Can we talk about Camilla Batmanghedjh?

Garlick - those figures are the ones people are asking them to break down, as they don't fit with staff, funder and client info, and they've been unable to.

There are lots of numbers in that article. I now think the charity's being misrepresented and that what's happening is what Batmanghelidjh & Buffy have said.

In any of their annual reports, and in the research studies done of them, and to funders, when asked. The research studies done on them are odd - lack of basic quantitative info, focus on the director that you wouldn't expect to see, funded by them. Also a study done on one particular unrepresentative group of clients used as an example of client needs and experiences in other reports.

Without them providing info on gender, the stereotypical assumption to be made based on the groups they discuss is that their focus is on older (over sixteen) males, but that speculation could be just my bias based on machismo I've seen before among youth service provision.

Garlick, I hadn't thought before about what you've said about particular individuals driving things. I suppose that was the case in the banking collapse - lack of regulations and checks in place allowed particular individuals to go with their vision. Andy Hornby's selling mortgages is like selling tins of beans claim, and so on.

"Through their centres in north and south London, Liverpool and Bristol, they now support 36,000 children and provide 3,000 meals a week. Of those children, 85% rely on Kids Company for the main meal of the day."

Published in the Guardian, hardly secret information.

They don't even give basic info such as client age groups and how many are male and female ... can't say how many meals provided

I didn't know it was that bad. Downright silly of them/her.

Very many of the people who make real differences (good and bad) are raging narcissists. I'm uncomfortable with arguments based largely on personality assassination. It could, though, be CB's undoing - she'll be up against equivalent narcissists and, if her own is too great, she will not be able to accept that appeasement may be necessary.

I'm still very sorry that the organisation seems headed for the bin.

Some of this type of work is very difficult to quantify, building any kind of relationship with these young people could take months and months, and at the end of that time all that you have achieved is that they trust you. A massively important first step but not one that fits into a tick box on a funding form. However... any organisation that is so synonymous with one personality makes me very uneasy. There seems to be widespread concern about layers of management within organisations, but in my view these layers are a vital safeguard, and at some point someone in the chain will say hold on is this right. My experience of organisations that are “someone's baby”, particularly if this has gone on for years, is that the room for discussion and debate shrinks.

Not in education, employment or training and under 25, Fuji.

Well we can't know how many of these children are children of illegal immigrants because the organisation doesn't provide basic stats about its client group.

They don't even give basic info such as client age groups and how many are male and female.

The more vulnerable the young people are, the more there needs to be procedures in place to make sure the organisation is behaving appropriately towards them, particularly as one of the functions of the organisation is housing of under eighteens.

whats NEET?

I agree with you Solija. Some of the people who access these sorts of charities wouldn't have access to mainstream agencies. However, I think even children of illegal immigrants (for example) have quite a good network provided they go to a school. It's the ones who are NEET who are the most vulnerable.

Haha yes the old woman beneficiary and those comments about 'being concerned for her mental health' ,surely as a charity mega mogul she wouldn't take money from someone doubting their MH? bit of own goal there.

One thing that a lot of this discussion ignores is the fact that a lot of service users at these places are excluded from mainstream agencies. Children of illegal immigrants who are living here under the radar. Children who have run away from home. Those who have been trafficked and exploited. Also the young adults who have left care or been thrown on the streets with nothing or no one. Many more examples of this but it's all horribly depressing and I have to think that the conspiracy claims might have some truth. It's not a conspiracy theory when there really is a conspiracy....

Some of the main things they're funded to do are the easiest to quantify, like feeding people.

That's fine bookish. I'm not disagreeing with you and maybe sexual health was a bad example.

All I was getting at is in our current culture of targets, reviews and tables some areas are easier to quantify then others.

Mide - rate of infections going down could be due to other areas - most commonly, most infection is not known as most people aren't tested. Secondly most STIs are symptom free for a period and/ or people don't go to doctors with symptoms due to embarrassment. There are many things which are easy to evaluate - sexual health is not one of them.

kids company could have used any measurement approach and articulated their choice. They haven't done that. Other charities do and have done that. As said on the other thread, Kids Co is free to get funding from other donors, but they currently operate in a part of London where CAHMS and child protection services simply can't cope with demand. As a tax payer, they have to articulate why £4.25m of government funding is better spent with them than with the Maudsley CAMHS services. At present, I'd prefer it to go to the Maudsley which does have a level of accountability and reporting.

Bookish- there being loads of measures of poverty is part of the problem.

If a charity go into an area and hand out condoms/ rise awareness and then the rate of infections goes down then it's not too much of a stretch to suggest the charity is doing what they aim to.

Caroldecker said what I was trying to but more articulately

She's not the Messiah, she's a very norty girl.

it's quite simple really, thanks to the Guardian and its FOI request results.

KC has to meet the normal govt standards. If it does, fine and govt funding continues. It it doesn't, it loses govt funding and has to rely - like thousands of other charities - on other sources.

It's only a big deal because, instead of just doing as everyone else does, and getting on with it (either improving accountability and governance, or securing other funds) KC seems to think it should get special treatment. Without seeming to have a single reason for being considered unique.

Important? Good works? Yes, probably. But not uniquely so, and certainly not the to extent of being exempt from the standards that other charities can meet.

There are lots of very worrying accusations eg teenagers arriving with knives at the centres and scaring other smaller children. If food can be provided to the same number of children, but without the permissive culture which says that is ok, I'd say that would be a better way of doing it, op. And maybe other charities that can do it better should be funded instead.

Mide - how on earth is it easier to measure sexual health to poverty?

Sexual health is long term, involves complex and often taboo subjects, and mostly is done in private. And has a certain element of chance- person a sleeps around and doesn't get pregnant/ STI person b has one accident with a condom and ends up with HIV.

How on earth is it easier to measure? There are loads of measures of poverty - Joseph Rowntree has done loads of work, Scotland government have done loads of work. Other charities do it. Measurement may not be absolutely perfect but you can do enough to provide evidence that what is being done is good.

I like SGB's post. Succinctly put.