Minuses outscore pluses on adoption scorecards

The big groups representing local authority and children’s services chiefs united to condemn the move as misguided. One month on, our main feature approaches a number of individual authorities to uncover the on-the-ground stories behind the statistics. 

Three key performance measures underpin the scorecards. Despite the storm of protest, the scorecards do have some points to commend them. One, they can expose a lack of urgency and efficiency in children’s social services departments. And two, the earlier children are identified for adoption and placed with a family, the better the chances that adoption will be successful, so rating councils in this way can incentivise earlier placements.

Now for the shortcomings. One, the performance measures are influenced massively by the court process, which is out of councils’ control; remove court delays from the equation and two-thirds are meeting the set thresholds. Two, the key measures take no account of adoptions that break down. Hackney has no adoption breakdowns, but its children – because they tended to have complex needs – have the longest average time in the country between entering care and moving in with their adoptive family.

Three, prospective adopters, of which there is an acute shortage, might be put off by the impression that their council is not helpful or supportive. Four, many authorities have only a small number of adoptions, so individual cases significantly distort the average scorecard figure. Kensington and Chelsea, which had only 15 cases over the three-year measurement period, had a severely disabled child up for adoption for whom social workers persevered tirelessly before finding a loving home after some years. That case alone dragged it down to be among the 10 worst performing councils on the first key measure. Which brings us to five; social workers could be deterred from finding homes for the hardest-to-place children in a climate in which timeliness trumps perseverance. Six, committed social workers that provide an excellent service but perform poorly against the measures will feel demoralised and doubt their own judgment; and seven, many of the worst performing councils have in fact received good Ofsted inspections, which examine the quality of the service, painting a confusing picture for prospective adopters.

That makes a score of two pros and seven cons. It is a calculation no less spurious than the information contained in the scorecards’ three key measures. The scorecards do contain contextualised data, including the number of over-five and black and minority ethnic children adopted, but this vital information is accorded only footnote status. Tellingly, those councils that perform well are just as critical of the whole initiative. Solihull chief executive Mark Rogers highlights its capacity to bruise already-fragile social worker morale, while Brighton & Hove adoption service manager Karen Devine expects its performance next year to plummet without it doing anything differently because of the number of older children it has coming up for adoption.

This government rightly emphasises that the ultimate prize of adoption must be a happy child and a loving family. An obsession with timeliness through scorecards could put that in jeopardy.

ravi.chandiramani@markallengroup.com