RSPCA to cut jobs as part of plan to balance £6.1m 'net cash outflow'

Mike Tomlinson, chair of the RSPCA, says the charity will carry out a 45-day consutation with staff over the changes and will now prioritise its front-line animal welfare work

The RSPCA has announced that it will be cutting jobs in a restructure after it experienced what it calls a "net cash outflow" of £6.1m last year.

The charity said it would have to prioritise its front-line animal welfare work in the face of rising costs and a fall in legacy income.

Mike Tomlinson, the charity’s chair, wrote to staff warning them that the organisation would be restructuring in a bid to make savings of £4.5m a year.
He said the charity would carry out a 45-day consultation with staff about changes to the organisation.

He did not say how many jobs would be lost among the RSPCA’s 1,568-strong workforce.

Tomlinson said in a statement that the charity had already made significant budget cuts in the past five years. "However, last year’s figures, when the charity had a net cash outflow from its core work of £6.1m, are clearly unsustainable and show that things cannot carry on as they are," he said.

"Given rising costs, including private boarding as well as fuel, energy and veterinary bills, our operational costs are increasing faster than income is being generated. We have already started to implement plans to diversify the society’s income into new areas such as events and business, which will see the RSPCA move away from a reliance on legacy income.

"However, these are long-term plans and the RSPCA has to address the reduction in our income in the short term."

The charity, which had an income of £132.8m in 2012, said that complaints about animal cruelty were increasing and it had to spend £4.5m last year on emergency boarding costs for animals because there was no suitable space in its centres.

Sources in the organisation said they were shocked by the letter. "We knew there was a problem, but the situation is a wholesale crisis," said one. "I don’t think people had realised the size of the problem until now."

The charity currently has no chief executive because Gavin Grant stood down on health grounds after two years in charge.



The RSPCA said at the time that John Grounds, its director of marketing and campaigns, would represent the charity externally and cover its public commitments. But only six weeks later Grounds left the charity with immediate effect.

The charity was heavily criticised in sections of the right-wing press in 2012 after it spent more than £320,000 pursuing a successful prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt in Oxfordshire.

It investigated 150,000 incidents of alleged animal cruelty in England and Wales in 2012, leading to 2,000 cases appearing before the courts and 4,000 convictions.

The RSPCA has announced that it will be cutting jobs in a restructure after it experienced what it calls a "net cash outflow" of £6.1m last year.
I read this to mean that they actually wasted £6 million last year? That this is the amount they could save if they were not so generous with other people's (donated) money. When I think of the small local charity I foster for, where the fosterers pay for the food/cat litter etc, it really narks me that these people can receive  and waste so much public money.

Given rising costs, including private boarding as well as fuel, energy and veterinary bills, our operational costs are increasing faster than income is being generated.
This does not surprise me one jot...we on this forum all remember well that when John Spicer (highly respected Gobowen vet) was 'raided' a year ago that TWO vans with RSPCA so-called ''inspectors'' were sent to ''seize'' his two dogs. The two dogs had lived together for many years, and could -  and clearly would - quite happily have travelled together in one vehicle, hence saving the cost of two so-called ''inspectors'' (sniggers) and two lots of fuel. WHY two vans...WHY two so-called ''inspectors'' to pick up two docile dogs?? To add to the excitement of the ''case', of course, that is why. To ensure that it hit the nationals. Why another five police officers and six  Fire Brigade personnel?? So that it gets into the papers, of course, and makes it a ''high-profile'' case.We are also aware that RSPCA deliberately use the most expensive vets available to back up their lying statements.
I know for a fact that the RSPCA hospitals have now increased their out-of-hours charge to E40 plus meds and reduced  the number of pets treated per customer to three, altho PDSA simply asks for a ''donation''. In the event of a pet requiring an operation or in-house treatment, apparently the owner of the PDSA pet is shown the possible bill and asked what they can contribute towards it. RSPCA will not release the pet without payment.

The charity said it would have to prioritise its front-line animal welfare work in the face of rising costs and a fall in legacy income.
And the fall in legacy income is a direct result of the many court cases where RSPCA were generously bequeathed properties and then greedily went to court to get more, much to the disgust of everyone who read about it. Prioritising its frontline animal welfare work means that RSPCA will care even less for needy animals... if that is at all possible ...it really means that they will only take on the high-profile, headine-grabbing cases. Which means that the smaller and more  deserving animal welfare organisations will struggle even more as they take on more of the load which RSPCA disdaisns to accept...

I await the results of the independent review with interest.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


...and this is what the Independent has to offer on the same subject. I think the bottom line is that people are wising up to them.

7 million is a lot to lose in a year .... long may it continue.