Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Someone do my research for me.
as to why The Spectator's been majoring on Kids Company's woes these last couple of weeks. Whilst they've highlighted some interesting stuff (which I think may have been leaked directly to them from internal sources) I can't help but think they are absolutely fucking revelling in the whole thing.
I assume it's because that article effectively broke the story, so they're wallowing in it now like all media outlets seem to do if they think they've found a genuine exclusive.
been reporting heavily on it these last couple of weeks too (online, not in print I don't think).
Think the wallowing has a genuine political edge to it as well rather than purely journalistic backslapping. It's become a force of editorial line.
Played correctly it's a brilliant bat with which to beat Cameron round the head.
is that they were actually gutted when the Tories won an overall majority. All those knives sharpened in the months preceding had to be put back in the drawer. Fantastic.
(like a company run by kids (cf Admiral Baby))
Am I right?
But find the idea of the Government using it as a political pawn really sickening.
Without getting too Think Of The Children, what the fuck are hundreds of kids going to be doing now? Seems shutting the doors completely was the worst possible outcome for everyone.
But they are using the case to grandstand for their new hybrid model of You're On Your Own You Cunts.
With spectacular results.
Big society is essentially just underfunded public services being picked up by the market/third sector. Then when one fails (even if it's down to shoddy management) the answer is suddenly even less resources bd
with this idea that the big society is something that's coming in as a response to cuts (although do get what you're saying and think there's an argument for it). The big society concept was based on a strong third/voluntary sector; cuts have left it totally embattled and falling apart. The orgs delivering these emergency services (like foodbanks) aren't doing it in a way that's necessarily sustainable (see lots of charities heomorraging assets in the last few years to keep going) or even cost-effective. Genuinely don't think that Cameron ever understood the basic tenet that voluntary labour doesn't come for free (organisation, recruiting, supervision all comes witha paid element somewhere, etc).
But back in 2010 the creation of the Big Society was definitely intended to replace public services. You're right that the charities are swamped due to the deep cuts but the only response from a neocon ideology will be that if something doesn't work privatise further.
He must have looked at the system in Canada and thought 'what a good idea!', not realising or caring that their system is based on a long-term conscious decision to funnel money into charities and the wider sector and where many people think it would be better spent on actual public services.
The bit I'm not keen on is the idea that this is Cameron's big society vision is finally coming in via the back door (lol): it's a sticking plaster on the consequences of some bits of society falling apart.
The guy introducing her messed up the pronunciation of her name and apologised, and she made a whole "rolling eyes" song and dance about it as a "joke", but you could see she was actually furious.
That's all I've got.
seems like a missed opportunity for her if not.
That was part of her routine. She rolled her eyes and threw up her hands and was like "Oh, you might as well just call me Mrs Batman and be done with it".
into her critics?
that provides services that public bodies should be financed to provide. Vast sums are given to the charity, but these are not counted as public spending so A Good Thing. There are certain conditions attached to the grants, one of the key ones being that the people who run the charity do not pocket it for themselves. Whitehall learns charity is breaking all the conditions and advises ministers to turn off the financial tap. Cameron decides that he knows best and ignores this advice. The whole thing blows up when it turns out that a charity that is a bit cavalier about finance is a bit cavalier about reporting alleged child abuse. Politicians look round for someone else to blame...
They've been horribly mismanaged, but I don't think anyone's made their fortune out of it.
do you mean `provides substantial support to help the charity meet its aims`?
It's not binary y'know - can't imagine that any government scheme would've been able to tackle a problem as head on as Kids Company. Sometimes it's worth noting that charities are more effective deliverers of support than governments are, and it makes sense for governments to support them in their delivery of it.
We build and accredit a lot of their educational provision. Feel really bad for the kids, never thought it would come to this. Despite these purported underhand dealings and accusations of sexual abuse they did great work for so many underprivileged kids.
half way down, that there had been rumours of systematic abuse of children with the charity, which seems like it should have been a much bigger deal, which I found very odd.
Remember all the weird speculation about Childline in the wake of Savile stuff?
I don't think there are any conspiracies to be had here lads. The most likely, and most boring, answer from what I can deduce is that Kids Company have been terribly run for a long time and falling foul of both donor trust (from individuals and statutory sources) and probably Charity Commission guidelines.
It's a shame because it's a charity that was set up with the best of intentions, offering a genuine solution to a problem, by a caring and charismatic person. Because of its success that person became the CEO of a multi-million pound charity - a role demanding skills that she just doesn't seem to possess. Sounds like she's gone a bit mad in the process - lashing out about media conspiracies and whatnot whilst not realising that the charity wasn't delivering in terms of both reporting on the transparency of donor money and the efficacy of that money. Add into that a loss of control on what was happening on the operations side, you're asking for trouble. It seems the government (and a couple of major donors) had enough. Camilla should've stepped down as CEO and taken an ambassadorial role years ago but through a combination of ego, care and the fact that Kids Company has always been a baby she can't let go of (it was her vision and dedication that made it exist afterall) she stayed at the helm.
All in, like I said, it's a tragedy. Charities cannot be run on the benevolence of its founder alone sadly. I'm hoping something will take its place, and I'm confident it will.
Good one saps!
are pretty culpable too. Think Kids Company's been used as a bit of a vanity project by the PM meaning problems that could've been sorted years ago have been left to fester.
charities is deeply weird in many ways right now. While I think the gov's decision to cut core funding for charities across the board was short-sighted and stupid, it does make me wonder on what basis that £3m went to at TCC; the reporting of outcomes seemed like an afterthought, and it sounds like.. core funding. As you've said above, it sounds like a vanity issue, and if there's any kind of scandal here it's probably about how things managed to get this bad without loads of red flags going up. As a result the beneficiaries of this charity are now, seemingly, absolutely fucked until someone else steps in to help.
where all parties are culpable. Spending specific statutory funding on core costs, as you identify, is an absolute schoolboy error.
My girlfriend has done a lot of fundraising for Kids Company over the years. It's very clear that they hadn't invested properly in that area of fundraising (the shortfalls of which they used statutory/project specific funding to cover) because even though she raised literally thousands for them she received absolutely no feedback from them at any point. Which meant that she eventually gave up.
DiS still says their bastards and that it's all their fault.
'Conservative majority government' came up in my autofill, which I guess was this: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4461756#r8541163
LOL @ BITT.
is that the blame's spread across all parties.
But sure, carry on.
advocating core infrastructure funding for the nonprofit sector
And it's their fault child poverty is an acute problem at the moment
And it's their fault they're using a case of mismanagement as an example of why public services should be handed to the market
My gf is (but as of yesterday was) a children's councillor for KC. The work they do with the kids is absolutely magnificent, some of the children have very difficult backgrounds and in some cases so so sad, it takes time to break through to them but the support they receive is absolutely vital.
Don't know whether I can be arsed with setting up an alt account so I can post in more detail. As Geoff says, it's a really sad state of affairs.
of analysing charities efficacy based upon the ratio of funds raised to amount spent on `administration`. Think somewhere above 80p in the pound seems to be the arbitrary level of acceptability.
The point is for charities to run effectively they have to invest in SO many mechanisms in order to do so. It's outrageously expensive. You have entire departments whose jobs it is JUST to report back to donors/government funders etc. etc. Donors can't have it both ways, and I think the sector needs to be more vocal about that,
Charity trust is taking an absolute pounding at the moment. Although if this is compounded by repeated revelations re: bad practice in service delivery then... it's gonna start to get to panic stations for many.
My experience was that it was in the incremental tightening of screws. So in legally-aidable debt advice, we went from being paid by the hour of chargeable advice, to being paid by matter start, to being micro-scrutinised over eligibility, to losing the funding altogether. It often felt like we were spending more time playing a parlour game with funders than actually helping people.
was some of the shittest news reporting I've ever seen. Prattled on for ten minutes about fuck knows what. Hinted at everything but gave no real explanation of anything.
But a charity I used to work for embezzled, intimidated staff and mid led donors. On the face of it just a bunch of well to do Christians though. Evil.
I really don't think the charity commission has the checks and systems in place to prevent fraud and root out these bad apples.