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 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.

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...

Sorry, forgot to take the bold off again! 

Don't shoot the messenger

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

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 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.

TM

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

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

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.

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 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

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

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

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

I agree with you to a point Mr Davies. However, I do think it's rather short termist to say that witholding donations only harms the people being helped. This line of reasoning also smacks a little of LMC's (albeit inconsistently applied) blackmail argument, which I happen to totally back her on (in all circumstances).

It's my view that if a charity is being managed in a way that comprimises the quality of its work and even risks its very future, then supporters have a duty to speak out and exert pressure. Sometimes a little pain is worth going through if the end result is that the organisation is turned around and thousands more can be helped year on year. 

My personal experience is that inept Senior Employees cynically use the 'think of the poor dying children' (adapt according to the cause) line of argument to protect themselves from the consequences of their own actions. That, to me, is abhorrent. 

Don't shoot the messenger

How typical of you LMC... This is not an unrelated blog at all, you just don't want to see the connections.

In both cases the issue at hand is poor employment practice by charities and the impact that this lack of professionalism has on the charities employees and beneficiaries. Other recent cases involving the YWCA and Victim Support (amongst others), indicate that sector as a whole has a major problem which needs to be addresssed as a matter of urgency.

The reason that I won't be silenced is because it's an extremely important issue which threatens the future of the sector and it's ability to impact postively on social problems. You might be interested to know (if you can stay awake for long enough to read this), that I'm liasing with people from other organisations so that we can present a united front to the Charity Commission and the media to see if we can effect change.

This goes well beyond any dispute that I may have had with a former employer, but your reaction to my postings indicates to me that were far from impartial on that score anyway.    

Don't shoot the messenger

"It is clear that Adam Samson is what Tony Blair was to the labour party, a slow death"

From the posting on Wed 27/2, I'm confused. 3 general elections won, and somehow he was a slow death to a political party that had never won 3 elections in a row before?

Back to Shelter, I've no problem with what they do as an organisation. How they treat staff I am concerned about - but not enough to make a difference to money I give.
Cutting off funds to spite the organisation just affects services to the people being helped.

Martin

GD, get over yourself. And do please stop dragging your row with your previous employers into so many unrelated blogs, it's getting boring.

The two situations are entirely different. I am not going to justify the difference in my opinion in each case any further than that.

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

.... nearly Vlad the Impaler

Interesting views LMC, and I wholely agree with them as it happens. I would point out, however, that when certain other people aired grievances about the way that they had been treated for reporting serious malpracice (and alleged illegality) by their employers, your view was that these were not  matters to be discussed via the IG forum. As I understood it - and I don't think there was much room for misunderstanding - you took the view that 'employment matters' were of no concern to the wider public.

I hope that your opining on the current situation at Shelter represents a genuine hange of heart (and an opening of eyes).  

Don't shoot the messenger

I was wondering when you lot were going to weigh into this one :grin:

I'll stir the pot a bit (why break the habit of, well, about 16 months since you've been up and running.

If a commercial organisation with a national presence told its staff that they had to work extra hours with no pay, the media would be up in arms. We're supposed to be "nice" to Shelter because it is a charity and it is Doing Good? Shelter's staff are supposed to take a pay cut because they believe in what they do? To me, that's dangerously close to blackmail: the message to staff is if "If you really cared ..." Many of us in the charity sector already earn far less than we would in the commercial sector because we believe in what we do. Imposing a pay cut is a smack in the face to Shelter staff's commitment.

It costs far more to recruit and train staff than it does to keep them. Enough said, I think.

I am, frankly, disgusted that an organisation the size of Shelter is effectively allowing a statutory body to hold it to ransom. This flies in the face of everything that the Voluntary Sector Compact says about full cost recovery. Can any other organisation deliver what Shelter is delivering cheaper? In that case, let them have it. NO commercial organisation would survive on the basis of delivering goods or services under cost and nor are they expected to. Nor are they asked to account for/justify all their costs when applying for govermental contracts - they give a price and negotiate on that - but they'll walk away if they will be running at a loss.

I would like to congratulate Ken Loach for standing up and being counted. It's not just about HR ethics either - if the government is not prepared to cover full costs of a service, then donors to Shelter will effectively be paying extra tax by paying the shortfall between what the government is prepared to pay for Shelter's service and what it actually costs to deliver that service. I would however urge him - and any other of Shelter's supporters - to transfer their support - and more if possible - to other homelessness organisations so that the end beneficiaries have somewhere else to go. Having said that, Shelter is a self-stated campaigning and advice body, so how many people will *really* immediately end up on the streets if Shelter closes down? - it's not like there are no other housing advice services out there.

Shame on Shelter for not using its clout to insist that they get full cost recovery for delivering a service - or they won't deliver it at all. More shame on the government for its hypocrisy when it comes to contracting out services.

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

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

I'm afraid some potential supporters grudge the cost of every mouthful of food our unlucky staff get (as for sleep, forget it).

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4493986993

Scroll down to look at the wall posts.

Also shows why facebook is not precisely an unmixed blessing for charity fundraisers.

I feel that shelter actions are appalling; they appear to be attempting to do any thing that they appear to have fought against since 1966. They are dumbing down advice, becoming no better than there old private sector rivals. my main and only concern is - how far have we come since Cathy come home, and without organisations with "old school" shelter beliefs are things ever going to change. It is clear that Adam Samson is what Tony Blair was to the labour party, a slow death.