Flawed thinking around Kids Company

It's worth looking more closely at the closure of Kids Company.

Until very recently, this was a charity given plaudits and considerable sums of money from the government, commercial organisations, private donors and grant giving trusts and foundations.

Its charismatic founder and director, Camila Batmanghelidjh, was rarely out of the limelight, stressing the good work her charity did in helping disadvantage children. Even Prime Minister David Cameron was said to have been mesmerised by her, and until recently was only too happy to endorse her approach.

How odd then that things turned sour so quickly. Within days of getting a sizeable Cabinet Office grant, Kids Company was asked to repay it. The government’s spin doctors, aided by a few people Batmanghelidjh upset in her rapid rise to fame if not fortune, put it about that Kids Company was in financial meltdown and the management was chaotic.

Interestingly, BBC’s Radio 4’s investigation on Kids Company last week found only one disgruntled ex-employee who validated these allegations.

When interviewed on the programme, Batmanghelidjh stressed that every year since it was founded in 1996 the charity’s accounts had been audited and approved.

Beneath the surface of this murky story are the failings of previous government's policy on caring for disadvantaged youngsters, many of whom are from BME backgrounds, for the past two decades. In cutting back grants to local councils whose responsibility it was to care for vulnerable children, it encouraged large charities to fill the void by providing services, whilst stifling smaller charities that were perhaps better placed.

While on the one hand this was an opportunity for many charities to expand their activities and income, it meant they were increasingly used to provide short term 'sticking plaster' solutions at cheaper and cheaper prices.

One result, as Camila Batmanghelidjh pointed out more frequently, was that Government/s were implementing policies that exacerbated the problems faced by low income families. She knew only too well that Kids Company’s philosophy of giving a homeless child a feeling of affection, and some money to spend to survive, enabled successive Governments' to praise her work hoping it would be the solution.

Kids Company's often short term approach is at one end of a spectrum. OBV’s is most definitely at the other: We believe for example that to empower young BME people, their families and communities facing complex problems in economically disadvantaged areas of the country, is of longer term value.

In the end Camila Batmanghelidjh also knew the system needed changing, and when she used her powerful voice to highlight fundamental problems, her funding stopped and she had to close Kids Company.

But who is picking up the costs of having to care and protect the vulnerable children? And if they do what will be the approach?

Clearly there are some services that should be delivered by fully resourced local council social services. There is also room for other innovative ways to care, inspire and guide young men and women by charitable organisations. But putting good governance and financial accounting aside, charities are by definition not for profit organisations, so governments of whatever colour should stop treating them as if they are commercial service providers.

Vulnerable young men and women are not commercial commodities that have a fixed price on how they should react to treatment or guidance. They are individuals, all different, but all to be valued in our society.

Paul Hensby