This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/09/observer-view-children-mental-health-services
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Observer view on children’s mental health services | The Observer view on children’s mental health services |
| (1 day later) | |
| ‘RIP – the best thing there was”, says one piece of graffiti at the entrance to Kids Company’s Bristol drop-in centre. As the charity closed its doors last week amid serious allegations about mismanagement and child protection, many mourn its loss; others, who raised serious questions over the years, feel vindicated. But in debating the lessons from this sorry saga, we must not gloss over some of the broader issues it highlights. | ‘RIP – the best thing there was”, says one piece of graffiti at the entrance to Kids Company’s Bristol drop-in centre. As the charity closed its doors last week amid serious allegations about mismanagement and child protection, many mourn its loss; others, who raised serious questions over the years, feel vindicated. But in debating the lessons from this sorry saga, we must not gloss over some of the broader issues it highlights. |
| First, it should not take the downfall of Kids Company to highlight the desperate plight of child mental health services. Kids Company supported a few thousand young people in London, Bristol and Liverpool. But the growing incidence of mental health issues among children and young people is a national crisis. | First, it should not take the downfall of Kids Company to highlight the desperate plight of child mental health services. Kids Company supported a few thousand young people in London, Bristol and Liverpool. But the growing incidence of mental health issues among children and young people is a national crisis. |
| The number of teenagers reported to be suffering from depression has doubled since the 1980s, and the number of young people admitted to hospital because of self-harm is on the rise. Children now easily access social media and online porn, which can result in cyberbullying and worries about body image. And one in four children is exposed to domestic violence and abuse as they grow up, a key risk factor for mental health issues. | The number of teenagers reported to be suffering from depression has doubled since the 1980s, and the number of young people admitted to hospital because of self-harm is on the rise. Children now easily access social media and online porn, which can result in cyberbullying and worries about body image. And one in four children is exposed to domestic violence and abuse as they grow up, a key risk factor for mental health issues. |
| Child mental health services have always been chronically underfunded, according to the chief medical officer, and they have been further cut by £50m in the last five years. There simply isn’t sufficient provision to help children in sometimes dire circumstances: only around a quarter of children with emotional disorders even get referred to specialist services. Combined with cuts to social services, this means schools in deprived areas are struggling to cope with children with serious emotional and behavioural problems, who may be experiencing abuse and neglect at home. | Child mental health services have always been chronically underfunded, according to the chief medical officer, and they have been further cut by £50m in the last five years. There simply isn’t sufficient provision to help children in sometimes dire circumstances: only around a quarter of children with emotional disorders even get referred to specialist services. Combined with cuts to social services, this means schools in deprived areas are struggling to cope with children with serious emotional and behavioural problems, who may be experiencing abuse and neglect at home. |
| Government funding for Kids Company was incredibly generous compared with what it makes available to most charities working with vulnerable children and young people: figures reported in this paper today show funding to the sector has fallen by almost 20% in just two years. In the last week, several other children’s charities without Kids Company’s profile have joined it in closing their doors or have had to seek emergency funding. | Government funding for Kids Company was incredibly generous compared with what it makes available to most charities working with vulnerable children and young people: figures reported in this paper today show funding to the sector has fallen by almost 20% in just two years. In the last week, several other children’s charities without Kids Company’s profile have joined it in closing their doors or have had to seek emergency funding. |
| This is a shocking erosion of even the most basic safety net for children in serious need. The costs for children are devastating: often they will end up dropping out of school, unable to cope. Some will end up in the criminal justice system: 95% of youth offenders have mental health issues. And the long-term cost of this social failure to the state will also be enormous. | This is a shocking erosion of even the most basic safety net for children in serious need. The costs for children are devastating: often they will end up dropping out of school, unable to cope. Some will end up in the criminal justice system: 95% of youth offenders have mental health issues. And the long-term cost of this social failure to the state will also be enormous. |
| Second, there are difficult questions to be asked about why it has taken the controversy over Kids Company to put the plight of Britain’s most vulnerable children and teenagers at the top of news bulletins. Why hasn’t the children’s charity sector done more to raise public awareness of the impact of service cuts on these groups? | Second, there are difficult questions to be asked about why it has taken the controversy over Kids Company to put the plight of Britain’s most vulnerable children and teenagers at the top of news bulletins. Why hasn’t the children’s charity sector done more to raise public awareness of the impact of service cuts on these groups? |
| As the importance of government funding for charities delivering services has grown over the last two decades, charities find themselves with a tricky tightrope to walk. | As the importance of government funding for charities delivering services has grown over the last two decades, charities find themselves with a tricky tightrope to walk. |
| One can understand the dilemma of the charity chief executive: to speak truth to power or to play it safe to protect a grant that could help hundreds of children? But this is in many ways a false dichotomy: only shifting public attitudes can change the politics and so campaigning is no less critical than service delivery. | One can understand the dilemma of the charity chief executive: to speak truth to power or to play it safe to protect a grant that could help hundreds of children? But this is in many ways a false dichotomy: only shifting public attitudes can change the politics and so campaigning is no less critical than service delivery. |
| Yes, the sector is in a difficult position, but children’s charities need to be far more creative and unified in how they speak for their cause: why not set up an arm’s-length collaborative campaign to do for Britain’s most vulnerable children what Make Poverty History did for international development? | Yes, the sector is in a difficult position, but children’s charities need to be far more creative and unified in how they speak for their cause: why not set up an arm’s-length collaborative campaign to do for Britain’s most vulnerable children what Make Poverty History did for international development? |
| Third, there is a risk that government applies the wrong lessons from Kids Company to how it works with the rest of the charitable sector. Charities such as Kids Company, the New Schools Network and Big Society Network, which either start off as or become the pet projects of cabinet ministers, are the rare exception, not the rule. | Third, there is a risk that government applies the wrong lessons from Kids Company to how it works with the rest of the charitable sector. Charities such as Kids Company, the New Schools Network and Big Society Network, which either start off as or become the pet projects of cabinet ministers, are the rare exception, not the rule. |
| Yes, there has been a lack of accountability for these cherished favourites. But most charities in receipt of government funding have to fill in reams of paperwork on financial and performance indicators: the problem is they are often asked to report on the wrong things. | Yes, there has been a lack of accountability for these cherished favourites. But most charities in receipt of government funding have to fill in reams of paperwork on financial and performance indicators: the problem is they are often asked to report on the wrong things. |
| The state has a dire track record of writing performance-based contracts, whether for the private or the public sector: things haven’t much improved since the days of badly constructed PFI contracts. Government schemes such as the Work Programme have awarded huge contracts to corporate giants, which squeezed the margins of their charity subcontractors to add to their own bottom lines. | The state has a dire track record of writing performance-based contracts, whether for the private or the public sector: things haven’t much improved since the days of badly constructed PFI contracts. Government schemes such as the Work Programme have awarded huge contracts to corporate giants, which squeezed the margins of their charity subcontractors to add to their own bottom lines. |
| There are other long-standing issues about the way in which government funds charities: funding tends to be short term, attached to ministerial gimmicks – troops in schools one year, improving children’s characters the next – and is too often about funding “innovation” for the sake of doing something new rather than scaling approaches proved to work. | There are other long-standing issues about the way in which government funds charities: funding tends to be short term, attached to ministerial gimmicks – troops in schools one year, improving children’s characters the next – and is too often about funding “innovation” for the sake of doing something new rather than scaling approaches proved to work. |
| And there is a terrible hypocrisy in government and private funders asking charities to demonstrate stable reserves and robust governance without being willing to fund these things in the first place. | And there is a terrible hypocrisy in government and private funders asking charities to demonstrate stable reserves and robust governance without being willing to fund these things in the first place. |
| The tragedy of Kids Company will – quite rightly in light of the serious allegations involved – involve much painful raking over detail in the weeks to come. But we must avoid the temptation to view it through too narrow a lens. | The tragedy of Kids Company will – quite rightly in light of the serious allegations involved – involve much painful raking over detail in the weeks to come. But we must avoid the temptation to view it through too narrow a lens. |
| The millions of vulnerable young children and young people with access to no or little support should be at the forefront of our minds, not just the few thousand that Kids Company undoubtedly helped. And if we fail to ask the difficult questions about how government and charities can better work together, it will be them that we fail. | The millions of vulnerable young children and young people with access to no or little support should be at the forefront of our minds, not just the few thousand that Kids Company undoubtedly helped. And if we fail to ask the difficult questions about how government and charities can better work together, it will be them that we fail. |
Previous version
1
Next version