Anyone watching this Kids Company documentary?

[StillStayingClassySanDiego]

Looks interesting.

This was linked to on the previous threads

I thought I'd watch a few minutes and ended up watching until the end.

I could almost picture Camilla with her hands over her ears singing "lalalala, it's not happening, I can't hear you!"

She was oblivious to the mire the company were in and the environment of dependence that had been created amongst vulnerable people.

*was

I was also struck by how white the kids company charity was. It was striking as that part of London has a large population of BME people and a long history of that being the case.

It seems odd.

I found camila's constant sniping about middle classes with their fussing about y'know governance and focus on outcomes really irritating.

One girl gets £15,000 school fees paid and god knows she probably deserves it. But all the kids deserve it.

Watching now. I keep being reminded of that lyric from Evita - "when the money keeps rolling in you don't keep books, you can tell you've done well from the happy grateful looks, accountants only slow things down, figures get in the way"

Watching now. The whole thing beggars belief. I'm involved in insolvency through my work and this is an absolutely classic story of mismanagement, combined with those at the top having their own egos massaged by blindly following ideas that clearly don't work, recklessly endangering the staff and stakeholders because poor financial hygiene (including failure to build reserves) and swanky stuff to make them feel like they're Big Cheeses.

I sincerely hope that there are consequences for Camilla and the other trustees who allowed it to get to this state.

And this chauffeur. I don't know many people who's salary and benefits extend to private school fees for their kids, except FTSE 100 directors

How can that possibly be justified?

I'm not sure that anyone could say that the girl deserves to have her school fees paid. I really don't understand how you could run a charity and simply decide that the best way to help a community is to pick one favourite and give them all the opportunities. £15k a year for one child to go to school (which the state would provide for free) is just not a good use of the available resources.

I did note that the school fees girl was a second generation KC client. Clearly KC did not do a great job with her mother who has been reliant on KC since she was a child and now has a whole family supported by the charity. Creating intergenerational dependency seems to be the very definition of an approach that does not work. And picking a golden child to send away to an expensive school does not make that better.

I was really angry after seeing the other woman in her 30s who appears to have been made more helpless not less by the KC intervention. How dare Camilla pretend that is doing good.

I was pretty shocked that a young woman seemed to have been sent out alone with bags of cash to be delivered to people who were pretty desperate and angry.

Yes, she just seemed to create dependency on her and her "charity". I once heard a definition of "help" as being "doing something that the person can't do for themselves", Ie: if they could do it, you're not helping by doing it for them

I think the case of the "driver" highlights how Camila felt it was her money to dispense as wished. The driver's daughter's fees were paid for at a £28k a year school and she was given a plum job at KC. Camila claims the daughter was given a bursary by the school which KC arranged (but was meant for disadvantged kids)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3198856/Daughter-Kids-Company-boss-s-driver-charity-payroll-helped-pay-school-fees.html

KC also paid for the driver's dyslexic son's schooling (logged as speech therapy) to the tune of £50K and he was then also employed by KC. A relatives health care was also paid for at a Harley Street clinic.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277486/Kids-Company-boss-blew-thousands-pounds-private-Harley-Street-doctor-relative-
driver.html

It really was a gravy train for the "favourites"

I lived in South London near KC in the late 90's and even then there was local gossip about the validity of the numbers of "children" KC were claiming to feed and help each week in puff pieces in the local paper. Certainly no one I knew ever saw queues round the block.

I thought the documentary never attempted to show what exactly KC were actually doing. Was it really as little as some classes for kids and a bit of new age therapies, money in envelopes and free holidays for the chosen few?

I've worked in lots of charities, and occasionally I've come across people who can't see beyond the client in front of them, and feel they should pour everything into that one person/ family's life. So for example taking on clients who don't fit the charities remit, even if it means messing up the figures which messes up the funding. Or giving a disproportinate amount of time and money at the expense of the many other service users, who are getting nothing. It's as though they have some wierd sense of guilt/ can't say no/ or maybe are just megalomaniacs, depending on their level of power.

There certainly seemed to be a lot of that going on at Kids Company, just think of what they could have actually done with all the money.

The culture of dependence was certainly well known in the field.

Just finished watching it and it made me so angry.

There was something so patronising about the way KC seemed to treat their clients.

And the lack of accountability is shocking. Camila was worshipped by the media and government for years but as soon as things didn't go her way suddenly the scenario turned and she was a scapegoat and they were all out to get her.
Fact is they were one of the biggest charities in the UK as far as funding was concerned and yet they couldn't actually provide accurate numbers of children and people they were helping and didn't produce any long term solutions or plans to help their clients.

Camila is like a petulant child. As soon as things didn't go her way she stomped her feet and closed down the charity without even informing her staff (employees in the Bristol branch found out when they showed up for work). They refused to return public funds even though they were closed down- no-one actually knows what happened to the 2.3 millions mentioned in the program.

And who's left behind? Her worshipful followers staff and her victims clients.
How charitable.

Watching on catch up.

I have no idea where that woman gets off, painting her nails in the middle of a crisis and that laugh.

God this is depressing. The point at which the film maker's view changes made me really uncomfortable. Her disappointment came across so strongly.

I think she was just so arrogant and deluded that she genuinely expected the government to just hand her the cash as they had time after time. KC also had a huge tax bill written off by HRMC.

Those allegations of child abuse are interesting. I know the investigation was eventually dropped hence the conspiracy theories that they were planted to discredit KC for good. But on the other hand in 19 years of practice, considering the clients and the setup it seems so unlikely that there were no cases at all that needed to be referred to the authorities.

Ultimately CB seemed to have an utter God complex and was so used to the adoration of her staff and clients that she couldn't handle the fact that like everyone else she was ultimately accountable for her charity's failings.

That bit where she walked in to talk to the staff and they were all cheering was just nuts. I mean I've had some inspirational bosses but I've never done much more than just shut up or offer them a drink when they walk into a room. It's like they're all just in awe of her.

Scary cult leader.

The staffs reaction to Camilla was very North Korea

I've just caught up on this. I work for a charity with a similar remit and size to KC. By far the most shocking aspect for me was the lack of reserves. The Charity Commission usually recommends charities hold reserves covering 3-6 months' running costs. How on earth did that go unchecked and how did they keep getting funded whilst in that situation.
The work of the charity itself seems misguided at best. I'm sure the motivations were real, but creating the sort of dependency helps no one long term. Surely as a charity what you're trying to do is to get to a position where you're no longer needed? Their inteventions don't seem to have provided value for money, how they continued to be so seemingly automatically funded for so long is shocking, particularly given the hoops most organisations have to jump through for funding.

Just watched it.
When are we ever going to learn the truth.

The Charities Commision are still investigating KC- maybe some more details will emerge when they report but sadly ShoesSHOES you may well be right.

The staff were also shown shredding everything towards the end of the documentary

See I found that utterly shocking. Surely you'd want to give your clients their files so that might use them to get support from other agencies?