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?

Little, is it the article with the 'follow up' of 750 of the kids helped by KC? The one that begins, as all good academic papers do, with a gushing paragraph about how brilliant CB is.

I only know 1 person that has had experience with kids company and he absolutely despises the organisation he feels it not only didn't help him but made things even harder when he needed support and help.

Blaming this on the government is ridiculous, as are the conspiracy theories.

The fact is that from the government's point of view it would have been far better if KC had been salvaged. This government bought into KC, funded it and promoted it. KC fit in with it's view of a 'Big Society' where social needs are met by the third sector and not the public sector. This is a big embarrassment for the government and to suggest they engineered it is ridiculous.

Pico's point is absolutely correct, CB couldn't demonstrate that the work they were doing had measurable outcomes and was evidence based and all charities need to demonstrate this to funders. I suspect that she knew that if she did actually conduct a proper impact assessment she might have found that she wasn't as effective as she liked to tell everyone. They've had plenty of time to prepare for a restructure or a measured shut down as they've known that this money was unlikely to come. They hadn't even paid their staff last month. I do feel for families who are going to suffer but I don't feel sorry for CB

Really, really unimpressed with CB on Today this morning. Particularly when she said she didn't know if David Cameron had personally intervened. If she's in charge and she's met with him before, she would know that.

CB will get a job somewhere in the depths of the gov now...

I think I know the onenyou mean Pig Did it point out that the authors of the much feted LSE report were linked to KC in some way? I couldn't find it again either :( This article is quite a good read though...

osca.co/2015/02/need-talk-kids-company/

Thank you china those links were all really helpful.

I worked for a big media company in London and one year the whole parent company gave all our fund-raising to KC. (It's quite a good idea actually, instead of dribs and drabs, all the different sub companies and divisions vote every year for who to donate all the money from the five million cake sales, runs, sponsored walks etc and the company either matches or donates too). I'm sure as a pp said lots of people's efforts on the ground are going to this as well as all the big name donors, so accountability has to be key. Interestingly our head honcho was a v high profile Labour dame and loved CB and the whole 'slebs and important people do good with KC' angle I felt. Don't think she was impressed when at one point everyone changed and voted to give to some teeny tiny but amazing hospice instead.

I think there are other charities that do really good work in the same area and are maybe a bit less flashy and more straightforward - Centrepoint is a good one? At least I REALLY hope so. I started donating to them regularly years ago because at times I felt uncomfortable taking out my wallet e.g. at night on own to give money to homeless people, but this felt like a more constructive way to support them. Their literature etc that they send me is all very clear and sensible, I really believe in them and the work they do and would be devastated to find out if they were not as accountable as they seem to be.

I think that CB is probably completely well-intentioned, but just because you are a good profile-raiser and fund-raiser does not mean you are an effective provider of services or business manager.

That Today interview was quite revealing.

The accusation that KC has no evidence that what it's doing has any measurable effect, is one that has been levelled at them for months. If they have those figures, then the headline figures should be at CB's fingertips. No, 'if anyone wants to know they can come and talk to me.' Especially in an interview.

Either those figures don't exist or they do and CB doesn't know what they are. Which is a damning indictment on her ability to be running the charity.

It's the government's fault that they went against the advice of civil servants and gave money to an organisation for restructuring when that organisation had no funds for day to day running costs. What did they think would happen? Kids company seems to have been allowed to stagger along to avoid political embarrassment, while funds to other services have been cut.

'No one asked me for evidence when they met me for a cup of tea'. She made herself sound ineffective!

I thought she came over really badly. When things go tits up its always best to accept some responsibility and say how you want to move forward rather than blame everyone and their uncle.

I used to work in an organisation which worked regularly with KC. There really is no doubt that they were doing very valuable work with children who were falling through the cracks - children who were being abused at home, had been thrown out by their parents, who were looking after younger siblings whilst their parents were out of it on drugs or away for weeks on end, children who were getting into crime and drugs, trafficked children being used for prostitution, children with major disabilities - we daily saw very strong evidence of the excellent work they were doing. I always remember helping out at Christmas: it was wonderful seeing all those happy excited children who, without KC, would have had no Christmas and would have been out on the streets or at home being assaulted, abused or ignored. If KC couldn't demonstrate the value of what they were doing, I agree that it's a major failure on their part, but it doesn't change the facts.

So, what really bothers me is: what is going to happen to those children now? I heard someone on the radio pompously saying that local authorities would help. Frankly, it has always been the legal duty of LAs to help such children, but the stark fact is that they weren't doing it and they still aren't. With ever more cuts being imposed, why on earth will anything change? And just piously saying we hope other charities might be able to do so doesn't cut it.

It isn't the government's fault they had no running costs though. That is down to the mismanagement of the charity.

We're not talking a small local charity here. This is a charity with a large national profile and a very public charismatic head. It has a large number of high profile backers outside of government, many of whom have also given millions in addition to the 37million in taxpayers money. It's very difficult to believe that they couldn't manage enough fundraising to meet their running costs.

And just piously saying we hope other charities might be able to do so doesn't cut it.

Which is also why the government need to explain what their funding of KC was hoping to achieve when it became clear that they weren't financially viable.

An organisation that can't pay salaries and has already been unable to pay PAYE, with the running expenses of kids company (justified or not), is not going to able to turn itself around on £3 million.

On the other hand there are plenty of other services and charities that could do with £3 million, more so now that people are scrabbling to find replacement services for those provided by KC.

It's very difficult to believe that they couldn't manage enough fundraising to meet their running costs.

Unless you were the civil servant who seems to have advised that this was the case and asked for a ministerial direction.

Saying 'but what about the children being left without help' ignores the hidden victims in this who are the children who aren't getting help from KC or elsewhere while a huge pool of funding goes to KC ineffectively helping a small number of children. That funding, better administered, could help far more children in a far more effective manner. If KC is using their funding poorly and with few good outcomes, other children who are in need are being cheated out of the support they need.

It's ridiculous to say that a publicly funded body, because it may have done some good somewhere, should be propped up with huge amounts of money, when other organisations which can clearly show they provide more benefits to more people for less money miss out.

Elementary I completely get what you are saying, and I'm sure on the ground, many children were helped. I don't think anyone is doubting that.

However, giving children stability is even more important and by not shoring up the financial foundations, and by not being able to produce evidence of change, they have not done that.

It's like if I cuddle and hug my children lots, but I don't pay the electricity and water bills and they get cut off. You have to attend to the stable foundations of basic needs before you provide the other stuff on the top.

I should probably have quantified that with 'if there were no financial irregularities', Merrymouse.

Having helped put together grant applications and fundraising applications/activities for the charity I used to work for, I'm sitting here thinking about the hundreds of things we could have done with even half of the 800k they've just spent on last month's wage bill.

I think the most basic evidence there was a problem is the fact that it closed so abruptly. I agree with HP, KC have failed the kids they were helping by not ensuring sufficient stability to at least be able wind down in a controlled manner.

I think news night last night said that 6000 children would lose out when they close.

Someone up thread said that operating budget last year was 20 million.

I make that £3333 per child helped per year.

How does that compare to other charities and mental health services?

I make that £3333 per child helped per year.

But there are question marks over

A) How many YPs were in their system
B) Were the YPs actually being helped.

you would have to find out if the £3333 worth of services were comparable - which seems to be part of the problem.

KC have failed the kids they were helping by not ensuring sufficient stability to at least be able wind down in a controlled manner.

I think CB genuinely though that government/donors were bluffing, and that they would never actually let KC fail...

Also how much of operating budget is spent on overheads? £3333 per child could just represent money spent on building maintenance.