22 February 2018
The quality of mercy is strained
Are we all the architects of charity failings?
By Frank O’Nomics
Charity has had its Weinstein moment. That the film industry might be a haven for sexual predators will have surprised few, but when organisations that exist to help the vulnerable and disadvantaged are similarly charged, we are justifiably shocked and outraged. Accusations that Oxfam’s aid workers have been using prostitutes in Haiti have been followed by news that there have been many more episodes of unacceptable behaviour, some of which have taken place within the UK. It is understandable that governments, corporates and individuals are all reviewing their contributions to Oxfam and a number of other non-governmental organisations. However, there is a danger that press and government commentary leads us away from the very necessary role that NGOs such as Oxfam fulfill. Beyond putting new structures in place very quickly, actually giving more government support to NGOs, in terms of money (to compensate for short falls in public donations) and greater regulatory oversight to help correct their ills, might well be the correct response.
There is no way that any of us would defend what has happened at Oxfam. That predatory individuals try to take advantage of those most vulnerable is to be expected and the likes of Oxfam have to have procedures in place to prevent them. If there are failures, they should be acted upon and reported, rather than covered up as seems to be the case with events in Haiti. In fact the individual accused in Haiti had already been asked to leave by another charity in 2004 – an example of how these events can be allowed to reoccur if no action is taken.
There is some evidence that we get the charities that we deserve. There have been a number of high profile campaigns highlighting the costs of running charities and the varying proportions of donations that actually get to those in need. It is true that many charities have been badly run, but it does take a lot of money to get aid to where it is needed and, by placing the focus on bottom-line impact, we risk not spending the right amount on safeguarding. This has clearly been the case at a number (which appears to grow daily) of high profile charities. To some extent, over a period that began following the events in Haiti and accelerating more recently, Oxfam was something of a role model in this regard. While they may have covered up events in Haiti, they did react by appointing a safeguarding officer, sending out training teams and setting up a whistle-blowing hotline. The fact that 87 incidents were reported in 2016/17 is of course of great concern, but the fact is that people were able to make these reports. There are many other charities that need to respond – only last month the Charity Commission asked over 1500 to create safeguarding policies.
Beyond having to focus on making sure that they generate the maximum benefit from a charity pound, the other key driver of the downfall of NGOs is politics. Oxfam’s spending on campaigning and advocacy which, its seems, is regarded by sections of the press and government as going beyond their remit, amounts to 3% of their total expenditure. In particular, campaigns such as “Reward Work, Not Wealth” have incensed many and created a situation where their detractors were just waiting for Oxfam to slip-up. However, we miss a great opportunity if we do not allow those who are on the ground delivering help to help identify and address the causes of the problems.
Using the financial metrics that, hitherto, we were encouraged to focus on, Oxfam is well run. Support costs amount to around 10%, although this will increase as more money is spent on additional safeguarding, and the costs of fundraising add up to a further 8% of spending. Everything else (bar that spent on the campaigning and advocacy), amounting just over £300mn per annum, is spent on humanitarian and development projects. This money benefits the poor in 45 different countries, in areas such as healthcare, schools, improving agricultural production and women’s rights. If the UK government is to cut its contributions to Oxfam, (just over £30 million or 8% of their total income), and the 7,000 individuals who to date have cancelled their regular donations increases still further – to whom will they give their money to do a better job?
International aid is not an easy process. To be effective it requires an efficient infrastructure that can spring into action with great speed in response to each humanitarian disaster. Aid agencies have long proved more effective than governments in doing this. Even for them the process is fraught with difficulty, such as some 15 years ago in Uganda when the UN Food Development Programme seemed to allow the military to perpetuate a regime of holding people in what were effectively open-air prisons. The problem is that relief work requires compromise and aid agencies feel that their duty is to feed people while governments confront the political issues.
In looking at what needs to be done, the immediate need (beyond the prosecution of criminal acts) is to improve the vetting and managing of the staff that agencies like Oxfam employ. In the longer-term, moving away from international agencies to transferring aid to locally managed endowments that support community owned projects may be the most efficient way to react to humanitarian crises. However, such initiatives are a long way off and the practicalities of local organisation in war zones means that this cannot easily become a universal panacea. In the interim we have to work with what we have.
Charitable giving in the UK was nearly £10bn in 2016. The Oxfam fall out is likely to hit that level in the short-term and, while in the longer-term people’s propensity to give may not be permanently dented, there could be a swing away from larger international charities to smaller domestic ones. The impact is likely to be on aid agencies most and animal sanctuaries least and the consequences will be on our collective consciences. We need to become more comfortable with the money charities have to spend to function in an ethically acceptable way and with the fact that they may have a view as to the causes of global poverty.
