Camila Batmanghelidjh to leave Kids Company

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is an incredibly depressing read: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/03/camila-batmanghelidjh-to-leave-kids-company

[Otta]

Yeah I read that this morning. Seems shocking that the government can appartently hold an organisation hostage like that. "You get rid of the people we don't like, or you get no funding".

[Saffron]

Particularly ugly when read after this...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/02/david-cameron-abolishes-poverty-poor?CMP=fb_gu

:-(

[Loz]

Sad, but it seems there is more to the story than the Guardian is letting on.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/government-refusing-funding-to-kids-company-charit

Even the numbers in the Guardian story seem strange - the government won't give us ?5m so we have to make ?14m worth of cuts?

[Bellenden Belle]

She is being asked to step down as Chief Executive. She is not being forced to leave the company where she will continue to be a psychotherapist and figurehead.

I think this is a case of Founder Syndrome -

The skills to set up a charity and to run a multi-million pound organisation are very different. Why do we think C B can do both?

In the charity sector there have long been raised eyebrows and quite frankly year in, year out Camilla has run to the press when faced with funding cuts.

Do I think more needs to be done for children at risk and on poverty? Absolutely.

Is Kids Company the only answer? Not necessarily.

[DuncanW]

I don't think anyone is saying Kids Co is the only answer but I think you are right about Founder Syndrome. I don't have any inside knowledge but it looks like an organisation that would be bankrupt and therefore would cease to exist were it not for this money. And the Govt obviously want there to be someone in charge of governance who they can have more confidence in.

[Saffron]

The govt want to have confidence in governance of public money?

Snort.

Pot Kettle

[Salsaboy]

She's on ?90k a year. Allegedly.

[Loz]

Salsaboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She's on ?90k a year. Allegedly.

I don't have an issue with that. ?90k for running a large organisation like that isn't excessive.

[ratty]

Comparable charity chief execs are on well over ?100k.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The problem is that the care of our most vulnerable children is not being funded by the state. We're relying on the hardwork and generosity of individuals, to ensure these kids get help. This is what Cameron meant by the 'big society'... Effectively the retreat of the state, the tearing up of the safety net. Kids company should have a garrenteed income stream, or the state should provide these types of services themselves. The work is too important to leave to chance.

[BrandNewGuy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem is...

Not specifically in this thread it isn't. Either the charity was badly run ? as many have said ? or it wasn't. The rest of what you say might be broadly true, but it's worth pointing out that care for vulnerable kids has been appalling in this country for decades, regardless of who's in power. Actually, it's probably been appalling for as long as there have been vulnerable kids.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Kids company should have a garrenteed income stream, or the state should provide these types of services

> themselves. The work is too important to leave to chance.

The government is still offering the money so long as CB relinquishes her role as CEO. If the charity is indeed being mismanaged, that is not a unfair thing to demand. ?5m a year shouldn't be handed over without some sort of oversight.

I'm glad CB is staying on in a new role. No one can doubt her enthusiasm and her PR ability. Not too long ago, Kids Company was THE charity in the City and that was all down to CB. There is still a lot she can do for Kids Company. She has always been the face of the charity and I'm pleased that will continue.