Oxfam is to at least temporarily lose its access to government funding as a result of a tiny number of its staff committing acts for which they have been sacked or had their employments terminated, after which Oxfam appears to have worked hard to improve its safeguarding systems so that an independent review suggested in 2017 that it had the best in the sector.
Let's put this another way. The Times has won retribution for Oxfam having the temerity to ask why those in poverty still have to suffer in that way.
I reiterate my opinion that the only reason why this has happened is because of politics.
How do I know? Because if failures in such systems were really of significance the government would be applying this standard to all competing for aid contracts, and would only reward those with the best standards. But that is not happening. No such appraisal for the sector as a whole has been announced. It is just Oxfam that has been asked to withdraw.
I utterly deplore what some Oxfam employees have done. Who wouldn't?
But let's be clear: all those who believe in the right of charities to ask why poverty persists need to support the continuing right of all charities to do this.
And let me also be clear. First they have come for Oxfam
Next they will challenge all those who campaign on poverty in the world at large.
Then they will come for the environmentalists.
After which those who ask why the vulnerable get such a rough deal from government will be next in line.
As will be those who seek to protect the most basic of human rights.
So let's not pretend for a moment that this is about what happened in Haiti, appalling as it was. This is instead about power. And the right of some to exercise it without being questioned.
And we have every reason to be worried. A government all too willing to side with the attitude of those at The Times has shown on which side it stands. The rest of us need to worry.
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:
What is happening is a clear attempt to silence Oxfam as it attempts to highlight inequality poverty and Government’s culpability in its growth. The resurrection of events which happened 7 years ago and their exposure in the media are typical tactics used to divert attention from the underlying fault and discredit the organisation. The premise is always if you cannot refute the argument go after and discredit the organisation in so doing the attention is diverted from the original argument or complaint
Foreign aid by Oxfam is distributed to increase human welfare The primary reason for Gov aid or aid restrictions is to pursue foreign policy goals. Strategic and commercial interests of donor countries are the driving force behind aid assistance and is a valuable mechanism designed to modify a recipient state’s behaviour. As such those distributing foreign aid are subject to security services oversight and such services will be fully aware of the culture and practices of donor organisations used to distribute aid Oxfam included. It is therefore inconceivable that the Gov. were not aware of what was happening in Chad or Haiti or any other place their aid partners distribute aid but chose to do nothing and accepted Oxtam’s report on the subject,
Prostitution is sexual violence and is often a last-ditch means of economic survival. It is worth $186 billion world wide and probably 10 times that in drug and trafficking spin off’s It is worth $1 billion directly in the UK pa. and including drug and trafficking adds at least $8.9 billion to the UK.s economy. Prostitution is widely socially tolerated and its consumers are socially invisible and inclusive of all stratas of society from Government ministers, judges, lawyers etc. to dockers. It is used as a from of bride or entrapment by corporations and security services but where is the government expose or outcry over the sheer level of corruption or on the calls for all those “consumers” to be sacked from what ever position they may hold.
Similarly bullying and workplace harassment affects 9.1 million or 29% of the UK workforce annually. Cyber bullying has affected 80% of the UK workforce at some time with 20% being affected by it at least once per week. This is not an excuse for or on behalf of Oxfam but merely puts the “offences” in some form of context. They are no worse and are in all probability better than the “norm”. The government should be focusing on improving the norms. not using the malfeasnce of a few which they tacitly accept until political expediency determines otherwise
The question still remains, who will police this dystopia once it arrives? I suspect the Tories have no-one in mind for that, and are simply obeying oppressive instincts rather than following any coherent plan. I’ll confess to being dismayed, though, by Rudd’s unicorn-driven terrorism detector, fearing it bodes ill for communication in general.
If it is being suggested that punishments and penalties be applied to the organisations in which employees commit sexual or moral offences then we might need to look at the wider ramifications.
Who chooses the organisations to punish with eradication? Why is it OK for some to transgress but not others? In 2016 22 Service personnel were found guilty of 43 charges relating to sexual offences. These were armed forces personnel funded by the state. Do we therefore withdraw all funding to the army, RN and RAF?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603642/20170327-Sexual_Offences_2016_Official_Stats-FINAL.pdf
What these figures show is that the MoD are taking such offenses seriously and dealing with them in an appropriate manner. It is not being suggested that the armed forces are riddled with moral corruption. The armed forces are not riddled with corruption, the vast majority of service personnel are decent committed individuals. What must be accepted is that in organisations where large numbers of people are employed you are always going to get at least some sort of cross-section of the personality types seen in wider society, and this means some rotten apples.
Even in fields where there is a big vocational element we see aberrant personality types and bad behaviour. Serious offending crops up in all areas of life/employment, even a quick run through of some of our worst offenders would confirm this.
This co-ordinated attack on Oxfam has its roots elsewhere, the discovery of moral deviancy in its ranks must have been extremely fortuitous rather than being the cause.
Definately feels like echoes of Martin Niemöller. You can exist but don’t say anything of importance or be a critic.
Personally I am glad for reasons I have stated elsewhere that Oxfam are losing access to Government money.
Now it the time to start again, establish their independence and put their house in order.
You cannot bite the hand that feeds you and stay in business.
Oxfam needs to go back to basics.
Sorry Pilgrim, but I think you are seriously barking up the wrong tree here. Priti Patel could have written that last post…
Unless you are suggesting that the UK (and others) scrap their humanitarian and development programmes and leave it to pubic charity (the Rees Mogg model), we need organisations like Oxfam who have the competence and capacity to deliver them. Who else would you suggest? Capita and co… ?! Their people are out there delivering in circumstances most people will never be able to comprehend from their comfort of their UK homes and offices. They have done it successfully for many years and are hugely respected for it – not least by DfID and other major international agencies. They have also managed that tricky line between challenging the government and delivering work funded by government for decades. Always difficult but it has not stopped them challenging. That is significant factor in why they are getting the grief they are getting now.
Suggesting that the whole ‘charity’ sector has become ‘corporatised’ is a desperately flabby generalisation. Everything from the village scout hut to the largest development NGO? They are all charities. Housing associations, social enterprises? This is getting to be like blaming the EU for all the UK’s ills. They also have a whole range of structures reflecting their very different locations and activities. Some are relatively centralised but in my experience, the nature of the kind of people who work for these organisations (and I know the development sector best), tend to be pretty independent minded. When you are running the kind of dispersed organisations that the large aid organisations run, you have to have quite high levels of local autonomy.
Over the last 15 years I’ve been involved in introducing or supporting the introduction of boring ‘business’ practices such as strategy, finance and project management. Working out what you are trying to do and how to go about doing it is pretty fundamental. Identifying what you shouldn’t be doing is important too though it upsets people.
Having some idea of what you are going need to spend and then tracking what you spend is also helpful. Ive had the arguments dismissing all this as some how being corporate managerialism. Meanwhile scarce resources were being dissipated on peoples pet projects with little idea of whether they were having the impact intended, let alone learning from them.
Does that been importing the crappy aspects of business and the values? Of course not. And there are fundamental differences that need to be understood and are not recognised by too many of the consultants trotting in from KPMG et al. (Aka Keep Paying the Money Guys) Oxfam in my direct experience has been highly resistant to that, reflected in their leading roles, campaigning against all forms of bad business behaviour from tax avoidance to labour treatment to trade. Until not long ago, their policy and campaigns head was a wonderfully unreconstructed Marxist.
Yes, a very small number of Oxfam staff have been involved in appalling and unacceptable behaviour. For an organisation of their size operating in places and contexts that they do, the incident rate is very low and even so they worry intensely about it. They always have – I used to see the reports. Ive also been to places were even in the smart hotels you were surrounded by prostitutes – you actively had to fight them off. I’m not going to go all Melanie Phillips and judgemental if some people fail the high standards that are set them and condemn the whole organisation, let alone the whole industry. We have worse problems here in the UK without any context to provide some kind of excuse. Do I have to list them?
And to a point made elsewhere, at the time of the Haiti incidents Oxfam’s CEO, International Director and HR director were all women so the ‘its a problem with men at the top’ argument just doesn’t wash. Oxfam is massively focused on gender issues.
Oxfam and its peers in the sector are leading campaigners for many of the issues that are debated on this blog. They are in an impossible, no win, ‘have you stopped beating your partner’ situation. They deserve our thoughtful support rather than joining in the fun. We’d miss them if they were gone – and thats a risk. They are just the first to be picked on
(Weirdly, Im conducting a parallel argument with ex-business colleagues arguing that all would be well if they had more of a command and control structure like business. Im having to explain it to them too…)
Apologies for the length of the post – its a complex issue
Thanks Robin
Robin
I don’t mind you arguing a point with me but telling me that I’m writing like a certain rather arrogant, not very capable and rather badly behaved former minister is not on. Calm down.
Also, I do not think that I have ever been part of this male=bad, female= good business as part of the Harvey Weinstein backlash but this is another matter.
You sound defensive to me Robin. Are you associated with the NGO sector?
If you read my comments on this topic (now come on – have you read and understood?) you would see that ultimately I hold Government responsible for this issue because they are happy to accept cheaper lower institutional standards in the delivery of their policies. It’s as simple as that. And also they have cynically used this event to have a political jab at Oxfam.
And I stand by my comments about what I see as primarily Tory Government attitudes towards working with housing associations and NGOs who have been used ideologically by a Party that fundamentally does not believe in a strong social state. It’s apathy is evidenced by its attitudes to budgets and standards as well as its aim to reduced benefits to individuals and replace them with cheaper corporatist delivery mechanisms of questionable impact on society. The whole thing to me seems predicated on creating a form of steady state – a reserve of cheap labour held perpetually in place – rather than raising the life chances of those in this position of which there are too few.
The Tories have mostly in my view enabled the privatisation of the HA sector and hence resulted in private banks getting involved with or rotating into building social housing (and look at what has happened to rents Robin).
I do realise the importance of Oxfam and all NGOs and you are right – they are needed but they are also
being used. One of the most worrying trends is that Oxfam and other NGOs you’d associate with foreign aid are increasingly being used to deal with issues in the UK. In the UK Robin!
For the record I do not trust the British Government – particularly those of the modern Tory neo-lib persuasion (and latterly New Labour’s version but for other reasons) and if were an NGO I would rather work independently of them rather than be co-opted or being on their pay roll. I’d advise any org working with this bunch of social state destroyers (the Tory Party) not to work with them if possible. Keep fund raising with the public and cut your operations and administration costs accordingly. That’s right: don’t get too big.
My attitude to this Government is also based on my experience in the public sector where we work (apparently ha ha ) with this Government to receive grant to help us build social housing. The grant levels are a joke and the hoops you have to jump through are legion. It often feels as though they don’t want you to build anything. The Government has a strangle hold on the Homes and Communities Agency and we spend time working out how to get around the rules.
BTW your paragraphs 4 & 5 are extremely good points and I’ve had my fair share of problems on those issues in the public sector.
And you are right in that smaller HA s and NGOs are still out there carrying out their original remits unsullied by big government bribes. But they are fewer than before.
But me – like Priti Patel!!!? No way Robin…..no way!
Might I suggest some calm is required
I suspect you two guys would find it quite easy to get on in reality
Less heat required – and more of the mutual understanding that is clearly there in part
Get a grip on yourself. They won’t be coming for the environmentalists. The environmental movement has already won. Even in North East England you cannot open a coal mine, re-open a quarry or build a high quality combined cycle incinerator without the Campaign to Protect Rural England and other assorted groups showing up to protest and successfully get them stopped.
And Michael Gove has announced that in the next 5 years once we are free of the CAP ( that’s the EU’s biggest budget item ) agricultural subsidies will be replaced by subsidies that deliver explicit environmental benefits.
But I suppose you’d rather live in a world where people you like get away with bad things, than people you don’t like such as the free traders getting away with doing good things.
The win is superficial
The world is still burning
Unless you’re anti-fracking in Lancashire, then May merely overturns your vote.
Then you’ll be amused to hear of the campaign against drilling in the North Downs at Leith Hill, Surrey in solid-Tory voting country (not that far from me). Will be interesting to see how the government rules on this one…
Last week an American academic, who had recently completed a study on safeguarding practice in the overseas aid sector, said on Newsnight that Oxfam had the strongest safeguarding procedures of all the entities that she had studied.
How, then can Oxfam be singled out for punishment?
This has been completely mishandled by DfID, bowing to the power of the media and the poisonous right. If the charity with the strongest safeguarding precedures can be deprived of funding what is to happen to the remainder, how can Oxfam be asked to improve its “best in sector” procedures and not the others?
I agree with you
The study was by Tufts University – a Hugh grade institution
Do you have a link to the Tufts report?
I have seen it referred to
I have not read it
Sorry
“Oxfam’s careful approach to addressing sexual harassment and assault against aid workers, through their Safeguarding Department, is shared as a best practice, and we encourage other agencies to develop more robust responses to preventing and responding to this violence.” – See more at: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/report-prevalence-of-sexual-assault-and-harassment-in-the-aid-sector.html#sthash.dWjzcUdV.dpuf
Report here http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/SAAW-report_5-23.pdf
Thanks
It is reminiscent of the cancellation of DfID funding to the Girl Effect programmes on girls and young women 15 months ago by Patel. You may recall the ‘Ethiopian Spice Girls’ headlines. This was despite a series of reports within DfID highlighting the quality and effectiveness of the work. However, headlines in the Daily Mail count for more than hard evidence. This did not go down well with African leaders who were aware of the effectiveness of the work in their countries, or with other major donors supporting the programme who knew of its effectiveness.
It was small consolation that Patel got the chop some months later – as predicted by a DfID insider who commented that she was so arrogant and corrupt that it was just a matter of time until she tripped herself up. No question that we are seeing a longer term campaign by the right wingers who drive todays Tories to cut foreign aid. Or come to that support for the poor and underprivileged wherever they are
I smell a rat. There is a difference between trafficked and oppressed women (many) and women who choose sex work. (And some men do it too.) Prostitution happens in all societies and at all levels. Sexual abuse is rife and in only recent decades has it been seriously examined. Similarly, ways of dealing with and reporting sexual abuse (allowing for the rules of evidence) are relatively new and are still being refined. The verdict on Oxfam may turn out to be “could have done better”. But let he who is guiltless cast the first stone.
in 2013 four churches, The Baptist union of Great Britain, the Church of Scotland, the United Reform Church and the Methodist church, published a study “the lies we tell ourselves: ending comfortable myths about poverty.”
The media tends not to bother with churches these days unless it says something about sex. However, if they do raise their voices they may well be added to the list.
The Right wing often invoke Christianity and this would not be to their liking.
Agreed
Ian, that’s a very intersting report from those Churches. I had never heard of it before.
http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Truth-And-Lies-Report-smaller.pdf
Richard, you are right to use “first they came for” theme. This divide and conquer ruess is too easy for the elite to use. We have to stand together with those with the right message.
I agree with you here. On the wider issue of how to tackle world poverty, I’ve wondered whether there is something that could very feasibly be done but Oxfam etc never mention. Government debt of countries such as Haiti is not denominated in those countries’ own local currency. Instead it is denominated in USD. That seems to me a root cause of what mires them in poverty. Revenue from exports goes to servicing the cost of that debt rather than for paying for imports they need. They are not able to invest at will in, self financing, improvements for national development in the way that countries such as the UK, Australia, USA, Japan, Singapore etc etc can because we have our government debt denominated in our own local currency. A campaign to redenominate the government debt of third world countries into their own local currencies could be transformative couldn’t it?
It could
I am not sure if Jubilee 2000 look at the issue or not….
I didn’t think Jubilee 2000 did look at it in those terms. My impression was that they simply wanted debt forgiveness but then the debt restarts and again is denominated in USD, so we get back to square one. It seems to me Jubilee 2000 lacked the awareness that government debt is an entirely different kettle of fish if it is denominated in a country’s own local currency.
Worth talking to them then – seriously
Can I recommend again “The Divide: A brief guide to global inequality..” by Jason Hickel who analysis in considerable depth the reasons behind global inequality and offers some solutions. Incidentally, he rejects the terminology of debt “forgiveness” with its theological overtones of sinfulness.
Perhaps the Churches should give less attention to preparing for the “next world” and rendering unto Caesar and more to declaring the Jubilee and preaching about the iniquities of the rich and powerful.
I would call it building the kingdom of heaven here on earth
Which I always thought to be the intention
If interested in how Haiti ended up in this mess, read this incredible book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Damming-Flood-Haiti-Politics-Containment/dp/1844674665
A good starting point for Haiti would be for the French to pay back the ‘reparations’ that Haiti paid France after a brave slave rebellion kicked them out.
The French then blockaded Haiti with gunships and demanded compensation for the loss of their slave colony. Haiti finally stopped paying back the reparations in 1947. According to Wikipedia the reparations totalled approx USD 21 billion in 2015 money.
Be warned that book will make you angry, very angry. But it is a must read.
If you wonder why it is denominated in USD then look no further than
‘I was an Economic Hitman’ by Larry Perkins it should be available in the local library as well as online.
In this book he sets out how he was an instrument of US foreign policy selling corporate US to poor countries, supplying the ‘knowhow’ for goods and services the poor country could not afford. Supplying the USD loans as an entrapment device to keep the poor country tied to American hegemony. If the poor country did not take the ‘advice’ they were then bribed, threatened and invaded and subject to regime change to ensure compliance. Pick any of the multitude of countries that the US has invaded since WW2 and scratch below the surface reasons and you will find the ‘Hitman’ scenario.
As far as Oxfam is concerned you will find the links no doubt to the establishment paedophile rings that involve the likes of Saville all the way up to Royalty and across the pond to the Cl&*(on Found@3%/n. This is a story the establishment are desparate to cover up. Note the links via Haiti to said US organisation. Hopefully Trump will expose this filth and put the lot of them in Guantanamo.
Only slightly gentler treatment than British Empire 1.0.
Roll on Brexit so Scotland can get out of this filthy rotten corrupt cesspool they have the audacity to call ‘Great’.
Well, one day we will come for THEM.
Because THEY go too far.
Charities should be brave and refuse government money. Once they’ve signed that Faustian contract they’ve sold their souls. But I suspect a lot of charities are happy with the arrangement – they get more money to help the poor and needy with just the minor inconvenience of keeping their mouths shut about the government inflicted poverty at home, the UK inflicted poverty abroad through loans, unequal trade, illegal wars, arms deals and all the rest of the rotton-to-the-core UK foreign policy.
Which completely misses the point that a major factor in the attack on Oxfam is that they are particularly vocal on all the issues that you mention along with many of their peers. They do not ‘keep their mouths shut’.
Voted with feet. Just sent Oxfam a ton.
I think it time I resumed by regular donations to them
I’ve upped my regular donation. The regular funding is the most valuable – ‘unrestricted’ funding. Covers just the kind of campaigning work that people like Oxfam do, that makes the government uncomfortable.
The British public has traditionally been remarkably generous in responding to crises with ‘restricted’ funding that can only go to those crises. Its the unrestricted funding that is much harder – and more expensive – to raise.
As a committed reader of your blog and in agreement with a fair proportion of the content in your posts such as this one on the issues surrounding the persecution of Oxfam, may I make a minor/ petty plea concerning your current usage of the word “clear”. At the minute every politician, pundit and commentator in the media is “being clear” before they diverge, ignore or obfuscate on the issue being discussed. This is the PR fashion led by our PM, the doyenne of this art form. To avoid using this term when explaining your perspective would do your reputation no harm, even if you have to reach for your Thesaurus now and again!
Noted!
Oxfam has agreed not to bid for any more UK government contracts until an independent review is carried out on its safeguarding policies (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-international-development-secretary-on-oxfam). But hang on, haven’t we been here before? Well, yes. Only last year did the government do a review of safeguarding in Oxfam and the final report (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charity-case-report-oxfam/oxfam-case-report) found:
“Oxfam cooperated fully with us. We established that the charity has a strong policy framework around protecting staff and beneficiaries from sexual exploitation and abuse, which is underpinned by the activities of a dedicated safeguarding unit. We also saw evidence of several examples of best practice including the publishing of data and trends about allegations of sexual abuse or exploitation against Oxfam staff and partners.”
So the government either knew Oxfam were good and could be trusted, or were incompetent in their own review!
The wording is very interesting here: whereas Oxfam had “several examples of best practice including the publishing of data and trends about allegations of sexual abuse or exploitation against Oxfam staff and partners”, the government’s review of sexual harassment in Westminster found “19%, almost a fifth of people, complaining that they have experienced or witnessed sexual harassment or inappropriate sexual behaviour here, versus the fact that the present respect policy has never had a complaint about sexual harassment.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westminster-sexual-harassment-one-five-report-leaked-mps-lords-staff-a8199401.html) Far from best practice!
It seems that this Oxfam witch hunt was more about politics than abuse, they were punished by the right-wing press and the Tories because they keep banging on about poverty and inequality. But also it provided a very convenient smokescreen to the revelation that many Tory MPs are sexual predators often harassing and abusing their own staff, having broken just 1 minute after midnight the day after Westminster published its sexual harassment report despite the events being published by Oxfam in August 2011 and the government review being published in December last year.
Any reasonable person would say Oxfam are good but Westminster needs to get its house in order.
I remember how Major’s useless Tory government was brought down by sleeve in the mid-90s (https://tidesofhistory.wordpress.com/2017/12/23/sex-lies-and-hypocrisy-the-last-time-sleaze-brought-down-the-tories/). The Independent predicted this could happen again to May’s fragile, no-majority Tory government in October (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/westminster-sexual-harassment-andrea-leadsom-house-of-parliament-a8028141.html?amp). Surprisingly the smokescreen may have worked, this time…
Thanks
Very well put Derek – thank you
The Guardian has a piece today describing how it’s charities propping government up, not the other way round,
https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/19/two-thirds-charities-subsidising-public-sector-contracts-survive?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
Those of those who have been directly involved and have some grasp of charity finances have known this for a while.
Richard
Here is the statement from DFID
“We have asked for assurances from all our charitable partners regarding their safeguarding and reporting practices by 26 February, including Oxfam. At that stage we will make further decisions about continuing or amending how those programmes are delivered. Our primary guiding principle in this will be the welfare of the beneficiaries of UK aid.
The UK Government reserves the right to take whatever decisions about present or future funding to Oxfam, and any other organisation, that we deem necessary. We have been very clear that we will not work with any organisation that does not live up to the high standards on safeguarding and protection that we require”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-international-development-secretary-on-oxfam
It sounds like government does see the issue as significant and *will* be applying this standard to all competing for aid contracts.
And yet they have just said Oxfam does work to the highest standards
I am happy that the standard will be universal
But there own lack of confidence in their own recent report on Oxfam seems very troubling
Richard
Your original post made the case that the failures in safeguarding at Oxfam are not really significant on the basis that if they were the government would be scrutinising the sector as a whole: ‘that is not happening’, ‘no such appraisal for the sector as a whole has been announced’… Perhaps you could make a correction to the post to reflect that this IS in fact exactly what has been announced (… and therefore the conclusion that you draw might also be revised?) .
It is true that the right wing anti-aid press is making hay with this. At the same time it is true that Oxfam should take it seriously, AND that the problems are not limited to oxfam or to NGOs within the sector
I do not rewrite what was true at the time
Most especially I do not when it is clear that the words used now do not reflect ever the reality
If this was a broad review aid contracts would be suspended for all that would be true but they are only suspended for Oxfam
That does not in any way imply a level playing field even though the government has just reported on Oxfam and praised it
Itbus our comment that lacks objectivity Maya. I might say, as usual
Richard.
Aid contracts have *not* been suspended for Oxfam.
The organisation has agreed to withdraw temporarily from bidding for new UK Gov funding . It continues to have access to government funding through existing grants and contracts.
The announcement on this, including that DFID have asked for assurances on safeguarding from all charitable partners was made on Feb 16. Your blog post stating that ‘no such appraisal for the sector as a whole has been announced’ was made on Feb 17. Perhaps you hadn’t seen the DFID announcement at the time?
The Tufts University report was about assault against aid workers (not protection of vulnerable people in the local community), it is a general literature review and survey — not an internal review of the effectiveness of Oxfam’s safeguarding practice.
Similarly, the recent Charity Commission Review was about safeguarding of staff, not of local communities. As well as finding elements of good practice it also said “there clearly have been incidents of behaviour that did not meet the organisation’s culture and values and which have brought into question how confident trustees could be in the charity’s wider people management systems.We also identified some weaknesses in how trends in safeguarding allegations were picked up, reported to trustees and management follow up properly agreed.”
The concerns raised by Helen Evans, previously Safeguarding Manager at Oxfam in particular warn against complacency and denial. https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/oxfams-former-head-safeguarding-raised-misconduct-concerns/management/article/1457022
I agree with you that we should defend international aid, and the good work of Oxfam against those who want to weaponise this scandal as a general battering ram against it, and that the response should be sector-wide. But at the same time this should not mean minimising the problem, or suggesting that all criticisms, or responses must be politically motivated by an anti-aid agenda. The DFID response to date seems proportionate to me. Reasonable people may of course disagree on this, but this should be based on their actual actions, not on the misunderstandings that contracts have been suspended, or that attention is only being focused on Oxfam.
As do many, I often wonder what your true agenda is
First, let’s be under no pretence about Oxfam’s agreement here: it is damage limitation to avoid a ban. Let’s speak plainly
Second, the reports noted do state very clearly that Oxfam had recognised it had issues and had acted on them and was now amongst the best in the field. Why pretend otherwise?
Third, no I had not read the report. So? Does it change anything? Clearly not: what I wrote was, I think, a fair summary of the actual situation and still is
Fourth, I cannot see the denial. If you can, so be it. I see an organisation that has taken action.
Fifth, I am not in the slightest condoning abuse, or a lack of action: I welcome it. But I also think balance is appropriate. I rarely see that in what you have to say. I am not alone
Richard
Richard,
From Helen Evans’s statement after her interview on Channel 4 News:
“The Times broke the Haiti story, based on a source other than me. Listening to Oxfam’s response there was no acknowledgment of the challenges faced by the investigation.”
There may be a literal difference between ‘no acknowledgment’ and ‘denial’, but, in practice, I don’t think there is.
Ralph
I acknowledge thatnis what she thinks, and with integrity
But there ar3 other views and I can balance the evidence
The fact is Oxfam did do an inves5igation
It did act
And it did create systems
And it does now inform authorities
These are facts, and are evidenced
I read what Helen Evans said and also look at what happened
Remember her main criticism was not if Oxfam
As a journalist I thought you might weigh up the evidence
Richard