Agenda item

6.1

The Committee received a report of the Director of Children and Families containing an update on key performance improvement and an explanation of how performance was measured across the Adoption journey, which had been requested by the Committee at its meeting held on 17^th July 2017, following a report on the annual position of the Sheffield Adoption Services.

6.2

In attendance for this item was Joel Hanna, Assistant Director, Provider Services.

6.3

Prior to the consideration of the report, the Committee received a question from a member of the public, Jane Edwards, who asked how the Council measured performance after an Adoption Order had been made in respect of post adoption support.

6.3.1

In response, Joel Hanna stated that post adoption support services were primarily demand-led services, and that there were no specific performance targets after an Adoption Order had been made.  He reported that the performance indicators held by the Council referred to when a child had been taken into care, to the point when they were placed for adoption, though the Local Authority also measured the number of adoptions that failed, and where a child may return to local authority care. He stated that he would give consideration to measuring performance after an Adoption Order had been made, and undertake some work in terms of better promoting the support services available to adopters, post adoption.

6.4

The Committee considered the report now submitted, which was supported by a presentation by Joel Hanna.  Mr Hanna referred to the main indicators relating to adoption performance, which included the A1 indicator – average time between a child entering care and moving in with its adoptive family, for children who have been adopted, and 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, and reported on the national targets for both indicators, which were based on an average taken over three years, together with Sheffield’s average for 2013 to 2016.  He reported on the key points of the adoption process that were measured by the Local Authority, and referred to the adoption performance figures, in terms of average number of days, against the national scorecard indicators A1 and A2, with primary focus on A1, for the years 2015/16, 2016/17 and projected figures for 2017/18, and which set out the three-year average as at the end of 2017/18.  Mr Hanna then briefly referred to the 11 stages of the adoption process and the in-year adoption performance statistics, by each of the stages, in 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 (as of 24^th October 2017).  He concluded by referring to future planned work required in order to improve performance, and to how the Local Authority compared with its South Yorkshire neighbours in terms of performance.

6.5

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

·             The Local Authority had no targets in respect of the number of children placed for adoption.  The process for adoption was dealt with on a case by case basis, and the numbers in terms of adopted children were dependent mainly on the assessments and performance of social workers or other health professionals.

·             A significant amount of work was undertaken, through the assessment process, in looking at where all family members were able to care for the child and, in those cases where children had been adopted by other families, in terms of being party to any decisions or proceedings in respect of the future care of the child.

·             The Families, Adopters and Carers Team (FACT) provided support for adoptive families following the Adoption Order being made, with such support being provided for several years in some cases, if required.

·             Whilst the Local Authority did not hold comparable data in connection with successful and disrupted adoptions, the aim was to limit the number of disrupted adoption cases, and work was planned in terms of tracking such numbers.

·             There were no specific statistics regarding those children deemed difficult in terms of finding suitable adopters, such as older and disabled children.  The process in terms of identifying and supporting prospective adopters in terms of such children could be a considerable and lengthy process.  There was a broad range of training provided for prospective adopters, which would be specifically tailored for those people wanting to adopt older or disabled children.

·             Sheffield performed better than many other local authorities in terms of hard to place children, but not in terms of timeliness.  Whilst older children and those children with disabilities were the hardest to place, children from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds were not deemed as hard to place.  The Council made good use of interagency adopters, and also spent considerably more than other local authorities on placing children out of the City.

·             In terms of offering continuing support to families, following adoption, an Advisory User Group, comprising parents, would offer such support, in the form of ‘buddying’.  The Council also planned to use the Group as a reference point.  There were issues with regard to privacy in terms of contacting families and for this reason, the Council would not always proactively contact adopters. 

·             When parents applied to be foster parents they would be advised on the potential to become adopters.  Generally, people wishing to apply to become foster carers, only wished to be foster carers, likewise with adopters.

6.6

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;

(b)      thanks Joel Hanna for attending the meeting, and responding to the questions raised; and

(c)      requests:-

(i)          that the Children and Families Service continues to work towards the successful placement of the child, as opposed to meeting performance targets;

(ii)         the Director of Children and Families to look into finding some form of mechanism for reporting post-adoption success rates, including performance indicators, in the annual Adoption Service Report 2018/19; and

(iii)        that the Director, in developing such indicators, consults with all elected Members as they may be able to contribute suggestions from personal experiences.