Really the only substance behind the article is that we do have a policy of discouraging classroom pets (having had personal experience of a school whose gerbils ate each other after being left over the holidays without food I thoroughly support this); and that we would be very cautious indeed about rehoming an adult dog of unknown history to someone with a four year old child. The shelter that gave her a flat refusal very likely genuinely didn't have any dogs they thought would be safe for a child. The bigger shelter presumably decided to assess her and see.

I would surmise that was the reason for the altercation over who was available to go through the form with her after she arrived late - because if there was a risk to a child it would be done by a more senior person.

What they would be looking for would be evidence that she really did understand that a child of that age shouldn't be left unsupervised with a dog - which is why they couldn't tell her what would constitute circumstances in which they would be flexible about children's ages.

I just pray you never decide to produce a league table of the most complained about charities.

That's a pretty cutting article, rspcacambridge. But is it right to suggest that the RSPCA is so inflexible and governed by bureaucracy and forms? If the experience related by the columnist is true, it sounds depressing - to say the least.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Some of us might be better off slashing our wrists and getting it over with.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article4...

The comments are rather interesting from the "trust in charities" point of view as there are only a couple of grumbles about direct mail; lots of annoyance that staff get paid; dislike of campaigning and lots and lots of complaints about service delivery (with little apparent understanding that this depends on having the money to pay for it). Spending on administration is really hated (again with no understanding that some of the other things complained about are the result of not having enough administrative staff to keep on top of things.

I completely understand the points being made by Martin and LMC. These things are delicate and the media likes a scandal (even if it means creating one through selective reporting).

But by the same token charities frequently contribute to their own downfall by refusing to accept culpability when things go wrong. There have been a worrying number of recent cases of charities losing Employment Tribunal hearings due to blatant breaches of the law and then declaring "We're disappointed by the outcome." What does this mean you have to ask yourself. Does it mean that they'd do precisely the same thing again? Does it mean that they're not sorry? Worse still, does it mean that the 'professionals' they employ in specialist functions right across the organisation eimply aren't up to scratch? I wouldn't trust an organisation like that with my money.  

As someone with experience of handling the media I believe that 'no comment' is rarely the way to go in the face of a crisis- but is sure beats opening your mouth without thinking.

Don't shoot the messenger

I do see that saying nothing or issuing the occasional statement might seem attractive to a charity in Shelter's position. As LMC says, I completely understand why it might want to avoid negative media coverage of the dispute.

Yet I don't think the strategy adopted by Shelter has actually worked. Ken Loach went on the Today programme to bad-mouth the charity in spite of the statement-punctuated silence; and more than one MP still seems cross with how Shelter bosses are handling the situation. 

What I'm suggesting is different. I think Shelter should drop the terse statements, and engage in a proper conversation with its supporters. Its boss, Adam Sampson, has a blog - so why on earth doesn't he use it?

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Sometimes 'no comment' can be far better than saying something, having the media concentrate on one phrase or even word and blow it out of context.
Even when you tell them the correct information they can make mistakes that end up being fact as far as the public goes.

Shelter can make a statement about why its doing what its doing (pretty sure I've read something in the past few months).
But will we accept those reasons given as OK?

Contract bidding is a tough game - it often comes down to price being the issue with the most weight on scoring. A charity can of course try and change to provide services better. But if it involves changes, do people have to like it?

There was a local company a few years back that was trying to change conditions for its staff in order to be more competitive. The staff didn't like it and make that very clear to the owner.
So he simply shut the business down and everyone lost their jobs.
But at least they didn't have to change to the new conditions!

I can see Shelter going the same way.

PS Not saying that it's right for charities to keep quiet for fear of the consequences (it most emphatically is not). Just supplying a possible reason why they do.

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

The problem - as I've said before on another blog somewhere - is that the minute a charity *is* honest about making a mistake, they are vilified by our irresponsible media. Rather than focussing on what the charity is going to do to redress the situation or lessons learned so it never happens again, press articles dwell on (sometimes salacious details) of the error, the suffering of the innocent victims(s) and the outrage of the general public (most of whom have probably never donated to the charity).

So is it any wonder that so many charities prefer to keep stumm?

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

Ginsters and Martin, I understand both of your points. But I think it would be nice if the Shelter management just explained how they're feeling about this whole dispute. It would be good, for example, if we knew why this was such a long-running controversy, why management hasn't managed to sort it out sooner, and how they think the issues could be resolved in the end. Not only would that be more transparent, it would also give the charity a more human face. At the moment, it's in danger of looking like a big 'n' nasty corporation trampling the will of its staff - even if that's not how things are at all.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

The problem with industrial disputes is you tend to get three sides to it.
The company side, the worker side, and the truth.
That last may not be known at all at the time of the dispute - while the other two sides work hard at telling 'their' side, sometimes not agreeing on any points.

"Want to tell your friends that you’re stuck on the train? Text Twitter, and they’ll all be able to find out."

Blimey, the white heat of technology ;-)

I have sympathy with the point you make about Shelter, but getting any charity to be open (or honest) about their industrial disputes is no easy task. You've got a straightforward choice between those that choose to say nothing (most of them) and those that choose to make meaninglessly vague statements alluding to their "values" or track record in an effort to appear above reproach; "obviously, as a charity, we're deeply committed to the principles of equality of opportuity" - that kind of thing.  

Don't shoot the messenger