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.

Let's hope she has the decency and good grace to step down and allow the company to managed properly and effectively. If sh edoes actually give a damn about thos ekids rtahre than herself, she will. If not...........well, there you go. Another filthy rich, left wing egotistic hypocrite. How disappointing .

I agree moustache
She instigated place2be in London schools and I have heard very negative things about her from their practitioners.

The Mail has a report from an inside source that say steen swould trun up in cars on a Friday, run in, grab their envelopes of cash and drive off.

This is just so depressing.

Loving teh latest breast beating wailing from the Guardian. Who are actually also inherently inaccurate. Fundng has NOT been with drwan. It has been withdrawn until CB steps down.

it sounds a bit misogynistic to dismiss a high profile, charismatic woman as unhinged.

David Icke is/was a high profile, charismatic man. He, too, is unhinged.

I also think KC has managed this badly. By screaming "we've lost our government funding" from the rooftops, she's put herself on red alert with every existing and potential corporate and foundation funder.

Bang on. A good leader/leadership team would never have allowed this to get to this stage.

And YY to all those identifying that charities need to spend money on good management to avoid this..... yet the pressure on charities is to have better management without 'wasting' money on 'admin'. Plenty of donors, including BBC Children in Need, which won't fund overheads. Its frustrating to say the least.

Finally though I think CMs downfall was that she didn't respect her donors, be it a private individual or the government, and I think that this is what may end up being her real downfall. Many will now think twice about giving to KC, especially when there are many excellent charities doing great work in local communities.

DoughDoe, good points.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11717413/Kids-Company-Did-good-PR-mask-deeper-failings.html

Found the article. Depressing to read again about cash handed out

Totally agree rudeabaga

After reading all the links, it's so disappointing to find out a charity you believed in and supported has so much negative stuff going on and isn't helping kids as much as you'd thought/hoped. I made an annual donation (not much, but regular). i won't be doing that until I have more info that things are improving. Sad thing is I'm sure I won't be the only one who gives me money to another cause.

Hopefully this whole affair will go some way to informing people why charity spending on "admin" is by no means necessarily a bad thing.

That telegraph article?? Its terrible journalism/reporting.

Is that the kind of reporting that people are basing their damnation on?

Is everyone just in outrage, because CB/KC give out money? Is that what people object to?

What do people object to?

What do people object to?

I think the main problem is not KC in itself, but that with limited resources and a large number of organisations that lneed money, KC needs to show that funds would be used and managed better than another potential recipient.

I don't know whether CB has been targeted by a smear campaign. However according to the a guardian article they are in a financial crisis and need emergency funding. CB has not been asked to leave KC, just step down from the roll of CEO. This doesn't seem an outlandish request for an organisation in financial crisis asking for money.

kids Company get a grant from cabinet office. Cabinet office have queried the value that kids company is providing. It's slightly more than accountancy - this is more about is the £3m spent with kids company better value for this cohort than say simply adding it to SS/NHS or another charity.

As a result, people are questioning the practices of the charity, and saying they can't prove how effective they are.

So nobody is questioning the accountancy - the books will be audited and solid. But accountancy doesn't really care about whether it is mediocre or good value for money in this context, just whether the rules have been followed ( admittedly a simplification) Business use profit as a key measure. Dealing with vulnerable children does not have easy clear measures. Kids Company though appear to be less clear than equivalent organisations about the value. cabinet office have said that unless the CEO steps down, then no further money from the grant will be given to KC.

At the same time, there have been allegations of Kids Co from private donors who are also questioning the accountability, which further raises questions about her leadership.

Lack of accountability, in that accounts aren't kept? I tea that they are audited regularly and no anomalies

And I've never seen a single other practitioner refer to KC work, which I think is interesting - the lone-maverick approach can only take you so far. Of course people want to know how effective this approach is - we have a big mental health problem among young people and if it can be demonstrated that a KC approach works, makes a genuine difference, that would be great. But that in turn requires a robust analysis, and - yes - am examination of the long-term outcomes.

Iceland I am sure lots of people feel that way which is why what has happened is such a damned shame. KC did lots of good work. Now much of that is at risk, mainly because of how CB has responded to the challenges that lots of charities face.

Harvey Lots of charities offer kids food, treats and days out as part of their offer but it doesn't seem like a good idea to hand out cash in anything but exceptional circumstances. Giving out money happens but it sounds as if the money was handed out too freely and without proper controls (though I am only picking up on what I've read).

I think its her arrogance that is the problem. The 'we are untouchable' attitude. There are lots of charities doing excellent work without a figurehead like CB but who have to compete with them when it comes to funding. Some of these charities are probably being a lot more rigorous in their evaluations and therefor struggling to compete.

Lack of accountability, in that accounts aren't kept? I tea that they are audited regularly and no anomalies

Without seeing the audit I don't know. However, my experience is companies - you can be audited and obeying all the rules and still be a bad investment and require stricter financial management.

And any decently managed charity ought to have three months' worth of reserves, at least - in fact trust funders often make this a requirement - certainly one as generously funded as KC.

Ok, so its not about accountability, its about effectiveness

And we need to be able to measure that effectiveness?

Which just smacks of having absolutely no tiny clue of what it is like to live in poverty