Agenda item

7.1

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, which provided a more detailed update on Sheffield’s current performance in relation to the two main performance measures, A1 and A2, following a request at the last meeting of the Committee.

7.2

The report was presented by Dorne Collinson, Director of Children and Families, with Stephanie Kerr, Assistant Service Manager, Children and Families, also in attendance. 

7.3

Dorne Collinson took the Committee through the report and, in relation to Indicator A1 (average time between a child entering care and moving in with its adoptive family, for children who have been adopted), she explained that Sheffield’s performance ranked 64^th out of 152 local authorities, which was better than comparators but outside national thresholds.  In Sheffield, the average time for a child to be placed after entering care was 535 days in the last year, which meant that in order to achieve a threshold of 426 days by March 2017, children would need to be placed within 370 days over the next two years.  It should be noted however that there had been no adoption breakdown for a considerable time in Sheffield and that, due to comparatively low numbers of children in care, Sheffield was more likely to have children who had more complex needs, which made them more difficult to place.

7.4

In relation to Indicator A2 (average time between a local authority receiving court authority to place a child and the local authority deciding on a match to an adoptive family), Sheffield’s performance ranked 122^nd out of 152 local authorities last year, with performance being poorer than all averages for comparators.  There had been a marginal improvement in three year performance averages for 2014/15, however, the gap to national expectations had increased and the improvement was mainly due to previous poor performance no longer being counted.  The average time between receiving a placement order and matching a child in 2014/15 was 293 days, with thresholds for this indicator being 121 days.

7.5

With regard to improving performance, Dorne Collinson made reference to the City Wide Adoption Tracking meetings, the appointment of additional staff to identify those suitable for adoption and the use of proformas to highlight important milestones in the process.  She also referred to regional working through the Yorkshire and Humber Adoption Consortium, which sought to make adopters more available, but still ensured that children were placed locally.

7.6

Members made various comments and asked a number of questions, to which responses were provided as follows:-

·                Officers were aware that some children had been in the system for too long, but it was hoped that tracking and scrutiny could influence change.  It was recognised that there was a need to have a view on the present cohort, so that decisions could be made on permanent outcomes.

·                Data that assisted in predicting future performance would be sent to the Policy and Improvement Officer for circulation to Committee Members.

·                There was a significant difference between Sheffield and its statistical neighbours in that its in care population was different.  There was a need for more analysis and information in relation to this matter.

·                The last adoptive breakdown in Sheffield took place during the year 2010/11 and enquiries would be made regarding the performance of Sheffield’s statistical neighbours in this regard, with the results being sent to the Policy and Improvement Officer for circulation to Committee Members.

·                Like Sheffield, other authorities had young people who were unlikely to be adopted and, in these situations, it was necessary to decide on other permanent outcomes such as long term foster care.  These situations did not impact on performance as the targets focused on those who were adopted.

·                Education was a priority for all children in care and would be part of any adoption support plan.  It may be that decisions were made for children to change schools if risk issues were involved.

·                The process for selecting adopters was rigorous to ensure that the most appropriate adoptive parents were identified.

·                Work was being undertaken to learn from other high performing authorities.

7.7

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       thanks Dorne Collinson and Stephanie Kerr for their contribution to the meeting;

(b)       notes the contents of the report and responses to questions; and

(c)        requests that an update on Adoption Performance be presented to the Committee in six months’ time.