Various stories here, Govt (inc CMD and Gove personally) instructing £3M payments (recently, more in the past), against civil servants’/advisors recommendations and now a donor withdrawing £3M with allegations of financial malpractice and even child abuse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33798285

What are folks thoughts on this? Of course we don’t have the evidence yet (if we ever will!).

Batmanghelidjh is charismatic and KC’s work/aims are laudable, but who is telling the truth? Much as I’d like to trust her, and don’t trust the politicians, it’s the civil servants that seem the least biased for the time being.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/kids-company

LOL. Mine’s better, it’s got more replies for s start 😛

And I DID search 😡

Erm.. which one do we comment on then?

MODS: please leave Woppit’s and close Al’s. Woppit deliberately tries to lever open the jhj Lizard-worm-can.

😉

MODS: Please close Woppit’s and leave Al’s, for the reasons above. Send Woppit in disagrace onto the Ted Heath thread as a punishment. 🙂

Not to publicly complain about a MODing decision or owt, but BOOOOOOO!!!!

😉

I’m not convinced by her argument that the problem was that they had too many kids for the funding they got.. Surely, even with a charity the basic premise is that you manage your workload to match your resources.

I can’t tell whether it’s a well meaning but grotesquely inefficient organisation, or a personality cult massaging the rampant ego of the founder. Or a combination of the two?

Is it true that they were actually paying children and young adults to use their services? Turn up to their centre once a week, get £50, that kind of thing?

There does seem to be issues with finance, reliant on gov handouts to pay staff.

And this statement seems ….odd.

“The charity said it always met its obligations to report crimes.”

I think the word obligation is what I don’t like.

I think there’s probably a lot more to this than we’re being told at the moment. Looks like the blame game has started, as the mudslinging seems to be getting going.

It looks like various Whitehall minions have been briefing against her. Maybe as she seems to be able to by-pass them and go direct to Dave, who would then write her a cheque.

Dave obviously has a vested interest as this was the poster organisation for his laughable ‘Big Society’ cobblers, which basically was just getting the charity sector to come in and provide the services the state would no longer provide due to slashed funding.

I expect this is about to get nasty, with all manner of accusations about to be thrown around. It’ll probably end up being six of one, and half a dozen of the other. Mrs Binners works in the charity sector. Some are very professional. Some are spectacularly badly managed.

Been brewing for ages I think, they’ve received millions and millions of tax money and donations, but have not responded well to the financial scrutiny that comes with receiving so much public money.
I think there’s an unholy mess here which the government is trying to extricate itself from, before the shit/fan interface.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9437932/the-trouble-with-kids-company/

Bloody odd situation if you ask me.

Damn if we shouldn’t see the Accounts. I am totally speculating here but that Ferrari parked outside was a bit odd wasn’t it?

BOT: I know someone who benefited (all be it in a small way) and they were very well looked after and supported far more than any “council” run “service” available to them (at the time)

I still want to see the Accounts

#deeppurselargeexpensespoorkids

I can’t tell whether it’s a well meaning but grotesquely inefficient organisation, or a personality cult massaging the rampant ego of the founder. Or a combination of the two?

Or, they criticised the government which responded by pulling its funding.

All that fabric has got to cost.

I don’t think there is anything vindictive by the government. There has been concern for many years over their financial controls and if grants should be given. These concerns were pushed aside by Cameron as he showed his support for the charity. This is something of an own goal if the government is being vindictive.
Harriet Sergeant’s reporting of what she had witnessed of large amounts of cash being given to kids who would turn up for the money then disappear again as soon as they got it did more harm to their creditability. It pointed to either manipulation of the system where monies were rewarded for numbers of people helped (being bribed to turn up) or that the money was wasted as there was no interaction with the kids to help them out of their problems, they were just given a source cash. Many celeb’s deserted the charity long before these matters become news and you will notice not a great deal are jumping up to defend it now.

Or, they criticised the government which responded by pulling its funding.

They (or more accurately, she) started lashing out at the Government AFTER funding was stopped. As custodian of our money, I think the government have done the right thing.
My gut feeling is being so close to the government they expected to just receive funding, no questions asked.

Also, the government are not alone with their complaints/concerns.

They interviewed a Finance bod from KC on BBC last night, she said something like:

“we have all these staff members we are paying, and even we have absolutely no idea what their job is and what they are doing”

Indeed. (although that does nicely describe the public sector in general, IME, with a few more cups of tea and petty grievances thrown in)

And the essential difference is that a charity that relies on government funding as its main income stream is not a charity. It is a government agency.

That’s the beauty of some of these Big Society projects. They can wither and die without being viewed for what they are – a failed government project.

I’d say this is probably happening all over the country. Charities that were pretty small and run by well meaning, but maybe not qualified people, have had to step in and fill the gaps where services provided by local councils no longer exist.

In a very short period of time they’ve gone from these small organisations to being swamped with demand for their services, leading to them having to set up large scale fundraising initiatives (we’re not talking the odd jumble sale here), and having to manage what is essentially the delivery of local authority services.

Thats an awfully big change in mindset required. And an awfully different approach needed to manage the provision of essential services

There was an inevitability to all this. Expect to see it repeated

Indeed. (although that does nicely describe the public sector in general, IME, with a few more cups of tea and petty grievances thrown in)

Except this wasn’t the public sector,this was the voluntary sector doing stuff that the public sector should be doing.

This work should be properly funded by government and done by councils, not done by various voluntary organisations who are given metaphorical brown envelopes of cash at random intervals at the whim of whatever politician ants to look good in the media that week.

And the essential difference is that a charity that relies on government funding as its main income stream is not a charity. It is a government agency.

You’ve clearly no idea how the charity sector works. Most charities exist on a mix of private fundraising and government/local council funding. You’d be amazed at the services you assume are being provided by local councils which are in fact charities. In the care of the disabled for example. As local councils have slashed their services, they have given far smaller amounts to charities, and expected them to provide the same services. This is a big ask. But as these organisations are staffed by very dedicated and well-meaning people, they have taken this task on. Not that you’ll ever hear about the hours these people put in to provide for the most disadvantaged in society.

If you think that charities exist on you popping your loose change in a collection tin as you walk out of Waitrose, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land.

although that does nicely describe the public sector in general, IME, with a few more cups of tea and petty grievances thrown in

Its not in the public sector so that reads more like you looking for confirmation of your bias

Have a look at G4S and A4E as other examples of non public sector organisation behaving badly. You can use to complain about the public sector as well.

All sectors have crap exemplars is the fairly self evident point and anyone who thinks one sector is immune/better is putting their politics before the facts.

My point was they should not be viewed as ‘charities’, but as an arm of government service provision. Which they are, without the inconvenient constraints of proper audit of taxpayer’s money.

The benefits to ministers are that when they go down in flames, they are not viewed as part of the public sector, which they effectively are, but as some flakey charity.

Various stories here, Govt (inc CMD and Gove personally) instructing £3M payments (recently, more in the past), against civil servants’/advisors recommendations

Channel four reckon that Gove (boo, hiss) ruled against it and was overruled by Dave after Batshitcrazy went direct to him: http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/cameron-ordered-payment-kids-company-official-concerns/5020

Can you imagine for one second the reaction of the ‘political left’ if the government (Gove in particular) had refused funds to a prominent children’s charity?

Did it not close because a private donor withheld money?
How is that fitting in with “effectively ” being the public sector?

They may well be providing a service to the state, many companies do and some exclusively to them, but that fact does not make them public sector.

Exactly Martin. But thats not going to happen. Daves Big Society wheeze is about him shrinking the state. Massively reducing the services it provides, and expecting charities to do it all instead.

Its having your cake and eating it. This is a massive shift in the delivery of vital services, which has happened virtually overnight.

You can criticise charities all you like, but the way it works is that there are limited amounts of money available, and the charities have to bid for this. To put a proposal together is a serious undertaking. You have to provide minute detail of the services you will provide, and accurate budgets and costings. Believe me, the government isn’t just handing out cash willy nilly. The hoops you have to jump through to secure any funding are immense. But as this has proved, expect to be blamed exclusively if it all goes tits up.

Charities are now shouldering a massive amount of what were previously ‘state’ services. The fact that this kind of thing isn’t happening all over the place is a testament to the dedication and professionalism of the vast majority of those working in the charity sector

CB’s heart is certainly in the right place but unfortunately she didn’t have the skills required to run a big organisation, one of which is the self awareness of your shortcomings and the humility to allow others to fill in the gaps. The Trustees should have helped in overcoming these flaws but it appears they failed for whatever reason.

The Government, these issues have been ongoing for some years, should probably have pulled the plug earlier but no doubt flinched through fear of the bad publicity.

Channel four reckon that Gove (boo, hiss) ruled against it and was overruled by Dave after Batshitcrazy went direct to him: http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/cameron-ordered-payment-kids-company-official-concerns/5020

This is probably right because the Civil Servant who signed the direction was head of the Cabinet Office, so responsibility would appear to have been transferred from the DofE where it originally sat.

EDIT: My understanding is that the services provided by Kids Company (and certainly Place2Be which CB was originally involved with 20 years ago) have never been supplied by either central or local government. Place2Be by the way is exceptionally well run and worthy of your support.

Yet another reason added to my list of “why your can’t trust Govt with my money”…

Written before the current ‘issue’:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9437932/the-trouble-with-kids-company/

I agree with binners.

Re The Big Society, DC ditched that idea when Steve Hilton left, I think DC was somewhat hypnotised by the lady dressed as a pina-colada and kept the taps turned on.
I actually thought The Big Society pointed to an important need – for a culture of volunteering and public service, although it was wrongly sold as a replacement for ye olde welfare state.

Just looks like good old fashioned cronyism and/or nepotism to me.

Really hope there’s nothing to the child abuse rumours though.

binners+2

Oh, and this whole ephisode has the wiff of cover ups a lies about it, both from govt and the charity.

Admit it – you’ve never seen them in the same room together…

Camila Batmanwotsit

Associate Bob

Always seemed like it comes down to 2 main things… They genuinely do seem to do pretty amazing, life changing things for some of the kids they help, in ways that not many organisations can do. I’ve worked with and supported some of their clients and I’m a huge admirer of their successes… (I’ve no doubt at all that most of the clients I’ve dealt with in the uni, would not have got there without Kids Company, and considering their backgrounds that’s not just a massive deal but it could well have left them in pretty ugly places.)

Otoh I’ve met Camila Batmanghelidjh, and she mostly seemed to be a self-congratulating ego-monster gobshite.

But at the same time they seem to be about a dozen different sorts of financial and operational disaster. Their successes get you a hell of a lot of leeway in my book but it’s not necessarily enough.

Some of the criticisms seem to go to the core of what Kids Company do… They’re not social workers, their activities don’t fit neatly into ticksheets and 3 ring binders, and that means they can engage with kids in a way that other systems can’t (and help kids that can’t or won’t engage with those systems) See: giving cash payments to clients. But on the other side of that coin is rightly concern about propriety, appropriateness… Transparency basically.

You can be outwardly chaotic and informal but you need a structure behind that which they seem to lack. The accountants seem to object to giving away trivial amounts of money but that to me’s wrong- let them do that, just document it! Remove any doubt but don’t remove the ability to do what they do.

Financial management’s not even the big concern there afaic, since it comes down to balancing accounts against kids’ lives- I’m perfectly happy for the to have £3 million quid and for it to be “bad value” because we can afford it, it’s better value than giving away a bank for billions less than it’s worth. You could run Kids Company for a century with the money lost in the Royal Mail sale alone. Let’s come back to that thought… We don’t worry about these sums of money per person when we put someone in prison, that’s not good value either. 3 million quid is **** all.

But if you play fast and loose with rules, can we trust you? The cultishness is pretty alarming sometimes, it feels like an organisation that could hold a lot of secrets. My gut feeling is that they’re basically sound but who knows? They’re big enough that they quite likely have bad pennies and they may not have the capacity to deal with them.

Some of the recent stuff doesn’t impress on either side. If there’s a possible issue with a charity, there’s ways to deal with that which it doesn’t seem have been fully deployed- and for all Batmanghelidjh’s blustery confrontational responses are offputting, I’m not sure she’s wrong. It does feel like they’ve been under attack lately and that’s just not how these things should ever work.

And hey, stories about £3 million quid given to a charity distract from stories about privatisation of irreplacable public resources for less than what they’re worth.

I dunno. The best outcome would be to weld that outward informality and rough-and-readiness to a strong stealthy organisational structure behind the scenes but that can’t be easy. Especially with a character like that at the top. But this is something that should have been being attempted for years, has it really? I don’t think so. The speed of recent affairs seems pretty absurd and it’s all been done so publically.

RIP Kids Company. Dodgy as you might be. I’ll see people this week that are living an incomparably better life thanks to you. As long as you weren’t ruining lives at the same time, or outright stealing from us, I could not personally give a **** if you’ve been good value.

All very odd IMO

Gordon Brown and Dave both like this woman, and have agreed funding outside of normal channels.

The lady on recent interviews comes across as heart in the right place, but completely out of her depth in terms of competance.

Was she the result of Ted Heath interfearing with kids, and this is how they have tried to buy her silence?

I know that its not representative but there was a kid on Radio 4 today saying that whenever kids got their weekly hand out of cash, they would go and spend it on drugs straight away. 😯

More to come out of the wood work me thinks….

Programme just started on this very topic, R4 if anyone’s interested