Government cuts hit Kids Company and Camila Batmanghelidjh is stepping down

[4kidsandaunicorn]

Here

Does anyone know anymore about this? I've only read the one article.

The best charities I have seen are small local ones, slogging away on a shoestring, and with no celebs involved.
Whereas ones run by rich people often seem to come adrift, because those people don't understand the value of money.

I don't think that's true about rich people at all. The most successful charities are the ones where the person has a goal and sticks to it but understands their limitations.

I've never heard anything bad about the Gates foundation for example.

It sounds like KC were perpetuating keeping people outside of the system tbh

CB is a senior member of the prestigious think-tank, the Centre for Social Justice.

One of its founding members was Iain Duncan-Smith.

A very charitable person would say she was committed to smashing those views from within.

I've never been that charitable.

Oh the Gates Foundation has many of the same issues: lack of transparency, focus on the interests of the Gates family rather than what are necessarily key priorities, no one wants to criticise in case they take the money away.

I've read about their push to increase condom use in India actually making sex workers lives worse as they are trapped by their pimps who get the condom supplies but can't remember the detail or where to find it now.

Best I can find is this which has links to academic editorials criticising them:

www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8760199/gates-foundation-criticism

Ok bad example (depressing isn't it)

We have a family friend who is extremely wealthy and had a particularly traumatic incident which led him to start a charity focussing on that. It is single issue and he has always been happy to hold his hands up and say 'this is too much for me we need an expert'

As for staff costs - something like medical research you would expect high staff costs. It's when you look at the percentage they spend on fundraising that it can get irritating.

I've never heard anything bad about the Gates foundation for example.

Unusually for a charity founder, he has no need to make himself any more famous.

He is also, I am told by people I trust who've worked with him, always the brightest guy in the room, even rooms full of very bright people, but also is entirely free of ego. He expects people to be well prepared, but if they are well prepared and can show he's wrong, he listens, understands, and immediately switches to that position without any complaint. People who can switch position immediately based on evidence and argument are rare; most people hold onto their initial position because they aren't willing to admit they are wrong.

It was, incidentally, swapping that clarity for Ballmer's egotistical clinging to wrong positions that completely fucked Microsoft after Gate's departure ("There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance.").

Oxfam are a charity with people from rich backgrounds involved, who are rumoured to splash the cash on nice hotels and travel.

Being rich is nothing to do with it though. Someone's current wealth is no indication as to whether they know the value of money.

With big charities its as if they've forgotten what their purpose is.

Our friend had a goal in mind and he was focussed on that - he never claimed to know how to achieve it but he was happy to listen to people who might.

I always thought bill gates was like that with his goal of eradicating malaria tbh

Some charities achieve their goal an then flounder around trying to find a purpose and some will always need to step up their goals as they achieve things.

Are we suffering from a professionalisation of the sector (like politics) where people don't have that deep moral desire to get involved but see it as a good job to have

I don't agree that big charities, or that professionalism within them, are Bad Things. Nor do I think that just getting involved 'for the sake of the cause' necessarily equates to doing your job particularly well. I was a damn good comms person, and like many other people I went from charity to charity, using those skills - yes, for pay - and getting good results for the organisations' beneficiaries as well. Actually I think the idea that charities should solely be the preserve of Nice People with no skills is quite insulting to the vast expertise that the voluntary sector - at its best - contains.

The big charities have not forgotten what their purpose is. Yes, they're staffed by people who have a lot of skills; at the front line, in fundraising, in policy analysis, in communications - I'd rather have that than a bunch of nice amateurs.

Which in fact brings me back to CB. I'm yet to be convinced that her lalalala approach is in fact that of a skilled professional in her field.

Yes I see what you mean. I don't think bad charities are a bad thing per se but there are a few that have lost their way.

Very true that you should be paid for your skills but good governance allows that to be done.

The problem with big charities is the same that you have for any big organisation - it is very hard to know what is actually happening in every branch. You then risk a pr nightmare (like the rspb selling off the land they were bequeathed). Being generous - maybe that's what happened at KC (although posts above suggest CB is deeply involved)

Small charities aren't necessarily better either. I know of one where they supplied a product. The charity bought the product from one company. Conpany owned by charity founders son. Charity was the only customer and the conpany made a very healthy profit. You just have to make sure you are careful about who you donate to.

Not even my worst enemy could accuse me of being nice, I'm proud to say.

You've always seemed very reasonable to me motherinferior

My experience working at big charities is that they can be ruthless places. Is this working? Is it the best way to achieve our objectives? If not, ditch it. No space for pet projects and nicey-nicey.

Mother Theresa was another ego-tripping toxic assclown

There is a reason big organisations, including charities, have a structure, governance etc. It all goes horribly wrong if you don't.

A friend of mine worked closely with Help for Heroes and was shocked by their chaotic approach. Absolutely no question that they were well-intentioned and committed to helping servicemen/women, but apparently they had no proper system for assessing requests for help, so some people got huge grants with no accountability for how they were spent whereas others got next to nothing. This was a couple of years ago so they may have a better infrastructure now - hope so, as there is no doubt they are a great cause and have done a huge amount to raise the profile of wounded servicemen & women.

Mother Theresa was another ego-tripping toxic assclown
This ^^

I actually think the Mother Theresa and CB comparison is a good one. CB has achieved a bit of a saintly status over recent years, to the point where no one has dared question CB or KC or to really take a close look at what they're doing and whether a) they're spending the money well compared to other charities working with kids and b) what evidence their is to back up their methods c) what the outcomes are for the kids they're working with.

An ex of mine works for KC. He was quite evangelical about it but I was always a bit about the way CB seemed to run the place and treat the staff.

I'm also not a fan of CB's links with IDS's Centre for Social Justice.

I'm sure it was on MN that I read about CB making some very dodgy judgemental comments in the past effectively blaming single mothers for all the problems faced by the disadvantaged kids of today.

Oh and I've worked for a big international charity and I've also worked with very small charities (two members of staff) and both have their pros and cons. It's like comparing apples and pears.

There is a reason big organisations, including charities, have a structure, governance etc.

One problem is that "raising awareness", "researching causes" and "helping individuals" get done by the same charities, and the requirements of those three aren't necessarily aligned. And some projects get signed off by enthusiastic people in one part of the charity without oversight from elsewhere, for example the samaritan radar disaster.

I suspect that as of this morning's Daily Mail a lot of charities are having tense meetings with their fundraising people, too.

Good grief

Looking at my posts last night I didn't really write what I meant - I blame te cloud of anti bit shampoo I was sitting in

Any big organisation can suffer from a lack of oversight - be it HSBC or save the children. You wonder how much the board knew about the company they outsourced their phone fundraising too

As for cb- the more I read of her the more she sounds like a rent a fob in the vein of Katie Hopkins!

It's easy to point the finger and blame people (that's what my 4yo does) - much harder to actually find a workable solution.

All the people I've known who got involved with KC were evangelical but suddenly stopped talking about it a year or two later claiming they'd decided to focus on causes closer to their local area.

I just hope te baby doesn't get thrown out with the bath water here.

I've found the comments here to be thoughtful and measured and agree with Gemauve excellent deconstruction of the KC problems or rather CB problems. I've done some editing work for them for years and have found them to be less and less accountable as they have grown bigger.

I would like to say something in CB's defence though. Two years ago, I received a couple of spa vouchers and hating spas, sent them to KC to dole them out as they wanted. A week later I received an unexpected handwritten note from CB thanking me for my thoughtful present.

She is not a saint and undoubtedly has a large ego. But Kids Company would never have existed without her.

motherinferior! She's got more in common with Erin Pizzey than I realised

Those comments by CB about black women are bloody awful.

I don't know how she got away with those comments about black women. Well, I do, she was protected by her legend and by her contacts.

I can see why Iain Duncan-Smith was such a fan. Not that I accuse him of racism, it's just that her narrative fits nicely with his belief that families should stay together at all costs because it benefits children and has the added bonus of saving us money.

Tim Loughton spouts the same shit so it's interesting that he was one of the people who highlighted KC's eccentric accounting before being squashed by Dave.

What I'm saying is that it must have been bad for Loughton to go against his nuclear families mantra.

I don't know how she got away with those comments about black women. Well, I do, she was protected by her legend and by her contacts.

And also by the fact that she isn't white, so what would be racist were it said by Nadine Dorries (with whom CB would probably find much common ground) becomes just the fearless telling of it like it is, etc.