Agenda item

6.1

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, People Services, attaching the Adoption Service – Annual Report 2018/19.  The report contained information on the activity and performance of the Adoption Service in 2018/19.

6.2

In attendance for this item were Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families), Carly Speechley (Director of Children and Families) and Paul Dempsey (Assistant Director – Provider Services).

6.3

Paul Dempsey referred to the report, which contained information on  activity, regarding both children and adopters, throughout 2018/19,  timeliness, support, the Adoption Panel, the Regional Adoption Agency, various developments throughout the year and development and improvement actions for 2019/20.

6.4

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

·             Whilst it was important to keep the average time in days between a child entering care and being placed for adoption as low as possible, the primary aim was to ensure that there was a correct plan for the child.  The time taken to develop an Adoption Plan varied, with the time being longer for those children with more complex needs.  The Local Authority would always try and do whatever it could for the benefit of the child, and in some instances, this took longer. 

·             Whilst it was accepted that, with the fact that the adoption process for babies or very young children was often much quicker, this could highlight the fact that some cases regarding older children were taking much longer, very few cases would take years to complete, with such children being moved on to  different Permanency Plans.  Whilst a detailed breakdown of the timings could not be produced at the meeting, this information could be provided to Members.

·             The figures provided related only to those children who had been placed for adoption, and not those given alternative Permanency Plans, in line with Government requirements.  The Service continued to strive to improve the timings in respect of all children and, as part of this work, officers would meet on a monthly basis to monitor and review cases.

·             The Service would never change a child’s plan for the sole purpose of improving average timescales.

·             As part of the recruitment process, the Service made every attempt to recruit adopters with similar backgrounds, cultures or ethnicity to the child.  Whilst the primary objective was to find a suitable home for a child, every effort was made, where possible, to place children with adopters with a similar background, culture or ethnicity.

·             A breakdown of the age, gender and ethnicity of the children, and the ethnicity of adopters, together with the timescales in respect of the adoption process, would be included in the next Annual Report.

·             Approximately 60% of the City’s looked after children were white British, with the remaining 40% being of mixed heritage, Asian and Black/African.  The Service struggled to recruit diverse adopter families, with, again, 60% being white British and the remaining 40% comprising mixed heritage, Black/African and Asian. 

·             The reference in the report to the need for the Service to proactively and thoroughly explore all paternal family members as potential carers for children was simply alluding to the fact that, whilst the Service would explore both maternal and paternal family members, it was generally harder to find paternal family members as potential carers.

·             Whilst it was accepted that there had been delays in the appointment to the post of Recruitment Team Manager, following the departure of the previous manager in December 2018, there had been no connection between these delays and the high sickness levels and performance issues within the Business Support Team, which had impacted upon business continuity.  Every effort was made to ensure that staff in the Business Support Team continued to work as efficiently as possible and, as part of this work, managers continually monitored levels of sickness within the Team, in accordance with Council policy, whilst being supportive of staff needs.  A number of staff members who had been on long-term sickness leave had returned to work on a phased return basis, and had support plans in place. 

·             The Service arranged a number of meetings to enable adopters and children to voice any concerns they had, and had recently set up a group specifically for teenage children.  There was now a statutory requirement for all children going in to adoption placements to have life storybooks, which provided information about the birth family, foster placements and why the children had to be adopted.  The storybooks helped the child understand adoption, and stored memories of their past. 

·             Meetings, chaired by an independent professional person, were held when adoptions broke down, in order to look into the reasons for the breakdown, as well as hopefully learning lessons in terms of how the breakdown occurred.  National research indicated that most adoption breakdowns occurred when the child was in their teenage years.  It was believed that this was due to them reaching an age where they started to ask questions about their identity and, in some cases, the child would become violent, resulting in a breakdown of the arrangement.  The Service held regular monitoring meetings in order to assess the relationships between adopters and children, with the regularity of such meetings recently being increased to four times a year. 

·             The cost of placing a child for adoption outside the City was the same as allocating a child with an adopter within the City.  There were currently six children who had been placed with voluntary adoption agencies, and five of the Local Authority adopter families had adopted children from other local authorities.  The primary aim was to ensure that a suitable placement was made, and that the child was comfortable and happy.

·             One potential advantage of regional adoption agencies was that, by pooling its resources, local authorities in a particular region would be able to recruit more adopters. 

·             As part of the quality assurance measures during the matching process, where children were looking to be placed with adopters outside the City, the local authority did not see the report of the adopter initially, but would do at the point of matching.

·             It had been determined that, as part of the plans for regionalisation, it was more important that it resulted in improved outcomes for children and adoptive families, rather than simply being a cost-saving measure for the Authority. 

·             The four Directors of Children’s Services in South Yorkshire, together with the Local Authorities’ respective Directors of Finance, were currently looking at the establishment of a Regional Adoption Agency.  However, at present, no proof of any financial or performance advantages had been identified, so work on this was continuing. 

·             In terms of the 16 children who had been placed with adopters approved by external agencies (10 with other local authorities’ adopters and six with voluntary adoption agencies), whilst such external agencies had their own assessment procedures with regard to the recruitment of adopters, Sheffield’s Adoption Panel would always make the final decision in terms of the placement.  A higher number of siblings or children with special needs and/or disabilities were placed with adopters approved by external agencies.

·             The Authority could do more in terms of working with charitable organisations in terms of a joint approach, and work was being undertaken to explore this, both locally and nationally. The Authority was always trying to do practical things to reach out to different communities and work in terms of attracting adopters for children with additional needs or sibling groups. It was important to ensure that adopters felt supported.

·             In terms of regional adoption agencies, any Sheffield children placed with such an agency would still be the responsibility of the Local Authority, and City Council staff would be part of the agency.

·             The Authority always tried to work closely with external partners, in order to obtain the best outcome for the child and, as part of this work, the Authority had developed a very good relationship with the Courts. The Service also worked closely with colleagues in Education and Health to ensure that appropriate guidance and support were provided for both the child and the adopter.

·             Whilst reports of external agencies were scrutinised, the agencies were not performance-managed in the same way as reports produced by the Authority’s Adoption Service.  If such reports were deemed not to be sufficient, the agency in question would be asked to review it and send it back. 

6.5

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the Adoption Service – Annual Report 2018/19 now submitted, the information now reported and the responses to the questions raised;

(b)      thanks Councillor Jackie Drayton, Carly Speechley and Paul Dempsey for attending the meeting and responding to the questions raised;

(c)      welcomes the improvements made with regard to the Adoption Service during 2018/19; and

(d)      requests that:

(i)              a briefing note on the staffing issues being faced by the Business Support Team, namely the high levels of sickness and performance issues, be circulated to Members of the Committee;

(ii)             future Annual Reports include quality assurance figures for non-Sheffield City Council agency adoption matching reports; and

(iii)            the findings of the work of the four South Yorkshire Local Authority Directors of Children’s Services, and respective Directors of Finance, in connection with the draft business case on establishing a South Yorkshire Regional Adoption Agency be considered by the Committee, prior to any proposals being submitted to the Cabinet.