Adoption Scorecards: Do they measure up?

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