Skip to main content

Written Parliamentary Question 22nd May

Education and Skills: Adoption

Q:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of progress towards adoption targets for local authorities on children and families.

A: The Government have set a number of targets on adoption.

The following target was included in the Department of Health publication 'Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The Next Three Years (Priorities and Planning Framework 2003-06)':

"Maintain current levels of adoption placement stability (as measured by the proportion of placements for adoption ending with the making of an adoption order) so that quality is not compromised whilst increasing the use of adoption as follows:

By 2004-05 increase by 40 per cent. the number of looked after children who are adopted, and aim to exceed this by achieving, if possible, a 50 per cent. increase by 2006, up from 2,700 in 1999-2000. All councils will bring their practice up to the current level of the best performers.

By 2004-05 increase to 95 per cent. the proportion of looked after children placed for adoption within 12 months of the decision that adoption is in the child's best interests, up from 81 per cent. in 2000-01, and maintain this level (95 per cent.) up to 2006, by locally applying the timescales in the national adoption standards, taking account of the individual child's needs."

The period during which this target operated came to an end in March 2006.

The target helped significantly to raise the number of adoptions of looked after children, where adoption was in the child's best interests. Between 2000-01 and 2004-05 the proportion of looked after children placed for adoption within 12 months of the decision that adoption was in the child's best interests remained stable at around 80 per cent.. We will be reviewing the factors that influenced performance against this target in light of the full implementation and bedding down of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

In addition, in 2004, the following Department for Education and Skills Public Service Agreement target was introduced:

"To narrow the gap in educational achievement between looked after children and their peers, and improve their educational support and the stability of their lives, so that by 2008, 80 per cent. of children under 16 who have been looked after for 2.5 or more years will have been living in the same placement for at least two years, or are placed for adoption."

The percentage of looked after children under 16 who have been looked after for 2.5 or more years and who have been living in the same placement for at least two years, or placed for adoption, has remained stable at around 65 per cent. since this target was introduced. As a result, we have undertaken intensive targeted work with a number of local authorities to help support them in improving placement stability.
Parmjit Dhanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills)

Comments

moira said…
I think this is terrifying.It does nothing to encourage the council to work and keep families together,when they are rewarded for meeting adoption targets.
Our local authority won a best practice award for meeting adoption targets.

Unfortunately within 3 weeks of putting my child in vol care I was fighting for our lives.They totally lied about my competencies as a mother,my child's character and only the guardian saved us.

I think this demonstrates how the local authority are not working with families and are trying to procure children for adoption through whatever means fair and foul.

Bear in mind some of these councils have 1 star ratings and to the Directorate-improves star ratings is more important to them than supporting families to keep them together.
John Hemming said…
Some guardians are good. Some are not so good.

Popular posts from this blog

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.