Kids Club - Camilla Batmanghelijdjh

I will have to reserve judgement re the charity until it has been properly investigated.
However, I would like to comment that this is one of the many problems with this stupid 'gone-far-to-far political correctness. I suspect that when any doubts were expressed/ complaints made, the lily livered people who should have investigated with rigour, were just too frightened that they would be called racist.

How true,Helmacd. Unfortunately (for her) CB was never a tick box person.

If they passed all the government audits then they can't have been doing much wrong with the money. I think for the staff there was the issue of not getting paid if they carried on because KC had not built up a reserve in the bank as they kept spending it on the children - and they were mopping up an awful lot of things that should be done by the local authority. I know that in Bristol there was (and possibly is) NO provision at all for therapeutic services for children who had been abused, unless they were deemed suicidal and then it was minimal. Even when they arrested a teacher in Weston Super Mare and had a whole schoolful of children to check through, the parents had nowhere to get help. Not sure much has changed.

The big thing about Kids Company is the children can walk in off the street rather than be referred by a social worker, so they were helping youngsters in all sorts of situations not just those who had already hit rock bottom.

I think a lot of the media coverage has been appalling and simplistic.

btw I also read that if you rely on govt funding you can't build up big reserves in your bank account. It is all horribly confusing but the bottom line is there are a lot of children out there who need this support.

They were a charity.
There are loads of charity rules. If you dont obey them, I'm not sure what happens.

No, I don't have first hand experience of KC, but I have spoken to many who have over the years and they've always been impresssed and very supportive. It is a difficult job in a difficult environment, damaged kids are not easy and will continue to steal, make allegations, fight etc. cos that's the way they've always got by and it takes a lot to change, a lot of personal guidance, good role models, good honest meals etc. Its a shame people have withdrawn their support, though I suppose they have to until the legal stuff is sorted out.
There should be a gov't provision for things like this, but had they kept going or even expanded to every city (as the need is there) in a few year's time, just before the next election, the papers will be saying 'gov't funded charity buys kids Nike trainers - at taxpayers expense,' and how is that going to sit with Ian Duncan Smith's, 'we need benefits cut to the bone to balance the books.'
That's why KC were shut down. That and CB's challenge to the child protection system.
In the 70's/80's social services used to help much more in a practical way because it really helped kids move on.

fullfact.org/factcheck/education/kids_company_36000_helped-47069
I think it's a can of worms; charismatic CEO who could talk the talk, a charity with apparently no accountability to anyone and that this is the tip of the iceberg.
None of the figures add up, the charity's reports appear to some critics to read like fiction.

Depends what your priorities are.

My message refers to iPhones - sorry out of sequence.

jinglebellrocks - you made me laugh

Am not an expert but have been following this case and have talked to people who are/ have been social workers working with vulnerable young people. From what I understand the organisation were doing extremely valuable work with difficult and vulnerable youngsters who had fallen through the net of other kinds of statutory support systems. On the other hand, it seems there was inefficiency and wastage in their financial systems (tho this still has to be proven).
My point is this, when big banks are mismanaged, corrupt and wasting taxpayers' money on a grand scale through greed and speculation, the government is happy to bail them out at our expense, and their CEOs continue to receive gigantic bonuses on top of their gigantic salaries, but when a charity helping some of the most vulnerable members of our society appears to be mismanaging its finance, instead of being offered expert support it is immediately closed down.

So £3million wasn't support claireseptember?

As far as I know the governement dont have a choice about bailing out a number of banks if they get into trouble together.
Else the whole pack of cards comes down. They are not happy about doing it!

CB closed down Kids Company herself didnt she? She has to get the allegations of abuse sorted before carrying on, if she were to.

CB was forced to resign, and then made the announcement it was shutting down after she'd got the £3m and paid her staff with £800,000 of it. The £3m wasn't for overheads but to maintain the service so that's when warning bells went off.

Having already got through the £25.5m budget for this year it's no wonder why it was shut down, IMO, especially as she couldn't account for where that money had gone. I understand there were some extremely questionable practices like it funding a boarding school place for her chauffeur's daughter (who wasn't in receipt of a service from KC) and staff salaries averaging £50k p.a.

A blog from the whistleblower:

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/the-inside-story-of-how-the-spectator-broke-the-kids-company-scandal/

What struck me is the mention of £150 million over two decades. That's a lot of money.

That was a very interesting read Granny knot. Thank you for posting. I think that gradually all sorts more will emerge. Maybe people living in London knew what the charity did but whereas I had a good idea about NSPCC or Banardo's etc I had no idea of what their role actually was.

Thanks Grannyknot really interesting and disturbing. The story of the woman who sold her house was especially touching. Whatever happened she was treated appallingly. Something was definitely wrong with KC no doubt more will emerge.

A most interesting article and confirms my doubts about the charity.

In the interests of balance, here is another interesting article about Kids Company. So sad that closure was the reaction to allegations of impropriety, leaving so many children without the support they had been receiving.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/09/kids-company-camila-batmanghelidjh-i-saw-the-good-work-it-did-and-mourn-its-passing

Maybe it will come back againBut no excuse for not getting its financial side in order.
The organisation wasnt exactly lacking in cash.

They had too much cash, perhaps, enough to feel it could be splashed around. Having to watch the pennies does focus the mind on making every one count.

Great article whenim64 (see above)

I don’t think any of us can make a judgement without knowing the facts . I can only guess who did what , who did NOT do anything , how much supervision and support there was from the funders, how many young people were helped , how they were helped , how much money was spent on what , how much damage these young people had already had , how much provision there is , or is not for them , etc etc . The media , and the politicians don’t give us all the acts , so we run on rumour, innuendo , bias and ignorance . I have very little knowledge about the inside of this story , I just hope some-one can provide the skilled level of care and support for these vulnerable young people .

I'm with you on this MAME although I don't think it's all down to the Tories. They have done terrible things to make people who were already poor under previous govts. even poorer, which is unacceptable. I don't know enough about Kid's Company to make a definite decision about the running of it or about CB, but, from what I have heard and read in the past I have always been a big fan of the organisation. Councils, social services and some charities can go on ad infinitum about the poverty and neglect of children in this country and no government will take any notice - but Camila was noticed and now lots of people who 'noticed' her and KC are not exactly coming out of the woodwork to defend the charity.

Thanks whenim for the interesting link.

I know very little about Kids Company apart from what I have read or seen on the TV. Camila B appeared to me to be genuinely and 100% committed to young people.

Having watched several interviews with her, I thought she made some very valid points. She read out an e-mail she received last year from Michael Gove which was most effusive in its praise of Kids Company - and yet apparently he has been one of her most vociferous critics. She also said that Kids Company's accounts have been audited every year and there was no suggestion of impropriety. She did not say that the allegations of child abuse were incorrect - only that neither she nor her staff had at any time been aware of such allegations, and that she had been given no time to examine the allegations.

I am not a great fan of charities being funded to carry out the duties of services that are already available in the public sector - especially when that means public sector services lose funding, and charities - which may be less accountable - gain it. However, there is an argument - and I don't know how valid it is because I don't have enough knowledge of social work/child protection issues - that organisations outside the traditional framework are often more able to respond quickly to issues such as child exploitation. The only organisation that came out well from the Rotherham Inquiry - Risky Business - was a small charity which seemed to have formed much more personal and responsive relationships with the young women who came to them for help.

I can't help but wonder whether CB's very critical statements about the way children - and particularly poor children from dysfunctional backgrounds - are treated in the UK might have led to her demise.

There is no doubt that children who live in chaotic and abusive social circumstances are more likely to respond to an organisation like KC than to the statutory services, because of its informality, humanity and lack of bureaucracy. But the government is right to insist on proper scrutiny and to refuse to pour more money in, if it is not satisfied that proper management and financial scrutiny are in place.

But there will be children who will miss out on care now, and I can only feel sad for them. The statutory services are very unlikely to be able to fill the hole, and the children themselves are likely to be wary of them.