alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Clamidya Batty-Telly,can we have our money back ?
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
Sort of. I am no longer on the executive of the two I mentioned. But I do other work that I'd rather not elaborate. 'Kevin' is now run brilliantly by the new(ish) CEO, and its executive has been reformed. Kevin's executive committee meetings used to be ludicrous, with too many people working in silos, and no overview. The former CEO was brilliant mainly at appearing to be brilliant. Charismatic controlling CEOs are a menace. I suspect this may be a strong factor in the Kids situation.
One thing I got changed when on Kevin's executive was transparency. These days, any member in good standing can find two similar to nominate them to stand for election to the exec. A few years ago the exec was 'selected' by the incumbents. The chair at the time told me 'we can't have free access to the ballot paper because the wrong people might be elected'. That said it all, really. Fortunately Kevin sorted itself out, and had deep enough pockets to avoid problems while it did so. One person left the organization in a bit of a hurry after an exec meeting at which some financial aspects were questioned. These days it is a fantastic organization doing really important things in its sector.
Listening to the latest sounbites on the radio, Batman is blaming the government for leaving the care of these kids to the charity. This sounds like a complete lack of insight. All charities need to budget. It seems that she thought her only remit was to spend. I guess the recurrent wodges of 3 million quid's worth of tax payesr money may have given her the impression she was being underwritten. Maybe she subscribed to Cameron's doctrine of small state, big charity. But for both of them, for different reasons, they were in denial about where the money came from (the taxpayer).
Personally, I think the idea of directly or indirectly giving tax payer's money to charities is morally wrong. It should be the personal choice of individuals (I decide which charities get my money). This government sees it as a way of saving money. But how? If government looked after kids it would need to employ people, budget, and have an infrastructure inside social services. But the charity MUST have equivalent budgeting, staff and infrastructure or how could it do the job? Cameron probably says 'the private sector is always more economical than a state run business'. But this isn't a business. It is a charity, run by folk of dubious qualification, answerable at the operational level to nobody, doing work that ought to be done by the state.
I think it boils down to this. If your agenda is to destroy 'socialism' then you introduce the free market into 'nationalised' organizations. The two don't mix, and the 'creative tension' drags the centre of gravity away from 'nationalised' and into 'privatised'. Here we have an independent organization working in the social services sector, but insted of the 'free market' driving it, the bloody tax payer is footing the bill through huge government grants. That is simply bonkers at almost every level. That said, Blair embraced private public partnership too - a huge error matched only by his idea of state funding religious schools of any denomination (the reason I resigned my labour party membership many years ago). Going well off topic, now. Apols.
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
Don't apologise. Fascinating insight from an insider.
I'll tell you more when I bump into you tomorrow ;-)
Like your wife, both my wife and I worked with young people in South East London. Until 3 years ago, I worked for a charity with homeless young adults (16-21) in Lewisham and Southwark. My wife worked as a Educational Social Worker for Lewisham. We both regularly came across clients of Kids Company, and both formed the same view.
There were enormous positives from them. The young people really engaged well with the workers and provided a vital service you extremely vulnerable children and young adults. Without the good work they did there would have been tragic consequences. The pictures on Newsnight reflect just how much they were appreciated by the local community. You cannot fake the things that were being said.
There were also some negatives. They were at times disorganised and you often felt that there successes came from hard work by their staff and CB rather than by good organisation, and well thought our policies and procedures. I can also give examples where their well meaning intervention helped to sidetracked important work we were doing around training on budgeting and independent living. Part of the training we would do would be to allow young people to learn hard lessons when they failed to budget, only intervening with essentials or to avert crises. Kids Company at times would intervene too early undermining what we were trying to teach. Having said that it is a judgement call.
This is essentially where the problem lay. Anyone who questions the good intentions and very often the good outcomes that kids company had, doesn't know what they are talking about. Believe me I do know that Kids company were very much on the side of youn people first and foremost. it showed with every experience. Their staff were very easy to work with. However this is only 66% of the solution. Good actions are always better when supported by good strategy. laid down policies and procedures that are followed and reviewed are vital in ensuring the best outcomes. That's what Local authorities do best. Many see it as bureaucracy. In reality it is planning and working out a consistent approach that is regularly reviewed to pick up unforeseen problems. At times Kids Company, as do the whole charity sector, lacked an organisational oversight.
On a personal note, I met CB when working with one of my young clients. She was very helpful and we did work out an agreed strategy that had a good outcome. She also offered me a job. without even knowing what the rest of my work was like, which I turned down. That in a nutshell is the person. An extremely likeable kind and well intentioned woman, who'd cut corners at times. Sometimes the cutting of corners creates problems.
Having said all of that, the loss of Kids Company is a disaster that will be felt for a long time by the vulnerable young people that KC served. Give me 1 Camilla over 500 of the mps we have any day.
I deny all knowledge.
Couldn't agree more DKM.
Trying to look at this subjectively. The Tories have a stated aim of expanding the charitable sector and this is how they believe it should work.
Positive - On a small scale people can try new ideas, which they would never get off the ground in a large bureaucracy.
Negative - There are no minimum standards and no safety blanket when things go wrong.
Positive - If things go wrong on a small scale, the damage limitation is manageable, whereas in a large bureaucracy, it can take a lot of time and money to put things right.
Negative - Is this sort of scatter gun approach, appropriate when dealing with the most vulnerable in society ?
They are applying a similar philosophy to other areas of the public sector, notably education and what was probation.
My personal view, is that I don't like it, however, I don't think this is something that Cameron, Osborne or CB should be vilified for. This is what we voted for people.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
This is why I hope the whole thing doesn't collapse, but I fear it is too late with the media coverage.
Hmmm; 'give me one Camilla over 500 MP's', and risk bankrupting the country with good intentions!
Other than that I agree with your sentiments.
Very interesting, and sensible. However, although people voted for Conservative that doesn't necessarily mean they voted for swapping social services (or the state school system: next) for charity. Until yesterday I had no idea that the taxpayer was bankrolling this charity. This was now clearly a flagship for a policy that most people don't know about (undermining and eventually dissolving social services in their widest sense). Cameron pledges undying support for the NHS. But his real aim is to see a US style system. If I were a true conservative, that would be my goal too: 'men and women and their families' to paraphrase Thatcher. Let the vigorous thrive and rest be thrifty. It makes perfect sense. But I don't happen to believe in it.
We need a little more statewide intervention and infrastructure to help people get the best out of themselves. National standards (in health, schools and social services). Having it all repalced by haphazard charity didn't work for the Victorians (though it helped many thousands - the church founded my junior school, St Nicholas in Portslade) and it won't work now. It is political, and actually, yes, I do think Cameron should be villified for it. It is one thing to say 'I am cutting income tax because a charity is now dealing with kids in trouble' but not if the charity exists only because Cameron was giving them money from our taxes. That is deceitful. It is positively Robett Maxwell. And having overruled advice to stop, Cameron is doubly deceitful, shamefully so.
And, ps, just in case the chap who met CB thinks I'm being unfair to her by default, I am sure she did her best, and if money was wasted or misued, or if they were disorganised, that is what can very easily happen when a charity is suddenly grown by the steroid fertilizer of inappropriately disbursed funds from government. And even though I am a lefty, I accept that this is exactly the same as the way Labour threw money at the nationalized electricity board, gas board and other pointless nationalized manopolies way back when. Common bloody sense trumps doctrine every time.
as opposed to ruining the country with bad intentions. Like say handing over billions to the bankers with the sale of RBS shares.
Get a grip, Castello.
There are plenty of arguments to say he did the right thing, including the advice of the Governor of The Bank of England.
Of course there will always those who say it was the wrong thing to do and there are pros and cons; but hey, don't let your socialist views always lead you to boo anything the 'wicked tories' do.
Last edited:
What's happening tomorrow?
warmleyseagull
Well-known member
Read http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/06/kids-company-directors-were-warned-to-build-up-reserves
Great idea run by person with ego the size of her backside who couldn't organise a shag in an brothel, seduces many who don't bother to ask questions to give money (one woman sold her house to give to the charity FFS), and is not held to account by trustees (all of whom should be banned from ever being trustees again).
I have been where these poor FDs have been; the lone voice pointing out the issues, no-one listens and you give up. Choice: resign or hang on then you get the blame. And still the wretched woman has the balls to blame everyone else.
Great idea run by person with ego the size of her backside who couldn't organise a shag in an brothel, seduces many who don't bother to ask questions to give money (one woman sold her house to give to the charity FFS), and is not held to account by trustees (all of whom should be banned from ever being trustees again).
I have been where these poor FDs have been; the lone voice pointing out the issues, no-one listens and you give up. Choice: resign or hang on then you get the blame. And still the wretched woman has the balls to blame everyone else.
I hear she's reverted to her original name - Camila Brucewayneghelidjh.
Creaky
Well-known member
Reading that link then between 2009 and 2013 -
Number of children cared for increased by 157%
Income increased by 77%
Costs increased by 72%
Staff numbers increased by 114%
Payroll increased by 112%
So essentially what's being argued is that the charity should have turned children in need of care away in order to put the savings in the bank. Wouldn't that have simply meant that if grants and other income dried up that a smaller number of children could continue to be supported for slightly longer rather than more children being cared for over a slightly shorter period?
None of which addresses the most important question of what support are those children now going to get?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...s-Companys-unique-work-funded-by-charity.html
Two glowing reports which hailed the work of Kids Company as “unique” and “extraordinary” were funded directly by the crisis-hit children’s charity, it has emerged.
Camila Batmanghelidjh, the founder of Kids Company, has relied on the studies, published by the London School of Economics (LSE) and the think-tank the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), to argue that the collapse of the charity she founded 20 years ago would leave children effectively “abandoned”.
It has now emerged that the charity paid almost £40,000 towards the LSE study, and a conference linked to it, as well as employing the author of the separate CSJ report as part of a secondment.
Kids Company closed down suddenly last week just days after receiving a £3 million Government lifeline on the orders of minsters, who overruled civil servants’ concerns about the charity’s management.
It collapsed in effective bankruptcy after philanthropists offering a multi-million pound donation pulled out after it emerged it was facing a police investigation into sexual claims.
In a round of interviews after the closure of the charity, Miss Batmanghelidjh blamed “rumour-mongering civil servants”, ministers and the media for its demise.
Officials had voiced concerns not only about the charity’s financial position, but the apparent lack of clear evidence that its work with children was effective.
But Miss Batmanghelidjh has repeatedly cited the study by the LSE in particular as independent evidence that its work was having a powerful impact on children’s lives.
The report, authored by Prof Sandra Jovchelovitch, a leading psychologist, heaped praise on Miss Batmanghelidjh personally and concluded that Kids Company’s work had made a “substantial difference” to the lives of the children and young people it worked with.
In the opening sentence of the preface Prof Jovchelovitch remarked that when she first met Miss Batmanghelidjh she had been “immediately struck by the beauty and profound truth of her simple message”.
She added that she had been “delighted” to have had the opportunity to “study the language of love” the charity expounds.
A separate study by the Centre for Social Justice, the think-tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith, focussed on the children who used it services and concluded that there are many with “desperate” needs not being met by local social services.
A spokesman for LSE confirmed that the charity had paid £39,537 to cover direct costs of research for the report and a one-day conference.
“University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research,” he said.
“This is a standard practice.
“With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance.
“The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time.”
A spokesman for the charity said: “Kids Company granted the LSE's School of Social Psychology, led by Prof Jovchelovitch, full and open access to freely observe and research our service delivery and staff in depth.
“Their report was entirely unbiased and free from any inference from Kids Company.
“It accurately captures the unique clinical intellectual model of children's social care developed by Kids Company from listening to and working with children at risk, often with complex needs, over many years.
“The report describes a model that is highly effective in meeting the social, emotional and practical challenges faced by vulnerable children, young people and their families and provides a robust explanatory framework for Kids Company's work.
“Many organisations commission independent reports about aspects of their work, including the Government and Kids Company is no different in this respect.”
Two glowing reports which hailed the work of Kids Company as “unique” and “extraordinary” were funded directly by the crisis-hit children’s charity, it has emerged.
Camila Batmanghelidjh, the founder of Kids Company, has relied on the studies, published by the London School of Economics (LSE) and the think-tank the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), to argue that the collapse of the charity she founded 20 years ago would leave children effectively “abandoned”.
It has now emerged that the charity paid almost £40,000 towards the LSE study, and a conference linked to it, as well as employing the author of the separate CSJ report as part of a secondment.
Kids Company closed down suddenly last week just days after receiving a £3 million Government lifeline on the orders of minsters, who overruled civil servants’ concerns about the charity’s management.
It collapsed in effective bankruptcy after philanthropists offering a multi-million pound donation pulled out after it emerged it was facing a police investigation into sexual claims.
In a round of interviews after the closure of the charity, Miss Batmanghelidjh blamed “rumour-mongering civil servants”, ministers and the media for its demise.
Officials had voiced concerns not only about the charity’s financial position, but the apparent lack of clear evidence that its work with children was effective.
But Miss Batmanghelidjh has repeatedly cited the study by the LSE in particular as independent evidence that its work was having a powerful impact on children’s lives.
The report, authored by Prof Sandra Jovchelovitch, a leading psychologist, heaped praise on Miss Batmanghelidjh personally and concluded that Kids Company’s work had made a “substantial difference” to the lives of the children and young people it worked with.
In the opening sentence of the preface Prof Jovchelovitch remarked that when she first met Miss Batmanghelidjh she had been “immediately struck by the beauty and profound truth of her simple message”.
She added that she had been “delighted” to have had the opportunity to “study the language of love” the charity expounds.
A separate study by the Centre for Social Justice, the think-tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith, focussed on the children who used it services and concluded that there are many with “desperate” needs not being met by local social services.
A spokesman for LSE confirmed that the charity had paid £39,537 to cover direct costs of research for the report and a one-day conference.
“University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research,” he said.
“This is a standard practice.
“With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance.
“The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time.”
A spokesman for the charity said: “Kids Company granted the LSE's School of Social Psychology, led by Prof Jovchelovitch, full and open access to freely observe and research our service delivery and staff in depth.
“Their report was entirely unbiased and free from any inference from Kids Company.
“It accurately captures the unique clinical intellectual model of children's social care developed by Kids Company from listening to and working with children at risk, often with complex needs, over many years.
“The report describes a model that is highly effective in meeting the social, emotional and practical challenges faced by vulnerable children, young people and their families and provides a robust explanatory framework for Kids Company's work.
“Many organisations commission independent reports about aspects of their work, including the Government and Kids Company is no different in this respect.”