As ever the topic of interracial adoption is a complex one, one that makes the headlines in the New York Times on the same day – link here.

I think the title of the NY Time summarises the whole thing correctly. Yes race (and indeed religion) do matter. They are part of a child’s identity, and it will stay way into adulthood. In an ideal world therefore we would want to match a child with the same ethnicity and why not religion parents. But guess what? We don’t live in that ideal world. We live in one where that choice isn’t always possible and the alternative to that ‘perfect match’ is a life in care shunted around the foster care system with multiple placements (in the majority of cases with temporary carers of a different ethnicity and religion anyway).

After that? The prospects are bleak. Crime, prostitution and homelessness are too often the only future for young adults leaving care as pointed out in our report from last year. 

To say that I found Nick Ferrari obnoxious in the interview would be an underestimation of my actual feelings towards him. Apparently he is amazed that I trust social services to be the ones to be making the right decision in the interest of the child. Who else would be? The birth family who had a total of three children removed from their custody and given for adoption?

In his biased view it should have been taken into account that four sets relatives of the biological mother came forward to adopt, and on top of that they were Muslim. How perfect blood related and same religion.

Should that have been a decisive factor? Being of a specific religion or even ‘blood related’ does not make anyone suitable to adopt.

Worse so Nick and a lot of the press around this specific case were clearly making a point that ‘on top of that’ the white women were lesbians too. So let’s throw everything in the pot why not?

This is going to get really boringly cliché now. What children need is the permanent love of doting parents. When that is provided by biological same ethnicity and religion parents that is great. When that is not possible then the next best available match has to be found to ensure the best interest of the child in paramount. In that case, dare I say like mine with two Mexican children, cultural needs of children can be met by different-race parents who are committed to the best interests of their child.

So that children are not made to pay for having been born in a family which for whatever reason couldn’t provide for them (in this case mental illness) and then for being of the wrong skin colour and or religion.

Being left behind languishing in a care system waiting endlessly not just for ‘a’ muslim family but ‘the right’ muslim family will never be the right alternative to a permanent loving family. Now.

• The government appointed an adoption adviser – former Barnados CEO Martin Narey. 

• The government has published league tables of the number of children adopted in each council area and the time each adoption too. 

• There have also been interventions to the guidelines surrounding the adoption of black/mixed race children by white parents. In principle at least the government feels there should be no barriers to cross-ethnic adoption. 

• There are further measures in the pipeline including a leaner, less bureaucratic process to vet prospective parents. There is talk of the walls between fostering and adoption being broken down. 

• Adoption was in the last Queen’s speech and is firmly on the agenda. 

The problem is that these are really just gestures in a situation that requires dramatic action. The government has shied away from putting in place measures to reveal the real truth. This is why we want to see a government-led, enforcement authority to oversee the behaviours of Local Councils and make things more transparent. We know anecdotally that parents who’ve been approved to adopt a child currently in care cannot do so as their council does not have the resources to finalise the paperwork. Desperate parents are just as confused when their adoption case worker says that the new guidelines do not apply to their council. There are endless examples and while we’re not saying they could all be solved by a central authority, we know that such a body would make councils up their game.  We do however feel that the government is still fudging the issue of hard figures: there is no way of quantifying how many people have been denied the chance to adopt at all stages of the process. We don’t know the reasons for applications being refused. We note that despite announcements proclaiming change, the government has not yet even added a question in the Home Study asking if the prospective parents wish to adopt a child from a different race. This information is essential to understanding where the process is going wrong. The government’s way out is to name and shame councils and cut their budgets. Frankly it’s gutless and pathetic. It should be noted that before the rise in adoption rates, adoption was at its lowest level in ten years. As we say, it’s a long, long game. It’s an even longer one for the children who are waiting. Think about it:

• Most of the children awaiting adoption will never be placed into a family.
• From the age of eight onwards, 99% of children up for adoption will not be placed.

Let’s examine what the government has done: it has introduced ‘Special Guardianship’, giving parental responsibility to a guardian, who tends to be a family member or friend. This is supposed to allow certain steps such as the costly Home Study approval, to be skipped, immediately after the links from the birth parents have ceased to exist legally. It’s a good concept, however in practice it means that while the number of children in foster care has decreased that the number of adoptions has not correspondingly risen. Furthermore,

• Special Guardianship breakdowns are not recorded.
• Successful voluntary adoption agencies have been asked to take on some of the work of poorly performing councils temporarily, thus massaging the figures. 

The number of babies available for adoption appears to have decreased.  The government will say this is because less of them enter the system; however the fact that should not be overlooked is that the time to adopt has not decreased so any babies entering the care system are likely to be toddlers before they are adopted. If they are adopted. Finally we have the ‘defenestration’ of Tim Loughton, who had acted as Children Minister for two years and Shadow Children Minister for seven. Tim and I have had our arguments about how far he could go in the review of the system, however he’s shown more commitment than anyone in what is a very tough position. He championed social work and initiatied controversial reforms to speed up adoptions. And he genuinely tried to do so by involving all stakeholders from campaigning groups-  like ours-  to the children themselves to adoptive parents, prospective parents and social services. Why not let him carry on his work and build on his knowledge and passion? He was making some small, but very significant breakthroughs.

Now Edward Timpson will have to pick up and run with it. I hope he does try and run but I am fearful of the energy being lost, the time lost, and the young lives that are caught in between. Farewell Tim and thank you for caring. The issue is just as urgent, poignant and tragic. We need to run faster.

Adoption with Humanity welcomes the new action plan. However, we continue to believe that sadly this will not make the changes necessary to improve the adoption system and assert the best interests of children. The reason remains the same – there still isn’t the appropriate regulatory authority to ensure that the government will be able to achieve the Minister’s stated goal “to accelerate the whole adoption process so that more children benefit from adoption and more rapidly”.

Far too much slack is given to local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to achieve standards that they had already been expected (and failed) to meet for seven years. There is a role to help manage local family courts for the Family Justice Board at national level and the Local Family Justice Operational Boards – but the “elephant in the room” is that the courts and the adoption agencies are working to completely different and opposed laws and no effort has been made to align them. In addition, there is no integrated structure to ensure that sanctions can be taken to minimise and moderate the effects of failure.

Evidence is continuing to come to light about the failures of the current system – most recently the scandal of the unreliability of professional expert witnesses in family courts, and the excessive reliance that judges place on their reports, which has been described as “staggeringly wrong”.
Please read the article below, “How competent are expert witnesses?”

We maintain that the need for an adoption regulator, with regulatory investigatory and enforcement powers to meet statutory objectives set by the government, is only increasing.

The rationale for an integrated national adoption regulator in England and Wales is based on four primary considerations:
▪   The advantage of having a single regulator which is clearly accountable for its performance against statutory objectives, including:
-          the development of regulations
-          the investigation of the application of regulations
-          the enforcement of regulations
-          sanctions to be applied for the failure to abide by regulation.
▪   To ensure that regulation is consistent with the results of research and best practice world wide.
▪   To take advantage of economies of scale and scope and to add value by being able to allocate scarce regulatory resources efficiently and effectively.
▪   To take advantage of the benefits of being able to resolve the various interest groups and differing philosophies in one integrated authority.

These considerations explain why Adoption with Humanity continues to call for the Government to reassess the situation and set up a National Adoption Authority to act as an integrated national adoption regulator. The Government’s Action Plan for Adoption is doomed to failure and too much time will be wasted on allowing this to happen – and in the meanwhile it is the children who will pay the price.

The government has today announced some changes to the prospective adopter assessment process. Adoption With Humanity applauds this as a long overdue procedure they have been requesting for quite some time, and we are sure that this will have a positive impact on the problems in the adoption system.

However, the group feels the need to raise a note of caution. Simply reforming the forms and some of the structure of the home study is not enough. With the new forms will come a significant need for training current workers and those still in education. Moreover, there will need to be put in place some authoritative person or organisation to ensure the quality of that work and the subsequent usage of the forms, so that individual preferences and views are not allowed to override the government’s policy.

“You can’t just rejig the paperwork or the Home Study and say you’ve made changes,” said Francesca Polini. “I am pleased that the government is trying to do something about the dire state of the adoption process but really it’s just not enough.”

She reiterates her call for a National Adoption Authority to oversee the work currently done by social workers and local councils.

“There is no point saying things have to change but not putting the necessary mechanism in place. If we had a National Adoption Authority then those responsible for carrying out the work would be answerable to that authority and would be required to justify their working practices. Only then would the government’s changes actually mean anything and not be overridden by individual preferences.”

She points out that the government’s recent change in its stated policy regarding trans-racial adoption is not reflected in the current paperwork. Neither, she says, has the National Adoption Register. “Even if social workers wanted to, they would not be able to find prospective trans-racial adopters.” as the necessary data simply is not recorded.

Francesca believes that unless there is a statutory authority to reinforce the government’s wishes and to monitor the work done by those involved in adoption, then nothing will really change. This type of blocking of the government’s policies, deliberate or inadvertent, cannot be allowed to continue. Every effort must now be made to ensure that the new reforms are properly instituted and then monitored by some form of statutory regulation with the power to ensure that efficacy and quality is maintained … a National Adoption Authority perhaps?

Dear Prime Minister,

Ref: Adoption with Humanity’s call for a “National Adoption Authority”

As you are aware, the adoption system in this country is in crisis and in dire need of reform. We were very pleased to hear you speak out on the subject in your speech at the Conservative Party Conference this year, and welcome your support for a reform of the system.

We have recently met with Mr Tim Loughton MP and are grateful for his plans for reform, however we strongly believe that there is an imperative need for the government to go one step further and create a “regulator” – a body which would ensure the proposed reforms are met; one that would be able to deal with everything from the delays and conflicts in the courts, to the Department of Education, as well as the local authorities.

We believe that whilst the government’s proposals are a good start, without taking on the challenges of the lack of authority and unity of purpose of the various parts of the adoption system, the changes will be nothing more than a token effort resembling that of the previous government’s call for reform ten years ago.

This “Regulator” or National Adoption Authority (NAA) as we would suggest, would bring together the social work and justice systems, and create a rational control structure to ensure co-operation between these two parts of the state. This will guarantee that current and future policies are made to happen and their success measured. We believe that only by setting up a National Adoption Authority will the government be able to claim its authority over adoption practices.

The rationale behind calling for an “Authority” is simple. It is, we believe, the only way that the divergent interests and policies from different departments can be brought into harmony and one set of laws, regulations and guidelines be imposed. Rather than being invested in an individual it would bring together, via a controlling mixed representative body, all the best thinking in adoption law and practice.

The NAA will not be a new “quango”, instead it will replace the team within the DoE with a structure that would have authority over local authorities, voluntary adoption agencies and the courts to enforce government policies. To confirm this is successful a much stronger version of the “inspection” function of OFSTED will need to be created as part of the NAA.

We would like to clarify that it is a National Adoption Authority (and not Agency) that we are proposing. Setting up a National Adoption Agency would involve considerable time and expense, and be in danger of replicating the same attitudes and behaviours that are causing problems in the current system.

We have set up a petition on the government site, a copy of which is enclosed, and are calling for support in our campaign.

Please see the enclosed document “Our Proposed Solution to the Adoption Crisis” for a fuller explanation and more details can be found on our website www.adoptionwithhumanity.co.uk.

We thank you for your time in considering our suggestion and hope for your support.

Having the power to change laws so that more children can be placed in loving homes is surely the most wonderful achievement. It’s one I am hoping our government will act on very soon and I eagerly await an announcement from David Cameron during National Adoption Week which starts on 31 October.

One of the greatest media advocates for adoption reform has been The Times, and particularly its Social Affairs correspondent Rosemary Bennett. The paper’s headline yesterday could have been spoken by me, “‘Set up a national agency’ to run adoption services”. These are words I have actively been promiting for our Adoption with Humanity campaign as we believe a National Adoption Agency is desperately needed to provide an efficient adoption service in the UK.

However, this time, the words were said by Dr Chris Hanvey, head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, who is appalled by the “disgraceful” small number of children adopted each year in the UK.

He accuses adoption services of succumbing to prejudice, and ignoring the fact that the younger a child is adopted, the more successful it is likely to be.

Writing in The Times Thunderer column, he says: ” It is time to set up a national adoption agency, answerable annually to Parliament for its performance and committed, through a regional network to develop standardised measures aimed at boosting the number of number of children adopted each year.

“A national service would have a number of advantages. It would allow a greater flow of information on adopters, and children waiting to be matched, preventing local authorities for hanging on to ‘their’ adopters. If organised on a  regional basis it could abolish local authority adoption panels, which are subject to the vagaries of individual members.”

Thank you for speaking out Dr Hanvey. I hope those who can bring about adoption reforms will take note of your wise words which we believe in too.

“David Cameron needs to lead on this issue and our focus should be to put children first. That means doing away with a system that keeps children in neglect until it is often too late and focuses plainly and squarely on their needs. That won’t happen until we see adoption as a first resort.”

Happily, I read in today’s Times that he plans to “tear up Britain’s adoption rules and end the scandal of thousands of children lost in the care system”.

We will have to wait and see how far he plans to go, but I very much hope the government will listen and consider our Adoption with Humanity proposal when preparing their policy on adoption reforms. Children’s lives and their happiness depend on it.

Please do look out for me on ITV London this evening at 6pm where I will be talking about this.

And please do sign our petition if you share our views too about making desperately needed changes to the present adoption system. You can sign it here.

Here is a link to my full interview with the Standard.

Here are some that particularly moved me. It saddens me to read about their personal ordeals, it proves there is a lot of love out there for children who need it most:

We started our adoption procedure in June 2009 and in October of that same year we had a visit from a social worker to write down all our information, including the fact that we have 5 cats. We were told that there was a waiting list and they couldn’t tell us how long we had to wait for. Finally, in November 2010 we had a social worker appointed to us. The Friday before she was due to visit us (the Monday the following week) she called to cancel as we were living too far away from where she lived. As if she didn’t know when she accepted! The second one cancelled because she’s allergic to cats. The third one finally arrived and told us that we had to sign a pet re-homing form and if we didn’t sign, we wouldn’t get a child. So, thanks to the council we have wasted 2.5 years of our lives we will never get back. We feel that we are now too old to start all over again and both me and my husband will never have the pleasure of having a family of our own.

Signed by “not a mum thanks to the adoption dept,” Aberdeen.

We adopted overseas because we were considered too old for a child in the UK. The only hold ups were in the UK and these were dire. The DFES should be ashamed of the service they provide. Social Services were what we expected. Having every part of our lives examined was not an issue and in many ways understandable but the hoops we had to jump through were amazing and beyond belief. The width between the spindles on the stairs was an issue in case a child could put its head through – they were standard so why an issue. Fortunately this is all past and we have a lovely child. We would happily have adopted a mixed race child here but were told that we were too middle class. It is so wrong that children are denied a loving home.

Signed by Adoptive Mum, UK.

We were turned down in the UK for being too old to adopt a baby but we could have a teenager with beahvioural problems. Whilst I take my hat off to people who do adopt older children with difficulties, I believe it’s very different to wanting to give a young child a home and make them an integral part of your family. We went ahead and adopted abroad and are blessed with a beautiful daughter, who has now been with us for nearly 10 years. She doesn’t seem to have any issues with our mixed race family, her friends think its rather cool and she is a very special member of our family, bright, happy and much loved.

Signed by Contented, Dubai.

I used to be a social worker in the late 70′s in a large UK city. I dealt with a large number of children at risk who ended up in care. Only one of those children, a young baby with a mentally ill mother, was adopted. Had he not been adopted he would have been the third generation of that family to end up in care. His mother was mentally ill and unable to care for him. Even then, I was subject to a lot of negativity from my colleagues who seemed, for political reasons (or inability to make a decision) to keep children in dreadful situations. Ultimately, I left the profession. Clearly, it is time for change. According to Tim Loughton (Minister for Children), an overhaul has begun. Social workers are in hard place but they need to forget political correctness and act in the best interests of children, take responsibility for better outcomes in children’s lives. They can go home to their own families. Those poor children in care have no families- their lives are blighted.

Signed by Lesley, Oxon.

I am adopted and can’t believe the British government isn’t helping more people adopt, race or class don’t matter, what matters is if they are going to be good parents and love the child! So many kids get stuck in foster care and cannot be placed due to red tape!

Signed by Rob, Ladbroke, UK.

My wife and I tried to adopt a number of years ago. After a year of bureaucracy and feet dragging by social services we eventually gave up. We didn’t expect it to be a 5 minute exercise, but we didn’t expect to be still very near the beginning after 12 months. People didn’t return calls, meetings were cancelled, we were transferred from one area to another due to “Staff Shortages.” After a year, out of the 6 other couples we met going through the same process, only one had adopted. Every time, and I mean “every time,” someone was supposed to call or make an appointment with us we ended up chasing them only to be given a list of fob-off answers – too busy, sickness, we were about to call, etc, etc. It’s no surprise that the adoption circus produces so few and such poor results. The ultimate suffers are the children. The social workers act like they are the most important part of the process, as if are curing cancer or developing time travel.

Signed by John, Rochester.

We were approved to become adopters and have more or less the same problem highlighted by the article: my husband is white British but I am Mexican (although I am blond and white, but never mind). We had a wonderful social worker from CORAM since our council turned us down and we went private. However, the children are still the local authority’s responsibility and whenever we enquired about children, we got no response or just a note saying they were looking for a better match. We also had a ‘we don’t have any South American children’ from a social worker. Sadly, we saw the same children on the adoption magazines for months without a more ‘suitable’ match, but as pointed out we are the wrong people to want to adopt as we both work, have a house, are non-smokers, non-drinkers and have a large support network behind us. How can anyone think it is better for a child to be moved about, with carers who aren’t any closer to their ethnicity, than within a loving and stable environment? ARGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Signed by Bugsy, Lost in time.

I can sympathy with anyone in the UK trying to adopt. On making my first phone call to Haringey Council they told me they had subcontracted their adoption process to a company called Norwood. On calling Norwood they told me because I was fertile and able to have children I would go to the bottom of the list, and would have to wait around five years. I then found out I was unable to conceive (as rightly mentioned in a previous post, a lot of women don’t know this until their mid to late 30’s). Then I was asked what religion I practiced. On telling them I was Catholic, and my husband C of E, they stated I would definitely go to the bottom of the list because they dealt with predominantly Jewish couples. I couldn’t believe my ears! Henceforth my husband and I got in touch with the Chinese agencies to adopt a Chinese baby girl, but anyone who is going down this route needs to understand the costs can run up and above of £30k. We have now moved away from London and have become foster parents.

Signed by R Hookway, Liverpool.

There are over 3000 babies waiting for adoption in the UK. Last year 60 were adopted. I am white British and my wife is Black African. We are not even trying to adopt in UK. Next year we are going to emigrate to her country in Africa, where we are adopting lovely girl twins. The authorities there are friendly, humane and helpful. We can’t wait to get out of the UK and feel sorry for anyone who has to stay in this God-forsaken country.

Signed by Piggy, Leeds.

We had to go to Mexico to escape UK’s twisted system: How one couple who wanted to adopt got round council bureaucracy

Twice, my husband and I have tried to adopt children through our local authority. Twice, the over-bureaucratic, ideologically-twisted local authority has stood in our way.

Eventually, we had to travel halfway around the world, to Mexico, where  thanks to a far more efficient, orderly, sane system we now have a beautiful three-year-old daughter, Gaia, and one-year-old son, Luca.

The adoption system in Britain is a mess. The average child will wait two years and seven months to be adopted and during that time they will be bounced around the system while their birth mother – often addicted to drugs or alcohol – continues to neglect them.At the same time, the desperate adoptive parents are forced to jump through every hoop the local authority asks them to.

One of the most pernicious ideas in current thinking is that children should be placed with parents who exactly match their racial make-up.
I am white and Italian – although I have lived in Britain for 16 years – and my husband is white and British.

Our local authority, Ealing in West London, rejected our application immediately without even seeing us in the flesh. Apparently they deemed we were too white and middle class. Although we are medically able to have children, we chose to adopt. I have an adopted younger brother and I have seen at first hand the wonderful benefits of adoption.

We were a perfectly ordinary, decent, suburban couple hoping to provide a child with a loving home. We were both in full-time employment: my husband Rick is an ex-banker who works for an energy company and I used to be global communications director for Greenpeace.

We didn’t even smoke – often a problem for prospective adoptive parents.But we were treated like criminals. We were presumed guilty until proven innocent. The local authorities will talk to your parents and your relatives, get bank references and work references. It’s extraordinary – why would we be prepared to go through all this if we didn’t want to be good parents? It was extremely frustrating and invasive.We already owned our own home but we had to renovate it in order to satisfy the local council even before the process of being approved for adoption had begun.

After they had rejected us, Ealing even admitted they had a cap on the number of white parents who could adopt black children and in a farcical twist, after denying us the chance to adopt a non-white child from the same postcode, they suggested we adopt abroad. Mexico was a bit of a roll of the dice, chosen partly because I could speak Spanish. The Mexican end of the process was wonderfully efficient. Our caseworker met us within a week, and talked us through the process.

The authorities were a  hundred times more caring  than in Britain. Here, we never once met our caseworker at the Department for Education. Whenever we sent them an email, we got an automated email response, saying we couldn’t contact them; they’d have to contact us.

The only problem in adopting Gaia came from the British end. It was a shambles every step of the way. We were approved by our local authority and the Department for Education before going to Mexico. But once we got to Mexico, the British Department for Education lost our papers, and we had to wait three and a half months for them to post the documents to us.

Finally, when we came back through Heathrow, our two-and-a-half-month-old daughter was detained for six hours by immigration authorities, and we were accused of being child traffickers. But Gaia settled in happily and we began to think about adopting again.

When we returned to Ealing to tell them that we wanted to adopt another child, we thought our chances were better as a mixed-race family. No chance. The local authority told us we could only adopt another Mexican baby, from Ealing. What were the chances of finding a baby with that exact background in that exact postcode!

So we returned to Mexico and adopted Luca. This time, the process took only three months (it took six months for Gaia, because of British inefficiency). To adopt a baby in Britain takes nearly three years.

In February, the Government tried to reverse this farcical state of affairs, laying down new guidelines covering ‘transracial’ adoptions, saying that race should not be an issue. But inter-racial adoptions haven’t increased as a result, because local councils and social workers blithely ignore the guidelines and refuse to make the interests of vulnerable little children a priority.

When we met, I also discussed with him my campaign, Adoption With Humanity, and these are my thoughts following our discussion about his 19 point plan, and our plans for a National Adoption Authority:

We welcome your report and believe it contains some very sound research and extremely positive ideas for reform. The findings are compelling, indeed you may agree that they are dramatic.

The core of your paper is, we believe, the development and implementation of a completely new ethos behind adoption: one in which the best interests of the child are genuinely given priority and where adoption is seen as a positive way of ensuring that a child is cared for in a family situation; and where those who put themselves forward for this role are accepted and welcomed as a constructive resource.

Many of the issues you have raised and which we acknowledge below, in addition to others which concern us greatly, seem to lead to one central conclusion: there is an authority vacuum.

Looking first at the issues:
A. Problem of delays
1.  The time it takes to bring children into the care system (when they are obviously being neglected)
2.    The length of time it takes a child to be adopted – due to system being too bureaucratic
3.    Social workers’ attitudes in seeking the perfect match (when “suitable” is sufficient)
4.    Appalling delays in courts and with Guardians

B.   Problem of social workers’ attitudes and lack of appropriate training
1.    Professional role – personal opinions vs policies local and national
2.    The key role of social work being seen as the preservation of the biological family
3.    Individual antipathy to adoption
4.    Desire (at almost all costs) to keep children with birth families
5.    Obstruction to “less than perfect” adoption
6.    Issue of misuse of Special Guardianship as quicker and cheaper option when in fact often its use is not compatible with the best interests of the child
7.    Putting off / turning away too many potential adopters

C.  The way the adoption system is set up
1.    Lack of rational control structure across all the elements of adoption
2.    Problem of Government not having control over local authorities hence problem of ensuring any change in policy/guidelines is adhered to (see recent changes in ethnic guidelines…)
3.    Budget structure within LAs plus anomalies like Courts being able to spend LA budgets on additional reports etc with no LA control
4.    Cross charge of real cost of home studies and no more has led to a disincentive to prepare more adopters than are strictly needed by an authority leading to a national shortage of prepared adopters (plus additional delays for a child if prepared adopters are not available when adoption becomes the plan for him/her.)
5.    No proper integration with the court system
6.    Local authorities working independently / lack of co-ordination – may turn down a potential adopter in one authority because no suitable match when the next door authority may have a suitable child available for adoption.
7.    Broad spectrum of standards & policies and achievements of local authorities – effects of leadership/management or lack thereof

From all of these points we are inevitably drawn to the conclusion that there is an authority vacuum, and thus an imperative need for the Government to create a rational control structure to move adoption practice forward in the UK and to be able to ensure that its policies can be realized (and measure that success).

Looking at your 19 points, we believe that the problem warrants action far stronger then just encouragement to address these. Your conclusions make it apparent that the problem with adoption in the UK is a very serious one, and as such we suggest that what is required is a major intervention to ensure the improvements the adoption system is crying out for.

We believe it is time for the government to take a step forward – a major one – and claim its authority over adoption practices by setting up a National Adoption Authority (NAA). This body will have the authority and power to devise new policies and practices that would be enforceable by the Authority over Local Authorities and Courts.

Although this might seem revolutionary, it’s actually purely evolutionary. We strongly believe this is the best way for the Government to take the initiative and create the mechanism to address the issues. Whether we like it or not, the responsibility of tackling huge issues in our society does fall to governments. It is also a way in which we can avoid the compartmentalisation based on old policies and the biases that are so ingrained in our current system, in which it appears that the Government has not been able to enforce its wishes for change.

We have given some thought to the structures and bases for such an authority. We would suggest that the NAA would be governed by a mixed representative body covering the whole spectrum of adoption, including social workers, but also experts such as psychologists, doctors, birth mothers, adoptive parents and adoptees who would offer a thorough view on adoption as seen from all aspects. Its operational team would enforce policies and guidelines set by the government and based on best practice or empirical evidence. It would have authority over all adoption agencies, and have a strong role with regard to adoption courts and the integration of procedures between them, including early and continuous co-ordinated planning.

A key feature which we believe should attend the creation of the authority is the idea of the budget being allocated to the child (similar to a statement of educational needs) and the creation of a separate National budget for the assessment and preparation of potential adopters with the Authority being responsible for the analysis of the correctness of its value and the efficacy of its use.

Another core function would be to take over the “inspection” role which has to date been undertaken by OFSTED. Crucially it would be in a position to gather, analyse and publish statistics and genuinely audit data on the whole of the adoption system.

We believe the Authority should also have a significant role in defining the training curriculum and oversee its implementation. Finally, we believe it should continue the really vital work of the Adoption Research Initiative in providing the evidence on which to base policies in the future.
Financially, we would see the budget coming from the reallocation of the budget for the current policy team at the Department of Education and the relevant budgets granted to Local Authorities. The significant improvements to the system that would result from enforcing standards and policies, shortening time in care, and reducing waste by proper co-ordination between agencies and the courts should be sufficient to create significant improvements without the need for additional budgets.

On the other hand, we are aware the government does not want to create major centralized bodies but is a keen supporter of local solutions. The creation of a National Adoption Authority follows a tried and tested route, particularly familiar to the Dept of Education who currently have responsibility for Adoption in the UK, of having a central policy setting authority and delegated local implementation.

The creation of such an authority would avoid some of the dangers present in other options. For example we are concerned that were one to follow the route of creating a National Adoption Agency, there would be a significant danger of replicating the same attitudes and behaviours – because almost inevitably it would in large part be formed by the same individuals. It is also a more radical solution which would create greater disruption, cost more and take more time – a National Adoption Authority would be a more evolutionary, more easily achievable step and one which we believe should be given serious consideration as the optimum structure to reform adoption in the UK.