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

Yes but only for those 70 Folkestone volunteers. The money raised may encourage or fund many more than that to join, or enable other existing volunteers to work more.
You need to think big picture.

How on earth would extra funding help more people join? All the applicants at my DDs branch have withdrawn after the news stories. How would extra funding help other volunteers work more? Funding isn't the limiting factor on hours worked.

WFH might get more people to volunteer. Shouldn't it be optional? It might not work for you or your daughter but if it works for others why have a blanket no WFH policy?

What do you mean how on earth? You obviously have no idea how charities operate. All sorts of ways the money could achieve more volunteer hours. Advertising, training, equipment, salaried staff. Just off the top of my head. Spend a few minutes and I'm sure you could think of endless other ways it could be spent on furthering reach.

well no, I don't have any idea at all, so I am interested in your opinion, but none of that holds water. What training and equipment? the training places they have are not being filled now, there is far more capacity to train than there is training. Salaried staff? To do what? It is a volunteer run organisation. Most advertising is free. I can't think of anything, I really can't, that the money could possibly be spent on which would increase the number of volunteer hours worked, UNLESS that money was spent reopening the Folkstone branch.

I really can't see how closing branches either saves money or increases volunteer hours, especially when so many buildings, as the Folkstone one, were funded by the actual branch itself.

If you read their annual reports and impact statements you'll be able to see exactly what they spend money on.

Okay

The basic idea includes the thought that more calls could be taken by the existing volunteer base if they were at hubs. I know I know that there is a big assumption there but this is just part of what they are saying

A lot of branches have volunteer shifts of two people. If one drops out then the shift gets closed. At a hub there could be (say) 5-6 volunteers on together so that wouldn't be an issue and calls would still be answered

I don't know whether your DD and her colleagues have attended the webinars but it is worth doing - the trustees, chairman and CEO take part and it does give you the wider picture.

I'm still not convinced but can see some of what they are trying to do and why. The volunteer attrition rate is quite high (20%) and that's something that needs looking at. As some have commented on here, people raised the issue about nuisance calls and finding some way of reducing these at source

I was on shift this week and my colleague and I agreed that neither of us would travel to a hub if it was further than our current journey. I think they may have underestimated the number who would continue. It was apparent from what they said at the webinar that they had had a lot of feedback about this

Also on home working. As I've said I don't see why (subject to a successful trial) that this shouldn't be offered to those who are willing to do it,

I've read some of the above and it is out of date or wrong in parts:

Samaritans
Most of the work is done by volunteers. They are ordinary people of all kinds but not medically trained and not councillors. They try to do at least a shift a week (about 3 hours) and to make one of those a night shift. Many do more.

There is not a 'script' - training gives examples but no-one has to stick to those. (They are probably more likely to if very tired.)

It is a suicide prevention organisation - but does support people who call in distress for other reasons. The national health service often directs patients to the Samaritans because they will be available at night.

Samaritans are 'allowed' to put down the phone but often give people a chance even when they are abusive or seem to be misusing the call in some way. People who are distressed can come across badly and it is kind to give them time.

Having a large important central body in charge is not something that has been needed... and probably still isn't. It is not like other charities.

Each branch has a building containing the phone system.

Calls come to individual branches from a central hub. We all talk to people from all over the country and not from our own area.

Within each branch there is a variety of volunteer tasks. People volunteer to do what they do best.
-Of course, most volunteers turn up for listening shifts (each branch is asked to cover as many night shifts as possible.)
-Some volunteers raise money to keep the roof on and the (phone) bills etc. paid. Branches fund their own buildings.
-Some volunteers work on - drawing in new volunteers - raising funds and supporting important local projects (listening in prisons or helping in schools etc.)
-Some volunteers train and then mentor new volunteer listeners.

-Some of listening volunteers have shifts where people feedback to them and talk through the things they experienced.

As you can imagine some of the calls can be harrowing: the listener could have been with a person who is actively taking their own life or when they are very distressed and close to doing so.

People call at really extreme moments in their lives - some times in emergencies -and speak to people who do have empathy and are not professionally distant. The callers are all kinds of people: lonely people - bereaved people - murderers - sex offenders - veterans - mental health patients - people in care homes- teens...

Also distressing (for different reasons) can be calls when the system is misused by people who call for their own pleasure/amusement or simply to take out their anger on someone.

Having the support of other listeners - actual bodies in the room - is very comforting. It would in theory be easier to listen at home but some calls are distressing and some frightening. It is good to leave those behind. Some are revolting and not welcome in your own home.

I can only speak for myself, but I would be a lot more likely to volunteer if I could take calls at home than if I had to travel to an office regardless of where it was (especially for night shifts)!

I imagine many people are like me.

You said it though, they close the branches and sell the property. I don’t know if each individual branch is a charity in its own right or part of Samaritans as a whole. If it’s the later, the property belongs to Samaritans and they can do with it as they wish, though they’d need to consider potential reputational damage in the community.

Its difficult in that the existing model clearly isn’t cost effective or efficient - closing shifts isn’t a sustainable way of working - but I also get people being upset at the impact on them individually if their local branch closes.

Some branches are independent charities their own legal structure, property etc, while others are not

I suppose that they are cost-effective in that the branches are motivated to raise money for the things they actually need.

I'm not sure the people who do the fund-raising now would continue to do it to give a salary to someone far away.

It is possible that with fewer branches - less money would be raised.

The Samaritans is an unusual sort of charity. It is wonderfully amateur and not wasteful.