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

[Lemniscate8]

The Samaritans have 20 000 volunteers who answer the phone day and night. They are organised into local branches, where they can receive face to face visitors, run recruitment and ongoing training, base local fundraising efforts, and host visiting Samaritans sleeping on the floor to man big events such as festivals and demonstrations, as well as respond to local tragedies. Calls are taken in small sound proofed operations rooms where 3-4 Samaritans take a shift together. They will likely know each other well, and can supervise and support each other. In many cases, the local branches own their own building.

The COO sitting on a salary of 110k, and their team of 300 paid employees have come up with a plan to "rationalise" the service, closing small local branches where every one knows each other and shifts are designed around what fits in with the local cohort, and opening a small number of large ware house type call centres, meaning volunteers would have a long way to travel, would not know who they were working with, and would have no input into setting up shift times that fit in with their lives.

There will also be the option of working from home, without benefit of sound proofing, no guarantee of not being overheard, without peer support or supervision, and with the potential of taking deeply emotional and distressing calls, or even sexually abusive calls from your personal safe place.

I know the Samaritans doesn't work for everybody, but they help hundreds of thousands of people. In the end, it is only one person trying to support another, and there are times when with the best will in the world they just wont click. Most callers report feeling better after a call though. I don't think there is another organisation like it, and it has been there and been helpful for decades.

My daughter has been a volunteer for nearly 10 years, no way could she work from home, it would be completely inappropriate, she doesn't drive for medical reasons and is unlikely to be able to get to a big city call centre. And she and two friends have for years manned a shift set up specifically for them, timed perfectly for morning drop off at the local primary school and a walk back to the branch

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2l23ylv46o

Its not specific to my daughter, it is her whole cohort. Nothing wrong with giving the option of working from home, but it won't work for the majority - as I said, it is already an option that almost no one takes, because it doesn't work for them. Their building isn't rented, it is free. Their bills aren't obviously, but why would it be cheaper in a huge city warehouse?

How can you say what would work for "most" volunteers. You talk and represent your one close volunteer, your daughter.

Your daughter really does need to give her feedback to the organisation.

It isn’t an option currently. The only people that are on live calls from home are the hub of people that listen into other volunteers taking calls.

It hasn’t become a mainstream or realistic proposition as yet. But with software, technology, training etc, I think it’s the way forward.

You are not grateful to people volunteering to give up their time to try and be there for you and support you? I am sorry if you feel the conversations don't work for you, but they are never going to work for everybody. It does say something about you though, that you are not grateful for people giving up their precious free time and TRYING to help you

I don’t think £110k is a lot for a COO of a major organisation. It is obviously a decision borne of necessity but agree working from home sounds really difficult. Not everyone has space or is willing to take really difficult calls in their own safe space.

The reality is they will lose people for whom the new structure doesn’t work for whatever reason, that in itself isn’t a reason to keep things the same. It’s an expensive, inefficient model for such a large service and the board will have considered that they’ll lose people but they need to restructure.

They’ve been needing to change for the last 20 years, but presumably have put it off because of their volunteer structure but it’s time now.

I know her cohort quite well, and of course they know others, so I am speaking for one branch, maybe, and I work in prisons myself, so speak to the samaritans who volunteer there, who come from another branch, and I work in schools, where I have had many pupils turn to festival branch, after GCSE results, and have some contacts there, so representatives of about 4 branches, of course the one I am closest to is my daughter

Working (volunteering) from home would cut out the background noise of other calls.

I suppose there is a safeguarding risk in that volunteers taking calls from their own homes might be wrong ‘uns who have slipped through the net.

Is there any process in place where callers could anonymously share their experience of contact with Samaritans? This is life or death - the suicide rate is at a 25-year high and Samaritans have replaced the NHS crisis lines. NHS advice for people who are actively suicidal was to call 999 or attend A&E. In the year 2024/25 it changed to Samaritans being the first port of call. Suicidal people attending A&E comprise 3-5% of all A&E attendees, so this is also a NHS problem. It’s all very well stressed NHS nurses shouting at people who have self-harmed that they’re timewasters/attention seeking and that there are cancer patients or people who have been in traffic accidents, but if it puts people off attending A&E and they go on to complete suicide, they are still dead. As suicide is the main cause of death in some age groups, would it not make sense for the NHS to provide emergency support?

I do know someone currently working from home, it has been discussed among samaritans at the prison where I teach, so I know it is an option now, but not a viable option for the majority

I never said I wasn’t grateful to people giving up their free time. I could give up my free time this evening to attend broken down cars, but as I’m not a mechanic it would be pointless.

Some people will leave, some will work from home and others will move to one of the hubs. But the change will also attract people who are able to work from home or would rather have a bigger hub - some people really don’t want to be part of a small centre, and having resources centralised will help have consistency of recruitment and training, and consistency of culture. There are good reasons for the change.

The Samaritans rely on volunteers and their f the changes cause a significant reduction in volunteers it will struggle. Volunteers have no contract they can just walk away and will - I used to volunteer (not the Samaritans ) and due to policy changes walked away. Organisations which rely heavily on volunteers need to consider the impact of changes

Working (volunteering) from home would cut out the background noise of other calls.

I would have thought they all wore noise cancelling headsets, which would solve that issue.

I'm clearly out of touch about CEO salaries. Nearly all of my friends are retired though, so I have no idea.

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.

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

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.

I cant see how noise cancelling headsets would solve any issue of noise entering a microphone in a branch or at home? would it?

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.

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

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

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!!

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

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

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

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