To not understand the 'kids company' closure

[LunchpackOfNotreDame]

The news is saying the government fully supported the charity and handed over £3million to them, yet on the news tonight the protesters were blaming Cameron.

I thought it was financial irregularities that created the issues?

it has definitely made me lean more to smaller charities lately

i recently had a run in with a woman at the local 'big name' charity shop so decided to find a homeless shelter to make the donation to instead

I've never been that comfortable about Charities getting money from government. Whenever I saw KB on telly or heard her on the radio I was hugely impressed by what she was saying and trying to do. I am a bit baffled by it all, but it seems to have gone wrong somewhere along the line. I really hope I wasn't wrong to believe in her.

SorryI meant CB of course

littlechinapig against official advice doesn't make sense because the government are the 'officials'
I don't know the ins and outs but it could be a smear campaign against KC thats the concern- I can't see CB was acting out of bad intentions whereas its handy for gov't, not just because of saving money but politically and sending out a message about and to charities generally iyswim.
Hopefully social services will pick up all these cases etc but I thought they weren't before, which is how KC came about and why it had gov't support, which it should have. Whichever way things pan out, care of very vulnerable children is all of societys problem and we ignore it at our peril imho

unfortunately i think the evidence has got beyond the point where it could be blamed on a smear campaign

one of the criticisms is that they didn't refer children to social services which possibly left some in horrible situations which a sympathetic ear once a week wasn't going to fix

thanks littlechinapig that's interesting. I agree any financial mismangement needs to be dealt with, but I do think the intentions of the charity were good and that work needs to be continued - maybe the gov't can say how they're going to do this, but I doubt they will tbh, those children are not voters, are not economically important and its more convenient for gov't to pretend the problem doesn't exist and just blame everything on KC. I've certainly heard in the press in the past of children and families who've been helped by KC, it does seem like all their good works are being smeared, which is sad.

yes I agree littlechinapig - there's an issue that needs to be addressed here and I hope after this furore dies down it is going to be looked at and effective action taken to protect severely disadvantaged children with nowhere to turn. Personally if I had to trust the tories or KC to do this I know which one I would choose but there you go. Like most people, I am just concerned about the children first and foremost.

Really interesting LittleChinaPig. From everything I've read (and I've been following it quite closely) your analysis is spot on.

I am torn about this, but have not been at all impressed by the dramatics of today.Did they need to close in such a sudden way, how did that help the children they support. I was involved in managing a scheme that shut down a couple of years ago, due to funding being reduced. But we closed the service in a timely professional way ensuring alternative support was in place for the families we supported. The way it had been handled today makes me lean toward the view that it has been managed in a chaotic fashion. However I heard KC interviewed on radio 4 today, and some of her points were valid, she pointed out that most funding is only granted for equipment, or for a specific piece of work, but actually what vulnerable young people need is staff to support them.
But if the charity you run fails then some of the responsibility is yours, it can't all be blamed on everyone else.

holdyourown
I think spending half the Scottish budget for child and adolescent mental health is a big deal. I have no particular objection to charities and the NHS working in partnership but for 20 million I want impact.

The 45 million funds 3 inpatient units, at least two day units. Probably about 40 different mental health teams. That's a lot of service.

Children's mental health services are woefully underfunded. If charities have specialist skills and can plug gaps, great (ideally they'd be extra rather than instead of NHS). But if there is an extra 5 million up for grabs etc then it needs to be spent v wisely.

But it's no surprise that funding comes for specific projects and that's why any sustainable charity needs a combination of grants to deliver projects and unrestricted funding with which to run the organisation such as premises and staff. If a charity with such a high profile was unable to do that suggests a serious flaw in the fundraising strategy.

Think of all the cancer research walks / people running marathons / having cake sales / the ice bucket challenge. That's the money which is used for day to day operations. This should have been pushed and she should have been encouraging her many rich donors to also contribute to operating costs.

yes that's a fair point munchkin
It's a pity there's just not more funds all round, children's mental health is one of the most important issues we as a society should be addressing imo. I agree with you though, money should be spent wisely. As an area of funding generally I think it should be seen as an investment, in terms of the future of our society, nhs, prison services and welfare services etc etc, as savings could be made in the long term if we intervened early on. More importantly we should be caring for vulnerable in our society anyway obviously but those are political decisions. It would be nice to think the same amount or more money would be spent wisely in future but my suspicion is just that less or no money will be spent instead. Its children who will suffer and that is tragic.

Did they need to close in such a sudden way, how did that help the children they support?

Very good point. It's exactly what DH said this evening. He works in the not-for-profit sector providing services for various charities as well as local authorities. It's almost unheard of for a sudden shut-down to occur. Normally, with any loss of funding there's a period when other sources of income are sought and if the worst comes to the worst, there's a much more gradual wind-down of services.

There's something gone very wrong with Kids Company and I wonder just how much of that has to do with the leadership of the organisation. The level of unaccountability is almost terrifying though when you realise the astonishing level of subsidy KC received - £37m in total, I believe.

I'm intrigued as to whether KC's work was evidence based and had a measurable impact. Even with good intentions, we can't afford to spend public money on interventions which don't work.

I have no idea why Cameron is even getting involved in this, it's well out of this remit

She's on radio 4 now