What if Child Safeguarding Began with Love? A Podcast Interview with Carla Keyte

What if Child Safeguarding Began with Love?

What if the most powerful safeguarding tool isn’t another form, but a steady adult who shows up with love? That’s the heart of my conversation with Carla Keyte, founder of Lighthouse and a leading voice in UK residential care, as we unpack how safe, stable, loving homes are built—and measured—through relationships, not fear. We explore how love-led practice, not fear-based compliance, creates safe, stable, loving homes in residential care.

Children heal through steady, attuned relationships with adults who notice, co-regulate, and remain present. The challenge is aligning governance and inspection with that reality so felt safety is measured and protected, not crowded out by paperwork.

Carla traces how sector language has shifted from placements and behaviour management to family time and relational practice. Yet many systems still judge homes by incident counts and prescriptive rules instead of the child’s lived experience. Felt safety shows up as play, curiosity, and connection, not just fewer reports. A truly safe home is one where children feel seen and cared for, and where adults feel psychologically safe to do the work well. That means leaders commit to cultures that contain stress, enable reflective practice, and invite learning over blame. Compliance remains essential, but it must be the foundation we stand on, not the ceiling we reach for. When ratings and enforcement become the whole story, they can create fear that drives out the very conditions children need to recover.

A key idea is reframing inspection as a safeguarding partnership. Rather than branding a home inadequate, regulators and providers could ask two questions: is this a safe, stable, loving home for this child, and if not, what support is required to get there? This approach mirrors strong child protection practice—bringing multi-agency expertise around the child and the adults, and designing a therapeutic intervention rather than only grading deficits. Carla describes the Lighthouse model as a triangle: safeguard the child; stabilise adults with supervision, training, and reflective space; and strengthen the home’s culture and compliance. When all three are aligned, outcomes improve without diluting standards.

Professional boundaries often get misread as emotional distance, but neuroscience tells a different story. Children with trauma histories need consistent, regulated adults who can co-regulate and hold limits with warmth. Scotland’s Promise explicitly names love as part of care, correcting a drift that left staff afraid to comfort a crying child at 3am. Policies designed to protect children must not block the human connection that does protect them—daily observation, knowing the child, noticing mood shifts, and showing up with steadiness. Paperwork informs a network; relationships change a life. Fear-based systems can’t produce safety; only love can reduce fear and rebuild trust.

A love-led framework also builds social capital. Investing in high-quality residential care pays forward to future partners, children, and communities. The work is nuanced and resource-intensive, but the cost of children growing up feeling unloved is far higher. Extending relational support beyond 18 reflects how human development actually unfolds; care does not end at a birthday. Strong leadership is vital here. Leaders set the tone for psychological safety, create environments where staff can bring both heart and skill, and ensure compliance serves the mission, not the other way around. With clarity of purpose and relational metrics, the sector can protect love in practice—and the evidence shows that’s what transforms lives.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch the podcast here:

About Carla:

Carla is the Founder and Director of Lighthouse, bringing extensive expertise in quality, compliance, and safeguarding across the residential childcare sector in the UK. With a background spanning Registered Manager, Head of Care, and Head of Quality & Compliance for an organisation operating over 30 homes rated Good and Outstanding, Carla has deep, practical insight into operational leadership, regulatory compliance, and governance. Carla has a proven track record of resolving complex compliance issues and supporting organisations through challenging regulatory actions. Her specialism lies in developing and embedding Quality and Governance frameworks that drive sustainable improvement and ensure the highest standards of care. Passionate about love-led practice and the power of meaningful relationships, Carla champions approaches that create safe, nurturing, and stable environments where children and young people can truly thrive. Carla founded Lighthouse to provide expert guidance and tailored support to providers navigating an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. The name Lighthouse reflects Carla’s vision: to act as a guiding beacon for organisations, illuminating the path through complexity toward excellence in care, safeguarding, and relational practice.

Related Podcasts:

If you really like This podcast interview, you may also like:

Patricia Sheridan

Listen here:

Watch here:

Links:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheSecureStartPodcast

Podcast Blog Site: https://thesecurestartpodcast.com/

Secure Start Site: https://securestart.com.au/

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Carla: 0:05

I write a lot about my belief that love saves lives. Every child deserves a safe, stable, loving home and that our residential services need support to be able to do that. Children heal through relationships and yet the compliance is the kind of ground on which we stand upon, but not necessarily in the way in which healing can be measured. When we talk to engage with care, experienced young people, what they tell us is important to them are those relationships, are those adults that showed up consistently, calmly, attuned again and again, those adults that took the time to notice and spend time and build strong relationships. That’s really where safety is built and felt. As much as children need safe, stable, loving environments in order to thrive, actually so to adults. And if we think about homes and organisations as kind of organic structures, we need to be considering how not only do we provide safe, stable, loving homes, but how do we create safe, stable, loving organisations? How do we create an inspection framework because it is necessary and helpful that breeds love instead of fear? And we know that in order to create safe environments for children, adults need to feel psychologically safe and contained, and therefore the organisation needs to be the container. What we say is compliant is the foundation that we stand on, not the feeling that we reach for. The fact is that we have legislated ourselves and we’ve safeguarded ourselves against actually being able to love children. And the truth is that when we are so afraid to love children, the outcome is that children grow up feeling unloved. But the real safeguarding is the relationship that that child has with that adult every day who looks after them, who has an understanding of their needs, has an awareness in their changes, in their mood, in their behaviour. And what that looks like, that looks like love and that looks like care, and fear cannot drive out fear. Only love can do that, really.

Colby: 2:55

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me this episode is an inspirational voice in the UK residential care sector. Before we begin our conversation, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Carla Keyte. Carla is the founder and director of Lighthouse, bringing extensive expertise in quality, compliance, and safeguarding across the residential childcare sector in the UK. With a background spanning, registered manager, head of care, and head of quality and compliance for an organization operating over 30 homes rated good and outstanding, Carla has deep practical insight into operational leadership, regulatory compliance, and governance. Carla has a proven track record of resolving complex compliance issues and supporting organizations through challenging regulatory actions. Her specialism lies in developing and embedding quality and governance frameworks that drive sustainable improvements and ensure the highest standards of care. Passionate about love-led practice and the power of meaningful relationships, Carla champions approaches that create safe, nurturing, and stable environments where children and young people can truly thrive. Her expertise in implementing integrated therapeutic models enables her to support organizations to meet children’s emotional, social, and developmental needs with compassion, structure, and intentionality. Carla founded Lighthouse to provide expert guidance and tailored support to providers navigating an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. Her mission is to empower teams to deliver values-based, child-centred practice that goes beyond compliance, creating homes that are safe, stable, and loving. The name Lighthouse reflects Carla’s vision to act as a guiding beacon for organizations illuminating the path through complexity towards excellence in care, safeguarding, and relational practice. Welcome, Carla.

Carla: 5:53

Well, Colby, what uh uh an intro there. Thank you, and thank you for having me.

Colby: 5:59

Yes, well, you’re welcome. It is a good one. And what what isn’t in there, and I often ask people if there’s anything that they’d like to add. Um, but many people are just a little bit um uh overwhelmed by hearing hearing their life’s work read back to them. Um but I I kind of discovered you, although I did I discovered you for my must for myself, not in a talent uh talent identification uh way, but through through your writing, and you just you write beautifully um on uh social media platform. They’re not sponsoring me yet, so I won’t mention LinkedIn. Oh there you go, I did. They shed Yeah, so you you write beautifully on there about um the provision of care in residential residential children’s homes. And um yeah, and so that that’s how I I first I guess came across your work and uh and here you are on the podcast.

Carla: 7:05

Lovely, thank you, thank you, no, really, Colby. And I think for me is somebody once said the uh pen is mightier than the sword, and I do. I write a lot of poems and expression and emotion, and I write a lot about my belief that love saves lives, and that comes from my own personal experiences, but my experience of working in the residential sector and seeing how you know the relationships that we form with children, with adults supporting them and the network are able to really uh change children’s lives and help to heal their trauma. And I think it’s a very difficult time within the residential sector. We talk a lot about policy, procedure, practice, regulation, offset, all of these things are important, and no doubt we’re going to discuss them today, Colby. But you know, that forefront for me and summarising everything that we are keen to talk about is empowering safe, stable, loving homes for children. We believe genuinely with our whole heart that every child deserves a safe, stable, loving home, and that our residential services need support to be able to do that. And love uh takes a village to raise children, right?

Colby: 8:31

Yeah, absolutely. So um let’s just start with with that. What do you see as being the role and purpose of of children’s residential homes? And um have you noticed anything that’s shifted over the last over the period of time that you’ve been working in the sector?

Carla: 8:51

Mm-hmm. No, I have, and I I think it’s interesting because the core purpose of a children’s home is actually beautifully very simple. And it is to provide a safe, stable, loving home for children that cannot live within their own families. I think what has shifted over the last ten years is our understanding of what that really means. And so our children’s homes regulations 2015 are, you know, still very valid when you look through the lens of what children need, but our understanding over time, you know, 10 years ago we talked about placements and behaviour management and risk reduction and contact, and now we talk about home and family time and adults who love and and care for children, and so we, you know, in the sector have really developed an understanding that children heal through relationships, and yet the compliance is the kind of ground on which we stand upon, but not necessarily in the way in which healing can be measured. You know, we now know that kind of trauma lives in the body and that safety is a psychological experience that we develop through relationship, not necessarily just through kind of policy and procedure and tick box and uh healing is developed through emotionally attuned adults who are able to regulate with children and support them to make sense of their trauma. So I don’t think that the purpose has changed. I think potentially that our clarity has, our knowledge has, our understanding of neuroscience and biology and how trauma shapes and contaminates experiences for the children that we look after.

Colby: 10:55

Yeah, so the I guess the the as you say, the language and the the degree of focus on that that primary task or that purpose of children’s homes has become clearer and more more defined. And do you think that there’s been a change in the experience of the young people who reside in um residential homes uh associated with that?

Carla: 11:21

Yeah, absolutely. And when we talk to and engage with care-experienced young people, what they tell us is important to them are those relationships, are those adults that showed up consistently, calmly, attuned again and again, those adults that took the time to notice and spend time and build strong relationships. That’s really where safety is is built and felt actually in relationship.

Colby: 11:53

It’s interesting. I’ve had um a number of guests talk about um alumni uh as such of of children’s residential homes, going back quite a number of or spread through the podcast episodes and um uh interestingly, what they report is that children who have been in um residential homes generally and even uh the through specific ones that um I’ve had people associated with them uh on the podcast, is that is that they give they give generally give positive feedback about their experience, sometimes incredibly positive feedback about their experience in residential um child homes, that probably flies in the face a little bit of what policy makers think is in the best interest of children.

Carla: 12:50

I think we can’t be naive, you know, Kobe. The the facts still show that a lot of children, a number of high number of children who are up in residential care or looked after are more likely to end up in prison than they are in university, and that is a sad fact. But I don’t think it can take away from the impact of relationships, and what we hear consistently time and time and time again, is one person who uh shows up unconditionally with uh positive regard for a child who builds relationships can help to heal that trauma and change the direction of a person’s or a child’s adult’s life, actually, not just children. It’s true for us as human beings in terms of our understanding and knowledge in relation to trauma informed practice. Residential care often can be perceived as an institution or a last choice, or or especially a lot in the media of um money grabbing, or or we’ve got a lot of concerns around profiteering, and you know, I can’t take away again even from those concerns, Colby, but what I see when I work across the sector is resilience and passion and people who care and turn up every day to work with some of society’s most traumatised children, and what I also see is that the power of love and relationships can really shape and help children heal from traumatised experiences in their early years.

Colby: 14:34

So when you visit a home, what what do you see that um really I guess um encourages you or or or reassures you that this is a safe and stable, loving home for for the children and young people who live there?

Carla: 14:56

It’s primarily going to be about children’s voice, isn’t it? We talk a lot about beyond compliance. So, for example, if we consider what is good when we look at the offset framework, how do we measure good currently? The SCIF, the common inspection framework really sets out what that looks like for residential children’s game, but how do we measure what is felt? How do we understand if children feel loved and safe and cared for? Because often the measurement isn’t how many incidents we’ve had, but how we are supporting children through those feelings, through those experiences to uh manage and learn and grow from and through their trauma. So what does good look like? What does it feel like? It feels safe, it feels emotionally safe, it feels like children who feel safe in their bodies enough to play and experience and grow and engage in the community. It feels like children who are able to build relationships with adults and adults who are creating environments that feel and reflect on, where children genuinely seen, felt, heard, loved, and cared for, and where adults are supported with the psychological safety and security to be able to do that in a in a professional and containing way for children.

Colby: 16:32

And I wonder whether um the the the standards, the safeguarding standards um that exist in relation to or the regulatory standards that exist in relation to uh assessing children’s homes. And we see a lot on uh LinkedIn a lot about inspection outcomes. Um I guess I’m just wondering about what relationship you see between those inspection outcomes that that come through those through the regulation system and process and the children’s experience of the home. And is there a relationship between what what the um how how homes are rated by Ofstead and the children’s experience in those homes?

Carla: 17:27

Yeah. And you know, the the truth is a lot of homes are a great number, most number of homes are are rated Ofstead good, and and you would I would consider that are delivering safe, stable, loving homes for children. Um the lens again in which we look at that trauma-informed approach, the relational uh measurement of care, I think is the aspect that needs to catch up. So um often in the other end of the inspection cycle requires improvement, inadequate compliance. That’s not really particularly trauma-informed language. It’s not the way in which we speak to each other or or we talk when we’re coaching and we’re developing and we’re supporting homes on that journey of understanding. Because as much as children need safe, stable, loving environments in order to thrive, actually, so do adults. Um, and if we think about homes and organizations as kind of um organic structures, uh, we need to be considering how not only do we provide safe, stable, loving homes, but how do we create safe, stable, loving organizations? How do we create an inspection framework because it is necessary and helpful, that uh breeds love instead of fear, because I think a lot of the time the sense of judgment and negative language and narrative that we’ve created creates this sense of fear, and we know that in order to create safe environments for children, adults need to feel psychologically safe and contained, and therefore the organization needs to be the container for that.

Colby: 19:28

Yeah, it’s you make a very good point. We would never in trauma-informed work, we would never assess someone, a child, as being inadequate. No, as not meeting up to our standards. Yeah.

Carla: 19:44

And I I’ve thought a lot about this. I think safe, stable, loving homes at Lighthouse is the lens in which we look at everything, whether that’s a call for training or compliance support. Over the last five years, we’ve supported a number of organizations. Organisations that have been inadequate in compliance, primarily around Regulation 12 and safeguarding and Regulation 13 leadership. And what we see is this sense of kind of blame and finger pointing and failure. And I think that it sits alongside sometimes often this narrative around residential care that you know it’s profiteering. But when we think about children in the family home or foster care, and we have safeguarding concerns, what we do is we enact child protection procedures, we enact safeguarding structures, we enact working together, multi-agency support and development for children and families and homes. But uh within the current inspection framework, we’ve become um a much more enforcement-aimed perspective. And some of that is is absolutely necessary. But I believe that in order to have a much more um relational inspection process, we should be asking ourselves, is this a safe, stable, loving home for children? Or is this a home that requires support to be a safe, stable, loving home for children? And I actually genuinely believe that Offset should be a safeguarding partner. And where homes are facing a challenge, then we should enact similar processes to child protection procedures where we have a team of specialists, the inspectors, the local authorities, leadership team, residential specialists, uh, those with trauma-informed and therapeutic experience to help that home provide safe, stable loving homes for children, or to consider what needs to be done in order to develop that further. And you know, in some points that might be that children need different intervention and support, but overarchingly, when we have a clear common goal, when we take away that blame language and we reframe it as safeguarding partnership, we keep children much more at the focus and adults who are supporting them who turn up every day with a huge level of love and care and resilience, uh, to be able to uh provide children with safety, stability, and love in a regulated way.

Colby: 22:54

Yeah, they’re they’re all very interesting points, and in and it in some ways it taps into one of the purposes I had, or one of the intentions I had in starting the podcast, um, which was to change the language about around children’s residential childcare more generally. But I think also I have had long-standing concerns about the impact of how external bodies, whether they be a regulator, whether they be the media, the uh judiciary or or uh even the local child protection, statutory child protection authority, I’ve been concerned about the language that they is used about the workforce that they’re offering commentary, assessment, decision, you know, judgment about. And in residential care, um I when I see a children’s minister, for example, advertise on social media something along the lines of um we, you know, our government has uh established this new service family-based for bad family-based care of children and young people that will save save X number of children from residential care.

Carla: 24:18

Yeah.

Colby: 24:18

And and when I see that, it makes my blood boil because I just think whatever your views are about residential care, residential child care, um there are kids that are in it. And it’s not it’s it and it is quite a heterogeneous group. There are there are always examples of of not so good um residential child care homes. Yeah. Just as and and and there are also examples of outstanding uh um home experiences for children. And I guess now I’m getting on my my my soapbox a little bit, but I I think that if you’ve got if you’re the if you’re you’ve got the power to change, then because you do, and you’ve got concerns about our residential childcare sector, then then do something about it. Um and I but as just to finish my other point, which was I I’m always very concerned about the experience of the staff when when they are aware of those direct messages that residential care is something to be avoided at all costs, that it is is the option of last resort. And I think the the cost at all costs, that cost has that double meaning because I think you know it is perhaps more expensive in some ways than than other forms of care. Um but so what? You know, raising children is expensive. And I think that that whole language around it is the option of last resort really cheats cheats children, cheats homes and children out of being resourced to the level that that adequately, more than adequately meets their needs.

Carla: 26:06

Yeah. And and our sector has become driven by that fear-based language and experience. So adult supporting children feel that. We need a huge amount of resources to be able to support children who’ve experienced significant trauma, relational rupture, uh, exploitation at the hands of society. These are children who have been harmed and hurt, not what we often consider to be naughty children, or and you know, beyond that, our children’s homes have often been considered historically as kind of last resorts and institutions and places where you know we’re lacking love and support. And I think that’s a key thing for me in all of those roles, in all of those aspects, in all of the policies, procedures, practice, in every offset report I’ve read in every policy we’ve built, every role. The thing that stands fundamentally at the core of it, Colby, that I have always been is a love-led practitioner.unknown: 27:38

Yeah.

Carla: 27:39

I believe genuinely that love saves lives and children heal, and we can heal trauma and relational rupture and attachment uh disorder through building strong, safe relationships with children. And in order to do that, we need to have a frameworks that support us to boldly love children.

Colby: 28:02

So, what I’m taking from what you’re saying is that um the very things that um that support a felt sense of psychological safety, a felt sense of mattering, a felt sense of belonging, yeah. All of the a felt sense of connection to others needs to be built into any assessment framework when one is from a from a regulatory point of view, um turning one’s mind to the safety and well-being of children.

Carla: 28:42

Yeah, absolutely. What does a safe, stable, loving home for this child look like? Because you know, we talk about regulation, but actually the truth is called, we’ve got a number of children, foster homes, supported accommodation, we’ve got challenges with homes getting regulated, we’ve got children, more children now than we’ve ever had in unregulated care. So the question or the key question for me is you know, is this child experiencing a safe, stable, loving home? And if not, what do we need to do about it? Because, you know, this kind of finger pointing and blame culture of the residential sector, the demonizing is not the truth. There are aspects of it that need to be controlled. But the truth is when I travel across the sector in the 20 years I’ve worked in this um arena, but more so in the last five years where I’ve been supporting homes to embed safe, stable, loving homes model and to really consider what does that mean on a day-to-day? What I see is resilience and love and care, and people who are passionate and who are genuinely able to make a difference to children’s lives and even the national agenda, you know, things that are being said at a national level this week. I’m not going to involve myself in that debate so much, but they they build on this rhetoric that the residential sector is broken and that we’re you know not doing and that we’re costing, and but the cost of of not loving children is that children grow up feeling not loved, and the impact of that is so much wider than you know whether residential care should be the first choice for children or not.

Colby: 30:44

From my perspective, it’s about building social capital, it’s building good social capital by investing in good res good quality, high-quality residential care, which already exists out there, and looking at those providers that provide excellent high-quality care and how what we can understand about the way they work and the way they practice and how that can be um supported across the across the sector. Um yeah, I it is I always say when you when you improve the life of an individual child, you also improve the life of their life partner or life partners, their children and their grandchildren. That’s that’s the social cat the accumulating social capital effect of actually intervening um therapeutically with our children. And another thing that you said that I thought was really important and is we need and I guess it was it was uh it was a post that you put on in on LinkedIn about understanding that um that I has got uh drew my attention to your work, but is that what you just said just now about individualized care plans and assessing assessing homes perhaps, supporting homes. An assessment can be therapeutic. I mean, if you’re doing therapy, you’re always assessing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So have a baseline. That’s right. An assessment is in a therapeutic sense is is about where are we at and where do we want to get to. Yeah. Where an assessment in other contexts can be about deficit. What are the deficits and how do we ri remediate those deficits? So if we if we want a system that is more is therapeutic, and we want that because um people perform better in the role where they have a regulatory system that is therapeutic. And that assess that system perhaps needs to uh assess the capacity of the home to meet the individual love and safety and belonging and mattering needs of the children. And I guess a point that has been brought up, and not to steal the the floor too much, is what do you do with the most unhappy, the most traumatized, the most complex young people? If we have a if we have a system that has rigid standards as such that don’t move with the individualized needs of children, then you’ll you’ll create a a certain category of children that become perhaps I’m tr I’m struggling to think of a better word, but a a liability or a threat to the standing of the home. So we never want a regulatory system that excludes certain children from care.

Carla: 34:04

Yeah, and and I think we have seen that a lot within the regulated sector. It’s why we’ve got such a high number of children in unregulated or unregistered, we’ve got a number of delays in the registration process for um offset registered homes. But I think what it comes back to me for each time, Bobby, is the same key question. What does a safe, stable, loving home look like for this child? And what do we need to do in order to achieve it? So often, you know, we get calls from uh across the sector in the last five years, homes that have been inadequate, compliant, children that are moving to and from unregulated care and needing those levels of support. And the first question that we ask, we use the lighthouse lens and we say that actually, in reality, safety, safeguarding, the foundation of everything we do is built on a foundation of safeguarding. In our model, we say on the left hand side we have a triangle and it’s quality and compliance or really equates to stable. And then we look at strategic intervention. What does that look like? What do we need to put in place? And often that’s where our love leg practice comes in place. So safe, stable loving homes for children. And if we think about Johnny, we say, what do we need to do to safeguard Johnny? What quality and compliance are we working within? What policy procedure is Johnny in a regulated, unregulated home? What do we need to put in place to support that? What strategic intervention, what support or intervention, trauma-informed therapeutic practice, love, leg care, keyword sessions, referral support for multi-agency services through effective assessment does little Johnny need? But we don’t stop there. We have to then say, what about the adults? What do we need to do to safeguard out the adults that are looking after Johnny? How do we help them to do that in the most stabilising way in terms of quality and compliance? What interventions do we need to put in place for them through supervision and training, reflective practice that help us create a sense of psychological safety for adults? But again, Colby, we can’t stop there. We have to say the home and then wider. What we’ve been saying is, you know, okay, as an organization, what do you need to do to ensure safe, stable, loving homes for children? And we’ve been embedding this model in children’s homes across the sector and children’s homes that have been under scrutiny through inspection that who are now long-standing, good and outstanding homes, not because they’ve learned to take the inspection box and framework, but they’ve really considered their culture, their purpose. What does it mean to provide a safe, stable, individualized home for children and to help adults to feel safe enough to love and care for those children on a daily basis?

Colby: 37:32

There’s clearly a role for leadership in that aspect of this conversation. But before I I moved there, while I was listening to you speak, it occurred to me that some people know that I have a history of nearly 15 years working in the regulatory sector, the health practitioner regulation scheme here in Australia, uh, in the psychology part of it. And sometimes in regulation the standards can either be you know broad principles, you know, appro that we we aspire to, or they c they can be quite prescriptive about the things that um we want to see. And I think I think with the latter if you if you look at the children that um that are cared for within um within residential child uh homes or children’s homes, then a a a fairly prescriptive model or or set of standards for regulation, I think, um will certainly lack nuance. It’s a very new very nuanced area, potentially. But also I I think about what the level, you know, what what is the what is the level at which we pitch it? Do we live a is it pitch at the level of the the bare minimum? This is this is the the ba the this is the um the let the standard of care we expect everyone to be in. And I don’t want to draw this similarity the the the relationship with Winnicott’s idea of the good enough parent, because I think his idea of the good enough parent is is is but this this i is a really good one in in some expressions, in certain, you know, for example in in assessing assessing on an individualized basis, if you apply it on an individualized basis, but if you have standards that try to I’m trying to come up with language that isn’t, and so I’m gonna say it, lowest common denominator in a sense.

Carla: 39:53

Yeah. I think for me, what we say is compliance. Is the foundation that we stand on, not the ceiling that we reach for. And so it’s beyond compliance. We do need a set of regulations, we do need standards, we still need a set of guidance, the way in which we look at that, and you know, how it’s framed, I think, needs to be more relational and really considering what does that look like for individual children? Is this a service that’s providing a safe, stable, loving home for children? Or in the same way as families, do they need support to be able to do so? And I think that frames that much more in terms of our kind of trauma informed support language assessment. You can’t have a one-size fits all necessarily, but what you can have is a commitment, a promise. And actually, we can see that you know, if we look at Scotland, Scotland have uh the national promise. And I think the thing that I could say to you, Colby, in my whole career that I am most proud of is that I am currently the lead for the Love and Care Network in partnership with our colleagues over at Children’s Homes Quality, and we are working to build a village to really communicate the power of loving relationships in children’s homes, to create the framework and the training and the modules so that we can stand loud and proud and say, actually, our children alert, the evidence basis here for it, the neuroscience supports it, the practice, the research in practice, attachment theory, whether we look at all of the layers of our evidence of care over the last 15 years since the children’s homes regulations were embedded, show us that children can thrive and do thrive in homes where they feel safe, supported, loved, and cared for, and we need to be able to provide the framework that supports individual homes for individual children at a time in which they need it.

Colby: 42:32

Yeah, the the the the promise is uh uh somewhat paradigm shifting, I think, in the sense that, and I think we’ve kind of moved a little bit around this topic, but um the idea of loving the children in in your care has been polluted in a sense by concerns around what what do professional boundaries look like.

Carla: 43:01

Yeah, absolutely.

Colby: 43:03

And if you so so that’s a really good example of where a safeguarding standard actually contributes to a poorer outcome for children and other people. It’s that that the law of unintended consequences in a s in a sense, you know, no good deed goes unpunished. We keep a professional distance, we keep bat we maintain boundaries, and then what what what what are the consequences of doing that for for our children in terms of their experience of whether they matter, whether they’re loved. What the promise Scotland really um um restores for us is our ability to to actually say that the ch the children need love and that’s and that’s part of our role. That that is it that’s not a boundary transgression that that’s not even an uh it’s not even um poor practice. It’s a it’s a fundamental human need. Yeah. And if we can’t provide that, then what what are we doing? What are we here for?

Carla: 44:22

Yeah, yeah. And you know, the the neuroscience supports this. And the um fact is that we have legislated ourselves and we have safeguarded ourselves against actually being able to love children. And the truth is that when we are so afraid to love children, the outcome is that children grow up feeling unloved, funnily enough. Um it’s interesting, isn’t it? Because a lot of these policies, this is the line I think between safeguarding and love. And I’ve what I’ve come to the conclusion of in all my research and thinking, Colby, is that the most purest form of safeguarding is love. Children need to feel safe, they need to feel regulated, they need adults that are going to hold boundaries, hold them in mind, and be able to, you know, hold some of those experiences that they have been through. When we safeguard against that, when we historically, when we think about compliance and safeguarding practice, we think about have you filled out the safeguarding form, have you informed offset, have you done a Reg 40? We think about safeguarding compliance, policy, procedure, practice. But the truth is none of those things actually keep the child any safer. They inform people of the safeguarding need, they put a network around, and of course, those things are very important. But the real safeguarding is the relationship that that child has with that adult every day who looks after them, who has an understanding of their needs, has a awareness in their changes, in their mood, in their behavior. And what that looks like, that looks like love and that looks like care, and fear cannot drive out fear. Only love can do that, really.

Colby: 46:30

Yeah, well, I think that’s a very well-made point. And my mind where my mind is going, you know, on the basis of what you’re you’re saying, is if we assess for performance, if that that’s that’s what that’s a bit like those two different types of assessment that that I was referring to earlier. The as one is the assessment of performance and capacity and and ability to do to perform us in a certain task or role. The other is about um assessing particular a person’s circumstances or an organization’s circumstances and turning our minds to where how what are we what do we implement, how do we support, what what what is the intervention to the intervention. And that the therapeutic intervention. And that’s a that’s a different type of safeguarding. One from one and and I I see this this is really relevant across safeguarding because of children, because people are talking about this in terms of what child protection system how child protection systems should function. That you know, so a lot of the time the way they function is that a parent a family is in deep trouble, and they assess them to be in deep trouble, and the children are un uh are unsafe, and they remove those those children. Yeah. But it but the dialogue part of the problem with that is is then we also know that governments and their and their art agencies struggle to provide the the the care that children need. That yeah, and they will always struggle, I would say. There’s nothing that they they cannot replace the birth-family connection by and large. So they’ll always struggle with that. And what what’s coming into the more and more I’m seeing it um in terms of what people are saying about our our uh child protection systems more broadly is that the intervention should be more a therapeutic one. Yes, we assess, we assess the si the layer of the land as we find it, and rather than making a judgment at that point in in relation to a line, what we say is what what are the therapeutic interventions here? Yes. They get the get this family, they get this foster care placement that you know where there’s been a care concern, they get this children’s home to a place. And and this is the the important thing is if that is if if that’s a philosophy that underpins our regulatory or our child protection system, then um it naturally follows that we’re looking for strengths to build on. We’re un we’re we’re understanding the circum what the circumstances here, not from a point of view of of judgment, of judgment and decision making, but from a point of view of how do we address those circumstances therapeutically. Yeah.

Carla: 49:55

And and I think in in a lot of ways that’s the same foundation and model that we and Lens that we’ve built at at Lighthouse. And now I remember a very old boss of mine, she said to me, Um, Carlish, said you, you you’re fantastic at safeguarding children. I was a residential manager. When the kids are in your care, they’re really safe. I’m working with high-risk young ladies, uh, young ladies at high risk of exploitation. And uh she said, it’s like you’re running around the country with a cage and catch these kids, and when they’re in your cage, they’re safe. But what happens when you lift up the cage? And then you start to consider okay, a lot of people work really hard to safeguard children. We’ve got Johnny, he’s safe. We’ve done the quality and compliance, we’ve told Offstead, we’re sold to the social worker, we’ve told the people, we followed the procedure. But what are we going to do? What’s the intervention? What’s the strategic intervention that little Johnny needs? Is that you know stronger keyworking, attuned adults? Is it, you know, referral pathway, mental health support, you know, is it that he needs uh education, different care planning aspects? But then not only what intervention does little Johnny need, what intervention do the adults need to be able to provide a safe, stable, loving home to be emotionally and psychologically contained and safe to do so. So the two things can’t be separate. We used to teach our adults, and and and there is a contrary to it in our safeguarding policies, in our professional boundaries, leave yourself at the door. Don’t be behind a closed door with a child, don’t hug a child, God forbid you tell them that you love them or that you care for them or you might buy them a small gift when you go on holiday. And all of these safeguarding policies and procedures, Gobby, they they were built to safeguard our children from predators through the last 15 years, where we’ve seen, you know, serious and significant um child protection cases in our media across our country, across the world, across our sector. Failure upon failure is if you would have it to believe that way. But we’ve created all of these policies that do safeguard children, but inadvertently they safeguard them from being loved and supported because 15-year-old boys aren’t sitting in the living room in front of numerous adults talking about their feelings and crying in their trauma, and they’re crying at three o’clock in the morning in their bedroom with an adult who’s taken the time to build a relationship, and the door probably is going to be closed, and you probably are going to be sat on the bedroom floor crying and feeling and experiencing. And once upon a time, we were told, you know, don’t bring the emotion, it’s not effective safeguarding. But children need adults that show up for them, that care for them, that love them, that hold them in mind, that build trust and build a sense of safety, not just in tick boxes, not just on paper. The paper that you, the poem that you read, I think, you know, we don’t require improvement, we require understanding, understanding that children have experienced trauma, understanding that adults holding that is messy, understanding that leaders need an incredible amount of resilience, and yet often we, you know, we fail to understand the trauma, the need for love, the investment that that takes to show up every day. It’s one of the most difficult jobs that I have ever done, and I am have never been so proud to stand here today in that capacity as my lead for loving care. I’ve been an effective safeguarding uh practitioner, I’ve driven changes in quality and compliance and offstead inspection. The regulatory framework is important, but at the heart of it all, if we don’t keep the love, if we don’t reclaim it, if we don’t say it out loud, if we is there in our regulatory framework and coming all the way back round, you know, Colby, we talked about the promise in Scotland. I believe that we should go one step further. And I call on, you know, the UK government to invest in every child having a safe, stable, loving home, whether those children are in foster care, whether those children are unaccompanied asylum seekers, children living in residential homes or supported accommodation. And I urge our government to go one step further and say care doesn’t stop at 16 or 18. Children, you know, we talk about transitions and independence, but actually the reality is children, adults, human beings need sustaining loving relationships. And one person who loves you unconditionally can build resilience, can shape your future, and can help to help children overcome the trauma that they have experienced so that they can go on to live, you know, really fulfilling uh lives and and to break that aspect of, as we talked about earlier, intergenerational trauma. It’s a big thing there, Colby.

Colby: 55:48

Yeah, yeah. So, Carla, it’s it has been a real uh pleasure, joy to have you on the podcast and discuss these matters with you. Is there any final thoughts that you would like to uh leave our listeners or watchers with?

Carla: 56:08

Yeah, I think that’s it. There’s one real message from this conversation. I hope it’s this, Colby, because children don’t heal in systems, they heal in safe, stable, loving homes, um, held by adults and leadership that feel safe enough to stay open and steady enough to kind of stay present through these experiences, you know, through the difficult times and to stand with them. So I think you know, we don’t need harsher systems, we actually need a more understanding one. We don’t require improvement, we require understanding because when we build homes where love is protected, we have clear evidence that love saves lives.

Colby: 56:54

Yeah. Wonderful, thank you. Thank you very much, Kamala, and uh yeah, thank you for coming on the pod.

Carla: 57:03

Lovely, thank you, Colby.

Disclaimer: Information reported by guests of this podcast is assumed to be accurate as stated. Podcast owner Colby Pearce is not responsible for any error of facts presented by podcast guests. In addition, unless otherwise specified, opinions expressed by guests of this podcast may not reflect those of the podcast owner, Colby Pearce.

Relearning Trust Through Relationships – A Podcast Interview with John Turberville

Join John Turberville as we unpack residential childcare reform, trauma-informed leadership, the role of culture, and what truly supports children to heal and flourish in out-of-home care. Insightful, honest, and deeply relevant for carers, educators and leaders.

Relearning Trust Through Relationships

Residential care is often framed as the last stop, the place you turn to when everything else has failed. This conversation challenges that reflex. John Turberville, CEO of the Mulberry Bush, lays out a humane, evidence-informed case for residential care as a placement of choice for children whose lives have been marked by trauma, rupture and repeated breakdowns. He traces his path from business into therapeutic childcare and explains how mentors, reflective practice and a clear psychodynamic approach shaped a charity that now stretches from its residential school to outreach, consulting and training. The anchor is simple but demanding: relationships first, because repair happens in safe, predictable, attuned relationships that children can actually feel.

A powerful thread is the role of family. Rather than treating the child in isolation, Mulberry Bush commits to working with birth, adoptive and foster families through therapy, peer groups and even residential family weekends. The aim is honest: build capacity, reduce shame, and create real pathways for step-down into stable home life when safe and possible. John describes the reality of term-time and 52?week care, the complexities of holidays, and the constant balance between modelling good care and avoiding competition with families. Alumni stories cut through rhetoric; adults return decades later saying the warmth, structure and belonging they felt taught them the “boundaries of life” and helped them become parents who can love well.

Why group care? Because the difficulties show up in groups—families, classrooms, communities—and that is where the work belongs. For some children, especially those who find family placements overwhelming or triggering, small, therapeutic residential homes provide the containment and relational density needed to rebuild trust. The episode unpacks how solo placements can stabilise acute crises, yet reintegration into group living matters for social learning. We hear of a seven-year-old with over 50 foster breakdowns; expecting another family try would likely entrench shame. In such cases, high-quality residential care across childhood is not failure—it’s a fit.

The conversation also faces the policy and practice headwinds. Staff need emotional resilience, reflective spaces, strong training, and permission to innovate. One-size-fits-all programmes do not work for children who do not fit the mould. Yet regulation can provoke fear that stifles creativity, pushing staff toward screens and paperwork instead of children. John advocates a healthier balance: clear standards for safety, coupled with trust in skilled teams to adapt, experiment and respond to complex need. If we get it right for the most vulnerable, we get it right for everyone.

Finally, the theme that ties it all together is belonging. Whether through a 38?week or 52?week home, a peer group, or a family network, Mulberry Bush builds a felt sense of safety and community. Alumni say the site looks different now, but it feels the same: people who listen deeply, boundaries held with care, and a culture of reflective practice. That aura—accessible, understanding, responsive, attuned—helps children relearn the world as somewhere they can trust, and themselves as people who matter. For systems chasing placement stability and better outcomes, the lesson is clear: invest in relationships, embed family work, back your staff, and make space for creativity to breathe.

You can listen to the full episode here:

You can watch here:

About John:

John is the Chief Executive Officer of The Mulberry Bush, a national charity dedicated to transforming the lives of people affected by trauma in their childhood. He leads the development & delivery of an integrated range of specialist therapeutic and educational services, with a focus on expanding the charity’s range and reach and ensuring the highest standards across all services — guided by its three core values: Collaborative Working, a Psychodynamic Approach, and a Reflective Culture.

John joined The Mulberry Bush in 1994 after a successful career in business in central London, bringing over three decades of experience in therapeutic practice, with an MA in Therapeutic Childcare and a certificate in Family Therapy. Formerly the School Director and Chief Operating Officer, he became CEO to further develop the charity’s ability to link teaching, research, and practice, aiming to deliver the highest quality services and excellent outcomes.

John is Chair of the Community of Communities Advisory Group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, supporting quality assurance and accreditation for Therapeutic Communities & Therapeutic Child Care settings in the UK and internationally, and is a Therapeutic Communities (TC) specialist, auditing TC prisons.

John is also Trustee of the National Association of Special Schools (NASS) and Governor of a village primary school, reflecting his commitment to both specialist & mainstream leadership.

Related Podcasts:

If you really liked John’s podcast interview, I anticipate you will also like the following:

Richard Rollinson:

Listen here:

Watch here:

John Whitwell:

Listen here:

Watch here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Star podcast.

John: 0:05

And I’ve been sort of powerfully reminded by various children that no matter the level of difficulty when they were living at home, and sometimes it’s absolutely right that they don’t live at home, but no matter the level of difficulty, there’s still family and there’s still that very important bond that is there. But there is something about modelling the sorts of relationships that can be achieved and those experiences that can be had so that even if it’s not possible to have those at home, the children can develop a sense of what might be possible. That you have to have children on the experience that he had with the staff team at the moment. And from my family therapy experience, I also think there’s something about the intensity of the sort of family dynamic, which can be very challenging. And so expecting all to be able to sort of work through in the intensity of that sort of familial dynamic family relationship, I think is short-sighted really. I do think the children who get close to large tend to be those who are surrounded by the highest levels of anxiety and levels of anxiety at risk. And what we know of these children is that sort of they don’t fit the ball, if you like. A one-size-fits-all program doesn’t work. We need creativity, we need innovation, we need to trust our staff, we need to ensure that they’re trained and properly supported, and then we need to really trust and encourage this to creativity and innovation. We’ve had lots of girls with a lot of many placement breakdowns. So when I was a health manager, we had a girl placed up in two to seven. And actually had over 50 foster placement breakdowns before the aged to seven. And fundamentally, I think it was unrealistic to expect to give something that looked like that another girl. She firmly believed it was her fault, it didn’t, it was unlovable, nobody could really look after her. So I think for her it probably made absolute sense that she continued in residential care. Whereas for other children, you know, the opportunity to support them, to develop an understanding of what’s going on within the family, to work with the family and reintegrate them, I think is also really important, a great opportunity there. Residential care as a placement of choice, I think is really important. Fundamentally, the things that the children today are generally to do with the importance of relationships and the sort of love and care that they experience.

Colby: 3:50

Before we begin the podcast, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is John Turberville. John is the Chief Executive Officer of the Mulberry Bush, a national charity dedicated to transforming the lives of people affected by trauma in their childhood. He leads the development and delivery of an integrated range of specialist therapeutic and educational services with a focus on expanding the charity’s range and reach and ensuring the highest standards across all services, guided by its three core values a collaborative working, a psychodynamic approach, and a reflective culture. John joined the Moby Bush in 1994 after a successful career in business in central London, bringing over three decades of experience in therapeutic practice with an MA in therapeutic childcare and a certificate in family therapy. Formerly the school director and chief operating officer, he became the CEO to further develop the charity’s ability to link teaching, research, and practice, aiming to deliver the highest quality services and excellent outcomes. John is chair of the Community of Communities Advisory Group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, supporting quality assurance and accreditation for therapeutic communities and therapeutic childcare settings in the UK and internationally. And is a therapeutic community specialist auditing therapeutic communities prisons. John is also trustee of the National Association of Special Schools and Governor of a Village Primary School, reflecting his commitment to both specialist and mainstream leadership. Welcome, John.

John: 6:24

Thank you. Lovely introduction.

Colby: 6:28

Yeah, well, um, and as I uh generally admit at this point in time, it’ll come it’ll come through lovely and smoothly with the wonders of me being able to go back and edit my little uh uh uh missteps as I was as I was going through the through your bio.

John: 6:47

Yeah, no problem at all. No problem at all.

Colby: 6:50

Now it’s a significant um it’s a significant work history you have, and you’re you’re leading up a um you know a very well-known and dare I say, even somewhat famous organization uh there in the Mulberry Bush. I’m wondering if we might begin by um further to that bio, if you’re just telling us a little bit about your journey to to becoming the CEO of such a highly esteemed organization.

John: 7:25

Yeah, yeah, sure. Thank you. Thanks thanks for reminding me of of of the sort of esteem in which it’s held. I suppose whenever people say that, I always makes me feel slightly sort of intimidated, and I often think of the word of my sort of current role of being sort of stewarding it for a period of time or um, I don’t know, custodian or something like that. But um, yeah, in terms of my journey to CEO, I mean it’s I mean, some of it’s sort of covered in the bio, I suppose, but it’s sort of interesting for me. I think my interest in this sort of field of work really started. Um, it was actually triggered by a documentary I saw once on TV in my teens, which was to do with working with um teenage young offenders and doing sort of outdoor education in in the great outdoors, which was a great passion of mine in my sort of teenage years. Um, and I think from quite an early age, I was quite a sort of fragile child, if you like, and and my parents sort of discouraged me from going straight into this sort of work. They didn’t really think probably that I would be resilient enough, which which I often reflect on. Um, and I ended up going into charter surveying actually in in the West End in London, and I worked for a big sort of professional firm for for five or six years. But in that time, I I worked with a charity in the east end of London called the Stepney Children’s Fund, with who who looked after and worked with similar children who are those placed at the Mulberry Bush, really. And there was a guy who led it called Bob Lavallian, who was just one of these most incredible, sort of inspirational leaders, um, really led from the heart. And um so I was involved in running um camps and weekends um for mostly boys but some girls from East End schools from really, really quite challenging, uh deprived backgrounds. And again, that sort of spiked my passion to do more in this sort of field. And then um I was actually made redundant up in London and ended up thinking, okay, this is a time to make a change in my career, to do really where you know, to follow my passion, I suppose, and my my interest. And I I looked around the country, I visited various sort of schools and settings, and actually ended up at the Mulberry Bush just to come and have a look. I was linked up with Richard Rollinson at the time, who’s who was at that time the the principal of the school. Um, and when I visited, I suppose something just clicked for me. It just felt it felt right. There was something about the place and the sense of community that I intuitively sort of understood. Um, and so I started there as a volunteer uh and then really sort of worked my way through the care side of the organisation. Um, so I became a therapeutic childcare practitioner, then I ran one of the houses for a period of time, probably I don’t know, about six six or seven years. One of the things looking back often, I’m terrible with the dates, so um I often forget the dates, but sort of six or seven years. Um and in that time, that was when I did the MA and Therapeutic Childcare at Reading, which was an amazing course run by um Adrian Ward and Lynn McMahon, and had a reflective group, and it was just inspiring, really. Um so yeah, really enjoyed that course, learnt a huge amount, and realized that sort of my intuitive approach to the work, you know, there were there was a sort of theoretical underpinning and background that it was important to learn. Um after that, I yeah, I I sort of carried on progressing through my role. So I became the head of residential therapy, which was a role at the time, um, down at the school, and was actually I was the first head of residential therapy who wasn’t residential on the site. So prior to me, it was a residential post, and that it felt like we were sort of moving with the times um to move move beyond that, and then became the school director for about 10 years, a post which I really enjoyed. But at that time, the we were really sort of challenged to grow the work of the charity. So at that time it it was the school, and the school working with the children and the families of the children placed at the school, and so the challenge really was to grow the work of the charity, and we developed some other services, um, which I’ll go on maybe to talk about. But um in doing so, we sort of reorganized the leadership structure and set up this post of sort of COO and COO, sorry, chief operating officer and a chief executive officer. And so I became the COO at that time. Um and we really started to develop our sort of range of outreach services, um, working particularly with schools initially and then with social care organizations. And then about three years ago, John Diamond retired, who was the current CEO, and I applied for that that role. Um, and that seemed to make sense in terms of sort of my personal progression through the charity, through the organization. And I still felt and still feel hugely ambitious for the charity. Um, and so the last three years as CEO have really been about sort of developing that role in the work um of the charity more broadly.

Colby: 12:50

You mentioned a couple of people in that, and thank you. Thank you for the the breadth of that that um um that response. You mentioned Richard Rollinson, who I’ve already had uh on the the podcast. Uh was back in the teens, uh might have been about podcast 14, I think, off top of my head. And Adrian Ward, who’s also been ref I haven’t had him on the podcast, but he’s been referenced um by by other people as um having run or delivered a a very um highly thought of um training in therapeutic um therapeutic childcare. Um Richard Rollinson’s a great one for stories. Uh I wonder whether I might spring uh spring on you a uh whether you whether you have a a good little Richard Rollinson story, uh or at least um the impact that he has had on you, your development um uh as a professional and also as a professional within the Mulberry Bush organization.

John: 14:05

Yeah. So my right smile is I’ve got sort of quite a few amusing stories. Maybe I’ll tell you one of those as well.

Colby: 14:11

But in Sunny De Thomas, remember.

John: 14:16

Thank you for reminding me of that. Yeah. Um I I I think I mean Richard was really has been key to my my own sort of progress and development, and that partly was because when I started at the Mulberry Bush, actually it it it was undergoing quite um a radical change, moving from dormitories upstairs and classrooms downstairs, so really everybody living on top of one another, so to speak, um, and building residential houses, and so moving uh as it was termed at the time, move to small group living. Um and because of that sort of program and my experience in surveying up in London, um, and and I suppose I’d like to think maybe something uh about my approach to the work. Richard was really encouraging of me and got me involved quite early on at quite a high level in the organization. I often look back and think that must have felt quite complicated to some, but it really was, it sort of did inspire me. And it I often think of it when I think about newer people coming in and the sort of strengths, knowledge, and the qualities that they bring, and trying to encourage those and sort of capitalise on those. So Rich was absolutely key to me feeling really authorized to have a voice and have a say in the charity, so that felt really, really important. And I think over that period of time there was something about the way that Richard managed that period of change, which was um sort of determined, focused, clear, um, but in some ways gentle as well. And I think that um that feels important at the Mulberry Bush. That I suppose I always have in mind when we’re managing periods of change that you know there are a group of um very sort of vulnerable children placed in that setting, and so we need to manage everything quite really quite carefully. Um, so I think over time, um, what Richard has really the the one phrase that comes to mind actually that I that I raised often in interviews when I’ve had interviews about career progression within the charity has been about think the importance of thinking spaces. Um and I think although Richard um will acknowledge that um he never uses uh uses sort of one word when a hundred would do, um that that uh that actually providing spaces to sort of think and reflect about things is really really important. So I’ve always seen that sort of that’s that’s one of the key um key things for me to remember in all my roles is to provide spaces to think. Um my right smile when you were asking the question was that when I was a Richard’s a singer, I don’t know whether he sang for you on the podcast. Um from listen from thinking back. I don’t think he probably did, but um, and yeah, he loves a story. And when I was the house manager of um I was house manager of Sunset House for a number of years, um Rich Offin used to come in um and he used to always have a song to sing. And one of the songs he used to sing was um it was it was it was called Love Potion Number Nine, which is a very old song, um, and it just used to wind all the kids up, and we used to have to sort of usher him back up back out of the door to just to try and calm the place down again. Um, but yeah, no, an amazing guy, lovely guy. Um, and I still regularly meet with him. He’s on our board of trustees still at the moment, so he still very much is um an important sort of voice for me in terms of the the sort of therapeutic community model and um uh something important about the sort of heritage and legacy that that we carry with us as we continue to develop the the Mulberry Bush.

Colby: 18:03

Yeah, yeah, he he was I I absolutely loved interviewing him and hope to do it do so again soon. Um yeah, a couple of things that he said that have never really um stuck in my mind was um uh was about at the Mulberry Bush children live learn to live with uh with others and with themselves as well. And then the other one was uh and this one came up actually really I was doing some work recently and and it um it reminded me of of what Richard uh said during the podcast, which was about and I’m hoping I’m not gonna butcher it, but it was I can always edit it, of course. Um but it was um if children if children are not on your mind they’ll behave in a way that may uh that puts them in your mind and if they’re neither then they’ll be out of their mind.

John: 19:10

Yeah.

Colby: 19:11

But uh yeah, that really captures so much.

John: 19:17

I think Rich often is able, although he likes lots of words, he he often finds these sort of phrases which do capture something very important. Um and I think one of the things that’s been important to me over the last three years, these three years of CEO, one, and it and it’s again it’s a rich Rollinson phrase, has about been about um the importance of the the equal importance of the the business of treatment and the treatment of the business. Um and and certainly it’s been a key focus for me in the past. I think as a charity, it’s been very focused on on the business of treatment, which of course is you know why it exists and it’s all important, but fundamentally, if you if you don’t get the treatment of the business right, then you’ve got nothing. And so there’s something about that balance over the last three years, which I’ve been trying to ensure as we grow remains a little more equal, um, that we focus on the importance uh of the treatment of the business and make sure the business is solid and sound so that we can deliver high-quality treatment. So, Rich, yeah, he’s he’s great with words. Indeed, he is.

Colby: 20:29

And um while we’re sticking with the the topic of the business, um the Mulberry Bush School, uh, for those who know a little bit of its history, started off um uh as I recall, um back in the 1940s with um Mrs. Mrs. Docker Drysdale and her husband, and she ran something of a nursery school at that at that time. And um and then it’s it’s kind of developed from there. It’s it’s it’s um what is it must be getting on towards 80 odd years that it’s been operating in one form or another. And um and it it it’s more than just a school now. And uh yeah, I’m interested to hear and and how you would um yeah, uh your summary of of um the work that the Mulberry Bush School does in each of its areas of endeavour.

John: 21:31

Yeah, no, sure. Yeah, absolutely. In 1948 was when um when it was founded, um down on the site that’s it’s still on, down in in Stanlake, um, by by Barbadr Drysdale and her husband Stephen. And and in many ways, it’s the work of the school that that remains the source for all we do. So the sort of model of practice developed in the school, the way in which it was thought about and is thought about remains of of key importance to the growth of the charity. Um and really what the the the school still very much runs um many ways as it did, uh, although we’ve sort of adapted and changed over time, modernized, um, and we always look to embrace new thoughts, new ideas, theories, and practice to try and ensure that we remain at the sort of cutting edge of of what’s going on and practices evidence-based. Um, but really it’s been about trying to adapt those that sort of learning, that knowledge, or those sort of golden threads, if you like, um, for different settings. Um, and so back in uh sort of 2011-2012, we we recognized that we needed to try and do more. And actually, the trustees were also sort of challenging us by saying, um, uh if you’re good at what what you do, then you should be reaching more children. You should be trying to do more. Um, and at that time there was a reduction in the behaviour support service for schools in Oxfordshire, and um, so we recruited one of the lead practitioners um for that support service, um, and we set up this thing, it was a sort of working title which stuck at the beginning, which was it was just called Mbox, which just stood for Melbourne Bush, Oxfordshire. Um, and what was interesting was that the the what schools were used to was having a sort of an expert come in and work with an individual so-called sort of problem child. Um, and right from the beginning we decided that’s not what we were going to do. But what we would do is we would go in and we would observe that child in the sort of setting, and then we’d meet with the staff team, and the work would really be about sort of skilling the workforce, so about supporting the workforce in schools to work more effectively with with the the children with the level of challenge. Um and over time that sort of model has grown. So that that still is a sort of key focus. Um, certainly um schools locally across Oxfordshire, we have um quite a team working there, but also um nationally and a little bit internationally. But um so that started off with schools, and at a similarish sort of time, and as I said earlier, I’m not very good with dates, but a similar sort of time we we recognised that the the training we were offering to our own staff, it was the time when government were asking um um staff to complete a level three qualification, and we just felt it was not training our staff to work with the sort of level of complexity um of the children placed at the Mulberry Bush. And so we we accredited a course with the University of the West of England, it’s a level five qualification um in therapeutic at work with children and young people, and we’ve been running that ever since. So I forget the number of the number of the recent cohort, but it’s something like 19th or 20th cohort. Um, so that’s a two-year qualification, and we we um require all of our staff to pass that level five qualification, so that’s a sort of contractual obligation. Um and that has uh led to us also accepting external students onto that course. Um, so that focused us as well as working on schools but working in sort of social care, and we’ve also had um practitioners from fostering organizations placed on that course. And then over the years, that led to the writing of a level four qualification that we’ve been delivering in in one of the local authorities down in the south of the country for the last three or four years now. So that’s ongoing. Um, and then more recently, that was then adapted for youth cust uh a youth custody setting in this country. So it was the first therapeutic secure setting for the country. Um, so we’ve been delivering there. And then more recently, so that’s our sort of outreach. So Mbox morphed into sort of what we called outreach, it became a national teaching school for a period of time when that was a um that was uh something that the govern uh government introduced. Um that became our outreach team, and we have about 11 or 12 staff working in our outreach team at the moment. And then back in 2018, we set up Mulbury Bush Consulting. So we recruited somebody who has been actually the programme manager up at the Royal College of Psychiatrists of the network that I chair, the community communities. Um, and so she has come on board to develop uh organizational consultancy for the Marlbury Bush. Um so our services have really developed over time, and then at a similar time, we took on another site over in Toddington that was uh an archive and study centre called Mulbury Bush Third Space. So the real sort of journey, I suppose, has been developing uh the range and reach of of the charity across schools, social care, um youth custody and prisons and probation. And really the next phase is looking to how we extend those things and um add new uh specialist therapeutic services. So we remain ambitious. It feels like we’re doing an a lot more than we were, but there is a huge amount of need out there, and ultimately we’re a charity um you know here to deliver social purpose and therefore are always looking to meet need. Um yeah.

Colby: 27:30

Yeah. And it’s uh it’s a residential school, um as it at its at its heart. And uh I think in our pre-meet, we we mentioned briefly that I’d uh also had on the podcast Simon Benjamin, who who had worked at the Modern Bush School, and you you um you were yeah undoubtedly there at that time. And I I recall him uh also talking about his role, which was to s um provide outreach to the families while the young people were resident in the school. Um which um coming from you know my jurisdiction that’s I mean we don’t have here in South Australia, we don’t have therapeutic communities like that, where there is one in Victoria, a neighbouring state that I am aware of. Um yeah, but um tell us a little bit of the thinking behind that about having a that outreach to birth family.

John: 28:31

Yeah, sure. So the the work I mean working with families just is uh such central importance really to the work going on down at the school. And and I suppose from when I started, there was a there was there was a connection obviously with families in the school, um, which was important. But in terms of sort of direct work, there was little going on. And what we started to think about at that time was that that so these children were being placed at the Mulderbush um school from all over all over the country, mostly from England, although we have children from from sometimes from Wales and sometimes from Ireland. Um and it felt as if there was a sort of disproportionate burden of responsibility being placed on the shoulders of the the children who were placed to deal with often uh patterns over sometimes over generations of issues from their families. So that just I suppose in my mind felt really unfair, it felt really unfair. And there is a reality that when children are placed, you know, they they carry their family with them, if you like. Um, and if we are to try and support children back into family, it felt clear that that the family also need to engage in some way and find a way of working to perhaps make some changes or to understand some of the challenges a little differently so that they can live together. at home. So the work of the the work with families, it’s now called the therapies and networks team. So for a time we had a a therapy team and a family team if you like. But the work with the families are is of key importance and it’s and it’s not only with birth families but also foster families and adoptive families. So the school has um quite a number of uh adoptive family sort of breakdowns um so children placed from from adoptive breakdowns and actually one of the the most uh well received sort of interventions if you like I’m not sure I like that word particularly but one of one of the things that the team does is to provide sort of peer support groups very often our experience has been that the families feel um quite ashamed I suppose by the situations that they’re in quite isolated um often overly assessed uh sort of assessed to death a bit um and so being alongside their peers and those that have been felt themselves to be in similar situations can feel very very supportive and helpful but over time that that team that the the therapist networks team have uh you know they’re constantly looking at different ways of supporting families so sometimes it might be a sort of couples therapy or it it may be um as one of the one of the groups that the child that the family get involved in we’ve also had residential family weekends where we bring a number of families in um to live alongside one eat one another in the school for a period of time and we work with the parents and the siblings and the children. And there have been a couple of examples where um at the sort of family’s request we’ve put a team into the family home when the child goes home and work with them in their home setting to try and sort of shift something at home. So so I suppose I hope what that sort of gives an image of is is the the the um the the encouragement to innovate I suppose and come up with different ideas and think about well what what could really help there. And I suppose the ambition behind all of this is is about really trying to enact a step down provision so really trying to support children back in to a stable home base.

Colby: 32:19

Yeah and um I think you know we what it what it says to me is that it it is it’s it’s not the case of the children being sent off to the Mulberry Bush school and and residential homes uh in order to be treated and and return to their family be they foster family, adoptive family or or birth family. But rather it recognizes that um treating the child in isolation is not um going to necessarily be the the most effective way of um achieving that outcome as you said of of um successfully reintegrating them back into that uh family environment from which they came. Yeah and um it is a school and schools have semesters and terms and and um where do the where do the children go on term breaks on semester breaks.

John: 33:25

Sure. Yeah so it is a school it’s interesting isn’t it that yeah it is a school you’re absolutely right but often when I’m showing visitors around I often feel like the name slightly misrepresents what it is because it is a school so it has an education area which certainly over here would be what most people would think of as a school so it has classrooms and and and so on. But we all it also has uh residential houses where the children you know live evenings and weekends and and for some of them during the school holidays and then it has the therapist networks team which have a group of therapists um and a um and family network practitioners working with the families um but in terms of the the where the children go so that there are sort of two sides to the service so uh traditionally um the Muller bush was a 38-week provision so a term time only provision children went um home where whatever home is during um the school holidays and then um in between those sort of school holidays every third or fourth weekend there was um a family weekend which felt like an important opportunity for the children to go and reconnect with home but also uh an important opportunity for work between the the school staff and the family um back in 2018 we we moved from being just 38 week to also having a 52 week service so it has always been the case that there were a number of children who were referred who weren’t able to be placed because they didn’t have a family to return to or well I maybe they didn’t have a family to return to or they weren’t allowed to return to their family. There are a whole sort of host of individual circumstances there. And so back in 2018 we set up our first 52 week house and in fact last year um we opened our second 52 week house. So we now have three 38 week houses which look after up to six children each and then two 52 week houses similarly which look up look after up to to six children. So um so the children so that introduces a different complexity I suppose to to the way that the setting runs um the 38 week children have they will return maybe to a foster family to their adoptive family or some to their birth family on those weekends home or school holidays. And for the 52 week children um some of them do have families that um that visit them or that they visit and and again going back to the sort of step down model for for for those children in the 52 week service our ambition still would be to um support them back into into family if that is possible. And that may be through our 38 week service or it may be back into family. But there’s certainly there’s a whole area of work going on trying to support that sort of step down model.

Colby: 36:28

It’s interesting it it was something that is entirely foreign to me so I never even thought to ask so um I’ve been aware of the Cotswold community for you know a number of years I talk regularly to Patrick Tomlinson who’s something of a silent partner in uh in this podcast. The notion of children going home from a however you think of it it’s a therapy it’s a residential uh care service going home to uh a family based setting is just completely foreign to me in in my jurisdiction here in Australia. So I when I when I interviewed John Whitwell on the on the podcast early on um he referred to the the the boys at the Cotswold community going home um to to their families um during um well week some weekends and and also term breaks holl school holidays and um and that there were as you say there’s some complexities around that. Suffice to say I never really thought of the question until I’d spoken to John Whitwell but I’m inspired by the idea that that children can go back to a place where relationships have been ruptured ruptured or where there’s been uh concerns about um the the level of care that they uh are experiencing um that that that that could happen with a view to um amongst other things support as you say that that set step down to to a success to I guess a safe and successful um replacement or return to that family environment.

John: 38:23

Yeah I mean I I suppose I think I’m absolutely not saying that it’s right or proper in all circumstances or all cases but but one of the things that I think we often forget and I’ve been sort of powerfully reminded by various children um that no matter the level of difficulty um when they were living at home and sometimes it’s absolutely right that they don’t live at home um but no matter the level of difficulty there’s there’s still family and um and there’s still that very important bond that is there. And so for many of many of the ex-pupils who come back um have have found ways to you know if if they haven’t in their sort of younger lives reconnected with family or or or been back with family they have found ways to connect and and for many of them they’re continuing their sort of journey to try and understand what happened and and why what happened happened. And I think that’s really important. I I always remember a um um a child I key worked talking to me who who um for me it was an important part of my learning really and because of what happened to this this young person um I really sort of vilified the parents and um I remember this this young person saying to me one time after um a few years um we were sitting playing a game I think playing a game of connect four or something um and they just said um why why does nobody ever ask me whether I love my dad um and I can remember I can remember my heart sort of sinking really and thinking you know you know we’ve missed something really important here. You know no matter all of these awful things that have happened um actually there’s still a love there. And this this young person wanted to talk about the good times they’d had together and I don’t know dog walks and going to the park and um in equal measure you know and so I think it it it’s really important that we remember the the importance of of family no matter the the those sort of earlier very difficult circumstances.

Colby: 40:54

Absolutely and I I this is a real passion project of mine I would say that all therapeutic endeavor is um enhanced by uh and successful outcomes are um made more likely in circumstances where the children where where we’ve been able to achieve some level of relational repair at least and in connection with birth family. If you think about it if the pri if the children remain uh if their relationships with their primary attachment figures remained remain fragmented, damaged disordered however you want to talk about it, then um how why would they ever you know put themselves out there again i to to subsequent carers and and we we operate under a misapprehension I think in child protection jurisdictions in at least in the Western world that I’m aware of that that all you know these these terrible things have happened in in the family of origin. But the the main therapeutic endeavor needs to be to create a new family or provide a new family for them where we can provide we can develop a new template for them. And and I just think that that’s misguided. It’s not particularly understanding of the task that foster parents and other other adults who come in um to the frame to work with these children are faced with the the the mere fact that um these children find it really hard to trust again when trust has been lost or broken and the like so yeah so you can you maybe you’re starting to imagine a little bit my enthusiasm when I heard things like you know they go home you know like they get hopefully they go home for Christmas you know like these important types of um um periods and events I I think it’s really important and and uh I I suppose just hearing you you you say those things made me think about some of the things the ex-pupils say when they come back but uh which which I can say a bit about but also it made me think about this I think one of the real challenges in working in residential provision is um where the and where there is a family is uh this sort of competitive um element which can come in and sort of who are the better family really or you you can get you can get into sort of competing or providing something that’s that’s um that within an organization like the Mulderish queue can afford and home can’t afford so you so you so you actually sort of work against that sort of reintegration um but there is something about modeling the sorts of relationships that can be achieved and and those experiences that can be had so that even if it’s not possible to have those at home the children can develop a sense of what what might be possible.

John: 44:16

And it makes me think of um an ex-pupil so so one of the fantastic things about um our ex-pupils we we have an ex-pupil’s uh network and an ex-pupils advisory group and each year we have an ex-pupils open day um and increasing they’re becoming more and more involved and one of our ex-pupils um well over this last year we’ve had three different ex-pupils who’ve joined us on this sort of stage at events presenting and one of the ex-pupils who was actually in in my house um back in sunset back in the day um was presenting um alongside our outreach team to a group of a hundred um educators um school leaders uh teachers and so on and what she wanted to say about her experience of the Mulberry bush so she’s now in her 30s she has two children she’s married and what she wanted to say was for for her so she was at the school when she was um between about eight and eleven something like that eight um the age of eight and eleven she wanted to to to be very clear that the relationships that she experienced at the Mulberry bush she believes are the only reason um that she is today able to be a mother and she very much models the the sorts of care and can love care and concern um that she has for her children um on the experiences she had with uh the staff team um at the Marbury bush and of course those sorts of things are enormously powerful um you know that and so what you’re saying is absolutely right really that there is something of central importance of of modelling that you know what might be possible for the children um while they’re placed at the mulberry bush modeling those sorts of experiences trying to be conscious and aware of not competing with family um but trying to to nurture sort of meaningful relationships and and at the guts of I suppose all of the work that we do it it is all about sort of relational practice you know the the the the central importance of meaningful sort of interdependent type relationships and the the opportunity to to build those with with people who are deeply mistrustful um for right you know often rightly so it’s interesting that one of the one of the sort of we’ve we’ve got some sort of short videos that were um were taken of ex-pupils on the ex-pupils open day and one of the the children and that’s on YouTube so I’ll I will use his name so Chris um he talks about the impact of the Mulderish on him um it’s a really reflective piece which is really fascinating and I think there’s something of the qualities of the the environment that comes through often in in how how the um ex-pupils present themselves but he talks about it being a safe environment um and the importance of it being safe um and he talked about how uh sort of dysfunctional his home life was um and what he reflects on are the the yeah his deep mistrust in all those around him and he and he and he says within the video that it took him a couple of years to realize um that the stop at the Mulberry bush weren’t just trying to make things worse. And he started to he he’s he talks about it changing his view of people um of children of adults and of the world around him and so there’s something of that sort of process of change. So yeah he often springs to mind but I think it’s a common feature of the children they are um deeply mistrustful because they do feel that they have um been let down I suppose um in the past um in their formative years and so building trust and trusting relationships is is hard I think it is really hard in some instances um the the parents um have had extremely challenging lives themselves and in many ways were mulberry bush children themselves and there’s something about the sort of the the cycles over generations that the families have had to contend with um really difficult challenging sort of stuff and and wanting some help to try and sort of interrupt that sort of cycle um and establish change. I think for others I struggle to think of a circumstance where they don’t want the best or they aren’t trying to give of their best I suppose and um and very often um whatever has been done to try and help hasn’t helped and people are feeling let down by um the the authorities by the professionals and so the they come to us often with a mistrust I think of are we just another bunch of people who are who are going to sort of judge them let them down. And so it really is important to to to try and help them feel a valued part of the team you know you know that they ultimately will almost always know the children better than anybody else. And so it’s very important that we we talk to them we listen to them and I suppose the one of the the a parent comes to mind actually as I’m as I’m saying that to you who who I worked with who was feeling very challenged by something that we were talking about in the school in relation to to the home life was quite upset about it and I end up going out to visit to try and sort of mediate a little bit between the work that the the school were doing at the time this was some years ago and the family and the and the child. And I remember talking to to the this um mother um and saying look we might not be right either you know you may be right we might be wrong but there’s something about holding onto this sort of notion well could this be true you know just just the sense of there’s a possibility that that this different way of thinking about it might be true. And I think holding um holding a space for that thought can allow different things to emerge and different ideas to to to move forward. So um I suppose I think that’s often the situation is is trying to to to get alongside parents to build um trust um that we’re not here to judge we are here to try and help the notion of you know could this be true? Is there a different way of thinking about this feels yeah just feels really important. And you know as a parent myself parenting is difficult. It’s not always easy and well it’s rarely easy really I would say probably I think parenting is difficult.

Colby: 51:13

Yeah I think what you talk about there in terms of people’s feedback the particularly the young people who have um been through the Mauberry bush and their feedback and I think is really powerful and in some ways um hopefully challenges the the narrative that residential care settings are really the option of last resort for um for children and young people who can’t safely be cared for at home wherever home may be or that you know that um relationships have broken down to the point where they can’t be at home for a period of time.

John: 51:57

And I’m um I’m wondering what your thoughts are given your your experience but also the the feedback of young people who have been through the Mulberry Bush program around this idea of of residential homes being being you know across the gamut of care options the the one of last resort what we often think about when we think about the children placed at the school and I think it is it’s very similar for many of the the people that we work with in schools and social care settings, prisons from promotion and um and youth custody is um generally those children young people are struggling to function in a group so and so whether that’s a school group or a family group um and so part of the importance for me of residential care places like the Mulberry Bush is is if that’s where the problems are then that’s where the work is so the work is in groups and and ultimately in in the wider world um we all have to function in groups you know in in out in the community and so I think that’s really really important and I suppose from my family therapy experience I also think there’s something about the the intensity of the sort of family dynamic which can be very challenging and um so putting so expecting all to be able to sort of work through in the intensity of that sort of family familial dynamic family relationship um I think is is short-sighted really and so for me that the role of um of residential care is is sort of cuts cuts through that really so you’re in a group setting where there’s a number of staff you you it sort of dissipates slightly the intensity of that family dynamic but you you have an opportunity to recreate it in in pockets or or to work at it rather than it just being ever present in the daily life of the house. Certainly in the UK there is a there’s been a real move to to much smaller numbers of children placements and even solo placements and fundamentally I mean I think there are a small number of children who at times of crisis probably need that um you know solo placement to sort of stabilize but I do firmly believe that that a reintegration back into some sort of group setting feels really really important you know ultimately I it is where the work is and um and so I absolutely believe it’s got a central role to play in supporting um certainly those children who’ve really had a rough experience in family or really cannot struggle with that family dynamic. And maybe you know I think it has a role a play to play for them throughout their childhoods. You know I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong at all with good quality residential provision for some children throughout their childhood and certainly we’ve had lots of children placed at the mulberry bush for whom there have been too many placement breakdowns. So when I was um a house manager we had a a girl placed with us when she was seven um and she’d had over 50 foster placement breakdowns before the age of seven um and fundamentally I I think it was unrealistic to expect her to to give something that looked like that another go. I just don’t see why you know it will have been so entrenched that she was um you know she firmly believed it was her fault that these things you know she was unloved unlovable nobody could really look after her um so I think for her it probably made absolute sense that she continued in residential care whereas for other children you know the opportunity to support them to to develop an understanding of what’s going on uh within the family to work with family and reintegrate them um I think is is also really important there’s a great opportunity there so I think um residential care as a placement of choice I think is really important um really important I suppose the other thing that comes to mind in this country there’s a big there’s often a big thing about um the residential care should be within a certain sort of geographical radius of family um I understand the argument um but my experience in the mulberry bush has been it depends how the family are looking to engage and an example I often give is at one time we had a family who um a child placed of a family who whose family was about um six or seven miles away from from here um and then we also had a child placed whose family was about 250 miles away from here and at that time the family who was very local then they might as well have been on the other side of the world um in terms of their engagement and their willingness to sort of work with us the family that were 250 miles away if there was an issue and we wanted them to come down or I wanted them to they would they were there within moments. And so it is about the sort of emotional engagement and connection with the work rather than geographical distance also. So I think yeah I I I think we misunderstand that often in this country.

Colby: 57:30

But yeah certainly the role of residential provision I think is is of central importance as a part of um the picture I couldn’t agree more if I could summarize a couple of the really key points that you made one which one of which is that when children have been hurt in and these are my words now but but um when children have been hurt in relationships with with adults from on whom they depend um yes they it would be um in their interests at some point for for them to have a different experience of uh of um care from an adult to to that which they’ve had and if they can have that different experience with the their their parent if they if indeed it’s a parent if they we can change the dynamic of that relationship then that I think is an even better outcome as well though they may not be able to safely go back and live with their parents. The reality is that there is there is a significant not insignificant group of our children who find going into a family placement really confronting triggering in fact they’re not ready to go into a family environment and so residential care as an early placement option as a as a place to as Richard says you know help them to uh live with each other and with themselves in a way and you went and you also talked about you know providing examples of um again I’m gonna use my words a bit but examples of what a safe and nurturing child to adult adult to child relationship feels like without that being um kind of in the child’s face you know 24 hours a day seven days a week that so there there there’s that um which I I think is uh incredibly important. So I do think of residential care uh as something you know something that should be tried earlier rat rather than later. If you if you really understand the children that we’re talking about and the experiences that they’ve had. And I think part of and while you’re on the topic you’re on the topic or on the run of of trying to understand the children together better, then I think our authorities need to turn their mind to what what is it, what harm is being done with this blind allegiance to the idea that that a family-based placement is always and in all circumstances the superior option such that you have these children who just go through placement breakdown after placement breakdown after placement breakdown. And the harm that is done to children in those circumstances is incredible. And you know I’m I’m in my day job I’m a clinician. I’ve worked in this space for 30 years and you know and it’s horrifying to hear of people who have had young people who’ve had more than 50. I have a young person that I see who’s more than 50 but they’re towards the end of their care journey not seven years of age. So which children do you think really benefit from a residential care placement like what is uh offered at the Mulberry bush but also more generally um other therapeutic communities in the UK?

John: 1:01:20

Yeah yeah so so I think um certainly the children that come to the mulberry bush tend to be those that um create the sort of highest levels of of anxiety and risk in their local authorities. So I do think we’re at we’re at a point at the moment really and and it does relate to cost there’s no escaping the fact that it’s it’s a high you know it’s a high cost option for local authorities. But that yeah the children who are placed are those that create the sort of high le highest levels of anxiety and risk um to those around them and very often it’s those for whom all other options have failed. And I think that’s one of the real challenges in this country is um it it feels wrong that everything else has has to have failed before you get placed. But I understand the sort of cost-based reality of that. So the children who come to the Mulberry bush yeah sort of highly complex lives that have surrounded them and they are children who as I sort of said earlier had have struggled to function in a group setting either in in education or in social care. But it’s interesting that I’ve been involved in a couple of groups more recently looking with the Department for Education but also up at the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory who’ve done some research on on children who find themselves on deprivation of liberty orders. So those are children for whom it’s felt residential care can’t look after them, but we have a full youth secure estate. And part of the research was around looking at the care principles for these children and do they have different needs from those within residential care. And in the most recent group that I was talking really what we were talking about was we don’t necessarily believe that they do but it is something about the capacity of those around them to manage the sort of risk and anxiety that’s that that’s created by the complex lives in which they live and and so it is more to do with the need for adult staff sorry staff support and staff training rather than different care needs. And fundamentally also then the regulator has a role there. And when you were asking the question I was thinking about a a child we had recently so so I I do think the children who get placed at Arborish tend to be those who who are surrounded by the highest levels of anxiety of levels of anxiety and risk.

Colby: 1:04:05

I wouldn’t want listeners to feel that or or or think sorry that the children who you are serving there at the Mulberry bush are different to um in a in the sense of being lower risk lower concern you know especially in consideration of some of the things I’ve mentioned like going home for the holidays you know being going home at Christmas that sort of thing I think it’s I think it speaks volumes that you these are children about whom there is significant concern significant worry and yet you pro you can continue to provide this service yeah in in in the pursuit of their recovery it’s remarkable but sorry I I broke into you where you were talk you’re talking really about you started to talk about staff attributes and and the role of the regulator as well yeah so so I mean I I think in terms of staff capac staff’s sort of emotional resilience and capacity to work with um risk and anxiety is is really vital um and also for those sorts of children at those highest levels of of um who present the who are surrounded by the most complex lives if you like and present um the highest levels of sort of risk and anxiety this there’s it’s really important that staff maintain a a capacity to to feel able to sort of to innovate to to to do things differently you know it’s so often for the children who are placed um many people have tried the same things over and over again and wondered why nothing has changed.

John: 1:05:48

And so that I think there is a role for the regulator in terms of supporting innovation in the sector you know the the I mean it it’s it’s interesting that sort of the whole issue of sort of standards um regulation and standards you know standards do lead to standardization and and what we know of these children is a sort of um they don’t fit the mold if you like a one size fits all um program doesn’t uh doesn’t work um and certainly one of the groups that I was talking at up in London I was referring to a child who was placed with us um who was with us for a couple of years um very challenging young person um and um at one of the inspection experiences the there was real focus on this individual and what was going on around them the work that we were doing the sort of the ways in which we were trying to innovate um and it was quite there was a high level of scrutiny really and it felt very uncomfortable um and um I won’t go into all of the details of that but it was it was a really difficult time um the child then left um when they were due to leave at the end of their placement um about four or five months later and in the following nine months this this young person um had um nine placement breakdowns and ended up in a secure unit um and I was saying at the group up in London there’s a key example here of of somebody who we need providers to be really sort of creative and innovative um in finding ways of connecting and looking after containing um developing meaningful relationships with with with the the sort of young person that’s so deeply mistrustful and and um and challenging you know and and I think we’re getting that wrong you know I I do think things are starting to get better um there’s a sort of change in the narrative around it at the moment and and just the fact that we’re having these conversations in these sort of high level groups um gives me some hope and faith that things are sort of moving forward and changing. But we do yeah we need creativity we need innovation we need to trust our staff um we need to ensure that they’re trained and properly supportive and then we need to sort of really trust um that they the and encourage this sort of yeah creativity and innovation.

Colby: 1:08:16

Yeah and I I people who know me and know my career well know that um in until the middle of last year and for the previous 14 and a half years I was very involved in the health practitioner regulation scheme here in Australia and um in with a particular focus on the psychology um side of things and rose up to chair and deputy chair roles for for for for Australia in in the regulation of the psychology profession. When I talk what we what we know is that people practitioners in in many if not most or or indeed if not all endeavors find regulation and indeed regulators anxiety evoking. And I when I talk to people in the UK and they talk about Ofsted they they’re and these are providers you know at the level of the the the you know the managing director or the CEO they’re they’re truly um terrified of of an off an offstead inspection and in particular one that that finds that their their uh standards are low. And um and I the problem we have and I think this is perhaps a little bit related to your concern as well is that if we have that our children children in this space do require us to be flexible and innovative and and reactive responsive yeah and um anxiety is the enemy of exploration. Anxiety is the enemy of innovation. So it’s almost like a case of no good deed goes unpunished. You know we need regulation regul regulation is about keeping the the the the public safe in this case you know keeping vulnerable children’s safe um but at what at the if it’s at the expense of innovation if it’s a if it’s at the expense expense of justified and justifiable justifiable risk taking trying something new then then unf yeah unfortunately um it’s it’s one of those unintended consequences but a consequence nonetheless that actually can have a negative outcome for the services that we’re trying to deliver.

John: 1:10:51

Yeah. Yeah no I think that’s right. I mean the the the phrase that comes to mind is that I think the sector for quite a long time felt like the uh I remember seeing at a conference there’s the phrase that the flogging will continue until morale improves sort of and I think and I think that you know there is a sort of there has been a sense of that and um I suppose two things sprung to mind. I think you’re absolutely right I think anxiety and the sort of fear uh of inspection is deeply unhelpful and um and one of the things that um our research has has sort of shown um that that’s taken place at the charity has been about the the the sense of shame for children the sort of children and families that come into our services or or that we work with in the schools and all these other settings there is a sort of um endemic sort of sense of shame for them in the situations in which they find themselves. And I do wonder what um there’s something about the sort of the way in which sort of regulation and inspection um is has been managed which is about sort of shame the shaming and the sort of role of sort of shame in the sector or shaming into improving and I and I’m not convinced that that’s helpful. And certainly within the staff team we would be conscious all the time of of not getting caught up in in um shaming um shaming staff members shaming families shaming children um we we really need to find a way forward from that and I suppose the other thing that I I think needs tackling um somehow is the whole notion that that if it’s written down then children are safer. And one of the real worries and and the challenges we have is that the increasing amounts of sort of bureaucracy that surround um meeting the demands of regulation and inspection draws staff away from children and um to sit in front of laptops. And that’s difficult because you know I I absolutely agree and accept there’s a really important role for regulation. You know we need to know that children are safe and I absolutely accept the importance of that and the role that the regulator has for the government ultimately in in establishing safety of children. But somehow we do need to um we we need to allow creativity and the and the phrase I think it was at a similar conference to that other comment but there was a phrase that came up that somebody said which I I do wonder whether it’s true which is that you can regulate to to get inadequate services to good um but to allow to to enable um outstanding practice you have to set creativity free. And I and I like that sort of notion that somehow yeah we need to know people are safe we need to train people properly and then we need to to really yes allow creative practitioners to engage with children and and to find um yeah to to set that creativity free and I and I think that’s I think that is true. Yeah we have a there was a saying that was used here but in indeed including by our um national chair of the psychology board of Australia uh that lot about talking about light touch regulation regulation needs to be there but it it can’t be getting in the way of of the work that we do I I was just gonna say I do think that the the the most recent narrative from the current um HTMCR Martin Oliver around if we get it right for the most vulnerable we get it right for everybody then you know I I do think that’s true. I think it’s a helpful helpful narrative.

Colby: 1:14:44

Yeah um there’s so much I can talk to you about John and uh um your day is only beginning mine’s mine’s closer to the end um couple of things that I wondered we you’ve talked a little bit about what the children um say about their experience of the mulberry bush I’m wondering if there’s just any any other message you would like to share around that around what your your your alumni group or or uh other um returning um adults who’ve who’ve had experience of the mulberry bush are saying and um uh you’ve also talked about what you know the the the message that you would like to put out there to the world that the mulberry bush would like to put out there and I I’m just wondering if we’ve kind of bring it to a close around either one or other or both of those those two things what the children say and and the voice that that you want the mulberry bush to be projecting to the world yeah that’s a big question um I suppose it it makes me think about um I think fundamentally the the things that the the children say um it are generally to do with the importance of relationships and the sort of love and care that they experienced and um it makes me think that the so we we had a few years ago um a lady called Sally Finch um came back to visit ex-pupil from 1948 to 1951 so right at the beginning now lives in in Christchurch New Zealand um and one of the things that she said and and a number of others have said the same thing when they’ve they’ve come back to visit the school has said this place is just completely different but it’s exactly the same and so there’s something about that even though she didn’t recognize almost anything of the buildings on the site that what resonated for her was the sort of experience of how people related to her the sort of warmth that sort of sense of community um the importance of relationships the love care and concern that that she she witnessed and and I think that’s what the the the ex-pupils would often refer to um even if their experience was tough at the time and one of them you know the there’s again there’s a video um on YouTube uh uh of the ex-pupils open day when one of the ex-pupils it’s her first visit back and she talks about it having been tough but it teaching her the sort of boundaries of life is the is the phrase that she uses um and and says that it helped her a lot so there is something about the you know on the is interesting on the on the foundation degree there’s a phrase that we’ve often talked about which is the phrase sort of growing up is tough at the mulberry bush and that’s whether you’re a child whether you’re a member of staff whether you’re the CEO there’s still a sort of you’re still learning you’re still there’s a sort of growing up process which which is difficult. And I suppose our the message for the world if you like I I I the single most important thing I think is um the importance of relationships and all of the work that we do is really about um that sort of relational practice and the importance and the the the therapeutic with a small t if you like importance of um relationships getting alongside one another understanding um really listening not just hearing sort of really really listening listening and hearing what people are saying to us um and um yes developing relationships with with people in that sense of community and I think what emerges from that um and is so clear um within the ex-pupils comments is um that sense of belonging that that they then experience and um having ex-pupils come back and visit there is still that sort of sense of belonging to that wider mulberbush community and I and I think that’s something that that can be can be developed um in other organizations in other communities in other settings um in other countries um so yes that’s you know developing that sense of belonging is of central importance really um and I and I think I suppose what emerges from that is a confidence um which I one of the things I love to read when I read this sort of ex-pupil’s comments that’s that that sense of confidence which I think leads to that you know a sense of agency in the world so um the the the young people now adults um have a sense of confidence in their own agency in um making decisions about the world in which they then inhabit yeah yeah I have a I have a little acronym that I use um it’s part it’s just because I’m a little bit mischievous um I was I was lying in bed one Saturday morning and I was because I love acronyms and I was thinking of um um what would be a good acronym for the the milieu of a place you know that that felt quality of a place which I think you know you’re referencing and and it as it turns out there’s there’s a really obvious one which is aura so the milieu is also the aura of the place the aura is the felt quality of a place or a person you know it’s aura and uh aura stands for for me in my writing um being accessible understanding responsive and attuned so uh I love to talk about auras maybe that can be what happens in the different uh conversation between us but uh just because it’s a it’s a little bit mischievous uh a psychologist of my stature talking about auras but uh anyway it’s been it’s been a fantastic conversation John I you know I feel like we probably could have uh gone on for another hour or so um but thank you very much for agreeing to be part of the podcast.

John: 1:21:22

Pleasure well thank you very much lovely lovely talk with you.