How Kids Company’s unconventional approach contributed to its downfall
|
Version 0 of 1. When the initial warnings about Kids Company were voiced, first tentatively, then more insistently, they seemed an almost indecent assault on a charity that had gained a status tantamount to national treasure. The nature of its work – it appeared to succeed with children from troubled backgrounds who had been failed elsewhere – and the profile of its magnetic founder, Camila Batmanghelidjh – a one-woman advert for immigration, enterprise and generosity – combined to place it prominently on the social, as well as the charitable, map. Related: Kids Company: Camila Batmanghelidjh's charity to close amid financial concerns Kids Company, which began in London and opened affiliates in Liverpool and Bristol, is expected to close as early as this evening. And it is not hard to see that the very qualities that made it, and Batmanghelidjh personally, such a success, may also have sown the seeds of its downfall. The speed of its expansion, the dominance of its founder and its often unconventional approach, not only drew the vocal support of leading politicians and celebrities, but may also have given it in some respects a free pass. The two may or may not be connected. Kids Company seems to have skated along without the standard checks that apply to charities in terms of financial accountability and results. Anyone who questioned its soundness invited the criticism that too many rules could jeopardise all the good work. Such criticism could be heard even after the government made a rescue payment of £3m conditional on Batmanghelidjh stepping back from the administrator’s role three weeks ago. Several questions now arise. The first is simply humane and practical: what happens to all the children and young adults the charity has been helping? It may be that the financial lifeline extended by the government gave local government and other charities a little time to try to fill the gap. But this will not be easy, and disruption is the last thing that anyone in difficulty needs. Another relates to the £3m government grant. This, it now transpires, was authorised personally by ministers – Matthew Hancock and Oliver Letwin – against the express advice of senior civil servants. At the time, it looked like a reasonable attempt to help a unique charity survive. But was it rather maladministration? And might the lionising of Batmanghelidjh by the great and the good be a reason why Kids Company was accorded what looks very like special treatment? If not funded mainly by voluntary contributions, but by public-sector contracts, how far should it qualify as a charity? There is a third question, too, which goes far beyond Kids Company and concerns the relationship between government at all levels and the third sector. Beginning under New Labour and accelerating until now, authorities have been encouraged to delegate work to charities – not just for financial reasons, but because they are seen as doing a better job in some areas than government ever could. One result, however, has been the growing dependence of certain charities on public-sector funding. This has made some of them – including Kids Company, though its problems clearly run deeper – vulnerable to local government spending cuts. More profoundly, though, it casts doubt on the definition of a charity. If it is not funded primarily by voluntary contributions, but by public-sector contracts, how far should it quality as a charity? It was President George W Bush who brought charities into mainstream social provision as part of his “compassionate conservatism” agenda. Interestingly, though, limits were placed on their involvement to ensure that they continued to draw their support primarily from voluntary contributions. In borrowing the US model, the UK did not incorporate this safeguard. It should have done. |