Agenda item

Report and appendices attached.

The Sub-Committee received the annual report for Adopt London East. The report provided a summary of the development and functions of the agency including performance information for 2019/20. Appended to the report was the Havering specific performance information.

The report outlined that all adoption agencies are required to provide an annual report to their governing bodies and to elected Members in all partnership Local Authorities.

The Sub-Committee was informed that the service went live in October 2019 and the report therefore focussed on performance in quarter 3 and 4 of 2019/20 and on adoption performance in Havering throughout 2019/20 based on the Adoption and Special Guardian Leadership Board (ASGLB) data returns. 

The report informed the Sub-Committee that statistical returns measured long-term trends but Adopt London East in-house statistical records provided clear evidence of early improvements in performance and activity since go-live.

It was stated that the transition from four Local Authority teams to one integrated service had its complexity and challenges had been encountered in respect of pre-transition performance, service staffing, casefile information transition and demand for adoption support services. It was noted that there had been substantial progress made in all areas.

The Sub-Committee was informed that only one team manager had joined Adopt London East and the service had been able to recruit three further team managers from within the service. The service currently had 15 permanent staff in place and 3 interim social workers.

The quarterly Adoption and Special Guardianship Leadership Board report for all Local Authorities have been analysed to provide a service baseline. It indicated that performance hade declined in all Local Authorities in the 6 months prior to the Adopt London East go-live. The decline in performance was linked to a number of factors including adoption service staff leaving, higher levels of sickness absence, caseload transitions and a delay in operational go-live.

The sub-committee noted that adoption performance was measured over one and three year cycles and improvements therefore took time to be fully captured in the data returns. Early indicators were however monitored closely within the service.

It was stated that performance in respect of child matches had improved considerably. Adopter approvals were predicted to decline further in Q3 and Q4 due to the decline in numbers of adopters in early stages of approval. Early stage applications had though increased from month to month and improvements were predicted for 2020/21.

The Sub-Committee noted that demand for adoption support services had increased considerably as had the number of children requiring a placement. In the last reporting year, a total of 57 children were placed. It was likely that less children would be placed this year due to the slowdown in quarters one and two but a total of 167 children were currently receiving a family finding service.

The demand for adoption support had shown an increase along with improved support for families which would improve outcomes for adopted children and families.

The report outlined that any savings made from an increase in the number of adopters available to accept a placement would be re-invested into service improvement to ensure the service was able to meet identified increased demands.

In response to the time delays experienced in the adoption process, the Head of Regional Area Adoption explained that it was a service and also a national challenge. There were two sets of delays, one that was national in terms of court work being over pressured before dding Covid as a further pressure. The other challenge being that care proceedings had not been as effective because they were clearly past the process of ensuring that the children were safeguarded and their future made secure.

The Sub-Committee was informed the delay in adoption of children from BME backgrounds and in particular black backgrounds was a national issue. This was attributed to systemic and socioeconomic factors that meant black families were less likely to have the income and the wealth to be able to afford houses with spare bedrooms and often some families did not feel that they would be considered for adoption, which was also a perceptional issue. It was mentioned that Havering performed considerably better than the national average in this regard

In response to a Member of the sub-committee, the Head of Regional Area Adoption informed the Sub-Committee that the service had been inundated with requests for post-adoption support it. It was stated that it was a pattern that adoption agencies have seen with the growth of regional adoption agencies and expectations of adopters have increased.

The Sub-Committee noted the content of the report.