How to handle bad behaviour in a charity?

Thank you for posting that Baggs.
I was going to mention the UN and NATA 'peacekeeping forces' and the abuse, by some, of the vulnerable they were supposedly protecting.

DH and I have wondered for some time about why Haiti is in still such a mess after all the billions that have been contributed to get this small country back on its feet again - corruption, of course, is one answer, but does it suit some charity heads to be seen as 'benefactors' and therefore to be taking advantage of the situation for their own ends?

trisher I think that there should be more accountability, that nothing should be hushed up and that the people at the top of these organisations should not be allowed to move from post to post, charity to charity or into top jobs in public life if there is even the hint of misconduct. Who is to be the abiter though?
It is becoming obvious that nothing and nowhere is free from this type of behaviour - abuse of people, of funds and of the good nature of others who give in good faith.

And would you stop giving if there was wrongdoing?
I haven't personally given to Oxfam for years, firstly after hearing from more than one 'horse's mouth' about abuse of funds, my large charity of choice is the Red Cross but sadly, it now emerges that some of their people out in the field could be involved in this type of abuse too.
However, it won't stop me giving because the overall good that they do outweighs the abuse by a few individuals.

I would like to see more accountability, though, both in the charity sector and in the use of foreign aid, much of which is, of course, administered by the charities because they are the ones who know where the need is and how to deliver it.
Other workers should not be afraid to be whistleblowers if they see abuse of the vulnerable.

NATO

www.oxfamannualreview.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/oxfam-annual-report-2016-17-v2.pdf

Page 24. Oxfam's safeguarding.

But ReadyMeals prostitution is illegal in Haiti. If you believe people should be free to pursue the career of their choice then it should be OK for people in this country to shoplift, steal and rob. It's illegal, but if that's what they want to do!
Thanks for the Libby Purvis article Baggs
I can see similarities between what happened in Haiti with Oxfam and what used to happen in many of the caring organisations in this country. People would be suspected or even known to have been invloved in abuse. They would leave under a bit of a cloud but move on to work elsewhere. It seems in bringing in stronger measures here we have simply shifted a problem. I wish Oxfam had been more open and made sure that these people would never work in the aid sector again.

Durhamjen yours of 23.41 last night (crumbs!) a very good summing up.

Anyway as others have pointed out, it's better that the needy recipients get something than nothing. Maybe it's hard to find 100% morally rigid people in the first place, let alone ones who are willing to risk their health and safety in "disorganised" parts of the world. Would all the people moralising in this thread like to go out there and show them how it should be done?

PS "in this thread" AND on the news, the radio phone-ins, the papers etc etc etc

Listening to radio this morning, and apparently Save the Children always hand any issues over to the Police/CPS along with a dossier.

That ought to be the policy for all organisations.

Why is Haiti still in a mess?
From all I ever heard, it's largely because it's ruled by a small, rich, often corrupt elite who mostly don't much care about the many poor people in their own country. As is too often the case in other very poor countries where charities operate.

One statistic I heard at the time was that unemployment in Haiti was 60% even before the earthquake. And yet millions of eggs were being imported every month from the next door Dominican Republic - why, when egg producing could have provided jobs for Haitians?

The aid workers I know found it depressing to have to acknowledge that after disaster relief, nothing much about the basics was going to change. Unlike what some seem to think, charities can't barge in and make major improvements or change the basics of a country's governance on their own. To do anything much at all, they need the cooperation of government and officials, and if they can't or won't cooperate, or expect a cut/bribes, hands are tied.

In Aceh after the tsunami, I gather there were complaints from donors/others in the West, that the building of new houses for the thousands who'd lost their homes, wasn't happening fast enough. At least one reason was that there were endless, lengthy disputes about who owned which piece of land (and therefore needed to be paid compensation). Unlike here, there weren't any Land Registry records to refer to. They hadn't been destroyed in the earthquake - there never were any at all.

The charities concerned - and my now son in law was one who was actively involved in building projects - couldn't just go ahead until these issues were resolved. They found it very frustrating.

It's a world away from trying to accomplish improvements in safe, relatively prosperous countries, where God knows it can be still be difficult enough.

OldMeg, that's what Oxfam have done since 2011, as you will see if you read page 24 of their report, but nobody is willing to do that, are they?
They'd rather read about what happened or didn't happen in 2011 from the rightwing press.

"Mordaunt has warned her department will cut its funding for the charity unless its bosses can prove in a meeting with her today that they have the “moral leadership” for it to continue."

Somehow I can't help a wry smile when I read this.
How about moral leadership from the government.

Witzend, and if it happened here, even if our land registry data remained intact, the houses would still be slow to go up, due to existing residents claiming their rights to their uninterrupted views, not impacting on areas of natural beauty, not causing too much parking on their street, and reduction in the value of their homes etc etc etc.

Yes, Readymeals, that's what I meant about such things being difficult enough even in the relatively well organised, (relatively) un-corrupt so-called first world.

As an aside re corruption, before living and working in the Middle East I was as clueless as anybody about how widespread it is. An Indian colleague once told me that he needed to send some money in a hurry, via whatever transfer system was then used, to his wife back in India, and what a pain it was that the official handing the money over would inevitably take a cut.
I was naively so shocked, whereupon he laughed (wryly!) and said it was quite the norm, and the cut would probably be even bigger since the official would be able to deduce that the money was urgently needed.
Talk about having your eyes opened.

There are two issues from the cases of charity workers coercing those much weaker than themselves.

1. Charities should be more careful when they select their staff.

2. Exloitation of very vulnerable people who depend upon you is unacceptable whether the exploiters are child abusing priest or instructors, or whether the exploiters are supposed to be supporting adults in dire need.

Would all the people moralising in this thread like to go out there and show them how it should be done?
We're not moralising, I think we are quite shocked.
They know how it should be done and I expect the majority of their own workers were shocked too but probably too afraid to blow the whistle.

Alexa to that I would add that charities should be more open about corrupt staff they 'allow to leave' to prevent them moving on to another sector and carry on as before.

Witzend Why is Haiti so poor. It's an interesting question and can't just be blamed on a small ruling elite. The role of France and the USA cannot be forgotten. Historically Haiti was one of the most successful countries
Under French rule in the 1700s, Haiti was the wealthiest colony in the New World and represented more than a quarter of France's economy. After a Haitian slave revolt defeated the French army in 1801, the newly independent nation became the first country in the New World to abolish slavery. But Haiti's fortunes ebbed when the 20th century brought three decades of American occupation, multiple corrupt regimes, natural disasters, environmental devastation, and the scourge of HIV
They also had to pay a considerable sum to Franceand have suffered badly from US meddling.

I agree with your OP trisher and think it looks very much as if Oxfam has acted badly in this.Wanting to protect donations has overcome protecting people.
When these things come to light it damages the charity much much more than if they had been shown to be strong and direct by not only getting rid of these workers but making sure they didn’t get new jobs with other charities.

durhamjen do stop all this ridiculous political point scoring, not everything in life is connected to the Conservatives.
Penny Mordaunt was speaking sense on the Marr Show about her dept not funding charities who act badly.

I don't like to see politicians using things like this to score political points either. There is a right wing group who opposes any support to any developing countries. It's not only morally wrong it is very narrow political thinking. One of the resons the US is so frightened of Cuba is that they spread their political message by providing grass roots help and education to countries with needs like Haiti. The US knows how effective this is.

A charity that provides a service or help to vulnerable people should screen their job applicants very very carefully. The ones I have been associated with have done. Oxfam was shockingly remiss in Haiti. One can't help but wonder where else.

Can't wait for all the other charities to be hauled before this whiter than white government.

I've heard today from someone who was there at the time, of a friend at another very well known and highly respected charity, who made a complaint about sexual misconduct in a colleague, who was living at the same accommodation as her.

She was told that if she didn't like it, she should move to different accommodation. No other action whatever was taken.

As I've said before, I know from those who were there at the time, that this sort of behaviour was well known to exist -albeit in a small minority - right across the aid sector, among virtually all charities, including the most respected and internationally renowned.
Anyone who thinks it was just Oxfam - who did at least make a report at the time - is deluding themselves.

For whatever reason, it seems that The Times and this government are bent on the pursuit of just one prey.

lemongrove Mon 12-Feb-18 17:18:38

That is probably what is at the heart of the matter, the need to keep these matters hushed up in case people stopped donating.
For whatever reason, it seems that The Times and this government are bent on the pursuit of just one prey.
I don't know about the Times Witzend but I think more is coming out now and that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Decent, caring aid workers have been deterred from speaking out for too long and no doubt we will be hearing a lot more in the near future.

Can't wait for all the other charities to be hauled before this whiter than white government.
Your post sounds almost gleeful about these dreadful happenings to vulnerable people durhamjen