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.

Given the amount of bandwidth and the media’s insatiable desire for more stories, it’s easy to generate noise. But does that translate into real and meaningful action?

It’s a little misleading to see the government issuing an Adoption Bill rather than what it has done so far which is pronounce ‘guidelines.’ The fact is the laws they are talking about already exists. In 2000 a White Paper  from the Labour party became the Adoption Children’s Act in 2002. A year ago, Tim Loughton issued new guidelines on interracial adoptions.

So what has been achieved so far? Nothing.

The reason is that the government is still standing outside the circle, continuing to pass blame on to local councils and social workers (not always unwarranted) while insisting on not taking actual responsibility. A year ago Tim Loughton told me he was confident this would happen; that we might have measures in place to create, enforce and monitor those Councils and Social Workers and make the guidelines stick.

Eleven months later the prime minister has had to intervene to impose stricter measures. Meanwhile, time has been wasted and let’s be clear here, we’re talking about lives that are not just on hold, but being ruined. The longer a child is in care the less likely he or she will find a stable, loving family home.

Adoption With Humanity continues to call for action and for the government to set up a National Adoption Authority to address the crisis the system is in at present. Not just for the children’s sake. But for all of us because the impact of unloved children is not just personal, it’s social.

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?

I don’t think we’re any way towards meeting the problem with the reforms it needs. In conversations with both Martin Narey (newly appointed Adoption Czar) and Tim Loughton, the Minister for Children I was impressed with the way both men understood the problem. And I think their intentions are there. However I am not convinced that they are going to generate any substantial mileage in terms of really making any difference – the kind of difference that will change the appalling statistic that out of 4000 children up for adoption in 2010, less than 300 were adopted.

Why is this the case? Again I am loathe to apportion blame on social workers and local authorities as they are merely instruments of the system. It must be said they have used that to make not wholly safe judgements that have tended to be in the interest of keeping families together, rather than finding care and safety for the child. It is the DfE and the government who need to be more accountable though, for their parts in this immoral and often, inhumane circus.

We live in cash strapped times. Councils have always known they can save money, rather a lot of money, by keeping children in care instead of helping them towards adoption. This is going to exacerbate the situation. Sure you can save yourself a bit of money in the short term. And when those neglected kids fail to complete school and end up in prison then what? Because the statistics show us what happens and David Cameron knows it too.

A government that won’t take responsibility for something so fundamental to the well being of children and society is not behaving like a government Government. What we want to see is the government using its weight to enforce any measures with  Local Authorities, Social Workers and Family Courts.

Otherwise Local Authorities will do what they have done before and ignore them and hide behind them. We still won’t have the clarity of direction we need.

That’s why we need a National Adoption Authority which will be able to impose guidelines and ensure there are penalties for not following them. We need much more of course, like a more streamlined process in the family courts that does not aggravate the delays already present in the system. But most of all we need David Cameron to take the lead.

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.

Please sign our Adoption with Humanity petition urging immediate reforms and the setting up of a National Adoption Authority.

This poster appears in today’s Daily Telegraph.

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.