Oral evidence: Whitehall’s relationship with Kids Company HC 433
Oral evidence, 15 October 2015.
Witnesses
Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder and former Chief Executive of Kids Company, and Alan Yentob, former Chairman of Trustees at Kids Company, gave evidence.
Chair
Can I welcome our two witnesses to this session about Kids Company and ask them to identify themselves for the record?
Alan Yentob
My name is Alan Yentob, I was the Chair of Kids Company. I am also the Creative Director of the BBC.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I am Camila Batmanghelidjh. I am the Founder of Kids Company.
Chair
Thank you. We are going to try to ask short and concise questions and it would help us greatly if you would give short and concise answers. If I feel you are going on a bit too long I will pull you up, but that is simply so that we can get through all the questions that we want to ask. It would help us greatly if we could be short and concise. The objective of this session is not to conduct a show trial. We want to learn some lessons: we want to learn about what your charity was doing; whether the model it adopted was in some way flawed or what challenges it presented to the trustees and the leaders of that charity; what we can learn about the governance of charities; what the Charity Commission might learn about how to conduct its regulatory role; and how Government might be more effective in how they handle support for charities doing whatever work they do. Could I start by asking you to explain exactly what Kids Company did and how it did it?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Kids Company supported some 36,000 clients a year with a range of services. Where we had clients with less serious risks, we supported them through volunteering and gifts in kind. The clients who were costing us the most money were the ones with extreme risk, who should never in the first place have been in the care of Kids Company—they were statutory responsibility, really—and that client group over the years was increasing. What we did is, in effect, we had a fusion of social care, mental health and poverty intervention. So we had psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, social workers, teachers, artists and musicians, and we wrapped around the vulnerable individual a package of care in order to enhance their resilience and enable them to join society with greater ability to engage and be economically independent. What was happening is as the word spread on the streets, we were getting more and more children self-referring to our street level centres, and vulnerable parents, but we were also working in some 48 schools with a range of provisions where children in the schools were self-referring for therapeutic support or for our other programmes.
Chair
Typically, for a child who self-referred, how would you decide what therapeutic support they required?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
The types of children and young people, and vulnerable people, who were referring to us presented with very high levels of risk at the street level centres. Typically they would be children and young people who had been sexually assaulted. They had multiple risk levels. UCL in 2013-14 carried out a piece of research looking at a cohort of our teenagers and they found that one in five had been shot at and/or stabbed, with 50% witnessing shootings and stabbings in the last year. That same cohort had been sexually abused, many of them had been physically assaulted, they had chronic levels of neglect and they had very poor literacy. The way I would describe the client group that self-referred to the street level centres is that they are buried under a rubble of multiple risks.
Chair
When an individual child presents themselves to you, how do you assess their needs and diagnosis what they need?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
What happens is, at the street level centre, there are psychologists and social workers present. A child turns up; obviously they do not arrive with any files so we do not know anything about them, so we have to do a preliminary assessment to ascertain whether that child is a condition of risk where their life is at risk or where there is significant risk—
Chair
Sorry to interrupt you, but you are quoted sometimes as saying that you have met children who are psychotic and damaged?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes.
Chair
Could you explain what that means?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
That means that we were getting young people who were literally so mentally ill that they were hearing voices and some of them were hallucinating, some of them had extreme paranoia. This is as a result of often chronic substance misuse since they have been young children and, therefore, we had a lot of young people who came extremely disturbed. When you peel that—
Chair
You are a psychotherapist yourself?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I am a psychotherapist myself.
Chair
What were your qualifications?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
My qualifications are I have four years psychotherapy training, I have had 18 years of psychoanalysis, I did one year of art psychotherapy at Goldsmiths, and I now have some 30 years of work experience behind me. Kids Company was not the first thing. I founded Place to Be and prior to that I worked in Women’s Aid.
Chair
What professional bodies are you a member of?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I am accountable to UKCP but I just have not organised my membership to UKCP.
Chair
Sorry, accountable to—?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
UKCP, United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy.
Chair
But you are not a member?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, I am not a member.
Chair
You are not a member of any professional body?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I am not a member of any professional body because when I trained it was not an absolute requirement that you became a member, but I had been speaking to UKCP before all this happened about them organising a membership.
Chair
What qualifications do you have or professional accreditations do you have in order to diagnose somebody as psychotic and damaged?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I do not personally diagnose. We have psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses who diagnose, but life experience teaches you a lot.
Alan Yentob
Chairman, could I just add something? I do not know how many organisations have as many evaluations as Kids Company, and very thorough ones too. Among them, which I did tell you, are Tavistock and Portman Trust, the Anna Freud Centre, the Royal Society of Medicine, the London School of Economics, University of Cambridge Medical School. Camila is the CEO, but if these evaluations are read and seen, I think people will not assume that Kids Company does not have clinical know-how to deal with very, very difficult kids. If I can say so, I have been involved with this charity for 20 years. I am immensely proud of what happened. I am very sad indeed that we have not been able to complete the closure plan that we had, but I have to say I have met these children, Chairman, I have seen them. I could show you a photograph—I have seen it—of this group of children, a gang. The boy who we have looked after has now gone to UCL and has got a degree in law; the other five children in the picture are all dead. That is the kind of risk for some of these children. It is not one or two, and I am not exaggerating. All I would say is that the scope of Kids Company’s work is for individuals who need a light touch, who need to be part of the community, who need to be in a school where there is the possibility of learning, and there are others who are in the most terribly damaged state.
Kate Hoey
Sorry, Mr Chairman, could I just ask Mr Yentob a question? You said about the evaluations by all these various bodies that you have put in your evidence. Were any of those evaluations paid for by Kids Company?
Alan Yentob
Can I just say something? I am really offended by the remark, but if the BBC, the Government commission reports from reputable organisations. I do not think we fully paid for anything but we did commission reports and we would participate in the funding.
Kate Hoey
The LSE one, for example: there was no money came from Kids Company to LSE?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
The LSE was paid for, but that is suggesting that one of the most eminent institutions—
Kate Hoey
No, with the greatest respect, it is not suggesting anything. It is simply asking a question.
Alan Yentob
People have suggested it.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes, some research was paid for and some was not paid for. The Government paid for research. The Government wanted the Tavistock and NHS Portman Trust to do a piece of evaluation on us. That does not mean, I hope, that it was invalid.
Alan Yentob
A lot of these were partnerships with organisations: the University of Cambridge, Brain Research, the Royal Society of Medicine and others. I do not think all these reputable organisations would have co-operated and collaborated with Kids Company if this is all fraudulent and somehow paid for and they were trying—
Chair
But very often university research is conducted by individuals and some of the research is contested.
Alan Yentob
Fine. I would not say every aspect of research—of course it is all contestable. As you know, the Centre for Social Justice did a report called “Enough is Enough” which said that the care system was a problem and needed to be addressed and many very eminent people wanted to be on that taskforce. I have given you the list of people. All I would I say is that the sense that the work that Kids Company was doing had no real value is something I would ask you to reconsider because I do not think that is true.
Chair
In one of your letters to the Government—I am trying to find it—you referred to genetic changes happening in the kids. This is very, very contentious and very contested.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
All scientific research has two sides to the coin, but the point is that there is an evolving field of neurobiology that suggests that environmental or care conditions sculpt the brain’s capacities and have an influence on how our physiology is expressed. The reason for that is that we are increasingly realising that it is not as simple as you have your genetics and you grow into them, or it is just your environment, but that the two have an interplay and influence each other. This body of research is pointing to the fact that increasingly as children and young people are facing extreme adversities and they secrete a lot of fright hormones, that has an influence on how they then develop the capacity to control their behaviours. This is a very, very respected field of research across the world now.
Chair
Looking at your business model, the fact that you had a very demand-led model, which involved providing, in some cases, very generous support—financial support—to individuals, how did you avoid creating just a different kind of dependency among your client group?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
That is an interesting way of putting that question, because I might come at it in a slightly different way, which is that there are large numbers of very vulnerable children and young people who are being abysmally failed in this country by their Government because they are not being protected—
Chair
With respect, that is not answering the question.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
May I finish? Because they are not being protected and they are not being cared for appropriately. Social work departments and child mental health departments are at breaking point because they are underfunded. Consequently very vulnerable children are left outside the doors of those agencies and those children and young people, through word of mouth, were making their way to Kids Company to ask for help. These were children and young people in conditions of extreme risk. We had University of Reading who did a piece of research that showed that 86% of those who came to our street level centre were impacted by food poverty. I would argue that these were children, young people and families in extreme desperation and a product of the failures of the state, and they came to Kids Company because they needed help.
Chair
But even if that is true—and we will come to the question of numbers later—does it necessarily help a kid to give them large sums of money that they go and spend on things perhaps you did not intend them to spend it on? I am looking at a list of clients with the highest expenditure between January and December 2014 and it is tens of thousands of pounds for different clients, the top one getting £73,000.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
First of all, that client did not get £73,000. That amount of money included the client’s psychiatric treatment in hospital because he was very ill and psychotic, and there were no beds available in the NHS. That particular client tried to jump off a bridge and police caught him mid-air and he needed treatment throughout the period that he was with us. As a result of that, that amount of money includes his treatment for psychiatric illness, his treatment for substance misuse, the support that his two children received, his housing and emergency—
Chair
I cannot possibly argue about individual cases.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No. No, but it is important not to suggest that that money was handed to that individual for their spending.
Chair
But large sums of money were handed to individuals?
Alan Yentob
Not large sums.
Chair
Okay. Well, how big?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
First of all, I think—
Chair
Can you answer the question, please? How big?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes, I will. I am about to answer that question. There were 3,000 clients who received some kind of support at Kids Company related to poverty intervention. That included food vouchers, bus passes where appropriate, and emergency allowances for a variety of reasons. Some families had no status whatsoever and when the legislation changed and people without status were not allowed to claim benefits, that meant there were mothers who were literally, with their children, starving and we had to hand them food vouchers.
Chair
But what sort of sums were you giving kids?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Three professionals made the decision; this was not my decision. An assessment was organised around each individual case and the amount of money that an individual case received was dependent on—
Chair
We are not going to get very far unless you answer the questions.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I am answering the question. You want one answer—
Chair
The question I asked is what sort of sums were children receiving?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Anything between £10 a week in food vouchers or their bus passes to whatever they—the average that we did was entirely dependent on each child’s circumstance. I cannot pull out a figure for you.
Chair
We have seen plenty of reports of kids regularly receiving hundreds of pounds a week. Could that be possible?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No. Some did, some received—
Chair
So some did, so it is yes?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No. No, no, not kids for a start. Not under 18s, let’s be clear.
Chair
You would be handing out hundreds of pounds to—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, I have not been handing out hundreds of pounds. Each individual case had to be decided on its own merit. I will give you an example.
Chair
Okay, but you said “not under 18”, which suggests that people over the age of 18 were receiving hundreds of pounds. Is that the case?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, no, not hundreds of pounds.
Chair
Well, how much?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
It all depended on their circumstances. You want me to give you an answer without the context and I cannot.
Chair
We want you to answer the questions, I’m afraid.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I am answering your question and I am saying to you each individual case was decided on its own merit.
Chair
So was it true that people over the age of 18 were receiving perhaps more than £100 a week?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
That would be very rare and only if it was a family and they had to support a family.
Chair
You are aware it is a contempt of Parliament to mislead this Committee?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Absolutely, yes.
Chair
That is a very serious thing.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes.
Chair
Are you sure that is all you want to say about that answer?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes. I am saying to you each case was decided on its own individual merit depending on their circumstances. I cannot go into individual cases—
Chair
No, you cannot.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
—because of confidentiality. So I am very happy to discuss individual cases with the Committee and go through the finances in private and explain why we spent money on particular children.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan
Ms Batmanghelidjh, can I try to make it a little easier for you to answer the question in a way we can understand it, which would be helpful?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
That would be great.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan
You obviously cannot give us the average but proper financial management of a charity would indicate to me that there would be limits set, and over a certain higher limit it would have to be escalated right up to the board for support.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes. Yes.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan
Could you perhaps give us the range of monies, vouchers and similar instruments that were handed out to clients of Kids Company and at what level you would escalate it up to the board for a decision? Is it £5 to £100? Is it £5 to £5,000? At what stage would there have to be a high-level decision made on the level of funding you handed out?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Okay, thank you.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan
£5 to £100, £5 to £1,000. I just want a straight, simple answer like that.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
That’s good. So what we would do is: three professionals would get together, do an assessment on a child or family and decide if they needed a financial intervention. That would range from £10 a week to, depending on if it was a family of several people, £200 a week.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan
And over £200 a week a decision would have to be taken much higher up the organisation?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, it depended on what it was about. So, for example, if we needed to buy a child some clothes then again that would be decided by the team who were there working together. All financial decisions above £5,000 would go to the board.
Chair
£5,000?
Mrs Cheryl Gillan
£5,000?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan
That is fine, that is clear.
Alan Yentob
All financial decisions over £5,000 would go to the board; that is quite significant. We are talking about living costs. We did actually put people in residences. People who had nowhere to sleep were taken off the road. The vigilance of this was quite considerable. The finance committee met 10 times a year.
Chair
We will come to the financial controls later.
Alan Yentob
Just to help you on the finance side, you do know that there were quarterly audits by ECOTEC and Methods as well of how the money was being spent, so the clinical and financial reasons for things, and this was consistent. These were Government audits. So there was a level and there was a process and these committees and groups would have to account for what they spent. Obviously we could not look at all the detail, but no figure over £5,000 could be spent.
Chair
There have been very widespread reports of smaller amounts of money being handed out to quite large numbers of people, with one former employee saying that cash was distributed in little packages to every young person through a small window in reception.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
May I explain how that happens? What happens is that is called a living allowance. So if someone was to get their food voucher or their bus pass, what we would have to do is count all of that at head office, with three people overseeing it in the accounts department; then everything would go in an envelope for the individual child with a receipt on top. It was then driven down to the street level centres—the street level centres were in environments that were really high risk and we could not keep any kind of cash at those centres. When it would arrive at the end of the week at the street level centre, the team inside that reception area would oversee the handing out of the envelope for which the client had to sign. Then the receipts would come to head office for accountability. That is how this myth of the envelopes has evolved.
Chair
It is not a myth, is it?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, it is not a myth and it is not something that was hidden, but what I am trying to explain to you is that it has turned into the notion that it was handed out willy-nilly. It was not, it was accounted for.
Chair
But how did you assess that supporting the kids in this way was doing any good to the kids?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Because they were professionals working in this organisation. There were 650 staff in this organisation. Some of the most experienced and senior—we had an ex-Ofsted inspector working in the organisation. These decisions were not made by me alone behind a desk; it was the entire team.
Chair
Mr Yentob, in your submission you criticise Lambeth social services, for example, and cite the inspection report by the statutory inspection authority for the failure of social services in Lambeth.
Alan Yentob
Yes.
Chair
What inspection regime were you subject to?
Alan Yentob
We were subject to a number of inspection regimes. All the Government money that was given to us was audited quarterly—
Chair
No, no, I am not talking about financial; I am talking about what you were actually doing. You were not regulated by CQC, were you? They did not inspect you?
Alan Yentob
No.
Chair
So how did you satisfy yourself as a trustee—however well motivated you are, and I do not question that—that this was quality work being done that was properly verified by a proper inspection?
Alan Yentob
Because there were inspections and evaluations by a large number of organisations and institutions. The idea that Kids Company was not evaluated—. Let me explain. I mentioned Lambeth. I have in front of me the report from Lambeth and I know how challenging it is and how the funding is difficult. Every line here is “inadequate”—it says “inadequate”. It says, “A failure of leadership has resulted in the deterioration of almost all safeguarding services and services for looked-after children and their families in Lambeth from when they were last inspected”. All I am saying is these are challenging children, these are chaotic environments. Kids Company has been evaluated and looked at. We have been audited across a period of eight years; we have never missed an audit, and there have been clinical and financial audits. That is a responsibility of Government. I have visited the sites, I have seen the children. Now, it is not a perfect organisation obviously but it was doing something that others did not do. Chairman, I want to say about the money. Very few clients in Kids Company were given more than £70,000 a year. That was about the top rate.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Expenditure on them, not given.
Alan Yentob
Expenditure, not given. If you look at some mental health provision—
Oliver Dowden
Sorry, did you say 17 or 70?
Alan Yentob
70, I said, the maximum. If you look at some mental health provision for individuals and problems, those figures could lead into hundreds of thousands, and if you want the evidence later I will give it to you. The truth is that there was a range of activities and a range of need. My belief, and I think Kids Company’s—and I think this is a very important thing—is the issue of early intervention. Early intervention saves money. This early intervention can be a light touch—it can be a school room where there is all kinds of problems going on where if you look after the key children, if you have a virtuous circle of care and concern, then you can start to address problems very early on and a whole community can begin to learn from it. That is something of the Kids Company—
Chair
Did you ever invite—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
We were inspected—
Chair
Just a minute. Did you ever invite Ofsted to come and inspect you?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Ofsted has been inspecting some of our provision. In fact, if you look at our provision, the Treehouse, we had two Ofsted inspections there.
Chair
But what about your whole operation? Why didn’t you ask Ofsted to come and inspect the whole thing?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Because there were times when we fitted into Ofsted structures and there were times where we did not, but we had continuous dialogue with Ofsted. All the local authorities who were placing children for education with us inspected our provisions: that included Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea. They were all placing students with us and they would not have placed students with us for education if we had not passed their rigorous inspection systems. In addition to that, with every Government grant that we received, we had Government-appointed auditors alongside us reviewing the results, the output and outcomes as well as all the finances. So, to answer Kate Hoey’s question, it was ECOTEC; Methods; Crime Concern evaluated us for the Home Office; Cordis Bright evaluated us for the Home Office; Louise Casey in the early days; the Youth Justice Board evaluated us between 2002 and 2003. Then when Government gave us grants, Nick Hurd asked for an independent audit to be done on Kids Company, which was really very good, except that they said we did not have enough sustainable funding to make us secure. So I would argue that we were intensely inspected. We had a range of independent universities who came and did—
Chair
When was your last Ofsted inspection?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Because the official receiver has all our records, I am afraid I cannot give you an exact date.
Chair
You must be able to estimate.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
It was quite recent. In Bristol we had our provision reviewed by Ofsted before it got registered to become an educational provision.
Chair
What about the safeguarding of children, given that safeguarding issues have been raised, who inspected the safeguarding arrangements?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
First of all, I would like to say to you that at no time have Kids Company’s safeguarding procedures been questioned. What has happened—
Chair
But when were they last inspected?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
What has happened is we were at the receiving end of what we do not understand—potentially malicious allegations.
Chair
No, I am not asking that question. I am asking a different question. I am asking a simple question.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I think I am answering it.
Chair
When did you last have your safeguarding arrangements inspected?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Our safeguarding arrangements, no one wanted those—they were not due for an inspection.
Chair
That did not answer the question. The answer was when.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Who by? Who did you want to inspect our safeguarding procedures?
Chair
Presumably if you are running a charity that is looking after children—I do not know any institution that looks after children that is not inspected.
Alan Yentob
Can I answer that question?
Chair
Please do.
Alan Yentob
There was a safeguard assessment which enabled every worker, besides anything else, to also have—there was a cause for concern form that was reviewed by staff at the centres, and if there were concerns that children were not being looked after, they would be able to report those. So there was internally a safeguarding system as well, plus, as I have said, if the Centre for Social Justice was coming into the organisation and spending 17 months looking at that organisation and then reporting, as it did, compellingly about the condition of those children and how they were looked after—I am just trying to say it is not a perfect organisation of course, but Ofsted is not the only organisation.
Chair
I am an admirer of the Centre for Social Justice but it is not an inspector, it is not a regulator.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Sorry, we had continuous review. We had Professor Steven Grace—
Chair
I think we have the impression. I think we will move on. I do not think we can learn any more from this.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I am not sure what the issue is.
Chair
The point I am making—you have invited me to repeat it so I will repeat it—is simply that I know of no other large organisation that looks after children in this country that is not regularly inspected.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
We were inspected. That is my answer to your question.
Chair
We will move on. Mr Flynn.
Paul Flynn
A memo was sent from Kids Company to the Cabinet Office stating that the communities served by Kids Company would, if the charity closed, descend into savagery and warned of potential increases in looting, rioting, arson attacks on government buildings. To what extent do you regard this as a reasonable assessment of the situation?
Alan Yentob
There must be people in this room who know about risk assessment.
Paul Flynn
Did you write this letter?
Alan Yentob
I did not write the letter, no. I wrote the letter about the restructure, I did not write that letter; it was written by the safeguarding team.
Kate Hoey
Sorry, can you just speak up a little bit?
Alan Yentob
Sorry. I did not write that letter, no. It was an appendix which was a risk assessment form, which was required and requested. Most risk assessment forms are what is the most extreme that could happen. Can I also just say something about this? So that was what it was—
Paul Flynn
All right, but can we just look at that? Couldn’t we put the warning in that letter as one that was a wild exaggeration and you accept that?
Alan Yentob
No, it was not. Can I explain why? Okay, I will explain why and I will explain why it was not a wild exaggeration. I do accept that it is a worst-case scenario. That is what risk assessments in any organisation are required to be. What is the worst that could happen? Remember the riots in 2011, which Camila in fact warned Oliver Letwin about—sorry, let me answer your question, I will. Five days after Kids Company closed, a boy was murdered. He was going to the crime prevention centres, which were closed. If you read the account of that and what was said at the time by those people in that area you will hear what they said and you will hear what they said about the risks that happened once Kids Company had gone. I also gave, in the evidence, two letters from the Metropolitan Police that were utter and compelling endorsements of the work Kids Company does in Lambeth and the fact that that work would be sorely missed. There were stabbings, there were four suicide attempts. I have not talked about this, but I am now telling you that these things happened.
Chair
May I qualify what you have just said? We have been advised that these incidents occurred because kids no longer had money to pay their drug pushers, and the breakdown in the flow of funds on to the streets has led to that violence—your clients no longer being able to pay for drugs.
Alan Yentob
I know this is a parliamentary session but I think it is a terrible allegation to make against Kids Company that when violence—. Well, the Metropolitan Police certainly did not say that, if you look at the evidence that I presented, and I find that a rather shocking statement.
Chair
I am putting it to you because it is what has been told to us by a very reputable source.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
This is the essence of the problem, really. I feel that representatives of leadership in this country do not have a visceral understanding of what it is like in some of these neighbourhoods for many of the children, young people and families. The levels of violence and perversion that some of these children and young people are having to endure is very shocking. We were spending about £1.1 million on security. I think you need to be a bit fairer—
Chair
I do not think I am being unfair. I merely putting it—[Interruption.] Order. I would like to go back to Mr Flynn, but before that—
Kate Hoey
Mr Yentob, I really do want to push you on that bit where you said that the communities over the border in my constituency served by Kids Company might descend into savagery. Do you not think that is a really shocking thing to say about ordinary decent people who find that just an amazing statement to make?
Alan Yentob
First of all, I want to repeat that was a safeguarding document that was intended to be a worst-case scenario. Secondly, I have just described events that were happening in the area that I believe were very, very regrettable and tragic and they were as a consequence of the absence of a place to go for these children, who were not being cared for by others. Some of them may well have been abusing drugs and other things. This is an environment that was not safe and was chaotic. If you saw the letter that I attached from 2007 from the Metropolitan Police saying, “We would really value Kids Company staying open between 7.00 and 10.00 in the evening as a crime prevention centre”, that is what happened. That was a tremendous benefit to the community and only months, two months before Kids Company closed, the Metropolitan Police, Inspector Jack Rowlands, wrote another letter to say that he would like to collaborate with Kids Company in discussing the trauma that these—
Chair
You have submitted that in your evidence and it is noted.
Alan Yentob
I know, but I feel that I wanted to let people know.
Chair
Yes, of course. I want you to have this opportunity to put your side of the story. Could I go back to Mr Flynn, please?
Paul Flynn
We have had a great deal of psychobabble, we have had a great deal that demonstrates Mr Yentob’s creative abilities, but would you please answer our questions briefly so that we can get on? If we look at the numbers that you quoted to start, past employees of your company expressed cynicism about the accuracy of the suggestion that the number of clients you had in 2010 was 16,500 and the numbers leapt to 36,000 in the following year. You maintain that is the same number. If that is so, why was it that only 1,699 cases were handed over to the Lambeth authority when you closed down?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
They are all very good questions.
Paul Flynn
Would you answer why the number went down from 36,000? Presumably the majority were from that local council, the immediate neighbourhood. In reality the numbers that were produced were 175 in Bristol and 1,699. Why?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
First of all, the numbers do not pertain just to one local authority.
Paul Flynn
What were the numbers?
Alan Yentob
That was for the whole of London.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
There are two bits to this question. One is the overall numbers. The way the numbers—
Paul Flynn
What was the overall number you handed over?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
To the local authorities? Right, what happened is that—
Paul Flynn
Could you give me the number, please?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes, I am going to.
Paul Flynn
We will be here all day.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No. I would like to be able to answer your question—
Paul Flynn
Please do.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
—as accurately as possible. What we did is we handed over 1,717 referral sheets, which had on them families. So altogether the safeguarding team and the mental health team who put those referrals together think that they handed over between 3,000 to 4,000 clients, once you put all the referrals in.
Paul Flynn
Could I stop you?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes.
Paul Flynn
An ex-employee of yours told The Times that they were instructed to shred client records after the charity closed. Is this an instruction from you and does it mean that records that would prove that there were 36,000 clients do not now exist?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
First of all, that is completely incorrect. We did not shred any client records. The records were all handed over to the official receiver. What we handed over are 18,000 hard copy files that contain family members in them, so one file may pertain to several people who are in that particular family. In addition, we handed over a database of our most high risk cases, which amounted to 15,933 individuals, and we handed over copies of the 1,717 referral forms we did. Absolutely no records were shredded whatsoever.
Paul Flynn
How did Kids Company identify those potential clients who were genuinely in need?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Because we do a rigorous assessment and we do home visits.
Paul Flynn
But there are self-referrals you are saying.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Yes, when they come to the centre.
Paul Flynn
Do you think it was more to do with the wraparound cash that you were giving them? If people were turning up—and it has not been denied—we have been told that some people were getting £160 a week. Is that not more of an inducement for people to identify themselves in need of your services?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
With appreciation, if this is about respect for vulnerable people, that is making the assumption that people who need help in these poor communities are—
Paul Flynn
How did you assess the level of unmet services?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
—accessing help in such a distorted way. The truth is that there are huge number of vulnerable individuals. In fact, it is so bad that this country does not even capture the real numbers.
Paul Flynn
How do you measure the number in the areas where you work? How do you decide? We all represent various parts of the country and all these problems occur there. Why is there suddenly a huge unmet service that you claim to be providing for in the particular area where you were?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Okay. I am really glad you have asked me this question because what is happening in this country is that the numbers of children who get into social services and child mental health are controlled by a process which is a sort of hidden gatekeeping, because the local authorities cannot cope—
Paul Flynn
What percentage of the children—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Please let me finish because you are not—
Paul Flynn
Well, I do not think—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
You are not allowing me to finish. Please let me finish.
Chair
Mr Flynn, we’ll let her answer this question.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
It is really important that you understand this problem because that is at the heart of the difficulties that we are all experiencing as a country. Basically, there is a gatekeeping process in local authorities because they do not have enough money to cope with the scale of the problem, so what happens is that when children and young people are referred into social services or child mental health, they cannot always take that number of kids, so they have to select who they are able to help and who they are not able to help. If you want the real figures, the NSPCC in their report “How safe are our children?” attempted to have a go, because in this country we do not capture the real numbers of vulnerable children and young people who need help. Child mental health data was not updated for 11 years. That means that this country’s economic arrangements around child mental health were organised around the data of 11 years ago. What you get is, when children and young people cannot get into social services or child mental health, they are left outside the doors of those agencies without anyone really measuring the level of need. When Kids Company allowed self-referral these people self-referred.
Chair
All right, we’ve got the point. Mr Yentob, very briefly.
Alan Yentob
If I can just try to give you some short, concise answers to this. First of all, in terms of the numbers the fact is that 20,000 of these 36,000 children are in schools and we are not saying that every one of them was given therapeutic care, but in terms of evaluation, the schools have got a detailed record of how much contact there was with each of these children. I assure you it is very difficult for Camila. Please let me explain this. I have given it to you in this document and it is important to me that you understand it. That is what the majority of it is. The Government’s money, the £4.25 million or £4.5 million in the later years that came in, went to look after 800 children. That is £4.25 million for only 800 children, so consequently when we talk about this breadth of service, it is a different level of service for each of these children.
Chair
Well, how honest is it to put in your annual accounts that you were helping 36,000 people?
Alan Yentob
Let me answer that question. [Interruption.] Let me answer it. Let me answer this question. In the annual report it is absolutely clear and broken down, even in the numbers that I have given you, how much was done. 19,000 young people per year were supported by our children’s services. It then goes into detail about how many of them were given personalised support and what was going on. It is detailed how many got direct contact—
Chair
Also why was Kids Company so reluctant to hand over the records of these people to Mr David Quirke-Thornton of Southwark Social Services?
Alan Yentob
Very straightforwardly—and I think this is terribly important as well because Camila is not running all this, the 36,000 children—there are 650 workers. Those 650 keyworkers, that is 73% of the costs of Kids Company goes on the staff, not on handing out money to people or sending people to university.
Chair
Okay, but why was there reluctance to hand over the records to —
Alan Yentob
Because data protection of vulnerable clients—there are legal issues.
Paul Flynn
That is not true. They would be entirely protected if you handed them over to Lambeth. That is an excuse. Could you tell me, just briefly, how do you help someone’s mental health by buying them a pair of shoes that cost £150?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Excuse me, because I think the way—
Paul Flynn
This is—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Hold on, no, the way you have put that question is really unjust because—
Paul Flynn
Well, can you answer?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I would like to answer it. Please let me answer it because the structure of that question is immensely disrespectful to vulnerable people.
Paul Flynn
Oh for goodness sake! Look—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, I want to be able to answer—
Chair
Mr Flynn, let her answer please.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I would like to answer it.
Chair
But quickly.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
You can have mental health difficulties and you can still need a pair of shoes. So the two—
Paul Flynn
For £150?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I do not know where you are getting that from and because I do not have any records and I do not have any name, I do not know what that question—
Paul Flynn
You are running an organisation without records?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, the organisation has records, but the records are in the hands of the official receiver to which I have no access, so I do not know what you are referring to. What I am saying to you is that when we had people with mental health difficulties and we had people—one mother jumped off a multi-storey block—
Paul Flynn
You are giving us examples. We do not live on the moon. We represent areas that have great problems, we know about them, but please do not try to treat us as though we are the Prime Minister and you are trying to get £30 million out of us. We want to know what happened with this organisation which has collapsed, damaging many people, possibly the results of it will do a great deal of harm to the clients you had. But you have given a non-stop spiel of mostly psychobabble; you do not answer the questions. I asked you how do you measure unmet need in the boroughs, and we have had this torrent of words since—verbal ectoplasm—but no answer.
Chair
I would just like to press—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I would argue that I did answer you. You might not like my answers, but I did answer you.
Chair
I would just like to press on this one point and then I want to come to colleagues. The director of Southwark Social Services extracted only 1,699 records from you. From your claims of the number of people you were supporting, he would have expected thousands. He also makes it clear that if there was this massive unmet need in his borough and other boroughs, particularly if the support has been withdrawn from these people, they would know about it. Why don’t you think they know about it?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Two things. First of all, when the local authorities wanted us to hand the cases over, they had a telephone meeting with us in which they described the type of cases that they were prepared to take. That included child protection that was of extreme need. They did not want any people with no status unless there was a child protection issue that they were concerned about. Consequently that narrowed down our referrals because the child protection cases that they wanted were predominantly under 21. Then within that they were also prepared to look at, as I understood it, people with extreme mental health difficulties. So that is what we did: we narrowed down the client group to what they were prepared to take and that is what we handed over. I would like to say that there needs to be some rigorous accountability applied to the local authorities as to what happened to these cases, because the group that I had who were vulnerable care leavers, who were adults predominantly and who were people with extreme mental health difficulties, they were not picked up. I have evidence of to-ing and fro-ing with local authorities.
Kate Hoey
Councillor Peter John, leader of Southwark Council, has said on repeated occasions, “Southwark and colleagues from other London councils asked for the details of all Kids Company London-based clients. We set no threshold and imposed no criteria. We simply wanted the details of all their clients so we could assess their needs and offer support. Any child, young person or vulnerable adult is eligible for some level of support” and how much London councils had spent last year. Then he basically says the list they got was only a total of 299 cases. Are you saying that Councillor Peter John is mistaken?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
What happened is that there were two phases to this. Phase 1, before we were even anywhere near absolutely closing, as part of the contingency they wanted all the information, all the data on all our clients. This was before we got to a point of closure. At that point we were seeking legal advice to find out where the boundaries were in terms of confidentiality and our allegiance to our clients and their trust in us. When we closed, Kate, which was very sudden, that is when the local authorities got together and had this discussion about the boundaries around the types of cases that they would accept from us and we honoured that boundary.
Kate Hoey
He also says, “When the official receiver stepped in following the charity’s closure they found no other files to pass on to us”. So clearly there were not these huge numbers that you were—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
That is incorrect. The files went into storage, 18,000 files.
Kate Hoey
So they are in storage?
Chair
Why have you not handed them over?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, we did hand them over but they went into secure storage because—
Chair
So how many files?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
18,000 files are currently in secure storage and 15,933 pieces of sort of individual cases are on our Aurora database.
Chair
So why have you not handed that over to Mr Quirke-Thornton?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Because they had a discussion and they told us what they were to prepared to take and we handed over to them—
Chair
That is not what he has told us.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Well, I am afraid this is the essence of the problem.
Chair
So everybody disagrees with you?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
There is no interest for the local authorities or central Government to admit—
Chair
So it is a conspiracy?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Let me finish. To admit to the scale of child protection failures in this country. I would like to remind you that this Government are in charge of a child protection system where three-quarters of them which have been inspected by Ofsted, have been declared as unable to protect children robustly. That is not the responsibility of Kids Company.
Kate Hoey
I have one final question. Were any of your employees who left in the last six months, or recently, asked to sign a non-disclosure of saying anything?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
You mean when we closed?
Kate Hoey
Yes.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
At the point of closure?
Kate Hoey
A statement.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
No, when we closed we have never asked anybody—
Kate Hoey
What about the four board directors who left, did they sign anything that they would not speak or say anything?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I was not involved in any of that decision-making.
Kate Hoey
Mr Yentob, do you know if the board members signed a non-disclosure?
Alan Yentob
I think two of the board members, as we did, signed agreements when they left, just as we do in the BBC when people leave.
Kate Hoey
It is not the BBC. Are you comparing Kids Company to the BBC?
Alan Yentob
I am comparing any organisation of that—
Kate Hoey
So they did sign?
Alan Yentob
There was nothing unusual about that, no.
Kate Hoey
They signed that they would not say anything? A non-disclosure?
Alan Yentob
I think one or two of them did. It was done by the HR department so I am not quite sure. If I may say so, there has been data stolen, there is a police investigation into data protection and there is a rather casual view about the clinical data. I do understand what you are saying about these records. The records are there. I believe that these records are as dense and as clear as any in any organisation. In other words, there are many children, and there has been a very substantial amount of auditing and recording of this data. It will be available and at the right time it will be seen.
Chair
May I suggest that you have another meeting with Mr Quirke-Thornton and settle your differences, because there seems to be an enormous disagreement about the very basic facts between you? I believe that he is going to be publishing a report very shortly and if that report is not to be as inaccurate as it seems it is likely to be, according to you, then you need to settle what he is going to publish.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
We would welcome that but I do have to say that both central Government and the local authorities have no interest in admitting the scale of the problem that exists in this country.
Chair
So they are hiding the truth? They want to hide the truth?
Kate Hoey
I do think there is a lot of good councillors, certainly in my area, who will see that as a very exaggerated statement.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I am sorry, it is not mine only. The Centre for Social Justice carried out a piece of research, 416 pages of evidence, and that is a Conservative-initiated think-tank.
Mr David Jones
Mr Yentob, could I refer you to the second of the two very helpful memos that you sent to the Committee where you detail the level of activity of Kids Company. You referred to the year 2014 in which you say, “Kids Company services reach approximately 36,000 children, young people and caregivers each year”. You then go on to break down the level of activity in some considerable detail, “19,000 young people per year are supported by our schools programme”. That headline figure is further broken down, “9,700 young people per year supported by our street level centres and therapeutic surgeries”, and again you break it down in some considerable detail. Then, “7,200 parents, family members or caregivers also supported”. It seems to me you have done a considerable amount of research in preparing this document and in analysing this data. Is that right?
Alan Yentob
Yes. Can I be clear, this has all been documented by a very significant team of people who have been doing this over a long period of time? Why do you find this strange? I do not understand.
Mr David Jones
I do not find it at all strange; you are making assumptions. The point I am making to you is that you have carried out a considerable amount of research in order to produce this data, which leads me to believe that this data and the files that generate the data are available now.
Alan Yentob
They are available, yes. That is what I was trying to say.
Mr David Jones
And you have access to them?
Alan Yentob
They are with the official receiver right now and they are under—
Camila Batmanghelidjh
We would be able to evidence this.
Mr David Jones
Again, and I think this is an important point, only some 1,600 files have been handed over to social services?
Alan Yentob
To Southwark and Lambeth?
Mr David Jones
Yes.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Referrals.
Mr David Jones
Which one would have expected to be considerably more. Sorry, I am speaking to Mr Yentob.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
May I answer this because the school—
Mr David Jones
No, forgive me. Forgive me, I am asking Mr Yentob.
Alan Yentob
Yes, I have to say that although I have been involved in trying to do the restructure, which we have not talked about, and the auditing and the governance, which I am very happy to talk about, the issue of how many files were handed over is also partly to do with a negotiation between Southwark and the clinical team. I do take, though, what you say and I think we do need to address if there is a disagreement or a concern about what was or was not handed over. I am very happy to see that we address that.
Mr David Jones
Who told you, Mr Yentob, that you were precluded from handing over those files by reason of data protection?
Alan Yentob
The team who are clinically looking after this material have concerns about some of the data protection and some of it has been stolen. Let us be clear, the thing of the 25 most high risk clients, you have just talked about it, that should never have been—
Mr David Jones
Yes, I understand that. But I do not understand your reluctance to hand over the papers.
Alan Yentob
No, can I just say I am not reluctant to hand over anything. It is just legal issues. There are lawyers, there is the official receiver and I am very happy—in fact, I would like—for as much as possible to be handed over, as I said, also to the Metropolitan Police about these allegations of sexual misconduct.
Mr David Jones
Do you accept that Southwark Council has a statutory right to demand those papers from Kids Company?
Alan Yentob
If they have, I think they should have them and be given them. I have not stopped this happening. I would have said—I do not think the staff of Kids Company have the right to do that. Whatever is legally allowable and which protects the children should happen. I completely and utterly agree with that.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Can I just say something about the referrals? We did not hand over referrals of children who were in schools for therapeutic support, so that amounted to over 10,000 who were receiving therapeutic support in the schools, because the understanding was that the schools were closed and, secondly, it was felt that the schools had a safeguarding structure where they could look after those children. What we focused on was the children and young people that the council said were eligible, who attended the street level centres.
Chair
I want to move on to the question of governance. Is that what you want to ask about?
Oliver Dowden
It all sort of segues into that, Chairman.
Chair
We will take one question and then we will move on.
Oliver Dowden
It was further to Mr Flynn’s line of questioning. Obviously this is taxpayers’ money or it is charitable funds, when we are discussing a lot of these examples. We have had evidence from other witnesses that ,when social services have looked at the use of these funds, they have said there was not a need for those clients to have any support. They were not in need of support. So my question is: what is your response to that and how do you determine that these taxpayer and charitable funds are being used properly and not just being handed out willy-nilly at the discretion of your employees?
Camila Batmanghelidjh
That is a very good question. First of all, when we get our government grants, they are restricted grants and that money is attached to individual children and young people with needs. So the Department for Education worked very closely with us to determine with us who those young people were and they audited us against those young people’s outcomes. They checked the expenditures in relation to those young people that Government gave us grants for. It is very important to understand that not only the civil servants inside these Government Departments were regularly meeting with us to look at the caseload and what we were doing, but every quarter there were financial reports submitted to that particular Government Department, as well as clinical reports outlining exactly what was done for the young people and what those outcomes were. We were audited against that.
Oliver Dowden
How do you account for this very strong evidence from a very credible witness that, in fact, when social services looked in many of these cases, they simply said you were servicing clients where the need did not exist? So again it is taxpayers and charitable funds being used for clients where there simply is not the need for it.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I dispute that. First of all, when we closed there was such a rush to hand over the cases to social services that social services, the local authorities, only got one sheet. They got the referral sheet on a Friday, and by Saturday morning they were briefing The Sunday Times that we did not have the child protection cases. To ascertain whether someone is warranting child protection, you have to carry out a comprehensive assessment and only after the assessment can you say whether someone should be receiving a service or not. I would argue with you that the local authorities did not carry those assessments out. So these are allegations that have been thrown at Kids Company without foundation.
Oliver Dowden
These are not simply thrown allegations, the evidence we were given was that social services had in fact visited these clients, carried out an assessment and determined that there was simply not a need, a protection need, to be engaging with these people. The concern I would like you to address is, how is that? It is not just an isolated example. We have been told on many, many occasions this was the case.
Camila Batmanghelidjh
I would welcome a scrutiny of what social services actually did with those cases.