Who'd be a charity trustee?

What lessons are there from the collapse of high profile charity Kids Company? Is this just a one-off situation, unfortunate but not indicative of a general trend in the charity world, or is there a deeper malaise? One couldn't help but feel a pang of sympathy for the colourful Camila Batmanghelidjh, the charity's founder and CEO as she was skewered by members of a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiring into how a charity in receipt of so much taxpayers' case could have come to grief. Here was the flamboyant champion of the dispossessed laid low by a succession of MPs asking what they saw no doubt as forensic questions. Also there to face the music was Alan Yentob, Chairman of the Trustees and high flying BBC executive. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what happened - and the stories of personal fiefdoms and financial mismanagement at Kids Company are legion - there are those left wondering whether charity is really the correct way to tackle some of the more fractious challenges in our society.

But what would be the alternative? Do nothing and leave everything to the survival of the fittest? Get the state involved and use even more taxpayers' money to tackle the problems? Neither offers much of a solution. Charities, well run, can and do deliver where no other entity can. There are no doubt too many charities. Some raise money but are too small to apply significant funds to their charitable objects and spend most of the money on salaries. Trustee bodies, usually entirely volunteers, if they are wise and strong take action and seek either to grow or merge with another charity to achieve economies of scale.

People start charities for various reasons, often tragic. There are a number of children's charities which owe their genesis to the untimely death of a young one. Sometimes the charitable ambition is modest; raising a few thousands to be applied in memoriam. Others seek a more tangible legacy. At Naomi House we had over the years a number of conversations with bereaved parents who felt they had to "do something". A few wanted to establish their own children's hospice. Some were successfully dissuaded after realising the enormity of such ambition against existing provision. Others pressed on regardless of existing provision.

It all becomes much more complicated when the charity is high profile; more complicated still if you come to the attention of politicians and in particular the government of the day. Kids Company grasped the Golden Snitch as Camila B. entranced and ultimately ensnared no less a figure than the Prime Minister himself. This had to be a good thing, surely? Well yes, and no. When you achieve such high profile support leading to significant taxpayer funding you have to be prepared for scrutiny. In my experience, civil servants originated the "not invented here" principle and greatly resent well thought through policy being ridden roughshod over by political masters nobbled by a combination of charismatic charity worker and a chance to be seen to enable "something being done". Of course, being schooled in watching their backs, they will go carefully about their task. The last thing they will want to be seen doing is openly challenging the object of the PM's charitable heart.

So it was that Kids Company was brought down. Perhaps they deserved it. Perhaps their financial controls were poor, and their impact on the young disengaged overstated. Perhaps Ms Batmanghelidjh and Mr Yentob were asleep at the switch. The ongoing inquiries may get to the bottom of what really happened. A bill is in the works to all the Charity Commission sweeping powers to issue condemning judgements on charity management and trustee boards without the kind of "Maxwellisation", checking process those mentioned in the yet to be published Chilcot Inquiry are being afforded. If this bill becomes law who will volunteer to be Trustee?