Oxfam Considered Ending Relief Work to Focus on Political “Influencing”
Oxfam considered abandoning disaster response work to become an “influencer” on climate, gender and inequality, it has been reported. The Telegraph has more.
The charity is said to have drawn up plans last year to focus on campaigning on political issues that would have “scaled down” its emergency relief work.
Amitabh Behar, the Chief Executive of Oxfam International, reportedly put forward the proposals to “reimagine” the work of the global aid organisation.
The proposals were resisted by Oxfam GB, one of 22 Oxfam organisations around the world, because of fears they could breach British charity laws that prohibit charities having political purposes, according to the Times.
The draft proposals put forward an option for the charity’s future in which it would “lead with influencing” by becoming “a catalyst for systemic change, stepping back from direct service delivery to amplify the voices of grassroots movements”, the newspaper reported.
The proposals added: “Advocacy and campaigning will increase. Service delivery programmes and humanitarian delivery will be scaled down. All activities will be through the lens of influencing.”
The proposals were rejected last year following a consultation. Oxfam retains its “triple mandate”, involving emergency response, relief projects and inequality activism.
The draft had acknowledged a potential “donor backlash” if it focused predominantly on campaigning. It said that “public trust and loyalty could decline” and that if the brand suffered the effect on donations could be “catastrophic”.
One serving staff member told the newspaper: “If the UK public think for one second that Oxfam is turning its back on the humanitarian role it’s upheld for over 80 years to become just another lobbying shop, they’ll abandon the charity. We’ll never come back from such a betrayal. The plan would destroy Oxfam.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“British charity laws that prohibit charities having political purposes..”
Really? I would say a lot of “charities” have very political aspects to them, generally leftist. I am careful who I donate to and look into what their stance is before doing so.
As do. The RNLI has long gone without any money!
Me too. Which coming from an ex-mariner, who always used to support them, says a lot.
… the charity’s future in which it would “lead with influencing” by becoming “a catalyst for systemic change, stepping back from direct service delivery to amplify the voices of grassroots movements”
To translate: emergency response and relief work is gruelling and dull, whereas dreaming up verbal wind about being “a catalyst for systemic change” is easy, and paints a picture of Amitabh Behar’s exquisite moral excellence for all to see.
You’re being too nice to this guy. Emergency response and relief work is expensive and money spent on that can no longer be used to amplify the voices of grassroots movements
that is, pay people living in the UK for political work in the UK. This was a naked moneygrab using “catalyst for systemic change” for the usual good causes of the woke left (climate, gender, inequality) as fig leaf.
A path well-trodden. Older readers may recall The Spastics Society which used to run homes, use mini-buses to take people out etc. But it transformed into a nasty campaigning charity called Scope. You might think a charity would be grateful to receive a legacy but not this lot. Having taken on the job of exceutor myself to cut costs I was being pestered by them as soon as the will was published as they pay staff to look through them to see if they benefit. My solicitor advised me on what information they were entitle to receive and that it what they got but then wanted more because ‘they are a big charity’. I nearly wrote back to ask if they had heard of something called ‘English Heritage’ – another beneficiary who in contrast could not have been better in their response.
I was executor for my mum’s Will. She named Cafod to get a bequest – fortunately, a specific named amount of money. I had to hold my nose and pay them – make sure you get a receipt though. Thereafter the e-mail account I used to communicate with them got numerous ‘help us’ requests. I’d recommend setting up a specific e-mail address for everything to do with the executor role. You can close it down once you’re sure you are done with it. It’s easier to keep your personal stuff private that way.
Your Will becomes a publicly available document when you die. It should be very specific and leave no room for ‘interpretation’.
Cafod are a “Catholic” version of Oxfam – very light on Catholicism, light on actual aid, very heavy on climate. I stopped supporting them many years ago. Aid to the Church in Need is very much more deserving of my support – and gets it.
Ah, but it is great for abusing the desperate.
Which is OK according to Mary Beard (see Julie Burchill’s article in Spiked).
The plan was supposed to destroy Oxfam: Hostile takeover by political activists followed by thorough asset-stripping. Metaphorically, this is slightly off but it describe what I believe to be the motivation for this quite well: Oxfam has a lot of money. And some people wanted to used that exclusively for their own politica pet projects which – in the end – means for themselves. The only purpose they really consider charitable.
I was under the impression that Oxfam was a business that had captured the second-hand book market by the expedient of not paying most of its staff. Clever move, I thought. Presumably the first retailer that can work the same trick with groceries will squeeze out Aldi as well as Waitrose?
I fear that second-hand groceries have only very limited uses.
🙂
I’m afraid most of the “charities” who run shops are effectively businesses which operate a model that avoids the cost of employing staff and paying full Business Rates.
It’s why they proliferate on our High Streets and other retailers who don’t have that “business model” are being crowded out.
Good point. There’s clearly an opportunity there for the RSPCA to accept donations of Doggiemunch and Budgiechirp from sentimental old ladies and use unpaid volunteers to re-sell them at 50% mark-ups to sentimental young ladies. Admin jobs all round!
Oxfam considered abandoning disaster response work to become an “influencer” on climate, gender and inequality
Become?? I think there are a lot of people who think it already is.
Saying the quiet part out loud. There seems to be in some quarters an insatiable appetite for “saving the world”. Because I am a selfish bugger, I have always been content with earning an honest living providing goods and services people are prepared to pay for with their own money, and trying to be a good husband and father. Not just in the charity sector but right across the public and much of the private corporate sector, whatever “business” an organisation is in often seems secondary to political or social aims, which I suppose massages many egos.
In a way I think Oxfam are right to abandon “aid” and get political – the solution to a lot of the “problems” they “help” with is not to “help” but to influence events so that people can help themselves. But that is probably the last thing they want.
So becoming a full time propaganda network for a UN/WEF-led monotheistic dictatorship by the global elite predator class. At least it’s now official.
“Amitabh Behar, the Chief Executive of Oxfam International, reportedly put forward the proposals to “reimagine” the work of the global aid organisation.”
In other words turning real important work into imaginary work! Obviously easier and cheaper to talk about it than to actually do it = more money for the ceo!
If they abandon the emergency response work then where will all the sexual predators they employ go?
As far as I remember this ‘scandal’ it was: Affluent men far away from home paying local women for sex. Something as unspeakable as that has surely never happened before and will surely never happen again!
I remember it as aid for sex not money
When Oxfam isn’t spending their money on gender benders they are spending it on hookers. I wouldn’t give them the steam off my p1ss.
I abandoned Oxfam a long time ago. My aversion was caused in part by meeting some of their retired employees, living comfortable lives in North Oxford and ticking me off for my outdated vocabulary.
I boycott Oxfam already because they are already little more than a politicised lobbying organisation.