The Best and Worst of Oxfam

Posting a series this week looking at what it's really like to work for various humanitarian agencies.  Asked friends to send in what they thought were the best and worst aspects of various large NGOs and UN agencies for which they'd worked.

Today is Oxfam - to read the previous review of CARE, see here; for the review of IRC, see here.  The UN and other agencies will be profiled over the coming days. If anyone would like to contribute their thoughts, send an email to change.humanitarian.relief@gmail.com.

Aid Agency Reviews: The Best and Worst of Oxfam

To sum up the responses below, the best aspects of working for Oxfam are the global reach and stature of the organization (i.e. "having a seat at the grown-up's table" when it comes to policy issues), the rights-based approach to programming, the experienced staff, the resources available - especially when it comes to campaigns.

In the not-so-good category, people mentioned the bureaucracy and hierarchy, lower salary and benefits, tension between campaigns and advocacy on one hand and on-the-ground programs on the other, switching from campaign issue to campaign issue.

The Best of Oxfam

- Oxfam GB really does strive to take a one programme rights-based approach and allows for really innovative work, always pushing staff to evolve the organization - which often results in really good programming on the ground.

- Oxfam International has major reach across the globe as far as influencing targets is concerned which results in getting real info about what is going on on the ground to policymakers thousands of miles away.

- They attract and hire really good staff despite not paying as much as others ;-)

- One of the great things about working in campaigns at Oxfam is that its a pretty big organisation with substantial resources available to campaigning. This means that when you're working on a top priority campaign the expectations are high, but so are the possibilities. With in house design, web, research, publishing etc Oxfam can have a real impact if all the bits of the tanker turns at the same time...

- For the most part really smart, dedicated, mature, experienced staff working on the projects in the field. Don't see at Oxfam as much of that NGO phenomenon of too many young inexperienced people given too much responsibility.

- Having a seat at the grown-up's table. Being seen as a major mover and shaker on the world stage which means…being taken seriously in meetings. There is a weight of expectation when you introduce yourself and you have to live up to it.

- Having resources to do the things agencies are meant to do (or at least try to do. Doing them being something else).

Having the highest standards for itself.

- That we don't only look at putting the band-aid on the gunshot wound, we look at the whole wound, talk about the perfect and/or most realistic dressing and then for whom to, and how, it should be applied.

- Wealth of experience in staff.

- As a confederation of 14 national offices around the world, and with some of the most skilled lobbyists in the aid community, Oxfam has the capacity to reach decision-makers and influence policies that very few NGOs have.

The Worst of Oxfam

- Oxfam GB is really bureaucratic and hierarchical which means it is hard to get the organization to move when you need it to and takes a long time to figure out how to steer the Titanic. however, I have to admit the bureaucracy was mostly built out of good intention and the hierarchy tries to connect the ground to HQ with major decision making.

- The campaigns and policy work is huge which is good but has at times been disconnected and sometimes counterproductive to work on the ground. however, Oxfam has very much recognized this and has been working hard to overcome it.

- [From a campaigns perspective], what was top priority can quickly be abandoned (For example: Oxfam suddenly is not working on trade anymore... it's all climate now). And I think it's probably more frustrating to work on a down-prioritised issue in a big organisation than anywhere else as it can seem like everything you achieve is despite the system and the organisation's resources. Nothing worse for a campaigner than feeling you are spending all your time convincing your own colleagues that it's worth doing so and so - and there can be a bit of that in Oxfam.

- Salary/benefits seem uncompetitive. Unclear lines of responsibility/redundancy in terms of central HQ and regional HQ staff.

- Regionalisation has left HQ not sure of what it is for anymore.

- The issues between campaigns and advocacy and programming. Oxfam seems to be more about campaigns than than programme.

- As with the rest of the 'industry' - being media driven, more than need but the higher the profile the bigger the media drive.

- Trying to do everything.

- Having the highest standards for itself.

- Our institutional reach has a downside and that is the tendency towards bureaucratization and de-personalization. The challenge is to remain linked to compassion and commitment when dealing with some pretty soulless situations, and keep reminding ourselves not to become just another aid bureaucracy.

[Image from the Oxfam America photostream on Flickr]