This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/03/kids-company-charities-austerity-camila-batmanghelidjh-government-cuts

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Kids Company row highlights dilemma of charities at the sharp end of austerity Kids Company row highlights dilemma of charities at the sharp end of austerity
(about 2 hours later)
For years, Kids Company has scooped up and looked after thousands of vulnerable children who have been failed by the state. With heavy cuts to local authority budgets, and increased pressure on children’s mental health services, more and more children have been turning to Camila Batmanghelidjh’s organisation for help.For years, Kids Company has scooped up and looked after thousands of vulnerable children who have been failed by the state. With heavy cuts to local authority budgets, and increased pressure on children’s mental health services, more and more children have been turning to Camila Batmanghelidjh’s organisation for help.
Whatever the cause of the row between the government and the former figurehead of the Conservatives’ now-buried “big society” initiative, the result will probably be reduced funding for Kids Company and less help available to children who need it. The development comes at the end of a particularly bleak week for people working with disadvantaged and low-income families.Whatever the cause of the row between the government and the former figurehead of the Conservatives’ now-buried “big society” initiative, the result will probably be reduced funding for Kids Company and less help available to children who need it. The development comes at the end of a particularly bleak week for people working with disadvantaged and low-income families.
Related: Camila Batmanghelidjh: government trying to discredit me
The charity said the problems it faces were the direct result of reduced philanthropic and public donations when it was still battling “to meet the practical and emotional needs of an increasing number of high-risk vulnerable children, young people and families, who are not being supported by the statutory system”. Its mission statement reads: “Many of the 36,000 children, young people and families that our services reach live in exceptional poverty. We see the impact of such acute deprivation at our centres every day.”The charity said the problems it faces were the direct result of reduced philanthropic and public donations when it was still battling “to meet the practical and emotional needs of an increasing number of high-risk vulnerable children, young people and families, who are not being supported by the statutory system”. Its mission statement reads: “Many of the 36,000 children, young people and families that our services reach live in exceptional poverty. We see the impact of such acute deprivation at our centres every day.”
Related: Camila Batmanghelidjh to leave Kids Company, citing politicians 'ugly games'
Kids Company’s core work confronts the undiminished consequences of child poverty and government cuts – so it is interesting that this row with the government comes just two days after the secretary of state for work and pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, revealed that legally binding targets on child poverty were to be scrapped. The announcement was made immediately after Wednesday’s debate on the future of Heathrow and it was muffled by the noise over runways.Kids Company’s core work confronts the undiminished consequences of child poverty and government cuts – so it is interesting that this row with the government comes just two days after the secretary of state for work and pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, revealed that legally binding targets on child poverty were to be scrapped. The announcement was made immediately after Wednesday’s debate on the future of Heathrow and it was muffled by the noise over runways.
But child poverty campaigners were acutely aware of the implications of the decision to abandon the internationally accepted system (based on counting how much money a family has) and shift to a measurement of child poverty based on parental educational attainment and employment, as well as a handful of “life chances” factors – family breakdown, debt and addiction. This was a move away from seeing poverty as the result of structural factors such as low wages towards viewing it as the consequence of ill-advised lifestyle choices.But child poverty campaigners were acutely aware of the implications of the decision to abandon the internationally accepted system (based on counting how much money a family has) and shift to a measurement of child poverty based on parental educational attainment and employment, as well as a handful of “life chances” factors – family breakdown, debt and addiction. This was a move away from seeing poverty as the result of structural factors such as low wages towards viewing it as the consequence of ill-advised lifestyle choices.
Naomi Eisenstadt, the Oxford academic and first director of Sure Start, who was this week appointed by the Scottish government as independent poverty adviser to Nicola Sturgeon, described the announcement as “the dismantling of all our efforts on child poverty”. She said: “In keeping with the narrative on welfare reform on scroungers and strivers, they are now defining poverty not by poverty but behaviours. It is completely disgraceful.”Naomi Eisenstadt, the Oxford academic and first director of Sure Start, who was this week appointed by the Scottish government as independent poverty adviser to Nicola Sturgeon, described the announcement as “the dismantling of all our efforts on child poverty”. She said: “In keeping with the narrative on welfare reform on scroungers and strivers, they are now defining poverty not by poverty but behaviours. It is completely disgraceful.”
Child poverty figures released last week showed that the number of children living in relative poverty was unchanged at 2.3 million – a statistic heralded as a triumph by the government, since the number had been widely predicted to increase. But there was cynicism from opposition MPs after Duncan Smith’s decision to scrap targets, over whether his announcement had been slipped in before the consequences of the promised £12bn further cuts to welfare are felt.Child poverty figures released last week showed that the number of children living in relative poverty was unchanged at 2.3 million – a statistic heralded as a triumph by the government, since the number had been widely predicted to increase. But there was cynicism from opposition MPs after Duncan Smith’s decision to scrap targets, over whether his announcement had been slipped in before the consequences of the promised £12bn further cuts to welfare are felt.
The chancellor, George Osborne, is expected to outline where some of those cuts will fall in the budget next Wednesday. If as predicted, child tax credits are hit, the bulk of the new cuts will fall on the poorest 30% of households.The chancellor, George Osborne, is expected to outline where some of those cuts will fall in the budget next Wednesday. If as predicted, child tax credits are hit, the bulk of the new cuts will fall on the poorest 30% of households.
Research by LSE, Manchester and York shows that spending related to children fell under the coalition from nearly £40bn in 2009-10 to £36bn by 2014-15, while spending on pensions rose from £94bn in 2009–10 to £103bn in 2014-15. “It is a general disinvestment of the state in children,” said Imran Hussain, policy director of the Child Poverty Action Group.Research by LSE, Manchester and York shows that spending related to children fell under the coalition from nearly £40bn in 2009-10 to £36bn by 2014-15, while spending on pensions rose from £94bn in 2009–10 to £103bn in 2014-15. “It is a general disinvestment of the state in children,” said Imran Hussain, policy director of the Child Poverty Action Group.
Charities which receive government funding to carry out work that is no longer provided by the state have increasingly found themselves in a difficult position – often dependent to some extent on government grants, but determined to speak out about the consequences of government cuts.Charities which receive government funding to carry out work that is no longer provided by the state have increasingly found themselves in a difficult position – often dependent to some extent on government grants, but determined to speak out about the consequences of government cuts.
Charities such as the Trussell Trust and Shelter have been warned by the government to tone down their criticisms of policy. In this climate, people like Batmanghelidjh who are outspoken critics of government policy can expect to run into problems.Charities such as the Trussell Trust and Shelter have been warned by the government to tone down their criticisms of policy. In this climate, people like Batmanghelidjh who are outspoken critics of government policy can expect to run into problems.