## **Article 39** 

## (Registered charity, number 1166092) **Financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2022** 

|**Page**|**Contents**|
|---|---|
|2 - 13|Trustees’ annual report|
|14|Independent examiner’s report|
|15|Receipts & payments account|
|16|Statement of assets & liabilities|
|17 - 18|Notes to the accounts|






## **Article 39 Trustees’ annual report for the year ended 31 March 2022** 

**Full name** Article 39 

**Organisation type** Charitable incorporated organisation 

## **Registered charity number** 1166092 

## **Principal address** 

1 Cranmer Street, Nottingham, NG3 4GH 

## **Trustees** 

Susannah Walker, Chair Suraya Skelland Peter Grove, Treasurer Lynton Orrett Catherine Brown, Secretary Mike Stein, from 04/07/22 Ella Dhillon 

## **Independent examiner** 

John O’Brien, employee of Community Accounting Plus, Units 1 & 2 North West, 41 Talbot Street, Nottingham, NG1 5GL 

## **Governance and management** 

The charity is operated under the rules of its foundation CIO constitution adopted 15/02/16 and registered as a CIO on 16/03/16. 

Apart from the first charity trustees, every trustee must be appointed for a term of three years by a resolution passed at a properly convened meeting of the charity trustees. In selecting individuals for appointment as charity trustees, the charity trustees must have regard to the skills, knowledge and experience needed for the effective administration of the CIO. 

## **Objectives and activities** 

(1) The relief of need, and promotion of the protection, of children living in institutional settings in England through in particular but not exclusively: 

(a) The provision of information to children living in institutional settings about law, policy and professional standards in respect of their care and treatment, and the ways in which they can raise concerns and challenge mistreatment; 

(b) Undertaking and disseminating research on safeguarding and child protection matters in institutional settings; 

(c) Monitoring child protection concerns and practices in children’s institutional settings; 

(d) Providing technical advice to government and others on matters related to the safety and well-being of children living in institutional settings; 

(e) Commenting on proposed legislation concerned with the needs of children living in institutional settings. 

2 



## **Article 39** 

- (2) The advancement of the human rights of children living in institutional settings in England by all or any of the following means: 

(a) Raising awareness of the means by which children may seek redress for human rights abuses; 

(b) Monitoring human rights abuses in children’s institutional settings; 

(c) Undertaking and disseminating research into human rights in children’s institutional settings; 

(d) Providing technical advice to government and others on the human rights of children living in institutional settings; 

- (e) Commenting on proposed legislation concerned with the human rights of children living in institutional settings; 

- (f) Obtaining redress for the victims of human rights abuses in children’s institutional settings; 

- (g) Raising awareness of human rights issues; 

- (h) Promoting public support for human rights; 

- (i) Promoting respect for human rights among individuals and corporations. 

## **Summary of the main activities undertaken for the public benefit** 

Article 39 fights for the rights of children living in state and privately-run institutions (children’s homes, boarding and residential schools, mental health inpatient units, prisons and immigration detention) in England. 

We take our name from Article 39 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which grants every child who has been abused or suffered other rights violations the right to recover in environments where their health, self-respect and dignity are nurtured. 

This was Article 39’s sixth year of funded activity. We are very grateful to all of our funders and to the many organisations and individuals who worked with us throughout the year. 

Our report concerns the period 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, though it includes significant developments just past this date. 

Article 39 had three members of staff for the majority of this period, equivalent to two full-time post holders. In January 2022, we welcomed our first Justice First Fellow (trainee solicitor) – through a partnership with Bhatt Murphy Solicitors funded by The Legal Education Foundation. 

## **Public benefit statement** 

The Trustees confirm that they have complied with the duty in section 17 of the Charities Act 2011 to have due regard to the Charity Commission's general guidance on public benefit, 'Charities and Public Benefit'. 

3 



## **Article 39** 

## **Summary of the main achievements during the period** 

## **We informed children of their rights** 

Our rights4children website provides accessible information about children’s rights on topics which children and young people have told us are important to them. The site was used 48,511 times in the year to June 2022, which is an increase of over 35% on last year.[1] Our top five most widely read topics were: restraint and use of force; feeling safe; pocket money; leaving care; and your right to complain. 

Access to the website was mostly through a mobile phone (53%), which is a change from last year when desktop computers were the most common way of using the resource. We received 43 online feedback forms (compared to 19 last year). The majority of visitors ‘really liked’ (91%) or ‘liked’ (5%) the content they accessed. Only two indicated they didn’t like the content, and both times this related to the section on rules and punishment. 

## **We challenged the discriminatory treatment of older children in care** 

The Children Act 1989 sets out the different types of placements in which children in care may live, starting with their parents and families, then foster care, children’s homes and ‘other arrangements’. Over the past decade or so, there has been a substantial increase in the use of ‘other arrangements’, mostly shared housing, flats, bedsits and hostels which are not registered or inspected by Ofsted. Any establishment which provides care and accommodation must register with Ofsted and follow the nine statutory quality children’s homes standards. ‘Other arrangements’ properties are able to bypass the children’s homes standards by not providing care to children who live there. 

There is growing evidence of children suffering serious harm in these types of settings – 29 children aged 16 and 17 died in ‘supported accommodation’ in the five years to March 2021, and the Children’s Commissioner for England found heightened risk of sexual and criminal exploitation and examples of serious neglect, with children not having suitable bedding, cooking utensils and being afraid to leave their rooms. The Children’s Commissioner’s 2020 report also highlighted that children were frequently housed in properties alongside adults who had recently left prison and/or had significant mental health and addiction problems. 

In February 2021, the government laid a statutory instrument before Parliament which prescribes that ‘other arrangements’ in the Children Act 1989 for children in care aged 15 and under must always be regulated settings where children receive care. The then Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, in a foreword to the Department for Education’s consultation response, stated: “I cannot imagine a circumstance in which a child under the age of 16 should be placed in a setting that does not provide care”. 

Article 39 considered the legislation to be discriminatory, and feared that it would lead to even more older children being pushed into ‘care-less’ settings from the age 

> 1 The site was launched in June 2018, so we track visitors from that month rather than from the start of each financial year. 

4 



## **Article 39** 

of 16. With other charities, we had already established the #KeepCaringTo18 campaign to try and persuade the government to ensure that every child in care receives care where they live up to at least 18 – as happens in the vast majority of families. Official data showed that children from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities were disproportionately housed in unregulated, care-less properties, and that boys were far more likely than girls to be in these settings. 

With the government pressing on with legislation that, for the first time, distinguishes placement decision-making on the basis of age, we considered we had no other choice but to launch a legal challenge. We therefore applied to the High Court for a judicial review in May 2021, and our case was heard the following February. 

Three young people with experience of living in unregulated accommodation as children in care provided witness statements in support of our case, together with a foster carer and the charities Mind, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium and the Together Trust. In the High Court hearing itself, the government cited support for its plans from the Josh MacAlister care review. 

We were bitterly disappointed to lose in the High Court (judgment handed down in mid-March 2022), and ended the year preparing for an appeal application to the Court of Appeal. This vital legal challenge has only been possible through the tremendous generosity of hundreds of concerned members of the public who have donated to our CrowdJustice appeal. 

Separate to the legal action, the #KeepCaringTo18 campaign secured over 10,700 signatures to its online petition (convened by the Together Trust), and these were delivered to the door of 10 Downing Street in February 2021 by a brilliant delegation of care experienced adults. On the night before the discriminatory secondary legislation came into force, in September 2021, Article 39’s Director appeared in an extended BBC Newsnight feature on the potential impact on older children. Article 39 had elicited data from the Department for Education showing that 14 older children had died in unregulated accommodation between April 2018 and September 2020; the Department for Education informed BBC Newsnight that more than half of these children had taken their own lives. 

We were pleased to see our campaigning and litigation described in a House of Commons Library research briefing (November 2021) on the use of out of area, unregulated and unregistered accommodation for children in care. A few months later, in February 2022, an Early Day Motion was tabled in Parliament supporting the campaign and Article 39. 

## **A child prison run by G4S was subject to an ‘urgent notification’ following our actions** 

At the end of September 2021, we were contacted by a whistle-blower with serious allegations of child abuse and breach of safeguarding statutory guidance in Oakhill secure training centre, which is run by G4S under a contract with the UK Government. We wrote to the director of children’s services in the local authority 

5 



## **Article 39** 

responsible for investigating abuse allegations, copying our letter to Ofsted’s Chief Inspector and the Chief Inspector of Prisons, and to the Chair of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (the statutory body for child safeguarding in England). 

Three weeks after we first communicated the serious allegations, Ofsted and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons issued an urgent notification on Oakhill secure training centre, which is the most serious measure available to them. The unannounced inspection they had undertaken in response to our letter confirmed three aspects of the allegations brought to us by the whistle-blower: that unlawful force had been used on children; that child protection concerns were not being referred to the local authority as statutory safeguarding guidance requires; and that children had access to ‘adult channels’ on their televisions (our correspondence had alleged officer corruption). We therefore wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice requesting that the government establish an independent statutory inquiry consistent with their obligations under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights/the Human Rights Act. We also asked for a letter to be passed to children informing them of their right to seek independent legal advice; and we made a similar request to G4S’s director of Oakhill secure training centre. G4S responded that it was a government decision whether or not to pass information from Article 39 to children. 

In December 2021, the government communicated that there were arrangements in place for children to be informed of their rights. The government minister with responsibility for youth justice additionally stated that she would give further consideration to our request for a statutory inquiry. 

Following further correspondence, including after a second whistle-blower came to us with separate concerns, we received a reply in March 2022, indicating that the government would not establish an inquiry. Further, our request was declined for sight of provisions within G4S’s contract relating to how findings of child abuse and human rights breaches would impact the public finance initiative (PFI) arrangement, which we understand is in place to 2029. 

We ended the year by briefing the Equality and Human Rights Commission on our concerns for children’s safety and well-being with a view to this statutory body using its powers to protect children. We also made a number of freedom of information requests, including for the Barnardo’s children’s rights and advocacy services annual reports for the past three years, to elicit whether the serious concerns brought to us had been previously raised by children. 

## **We secured (temporary) changes to legislation allowing local authorities to run new secure 16 to 19 Academies** 

We were delighted that Peers voted to allow local authorities to run secure 16 to 19 Academies, a new type of secure children’s home which will also operate as an academy, in January 2022 – after being briefed by us in partnership with the National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ). 

6 



## **Article 39** 

Formerly known as secure schools, these new establishments will be registered with Ofsted as secure children’s homes and they will have to comply with children’s homes quality standards. They are intended to replace child prisons, which the government committed to phase out in 2016. However, when the government looked for an organisation to run the first secure school, it barred local authorities from the tendering process. This was later criticised by the Local Government Association when it gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was passed following a division in the House of Lords, with 193 Peers voting for it and 168 against. 

Article 39 and NAYJ had warned Peers that the exclusion of local authorities from running this new type of secure children’s home risked repeating serious mistakes of the past, when private providers were contracted to operate secure training centres despite having no prior experience of looking after vulnerable children. We urged Peers to support the amendment to avoid another generation of children suffering great harm. 

The very positive change to the legislation was short-lived, however, as when the Bill reached the House of Commons at the end of February 2022, the government successfully voted for the amendment to be deleted. Before the vote, the minister insisted “there is no legal bar” to local authorities entering into a contract with government to run these new institutions, though did not explain why local authorities had been stopped from applying to run the first one. 

We will continue to monitor the development of these new institutions, and maintain that it was a grave mistake for the government to select the site of former G4S-run Medway secure training centre, closed following a BBC Panorama programme exposing serious child abuse, for its first experimental ‘secure school’ (due to open in 2024). 

## **We challenged the weakening of legal protections in child prisons** 

With the Howard League for Penal Reform, we sought evidence from government to justify its plan to have a three month gap between lifting COVID-19 restrictions in secure training centres and young offender institutions (where the majority of detained children are held). We had previously written jointly to the Secretary of State for Justice setting out, among other matters, that the explanatory memorandum accompanying its secondary legislation was unlawful in permitting highly vulnerable children to be kept in solitary confinement. We were therefore very relieved in January 2022 to find that further secondary legislation had been introduced reinstating children’s legal protections. 

## **We threatened legal action against the Home Office for accommodating unaccompanied children outside the care system** 

In summer 2021, we were contacted with alarming information about the treatment of unaccompanied children who had made treacherous journeys on flimsy boats across the Channel. The Children Act 1989 is clear that children without parents or carers are the responsibility of local authorities, yet the Home Office (with the agreement of 

7 



## **Article 39** 

the Department for Education) had contracted with hotel owners along the South East coast to house these highly vulnerable children outside of the care system. All of the legal safeguards for children in care are unavailable to children placed in hotels by central government – such as medical assessments, standards around their day-to-day care and well-being, including in relation to their education; social worker visits; scrutiny by an independent reviewing officer; and access to information and assistance from independent advocates. 

Kent County Council had publicly declared it was unable to look after any more unaccompanied children, and other local authorities had similarly informed government they did not have capacity to care for and protect children entering the UK this way (we are not aware of any local authority having effectively closed its doors to any other group of children who need to be looked after). 

We joined forces with over 65 charities in a joint letter (convened by Children England) to the Secretary of State for Education opposing these arrangements in July 2021. We then proceeded to obtain legal advice on the lawfulness of the actions of the Home Office and the Department for Education. We sent a pre-action protocol letter to government lawyers in September 2021 seeking detailed information about children in the hotels, and the arrangements in place to look after and protect them. We worked with parliamentarians to elicit further information, and continued correspondence with government lawyers for the remainder of the year. Our Director was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme during which she called for adequate government funding for the children’s care system. 

## **We helped ensure children’s accounts of restraint appeared in hospital guidance for the first time** 

The Department of Health and Social Care published statutory guidance on the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 in December 2021, and we were delighted to see the inclusion of many first-hand accounts submitted from members of our ‘Blooming Change’ group. Lots of other content proposed by Article 39 also appears in the guidance. Our suggestions were drafted to ensure children’s specific needs and rights are understood, that children are able to express their wishes and feelings and that appropriate safeguards are in place, including that parents are notified when a child is subject to seclusion or segregation. 

**Other actions to promote the rights of children in mental health inpatient care** Our new expert group on mental health (now called ‘Blooming Change’), whose members are young people who were detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 as children, had its first meeting in July 2021 and has become an extremely supportive and productive group – planning a new training course for independent mental health advocates and promotional events for children and young people on changes to the law on use of force. Members also made their own submission to the Commission on Young Lives around mental health support in the community and within hospital. 

_Sophie joined Blooming Change aged 17, having experienced long periods of detention in mental health units. She says she has stayed with the group “because I get to be with like-minded people who want to see the same changes happen and_ 

8 



## **Article 39** 

_who have the same opinions. But even if we don’t have the same opinion sometimes, we still really respect each other.”_ 

_Sophie highlights a discussion about children being detained in settings with adults (girls on the same wards as much older men) as an example of where Article 39 staff took her experiences seriously. She says: “Like we were talking about children being in the same mental health unit as adults, and [name of staff member] said “wow, I didn’t realise it was still happening”, and so it’s good that children and their experiences are respectfully listened to so that change can happen”._ 

_When asked to reflect on whether her confidence has grown since joining the group, Sophie replied: “Definitely. I’m much more confident about speaking about what I’ve gone through to other people because now I’m unapologetic when I share my experiences and I don’t feel like I’m hurting people’s feelings about telling the truth”. The word she would use to describe how she feels being a part of the group is “empowered”. Sophie adds: “I would say my knowledge has grown around the law and my rights when it comes to being in a mental health unit. I’d also say I’ve built up my listening skills”._ 

_Having been in mental health units located many miles from her family, home and community, and being out of school for many years, Sophie felt very isolated. She says this is why Blooming Change is so important to her: “I am connected to people who know what I’m talking about and who know what I’m feeling”._ 

Having pressed for the extension of a statutory right to advocacy to all child patients in mental health units, including through oral and written evidence to Parliament’s Health and Social Care Committee, in September 2021 we made a submission to the Treasury’s Spending Review on this matter alone. We explained: 

_“Access to advocacy is a key part of ensuring that all children are heard and their rights are respected. The statutory right to advocacy exists for many of the most vulnerable children and young people who are at heightened risk of not being heard or suffering rights violations, including abuse while they are living away from home in institutional settings. Advocates not only help address problems but also work with other professionals and practitioners and service providers to promote a culture where children’s wishes, feelings and rights are understood, heard, respected and upheld in practice”._ 

We were delighted that the Draft Mental Health Bill, published in June 2022, contains provisions to extend the right to advocacy to ‘informal’ child (and adult) patients and committed to working with our Blooming Change members and charities in 2022/23 to ensure that children’s rights are properly protected throughout the Bill. 

## **We helped independent advocates in their work with children and young people** 

Almost 350 independent advocates and others in independent safeguarding roles attended our two core training courses (‘What’s law got to do with it?’ and ‘Protecting children’s rights in institutional settings’) and other online events across the year. 

9 



## **Article 39** 

We are very grateful to guest speakers at our national events this year: 

- Delma Hughes, founder director of Siblings Together, and Janet Cormack, Legal Policy Manager, from Clan Childlaw in Scotland, who attended the launch of our guide on children maintaining important relationships; 

- Sharron Chappell, Assistant Ombudsman, and Verna Kennedy and Olwyn Frost, from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, together with advocates Allison Ross-John and Mike Bould, who attended the launch of our guide on the Children Act 1989 representations (including complaints) procedure; 

- Martha speaking about the power of being heard as a child, and Dr Mike Lindsay, the UK’s first children’s rights officer, who reflected on the importance of championing children’s rights, at the launch of our guide on children’s right to be heard. 

We welcomed around 20 children and young people to these events, and look forward to even more joining next year following the recruitment of our first dedicated Children and Young People’s Activism Lead. 

We consistently receive highly positive feedback on our training courses, with 100% of participants stating they’d recommend our training to others and 97% confirming that their learning would influence their work with and for children and young people. Over a quarter of those attending our courses this past year have subsequently sent us case studies showing how they used their learning. 

## _**Selection of feedback from our training courses for independent advocates**_ 

_“It's the most informative and useful training that I've completed.”_ 

_“I feel more confident with including law to support young people. The scenarios used were a great example of some of the challenges faced by advocates and the discussion in groups helped with a stronger approach.”_ 

“ _The standard of my complaints has improved massively. They are so much more powerful now that they say what the law says, as well as what the child wants/wishes. I've even started using case law in my complaints – have never done this before.”_ 

_“The course was brilliant and I think regular refreshers are hugely beneficial.”_ 

_“When I visit young people (especially in institutional settings) I will be more observant and enquiring in my approach. I will be more insistent in ensuring I speak to the young person alone and in a private/safe place.”_ 

_“I think that all independent advocates, service managers, IROs and others should be required to attend this (or an equivalent) course. I am concerned and disappointed that I can be an advocate of 5+ years standing, without having attended such a course. I suspect that a refresher would also be extremely beneficial for many longstanding practitioners within the field.”_ 

10 



## **Article 39** 

_“Excellent and left me feeling invigorated.”_ 

_“Powerful, informative and inspiring/motivational.”_ 

## **Our new ‘advocacy help’ service** 

This year we established a new ‘advocacy help’ email service for members of our Children and Young People’s Advocates Network. Advocates seeking information about the law and statutory guidance to help amplify children and young people’s wishes and feelings are able to contact us with their request and we will bring together all the most relevant material within a target of 10 working days, though more quickly when necessary. 

We provided this specialist help to advocates on 57 separate occasions, covering a wide range of matters including: young people’s right to complain about their treatment in care (and the statutory process); a child with an Education and Health Care Plan made to change school against their wishes; the legal position when a care leaver has no-one to act as their guarantor for privately-rented accommodation; a child in care not being allowed to attend a family member’s funeral; what happens when a local authority does not adhere to contact arrangements for brothers and sisters in care; young people’s access to savings accounts set up when they were in care; the law around children changing their surnames; the law around deprivation of liberty; children in care wanting sleepovers without their friends having to have police checks; support available to children who are the subject of special guardianship orders; children who are homeless who have the right to be looked after by their local authority; a young person being pressured to leave their foster home before they are ready; and what children can do to challenge problems with their social workers. 

We welcomed more than 100 new members to our Children and Young People’s Advocates Network during the year. By the start of April 2022, membership stood at 350+ advocates from all over England. 

Our children’s rights legal digest, published and disseminated to all Network members, was used on average 240 times each month. The landmark judgments series was especially popular, with over 1,000 uses of the issues dedicated to the ‘Southwark judgment’ (concerning local authority duties to homeless children aged 16 and 17) and to the ‘D judgment’ (concerning the deprivation of liberty of children aged 16 and 17). 

## **We promoted children and young people’s right to high quality advocacy services** 

As well as our direct work with advocates, we co-ordinate the Advocates4U campaign to strengthen children and young people’s advocacy services across England. The campaign name was chosen by Heather and Megan, two members of Sheffield Children in Care Council. 

Across the year, we convened several online workshops to consider how advocacy services could be funded and run to ensure every child and young person has prompt and easy access to an effective, locally based and well-supported advocate whenever they need information and help to defend their rights on any matter of 

11 



## **Article 39** 

concern to them. With the campaign strategy group, we drafted a discussion paper looking at different options for improving children and young people’s access to high quality advocacy services and were delighted that 40 young people and advocates joined the discussions. 

Advocacy and the importance of listening to and understanding children and young people’s wishes and feelings was central to our comprehensive submission to the Josh MacAlister care review. Three of our 52 recommendations specifically related to children and young people’s access to advocacy. 

Between January and March 2022, we piloted our new John Kemmis children’s rights training course for children and young people. The course is in two parts – an introduction to children’s rights and then an overview of the role and importance of advocates in helping children and young people to be heard and defend their rights. 

## **We researched allegations against adults working in institutional settings** 

We submitted a freedom of information request to every local authority in England to elicit data on the number of allegations against adults working with children in a variety of settings. This replicated similar research we undertook in 2017. Data provided by 64 local authorities revealed there had been 6,106 allegations against adults working in children’s institutional settings between 2018 and 2021, an average of 32 allegations per year per local authority. We made four headline recommendations for significantly improving local authorities’ child protection responses when children live in institutional settings. As with 2017, the process exposed widespread inadequate data collection across local authorities, which is vital for recognising themes and trends in abuse allegations against individual members of staff and particular establishments. Our report, ‘Abuse in children’s institutional settings: How much is known?’, was published in December 2021. 

**We gave expert advice on a number of other children’s rights matters** 

We gave written evidence to the following organisations and bodies across the year: 

- Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Rights – Ministry of Justice 

- Children’s rights and alternative care – United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child 

- Inquiry on children’s homes – House of Commons Education Select Committee 

- Frequency of Ofsted inspections of children’s homes – Department for Education 

- Consultation on the use of force in child prisons – Youth Custody Service (part of Ministry of Justice) 

- Managing separation in the children and young people secure estate (draft policy) – Youth Custody Service (part of Ministry of Justice) 

- Cross-border placements of children and young people into residential care in Scotland: policy position paper – Scottish government 

- Behaviour management strategies, in-school units, and managed moves – Department for Education 

12 



## **Article 39** 

We continued to attend the government’s UNCRC (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) Action Group and remained members of other important coalitions, including the Alliance for Children in Care and Care Leavers, the Alliance for Youth Justice, the Participation Forum and the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium (RMCC). We co-ordinated RMCC parliamentary briefings on the age assessment of unaccompanied children during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. 

## **We promoted human rights in the media and elsewhere** 

Article 39 staff were interviewed and quoted in the media on a wide range of children’s rights matters and spoke at a number of national events. Our main website was used more than 72,075 times across the year, and we had articles published in _The Guardian_ , _Byline Times_ , _Children and Young People Now_ , and on the website of the human rights journalism charity EachOther and the British Institute of Human Rights. 

**The charity’s policy on reserves** 

Article 39's target level of reserves is 3 months of running costs. 

Signed on behalf of the charity’s trustees: 

Signed _____________________________________________   Date __________ Susannah Walker, Trustee 

13 



## **Independent examiner’s report to the trustees of Article 39 for the year ended 31 March 2022** 

I report to the trustees on my examination of the accounts of Article 39 (the charity) for the year ended 31 March 2022. 

## **Responsibilities and basis of report** 

As the trustees of the charity you are responsible for the preparation of the accounts in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011 (‘the Act’). I report in respect of my examination of the charity’s accounts carried out under section 145 of the 2011 Act and in carrying out my examination I have followed all the applicable Directions given by the Charity Commission under section 145(5)(b) of the Act. 

## **Independent examiner’s statement** 

I have completed my examination. I confirm that no matters have come to my attention in connection with the examination giving me cause to believe that in any material respect: 

1. accounting records were not kept in respect of the charity as required by section 130 of the Act; or 

2. the accounts do not accord with those records. 

I have no concerns and have come across no other matters in connection with the examination to which attention should be drawn in this report in order to enable a proper understanding of the accounts to be reached. 

Signed _________________________ Date ______________________ John O’Brien MSc, FCCA, FCIE Employee of Community Accounting Plus 

14 



## **Article 39 Receipts & payments account for the year ended 31 March 2022** 

|_2021_<br>Total<br>**Unrestricted**<br>Funds<br>**Funds**<br>£<br>**Note**<br>**£**<br>**Receipts**<br>173761<br>Grants & donations<br>**2**<br>66182<br>25<br>Sales & fees<br>5200<br>173786<br>**Total receipts**<br>**71382**<br>**Payments**<br>-<br>Associates fees<br>1200<br>-<br>Campaign activities<br>295<br>220<br>Children's engagement<br>770<br>-<br>Hospitality & publicity<br>47<br>480<br>Independent examination<br>384<br>456<br>Insurance<br>429<br>2986<br>IT & online surveys<br>1376<br>760<br>Payroll service & BACS fees<br>1202<br>618<br>Printing & stationery<br>499<br>389<br>Professional fees<br>-<br>-<br>Recruitment<br>-<br>125014<br>Salaries, NI & pensions<br>22625<br>109<br>Staff travel inc. associates<br>444<br>-<br>Strategic litigation<br>677<br>Telephone & postage<br>482<br>208<br>Training & subscriptions<br>60<br>131917<br>**Total payments**<br>**29813**<br>41869<br>**Net receipts/(payments)**<br>41569<br>76205<br>Cash funds at start of this period<br>47536<br>118074<br>**Cash funds at end of this period**<br>**89105**|**_2022_**<br>**Restricted**<br>**Total**<br>**Funds**<br>**Funds**<br>**£**<br>**£**<br>109007<br>175189<br>-<br>5200<br>**109007**<br>**180389**<br>900<br>2100<br>67<br>362<br>465<br>1235<br>-<br>47<br>96<br>480<br>107<br>536<br>2414<br>3790<br>301<br>1503<br>311<br>810<br>-<br>-<br>1311<br>1311<br>95571<br>118196<br>135<br>579<br>22361<br>22361<br>225<br>707<br>79<br>139<br>**124343**<br>**154156**<br>(15336)<br>26233<br>70538<br>118074<br>**55202**<br>**144307**|
|---|---|



15 



## **Article 39 Statement of assets and liabilities at 31 March 2022** 


**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
2021 2022<br>£  Cash assets Note £<br>118074 Bank accounts 144307<br>118074 144307<br>Other monetary assets<br>125 Debtors - Fees -<br>410 Prepayments 4 585<br>535 585<br>Liabilities<br>(3912) Creditors 5 (3181)<br>(3912) (3181)<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


These financial statements are accepted on behalf of the charity by: 

Signed ___________________________________ Dated ___________ Peter Grove, Trustee 

16 



## **Article 39 Notes to the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2022** 

## **1. Receipts & payments accounts** 

Receipts and payments accounts contain a summary of money received and money spent during the period and a list of assets and liabilities at the end of the period. Usually, cash received and cash spent will include transactions through bank accounts and cash in hand. 

## **2. Grants & donations** 

|**Grants & donations**|**Grants & donations**||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Unrestricted**<br>**£**<br>BBC Children in Need<br>-<br>Esmee Fairbairn Foundation<br>40000<br>Lawyers Against Poverty<br>-<br>The Bromley Trust<br>15000<br>The Hadley Trust<br>-<br>The Legal Education Foundation<br>-<br>Anonymous donor<br>-<br>Sundry grants & donations<br>11182<br>**66182**<br>**Funds analysis**<br>**Opening**<br>**balance**<br>**£**<br>**Restricted funds**<br>Children's advocacy project<br>38<br>Double punishment child imprisonment (COVID-19)<br>27200<br>Ending child imprisonment<br>201<br>Legal education (advocates)<br>16044<br>Litigation fund (children in care)<br>14487<br>Litigation fund (children in custody)<br>7552<br>Litigation fund (unaccompanied children)<br>-<br>Mental health research & advocacy<br>5016<br>**70538**<br>**Unrestricted funds**<br>General fund<br>47536<br>**47536**|||**Restricted**<br>**Total**<br>**£**<br>**£**<br>9788<br>9788<br>-<br>40000<br>10000<br>10000<br>-<br>15000<br>20000<br>20000<br>7000<br>7000<br>20000<br>20000<br>42219<br>53401<br>**109007**<br>**175189**<br>**Receipts**<br>**(Payments)**<br>**Closing**<br>**balance**<br>**£**<br>**£**<br>**£**<br>20000<br>(19412)<br>626<br>-<br>(22200)<br>5000<br>-<br>-<br>201<br>34128<br>(30843)<br>19329<br>15091<br>(22007)<br>7571<br>-<br>(354)<br>7198<br>10000<br>-<br>10000<br>29788<br>(29527)<br>5277||
||||**109007**||
||||**Receipts**<br>**£**<br>20000<br>-<br>-<br>34128<br>15091<br>-<br>10000<br>29788||
||**70538**||**109007**|**(124343)**<br>**55202**|
||47536<br>**47536**||71382<br>**71382**|(29813)<br>89105<br>**(29813)**<br>**89105**|
||||||



## **3. Funds analysis** 

17 



## **Article 39** 

## **4. Prepayments** 

|Insurance<br>IT & online surveys|**£**<br>483<br>102|
|---|---|
||**585**|



## **5. Creditors** 

|Independent examination<br>Salaries, NI & pensions<br>Payroll service & BACS fees|**£**<br>492<br>2682<br>7|
|---|---|
||**3181**|



## **6. Trustees’ remuneration** 

- Trustees received no expenses, remuneration or benefits in this period. 

## **7. Related party transactions** 

There were no related party transactions during the period 

## **8. Glossary of terms** 

**Creditors:** These are amounts owed by the charity, but not paid during the accounting period. 

**Debtors:** These are amounts owed to the charity, but not received in the accounting period. 

**Prepayments:** These are services that the charity has paid for in advance, but not used during the accounting period. 

**Restricted funds:** These are funds given to the charity, subject to specific restrictions set by the donor, but still within the general objects of the charity. 

18