – never yet have I met someone critical who has bothered to read let alone understand charity accounts.
For the uninitiated here, work done for the the state (eg DfID) is bid for – it’s called restricted funding. Very tight restrictions are put on what can be included as ‘management’. When for example the project management of a complex project is regarded as an ‘overhead’, you can see how ludicrous it is.
Similarly monitoring, reporting, learning all tend to be regarded as ‘overheads’. I know. I’ve written these sorts of bids as well as many commercial bids when I worked in the business world. There are sensible donors who recognise that these are not overheads but essential parts of a charity’s work 5hat should be funded. Gates are good on this and also Comic Relief.
As a result, these projects are very often run at a loss. The shortfall is made up from unrestricted funding. Ie the contributions that donors such as the public make. That voluntary, unrestricted funding also has to cover the costs of running the charity including its fund raising. In effect, all too often the voluntary, public donors subsidise the state. Not the other way round. A significant NGO, Mercy Corps, went under not so long ago because they were unable to fund the costs of running the organisation. They had taken on too many projects from the likes of DfID which did not have enough funding in them for running the organisation. Undoubtedly there was an element of weak financial management as well.
Surprisingly enough, when major consultancies like PWC or KPMG are invited to work for say DfID, their large salaries and substantial offices are not subject to the same pressures. Particularly offensive when charity staff they might be ‘supervising’ are working for a fraction of the consultants day rates (confession – I’ve been a management consultant too)
We have massive contradictions here. The public complains about ‘overheads’ (when they are generally low) but expects work to be professionally delivered with strong I mpact. Similarly the media and public want ever more monitoring and reporting but don’t want to pay for it. They want good, experienced managers running complex organisations but expect them to work for little – or even better just be volunteers.
Compared to other sectors, charity salaries are very low – check the job adverts in Third Sector if you don’t believe me. Not surprising that this government wants to get public services delivered by charities on the cheap. Even better when they are subsidised by voluntary donations as well.
Thanks Robin
I am glad Robin that you are underpinning the factor of the cheapness of charity work which can only result in cheaper and looser running costs in its operations and hence unfortunately the opportunities for abusive personalities to join the staff/volunteers of NGOs.
I volunteer for my local rugby club and have to have a renewed DBS check on a regular basis as I work with children in mini rugby. All of those involved in coaching have those done at our club or you don’t coach. Simple. The DBS checks are not cheap and with loads of staff the costs soon mount up which is hard if you operational margins are thin.
But a proactive regulatory sector and a proactive Government would not let these things stand. It’s too laissez faire in my view.
What is a state for except to enforce a certain minimum of security (financial, ethical, legal, democratic etc.,) for its people, its societies? There is no other reason for the state to exist.
This laissez faire attitude seems to abound everywhere by the absence of responsiveness and proactivity.
At the moment the state seems able to turn a blind eye to fraud in the City and ignore the questionable actions of say the ratings agencies who apparently independently rate the investment potential of companies, banks and financial instruments in markets on – it turns out – ‘opinions’ and there is also evidence of an agency problem in the system (the banks pay them for their ratings…..hmmmmm.).
Yet after 2008, the same ratings agencies are still there even though they got it so wrong. And how many jobs have been lost as a result of that? How many lives altered for ever? And then add unnecessary austerity to the mix and look at the further damage caused by that?
So, for those who want to put the boot into Oxfam and defend Keeping Profits Moving Globally (KPMG) don’t just save your ire for Oxfam – lets see what you have to say about the failures we’ve seen in other sectors of the economy and society.
And realise that Oxfam and the Shitty (sic) have something in common: a lackadaisical attitude to oversight and regulation of their sectors for which Government is ultimately responsible.