Written evidence from David Quirke-Thornton, Strategic Director for Children’s and Adults’ Services, London Borough of Southwark (KCI 44)

I am the Strategic Director for Children’s and Adults’ Services at the London Borough of Southwark; the Statutory Director of Children’s Services (DCS) and the Statutory Director of Adult Social Services (DASS). I am also Chief Officer responsible for Public Health and Community Safety Partnerships in the borough. In August 2015, I led the Local Government response to the closure of Kids Company.

I seek to be of assistance to the Committee by putting on record some statements of fact and clarifications on evidence received thus far. There has been much interest in the closure of Kids Company, nationally, regionally and locally. There has been considerable engagement from local councillors, MPs, senior politicians and Government; as is right for such a serious public interest matter. The Education and Children’s Services Scrutiny Sub-Committee at Southwark Council considered Southwark Council’s response to the closure of Kids Company at a meeting of the Committee on 21 October 2015 and my report to the Committee can be found here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s57291/Report%20on%20Kids%20Company.pdf

During August 2015, I personally attended Kids Company’s head office in London on eight occasions. On the first occasion I was accompanied by colleagues from Local Government, the NHS and the Department of Education. On the remaining visits I was accompanied by senior colleagues from Local Government. The purpose of these visits was to receive the details of children and young people who had been supported by Kids Company.

I have been consistent from the outset in requesting the details of all Kids Company clients. Prior to August 2015, I had formally requested Southwark client details on no fewer than three occasions but Kids Company did not provide the information, citing ‘Data Protection’. The Department of Education and Cabinet Office were very helpful in clarifying to Kids Company the legal basis and duty for sharing their client information with Local Government. Eventually, post-closure, Kids Company provided their client details. The only details that Kids Company said they had withheld were clients who were in the UK illegally and they said that they would not provide details of these clients as they feared immigration action being taken against the people. Even in relation to these people, I requested that their details be provided to Local Government as I was concerned about any children, young people or vulnerable adults who may be in need of assistance under the Children’s Act and National Assistance Act.

I can confirm to the Committee that Local Government in London received details of 1,699 clients from Kids Company. I physically received these client details and can account for all of them. The 1,699 cases in London are individual cases not families. There were duplicates in the bundles handed over by Kids Company with 1,699 being the actual number of clients in London. Additionally, I am advised by colleagues in Bristol that they received 210 client details from Kids Company, making 1,909 clients in total. Local Government did not refuse any client files.

I found no evidence to support the claims by Kids Company that they were working with 36,000 children and young people of whom they said 15,933 were ‘high needs/high risk’ clients. The number of cases handed over to Local Government suggests that they were working with considerably fewer clients than they repeatedly stated.

Kids Company said that they were working with some 19,000 children and young people in 40 schools. This is not correct based on information shared by Kids Company with Local Government post-closure. I can advise that Kids Company were working in 34 schools in 2014/15 and had already ceased work in 3 schools in the 2014/15 academic year. In 2014/15, Kids Company operated in 22 primary schools and 12 secondary schools – 31 London schools (mostly north and west London) and 3 schools in Bristol. In accounting for their work in schools, Kids Company referred to the benefit to the whole class of them working with an individual child or young person, so they counted the whole class as ‘clients’. I know of no other organisation working with children and young people in schools that accounts for their ‘clients’ in this way due to inferred benefit(s).

The high number of adults being supported by Kids Company also gives rise to concern. Kids Company was directly providing services to children and young people. Boundaries appeared to have become blurred with clients becoming volunteers becoming staff and additionally adults being supported by the charity who were not previously clients of the charity when they were children or young people. Operating models in children’s services purposefully seek to achieve a safe distance between vulnerable children and young people and adults.

I have reflected on what I found at Kids Company and it appears to me that the organisation started with good intentions but lost its way. The checks and balances of good governance, regulation, inspection, monitoring and scrutiny were missing and the organisation undertook a 19 year journey in isolation from the rest of the sector. Kids Company said that they were undertaking statutory work but they did not cooperate with Local Government, the statutory bodies. They provided education in the form of Alternative Provision but they were not regulated by Ofsted. They provided therapy to children and young people but they were not regulated by the Care Quality Commission.

I could not hear the independent voice of the child or young person and the narrative was an organisational one, using selected case studies, to present a picture of the children and young people using Kids Company as ‘psychotic and damaged’. This is not what Local Government found when we finally got hold of their client details. I would not for a moment diminish the challenges and difficulties some of the children and young people face. Indeed, in my own borough I understand these well from daily experience, our children looked-after, children in need and our own detailed Joint Strategic Needs Analysis. However, the picture presented by Kids Company was an inaccurate representation of diagnosis and need.

The ethics of practice within Kids Company appears to me to have been compromised by a cult of personality; a wilful blindness to the consequences and impact of their model on children, young people and their families; and a lack of acceptance by the leadership of the organisation of their accessorial liability.

The model of ‘surrogate family’ rather ignores the fact that most of the children and young people that Kids Company worked with have a family. In children’s services judgements have to be made to either work with children and young family within their families or to remove them if the risk of harm warrants such an intervention. These are difficult decisions that we rightly take seriously. A model of ‘surrogate family’ for children and young people living with their families runs the risk of confusing children and young people, disempowering parents and inconsistency of approach.

In relation to regulation and inspection, there are many charities and community organisations working with children and young people and I would not advocate for them all to be regulated and inspected – that would not be appropriate and that would not be desirable. Kids Company was directly providing education and therapy to children and young people. It is my professional view that organisations providing such services directly to children and young people should be regulated and inspected. Kids Company operated in a regulatory blind spot.

I cannot disclose confidential details of the safeguarding and child protection investigations being undertaken by Police and Children’s Services. However, I can advise the Committee that there are 36 investigations relating to Kids Company. The Police did not leak the investigation(s) as part of some conspiracy against Kids Company. The Police went public, as is standard practice in such cases, after a strategy meeting had been convened and an independent (NSPCC) helpline established. The investigations will run their course and I form no prejudicial view in relation to the outcomes. Suffice to say that there is a large-scale and complex investigation in progress and our focus in Local Government is on supporting the alleged victims and ensuring the protection of children and young people.

In relation to the wider impact of the closure of Kids Company locally, I can advise that this has largely been financial as many of the clients were in receipt of cash or goods. In some cases I note that this was connected to young people using alcohol or drugs and the associated risks of same. We are managing these risks via established partnership (Public Health, Community Safety, Police, NHS and voluntary sector) schemes and with additional funding from Government. Children and young people in need of care and support are being assisted by Children’s Services.

Many people, former clients, parents, staff, donors and those who came into contact with Kids Company are still sense-making what has happened with the charity closing. I hope that with the assistance of inquiries such as yours, some important lessons can be learnt and action taken, as appropriate.

November 2015

1