Can we talk about Camilla Batmanghedjh?

Buffy, there are already systems in place to deal with that. It is quantified through client engagement, and evidenced through worker recording. Local Council Supporting People teams fund support based on number of times client has engaged to facilitate exactly that kind of client, one who needs to build up trust and be supported in basic tasks like rent payments and food buying before they can do those things independently. The Supporting People team pays agencies to visit a set number of times a month over a set number of months or years, depending on the level of need of the client. The target is client engagement.

It isn't a million dollar question. It is just a question with multiple different specific answers to deal with the different specific problems that have arisen in different areas of client support.

The loop holes around residential drug treatment services can be closed by following the expertise of mainstream drug treatment services.

The lack of support for girls in the Youth Service can be dealt with by better training and selection of workers and following best practice from organisations that have demonstrated client engagement with girls.

Local provision that cannot meet the equality act can be replaced by charities franchising - allowing local workers to deal with local needs while centralising policy writing, training and legal advice.

On MN alone, there will be hundreds of workers who have experience and know where the problems are.

It is a child protection issue. There still seems to be immense fuzziness about who is responsible for children if their parents aren't capable of being responsible for them. It really is not reasonable to expect children to fend for themselves.

"You want charities to be more regulated by the government? That's a terrible idea"

I want the Government to make sure that all organisations working with vulnerable people are properly regulated, and the regulations are appropriate.

How else do you think we are going to avoid further instances of abuse and protect vulnerable people?

She's being criticised because the charity hasn't done quite so much "amazing work" for anywhere near as many kids as the pubic and donors have been lead to believe. Good article from Camila Long in yesterday's Times. She didn't set much store by the info from the lady who sold her house, but did find the charity's claims to be lacking/exaggerated

I once had the misfortune of working for CB's bank. If she's charismatic, she obviously didn't feel the need to show it for the little people. Quite vile on a regular basis.

I read that as 36,000 supported (all support)

Yes, meaning all support, not just provision of meals and including possibly advice provided to teachers.

I read that as 36,000 supported (all support)

3000 meals per week, so if a child is coming in say 5 days a week, that's 600 children daily and for 510 of them, it is their main meal.

If it's every day, then it's about 430 children with it being main meal for 365.

Googling " helped by Kids Company and similar brought no results except a small number of testimonials on KC's own site.

So far as the theory that she's being brought down because she's an outsider challenging the system didn't she go direct to Cameron for help on a previous occasion when funding was being delayed due to lack of compliance?

A common theme in the articles I read was journalists spending time at KC and not seeing many actual children there, the exception being the Jay Rayner article.

Those numbers quoted make no sense. 36000 children supported. 85% rely on KC for their main meal. 3000 meals a week served.
But 85% of 36000 is 30600 - and if all 85% are relying on KC for their main daily meal then that would be over 150000 meals a week.

So if the numbers make no sense, what is it they are actually doing? And if they can't explain then they shouldn't continue getting very large amounts of public funding.

Article in Sunday papers think it was the Torygraph or Times was pretty interesting guy spent 2 days there and questioned how they can claim for 3000 meals a week when the capacity of the hall can't take that amount of kids... To be honest it was a very indepth article but with the papers you never know how much is really true...It would be great if some kids maybe now adults could come forward and 'defend' it.

Buffy been wanting to read some Faucault while on holiday, any particular one you recommend?

Buffy I am with you and Foucault on this.

Think the need for balance goes both ways!

Surely it is possible to have charismatic figures who head charities who are a disaster area when it comes to funding/financial management and charismatic figures who are excellent at it. And charismatic figures who are somewhere in between.

I think SoljaBonita's post makes a lot of sense

I've always been surprised by the adulation for AA and the 12-step method.

ALmondcakes: I hope groups working with vulnerable people become better regulated, before we end up with another Rotheram. But if we do, I expect it to come from the fringes of the substance misuse sector, because that seems popular among MRAs, fundamentalists and other non mainstream groups who rely on charismatic figures with a desire to 'help.'

Brr, worrying thought but you are right. Yes, wouldn't be surprised if that happens, sadly. Though there are, of course, lots of people working within charities who are perfectly decent, level-headed and good-hearted, all 'caring' work attracts a percentage of not-decent people. Some are actual predators (perhaps fewer get away with it these days) who think that they can abuse their 'clients' and complaints will not be believed because, well, the clients are 'troubled' and 'confused' and 'difficult'. Some get off on having power over others: being permitted to shout abuse at someone till they cry as a way of 'curing' them can be a massive thrill to a certain personality type. And some are motivated by a conviction that they are ever so special and the world needs to recognise this and worship them.

On a slightly OT note, it's good that more and more people are questioning AA and the 12-step model of substance misuse treatment. 12-step is useless in the majority of cases, its failure rate (ie the number of people who don't stop drinking/drugging or don't stop for very long) something like 95% but there is this big cultural myth that it's the Best Way.

There have been so many things that have gone wrong across so many organisations and institutions. Only the really big cases make the press.

We had the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and the Equality Act to bring in regulations to stop some of these issues happening. But if organisations get funded without evidence that they are actually operating within the Equality Act, then Cameron's Government has effectively dispensed with a large part of the Act's purpose.

If that was going to be the case, then that should have been formally declared as a change to the law so it could be debated. I feel now that the impact of the 'Big Society' has not been that local people organise to help each other, but that local people end up organising to try and do something about groups with power who are being paid to 'help' in some unethical or incompetent ways, because the Government is not behaving responsibly. And that is not something we are equipped to do, particularly if the local community in question includes large numbers of vulnerable people. And Kids' Company is probably nowhere remotely near one of the worst cases; it's just a fairly well funded organisation that was close to Cameron so is now getting a lot of attention.

Unregulated groups run chaotically by charismatic figures, in theory to "help" the most vulnerable people, especially children, can do great damage. Vulnerable people in particular need to know where they stand, and that the staff making decisions about them are professional, and are acting professionally. Otherwise all kinds of stuff can be swept under the carpet.

If you look at the annual report I linked earlier, the give a detailed breakdown of 750 high risk children. They give no detail of the other 35,250 or the meals. How are these funded, ie do they provide food, cash, vouchers etc.
They also say 98% of the children are self-referrals. This means they just turn up - does not seem to be any oversight on whether they are actually in need or not.

They're all on their website Harvey.

Even in that news report Garlick linked to in the Guardian, the figures on prior experiences are incorrect.

They are taken from a specific group of 16-24 year olds who are educated by Kids' Company due to issues such as exclusion from mainstream education. But the article does not report that - instead it says that the abuse figures are those of the kids who generally are seen by Kids' Company. That could just be lazy fact finding on the part of the journalist, or it could be that those are the figures Kids' Comapny want to present to the press.

I find the lack of gender info on the education research unhelpful. There are stats there on knife crime (suggesting boys and men) but none on pregnancy. I would expect a unit dealing with people under 25 who cannot access mainstream education to include a number of young mothers.

I don't know anything about the stuff SGB has said about uncontrolled violence between clients and people being scared to go, but if that is true, we all know that will be a gendered problem.

I'm not an investigative journalist and there's plenty of reports on this stuff from people who know more than me (including people who have worked there) and I could be wrong about it all, but it doesn't add up.

I personally am far more bothered about some of the stuff going on in alternative/religious drug and alcohol therapy and treatment centres, and the loop holes allowing those to do all kind of dodgy things, so I'm not going to look any further into Kids' Company.

I hope groups working with vulnerable people become better regulated, before we end up with another Rotheram. But if we do, I expect it to come from the fringes of the substance misuse sector, because that seems popular among MRAs, fundamentalists and other non mainstream groups who rely on charismatic figures with a desire to 'help.'

I don't think "The nation has turned on her so fast" i think she has always been disliked, she is outspoken to the point of being rude and has very little tolerance of anyone else's point of view.

Foucault is bloody great, but very waffly. Buffy, if you wrote a blog translating it all I'd definitely read it and link to it profusely :)

I think the short term outcomes culture we seem to have at the moment is a tyranny.

Good lord, yes!

Sorry, Almond, I cross-posted with your previous. This all seems very sad and unnecessary. Silly Camilla.