Evaluation of Regional Adoption Agencies 2018-19
Thursday, January 2, 2020
This report presents findings from the first stage of the three-year evaluation of regional adoption agencies (RAAs).
- Government Social Research for the Department for Education (July 2019 )
Regional adoption agencies (RAAs) bring together local authority adoption placement finding services and voluntary and statutory sector adoption support services across regions of England. All councils are meant to be part of a regional shared approach by April 2020. The evaluation of RAAs runs from January 2018 to December 2021, with the overall purpose aiming to assess their impact on improving the delivery of adoption services.
This second report presents findings from the first stage of the three-year evaluation, based on analysis of Adoption Scorecard and cost data, and extensive qualitative research with six case study RAAs.
The RAAs were at varying stages of delivery when the research was carried out in autumn/winter 2018/19; four had been in operation for more than a year, one had just launched and one was about to go live.
The RAA programme
The regionalisation reforms intend to reduce the large number of agencies providing adoption services and create 25-30 RAAs to pool resources resulting in: targeted and efficient recruitment of adopters; speedier matching with a larger more diverse pool of adopters; and an improved range of adoption support services and regulatory compliance. Overall, in the longer term, RAAs are expected to provide: better outcomes for children and adopters; more consistent services; efficiency savings through more effective strategic management; and stronger partnerships with the voluntary adoption agency sector.
Summary of findings
Analysis of the pre-RAA data showed substantial variation among RAAs in the average time between a child entering care to moving in with an adoptive family, and particularly for larger RAAs. For the majority of local authorities, adoption timeliness was improving (based on three-year averages).
The approaches used by the RAAs in the case studies had not changed significantly from the inception and scoping stage. Variations in how case study RAAs reported structuring their services were usually a result of geographic considerations and the ease with which staff could work out of different offices. Several case study RAAs had reported they had made or intended to make changes to how they commissioned services to improve quality and efficiency. Voluntary agencies’ involvement varied and ranged from them being RAA partners, to providing specific services, to involvement on the strategic management board without providing services.
Costs and efficiencies
Case studies of two RAAs demonstrated two types of financing models: one that adopted a baseline budget for RAAs to deliver the adoption services based on historical spending by councils; or based the model on historical information and from this forecasted activity-based spend (which took account of the number of children requiring support from each authority).
It was too early to see cost-efficiencies yet, but over time stakeholders thought improved performance could lead to cost efficiencies. Economies of scale were at the margins and related to contracting and, for RAAs comprising many small councils, there could be savings around management and leadership costs.
RAAs highlighted several challenges and potential risks including additional/unanticipated costs; authority variation and expectations; changes to the adoption landscape; and ability to make tangible savings.
Early effects of RAAs
The qualitative research found that in the more established case study RAAs – those that had been live for one year or more – there was evidence of:
- Improved regional collaboration;
- A single line of accountability via the head of service;
- Greater data sharing between councils and RAAs and in some cases other stakeholders (e.g. judiciary);
- Social workers being able to access a wider pool of adopters;
- Increased access to specialist and knowledgeable staff.
Among the more established sites there was a perception that RAAs had created a larger adopter pool by sharing resources, introducing dedicated marketing resources and strategies, and doing more targeted recruitment activities.
Frequently, interviewees involved with the more established case study RAAs reported they believed that RAAs had led to speedier and better matching with adopters, although this was not a universally held view. Also, they identified increased opportunities for staff to:
- Pool knowledge and skills;
- Work in specialist and locality team structures;
- Collaborate earlier, alongside joint training and joint panels, speeding up matching.
Improved adoption support was another early outcome. Commonly, stakeholders in case study RAAs said that regional agencies had provided an opportunity to reassess approaches to adoption support, develop a more comprehensive training package, and address gaps. Key factors in helping this included:
- Pooled budgets;
- Improved practice as result of sharing best practice across a region;
- A more consistent offer arising from increased training, collaboration and shared learning.
There was some evidence of improved collaboration between the case study RAAs, local authorities and other agencies. Collaboration increased as the RAA moved to becoming live. However, RAAs reported challenges over misunderstandings around practice and process, data sharing and a lack of full oversight in care planning.
Several interviewees pointed to the creation of a new leadership tier that had provided an opportunity for stronger leadership to support the achievement of the intended outcomes and RAAs had led to staffing changes. Commonly, case study RAAs were motivated to deliver a more consistent and cohesive focus on early permanence.
Factors affecting progress
The first report published by the evaluation painted a picture of “frustration and challenge”. While some challenges remained, strong leadership and the passing of time had helped to mitigate against some of the problems that had previously been reported. Case study RAAs were dealing with a backlog of cases and working through capacity issues, due to delays and losses in staff at the transition stage. They had found it hard to marry up IT systems and lacked the full capacity to deliver adoption services. Delays to RAA start dates and ongoing staff vacancies compounded these issues.
Leadership was a key influencing factor for case study RAAs’ progress, and a range of interviewees identified the quality of leadership as a facilitating (or limiting) factor. The transition to RAAs initiated a significant culture change for staff who often struggled with the rationale for moving to regionalisation, so it was important that leaders and managers ensured that all members of staff understood the vision.