| Oxfam
Website: http://www.oxfam.org.uk
|
|
| Alias: | Oxfam GB (working name) |
| Activity: | Oxfam’s objects are to prevent and relieve poverty and protect the vulnerable anywhere in the world. Oxfam furthers its objects through interlinked activities of humanitarian relief, development work and advocacy and campaigning. Oxfam is an affiliate member of Oxfam International. Details of Oxfam’s mission and ways of working can be found at www.oxfam.org.uk |
| Income: | £318 million |
| Accounts: | 31 Mar 2010 |
| Registrar: | Charity Commission 202918 |
Context
Oxfam’s Annual Report & Accounts for 2009/10 includes the word ‘lobby’ on its front page as one of the keywords in the graphic, and campaigning is one of the three areas in the ‘What we do’ section of the report. Although Oxfam lobbies private companies in addition to governments, a quarter of its income comes from government sources. In a summary of its five aims, it says it spends 8% of its income on:
The right to be heard…raising people’s awareness of their rights and helping them lobby their government and other decision-makers.
Details
[chart percent=26]
Oxfam’s latest accounts are for the 11 months to March 31, 2010. In the reported income from government they include income from other organisations, such as other members of Oxfam International, so the total here is less than the total in their accounts. The biggest identified government sources include the Department for International Development (DFID):
- European Union: £42.5 million
- United Nations: £13.4 million
- Non-UK governments: £16 million
- UK Government (mostly DFID): £11.9 million
— - Total: £83.8 (26% of all income)
It’s true that Oxfam gets a large proportion of its income from governments etc. – but it has never tried to hide that fact.
What happened is that, decades ago, the government Department for International Development (as it is now called) decided to channel most of its Aid budget through charities like Oxfam. The principle being that the charities have a better idea of how to improve peoples’ live that politicians do.
I guess some would say that by accepting government funds, Oxfam has lost its independence, and has become too close to UK politicians. However, I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of the charity’s money is “wasted” on things that are “not important”.
A for lobbying, yes some charities do seem to have lost their way. But Oxfam lobbies governments in developing countries, trying to insist that girls and women should receive education and health care, when the natural culture of many places would rate them as less deserving than men.
Is that a bad thing ?
Despite my own reservations about some of Oxfam’s overly simplistic statements about politics and economics, I don’t thing the word “fake” is warranted.
(Disclaimer: I do voluntary work for Oxfam.)
One look at their car park was enough to tell me where all the money was going.
“The principle being that the charities have a better idea of how to improve peoples’ live that politicians do.”
Although looking at Oxfam’s web site, it’s not obvious that this charity does have a better idea? Lobbying firms to pay wages above local market rates in developing countries? Encouraging people to stay in otherwise uneconomic agriculture through Fair Trade? It looks to me like variations on the “broken window fallacy”
. This is very much a politician’s approach to development. Where is the lobbying for lower taxes in developing countries, which are often horrendous? Or for reduction in EU import tariffs, which would bring many orders of magnitude more benefit to developing countries than a change in Starbucks’ buying policy? I guess that illustrates the “fake charity” problem; they are part-funded by the EU, so they won’t seriously campaign against it. I say all this as somebody who used to be a keen and generous supporter of Oxfam.
Part of the problem with this definition of “fake” charities is that it doesn’t take into account the absolute size of the charity. Oxfam is massive (for a charity) and has become so as a result of growing a huge base of public supporters over the decades – if it were a political party more people would support it than any of our current parties including the big 3. Because it has been successful in thoughtfully and passionately pursuing its aims it attracts its fair share of institutional funding. The important point is that Oxfam started and continues to hold a strong mandate from its supporters.
If I want to give to Oxfam I am free to do so, or not. I am not free to withold my taxes. DIFD, EU, UN have no money except what they take from us. They have no business taking money off me by force to give to Charities. They are just an NGO
A clear indicator that there are corrupt political elements within the walls of this once untainted and noble charity was Oxfam’s ‘Climate change’ campaign. I confess to not having any reliable figures to hand but suspect that many millions were squandered in what was an obvious and shameless attempt to garner extra support for the most insidious, corrupt / fraudulent, cross party agenda…engineered entirely to extort and exert control over the general populace that has ever seeped out the rectum of Westminster.
I also suspect that the reason Oxfam has decided to turn its attention and money (charitably donated or otherwise) to criminal escapades such as this is because they have within their ranks members of another ‘charity’ known as ‘Common Purpose’.
CP are the king…the God Emperor of fake ‘do gooders’. A filthy, disgusting, ‘elitist’ virus that seeks to undermine and corrupt with virtually all of its funds (running into the tens of millions) siphoned from an unknowing taxpayer and of course our so very honourable and straight down the line friends, the EU.
To admin of this site. Understand the agenda of CP and you will understand the increasingly apparent politicisation of every other establishment stamped ‘FAKE’.
I am sure there is a point here but its lost in translation.
Fake or not, it’s no business of an organisation such as Oxfam to be involving itself with social engineering projects in ANY country.
Did the peoples of such countries elect Oxfam to come and fix their problems?
oxfam is one of the worst so called charitys in the uk for every £1 donated only 12p goes to a charity, they are a business hiding behind the guise of a charity for tax purposes and to keep the ceo in the lifestyle he has become accustomed to, peple should take a closer look at them and donate elsewhere.
Nonsense! Show me some facts to prove your point please.
the ceo is a woman and its 12p spent on admin, wages and running cost not the other way round
If you would prefer to avoid the larger development charities, it’s well worth searching the Charity Commission web site; there are many small overseas orphanage charities, for example, which do fantastic work with minimal overheads and no political axe to grind, and which can’t afford giant billboard ads.
I like that but why should we be doing any of this whilst corrupt 3rd world dictators are stashing their aid budgets in Geneva! Intl development is a con and just creates more economic migrants, and guess where they come to ? Yeh that’s right, the fucking UK, because we have no power to deport them thanks to the EU and the wet liberal elite
If charities had to hold their money in a publically owned bank to recieve charitable status I am sure a lot of them would have to find another way to avoid tax .
i will never donate to oxfam or any of the big uk charities. until they pay thier directors in line with the wages of the people they are supposed to be helping,they are just lining thier own pockets from gullible donators good intentions.