The Charity Commission’s report of the inquiry into safeguarding failures at Oxfam was published in the last week. 143 pages of in-depth investigation and review into alleged inappropriate behaviour by Oxfam workers in the field and the systemic issues that allow such failings to happen and to go unchallenged for far too long.
The background to the inquiry has been well covered in the media; that during its operational response to the earthquake in Haiti on 12 January 2010, a number of individuals were implicated in sexual abuse and exploitation, as well as drug-taking. Much of the report deals with the case handling of incidence of use of prostitutes, some of whom were reportedly under-age, by members of the agency’s staff, Oxfam’s responses to it and how individuals involved are able to move apparently unhindered between organisations.
From a screening point of view, an interim report to Oxfam’s board by an external HR consultant in March 2018 described the vetting and referencing of candidates as exhibiting “… inconsistency combined with a lack of thoroughness.” So what are the lessons that those responsible for screening policy for their organisation can learn from this report?
1. Understand the difference between a personal and a corporate reference.
The report recognises the importance of gaining a proper corporate employment reference. It observes that some charities compare less favourably to Oxfam in this respect, noting that “In two cases, the recruiting organisation had not obtained official references from Oxfam GB but had taken personal references from serving or former Oxfam GB staff members. The recruiting organisations appeared to have accepted these as being official references.”
However, it’s not always easy to tell a corporate reference from a personal one. In one example, the report highlights an Oxfam staff member responding to a reference request from an Oxfam email address, stating “I have no hesitation in recommending him to you.” This was in contravention of Oxfam’s guidelines at the time that stated a reference could only contain start date, end date and job title. The fact that the reference was sent from an Oxfam GB email address suggested it was an official reference.
Affordable Screening’s guidance is that a corporate reference should be from a corporate email address or on headed paper AND should be made by a line manager of the individual or a member of the HR department.
2. Do not rely on a single employment reference
Relying on a single reference exposes the recruiting organisation to significant risk, especially when you consider that in one case of onward hiring from Oxfam to another charity, according to the report, “… the referee was a former staff member who had not only been involved in the individual of concern’s disciplinary case in Haiti, but was subject to disciplinary action themselves as part of the internal investigation, having received a final written warning.”
The report highlights an independent review team finding “… evidence where only one reference had been requested and on occasions, a level of ambiguity clearly existed about referencing for existing Oxfam GB staff moving internally or for those who had been previously employed.” When staff and volunteers were asked about their experience of being recruited into Oxfam “… a small number said they were only asked for one [reference] and a minority could not remember. Overall 5.3% were not asked for a reference.”
Affordable screening’s guidance (for hiring not requiring BS 7858) is in line with the recommendation contained within the report; that the hirer should take up a minimum of two official employment references, one of which should be from the most recent employer. We would go further and recommend that one character reference should also be obtained to complement the two employment references.
3. Recognise the importance of DBS Checks
The report recommends “a new DBS check at enhanced level for every new member of staff who works directly with, or has regular contact with, children or vulnerable adults in the UK (consistent with DBS guidance and relevant law)” and for that check to be repeated every three years.
In the case of charities like Oxfam, with trading operations, the requirement extends to personnel in its shops. The report notes that “95% of shop managers had now been DBS checked,” but what of the other 5%? The report also notes the need to take this “… beyond shop managers to include key volunteers and other staff.” A huge undertaking for such organisations, but one that should be regarded as a core part of a robust safeguarding strategy.
DBS Checks are an important element of Affordable screening’s guidance where the law makes provision for them. In many situations a standard check may be sufficient, and where possible we would argue that all colleagues, clients and members of the public coming into contact with an organisation’s employees are deserving of this important safeguard.
4. Develop guidelines for pre-emploment, screening, in-employment screening and reference responses and apply those guidelines consistently
No need to enlarge on this.
Closing thoughts
On one level one may feel some sympathy for Oxfam. The charity is by no means alone in failing to meet high standards of safeguarding. It’s been hauled over coals in the most public fashion. Heads have rolled and substantial repetitional damage has been sustained. It’s had to withdraw temporarily from bidding for government funding for new aid projects.
But it has badly let down its donors, supporters and some of the people it exists to help. To her credit Caroline Thomson, Chair of Oxfam GB Trustees, has been unequivocal in apologising for the failure and avoided making excuses for it. A lot has clearly already been done to improve procedures and a new Global Safeguarding Director, Clifford Isabelle, has been appointed to elevate safeguarding to board level.
Oxfam’s mission has great value and we’ll all hope it can repair its shattered reputation and continue its great work.
Further reading
affordable screening 