Can we talk about Camilla Batmanghedjh?

I'm not sure how I've become an advocate of not keeping records or having a process

I can't express how much I hate it when illuminating discussions become polarised, usually by a few posters taking an AIBU-type position. Whether this happens inadvertently or deliberately, it reduces conversation to an adversarial stand-off and we all learn less than we could have.

FWIW, I am a 'vulnerable' 'client' and I bracket those words advisedly. They don't describe me; they describe my place within systems not of my making. My attempts to access the help I need are constantly stymied by the systems' requirement for 'engagement'. Whilst I'm intelligent enough to understand the reasons for it, this does nothing to overcome the vulnerabilities that make it hard for me to 'reach out' and engage. My files are closed very shortly after opening and another avenue disappears.

I'm not even a very vulnerable person with learning difficulties, a deep-seated and justified mistrust of society and its systems, or intense disabilities. I believe I must be correct in assuming more of such people fall through the gaping holes created by management protocols than are adequately supported. It's very interesting to fit my perceptions into a philosophical framework as supplied by Buffy's Foucault summary.

Buffy, you are back! Hooray!

On the substance - yeah, I can see what you say, but I have also read on other threads what ex-staffers have said. There has to be some sort of balance between "measure and bureaucratise it all to death, ignoring alternative approaches which may work better for some children" and "have no effective oversight over hundreds of thousands of pounds of donated money".

Harvey, it is under investigation and its future funding is uncertain, but it has been bailed out for the moment in return for her standing down:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11719428/Kids-Company-under-new-Charity-Commission-scrutiny-amid-fears-for-its-future.html

Buffy, although you said that you were just putting general thoughts out there without any specific knowledge of KC, this thread is discussing something quite specific. I think people are getting confused whether you have specific knowledge or not because you keep coming back.

It is your prerogative, of course, and don't feel you have to stay away. Just explaining how you come across to someone who has no agenda and who is also learning.

Because the thread is about an organisation that cannot produce relevant records and doesn't have processes in place, and is losing funding as a consequence.

You seem to think them losing funding is some kind of injustice.

Buffy, there's plenty in the social care sector too to that end. Everyone is aware of the flaws in linking input solely to outcomes. But we have to know if something is working or not. Not just in financial terms. In terms of whether this is overall an approach that should be taken.

I worked, in the mid 1990s, for the biggest youth homelessness charity. Chaotic, unhappy young people - most v hard to work with, for all kinds of reasons - and many of my frontline colleagues were utterly terrific, both focused totally on the clients and aware of what was and wasn't feasible/a good idea. And we knew how many kids were coming through. Where they'd been staying before. Why they'd become homeless. We had to establish that stuff because without it all we were doing was providing a roof. If you want to interpolate, to get into the causes, to prevent other kids ending up in similar situations, and also to provide better solutions at helping them out when they do become homeless, you need to collate that information.

Yes but things like how many meals they provide is easy to demonstrate and prove. If they claim to be giving 300 kids breakfast every day then they should surely be able to produce reciepts for a lot of cornflakes and orange juice. If they can't even do that (particularly if they dismiss requests for receipts as authoritarian, irrelevant, bureaucratic or unfeeling or whatever) then you really do have to ask what the fuck they think they are doing.

Buffy, so say what words you think should be used instead of client and engagement.

The outcome of a service that aims to see clients regularly is to see clients regularly.

A service aiming to help the most vulnerable has to identify the most vulnerable.

Kids' Company seems to have spent an awful lot of time and money not seeing clients and not helping those most in need.

An organisation that doesn't see its clients, or can't accurately say how many clients it is seeing, shouldn't be funded.

And Buffy, I think your quotation marks are a little patronising. If you have a preference for other words rather than client and engagement, why don't you just say what they are?

Buffy, I've done that job and I found the system worked for me and my clients. Having records demonstrating that I had seen each client regularly and what had been done at each meeting helped me be aware of what was happening, what was working, and made it possible for other workers to take over if I was away. I also made a point of leaving records open when I left the room so the client could see what was written about them.

The only time I have known a worker not complete their records properly was when they were doing something unethical.

It is ridiculous for an organisation not to have basic evidence of client engagement rates. That is how situations like this arise - where multiple people have been to Kids' Company and reported seeing hardly any clients there.

Kundry, that makes sense.

98% self referrals is ringing alarm bells for me.

I work in a different type of service but highly specialist, as KC claims to be. V few of the self referrals are actually those in deepest need. Those with the most complex needs are usually unable to find help by themselves and get referred to us by other providers who have identified them as having a need. Our self referral rate is about 1% and it's rare for the self referrers to need much specialist input compared to those found by professionals.

The big selling point of KC has to me always been that they are reaching highly complex kids who can't access other forms of support. But 98% can find KC by themselves quite easily To me it sounds more like going down to the world's most overfunded youth club with your mates.