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.

To be fair kids company has a large number of volunteers - if one or two of them haven't been impressed then that's not to say the rest of them all agree and I doubt we're getting a full informed impartial picture from the media.

Presumably the charities commission have been happy with the annual accounts.

merry well then you are stuck between, an organisation which works for the kids it is trying to help but is underfunded; and one which is funded but ineffective.

So, loose-loose. Unless someone with funding to offer, is able to think outside the box...

Come off it, EM, the 'media' picture of KC/KB for years has been of an utter saint (and I speak as a journalist who writes a lot about children's social care and/or the voluntary sector).

Gemauve, spot on. And ffs, there are loads of other organisations criticising government policy about young people, mental health issues, and so on. This 'I am a sole crusader' bollocks is really out of order.

'CB's comment about being concerned for the donor's mental health was shocking'

That's one of the things discussed here Essex. It's staggering that an organisation can receive so much money, including government funding, and have so little scrutiny. It really doesn't seem to be about just a couple of unhappy ex-volunteers. Buzzfeed article is also interesting.

'CB's comment about being concerned for the donor's mental health was shocking'

Sorry, pressed send too soon! Yes it is shocking and smacks of bullying. I was a great admirer of CB but this all sounds really worrying. I'm particularly disturbed by the previous poster who said that that even the violent older kids were having all sorts of fancy material things bought for them - that sounds highly unprofessional and counterproductive

No accounting irregularities doesn't mean the money has been well spent. Providing the accounts are accurate, then the charities commission is unlikely to have issues. There are plenty of ineffective charities who have accurate accounts ( I say that as a corporate funder)

I don't fund the UK, but the bottom line for me would be whether the kids involved with KC have significantly better life outcomes than similar children who aren't involved with KC in respect of education, employment and other factors such as criminal convictions etc. If they do have better outcomes, the next question is whether KC is cost effective vs other interventions with the same target group.

The cynic in me says that if they're struggling to get corporate finders then there are issues because there's barely a corporate in London which doesn't have at risk children as a major funding priority.

and one which is funded but ineffective.

But that is the problem - CB has been asked to stand down either because kid's company isn't effective taking into account the money it receives; or because they can't provide credible financial information to show to government and donors that what kid's company do is effective.

kid's company still exists. If it can't survive without CB as CEO, its effectiveness is debatable anyway.

That Spectator article has clearly been written with an agenda and should be taken with a pinch of salt. For instance, it queries the fact that KC has helped school staff. But if the reality is that school staff need advice about how to deal with vulnerable children and find them the help that they need, or about the legal entitlements of those children, and if they can't access that advice anywhere else, really why shouldn't KC help them?

aggressive its a shame that 'better life outcome' is a funding criteria

Its a noble aim. But there is value in just providing a safe warm place, food and someone to listen?

I don't think there is a happy ending for many individuals with attachment disorder etc. But the children still need to have their basic needs met.

harvey because funding is finite and if I have a choice between funding a charity whose interventions prevent disadvantaged kids from going to jail and one which gives them an Xbox now but they're still going to jail, then I'd be an idiot not to fund the first one.

aggressive I don't really class an xbox as a fundamental need

I'm talking about providing food and shelter for kids, regardless of school grades or potential employability.

I'm not having a go at you

There is no measurable improvement for this objective. How do homeless provisions get funding?

They don't seem to be providing a safe place though. Violence between staff has been talked about and children bringing in knifes. That doesn't strike me as a safe place. And this money being handed out in envelopes every friday, large sums to my mind even for me to be carrying round. That could cause more problems than it solves. I've seen first hand, from a distance, hugely damaged kids who really do just needed to hold a hand, someone to talk to them not shout. Not games consoles and large amounts of cash.

harvey the funding thing is complicated because some things are a legal obligation ( the provision of advocacy services for people with learning disabilities for example) so where that's the case the government will tender the contract to an NGO who specialises in that. Some homeless services probably fall under that obligation so the measure is the provision of shelter etc. to x people for a government grant of y per year. Basically it's a supply contract.

Some homeless charities will also be able to show that they're breaking a cycle and that their service users have better outcomes than is typical- i.e. shorter duration of homelessness, etc. This will help attract funding from corporate and foundation funders who are more impact focused.

With youth charities the focus is majorly on sustainable change rather than alleviation. i.e. Does the intervention actually improve these children's lives long term- can they get jobs, do they avoid criminal activity, addiction etc. this would be assessed relative to what would be the norm for someone if that background. Assuming that there is no LT impact, then the charity would probably be heavily reliant on funding from individual donors ( ie you and me giving a tenner) who care much less about long term impact and are happy to fund 'here and now' initiatives, especially for ( young) children and ( cute) animals. Animal sanctuaries are the best eg of this split in funding priorities.

Hope this helps. Sorry a bit garbled- on my phone.

scaredy ive never been to KC. I frequent a local provision which is aimed at providing food/safe place. It also provides trips and activities..for kids that otherwise wouldn't have those experiences

Funding I always an issue

There is also always arguments/fights/displays of aggression. I don't think its realistic to expect to be able to eradicate that element. Sure, individuals learn that they dont need to/cant behave like that...they grow up and move on. But there's a constant stream of kids moving through this process

Do KC really hand out xboxes? I find that hard to believe.

Also can I just point out that it's not a split between individual fundraising - or individual/corporate donations - and government funding. There is a whole area of trust funding, which I'd be amazed if KC hasn't tapped into. Not to speak of the growing area of social investment and social enterprise.

Maybe the organisation that you are talking about is better organised than kid's company harvey? Plenty of organisations are competing for funds. Kid's company is very high profile but it isn't the only organisation supporting children.

Again, kid's company still exists. All that has happened is that the government want somebody with management and finance skills to have strong control of that side of the organisation in return for funding.

The issue with relying on grants is that funders want sustainable and measurable outcomes. There is still a good amount if funding from Trusts and Foundations as well as money that comes from Big Lottery & children in need but they are looking for new projects within organisations and not to continue funding ongoing activities in most cases. They also require significant evidence of expected impact and a follow up to this. They are also very keen on partnership working and if an organisation can't demonstrate this then they won't get funded.

I volunteer for a much smaller charity that does similar work to KC, is very well-run and predominately funded by donations and fundraising. We could do SO much more with the kind of donations people give to KC.

Never liked her - always came across as arrogant and self grandiose.

I also have heard of them throwing money around like confetti.

Let's hope they get someone in who is decent, accountable and has an ordinary ego.

I first heard about poor governance and lack of financial accountability at kids company nearly ten years ago now. I'm amazed that it hasn't been dealt with before now. Hopefully a good CEO will get it delivering effectively

what you have to remember about CB is that she comes from a family so rich she would not even find Buck House intimidating.
Therefore she cannot help coming over as arrogant, it is in the way she was raised.

I watched the Today interview. Thought it was interesting that CB kept dismissing the accountability issue as red herring, saying it's the government's way of discrediting her. Hmm

If Kid's Company really has been frittering money for years and years, then how can it continue even with a new CEO? Its reputation will be destroyed, and I can't see its numerous celebrity donors wanting to carry on donating.

Because she comes from such privileged background she doesn't understand real value of each pound. I don't think she understands that at some point money will run out... she has(had?) very strong celebrity backing and she felt untouchable.. who will dear questioning how she supports young & unprivileged kids..

Obviously I don't know anything about the relationship between David Cameron/the government and CB/KC, but do you think Cameron/the Tories are so happy to support it because it is their cuts that lead to greater number of children falling through the cracks and needing KC? And this makes them appear ostensibly to be interested in the welfare of the poorest children?