Charity Kids Co. director asked to step down.
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
One interesting figure in the accounts of the charity is the Debtors figure of around £5 million at 31 December 2013. The total gross income of the charity was £23 million. They are therefore saying that almost almost 1/5 of the income shown in the profit and loss account had not yet been received at the year end date.
I'd like to know a little bit more about why this was the case. It does seem rather high for an organisation that essentially receives cash donations. Why would it have any significant "debtors" i.e. unrecieved donations, at all?
A Tesco? Booking profit not generated (or in this case, booking revenue ahead of receiving it?).I'd like to know a little bit more about why this was the case. It does seem rather high for an organisation that essentially receives cash donations. Why would it have any significant "debtors" i.e. unrecieved donations, at all?
GloverMart said:
The woman who runs the Bristol centres, (Esther ??) was talking about this on our local news tonight. She said that she was abroad due to family reasons but had arranged for her house to go on the market as she wouldn't be able to afford to run it any more.
Is it me or is that a little bit hasty? Effectively made redundant today, wouldn't you at least try to do a deal with your mortgage company to stay where you are? So much of this seems so over-the-top dramatic, somewhat apt given the woman at the top.
Depends on how deep in she is - she might be getting a salary out of all proportion to reality and is panicking now the wheels have come off.Is it me or is that a little bit hasty? Effectively made redundant today, wouldn't you at least try to do a deal with your mortgage company to stay where you are? So much of this seems so over-the-top dramatic, somewhat apt given the woman at the top.
REALIST123 said:
So, over £15M from £23M spent on staff costs.
There was a woman on the news last light who worked in finance in the Bristol office and she said money was being paid people that they had no idea what they did.Edited by Sheepshanks on Thursday 6th August 09:38
London424 said:
Eric Mc said:
One interesting figure in the accounts of the charity is the Debtors figure of around £5 million at 31 December 2013. The total gross income of the charity was £23 million. They are therefore saying that almost almost 1/5 of the income shown in the profit and loss account had not yet been received at the year end date.
I'd like to know a little bit more about why this was the case. It does seem rather high for an organisation that essentially receives cash donations. Why would it have any significant "debtors" i.e. unrecieved donations, at all?
A Tesco? Booking profit not generated (or in this case, booking revenue ahead of receiving it?).I'd like to know a little bit more about why this was the case. It does seem rather high for an organisation that essentially receives cash donations. Why would it have any significant "debtors" i.e. unrecieved donations, at all?
The accounts have been signed off as "True and Fair" by the auditors - so you would expect that the auditors that this was a legitimate figure in the accounts and properly disclosed.
hornetrider said:
REALIST123 said:
So, over £15M from £23M spent on staff costs.
?????????????????????????????????????Is that typical for a charity? Strikes me as being bonkers.
Not a fan of Mayor Ferguson but he was on Radio Bristol this morning saying that the council needs to hear from people who are Kids Company kids basically, implying that KC are being a little shy about handing over the information.
He also seemed to rebuff this figure of "600 vulnerable children" that KC are banding about, saying that it may well be the number of people they have come into contact with but that they are more concerned about the "40 or 50" children that really need help.
Have KC been inflating the figures? If they really are holding on to information and withholding it from the council, that is wrong on so many levels.
He also seemed to rebuff this figure of "600 vulnerable children" that KC are banding about, saying that it may well be the number of people they have come into contact with but that they are more concerned about the "40 or 50" children that really need help.
Have KC been inflating the figures? If they really are holding on to information and withholding it from the council, that is wrong on so many levels.
They are supposedly insolvent so there are, in effect, no assets, only liabilities. However, the 2013 accounts do not show an insolvent situation.
The questions have to be,
a) did the insolvent position suddenly descend on the company in the 18 months since 31 December 2013 and, if so, why?
b) were the 2013 accounts not showing the true situation and, if that is the case, what were the auditors up to?
The questions have to be,
a) did the insolvent position suddenly descend on the company in the 18 months since 31 December 2013 and, if so, why?
b) were the 2013 accounts not showing the true situation and, if that is the case, what were the auditors up to?
debtors are amounts owed to them by other parties
Amounts they owe to others are creditors
As an aside I just looked at the accounts of another charity with income in the region of £35 million per annum, and they are showing £9 million of debtors. £7.5 million of this is noted as "legacy debtors", presumably amounts due from wills not yet received, so £5 million of debtors for kids company may not be out of the ordinary
Amounts they owe to others are creditors
As an aside I just looked at the accounts of another charity with income in the region of £35 million per annum, and they are showing £9 million of debtors. £7.5 million of this is noted as "legacy debtors", presumably amounts due from wills not yet received, so £5 million of debtors for kids company may not be out of the ordinary
Edited by Camoradi on Thursday 6th August 10:30
What's on the BBC page at the moment is the flip side of the financial debate; the children that we as a society fail to look after.
It makes for interesting reading. You could argue it's the response of an angry woman who has lost what she believed in. You could argue that she's not taking responsibility for her personal and the charity failings.
Or perhaps the truth is a mixture of all things.
Taken from the BBC page,
"It's not about bad management on our part, it's about trying to sort out something that society isn't dealing with," she said.
Personally, I think she is wrong - it is about the management and in that, if there are failings they should be highlighted now... But the second part, I think she's absolutely spot on. We should not have to leave it to 'charity' to look after children who are the bottom of the heap in terms of everything worth measuring. The failings of children in this society are well documented and profuse. We, the bigger society fail them and that needs to addressed.
It makes for interesting reading. You could argue it's the response of an angry woman who has lost what she believed in. You could argue that she's not taking responsibility for her personal and the charity failings.
Or perhaps the truth is a mixture of all things.
Taken from the BBC page,
"It's not about bad management on our part, it's about trying to sort out something that society isn't dealing with," she said.
Personally, I think she is wrong - it is about the management and in that, if there are failings they should be highlighted now... But the second part, I think she's absolutely spot on. We should not have to leave it to 'charity' to look after children who are the bottom of the heap in terms of everything worth measuring. The failings of children in this society are well documented and profuse. We, the bigger society fail them and that needs to addressed.
Camoradi said:
debtors are amounts owed to them by other parties
Amounts they owe to others are creditors
As an aside I just looked at the accounts of another charity with income in the region of £35 million per annum, and they are showing £9 million of debtors. £7.5 million of this is noted as "legacy debtors", presumably amounts due from wills not yet received, so £5 million of debtors for kids company may not be out of the ordinary
It seems a bit "previous" to be accounting for income that they may or may not receive - if that is indeed the explanation. That was what got Enron into its situation.Amounts they owe to others are creditors
As an aside I just looked at the accounts of another charity with income in the region of £35 million per annum, and they are showing £9 million of debtors. £7.5 million of this is noted as "legacy debtors", presumably amounts due from wills not yet received, so £5 million of debtors for kids company may not be out of the ordinary
Edited by Camoradi on Thursday 6th August 10:30
And what happens to such "pledged" income now that the charity is closed?
Eric Mc said:
It seems a bit "previous" to be accounting for income that they may or may not receive - if that is indeed the explanation. That was what got Enron into its situation.
And what happens to such "pledged" income now that the charity is closed?
I agree totally, Eric. It surprised me to see it in the other charity's accounts tooAnd what happens to such "pledged" income now that the charity is closed?
drivin_me_nuts said:
What's on the BBC page at the moment is the flip side of the financial debate; the children that we as a society fail to look after.
It makes for interesting reading. You could argue it's the response of an angry woman who has lost what she believed in. You could argue that she's not taking responsibility for her personal and the charity failings.
Or perhaps the truth is a mixture of all things.
Taken from the BBC page,
"It's not about bad management on our part, it's about trying to sort out something that society isn't dealing with," she said.
Personally, I think she is wrong - it is about the management and in that, if there are failings they should be highlighted now... But the second part, I think she's absolutely spot on. We should not have to leave it to 'charity' to look after children who are the bottom of the heap in terms of everything worth measuring. The failings of children in this society are well documented and profuse. We, the bigger society fail them and that needs to addressed.
Spot on.It makes for interesting reading. You could argue it's the response of an angry woman who has lost what she believed in. You could argue that she's not taking responsibility for her personal and the charity failings.
Or perhaps the truth is a mixture of all things.
Taken from the BBC page,
"It's not about bad management on our part, it's about trying to sort out something that society isn't dealing with," she said.
Personally, I think she is wrong - it is about the management and in that, if there are failings they should be highlighted now... But the second part, I think she's absolutely spot on. We should not have to leave it to 'charity' to look after children who are the bottom of the heap in terms of everything worth measuring. The failings of children in this society are well documented and profuse. We, the bigger society fail them and that needs to addressed.
There is a pervasive attitude in vast groups within society today that are either too happy to let others shoulder the responsibility they should be taking, or are so far down the path of the liberal left indoctrination that they are simply unaware they ever had any.
I despair at what can be done to better the situation because I don't see things improving (or even standing still) anytime soon.
Maybe governments should re-examine their willingness to support charities directly. I think taxpayers' money should be for the jobs undertaken by the state. Charities should depend on public support from personal or corporate charitable donation - not government hand outs.
Sadly, politicians, whilst announcing cuts and restrictions on the things THEY should be responsible for, are only too willing to give away taxpayers' money to organisations which they feel will make them appear in a glowing light.
It was this attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile to carry on the way he did. Politicians always love to bask in the reflected glory of others - even if it turns out that the "glory" was perhaps, at the very least, misplaced - and in some cases, masking downright evil.
Sadly, politicians, whilst announcing cuts and restrictions on the things THEY should be responsible for, are only too willing to give away taxpayers' money to organisations which they feel will make them appear in a glowing light.
It was this attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile to carry on the way he did. Politicians always love to bask in the reflected glory of others - even if it turns out that the "glory" was perhaps, at the very least, misplaced - and in some cases, masking downright evil.
drivin_me_nuts said:
What's on the BBC page at the moment is the flip side of the financial debate; the children that we as a society fail to look after.
It makes for interesting reading. You could argue it's the response of an angry woman who has lost what she believed in. You could argue that she's not taking responsibility for her personal and the charity failings.
Or perhaps the truth is a mixture of all things.
Taken from the BBC page,
"It's not about bad management on our part, it's about trying to sort out something that society isn't dealing with," she said.
Personally, I think she is wrong - it is about the management and in that, if there are failings they should be highlighted now... But the second part, I think she's absolutely spot on. We should not have to leave it to 'charity' to look after children who are the bottom of the heap in terms of everything worth measuring. The failings of children in this society are well documented and profuse. We, the bigger society fail them and that needs to addressed.
I understand what you're saying but the kids are failed, primarily and in the main, by their families, not society.It makes for interesting reading. You could argue it's the response of an angry woman who has lost what she believed in. You could argue that she's not taking responsibility for her personal and the charity failings.
Or perhaps the truth is a mixture of all things.
Taken from the BBC page,
"It's not about bad management on our part, it's about trying to sort out something that society isn't dealing with," she said.
Personally, I think she is wrong - it is about the management and in that, if there are failings they should be highlighted now... But the second part, I think she's absolutely spot on. We should not have to leave it to 'charity' to look after children who are the bottom of the heap in terms of everything worth measuring. The failings of children in this society are well documented and profuse. We, the bigger society fail them and that needs to addressed.
Some focus on family responsibility might not go amiss.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff