House of Lords - Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny - Select Committee on Adoption Legislation

Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny - Select Committee on Adoption Legislation Contents

Chapter 6: The Structure of Adoption Services

137. The Action Plan for Adoption set out the Government's desire to expand significantly the number of children who are adopted each year in England. We received a substantial amount of evidence identifying the lack of prospective adopters as a problem causing delay in the adoption process.[151] At the end of March 2012 there were over 4,600 children awaiting adoptive placements; and a total of 4,263 adoptive families were approved in 2012.[152] If more children are to be adopted, then more adopters will be required. This chapter considers how adopters are recruited, how they are assessed and trained, and how they are matched to children who are waiting to find a family.

Who provides adoption services?

138. Section 3 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 imposes a duty upon each local authority to continue to maintain within their area an adoption service for:

(i) children who may be adopted, their parents and guardians;

(ii) persons wishing to adopt a child; and

(iii) adopted persons, their parents and families.

139. There are currently 150 local authorities providing adoption services in England.[153] The size of these authorities varies widely, from populations of less than 100,000 to populations of over 1,000,000. The nature of their care populations, and the scale of challenge facing authorities in placing children for adoption, also varies. Local authorities act as the corporate parent for children in care; they also recruit and assess adopters, before matching them to children in care.

140. Voluntary adoption agencies recruit and assess prospective adopters; they create matches for children who are in the care of a local authority, and are then paid by the local authority for doing so. There are currently 49 voluntary adoption agencies registered with Ofsted. They vary in scale: some are locally or regionally based, such as the Yorkshire Adoption Agency or Adoption North West; others are major national organisations, such as Barnardo's. Voluntary agencies placed 611 children for adoption in 2011-12. This was a 20% increase on the previous year.[154]

BOX 4

Recruitment and matching of adopters in England[155]

Approved adoptive families, March 2012

Total number of approved adoptive families: 4,263

Approved by local authorities: 3,640 (85% of total)

Approved by voluntary agencies: 623 (15% of total)

Families approved by local authorities:

Matched to a child, but awaiting placement: 1,700 (47%)

Child placed but awaiting adoption order: 1,720 (47%)

Awaiting a match: 220 (6%)

Families approved by voluntary agencies:

Matched to a child, but awaiting placement: 80 (13%)

Child placed but awaiting adoption order: 316 (51%)

Awaiting a match: 227 (36%)

Enquiries and applications, April 2011-March 2012

Enquiries about adoption: 25,380

Applications for approval to adopt: 4,145

Applications made to local authorities: 3,156

Applications made to voluntary agencies: 629

Results of applications for approval to adopt, April 2011-March 2012

Approved: 3,048

Withdrawn: 478

Refused: 23

Recruiting more adopters

141. At present, potential adopters can choose who to approach when looking to adopt a child—their own local authority, another local authority or a voluntary agency. The wide range of choice for adopters was viewed positively in evidence.[156] Choice in this context could, however, also be viewed as fragmentation. Jonathan Ewen, Lead Director for Children in Care at Barnardo's, explained how adopters were not always aware of the choice available to them:

157

142. Barnardo's voiced concerns that many potential adopters were likely to be 'lost' at the initial enquiry stage:

158

143. We received further evidence of local authorities turning prospective adopters away "without really looking at what their abilities and capabilities are."[159] We were told that a lot of people are "lost to domestic adoption" at that point because the response of their local authority is unwelcoming;[160] some go on to pursue adoption of children from overseas instead.This is of particular concern because these adopters could have provided homes to children currently in care in England.

THE BENEFITS OF CONSORTIA AND LOCAL AUTHORITY JOINT WORKING

144. Some local authorities are members of adoption consortia. These provide a forum through which local authorities can match children with prospective adopters more quickly, by allowing the local authority to access the pool of approved adopters registered with neighbouring councils. The consortia are often operated on a regional basis, such as Adoption 22 (covering the north-west) and the Yorkshire Adoption Consortium. We heard evidence about the work of the South West Consortium in helping to facilitate placements for children in an extensive region stretching from Bournemouth to Cornwall.[161] Some consortia also collaborate on recruitment and training. Local authorities generally contribute a small amount of funding each year to cover the overheads of the consortium.

145. Some smaller local authorities have started to move beyond the consortium approach to create more formal shared services. We received written evidence from the Tri-borough[162] adoption and fostering service in west London, and from the WWiSH Partnership, which consists of Warrington, Wigan and St Helens Councils. Whilst there are differences in the approach taken by these two partnerships, the common feature is that they have merged their adoption teams across local authority boundaries, co-locating their workforces and sharing management structures.

146. The initial results from this approach have been promising. The Tri-borough partnership "has enabled better matching and offered a wider range of adopters for those children coming into care."[163] The WWiSH partnership has increased significantly the number of prospective adopters approved since combining services.[164]

147. Both of these partnerships have, however, encountered some difficulties during the set-up phase. These included difficulties in moving employees into a shared service, resulting in staff being co-located and undertaking the same work whilst employed on different salary structures and differing terms and conditions.[165] Problems have also been encountered with inspection: registration with Ofsted had been lengthy because no process was in place for a shared service, and the partnerships were each subject to three inspections by Ofsted, rather than one 'joined-up' inspection.[166]

148. We put these concerns to the Minister. He suggested that consideration could be given to ensuring better recognition of joint services within the inspection regime. He also suggested that thought might be given to how the adoption scorecard could report the performance of shared services.[167] We believe it is essential that performance and monitoring systems reflect the reality of service delivery on the ground.

149. The fragmentation of adopter recruitment and the small scale of some local authority operations can result in prospective adopters being turned away by their local authority, even though there are children waiting for adoption in other areas. We consider that this position is unacceptable, given the shortage of adopters.

150. We recommend that a greater number of councils should move towards joint working and integrated management of adoption services, including recruitment, as has already been achieved by some smaller local authorities. This will help to address the systemic disincentives to greater adopter recruitment and speedier matching.

151. We recommend that the Government should encourage and facilitate further joint working by:

· Developing a single Ofsted inspection for a unified service, rather than separate inspections of each local authority;

· Publishing joint scorecard assessments;

· Issuing guidance on employment law to facilitate the merging of services.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS FOR STRUCTURAL REFORM

152. In seeking to address the problems inherent in the current structure of adoption services the Government published, in January 2013, proposals to reform the system of adopter recruitment. The intention was to move toward a system where there are fewer organisations recruiting and assessing adopters, with most operating at a much greater scale.[168]

153. The Children and Families Bill, published in February 2013, includes a clause that would give the Secretary of State the power to require some, or all, local authorities to outsource adopter recruitment and assessment. Provision of adopter recruitment would, instead, be met by voluntary agencies or services 'spun out' from local authorities to become independent providers. The Government recognised that this was "a radical step", and would consider "progress towards systemic reform made by local authorities themselves before making the decision to use such a power."[169] The Government invited representative bodies from the sector to submit alternative proposals by the end of February 2013.

154. We argued in paragraph 76 that adoption needs to be integrated fully into child protection; we also supported the revised Ofsted reporting regime with its aim to promote integrated working between local authority teams providing services for looked-after children. We note some concerns that outsourcing adopter recruitment might lead to adoption services being further isolated from other services for looked-after children.

155. The Government is proposing to give the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to outsource adopter recruitment. This would constitute a significant reform of adopter recruitment in England. We understand and share the concerns of the Government about the fragmentation of adopter recruitment, and the national shortage of adopters to which this contributes. We therefore urge local authorities and partners to work together to make progress on these issues, particularly in light of concerns that outsourcing adopter recruitment risks isolating adoption from other services for looked-after children. We strongly encourage the Government to allow sufficient time for the sector to develop viable and achievable alternative proposals, before using the new power.

156. The new National Adoption Gateway is also intended to provide part of the solution to the fragmentation of adopter recruitment. In the Action Plan for Adoption, the Government suggested that "a new national gateway could dramatically improve the experience of those who enquire about adoption."[170] More than 25,000 telephone enquiries about adoption were made to local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies in the year to March 2012; but only 4,145 applications to adopt were submitted in the same period.[171] The Action Plan for Adoption suggested that the gateway "would make sure those interested in adoption knew they were not obliged to adopt through their local authority, and [would] help them to choose the right agency for them in their local area."[172]

157. The National Adoption Gateway was launched on 11 January 2013. It is provided by a partnership of Coram, Coram Children's Legal Centre and Adoption UK. The gateway consists of a website and a telephone service through which those interested in becoming adopters can seek out independent advice. A National Recruitment Forum, with representation from CVAA and the ADCS, has also been established to improve the coordination and effectiveness of recruitment activity; we welcome this step.

158. The proposal for a national gateway was universally welcomed in evidence.[173] Matt Dunkley, of the ADCS, explained how adoption 'marketing' often took place solely in adoption week, and hoped that the gateway might offer a more sustained opportunity to raise the profile of adoption. Some witnesses suggested that, in time, the gateway might play a more substantive role in the adoption process, including the provision of complaints handling and quality assurance functions.[174]

159. We welcome the gateway, and hope that it improves the service provided to those enquiring about adoption. We believe that there is the potential for the gateway to offer services beyond signposting and information. The gateway could, for example, make direct referrals to adoption agencies on behalf of those who are interested in becoming adopters.

160. We support the establishment of the National Adoption Gateway as a first port of call for anyone considering adoption. Delivered properly, the gateway offers the potential to increase the number of adopters coming forward, which will be vital if the Government is to meet its aim of increasing the overall number of adoptions.

Approving adopters more quickly

161. We were told that "applicants find the process time consuming, intrusive and frustrating. There is a perception that the assessments just take too long."[175] We heard that the length of the approval process led to some applicants dropping out.[176] The process should, of course, be a rigorous one, and those who are to adopt children from care should have had their abilities fully tested. At present, around 54% of adoption applicants are approved or refused within 8 months of their initial application.[177] Some adopters, however, wait up to two years for a decision.[178]

162. The Government has proposed a new six-month target for assessing and approving adopters.[179] The proposed reforms will comprise a two month initial training and preparation stage, and a four month assessment stage. All required checks and references will be completed during stage one.

163. The CVAA believed that this faster process would increase the number of adopters coming forward.[180] They also noted, however, that "increased enquiries and applicants require increased resourcing in adoption agencies."[181] The ADCS welcomed proposals for making the process faster "without sacrificing rigour."[182]

164. There were, however, concerns that a six-month limit might be too short for some prospective adopters.[183] It was felt that potential adopters needed time to understand the needs of children within the care system, and should not be rushed into making life-changing decisions.

165. There is recognition of this within the government's proposals, with the potential for adopters to take a 'break' of up to six months between stages one and two, and also for stage two to be extended by a further two months if this is the wish of the adopters. We consider this sufficient to allow potential adopters time to make a fully informed decision.

166. We support the government's proposals for speeding up the assessment and approvals process for adopters. We believe that the opportunity for an applicant-initiated break during the process will provide suitable time for reflection. A faster process will allow children to be provided with new parents more quickly; it may also help to retain some adopters who, at present, drop out of the approval process.

167. The Government has also proposed a fast-track procedure for previous adopters and for approved foster carers wishing to adopt a child in their care. Previous adopters who have adopted in a court in England or Wales, after having been approved under the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005, will receive a tailored assessment focusing on their capacity to adopt an additional child and any significant changes in their circumstances. Any necessary training will be offered at the same time. The Committee heard widespread support for this proposal.[184]

168. We support the Government's proposal for a fast track procedure for previous adopters and approved foster carers. Those who have been approved for adoption should not have to repeat the same assessments when looking to adopt for a second time. They should be subject to an abridged approval process which focuses on their capacity to adopt an additional child and an assessment of any significant changes in their circumstances.

Improving the matching process

SEQUENTIAL FAMILY FINDING AND THE USE OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

169. The current structure of adoption services gives rise to processes of family finding that increase delay for the child. This is, in large part, a result of the system of fees that operates when local authorities place a child with a family that has been recruited by a different adoption agency.

170. If local authorities place a child with an adopter they themselves have recruited then no fee applies. If they choose to place the child with a family approved by another local authority, a fee must be paid to compensate that authority for the investment they have made in assessing the adopters. This currently stands at just over £13,000. When a local authority places a child with an adoptive family recruited from a voluntary agency a more substantial fee must be paid. This is often known as the 'inter-agency fee', and currently stands at £27,000.[185]

171. As a result of the financial disincentive inherent in the structure, many local authorities engage in 'sequential family finding'. They first seek a match amongst their own pool of adopters, then amongst neighbouring authorities and finally look to voluntary adoption agencies. Pursuing these three options in sequence rather than in parallel builds in more delay for the child. As Coram put it to us: "there is an uneven playing field in relation to inter-agency fees" which leads to a "perverse incentive to delay."[186] Professor Julie Selwyn agreed.[187] Recent research at the University of Bristol, cited by BAAF, has highlighted that local authority calculations of their own costs are not always correct. The research suggested "that the cost to a local authority of preparing and approving an adopter is more than the inter-agency fee charged by voluntary agencies, and that faster movement out of care and into an adoptive placement makes financial savings for the local authority."[188]

172. Reducing delay for children is the main incentive to improve the use of voluntary agencies by local authorities, but there are other reasons why extending their use would be beneficial. Voluntary sector providers often have significant expertise in finding matches for harder to place children. Barnardo's explained that until relatively recently "children with disabilities, for example, were never considered for adoption. That was an innovation from a voluntary adoption agency which decided to try to place children with disabilities."[189]

173. Voluntary agencies also have a particularly strong track record of recruiting non-white adopters: recent figures from the CVAA state that 31% of adopters approved by voluntary agencies in the last year were from BME communities.[190] The difficulties and delays encountered by some BME children in the care system are well documented[191]; voluntary agencies therefore play a major role in meeting the needs of these children.

174. A number of potential remedies to the problem of the inter-agency fee were suggested. These included a central pool from which the fee could be paid,[192] a 'bounty fee' paid to agencies for the recruitment of an adopter, rather than a match,[193] and proposals to equalise the fees paid to a local authority with those paid to a voluntary agency. The ADCS agreed that the issue of the inter-agency fee needed to be addressed.[194] The Minister suggested that positive discussions regarding the equalisation of these fees had already been held and that it was "at the behest of the LGA to bring that equalisation of fees about."[195]

175. In Further Action on Adoption the Government stated that "swift progress on the levelling of the inter-agency fee" would need to form "part of any alternative proposals put forward by the sector."[196] In the same document, the Government explained that £50 million of the Adoption Reform Grant will be ring-fenced to "help local authorities address structural problems with adopter recruitment" and "provide one-off funding to support local authorities in the equalisation of the inter-agency fee".[197] We welcome this short-term measure, and hope that it can go some way to provoke the changes needed to secure benefits in the longer-term.

176. We believe that local authorities should explore as early as possible all potentially appropriate matches for children in care, including those provided by voluntary agencies. We recognise the important role that voluntary adoption agencies play in finding families for harder-to-place children.

177. The operation of the inter-agency fee presents a barrier to greater involvement of voluntary agencies in providing adoption services, and leads to unnecessary delay in placing children. We welcome the discussions that are taking place on this matter, and urge the Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector to reach an agreement which removes the financial disincentives currently present within the system. We encourage the Local Government Association to facilitate discussion amongst its members on the equalisation of fees.

THE NATIONAL ADOPTION REGISTER

178. Section 125 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provided for the establishment of the National Adoption Register. The register is operated by BAAF, on behalf of the Department for Education and the Welsh Assembly Government. It exists to match children in one local authority area with adopters who are waiting for a child in another area. There were over 2,500 children on the National Adoption Register for England and Wales in September 2012; 351 children were matched through the register in 2011-12.[198]

179. We received evidence to suggest that the register was not currently operating to its full potential. CVAA suggested there was sometimes unwillingness on the part of local authorities to refer children to the register. The ADCS, whilst highlighting that some authorities made active use of the register, acknowledged that some might 'hold on' to adopters.[199] Officials from the Department for Education supported that view.[200]

180. Under the statutory guidance, adoption agencies are required to refer prospective adopters to the register either at the point at which they are approved, or three months after approval, if no local match is actively being considered. Prospective adopters may choose to refer themselves to the register three months after approval.[201] Adoption agencies are required to refer children to the register when they are not actively considering a local match for them; referrals can be made either at the point at which the decision has been made that adoption is in a child's best interests, or 3 months after the decision during which time the agency has unsuccessfully sought a local or consortium match.[202]

181. Officials from the Department for Education told us, in June 2012, that it was proposed to move the requirements contained within the Statutory Guidance on Adoption into regulations, and thereby address current concerns about the use of the register.[203] This proposal was subject to consultation in October 2012[204]; the outcome of the consultation has not yet been published.

182. We support the proposal to move existing requirements relating to referral of children and adopters to the National Adoption Register from statutory guidance into regulations. We would, however, stress the importance of avoiding delay. We therefore recommend that adoption agencies are required to make referrals as soon as possible: once an adoption decision has been made for a child, or once an adopter has been approved; as long as no local match is actively being considered. Three months should be considered the very latest point at which to refer.

183. Clause 6 of the Children and Families Bill proposes changes to the register. Subsections 2 and 3 of clause 6 would enable details of looked-after children to be included in the register when the local authority is considering adoption, but have not yet formally decided that the child ought to be placed for adoption. This change is in line with the proposed new duty to consider fostering for adoption placements for children for whom an adoption decision has not yet been made (Clause 1); we expressed our views on this in paragraphs 81-87.

184. Subsection 4 of Clause 6 provides for regulations which would allow prospective adopters who are suitable to adopt a child[205] to search the register. This is intended to give prospective adopters a more active role in identifying possible matches with children, subject to appropriate safeguards. The regulations may restrict access to certain parts of the register, or to specified content on the register, and they may set terms and conditions for access to the register.[206]

185. We are not in a position to comment on clause 6, as the Bill was only published on 5 February, and the proposals contained therein were not included in earlier documents. We therefore have no evidence on them. We would be concerned, however, to ensure that appropriate safeguards are built into the proposed regulations giving prospective adopters access to the register, in order to protect children on the register from identification.

186. The register has previously been used by BAAF to run successful exchange days. Children from the register are profiled and approved adopters are invited to a local event to see these profiles, speak with social workers and, if appropriate, express an interest in adopting a particular child. A pilot project, undertaken by BAAF and the East Midlands Adoption Consortium, has expanded this approach through the use of placement activity days.[207] These events bring children, carers, social workers and prospective adopters together for a day of play and art activities. A number of children have found appropriate matches as a result of the pilot.

187. The Government has welcomed this work and wishes to see such approaches used more widely, giving prospective adopters a stronger role in initiating matches with children. To this end, Further Action on Adoption states that the Government want "to see adoption activity days being held regularly and in all parts of the country."[208] We welcome these proposals, and hope that they enhance the utility of the register and accelerate the matching process.

Monitoring performance

188. Ofsted acts as a regulator of voluntary adoption agencies, who must be registered with Ofsted to conduct their business. Ofsted can take action against voluntary agencies if they fail to meet requirements. John Goldup, Deputy Chief Inspector at Ofsted, suggested that these powers were rarely used, and that the voluntary agencies were a "high performing sector."[209]

189. Ofsted also inspects the adoption services provided by local authorities, but it does not regulate them; it has no powers of enforcement to take action should under-performance be identified. Those powers sit with the Department for Education and the Minister; they are set out in Section 14 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Section 14(1) states that, where the Minister is satisfied that a local authority has failed to comply with their adoption duties, an order can be made which declares the local authority to be in default in respect of those duties. The order must give the Minister's reasons for making it and may contain directions setting out the steps to be taken to discharge the duties during the time in which the order is in operation. Tim Loughton MP, the former Minister for Children and Families, suggested that the use of these existing powers "probably needs to happen to set a precedent and to send a very clear message that [adoption] is not something that you can dawdle on or not take seriously."[210]

190. In the past, Ofsted conducted separate inspections of local authority fostering and adoption services. As referred to in paragraph 75, from April 2013, a new approach will be pursued, in which adoption services will be assessed as part of the wider services provided to looked-after children. Ofsted explained that the proposals would prevent adoption being judged in isolation, with the key question posed by inspectors being: "how effective is the local authority in achieving permanence for every single child in its care."[211] We welcome the move to a more cohesive approach to inspection.

191. We heard very little criticism of the work of Ofsted, apart from the issues identified by the Tri-borough and WWiSH partnerships which we highlighted in paragraphs 147 and 151, and which concerned how the inspectorate could take a more constructive approach to the assessment of shared adoption services.

192. A certain level of variation in local authority performance is to be expected, given the different populations, challenges and resource bases of local authorities. The level of variation, however, does appear to us to reflect issues of performance. The latest figures indicate that some local authorities take two and a half years to place a child, while others complete this process in less than 18 months.[212] The Department for Education told us they were "extremely concerned about the variability in the performance...some of that indeed reflects poor performance by individual local authorities."[213] The variability of performance was acknowledged by other witnesses, including the Local Government Association (LGA) and Nagalro.[214]

193. In May 2012 the Government published adoption scorecards, which are intended to provide an assessment of local authority performance. An update was published in November 2012. The scorecards provide three indicators. The first measures the average time taken from entering care to being placed with an adoptive family. The second measures the average time taken to match a child to an adoptive family, once a court has formally decided that a child should be placed for adoption. The third measures the proportion of children in each local authority waiting longer than the 21 months for adoption.

194. We welcome the government's focus on the variable performance of local authority adoption services. We believe it is important to have robust indicators of performance. We have heard, however, concerns about the adoption scorecards. The LGA highlighted the fact that some councils were dealing with very small numbers of children, and as a result one particularly delayed case could cause overall performance figures to be distorted.[215] The scorecards also provided no measure of the quality of placement, including the extent of adoption breakdown.[216] Focusing exclusively on speed ignored other factors, such as pursuing placements for children with special needs or sibling groups. Andrew Webb, from the ADCS, described cases from his recent experience where two sibling groups, one of four and another of three siblings, had been placed together in their new adoptive families; finding the right placements for each set of siblings had taken some time: "I would say the delay was absolutely worth every day in those two families' cases."[217]

195. Adopt West Mids had the following concerns about the score cards:

218

196. Action for Children shared these concerns: "The introduction of local authority scorecards should not detract from the focus on outcomes for children and must not penalise agencies that are working with the 'hardest to place' who we know wait longer to be placed, such as sibling groups. Faster matching and placement of children with adoptive families does not necessarily equate to achieving the best outcomes."[219] Furthermore, no allowance was made for the role that the courts played in the adoption process, and the delays in placement that could arise within the court process.[220]

197. It is also important that the scorecards are not seen as an end in themselves. The Government has emphasised that the scorecards would be used as "the starting point of a conversation", rather than as an absolute judgement on a local authority's adoption performance.[221] We think that this approach is sensible. John Goldup explained how the scorecards could better inform our understanding of performance: "what data is incredibly important for is telling you what questions to ask, not what the answers should be. In terms of how the Government and the Department for Education have actually used the adoption scorecards, I think that has very much been their approach."[222]

198. We believe that the length of time many children wait to be adopted in some local authority adoption services is unacceptable. The Government must take quicker and firmer action against repeated poor performance identified through monitoring processes; where appropriate, using Section 14 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

199. We recommend that more thought should be given to the design of these monitoring processes. The adoption scorecards should be revised to provide a greater level of contextual information, and to recognise fully the complexity of a local authority's care population. Measures of speed and timeliness should recognise the performance of the courts and legal processes, as well as that of local authorities.

Measuring outcomes of adoption

200. Although monitoring of processes in adoption services is now well embedded, it appears that insufficient data exist to measure properly the success of adoptive placements. The Government acknowledged this in the Action Plan for Adoption, which we referred to in paragraph 23.

201. We asked the Department for Education for information on adoption breakdown and were told:

223

202. We note that as there is no national collection of data on adoption breakdown there is no agreed definition of breakdown; figures presented in the studies listed above may therefore rely on different criteria.

203. The lack of data is of particular concern, given the Government's focus on adoption policy and the desire to see more children being adopted more quickly from the care system. We note that the House of Commons Justice Committee, in two recent reports, has raised concerns about the lack of available data on the family justice system, especially in light of the proposed reforms; we share those concerns.[224]

204. We asked witnesses about the lack of national data on adoption breakdown. BASW argued that much better data collection on adoption breakdown was needed, both nationally and locally, to enhance understanding of the causes of breakdown, with a view to reducing its likelihood.[225] Debbie Jones, President of the ADCS, explained that "adoption breakdown is often not construed as adoption breakdown."[226] Adoptive families are considered and assessed as any other family would be; their history of adoption is therefore not recognised when data is recorded.

205. The Government collects data on looked-after children from local authorities each year, in a return that is known as SSDA 903. We were told that from 2013 this monitoring exercise would record if a child entering care had ever been adopted. We welcome this development; further improvements to monitoring are, however, required.

206. The most important measure of performance is the outcome. Insufficient data exist to measure properly the success of adoption placements. More should be done to measure rates of, and reasons for, adoption breakdown. We recommend that the Government work with the Local Government Association and Association of Directors of Children's Services to consider how this could more effectively be monitored.

151 Written evidence from Barnardo's, BASW, CAFCASS, Family Law Bar Association and Professor Julie Selwyn Back

152 Further Action on Adoption: Finding more loving homes, Department for Education, January 2013 Back

153 There are 152 authorities with adoption responsibilities; two of these (Telford and Wrekin and Central Bedfordshire) provide adoption services through another local authority. The contracting out of services is possible under section 3(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Back

154 Sector Performance Report 2011 - 2012, Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, November 2012 Back

155 From Ofsted, Official Statistics Release: Adoption quality assurance and data forms 2011-12, (Ofsted, November 2012). This publication was the first collection and release of this data by Ofsted. 'Enquiries' in this context refers to telephone contact with a local authority or voluntary adoption agency; some enquiries may be duplicated to more than one agency. 'Applications' refers to actual submission of an application to be approved to adopt. Back

156 Q 199 Back

157 Q 193 Back

158 Barnardo's, written evidence Back

159 Q 416 Back

160 ibid. Back

161 QQ 280-282 Back

162 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster City Council Back