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/blog/2015/aug/11/kids-company-shows-how-charitable-hearts-can-rule-heads

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Kids Company shows how charitable hearts can rule heads Kids Company shows how charitable hearts can rule heads
(about 9 hours later)
It is painful to read the drama surrounding the collapse of Kids Company and realise how much it embodies the divisive cultural issues in our society: head v heart, state provision v voluntary, and the unpalatable gap between instinctively wanting to help poor children and the ability to be able to pay for it. It is painful to read the drama surrounding the collapse of Kids Company and realise how much it embodies the divisive cultural issues in our society: head v heart, state provision v voluntary, and the unpalatable gap between instinctively wanting to help poor children and the ability to pay for it.
Despite the charges of excess and irresponsibility laid against Kids Company, Camila Batmanghelidjh, the charismatic founder and chief executive of the campaign ( after all we have read I hesitate to call it an organisation), still gets a pretty good press – even in newsrooms you might expect to be more hard-nosed, such as the Financial Times or Sunday Times. Despite the charges of excess and irresponsibility laid against Kids Company, Camila Batmanghelidjh, the charismatic founder and chief executive of the campaign (after all we have read I hesitate to call it an organisation), still gets a pretty good press – even in newsrooms you might expect to be more hard-nosed, such as the Financial Times or Sunday Times.
That must be because, as Gaby Hinsliff noted in the Guardian, she appeals to Tories as a ‘big society’ figure, stepping in to mother children neglected by their parents and the state. She is obviously a remarkable third-way provider with a talent to extract donations from wealthy people who are guilty about the source of their own money for the usual reasons (Luck? Inheritance? Criminality?). That must be because, as Gaby Hinsliff noted in the Guardian, she appeals to Tories as a “big society” figure, stepping in to mother children neglected by their parents and the state. She is obviously a remarkable third-way provider with a talent to extract donations from wealthy people who are guilty about the source of their own money for the usual reasons (Luck? Inheritance? Criminality?).
Related: Why left and right loved Kids Company | Gaby HinsliffRelated: Why left and right loved Kids Company | Gaby Hinsliff
Back in 2010, it suited David Cameron to embrace her as an embodiment of compassionate conservatism, just as it had previously done Gordon Brown, an instinctive statist whose head told him that here was a big heart worth backing. Good for them both, we might say.Back in 2010, it suited David Cameron to embrace her as an embodiment of compassionate conservatism, just as it had previously done Gordon Brown, an instinctive statist whose head told him that here was a big heart worth backing. Good for them both, we might say.
Except, it wasn’t quite right. All sorts of people, not all frustrated directors of finance or back-covering senior civil servants, were waving red flags over Kids Company’s rapid expansion, its low levels of reserves and poor internal structure, its heart-over-head tendency always to say “the kids must come first”. Except it wasn’t quite right. All sorts of people, not all frustrated directors of finance or back-covering senior civil servants, were waving red flags over Kids Company’s rapid expansion, its low levels of reserves and poor internal structure, its heart-over-head tendency to always say “the kids must come first”.
We can all see the dilemma. Some of the stories that Batmanghelidjh’s defenders offer are heart-rending; some uplifting too. When so many children are at risk from bad parents, when state agencies, overworked and underfunded, can’t cope, who could turn away a small boy or girl in distress?We can all see the dilemma. Some of the stories that Batmanghelidjh’s defenders offer are heart-rending; some uplifting too. When so many children are at risk from bad parents, when state agencies, overworked and underfunded, can’t cope, who could turn away a small boy or girl in distress?
The need is close to bottomless, but the bank account isn’t. By general consent Kids Company got into the habit of assuming that government would bail it out, that Batmanghelidjh – or possibly the chair of trustees, BBC suit Alan Yentob – would pull some strings at No 10 or the Treasury (perhaps over that unpaid employment tax bill?) to keep the show on the road. It sounds a bit like banking: “Too noble to fail.”The need is close to bottomless, but the bank account isn’t. By general consent Kids Company got into the habit of assuming that government would bail it out, that Batmanghelidjh – or possibly the chair of trustees, BBC suit Alan Yentob – would pull some strings at No 10 or the Treasury (perhaps over that unpaid employment tax bill?) to keep the show on the road. It sounds a bit like banking: “Too noble to fail.”
Related: We have to ensure that Kids Company’s work carries on | Jessie JacobsRelated: We have to ensure that Kids Company’s work carries on | Jessie Jacobs
This summer, Oliver Letwin and Matthew Hancock, two supposedly hard-headed, pro-market ministers, overruled their officials with the taxpayer’s chequebook rather than upset Cameron. What on earth did Batmanghelidjh have on Dave? Compromising photos? There again, Letwin was the man who let a burglar into his house (“I just want a pee, guv”) at three in the morning. He took his wallet.This summer, Oliver Letwin and Matthew Hancock, two supposedly hard-headed, pro-market ministers, overruled their officials with the taxpayer’s chequebook rather than upset Cameron. What on earth did Batmanghelidjh have on Dave? Compromising photos? There again, Letwin was the man who let a burglar into his house (“I just want a pee, guv”) at three in the morning. He took his wallet.
And until recently the mixture of charismatic do-goodery and emotional blackmail worked. None of what economists call ‘moral hazard’ (paying the price of risk and failure) for people clearly bent on doing good. At a stretch it could sound like the banks, with vulnerable children instead of junk bonds as the collateral. And until recently the mixture of charismatic do-goodery and emotional blackmail worked. None of what economists call “moral hazard” (paying the price of risk and failure) for people clearly bent on doing good. At a stretch it could sound like the banks, with vulnerable children instead of junk bonds as the collateral.
Related: 'Without it, I would have given up': three women on how Kids Company helped themRelated: 'Without it, I would have given up': three women on how Kids Company helped them
But, as with the bankers’ debt mountain, the yellow brick road was bound to run out sooner or later. When private concerns about Kids Company’s accounts finally spilled out into the open, more bubbles burst. Allegations surfaced of envelopes of cash given to some children, who could then spend it on whatever they wanted; of sexual abuse allegations not investigated; of extravagant salaries and nepotistic habits.But, as with the bankers’ debt mountain, the yellow brick road was bound to run out sooner or later. When private concerns about Kids Company’s accounts finally spilled out into the open, more bubbles burst. Allegations surfaced of envelopes of cash given to some children, who could then spend it on whatever they wanted; of sexual abuse allegations not investigated; of extravagant salaries and nepotistic habits.
Batmanghelidjh was forced to deny a claim in the Daily Mail this week that her personal driver was on a salary of up to £40,000, with his daughter’s school fees also paid. Fashionable donors fell away and the business crashed. Batmanghelidjh was forced to deny a claim in the Daily Mail last week that her personal driver was on a salary of up to £40,000, with his daughter’s school fees also paid. Fashionable donors fell away and the business crashed.
True or false, this is all detail really. If you employ 650 people in three cities with a £20m turnover, the bottom line always has to be money. Yentob, a highly paid BBC executive who makes sycophantic programmes about famous people, should have known better, even if the BBC’s own budget has – until recently – been rare proof of the tree-grown theory of money. True or false, this is all detail really. If you employ 650 people in three cities with a £20m turnover, the bottom line always has to be money. The charity’s chair of trustees, Alan Yentob – a highly paid BBC executive who makes sycophantic programmes about famous people – should have known better, even if the BBC’s own budget has until recently been rare proof of the tree-grown theory of money.
Instead, Yentob used his heft to intervene in the BBC’s reporting of Kids Company, for which offence alone he should now be dispatched to start counting his remarkable £6m public sector pension pot. No wonder he didn’t get to grips with Batmanghelidjh’s budgetary weakness. Batmanghelidjh herself, of course, tours the media circus blaming everyone else. Yentob makes a perfect target for Beeb-bashers. Instead, Yentob used his heft to intervene in the BBC’s reporting of Kids Company, for which offence alone he should be dispatched to start counting his remarkable £6m public sector pension pot. No wonder he didn’t get to grips with Batmanghelidjh’s budgetary weakness. Batmanghelidjh herself, of course, tours the media circus blaming everyone else. Yentob makes a perfect target for Beeb-bashers.
This is going to end badly for all concerned, except probably Nigel Farage and Nicola Sturgeon, who can both usually turn any passing tragedy to partisan advantage. Labour leadership contenders – I name no names – should ponder the awkward truth that good intentions are not enough. Tories might ponder the cuts they inflict on local authority social services, alongside ever heavier burdens.This is going to end badly for all concerned, except probably Nigel Farage and Nicola Sturgeon, who can both usually turn any passing tragedy to partisan advantage. Labour leadership contenders – I name no names – should ponder the awkward truth that good intentions are not enough. Tories might ponder the cuts they inflict on local authority social services, alongside ever heavier burdens.
We should all ponder these dilemmas. But we might also consider how Britain’s well-meaning but ramshackle charity laws should usefully be reformed, both to make charities more effective and more focused on services that justify the heavy taxpayer subsidy they enjoy.We should all ponder these dilemmas. But we might also consider how Britain’s well-meaning but ramshackle charity laws should usefully be reformed, both to make charities more effective and more focused on services that justify the heavy taxpayer subsidy they enjoy.
Multiple mergers of tiny bodies that duplicate each other’s services, real or vestigial, would be a good start. Next would be a cull of charities that should not enjoy such a status. You might want to start with a few animal charities – why do we need six to protect the red squirrel? – or you may prefer to make Eton fend for itself.Multiple mergers of tiny bodies that duplicate each other’s services, real or vestigial, would be a good start. Next would be a cull of charities that should not enjoy such a status. You might want to start with a few animal charities – why do we need six to protect the red squirrel? – or you may prefer to make Eton fend for itself.
Subject them all, arts projects and donkey saving alike, to freedom of information requests so we can see if those cancer research donations are being spent on cancer research, not on fat salaries. Does Oxfam need to spend £20m a year on political campaigning? Perhaps it does, but let’s ask.Subject them all, arts projects and donkey saving alike, to freedom of information requests so we can see if those cancer research donations are being spent on cancer research, not on fat salaries. Does Oxfam need to spend £20m a year on political campaigning? Perhaps it does, but let’s ask.
After all, we’re talking proper money here. Gift aid tax deductions, relief on business rates, profits and VAT (which so enrages small shopkeepers next to slick charity shop chains), stamp duty relief, inheritance tax relief, corporate tax relief on donations to their favourite opera house, it adds up to billions – about £4.5bn a year, according to one recent estimate in the FT.After all, we’re talking proper money here. Gift aid tax deductions, relief on business rates, profits and VAT (which so enrages small shopkeepers next to slick charity shop chains), stamp duty relief, inheritance tax relief, corporate tax relief on donations to their favourite opera house, it adds up to billions – about £4.5bn a year, according to one recent estimate in the FT.
Add to that the direct government aid to some of Britain’s 200,000 charities, ones like Kids Company ( another £2.2bn according to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations), and the taxpayer is contributing nearly £7bn a year to charities. Oh, I almost forgot the government in various guises pays another £11bn a year to third sector (ie charitable) bodies for the services they provide. Add to that the direct government aid to some of Britain’s 200,000 charities, ones like Kids Company (another £2.2bn according to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations), and the taxpayer is contributing nearly £7bn a year to charities. Oh, I almost forgot that the government in various guises pays another £11bn a year to third sector (ie charitable) bodies for the services they provide.
Many of them are wonderful, we rightly love and admire them and the thousands of volunteers who sustain them. But ‘charity’ can also be one of those words that turns our brains to mush. Among the saints, some hardened rascals live well on that assumption. Many of them are wonderful, we rightly love and admire them and the thousands of volunteers who sustain them. But “charity” can also be one of those words that turns our brains to mush. Among the saints, some hardened rascals live well on that assumption.