How to handle bad behaviour in a charity?

What I do find absolutely unacceptable, if the reports I heard were accurate, is that the people who were dismissed were given good references, with no mention of them having been sacked for gross misconduct. So other charities ended up employing people who had, I think, shown themselves
to be totally uscrupulous and lacking in humanity and completely unsuitable for a sensitive job helping communities and individuals in needWhat I do find absolutely unacceptable, if the reports I heard were accurate, is that the people who were dismissed were given good references, with no mention of them having been sacked for gross misconduct. So other charities ended up employing people who had, I think, shown themselves to be totally uscrupulous and lacking in humanity and completely unsuitable for a sensitive job helping communities and individuals in need.

This.

Agreed with it so much I said it twice!

I haven’t donated to Oxfam for years, nor shopped in their charity shops. They seem to spend more money on plush offices, high salaries and a CEO who, IMO, has an obscenely high salary. Only a small percentage of their fund raising goes to ‘the cause’

I have stopped giving to all but 3 charities. KSSAIR, RNLI and Salvation Army.
If you look at the millions, indeed, tens of millions of pounds that the 10 biggest charities have stashed away and the paltry % their target receives, coupled with outrageous salaries paid to their office wallahs, you'll understand why.

Chewbacca, you are reiterating a point that has already been answered. Oxfam has said plainly that it did not give references for the people involved and recorded in its systems that references were not to be provided. This has been accepted by the press that made the original claim about references. There is no mechanism for passing information to hundreds of thousands of other NGOs. Former Oxfam employees may have given references, but Oxfam has no control over that.

www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/how-we-spend-your-money

For those who need to get their facts right.

I read that those who were sacked by Oxfam did NOT get good references.

I work as a volunteer in a local Hospice charity shop. I have just had a lot of arguments with the big bosses as they have authorised spending ridiculous amounts of money buying new cupboards for our kitchen, updating the office, buying new plastic (matching) hangers (the others were perfectly serviceable and they have dictated that we 'throw them away,!) I am mortified at the utter waste of money. Our kitchen worked perfectly well without a load of new cupboards, shelves etc. Utterly ridiculous!!!! And this is just a small sample of what goes on in these charities...

Snap, counterpoint.

No, Maidmarion, it's what went on in that particular charity.
All hospice shops are independent.

I also heard that about references dj. I think it is so important that this doesn't stop donations to many charities that do such worth while work abroad. MSF for example is independant and international, does not receive government funding and pays its executive director (2017) £79,716, and the lowest paid worker £24,462, which is less than the equivalent for similar work in UK. It relies on public donations to continue its work under some of the most dangerous and hazardous conditions, often in war torn countries.

GabriellaG, the CEO of the RNLI is paid more than the head of Oxfam in the UK. Given the scope and complexity of Oxfam, that seems to me hard to justify. The KSSAIR doesn't publish its annual report on its web site, so it's not easy to know how much it is paying its CEO; charity records show it spends only just above 50% of its income on its charitable objectives - much worse than Oxfam. The Salvation Army isn't comparable because it doesn't keep income separate as between charitable work and religious activities.

What is scandalous is just how difficult it is to find out about salaries and effectiveness in most charities. Most make it difficult or impossible to find annual reports on their web sites.

Appalling as all this is the behaviour they are accused of is prevalent in our society and so much so the employers, the charities might have used words like "misbehaviour" without details. Employers often find themselves with workers who harass and bully but it would take a major event to dismiss them. I know someone who has "lost" several jobs through bullying women, he always manages to get other jobs in the City by asking the company not to write the real reason, he has also written his own references on behalf of his employer. A lot of this is happening, employers asking someone to leave and suggesting they write their own references as long as they go asap. Sexual behaviour and bullying written on a reference these days will mean you will probably never get another job .

And none of those involved in this should ever get another job working with vulnerable people.

The radio presenters on phone-ins are misrepresenting this as sexual abuse and sexual harrassment. The actual news is telling us "they visited prostitutes". This usually means an agreed transaction between consenting adults. While a bit "icky", it's not the same as if these people are likely to be mauling their colleagues or people they are helping. I bet most of us at one time or another have worked with or been friends with someone who has used a prostitute and never even known, as they behave perfectly appropriately in work or social situations. Just why is everyone becoming so prudish in 2017?

I give to local animal charities.

ReadyMeals there is a world of difference between using prosttutes in a stable, free affluent society where it may be (but sometimes isn't) a personal choice for the person involved; and persuading, or pressuring, victims of disasters struggling to survive to provide sexual services. There are also indictions that some of the girls involved were under age. That is sexual abuse and harassment.

The quandary is that abusive individuals are attracted to caring work. They are also notoriously capable dissemblers. As a result, any attempt to care for vulnerable people is bound to face difficulties. Thus children at risk of violence from their parents have to be removed, but they can only be placed into an alternative environment that may have its own problems of abuse.

Certainly we should do all we can to eliminate this kind of thing, but it is fanciful to suppose that we can ever totally succeed. So we're left with the dilemma that either we don't help people or we risk some harm. It seems to me that we have to risk some harm, at the same time seeking to reduce it to as close as zero as can be achieved.

I don't believe that problems of this kind should be used as a justification for not supporting organisations like Oxfam.

Trisher, but these charity workers themselves - were they from affluent societies where they could have nipped home on a jet to visit an adult and free prostitute or were they locals who had themselves been taken out of poverty and suffering by being given this work? And for whom their own sex industry seemed like the norm? And for whom losing their jobs and being told they should never get work again spells doom? Does the news tell us this?

It is very difficult for any employer to give a bad reference about any employee because they will be legally liable for what they say.

Presumably there was evidence in the case of those who were sacked so no formal reference should have been given but I doubt anyone who give a bad reference I know how difficult HR departments find it to stop individuals in a company from giving references for which the company may then be held liable.

Anyone who was allowed to resign may not necessarily be proven guilty and it would be even more difficult for an employer to say anything negative.

A reference may simply state the dates someone worked for the organisation and what their job was. Employers often do this so they cannot be accused of anything negative.

I have never given to Oxfam because I remember it being founded. The first thing it did was to buy a large luxurious building in Oxford - probably worth a fortune now and a shrewd investment, but it didn't seem a good use of charitable money at the time.

I never to give to Foreign Aid because it makes the people too dependent on charity. Their own governments need to sort out the poverty problems in their own countries instead of spending the money on arms and they need to encourage birth control for their ever increasing, hard to feed population. Africa is, I'm afraid, a bottomless pit and until attitudes over there change drastically it always will be that way. Just because other places have become more civilised and richer over the centuries, it doesn't mean they have to constantly bail out poorer countries who never learn their lesson.
I also never give to large national charities. The director of Oxfam is probably on over £150,000 a year plus a large expense account/ car etc. and then there's other managers in lesser positions on good salaries. It's big business and big businesses always want to cover up their misdemeanours to protect their image. If people feel they want to give charities like this that's their business but the UK gives £25 million a day in Foreign Aid from taxpayers money as it is ( actually that's not strictly true, it borrows the money it gives) and that's money which could and should be spent at home.

You're not allowed to give bad references but you can certainly decline to give one.

There is no mechanism for passing information to hundreds of thousands of other NGOs. So wouldn't setting up one seem the obvious solution (or am I being naïve)?

counterpoint.
The RNLI are manned by volunteers. Thst is why I support them. Obviously, there has to be a salaried overseer but I'm talking about the people who man the craft. KSSAIR helps people in this country as do the RNLI and the Sally Army. IMO, charity begins at home.