The Government have published their statistics (there’s a time delay, so these are the stats up to Autumn 2014)
I suspect that the headline one (which prompted all of those press releases in late April) is going to be this:-
Quarterly data suggests that the number of new decisions has continued to fall from 1,830 in quarter 2 2013-14 to 910 in quarter 3 2014-15, a decrease of 50%. The number of new placement orders have also continued to fall from 1,550 in quarter 2 2013-14 to 740 in quarter 3 2014-15, a decrease of 52%.
What they don’t have, is a measure of how many cases LA’s put before an Agency Decision Maker, so we can’t tell whether
- Social workers were asking ADM’s for adoption approval less often, so less cases were approved
- ADM’s were refusing a higher proportion of requests than previously, so less cases were approved
- A combination of those factors (which if so, would lead to even more of a drop – if social workers were only giving their ‘best’ cases for adoption to the ADM, but they were being knocked back, then you’d expect less and less cases to go to the ADM)
[And of course, what underpins all of that is whether social workers / ADMs were being overly cautious about the case law and not asking for adoption in cases where the Court would actually have made Placement Orders, or whether they were being realistic and knowing that if they asked for adoption they wouldn’t be capable of satisfying their Court that the tests were met]
What really fits is the increase stats on Special Guardianship Orders – I haven’t seen the raw data, but the BBC claim this has tripled since 2012 (BS cough cough)
When you look at the graph showing Agency Decision Maker decisions that adoption should be the plan for the child over time, you can see the numbers drop off a cliff at the time of the Supreme Court decision in Re B (nothing else will do).
You can argue (and it is a legitimate argument, where Re B and Re B-S were a new test, or a nudge in the ribs to apply the existing tests with proper rigour, and whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing) but you can’t really argue as the current official narrative has it, that this isn’t even a thing. The graphs make it really obvious.
The quarter BEFORE Re B-S, 1830 decisions by ADMs that adoption was the right plan for the child. Re B-S hit in September 2013, so it would be the third quarter of 2013 when ADM’s would have known about it. Those numbers, 1290. It is the sharpest drop of the entire graph. It has continued to slope downwards since then, but the bit in the graph that looks like abseiling down the Eiger is Re B-S. You absolutely can’t dispute it.
The Myth-Buster document was published in December 2014, so we can’t see from the stats and graph whether that has led to a reversal of the pattern in the graph. We’ll see that in about six months, I suppose. Similarly, whether the Court of Appeal’s softening of position on “nothing else will do” translates into an increase in ADM decisions that adoption is the plan.
[Cynically, I doubt it. I’m well aware that I am not a normal human being in my interest in case law, and I haven’t always had it. For about my first five years in child protection law, you could get by on three cases Re G (interim care is a deep freeze affording no tactical advantage), H and R (the nature of the allegation doesn’t increase the standard of proof) and whatever at the time was the law on residential assessments. Re B and Re B-S, with their hard-hitting message and backed by a soundbite ‘nothing else will do’ resonate with people much more than the inching back, case specific, deeply nuanced and incremental Court of Appeal cases since that time. Even the Re R case https://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/12/18/re-r-is-b-s-dead/ that was intended to slay the Re B-S myths is so nuanced that it takes nine or ten reads to have a grasp of what it is actually saying, and almost the day after you’ve done that, you couldn’t actually put it into a meaningful summary sentence]
[I argued before HERE https://suesspiciousminds.com/2015/05/15/adoption-rates-in-freefall/ that the Press narrative that the case law will mean ‘children suffering in unsuitable and unsafe homes’ is an emotive over-simplification. I’d stand by that. At the moment, the case law on adoption has been going through its most radical changes in a generation, and it is certainly less predictable than it has ever been to decide what sort of case will result in a Placement Order and what won’t. We are in a period of re-balancing. I don’t know yet whether these figures show that we have found the right level of those cases where adoption IS the right plan to put before the Court, whether there are even more drops to come, or whether there’s an over-reaction to it. I have a suspicion, given that the entire history of child protection and family justice is about lurches from child rescue to family preservation and vice versa, and an eventual settling down at one particular side of the scale but hopefully not at the absolute far end of the scale…]
Given the huge push to recruit adopters – all the Government policies about making it easier, less time-consuming, less intrusive, more appealing , this statistic may get less attention but must be concerning
Registrations to become an adopter have decreased by 24% from 1,340 in quarter 2 2014-15 to 1,020 in quarter 3 2014-15. The number of adopter families approved for adoption has decreased by 3% from 1,240 in quarter 2 2014-15 to 1,200 in quarter 3 2014-15.
We will wait to see how the Court decisions that moved children from prospective adopters to the birth family (which is a completely new phenomenon, having not occurred at all prior to December 2014) has on adoption recruitment and retention.
The backlog (which had stood at 1 approved adopter for every 3 children approved for adoption) has been nearly cleared.
Our most recent estimate for the “adopter gap” suggests that the gap has closed, and we now have more adopters than children waiting. However, there are still 2,600 children with a placement order not yet matched and the relevance of this measure assumes that matching is working effectively.
The number of adoption ORDERS made is, they claim the highest since recording began
3,740 children adopted in quarters 1 to 3 2014-15
2013-14 saw the highest number of adoptions from care since the current data collection began in 1992, with 5,050 children adopted from care.
When I have looked at Court stats on adoption http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-316163 5050 looks like a pretty average year, with there having been figures nearly 50 per cent higher in the earlier 1990s. (Now, it may be that the measure that is being used here is “Adoption of children who are in care” and that the Office of National Statistics figure bundles that in with ‘step-parent adoptions’, so it is not a like-for-like comparison)
Finally, this statistic initially looks positive (how long does it take between a child coming into care and a child being placed for adoption – you’d WANT that number to go down, since whether you want more or less children being adopted, most of us could agree that we wouldn’t want children to wait so long for a family to be found)
In 2013-14, the average number of days between entering care and placement was 594 days, an improvement from 656 days in 2012-13. Latest quarterly data suggests there has been a further improvement to 533 days. At 216 days, the average number of days between placement order and match in 2013-14 was a slight improvement on 2012-13. However, the latest quarterly data suggests that this has increased to 241 during quarter 3 2014-15.
The closer inspection is this :-
That since the 2012 figures, there has been legislation and huge resources expended on bringing care proceedings down from what was an average of 55 weeks to a target of 26 weeks. That OUGHT to have had far more of an impact than 60 days being shaved off the time between entering care and a family being found. It should be something more like a saving of 200 days. As the time from Placement Order to placement had gone slightly down (but was now going back up), that SUGGESTS that IF there is a saving of 30 weeks from start of care proceedings to Placement Order, but it results in only a time saving of 8 ½ weeks, that there’s about 20 weeks unaccounted for.
Does that mean that :-
- Whilst average time of care proceedings has gone down, it hasn’t gone down as MUCH for cases where adoption is the plan? (That makes sense, as those are the ones that are most contentious and where all avenues tend to be exhausted?)
- There’s been an increase in the time that children who go on to be adopted are spending in care PRIOR to care proceedings? That “front-loading” element.
I don’t know how or if statistics on those issues are being kept. It must be problematic that if we are compressing the time that care proceedings take, with all that involves, but barely reducing the time that a child waits between coming into care and a new family being found, have we really improved anything for the child? (Note particularly that with the latest quarterly data, HALF the time that has been cut appears to have been lost by an increase in the family finding process. 216 days of family finding and matching post Placement Order equates to 30 weeks)
The notional 200 day saving from faster care proceedings isn’t turning into a real saving, and that feels counter-intuitive. What we’ve been told for years is that if decisions about children are made by the Courts quicker, the children will be easier to place – they will be younger and have less issues (and thus, you’d assume, faster to place).