The making of an aid giant

The revelation that Oxfam’s employees hired prostitutes while working in Haiti has shaken Britain’s biggest aid charity

What were Oxfam’s origins?

It first came into existence in October 1942, as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, a small group of clergymen, dons, Quakers and activists. The committee was one of scores formed to alleviate the effects of the famine in occupied Europe, particularly in Greece, caused in part by the Allied naval blockade. Its members were committed to the cause, then unfashionable, of humanitarian neutrality: the idea that aid should be given without reference to nationality, politics or religion. The Oxford committee raised £12,700 – some £600,000 today, a remarkable effort during wartime – and lobbied the government to allow food through the blockade. After the War, the committee continued to distribute food and clothes to afflicted parts of Europe, particularly to Germany.

Why was the Oxford committee so successful?

As the spectre of famine in Europe receded, most of the committees disbanded. But under the enthusiastic leadership of Cecil Jackson-cole, a philanthropic estate agent, the embryonic Oxfam endured and widened its remit, its new aim being to alleviate suffering “in any part of the world”: in Israel-palestine after the 1948 war; in Bihar in India during the 1951 famine; in Korea during the war. It grew into an organisation that “changed the face of British charitable activity”, writes Oxfam’s official historian. Jackson-cole had the then-radical idea that the charity should be run like a business with a paid manager, who suggested setting up a shop to sell donated goods. This opened on Broad Street in Oxford in 1948, under the direction of Joe Mitty, “salesman of the angels”. It was one of Britain’s first charity shops; Mitty would go on to create a successful national chain.

How did Oxfam become a household name?

Jackson-cole was a keen advertiser, and from the late 1940s published striking newspaper advertisements featuring photos of children in distress, which older organisations like Save the Children would never have used. Such campaigns – particularly the Congo Appeal of the early 1960s, asking donors to feed “the starving child” – familiarised the public with the Oxford Committee, often shortened in adverts to its telegraphic address, Oxfam, a name it officially adopted in 1965. Oxfam was consistently innovative in its fundraising and publicity – The Beatles did a benefit concert in 1963 – and as a result, it thrived and expanded.

How did it change over time?

It was at the forefront of developments in the aid world. In the early 1960s, it led the move away from purely providing short-term humanitarian or disaster aid towards investing in longer-term development: encouraging communities to improve their own water supplies and agricultural production. In the 1970s, it began to campaign on relevant issues, such as developing countries’ debt. In that decade it also pioneered clothes recycling and developed one of the earliest fair trade programmes. Oxfam played a central role in the 1980s Ethiopian famine aid effort: the BBC’S Michael Buerk made his landmark broadcast on the subject after being encouraged to visit the town of Korem by Oxfam. The charity’s income more than doubled to £51m in 1984-85.

How big is Oxfam today?

Very big indeed. Oxfam GB is the largest of 20 affiliates across the world, making up Oxfam International. It is the fourth largest charity in Britain by fundraising income, and second only to Cancer Research UK when trading profit and government grants are included (about 8% of its money comes from the Government, which contracts out parts of its aid operation to Oxfam). It has 5,000 paid staff, 23,000 volunteers and 630 UK shops. Its total income for 2016-17 was £408.6m. Oxfam spends 41% of this on humanitarian aid, 38% on development and 3% on campaigning – against, for instance, global inequality and the use of tax havens. Last year, it administered humanitarian aid to 8.6 million people in war zones and disaster-hit areas including Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, Iraq and Nepal. It ran at least 172 programmes in 68 countries, nearly all in the developing world. Its chief executive, Mark Goldring, earns a relatively modest £127,753.

How badly will the current scandal affect it?

Aid charities depend on trust, which has already declined in recent years, due to concerns about how effectively aid money is spent (see box), and because of public ire against “chuggers” and other types of aggressive salesmanship. But the recent scandal is clearly on a different scale: 7,000 people have stopped making regular donations to Oxfam (3.5% of its direct debit donations) since the news broke, and big firms are reviewing their links with it. Oxfam will not, for now, apply for any new Government funding. Haiti has also recently suspended Oxfam’s operations in the country.

How bad is the problem of sexual misconduct at Oxfam?

The charity’s defenders point out that such abuses have been reported in most sectors, and that the numbers involved are relatively small: seven people left the charity after the Haiti incident in 2011; 123 incidents of alleged sexual harassment have been reported from its shops, over nine years, among a workforce of about 23,000. Oxfam is generally judged to be one of the best-run aid charities, and it has, since 2011, introduced a dedicated safeguarding team, including a whistle-blowers’ hotline. Yet there are reasons to think that the aid sector may be particularly vulnerable to such issues. In the poor and disaster-hit countries where such organisations operate, there is a great imbalance of power between donor and recipient. One aid consultant told the FT: “It breeds an arrogance and a sense of exceptionalism that allows people to do things they would not do in their own country.”