Agenda item

To provide information to the Council’s Corporate Parenting Committee in relation to adoption performance, progress and activity of Adopt London West, and good outcomes being achieved for children.

Debbie Gabriel (Adopt London West) introduced the 6 monthly adoption update. She highlighted that the partnership in Brent felt very strong and mature, and the performance in Brent was strong. The two major indicators of performance were; the average length of time it took from the court granting a care order to the match with a family being identified; and the amount of time it took to move a child in with the family. The target length of time for matching following a care order was 121 days. The national average for matching was 125 days and the London average was 274, compared to Brent’s average of 171 days. The target length of time for moving a child in with a family once matched was 426 days. The national average was 450 days and the London average was 476 days, compared to Brent’s average of 328 days. Brent currently had 7 children placed, but it was highlighted that the courts continued to struggle with delays.

Work within the service currently was focused on promoting and developing permanence with adoption and social work colleagues. In addition, Adopt London West (ALW) were working to promote and enhance the take up of advice, support and advocacy from ‘Kinship’ for kinship carers, regardless of their legal order. ALW had the benefit of an in-house Clinical Psychologist to support foster carers, adopters and children through transitions and developmental trauma. There was also work being done for National Adoption Week which was occurring the week of the meeting, with the theme ‘identity’. The campaign assets for that had been shared with Brent’s Corporate Communications Team for social media activity.

The Chair thanked Debbie for the introduction and invited those present to make contributions, with the following points raised:

The Committee highlighted the small number of approvals for families from a Black or Mixed ethnicity community in the reporting period, and asked if there was any way to increase the number of approvals. Members highlighted the Black Community Action Plan (BCAP), which had BCAP Champions who ALW could link with to increase the number of approved Black and Mixed ethnicity adopter families. Debbie Gabriel agreed that it would be helpful to connect with someone working on the BCAP. She highlighted that the small number of approvals was likely due to the fact it had been a very quiet quarter for approvals. In relation to the 37 approved adopters, 47% were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background. Of the adopters waiting for approval, officers would return with the ethnic breakdown at a future meeting.

The Committee asked for the next report to detail the success rate for Special Guardianship Orders.

In relation to the Adoption Support Fund, members asked whether that could be accessed quickly. Debbie Gabriel advised the Committee that officers were under pressure in terms of processing those applications but there was no waiting list as officers prioritised processing applications. Colleagues in other London regions did have a backlog.

The Committee asked about the funding opportunities detailed in the report. they were advised that the bids were going in as part of the wider Adopt London Partnership as that attracted more money and the resource could then be shared amongst participating boroughs. The funding would be allocated to an early permanence project and a project officer as well as training for councillors and wider staff networks. The bid for a Matching Co-ordinator had been agreed. ALW had submitted an expression of interest for multi-disciplinary teams to grow the psychology offer but had been turned down, so were now exploring other opportunities to fund that.

The Committee asked how the matching process worked. Debbie Gabriel advised members that the child was allocated a Family Finding Social Worker in addition to their Child Social Worker, who worked closely together to look at approved adopters in the Adopt London region to find a match. There was a secure national database where adopters could enter their profiles and look for children to match with that way. It was important that adopters felt a connection with a child and if there was any reason a match did not feel right then it could not proceed, so there was a process of ensuring there was good intelligence about all adopters and children waiting before making a match. The benefit of being able to use a pool of adopters from Adopt London South meant there were more options for matching and matching quicker.

Members recalled that Brent had previously had an in-house adoption panel and asked whether the move to a regional adoption agency had resulted in a loss of the personal intelligence and community feel that the in-house adoption service had. Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) agreed that she had been anxious about the move to a regional adoption model, but some of Brent’s adoption workers had TUPE’d over to ALW meaning that intelligence had not been lost. She recalled that she had recently been involved in an introductory visit between a family and baby which had been very well co-ordinated and the family finder had done a very good job. She added that the progress in early permanence over the last 6 months and the growth in knowledge around options for children was being demonstrated.

The Committee asked about adoption breakdowns, for example if a transition was made too quickly and resulted in a breakdown further into the relationship. Debbie Gabriel acknowledged the concern and advised that ALW had now moved to a transitional model that slowed down the introduction between a family and child. If the introduction was done right, and that relationship was supported, the chances of the relationship continuing and enduring through childhood to adulthood were higher. Slowing down that transition process could affect performance indicators but was ultimately the right thing to do for the family, and as a result the number of relationship breakdowns was very small.

RESOLVED:

i)              To note the contents of the report.