Yesterday, Miles Goslett revealed on Coffee House how the beleaguered charity Kids Company was dealing with the allegations against it. His cache of emails revealed that it was using the £3 million grant it had received from government to pay staff, a direct violation of the terms of the donation.
This evening, the charity has shut its services. In a statement, Kids Company boss Camila Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees said:
‘We have been forced to do so because collectively, despite the extraordinary efforts of Camila and her team, some truly enlightened philanthropists and the government, we have not been able to raise enough money to meet the ongoing costs and liabilities. The recent negative press coverage has been particularly damaging.’
It was in the Spectator that problems with the well-known and well-connected charity first surfaced. Our point, then, wasn’t that the charity was awful and should close – just that there were a lot of troubling questions that had gone unanswered because so many (in politics and the media) were so taken by Kids Company that proper scrutiny was not applied. When this changed, with the publication of Miles Goslett’s investigation in The Spectator, it proved unable to stand up to this scrutiny.
Its closure leaves ministers with three main questions to answer:
1. Why did Matt Hancock and Oliver Letwin overrule civil servants who had raised concerns about the charity and approve the £3 million extra money?
This exchange of letters between the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary Richard Heaton and Letwin and Hancock shows that the civil service was concerned about the charity. Heaton wrote:
‘The Government has a long history of making grants to Kids Company, and I recognise the good work that the charity does with vulnerable young people. But the fact remains that, to date, they have not met the conditions that they agreed to in April. More generally, the experience that this Department has of the charity’s management and capacity gives me limited confidence that Kids Company will successfully implement the changes they describe in their new restructuring plans while meeting the stringent conditions set out in the proposed new grant.’
Hancock and Letwin replied saying they were ‘very mindful of the inspirational work that Kids Company does with young people’ and that ‘we also take confidence from the changes that Kids Company has undertaken to make in terms of its leadership, management and governance, which we judge do give it a realistic prospect of long-term viability so it can continue to deliver for vulnerable young people.’
2. Did the charity receive less scrutiny than others receiving government money? Sources told the BBC that David Cameron was ‘mesmerised’ by Batmanghelidjh: so did it get away with more than other charities? Are there other charities which enjoy special treatment, if this is indeed what Kids Company received?
3. What will happen to the children the charity looked after? The Cabinet Office this evening said this:
‘The Government has supported Kids Company over the last seven years to help it deliver services for vulnerable young people and so we are disappointed it has been unable to move to a sustainable financial position. The welfare of these young people continues to be our primary concern and we are now working closely with local authorities to make sure they have access to the services they require.’
Given Kids Company was doing something local authorities do not – or at least cannot do well – does this mean more funding for councils to deal with the young people who now need their help?
Comments