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.

There probably is an element of relief at finally being able to criticise CB. I've sat through too many things where she's swished up to pick up an award, with my secret misgivings about her saint-like status nervously concealed in case I was stoned to death.

Forgetting CB for a moment isn't this the real scandal?

"There are 500,000 children referred to social services a year. Only 37,000 can be offered any service. In child mental health non life threatening situations can wait for 2 years to be seen.

In one recent study 1 in 10 children suffered abuse and neglect . In another it is 1 in 5." (copied from Times comment)

Harvey are you objecting to the need to measure effectiveness?

The story appears to have taken another turn, CB is linking her dismissal to the dolphin square abuse scandal. The story is in the times today its behind a pay wall. I have copied and pasted the article below.

A children’s charity head claims that she is being pressured to resign after approaching the government with a list of establishment figures involved in an historical child sex abuse case.
Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of the charity Kids Company, has said that she “will not be bullied” into resignation despite alleged threats to withdraw vital state funding.
Ms Batmanghelidjh’s leadership came under scrutiny this week following reports that a £3 million government grant needed for the charity’s restructuring was dependent on her removal as chief executive.
The charity has received about £30 million of public money since 2008, mostly from central government. The last government granted the charity £4.25 million to contribute to its 2015-16 budget of £24.5 million.
The Iranian-born activist and high-profile children’s campaigner claims to have been targeted after challenging the government’s handling of child abuse in relation to the 1970s Dolphin Square claims in which young boys were allegedly raped and murdered by members of the establishment elite.
Yesterday she said that she had been approached by a senior child protection officer who had concerns over the government’s handling of the case. She claims to be in possession of a list of names of alleged perpetrators, several of whom held ministerial positions.
“The child protection police officer wanted to talk to me about the fact that historic child sexual abuse cases that he was investigating were being repressed. He wasn’t allowed to complete his investigation,” she said.
She was subsequently approached by more child protection officers, former victims and council officials, who all highlighted the Dolphin Square abuse, she claims. “I contacted senior figures in the Home Office to try and get them to get someone to do this inquiry properly,” she said.
She added: “It is clear from correspondence with cabinet members that they want me to step down, or at least to the side.”
Several reports of funding mismanagement at the charity and inappropriate governance have emerged in the past year — claims which the organisation strongly denies.
A Home Office spokesman said the home secretary “has always been clear we will leave no stone unturned in our bid to get to the truth”.
Any allegation of sexual abuse was always referred to the police and, where appropriate, contact details for the independent inquiry set up by the home secretary were passed on.
· The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse set up by the Home Office will be formally opened in London next Thursday. Justice Lowell Goddard, the chairwoman, will outline the inquiry’s principles and the areas of public life that she will examine.

But the question the Cabinet Office need to be able to answer is why should KIds Company get £3m when x no of charities who are supporting exactly the same disadvantaged and vulnerable children and provide better information don't get £3m. If Kids Company were able to respond better and were able to produce better evidence, they would still get the money. And the evidence required frankly is part of good clinical governance and practice for any organisation dealing with vulnerable children and families.

Well yesterday on the Today programme it was because she was too vocal about children's services being cut. And today she's just remembered this?

Yes. We need to know what works - works for a significant number of young people, not just anecdotally - and to do more of it. But that means proof of what works. And if KC is so marvellous, surely it should be able to demonstrate that?

neouf I understand the need to do that from s corporate funders POV

What I think is stupid and out of order, is to then vilify CB and CK.

Helping kids living in poverty (with abusive/neglectful/no parents) is not measurable, if you are talking about meeting their basic needs; which is money. Food, clothes, electricity...it is all about money

And people are calling for funding for that provision to be linked to an improvement in exam grades/ better employment. Its disgusting Imo

And like I said, totally belies a complete lack of understanding of what living in poverty is

I just hope private donators, such as Coldplay understand

I'm a bit confused as to what people thought KC did?

Noeuf I was thinking the same thing. It all feels so desperate and undignified, she really needs to leave.

There is no way the government have been giving anyone that much money, without accountability

Harvey I think we disagree then.
I would say that the provision (food/money/etc) should lead to an outcome.
For example:
Child A received food and space to study and pass 5 GCSES as a result. The outcome was that he applied for a college place.

RE the Times article...

.... if she wasn't CEO of KC she would be much more at liberty to speak on these other issues, so that doesn't really work.

Harvey, if you look at the KC site you'll see that it talks about changing kids' lives and attainments. So yes, it is fully legit to look at its impact on education and employment (accepting the constraints on employment for young people, obviously); and on other outcomes including referrals to social care/ mental health services/ the prison system and so on.

So kids that dont/cant/wont go on to get GCSEs should not have access to food, clothes, warmth, electricity??

Yes essex that is indeed the real scandal

I feel like Alice in Wonderland here

I hate MN sometimes

" Child A received food and space to study and pass 5 GCSES as a result. The outcome was that he applied for a college place. "

well I am not sure that everyone would pass 5 gcses even with support. Does that make them bad people unworthy of help?

Harvey - yes they should and no one is saying the need isn't there, including the government.

It's just where is the best place for £3m of central government funding to support those needs? Is KC really the best place?

£3m of recrrurent funding would support quite a lot of CAHMS appointments or food banks or housing support.

Fgs, it's obviously an example of an outcome. I'm sure people can think of others. I'm not setting the KPIs for the charity.

I only personally know 1 person that has experience with kids company and it was extremely negative.
I think the excuses cb is coming up with are an absolute joke and the government are absolutely doing the right thing.

I understand what you are saying Harvey. Lots of charities do great work but can't demonstrate outcomes and are losing out. Helplines are a classic example because you can rarely prove that someone changed their life around as the result of a phone call.

Having said that, someone will have almost certainly filled out an application form to the funders saying that they will achieve certain outcomes, and accepting the funding will come with a commitment to reporting back on the success or otherwise of the project.

Charities also improve their services if they commit to learning more about what works well and what doesn't work so well, and you can't do this unless you evaluate the work objectively and thoughtfully.

Forgetting CB for a moment isn't this the real scandal?

"There are 500,000 children referred to social services a year. Only 37,000 can be offered any service. In child mental health non life threatening situations can wait for 2 years to be seen.

This!

I get it that people want to know that the money is being spent effectively. But there are numerous areas of their work where that is simply bloody obvious. Every Christmas, they take in children who would otherwise get no Christmas at all, or who have been chucked out by their families, and give them the closest to a normal Christmas Day that they can manage. Does that seriously need a measurable outcome? They work their socks off making sure that children get the care, health and disability provision that they are legally entitled to. It's simply not open to the Cabinet Office or anyone else to question whether that's worth doing.

The Kids Company statement mentions quarterly reviews by 'government appointed auditors'. They won't be auditing the entire accounts of the company; they will only be auditing the parts that are funded by the government grant which will have been agreed on and some form of SLA put in place.

The easy way to get around that is to spend that part of the money in the way intended but not that from private or corporate donors which are subject to less scrutiny.

I'm also a bit that they are audited quarterly as it's normally an annual thing. Quarterly auditing on behalf of the government makes me think that they've been under scrutiny because there were strong suspicions all was not well.

How many kids each Christmas? What is provided for them? What's the feedback from those kids?

It's not about whether or not it's worth doing. It's about whether doing it the CB way is the most effective way of doing it. We let those kids down if the scant resources available are being directed to an organisation which doesn't offer them the best provision possible. Is KC the best way of doing it? And if so, how do we know?

The supportive posters on this thread are repeating KC's own claims, which are being challenged from several fronts. They seem to have made claims which are impossible as to the number of children helped and fed. There is anecdotal evidence that they have claimed to have helped extra people at certain times when they haven't.

And it doesn't appear that KC have invested in providing any sort of reliable way of backing up their claims. Which is why they need a new CEO who has the capability of providing a more robust system of evidence and accounting.