By Jacob Goldberg
SAVE the Children International has come under criticism by staff following a series of alleged missteps during the organisation’s ongoing restructuring.
Interviews with six staff members, as well as multiple collective statements sent by staff to Save the Children’s leaders, seen by The New Humanitarian, point to concerns surrounding salary revisions, redundancy compensation, and accountability for those responsible for the alleged mistakes.
“Unfortunately, there has been such an egregious series of obvious blunders and questionable decision-making that’s led to widespread loss of trust and confidence in the leadership,” one staff member told The New Humanitarian.
All staff spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid repercussions at work.
In August, Save the Children released detailed plans for the restructuring, which included merging the regional and headquarters layers of the organisation and cutting hundreds of jobs in response to a projected budget gap of $15-20 million.
Rising costs and reduced revenue have spurred staff cuts and restructurings across the aid sector, from UN agencies to NGOs like Save the Children, the International Rescue Committee, and the Norwegian Refugee Council.
“A restructuring is a significant organisational intervention,” said Stanley Arumugam, an organisational psychologist and former human resources director for ActionAid International. “It disrupts the organisation – not only the structure, but the culture, the way of working, staff engagement, and so forth. So it is a big undertaking, and one not done lightly.”
The more staff know what to expect during a restructuring, and the more they can navigate the process using information supplied by the organisation’s leaders, the more successful it will be, he added.
“Unfortunately, there has been such an egregious series of obvious blunders and questionable decision-making that’s led to widespread loss of trust and confidence in the leadership.”
Many Save the Children staff understand the necessity of cutting costs. “I think the majority of us employees agree that the changes need to be made,” a staff member told The New Humanitarian. “We’re not naive to the fact that funding is deteriorating.”
But following a series of unexpected and seemingly unfair decisions, Save the Children’s senior leaders have come under intense questioning by staff over how the restructuring has been carried out.
The organisation proposed – then quickly withdrew – new salary scales that staff say were riddled with obvious errors and “inherently racist” pay disparities. Some people with jobs at risk were reportedly offered new roles – but no details on salary or location. Dozens of staff collectively asked for a minimum redundancy package after many were laid off without offers of compensation.
“We recognise that any change with staff reductions is a challenging and difficult process,” Belinda Goldsmith, director of Save the Children’s Global Media Unit, said in a statement to The New Humanitarian.
“We appreciate all the commitment our dedicated staff have shown in working collaboratively to ensure Save the Children is in a stronger position to deal with anticipated financial headwinds in the sector, including reduced aid budgets and the rising cost of working in complex and high-risk operating environments,” she said.
Her statement did not address questions regarding specific staff concerns about the restructuring process.
Pay proposal retracted
Panic spread among staff in mid-September, when the organisation released new salary scales for 70 countries, according to four staff members. A document listing the proposed salaries appeared to contain blatant errors, they said.
The lowest-grade staff in Indonesia and Vietnam were assigned salaries of $3 per year. The highest-grade staff in Peru were assigned up to $1 million per year, and, in Guatemala, up to $1.8 million per year, according to the document, seen by The New Humanitarian.
Other salaries, while not obvious errors, were perceived by staff as reinforcing pay disparities based on location.
“The current [proposed] global salary bands appear to be inherently racist and actively deepen inequalities among staff depending on their geographic location,” a group of staff elected to represent employees during the restructuring process wrote in an email to Save the Children’s regional directors on 20 September.
The email, seen by The New Humanitarian, pointed out that a role earning 90,000 euros in Belgium would get just 16,500 euros in Sri Lanka. It also noted that the minimum base salary offered in Pakistan was below the national minimum wage of around $132 per month.
“The global salary bands appear to defy market rates, posing serious risks to organisational reputation, quality recruitment, and staff retention,” the email said.
That same day – before the employee representatives sent their protest email – Save the Children retracted the proposed salaries.
“We are aware of concerns that have been raised and recognise that some of the information is incorrect,” Save the Children senior leadership team members Kate Brown and Patrick Hayden wrote in an email to staff, seen by The New Humanitarian. They said the organisation would no longer use the proposed salary scales.
“It’s clear that we have not got the salary bands right in many countries. We truly apologise for the stress and concern this has caused colleagues in what is already a difficult and high-pressure time,” the email said.
“That’s a big, big no-no,” said Arumugam, when asked to comment on some of the issues reported to The New Humanitarian by Save the Children staff. “A new pay scale is not just dropped into the organisation,” he said, adding that creating a new pay scale requires just as much planning and staff consultation as a restructuring itself.
“It feels like that was not done with proper consideration,” Arumugam said. “To take it back on the same day, that would leave a big trust deficit.”
Staff members who spoke to The New Humanitarian echoed this sentiment. One said that “anyone with basic logic would have noticed” that no one should be earning less than $10 per year. “Yet it was published organisation-wide,” the staff member said. “If it was in the corporate world, I think we would have a very different senior leadership team already.”
Goldsmith’s statement did not address questions about the proposed pay scales.
Salaries unknown
In October, some staff received job offers that did not list salaries or duty stations, four staff members told The New Humanitarian. “In many cases, they’ve been told to accept the offer within 24 hours,” said one staff member.
These rushed job offers were among several heated topics raised by staff, who set up a group in a messaging app to discuss concerns about the restructuring.
“When [I] pointed out to HR that I would like to know where I will be based, as it will significantly impact the salary, the answer was: please sign to accept the role and we will figure out the conditions as we go, as at this point we cannot provide this information,” one staff member told colleagues in the group chat, seen by The New Humanitarian.
Another staff member in the group chat recounted signing an offer letter within the requested 24 hours, only to receive a “Revised Offer Letter” a few weeks later that “[alluded] to different terms”.
“No details were provided to me about the specifics of what the terms would be,” the staff member told the group. “Curious if this has happened to [others] too, as it represents another example of dishonoured commitments.”
“That is not good HR practice,” said Arumugam. “It is a basic, fundamental HR practice that if I get a contract, I need to see what job am I taking, what grade is it, what am I going to get paid.”
The bigger problem, he added, is that staff have reportedly been asked to accept contracts without informed consent.
“A job offer is basically a legal contract,” he said. “I need to know what I’m signing up for. So if staff say they are forced, that is really serious, both legally and from an ethical perspective.”
Goldsmith’s statement did not address The New Humanitarian’s question about staff being asked to accept job offers within 24 hours without knowing where the roles would be based or what the salaries would be.
Redundancy compensation missing
Staff have also raised concerns about Save the Children’s approach to redundancy compensation. Three staff members said the organisation followed minimum local requirements, which left staff in some jurisdictions with no offers of compensation.
“Labour laws in the global north are being followed, while in many other countries… legal frameworks are being ignored without clear justification.”
“That has led to a situation where colleagues who’d worked for 10 years were not entitled to any redundancy and very short notice periods, whereas other colleagues who’d worked for fewer years were entitled to redundancy packages and longer notice periods, which obviously doesn’t seem very fair,” one staff member told The New Humanitarian.
Those offered no compensation “tended to be in the poorer developing countries, and they were national contract holders”, the staff member said. Another staff member said some international contract holders were also offered no compensation for redundancy.
Last month, nearly 30 staff members signed a letter sent to Save the Children’s senior leaders and board members demanding minimum redundancy packages across the organisation, to ensure “no one leaves without a safety net”.
“Labour laws in the global north are being followed, while in many other countries… legal frameworks are being ignored without clear justification,” said the letter, which The New Humanitarian has seen.
The letter also accused the organisation of trying to avoid paying redundancy compensation to staff with retirement savings plans.
“Retirement savings are designed as a long-term benefit to secure an employee’s future stability, while redundancy payments are immediate financial relief for workers who are terminated without cause,” the letter said. “Confusing the two undermines the purpose of both, leaving employees vulnerable in moments of sudden job loss.”
“This organisation, which claims to advocate for the most vulnerable, is now turning its back on its own staff – many of whom are from the very regions we aim to uplift,” the letter added.
One staff member, who initially reported not being offered any redundancy compensation, said Save the Children later offered compensation to some staff, though not everyone. “Some people are getting it, and some won’t,” they told The New Humanitarian. “No idea what the basis of the decision is.”
When dealing with countries with different labour laws, Arumugam said, “A global INGO should be the one that should model and take care of their staff there. You can’t say, sorry, there’s no redundancy in your country”.
The quantity of compensation should always be negotiable, he said, but “the principle of not paying any redundancy is not acceptable for me”.
Goldsmith’s statement did not address The New Humanitarian’s questions about redundancy compensation.
“We were conscious of reflecting our values and commitment to DEI throughout this work, including ensuring an equitable and inclusive process for staffing the new structure,” she said. “Throughout this process we consulted regularly with staff, encouraged a culture to challenge one another, and responded to feedback, making improvements to the organisational design in response.”
Funding gap lingers
Amid the confusion of the restructuring process, staff said it remains unclear whether the cuts have succeeded in patching up the funding gap, raising concerns about the potential need for additional cuts.
In October – around two months into the restructuring process – senior leaders discussed options for reducing $2 million from Save the Children’s core budget, according to an internal document seen by The New Humanitarian. It suggests increasing charges on country offices for services provided by headquarters, additional staff cuts, as well as other potential cuts.
The perception of a lingering financial crisis has intensified staff distrust in leadership.
“If you have gone through a very complex and lengthy and painful process to restructure in order to address a financial problem, and then then you get to near the end of that process, and you haven’t addressed the financial [problem], then you put people through a lot of anxiety and challenges without actually achieving your objective,” one staff member said.
If a country office had made a similar mistake, the staff member added, there would be intense scrutiny, and people would be held accountable.
According to Arumugam, it is normal for financial projections involving multiple donor streams to shift. “I have sympathy for that,” he said.
However, Arumugam added, an organisation should keep staff informed about such shifts and how they affect an ongoing restructuring process. “If that’s not happening in a transparent way, and you are still just pushing ahead with the restructuring, then I think it’s not a good end, both for the organisation and for staff engagement and confidence,” he said.
One staff member said that if there is a remaining funding gap, employees have not been informed about it.
“Data is still being finalised, but we are on track to achieve the cost savings target shared at the outset,” Goldsmith said.
Opportunity missed
Staff said they have tried, in several different ways, to communicate their frustration with Save the Children’s leaders, requesting transparency about how decisions are made and corrections to policies perceived to be unfair.
Various groups of employees have shared open letters with leaders and conducted at least two informal surveys, both of which reflected respondents’ widespread dissatisfaction with the restructuring and the people leading it.
An informal survey circulated among staff last month received almost 280 responses. Of these, more than 170 said they are considering leaving Save the Children within six months, and more than 180 said they would not recommend the organisation as a place to work.
One staff member said the process had left workers feeling unmotivated, with many seeking jobs elsewhere, including some whose roles were not affected by the restructuring. “I already see a lot of quiet quitting going on,” they said. “Given an opportunity, people would move on from the organisation.”
But senior leaders have avoided addressing these surveys and statements, telling some staff they “do not respond to anonymous letters”, according to a list of staff concerns shared in the group chat. One staff member also told The New Humanitarian they had been told this in a verbal exchange.
“[This] goes against the very principle of accountability that we proclaim to adhere to when it comes to accountability to communities and children,” a staff member told colleagues in the group chat.
Goldsmith’s statement did not address a question from The New Humanitarian about the informal surveys.
Arumugam said Save the Children may be missing an opportunity. The organisation could have thanked staff for taking the initiative to create these informal surveys, and then sought to corroborate the findings with an official survey, he said.
“If you really want to be objective about the data being presented, that’s one easy fix,” he said. “But the point is, if your staff are coming to you and expressing their views and issues and concerns, the least you can do is find a way of listening to it.”
Edited by Irwin Loy and Andrew Gully.
–––––
The New Humanitarian puts quality, independent journalism at the service of the millions of people affected by humanitarian crises around the world. Find out more at www.thenewhumanitarian.org.
