Agenda item

6.1

The Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, submitted the Annual Report in terms of the Adoption Service, which provided an overview of the main developments and priorities relating to the Service during the period April 2015 to February 2016. 

6.2

The report was supported by a presentation by Suzanne Whiteley, Adoption and Fostering Service Manager.  Ms Whiteley reported on the national adoption agenda and how Sheffield had responded to the numerous Government initiatives and policy changes over the last four years. She referred to adoption statistics for the City, details of outturns and projections regarding indicators on the Adoption Scorecard, and what the various Government initiatives and policy changes had meant for the people of Sheffield.

6.3

Members of the Committee raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·                The measures that were reported included the time from the child being placed with adopters to the time they applied for an Adoption Order. The adopters could apply for an Adoption Order over a 10-week period. Because of this, there were cases whereby if there was some reason as to why the Adoption Orders hadn’t been applied for, this affected the average figure across the Local Authority. The Council have had two such cases, one being a child who was placed four years ago. The Council have been working with the adopters to address the issues that had arisen, and had now secured a positive outcome for this child.

·                The figure of 34 new adopters related to homes, and not individuals. 

·                In terms of moving forward regarding the A1 and A2 indicators on the Adoption Scorecard, a number of changes had been made with regard to family finding processes over the last few years, which had resulted in newer cases going through the system a lot quicker.  However, the Service needed to be mindful of those cases where there were delays.  Whilst the Government had set a threshold, in terms of a number of days it wished to see such targets being met, the Council needed to make sure the assessment was undertaken correctly and that a suitable match was made.  It was accepted that the Government’s threshold was very low and that in many cases, mainly due to the complex needs of the child, there were delays, making it very difficult to achieve this target.  Considerable work was being undertaken, however, in an attempt to address this issue.

·                The Council did not wish to see local children moving outside the City, unless it was absolutely necessary.  It was important that the Council had links with the other authorities in South Yorkshire as this helped to ease the process regarding children moving to these areas.

·                It was not clear as to why the Government had set such a low threshold, particularly in the light of an increase in the number of children requiring adoption.  It was believed that such thresholds had been set simply to ensure that Authorities completed the adoption process as quickly as possible.  It was acknowledged that it would be very challenging to meet these targets.  The Council, however, would not be forced into quickening up the adoption process if it was not in the interest of the child to do so.  There was nothing set down in terms of consequences for the Council, if it did not meet the Government’s threshold targets, although there would be a requirement for the Council to explain any delays that occurred.  The outturns in respect of Adoption Scorecard Indicator A2, which were all somewhat above the Government’s threshold during 2011 and 2014, was considered as a legacy in terms of some of the children who had gone through the process during this period, who had very complex and challenging needs. Considerable work was being undertaken to address the delays, which included holding monthly meetings at a strategic level, as well as out in the community with frontline staff.  Whilst the Council did not want to cause any unnecessary delays in the process due to service issues, there had been some service issues, which were currently being dealt with, and it was considered that sufficient safeguards were now in place to enable the Service to make the necessary improvements to address the delay issues.  It was believed that the Government set the threshold for local authorities to ensure that any incidents of children ‘drifting’ in the system were being minimised.  There were benefits for the Authority in having such thresholds in that, although the Authority had to be flexible, and strike the right balance in the light of the needs of the children and adopters, they also provided the Authority with the incentive to try and work through the adoption process as quickly as possible.  Whilst the Service had to deal with a number of children with very complex and difficult needs, this was not used as an excuse as it was appreciated that other local authorities, some of which performed much better than Sheffield, were forced to deal with children with similar needs. 

·                There were no barriers in terms of the ethnicity, race or sexual orientation of any prospective adopters. 

·                Information with regard to the distribution/spread of children in terms of the number of days they had been in the adoption system could be provided in respect of two cohorts – children who had been adopted this year and children currently in the system.

6.4

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the information reported as part of the presentation and the responses to the questions raised; and

(b)       thanks Suzanne Whiteley for attending the meeting, making the presentation and responding to the questions raised.