to think killing off the local branch structure will kill off the Samaritans

No but they have other targets to meet and stakeholders to satisfy. It's not necessarily an easier job, and a £110k salary would be several rungs below COO in a profit making business. Relevant skills and time cost money and the right person is a good investment.

That doesn't make a difference, if it isn't properly paid you won't have someone capable doing the job.

The point is they are not making or selling anything nor do they have to fund shareholders or grow a business.

Oh thank goodness I've been waiting for Sams to join the 21st century! I was a volunteer and am currently on hiatus due to the fact I can't get to the centre for shifts due to pet commitments. I would love to take calls from home. My branch is one of the smaller ones and it's like stepping back in time, and as for noise cancelling headphones, as if, most of the volunteers use a handset because they don't know how to work headsets, the age demographic is very high and they are very against change of any kind, these plans would literally blow their minds.
Hopefully it won't be too long until I can restart shifts from the comfort of my sofa, I've missed my shifts

Some people do not like change

I respect the volunteers & I volunteer myself for various local groups

However, there must be a valid reason for the changes

Perhaps it is to monitor the numbers of incoming calls/online chat more easily ?

My mum was a volunteer for years after retiring. Part of the enjoyment was getting to know the other volunteers. I think if it moved to larger hubs, she would have lost out on the friendship aspect and wouldn’t have enjoyed it as much. She kept going for as long as possible but eventjallh dementia meant she had to stop.

Did you read what it was in response to? That was offensive

What an offensive post.

For context, the CEO of the NSPCC earns £195k, and the CEO of save the children UK earns £143k.

A business, rather than a charity, with similar income/revenue, assets etc, would probably pay their CEO more. Although it is hard to make a direct comparison obviously.

Whenever a business location is moved, you tend to lose people, never mind anywhere that has volunteers. I am sure the Samaritans will lose a lot of people, and therefore be able to help fewer people than they do now.

Yes volunteering at home will work for some, also agree about the use of a chat facility (not just preference but also you can avoid being overheard), though that will not help avoid a reduced service.

OK that makes sense. I was thinking of one of those chatbots that's basically useless

I often do teams calls with noisy children in another room. The microphone automatically removes background noise it’s great if you are working from a cafe etc.

I duty lead one of our shifts where we use online chat

It’s very effective. As a PP said some people don’t like the phone and we find younger people - in particular- quite often prefer it

I have worked with UK & offshore people using online chat in a very responsible job, which was over multiple locations.

As I said other industries are bringing in the use of on line chat.

Further cost cutting would be to off shore to a cheaper economy

Some people do not like talking on the phone

On line chat would provide a method of communication for those people or those that could not get through on the phone

Yes, because you know how effective an online chat service is when you have an issue. May as well not bother.

Gosh these ignorant comments really bother me. Pay peanuts, get monkeys. Maybe this is a high salary to you because you fit in that category but it's really not for a COO. It's not a race to the bottom, especially when lives are at stake. Shame on you!!

Lots of companies/ Government agencies are also bringing in on line chat services too.

Paying for bigger hub sites, instead of paying for small buildings makes sense.

WFH would not suit everyone

Microphone technology is pretty good these days and plenty of people have quiet homes.

One of the reasons I couldn’t volunteer was because I couldn’t guarantee I could attend an in-person unsociable hours shift every week due to the location they wanted me to attend. Working from home would solve that.

And for me personally, working at a bigger hub appeals more than a smaller one (I’ve found very small organisations to be very cliquey in the past). So while the organisation might lose existing volunteers, it might well gain plenty like me.

A lot of people work from home these days (or have spouses who do) and thus are set up to take confidential calls in a private space in their home. You talk about “home space” being invaded by unpleasant calls, but a lot of people just wouldn’t be bothered by that, or consider their home office a separate space from the rest of their home anyway.

The organisation does have experience with volunteers on shift at home. It existed in rural areas in the 1980s, when calls were patched through to someone on night duty. So Sams volunteering at that time may have been able to provide thoughts on their experiences.

The big period of change following the central single number implementation caused some concern among volunteers. But for places like the busiest branch, it did mean that volunteers had time for a loo visit and maybe even to get a coffee during a 4 hour shift.

I can see why there is a need to change again. Some volunteers won't want (or be able to accommodate) the change. Others may find it much easier to fit into their lives.

Am a Sam too

I work from home to the extent that I am a duty leader as well as a listener. That means being available for those taking calls in the branch if they need support, advice, help etc

But all listening in our branch is done at the centre.

Personally, I'd be happy to take calls at home and have told my director that I would like to be part of any trial. I do live by myself and am usually in in the evenings. I'm also rarely impacted by calls. But that would be part of hybrid working as I like the camaraderie and human contact of being in branch.

I get that it's not for everybody but can't see the problem of having it as an option. It would certainly increase my listening hours

If our branch was closed I'd leave Samaritans. I don't drive and it's a reasonably long journey. I'm out of the house for seven hours on my volunteering day. I wouldn't want anything any longer and I like the local branch set up

Having said all that we do have to recognise we are missing a lot of calls and the status quo isn't viable. We have to be open minded about options but I'm not sure Central Office have handled this very well. They seemed unprepared for the press coverage

ETA

Good article here

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/29/samaritans-branch-closures-working-from-home?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

But your daughter and her cohort aren't necessarily representative of every volunteer or potential volunteer. I'd imagine large city hubs and home working will attract a whole new group and a streamlined system will be far more efficient.
The COO will be privy to vast amounts of information that a volunteers mum can't possibly begin to understand. It's why they get the massive salary. I'm sure they have weighed it all up.
Third sector is rarely perfect, and I don't know vast amounts about the Samaritans specifically, but efficiency is often a case of do or die.