Intelligent Giving - Ken Loach vs. Shelter - Comments

I don't disagree with your sentiment, just the reasoning

Ginsters Dragon — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:51:17 +0000

Hi Marianne

Thanks for replying. I wholeheartedly agree that there's nothing wrong with factoring in a judgement on how a charity treats its staff when deciding which of the many good causes you should donate to.

My point is that, regardless of how you view Shelter's treatment of its staff (even if you think it's reprehensible), they appear to have been nothing less then totally open and honest about the reasons for the proposed cuts. How then, is this an issue of transparency as opposed to ethics?

Don't shoot the messenger

Couldn't agree more LMC. The

Spiral Tripe — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:10:27 +0000

Couldn't agree more LMC. The voluntary sector, as you point out, is consistently held to ransom by the market because its employees 'care' about 'doing good'. Not sure how the balance of power can be shifted though.

why IG is running this piece...

Marianne Powell — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:00:43 +0000

Hey there GD.

For me, the motivation for writing this piece was Ken Loach’s stance on the Shelter situation. He asked the public to stop their donations because of the disputes going on. Charities get judged on all kinds of criteria (both on this website and more widely), but it’s rare that people look at how organisations treat their staff when they’re deciding where to donate their money. I thought this was an interesting addition to the debate on how we judge charities’ effectiveness – it’s about transparency in the widest sense.

As I’ve expressed above, I think that it does matter how charities treat their staff, not just in an abstract, touchy-feely way, but quite simply because I think they’re more likely to be successful if they value their workforce.

This doesn’t just apply to charities BTW – I’ve worked in both the private and the voluntary sector, and I think it’s true across the board.

As for how all this ties in with the public service delivery agenda – that’s a whole other blog I reckon...

Shouting

Ginsters Dragon — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:13:47 +0000

Sorry, forgot to take the bold off again!

Don't shoot the messenger

Ginsters Dragon

Ginsters Dragon — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:12:53 +0000

Having worked for a good number of years in roles which have involved securing both statutory and non statutory income, I would say, as a general rule, that the former tends to be more prescriptive than the latter. There are obvious exceptions to that rule though.

Anyhow, moving back to the main thrust of the thread, regardless of my own views about Shelter I can't understand why IG is running the story at all. As I understandit their rem it is confined to promoting transparency by giving the public the information that they need to donate in confidence. Is anybody suggesting that Shelter have been anything less than open or honest? Not as far as I can see.

Don't shoot the messenger

Statutory service

Martin Davies — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:28:23 +0000

Most charities don't depend on statutory funds to cover all their services.
Where it does gel with what the charity wants to do anyway, great.
eg contract to provide homeless accomodation in the area given to a homeless charity that wants to provide accomodation too.

The problems come when:
1. Charities chase the money rather than sticking to their ideals. Can mean 'mission drift'.
2. Charities agree to do the work for less income from the contract than it actually costs, so subsidising the local or central government.

One advantage statutory funds have is that they will give unrestricted funds. So if there is a surplus it can be used as the trustees wish.

Money isn't simple. Its not a question of 'donations = good, contracts = bad'. Donations can have conditions attached that can be worse than statutory requirements. Lottery grants can have far, far tougher targets and reporting than similar sized contracts. But few people would tell charities not to use Lottery grants.

At the end of the day its the responsibility of the trustees of a charity to decide how the charity should operate. If that is avoiding all contracts or seeking most of its money from contracts, if its right for them and their charity then thats OK.
There is no magic formula that applies to all charities. They all need money to operate, some far more than others.
The smaller ones may be better placed to deal with their own group but the larger ones have economy of scale and ability to take on larger contracts.

And contracts don't mean inability to criticise the paymaster. :)

Martin

I work for shelter and

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:50:55 +0000

I work for shelter and believe it does do good work. But realistically it is a sticking plaster over a much larger problem that only central government can change ie the lack of housing under a capitalist system.

A lot of staff feel demoralized as we are being treated in a negative way and having our rights impinged on when trying to defend other people who are having there rights impinged on, it seems ludicrous. I know of staff who have left Shelter or are on sick due to these changes as they feel betrayed and cheated.

As for stating that

"Yes, I said the F word, Shelter is a part of a wider ranging underclass industry that is part of the problem and not the solution as they claim"

I do agree that shelter will not change the problems associated with housing, but it hardly gases its clients and assassinates anyone who speaks up about their rights. Most people I know who work for shelter are highly committed to putting themselves out of a job and would end homelessness tomorrow if they could. I don't see the organization as part of the problem, the problem is that there should not be a need for shelter but their obviously is and they can only operate in an extremely restrictive system as peoples housing rights are not great and are difficult to work with resulting in many people being disillusioned with the service as they did not get what they wanted. I know of thousands of people who have benefited from shelter on a personal level and would not want it to close, but feel that it should resist the governments engineering of marketisation of the voluntary sector. If the voluntary sector went on strike tomorrow the country would collapse and this is whats needed solidarity between agencies as the government is creating a dog eat dog situation that directly causes issues like this to occur.

Devil's avocado

Ginsters Dragon — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:15:32 +0000

The extent to which it is proper for charities to depend on statutory funding sometimes gives me a headache to think about. I've come to the conclusion that there is no easy answer -what a cop out!

However, in response to Martin's point about charities being able to respond in a more 'non-standard' way - I think that's exactly what would be contended by JMonday.... The more they depend on income with strictly prescriptive performance targets and operational standards attached (goverment funding), the less they are able to offer anything other than a cut-price, bare minimum service that fails to deliver any meaningful benefit.

Discuss :-)

Don't shoot the messenger

Funny really

Martin Davies — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:59:40 +0000

Its funny really, how my experience and J Monday's differ so much.
I work with homeless people on a daily basis. Both the office staff and the homeless men and women we talk to have no problems with Shelter for help and advice.

As for responsibility of government - the trouble is how they work.
Charities can often see the need and respond far quicker and in a more non-standard way than government departments.
Also problems with government finding the problem when they are then required to do something about it.
Two years running our local council have checked for homeless people in the borough by checking shop doorways and in certain outside locations. But cannot enter anywhere.

Not suprisingly they have found no homeless people outside on a cold night in November.
We have them in our lounge during the day. Often 20+ at any one time who are homeless.
In the cold weather they sleep in empty houses, shacks, sheds, back of certain industrial buildings (where heat comes out) and so on. Not out in the open.

I'd trust a charity dealing with the homeless to do far more that is needed than some part of government bound by targets, budgets, tick boxes,civil service rules and jobsworth staff.

Can't see offhand how government contracts equates to fascism. Not entirely sure he has an idea of what fascism actually is.

And yes, a couple of thousand people probably will be evicted today. The number would be much higher without the likes of Shelter and other charities helping people.

Martin

Fascism

J Monday — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:35:14 +0000

Yes, I said the F word, Shelter is a part of a wider ranging underclass industry that is part of the problem and not the solution as they claim.

Charity is becoming ever more internalised as an arm of government.

The incorporation of private bodies into government is fascism at its finest.

The amount of homeless people I have met who wouldn't piss on Shelter if it was on fire is a testimonial as to their efficacy.

Meanwhile - a couple of thousand people will be evicted today.

Is the adequate housing of people a government responsibility or not? That's the real question behind this. One that the government AND Shelter, both, definitely do not want to answer.

the government decides

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:14:24 +0000

having previously worked for a charity in the uk who relied on statutory funding it really isnt that simple. the people making the decisions really dont have a clue (government officials) and when charities have to submit grant bids to continue their services if costs are not reduced you lose out to new "charities" who pay poorly trained staff very little money. you are better off working for shelter than some of these companies. its not fair, its not right but blame the government. shelter is not the only sizable charity in this mess. the government holds the purse strings and will decide how you spend your money. they dont want to sack their staff, they want to keep the charity alive. very very tricky and their is no right answer. ethically long term they should move away from statutory funding but this means sacking 80% of their staff at least and going back to basics. a painful process. i would suggest that women's refuges, the whole refugee sector, parts of children's organisations, probation and prison charities fall into this same category and some i know are facing the same difficult challenges.

Shelter's response

Adam Rothwell — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:08:27 +0000

Shelter contacted us on Friday to put its side of the argument on this issue. According to a statement published on its website, the charity tried hard to resolve its financial dilemma before deciding to change to contract conditions. In the end, it concluded, it was a choice between this or laying off 200 staff. In that sense, it was a no-brainer.

However - and as the comments below attest - there are other ways of looking at this argument, something admitted to by Shelter's CEO, Adam Sampson, on his blog. In addition, we still think that how a charity treats its staff can be an important factor in any giving decision you might make.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Short termist?

Martin Davies — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:52:27 +0000

Ok, so we can disagree about witholding payment.
I see it as hurting the charity which then ultimately hurts the one reason the charity exists.
To serve its clients.

It may be a guilt card for some, maybe not for others.
The question is - will those who stop paying to a charity because of some issue ever restart payments even if the problem is resolved?

By what I've read, Shelter are making changes in order to stay competitive for contracts.
Contracts are one area of income for charities.

Ken Loach is calling for people to stop paying them until dispute regarding staff is resolved.
Regular giving is another area of income for charities.

So by the looks of things, they lose money if going one way, lose money if going the other.

The third alternitive is not change staff conditions at all and just put in bids for tenders that don't take account of the full costs, so the charity then subsidises the contracts with its other income. Not illegal (suprisingly), just not the best use of charity funds.
Anyone see any other option open to the charity?

Martin

Some fair points Catman

Ginsters Dragon — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:52:45 +0000

I'm not one to disagree just for the sake of it, in fact I like to find the common ground where there is any,

I think you're right in so far as the Shelter Trustees face a huge dilemma. I rather feel they've taken the easy choice rather than the 'brave' one though because to close down entire services could have huge and wide reaching implications which are mitigated by this less dramatic cost cutting measure. However, easy choice or hard one it could yet prove to be right.

My opinion on charities carrying out government contracted work is that it's a neccessity in modern Britain (for the good of society, the future of the charitable sector and the ability of the government to achieve social change). But I also believe that those relationships need to be closely managed and challenged where neccessary. To some degree I'm stating the obvious, but a charity has legally defined 'objects' and accepted standards of practice, similarly governments have 'programmes' to 'deliver' and 'KPI's' to attain in order to prove to the public that money is being spent properly. It's when the strings attached to funding start to pull the charity away from working towards the aims that it was set up to for in the first place that serious questions have to be asked. To my mind a charity's aim isn't simply to survive and prosper financially at any cost. I'd also echo LMC's point about full cost recovery, there is an agreement in place to moderate the inevitable strains between provider and funder, quality and cost, but all too often either the charity let's itself down in negotiation or the contracting authority ignores its obligations.

Shelter face a tough future alright and I certainly don't have all the answers. My main point out of all this though is that people do have the right to question, criticise and campaign. To say that you can't be negative in case the vulnerable homeless people suffer is a cynical argument put up by those who wish to hide from debate.

Don't shoot the messenger

Brave

catman — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:11:01 +0000

I think the decision made by the Trustees of Shelter is brave. Whether it is the right one or not I couldn't say because I'm not privy to all of the information and debates that led to this point.

GD, you are right when you say that this issue has huge implications to the charity sector, but you don't seem to follow the issues throgh to their logical (to me anyway) conclusions.

1) Shelter could have chosen to maintain the status quo, paying their staff a salary increase. As their revenue won't cover their costs they will inevitably run down the organisations resource until the charity cannot function and then have to sack their staff

2) Shelter could take the bold decision that service provision isn't profitable for them in which case they would turn down the contracts and sack their staff

3) Reduce their costs to keeo the services profitable as they have done.

Yes I have simplified the situation, but this is how it appears to me. Did they make the right decision? Only time will tell, but if you expect charity employees to be paid salaries that include cost of living when the money from local and national givernment is on the decrease then you better be prepared for a different level of service when the charities go bust and private companies take over and expect to make a profit.

Catman

Ken Loach vs. Shelter

Marianne — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:06:45 +0000

FILM DIRECTOR KEN LOACH has waded into a bust-up between staff and management at the housing charity Shelter (see profile). According to a report in the Observer, the film director is urging the public not to give money to the charity. Loach has got involved because Shelter managers are asking staff to work longer hours without extra pay. Staff are planning to come out on strike against the changes.

It’s a particularly poignant blow for Shelter, as it was Loach’s film Cathy Come Home that inspired the charity to be founded in 1966. But is he right to tell the public not to donate to Shelter while the dispute is ongoing?

Adam Sampson, Shelter's chief executive, doesn’t think so. 'People give us money not to benefit our staff but to benefit those we were set up to serve - the poor, the vulnerable, the homeless,’ he says.

This is all well and good, but surely a tad disingenuous. Charities, just like any employer, have a responsibility to their staff, as well as to their beneficiaries. In fact, charities are often expected to be exemplary employers, more caring and sharing than those nasty businesses which exploit their workers.

But work in the charity sector for any length of time and you will hear horror stories about the way in which staff are treated: they're often badly paid and taken for granted. The truth is, with limited funding, and (often) a lack of dedicated HR support, charities can be abysmal employers.

"Would you really want demoralized staff to be at the front line of social justice?"

Few people would think of looking at how a charity treats its workforce before they decide whether to donate, and you might decide it doesn’t matter. If the work gets done – the homeless are housed, the hungry are fed – you could question whether it really makes a difference whether staff are being paid well, or treated fairly. Certainly, no one would make the case for fat-cat salaries in the voluntary sector.

But it is important that charities respect their staff. More enlightened employers recognise that treating their workforce well is a key part of getting the job done: an enthusiastic, motivated workforce is much more likely to work effectively.

Paying the going rate to get decent staff isn’t a waste of donors’ money, it’s a pragmatic approach to solving social problems. Would you really want underpaid, demoralized, demotivated staff to be at the front line of social justice?