Charity Kids Co. director asked to step down.
Discussion
When a person donates to a charity they can do so with a number of caveats.
Most of us give money to charities and don't specify to the charity what you want them to do with that money - except to spend it in doing their "thing" - whatever that "thing" might be.
In formal Charity Accounts speak these types of donations (which make up the vast bulk of donation to most charities) are referred to as "Unrestricted Funds" and are shown as such in the accounts filed with the Charity Commissioners.
Now and then, a charity will raise money for one specific purpose - such as buying a scanner for a hospital, or repairing or modernising a building. Money's given to a charity for that specific purpose are referred to as "Restricted Funds" and are also shown as such in the formal Charity Accounts.
Another example of a "Restricted" donation would be when an individual makes a donation on the understanding that money donated will be spent on a specific item/task rather than lobbed into the general funds of the charity. Often, when charities set up such special funds, they will also set up a special bank account just to handle donations for the specific project.
The doner generally does not have any specific right to conduct personal audits of the charities books and records to see where their money is being spent, over and above the fact that the accounts of a charity, once filed at the Charity Commissioners, will be in the public domain and available for scrutiny by anyone who is interested.
Most of us give money to charities and don't specify to the charity what you want them to do with that money - except to spend it in doing their "thing" - whatever that "thing" might be.
In formal Charity Accounts speak these types of donations (which make up the vast bulk of donation to most charities) are referred to as "Unrestricted Funds" and are shown as such in the accounts filed with the Charity Commissioners.
Now and then, a charity will raise money for one specific purpose - such as buying a scanner for a hospital, or repairing or modernising a building. Money's given to a charity for that specific purpose are referred to as "Restricted Funds" and are also shown as such in the formal Charity Accounts.
Another example of a "Restricted" donation would be when an individual makes a donation on the understanding that money donated will be spent on a specific item/task rather than lobbed into the general funds of the charity. Often, when charities set up such special funds, they will also set up a special bank account just to handle donations for the specific project.
The doner generally does not have any specific right to conduct personal audits of the charities books and records to see where their money is being spent, over and above the fact that the accounts of a charity, once filed at the Charity Commissioners, will be in the public domain and available for scrutiny by anyone who is interested.
NicD said:
hang on, what do you call this? If you want 'evidential' evidence, then we would need the independent authorities involved because this woman or her charity will provide none.
'This all sounds very professional, but it turns out it is not just children who are included in the much-touted 36,000. In an email to me the charity wrote: ‘When we refer to clients they include children, young people, young adults with special needs, carers, i.e. foster parents or parents who predominantly have mental health difficulties, and school staff.’ Strange to include parents and school staff in the number of those helped.
On to Joan’s next concern, which she heard from staff in Kids Company HQ. Some employees are former ‘clients’ — people helped by the charity itself when younger — and the complaint from regular staff was that some of these former clients did not bother turning up to work. Joan told me: ‘One girl had apparently swanned off for the whole summer, to the obvious annoyance of colleagues. I was also told that others who visit the charity are given cash allowances to supplement their Jobseekers’ Allowances and to prevent them from stealing or dealing drugs. I don’t think private donors or the government give Kids Company money so that it can be handed out to young people in cash?’
And the other thing about charities - the donors can claim the gift back against highest band tax, so effect, the potential to rob the the taxpayer.
So, we all have an interest in these 'charities'
Apparently, eh?'This all sounds very professional, but it turns out it is not just children who are included in the much-touted 36,000. In an email to me the charity wrote: ‘When we refer to clients they include children, young people, young adults with special needs, carers, i.e. foster parents or parents who predominantly have mental health difficulties, and school staff.’ Strange to include parents and school staff in the number of those helped.
On to Joan’s next concern, which she heard from staff in Kids Company HQ. Some employees are former ‘clients’ — people helped by the charity itself when younger — and the complaint from regular staff was that some of these former clients did not bother turning up to work. Joan told me: ‘One girl had apparently swanned off for the whole summer, to the obvious annoyance of colleagues. I was also told that others who visit the charity are given cash allowances to supplement their Jobseekers’ Allowances and to prevent them from stealing or dealing drugs. I don’t think private donors or the government give Kids Company money so that it can be handed out to young people in cash?’
And the other thing about charities - the donors can claim the gift back against highest band tax, so effect, the potential to rob the the taxpayer.
So, we all have an interest in these 'charities'
I know about the tax relief obtainable by charities. I have my views on this. But it is a fact of life. I don't for instance, believe that religions should be allowed such considerations when they are sexist, homophobic and ignore accepted moral behaviour. But then I have to accept it.
The charities are overseen and have to submit accounts. Whether they are effective at this is another matter. However, in this case it seems they have been active after, presumably, the complaint. But that is a general criticism on the way charities are run and not specific to this one.
If you want to criticise creative advertising, using figures plucked out of the air, then the ASA would be your route to criticism there but they are not bothered by similar behaviour, at a much higher level of error, by the catholic church.
The article is, in my opinion, poor journalism. Some articles in the Spectator are superb, real eye-openers. The same goes for the New Statesman. But not, apparently, all of them.
The facts are: woman gives lots of money to a charity and now changes her mind and wants it back. There's little more to this article.
Derek Smith said:
Apparently, eh?
I know about the tax relief obtainable by charities. I have my views on this. But it is a fact of life. I don't for instance, believe that religions should be allowed such considerations when they are sexist, homophobic and ignore accepted moral behaviour. But then I have to accept it.
The charities are overseen and have to submit accounts. Whether they are effective at this is another matter. However, in this case it seems they have been active after, presumably, the complaint. But that is a general criticism on the way charities are run and not specific to this one.
If you want to criticise creative advertising, using figures plucked out of the air, then the ASA would be your route to criticism there but they are not bothered by similar behaviour, at a much higher level of error, by the catholic church.
The article is, in my opinion, poor journalism. Some articles in the Spectator are superb, real eye-openers. The same goes for the New Statesman. But not, apparently, all of them.
The facts are: woman gives lots of money to a charity and now changes her mind and wants it back. There's little more to this article.
Telegraph this morning must have it all wrong as well then.. I know about the tax relief obtainable by charities. I have my views on this. But it is a fact of life. I don't for instance, believe that religions should be allowed such considerations when they are sexist, homophobic and ignore accepted moral behaviour. But then I have to accept it.
The charities are overseen and have to submit accounts. Whether they are effective at this is another matter. However, in this case it seems they have been active after, presumably, the complaint. But that is a general criticism on the way charities are run and not specific to this one.
If you want to criticise creative advertising, using figures plucked out of the air, then the ASA would be your route to criticism there but they are not bothered by similar behaviour, at a much higher level of error, by the catholic church.
The article is, in my opinion, poor journalism. Some articles in the Spectator are superb, real eye-openers. The same goes for the New Statesman. But not, apparently, all of them.
The facts are: woman gives lots of money to a charity and now changes her mind and wants it back. There's little more to this article.
"This financial allowance appeared to be the key to the popularity of the centre. One member of staff said: “You don’t see most of the kids coming any other day.” One girl told me: “I come on Friday lunch times to socialise, pick up my allowance and then I go.” Outside I saw four or five cars queuing up. Young people jumped out and ran into the centre. They returned a few moments later, waving their envelopes in the air and grinning. Then they got back into the car and were driven away. Two girls sent by the Prince’s Trust for a week’s course described how, when one young man turned up furious that his allowance had been cut, he threatened staff, shouted abuse, then snatched up a fire extinguisher and threw it into the office where the woman who handed out the cash crouched, terrified."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11717413/K...
And as with all of these accounts, where are the ones from those whose life has been changed by this charity?
Anyone can find fault, anyone can pick up an account and write a 'story' about it. It's not hard. There's enough of it on this thread itself. Newspapers have to offer no balance. Their story sells and satisfies the needs, prejudices, agenda and beliefs of their share of the morass that is the newspaper consumer.
I'm not saying any of those things being reported are factually incorrect. But there is another side. But funnily enough, it's less interesting for them to report.
Anyone can find fault, anyone can pick up an account and write a 'story' about it. It's not hard. There's enough of it on this thread itself. Newspapers have to offer no balance. Their story sells and satisfies the needs, prejudices, agenda and beliefs of their share of the morass that is the newspaper consumer.
I'm not saying any of those things being reported are factually incorrect. But there is another side. But funnily enough, it's less interesting for them to report.
OpulentBob said:
My ex worked for Camilla directly at the Kids Co. I met her a few times, my ex saw and worked with her every day for several years. (and no, not on megabucks). I can't think if anyone else more dedicated to the welfare of vulnerable children than her. She may dress like a fruitcake - quite literally - but I cannot believe she is anything but a pawn in a political game. Personally, I feel awful for her. The work she has done throughout her life is pretty amazing. An exceptionally selfless and inspirational woman.
My neighbour has also had plenty of interaction with her in his role at another charity. We were chatting about this last night & he has a very similar opinion.NicD said:
Derek Smith said:
.......
Subject to their being no evidence to the contrary, and there's none in the article
.......
hang on, what do you call this? If you want 'evidential' evidence, then we would need the independent authorities involved because this woman or her charity will provide none. Subject to their being no evidence to the contrary, and there's none in the article
.......
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 4th July 09:33
'This all sounds very professional, but it turns out it is not just children who are included in the much-touted 36,000. In an email to me the charity wrote: ‘When we refer to clients they include children, young people, young adults with special needs, carers, i.e. foster parents or parents who predominantly have mental health difficulties, and school staff.’ Strange to include parents and school staff in the number of those helped.
[quote]
provides good copy in a puff piece though ... various charities have beern a little creative and have engaged in a double counting ( e.g. counting youth members as both 'volunteers' and 'recipients of service' - even though hey do do both both helping out with service delivery and recieving training and development in excess of that needed fortheir current role )
NicD said:
On to Joan’s next concern, which she heard from staff in Kids Company HQ. Some employees are former ‘clients’ — people helped by the charity itself when younger —
which can be a good thing, also seen in NHS mental health trusts where people with lived experience are encouraged into working for the organisation once well and reassured their history as a service user is a positive factor .NicD said:
and the complaint from regular staff was that some of these former clients did not bother turning up to work. Joan told me: ‘One girl had apparently swanned off for the whole summer, to the obvious annoyance of colleagues. I was also told that others who visit the charity are given cash allowances to supplement their Jobseekers’ Allowances and to prevent them from stealing or dealing drugs. I don’t think private donors or the government give Kids Company money so that it can be handed out to young people in cash?’
this could also pose a legal issue depending on how the charity is set up ... Other charities i have been involved with have had to be very careful around supplying goods and services to other charities becasue the aims and objectives don;t include donating to other charities ... NicD said:
And the other thing about charities - the donors can claim the gift back against highest band tax, so effect, the potential to rob the the taxpayer.
So, we all have an interest in these 'charities'
slightly tangential , but a consideration So, we all have an interest in these 'charities'
jogon said:
Telegraph this morning must have it all wrong as well then..
"This financial allowance appeared to be the key to the popularity of the centre. One member of staff said: “You don’t see most of the kids coming any other day.” One girl told me: “I come on Friday lunch times to socialise, pick up my allowance and then I go.” Outside I saw four or five cars queuing up. Young people jumped out and ran into the centre. They returned a few moments later, waving their envelopes in the air and grinning. Then they got back into the car and were driven away. Two girls sent by the Prince’s Trust for a week’s course described how, when one young man turned up furious that his allowance had been cut, he threatened staff, shouted abuse, then snatched up a fire extinguisher and threw it into the office where the woman who handed out the cash crouched, terrified."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11717413/K...
sounds more like it, well intentioned but stupid woman gives out s"This financial allowance appeared to be the key to the popularity of the centre. One member of staff said: “You don’t see most of the kids coming any other day.” One girl told me: “I come on Friday lunch times to socialise, pick up my allowance and then I go.” Outside I saw four or five cars queuing up. Young people jumped out and ran into the centre. They returned a few moments later, waving their envelopes in the air and grinning. Then they got back into the car and were driven away. Two girls sent by the Prince’s Trust for a week’s course described how, when one young man turned up furious that his allowance had been cut, he threatened staff, shouted abuse, then snatched up a fire extinguisher and threw it into the office where the woman who handed out the cash crouched, terrified."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11717413/K...
t loads of 'free' money and trumpets the 'success'.Derek said:
We find that when the woman first approached the charity to donate her house it was refused. When she returned, after selling her house they accepted the £200,000 cheque.
The article can be summed up in a sentence. "Donor gives all her money to a charity, leaving her homeless, then has second thoughts.
Am I the only one to wonder what article Derek read? You would hope a former "senior" police officer would be able to read an article and not allow their own political bigotry cloud the conclusions they draw. Do you not think that if the CEO is questioning the mental capacity of the donor their 1st action should be to return the money?The article can be summed up in a sentence. "Donor gives all her money to a charity, leaving her homeless, then has second thoughts.
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 4th July 09:33
I think it's fairly normal for charities to acknowledge large scale doners. We gave our local theatre £50k a few years back (before the recession lol) when they were rebuilding it, we got a breakdown of aprox where our money went, we also had a bar named after our company. We were the 2nd largest single donor...
I would expect someone giving £200k and being the biggest single donor would get some kind of acknowledgment, and certainly some factual indication where it had been used. For gods sake we give all the money that we get from weighing in scrap/ selling pallets to the
s to our local Children's Hospice, it was about £600 last year. We got a hand signed letter thanking our staff for our contribution, telling us it was being used to contribute towards sensory lighting.Derek Smith said:
Apparently, eh?
I know about the tax relief obtainable by charities. I have my views on this. But it is a fact of life. I don't for instance, believe that religions should be allowed such considerations when they are sexist, homophobic and ignore accepted moral behaviour. But then I have to accept it.
The charities are overseen and have to submit accounts. Whether they are effective at this is another matter. However, in this case it seems they have been active after, presumably, the complaint. But that is a general criticism on the way charities are run and not specific to this one.
If you want to criticise creative advertising, using figures plucked out of the air, then the ASA would be your route to criticism there but they are not bothered by similar behaviour, at a much higher level of error, by the catholic church.
The article is, in my opinion, poor journalism. Some articles in the Spectator are superb, real eye-openers. The same goes for the New Statesman. But not, apparently, all of them.
The facts are: woman gives lots of money to a charity and now changes her mind and wants it back. There's little more to this article.
Nice diversionary tactics Derek.I know about the tax relief obtainable by charities. I have my views on this. But it is a fact of life. I don't for instance, believe that religions should be allowed such considerations when they are sexist, homophobic and ignore accepted moral behaviour. But then I have to accept it.
The charities are overseen and have to submit accounts. Whether they are effective at this is another matter. However, in this case it seems they have been active after, presumably, the complaint. But that is a general criticism on the way charities are run and not specific to this one.
If you want to criticise creative advertising, using figures plucked out of the air, then the ASA would be your route to criticism there but they are not bothered by similar behaviour, at a much higher level of error, by the catholic church.
The article is, in my opinion, poor journalism. Some articles in the Spectator are superb, real eye-openers. The same goes for the New Statesman. But not, apparently, all of them.
The facts are: woman gives lots of money to a charity and now changes her mind and wants it back. There's little more to this article.
Call the lady an old biddy.
Slate the article.
Bring up the Catholic Church.
But what about the handing out of envelopes of cash, Derek, would you consider that a good use of donated money?
It may be the perfect use of the money. It's what the government now do with their assisted rent for individuals on benefit. The argument is that it encourages independence and responsibility. I'm not saying it actually achieves that, but there is a case for giving recipients of benefits or charity actual cash - depending on what you are trying to achieve.
It appears to me that the main problem here is a breakdown in communication between the charity and one of its larger doners.
It appears to me that the main problem here is a breakdown in communication between the charity and one of its larger doners.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
My criticism has always been the article so hardly a diversion.So what about the handing out of money? If the charity commissioners are happy with the charity's actions then so be it. If you don't like it, don't contribute. I accept that tax concessions come into it, but that goes for all charities, like the sexist, homophobic atholic church, as you noticed, and I have to put up with that.
As for the government inspired funding to support the daft big society, if you have criticisms of their largess, then take it up with them. They should not be profligate with my money for political reasons but it has always been thus.
The article is short of facts, has lots of anecdotes, and by implication criticises the woman in charge. If you want anecdotes, listen to those who know this woman, even once removed. These are not trying to sell an article, get links to it on social media or have a political dig.
You could criticise any charity. As I pointed out, one I subscribe to has had considerable criticisms from ex-members. But I still continue to donate because of the good work they do. It is my money right up until I pass it over to them. When I don't like what they do, I'll cancel the DD.
You are arguing about the charity, I'm suggesting you cannot do that based on the article.
Derek Smith said:
(I have to say I thought I might be missing some ironic base to this comment - the attack on the messenger at the start in a criticism of attacking the messenger being a pointer - but checking with previous posts of CM, I think this unlikely.)
As ever, bafflegab, obfuscate, everything and anything aside the point. Just like the leader of the charity.The fact remains money has been doled out with little or no control to who, or what it has been spent on. If thats not dubious, then I do not know what is.
Apparently it's the Pope's fault now. I beleive this charity has mental health as part of its remit, are you sure you are a supporter (it seems) and not a patient?
nikaiyo2 said:
Am I the only one to wonder what article Derek read? You would hope a former "senior" police officer would be able to read an article and not allow their own political bigotry cloud the conclusions they draw.
Political bigotry? Where on earth did that come from? What conclusions have I drawn based on my (assumed - you don't know me) political beliefs? Why quote senior?My job used to be reading reports, statements and such. The trick is to delete everything where there is no supporting evidence. Try it: it helps.
Take care drawing conclusions from an article in a politically biased publication. Always check through to see what is assumption and what is evidence.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
My sentiments too. Has been for years and it's not an unfounded concern. In my town I know a person that is a fundraiser for a well known 'national charity' . And she helps at town functions too. But she is so far from reality, it's untrue. She will buy ridiculous stuff for functions, for kids's parties, instead of tesco sausages on two for one, she orders from some organic butcher at 5 times the cost. And we lose money on the event, and she is a professional fundraiser! Drives a huge BMW, lives in a lovely big house, f
k knows what she must get paid. But she's not on the same planet as the sort of people she expects to donate. mph1977 said:
NicD said:
Derek Smith said:
.......
Subject to their being no evidence to the contrary, and there's none in the article
.......
hang on, what do you call this? If you want 'evidential' evidence, then we would need the independent authorities involved because this woman or her charity will provide none. Subject to their being no evidence to the contrary, and there's none in the article
.......
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 4th July 09:33
'This all sounds very professional, but it turns out it is not just children who are included in the much-touted 36,000. In an email to me the charity wrote: ‘When we refer to clients they include children, young people, young adults with special needs, carers, i.e. foster parents or parents who predominantly have mental health difficulties, and school staff.’ Strange to include parents and school staff in the number of those helped.
[quote]
provides good copy in a puff piece though ... various charities have beern a little creative and have engaged in a double counting ( e.g. counting youth members as both 'volunteers' and 'recipients of service' - even though hey do do both both helping out with service delivery and recieving training and development in excess of that needed fortheir current role )
NicD said:
On to Joan’s next concern, which she heard from staff in Kids Company HQ. Some employees are former ‘clients’ — people helped by the charity itself when younger —
which can be a good thing, also seen in NHS mental health trusts where people with lived experience are encouraged into working for the organisation once well and reassured their history as a service user is a positive factor .NicD said:
and the complaint from regular staff was that some of these former clients did not bother turning up to work. Joan told me: ‘One girl had apparently swanned off for the whole summer, to the obvious annoyance of colleagues. I was also told that others who visit the charity are given cash allowances to supplement their Jobseekers’ Allowances and to prevent them from stealing or dealing drugs. I don’t think private donors or the government give Kids Company money so that it can be handed out to young people in cash?’
this could also pose a legal issue depending on how the charity is set up ... Other charities i have been involved with have had to be very careful around supplying goods and services to other charities becasue the aims and objectives don;t include donating to other charities ... NicD said:
And the other thing about charities - the donors can claim the gift back against highest band tax, so effect, the potential to rob the the taxpayer.
So, we all have an interest in these 'charities'
slightly tangential , but a consideration So, we all have an interest in these 'charities'
I also remember a scheme from the last government - EMA. Cash grants to kids every week to hep with college costs. I was never comfortable with that any more than this but its not enough to character assassinate this woman.
As for staff not working their hours and not being held to account, I'm afraid its rife across the charity sector and I've seen plenty of it in both the public sector and the civil service.
If she's done something wrong the Cabinet Office should be calling the police in or HMRC or even the Charity Commission again. Until then I will only judge her on the many lives she's helped transform. Very poor behaviour by the Cabinet Office.
Looks like there's very serious concerns about how the money is being spent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11719428/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11719428/...
That's an interesting conclusion to draw, given it's exactly what the article says. Here, I'll help you out.
Article said:
Kids Company, the youth charity founded by the flamboyant campaigner Camila Batmanghelidjh, could face an inquiry from the charity watchdog amid concerns over how millions of pounds of public money have been spent.
...
Moves by the Cabinet Office to force Ms Batmanghelidjh to hand over day-to-day control to a new chief executive figure follows concern within the Government over how the charity, which has been receiving regular grants worth more than £4 million, makes use of taxpayers’ money.
...
It was disclosed on Friday that an audit ordered by the cabinet Office, which now handles grants for youth work, had uncovered significant concerns about the management of Kids Company’s cash flow.
A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said that it was “assessing” Kids Company in light of a string of reports on Friday and over the weekend about its financial situation.
She added that following an earlier complaint, the Commission had carried out an initial assessment, including meeting Ms Batmanghelidjh and other trustees, but decided not to launch a formal investigation at that point.
“We are aware of media reports about the charity Keeping Kids Company [the name under which the charity is official registered] and are in contact with the charity’s trustees to urgently assess its funding position and the impact issues reported in the media may have on the future of the charity,” she said.
...
Moves by the Cabinet Office to force Ms Batmanghelidjh to hand over day-to-day control to a new chief executive figure follows concern within the Government over how the charity, which has been receiving regular grants worth more than £4 million, makes use of taxpayers’ money.
...
It was disclosed on Friday that an audit ordered by the cabinet Office, which now handles grants for youth work, had uncovered significant concerns about the management of Kids Company’s cash flow.
A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said that it was “assessing” Kids Company in light of a string of reports on Friday and over the weekend about its financial situation.
She added that following an earlier complaint, the Commission had carried out an initial assessment, including meeting Ms Batmanghelidjh and other trustees, but decided not to launch a formal investigation at that point.
“We are aware of media reports about the charity Keeping Kids Company [the name under which the charity is official registered] and are in contact with the charity’s trustees to urgently assess its funding position and the impact issues reported in the media may have on the future of the charity,” she said.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff