The publication of adoption scorecards last month prompted a storm of protest from councils.
The scorecards are part of the government’s drive to improve and speed up adoption, and feature three key measures of performance focused on timescales (see box).
But directors of children’s services say the statistics fail to tell the full story of the complex process. They fear that an obsession on how quickly children are placed into new families could overshadow crucial factors such as the suitability of placements, and argue that some issues are largely outside councils’ control.
“We all recognise the need to improve performance on adoption, but scorecards focusing on councils are not going to achieve that, especially when the average court process on its own takes 14 months,” says David Simmonds, chair of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board. “If you remove the court delays, then two thirds of councils are achieving their targets.”
A major external factor is the nationwide shortage of adoptive parents, with five times as many children on the adoption register as there are adoptive families available. “Even if we improve council processes, we still won’t see children being adopted super-fast,” stresses Simmonds.
Councils welcome government proposals to streamline hefty official guidance; move towards more robust risk-based assessment for prospective adopters; and create a national adoption gateway to be a first port of call for anyone interested in adoption through a telephone helpline and website.
But as for the scorecards, councils argue they are unhelpful and unfair. Many that appear towards the bottom of the scorecard rankings have achieved “good” and “outstanding” results in recent Ofsted inspections.
“Our biggest concern is that prospective adopters might be put off by an inaccurate impression that their local council isn’t going to be helpful and supportive,” says Simmonds.
Officials from the Department for Education (DfE) will visit councils at the bottom of the rankings, yet, according to Simmonds, they will not take any further action if they are satisfied with the explanations they get – prompting him and others to question the point of the exercise.
Another issue with the scorecard is that they do not take account of other permanent placement solutions such as special guardianship arrangements, an option particularly suited to extended family members wishing to care for a child, and communities where the concept of adoption is less acceptable.
Yet, despite widespread criticism – even from those local authorities that have fared well – the DfE appears determined to forge ahead.
“This is not about naming and shaming councils,” says a DfE spokeswoman. “It’s about local authorities learning from each other and sharing best practice. However, where local authorities aren’t doing well, then we will be looking for them to pull their socks up.”
Blackpool
- Average time between a child entering care and moving in with its adoptive family: 683 days (106th out of 152 local authorities)
- Average time between receiving court authority to place a child and the decision to match to an adoptive family: 222 days (112th)
- Children who wait less than 21 months between entering care and moving in with their adoptive family: 44% (135th)
Blackpool Council performs relatively poorly on all three key scorecard measures. Yet council leader Simon Blackburn – a social worker by profession – is adamant the authority will not be rushing to change the way it does things.
“We have a good service with some positive outcomes and few adoption breakdowns,” he says. “The time taken to place children is quite high, but that’s because our process is thorough. We take a lot of time making sure we get it right.” Its service is rated “good” by Ofsted with some “outstanding” elements.
Blackpool has a high level of child and family poverty, which limits the pool of families able to adopt. It finds homes for about 20 children each year and its adoption breakdown rate from 2007 to 2011 was seven per cent.
Blackburn believes the scorecard fails to reflect his council’s focus on achieving high quality matches for children and the fact that prospective adopters need time to think about the life-changing decision they are making.
“We focus on long-term success,” he says. “We spend time matching background, culture and understanding the therapeutic needs of a child. I’m not going to change that or rush to dance to the government’s timetable.”
He would like to see the government get rid of scorecards altogether. “It’s an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy that doesn’t tell us anything new,” he says. “It’s demoralising for staff. We have people with a lot of expertise who take real pride in their work and see themselves coming out near the bottom of the scorecard when Ofsted is telling them they’re doing good and outstanding work. It doesn’t make sense.”
Brighton & Hove
- Average time between a child entering care and moving in with its adoptive family: 483 days (10th)
- Average time between receiving court authority to place a child and the decision to match to an adoptive family: 146 days (58th)
- Children who wait less than 21 months between entering care and moving in with their adoptive family: 76% (15th)
Brighton & Hove City Council is in the top 10 performing councils for the total time taken to place children with adoptive parents.
“Naturally we’re pleased,” says Karen Devine, manager of the council’s adoption and permanence service. But she stresses that the headline figures on scorecards depend on the type of children councils are trying to place.
By the end of June, children up for adoption will include nine aged two to five, eight older children and nine groups of siblings. “It won’t surprise me if next year we’re in a very different place in the scorecard,” says Devine. “And we won’t be doing anything different.”
She is worried that scorecards may deter some councils from trying to find adoptive families for some children: “If you know it’s going to take a long time to find a family for a child, then it sets up a perverse incentive not to put them forward for an adoption plan and that’s not what the government intended.”
The number of children up for adoption in the area has more than doubled in two years. Families are being sought for 60 children.
The authority has a dedicated permanence manager who advises social workers from the earliest stages of children coming into care. Meanwhile, adoptive parents who look set to be approved, start looking at children’s profiles. This means children often have a family lined up by the time they have a placement order and adopters can sometimes be approved and a match agreed at the same panel meeting.
Brighton & Hove is part of the Adoption South East consortium with access to a wider pool of prospective adopters.
Kensington and Chelsea
- Average time between a child entering care and moving in with its adoptive family: 855 days (143rd)
- Average time between receiving court authority to place a child and the decision to match to an adoptive family: (figure not shown to protect confidentiality)
- Children who wait less than 21 months between entering care and moving in with their adoptive family: 67% (38th)
The raw data suggests Kensington and Chelsea is dragging its feet when it comes to placing children for adoption, with an average of more than two years from a child entering care to moving in with an adoptive family – 143rd out of 152 councils. Yet, as director of family services John Page says, the figure refers to a small number of children – 15 cases over three years.
Of those 15, four involved children with significant additional needs or disability who were in long-term foster care, but went on to be adopted by their foster carers. For one – a child with severe autism and learning disability – it took several years to move from a children’s home to an adopted family.
“This was a significantly disabled child, but we wanted to find an adoptive family despite knowing it would be a hard match,” says Page. “We found a foster home and over time he bonded with that family and they decided to adopt. That’s a good outcome. But one story like that means our average is 855 days. Remove that child and it brings it down to 575.”
As the figures are a three-year average, this case will also affect next year’s result, so it is hard to show progression, adds Page, who describes the scorecard as “a blunt instrument”.
The borough, which sees about five to 10 children a year adopted, joined forces with Westminster and Hammersmith & Fulham to merge children’s services, including fostering and adoption – although each council has its own social work teams and remains responsible for the children in care. The trio are leading the way as part of a pilot working with family courts in a bid to speed up care proceedings.
Solihull
- Average time between a child entering care and moving in with its adoptive family: 422 days (2nd)
- Average time between receiving court authority to place a child and the decision to match to an adoptive family: 51 days (8th)
- Children who wait less than 21 months between entering care and moving in with their adoptive family: 65% (43rd)
Adoption scorecards contain useful information, but do not tell the whole story, says Mark Rogers, chief executive of Solihull Council.
The authority comes out extremely well, ranking second in the country only to West Berkshire for the total time taken to secure an adoptive family. It is ranked eighth for swiftly placing a child once getting the go-ahead from court. Yet the scorecard also reveals just three per cent of its looked-after children get adopted.
“What the scorecards don’t show is the reasons behind the ratings,” says Rogers. “The fact we have a high proportion of unaccompanied minors who don’t get adopted means they’re often in their teens and not seeking adoption themselves.” Half of Solihull’s looked-after population is made up of unaccompanied minors as the West Midlands town hosts a UK Border Agency reception centre.
Rogers doubts scorecards will have much impact on the public, either positive or negative. However, he worries they may create an overall impression that “councils are not able to do adoptions” and compound negative perceptions of social work.
The relatively small authority recently created an integrated adoption and fostering service and is working in partnership with neighbouring councils Warwickshire and Coventry to share best practice and work on joint recruitment campaigns.
“Getting told off doesn’t motivate people,” he says. “We’re at one with the government on the need to improve the performance of adoption services, which is why it is so disappointing they’ve gone about it in the wrong way.”
