Agenda item

The committee will receive a presentation on the latest inspection of the adoption service. The presentation will also include an explanation of the new adoption scorecard.

Hillary Brooks (Head of Placements) delivered a presentation to the committee regarding the Brent Adoption Service and the outcome of a recent assessment conducted by the DfE. There had been considerable improvement in the adoption service since the identification in 2009 of several performance issues. Several measures had been implemented including the development of a performance culture which encompassed the introduction of tracking systems. In February 2012, the service had received a satisfactory Ofsted rating, which meant that the service was deemed to be sound.  The government had since introduced a new ‘score card’ measure of adoption services in April 2012. This focussed on a child’s entire journey through the care system and measured the time from when a child entered care to the time that child moved in with his/her adoptive family. The score card measured data on a rolling three year average and it had therefore been difficult to evidence the service improvement that had been made. Furthermore, the score card did not recognise other forms of permanence for a child such as that achieved under Special Guardianship Orders (SGOs), whereby a child was placed with a member of his/her extended family. As a result Brent Council was in the bottom quartile in the country and the improvements made, including the significant reduction in the average number of days that a child was in care before being adopted, would not begin to be evident on the score card until 2013/14. The government commissioned an assessment of the service in response to Brent’s poor performance and the outcome of this assessment had been very positive. Feedback had included that the service was very child focussed and was committed to embedding a culture of high performance across teams.

In the subsequent discussion, several queries were raised by the committee.. Councillor Mashari sought clarification regarding the 21 adoption assessments that were reported as being underway. Councillor Mashari further queried how many children were currently awaiting permanency. Councillor Oladapo sought an explanation of the early permanency planning that was now being conducted. Councillor Cheese queried whether the council remained responsible for children that it placed outside of the borough or whether the local authority where the child lived assumed responsibility. Councillor Mashari further queried whether there were increased risks involved in placing children under SGOs and if so, what actions the council took to mitigate these risks. Councillor Cheese also expressed concern regarding the lack of greater levels of monitoring of SGO placements. Councillor Pavey sought further details in relation to Brent’s policy on transracial placements and sought information on the number of prospective adopters deemed unsuitable matches as a result of issues of ethnicity. Councillor Oladapo queried whether transracial adoptions in Brent tended to be successful. Councillor Pavey noted the disparity between receiving a ‘satisfactory’ Ofsted rating in February 2012 and the extremely positive outcome of the DfE assessment

In response to the committee’s queries Hillary Brooks advised that there were currently 21 assessments of prospective adopters underway. As these assessments were progressed, possible matches were considered with children awaiting placement. It was not always possible to place children with Brent approved adopters and sometimes due to a child’s level of need, children could be placed with externally approved adopters. At present, there were 5 children for whom family-finding was being conducted. It was not always possible to place children for adoption and the council had to consider whether adoption was the right choice for a child. Other forms of permanency such as long term fostering or SGOs might also be considered. The council now created parallel plans at the earliest possible stage to ensure that adoption or other suitable options could be pursued without delay should it be found that a child could not be returned to the care of his/her birthparents. If a child was placed for adoption outside of the borough, the council remained responsible for delivery of the agreed adoption support plan which could apply for up to 3 years; however, where this included access to support services, the council would liaise with other local authorities.

With regard to transracial placements, Hillary Brooks advised that Brent’s policy stated the best match for a child should be made in relation to all of his or her needs, including those regarding ethnicity.  Transracial placements had always been made in Brent and were very traditionally very successful. It was explored with all prospective adopters as part of the assessment process whether they felt able to support the needs of children of different ethnicities. In response to Councillor Pavey’s request for the numbers of matches declined due to ethnicity, Hillary Brooks advised that rather than asking whether prospective adopters were not able to meet the various needs of a child, matches were pursued on the basis of which prospective adopters best met a child’s needs.

Graham Genoni advised that SGO placements involved greater relative risk than adoption placements because a child was often placed with the extended birth family and particularly, issues around contact with birthparents might arise. However, an SGO placement would not be made if there were any safeguarding concerns. Hillary Brooks explained that once a child was placed under an SGO he or she was no longer a Looked After Child and the placement would therefore not be subject to the same level of scrutiny. The support plan for an SGO placement would be reviewed annually and the child’s carers could access support and guidance direct from social workers if they needed to. Fiona Alderman (Principal Lawyer – Social Services and Education) advised that a supervision order could be put in place alongside an SGO; however this would only be used in very extreme circumstances. Hillary Brooks added that there had been approximately 5 breakdowns of SGO placements in Brent since SGOs were introduced, although only one of these had related to safeguarding concerns.

Turning to Councillor Pavey’s query regarding the different outcomes of the Ofsted inspection and the DfE assessment, Hillary Brooks explained that there had only been three recommendations made by Ofsted following the February inspection. Since that time the council had developed and implemented an action plan to address the issues raised. However, due to the three-year focus of the inspection it would have been impossible to achieve greater than ‘satisfactory’ at this time. The DfE assessment had concentrated to a greater extent on the processes followed and it was easier therefore, for the council to evidence the improvements made.

RESOLVED

That the presentation be noted.