Agenda item

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submits a report providing an overview of the activity and performance of the Family Adoption Links Regional Adoption Agency incorporating Leicester City Adoption Service from 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submitted a report providing an overview of the activity and performance of the Family Adoption Links Regional Adoption Agency incorporating Leicester City Adoption Service from 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023.

Key points included:

• Local Authorities had a duty to become part of a regional adoption agency.  Leicester City Council was in the Eastern part of the East Midlands, hosted by Lincolnshire County Council.
• In 2022/23 the number of adopters approved had increased.
• 25 children in Leicester were made subject of adoption orders. Placement orders matched CLA with adopters.
• Adopters could not apply for the adoption order until the child had been with them for 12 months.
• In 2022/23, 25 adoption orders were made, which was a reduction on previous years.
• Many cases had become stuck in the system, and many had come at once.
• 2021/22 was a year with an unusually high number of adoption orders.
• It was a goal of the Regional Adoption Agency to look to find a good match for a child’s needs within the local region rather than further afield.
• Increasingly adoption arrangements have some kind of direct or indirect contact with the birth family, this was another reason why finding local matches was important.
• A higher number of children form Leicester were placed in the Regional Adoption Agency area and fewer were placed in voluntary adoption agencies further afield. 
• The Regional Adoption Agencies had only been in place for three years.  Ofsted had done a thematic inspection and a report had been published which could be brought to the Commission.  The report had looked at themes across six agencies.  The feedback did not identify the agencies but looked at which models were most common, and the difference made and what could be done to improve locally.
• In local authority areas, often children were not placed in their home city due to safety concerns.  In the majority of these cases it was due to concerns regarding birth parents unhappy with the outcome.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• A reason that the fostering service was not regional in the same way was due to birth parents having a right to see fostered children.
• It was good to see regions working together and children being well-placed.
• It was thought that the Ofsted report was positive as it looked at six thematic areas and in four of them, they identified no areas of ­­­­­areas for development, only strengths, so this was seen as very strong.
• It was always possible to learn from other agencies.  Practice was led by outstanding local authority practitioners.  This agency had a slightly different model to others where it played more of a coordination role, with overarching coordination and support, online advertising and coproduction of data.  Local control over recruitment was maintained, so having local input and control gave the Council flexibility to meet its needs.  There were also leaders on national panels who could share good practice.
• Family finding events were held all over the region.  Large areas were targeted, but work was also done locally.  More information could be provided in the next report. 
• Targeted recruitment was also undertaken.  Profiles were shared and if no matches came up in the region, more targeted recruitment was done for individual children and needs.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.