Setting

Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 ADOPTION SERVICE

p.1

BH14 0JW

Lead Inspector Pat McKay Announced Inspection 10th October 2006 10:48 Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

p.1

BH14 0JW

• Put the people who use social care first • Improve services and stamp out bad practice • Be an expert voice on social care • Practise what we preach in our own organisation

p.2

BH14 0JW

Reader Information Document Purpose Inspection Report Author CSCI Audience General Public Further copies from 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) Copyright This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Internet address www.csci.org.uk Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Adoption. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop

p.2

BH14 0JW

Every Child Matters, outlined the government’s vision for children’s services and formed the basis of the Children Act 2004. It provides a framework for inspection so that children’s services should be judged on their contribution to the outcomes considered essential to wellbeing in childhood and later life. Those outcomes are: • Being healthy • Staying safe • Enjoying and achieving • Making a contribution; and • Achieving economic wellbeing.

p.3

BH14 0JW

In response, the Commission for Social Care Inspection has re-ordered the national minimum standards for children’s services under the five outcomes, for reporting purposes. A further section has been created under ‘Management’ to cover those issues that will potentially impact on all the outcomes above.

p.3

BH14 0JW

Copies of Every Child Matters and The Children Act 2004 are available from The Stationery Office as above. This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4

p.3

Name of service

Address Children and Families Services Adoption and Permanence Team 14a Commercial Road Poole Dorset BH14 0JW Telephone number 01202 714711

p.4

Email address

Provider Web address www.boroughofpoole.com

p.4

manager (if applicable)

Type of registration Local Auth Adoption Service Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5

p.4

Brief Description of the Service:

The adoption service is located within the Children and Families Service Unit of the Children’s Services Directorate in the Borough of Poole.

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

A team manager, four social workers (three full time equivalents), and a social work assistant staff the adoption team. The Principal Manager Adoption and Fostering has direct line management responsibility for the adoption team manager and the adoption service.

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

The services provided are detailed in the Statement of Purpose and include the following, recruitment, assessment, training and support of prospective adopters, support to birth parents and birth relatives, family finding for children with an adoption plan, a service to adopted adults seeking access to their birth records, a post adoption support service, assessment of special guardianship applications and non- agency adoption applications for example step-parent adoptions.

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

The agency undertakes assessments for domestic adoptions. There is a service level agreement with PACT for inter country adopter assessments.

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

The agency is a member of the South Coast and the South West Adoption Consortia. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6

p.5

SUMMARY

This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection.

p.6

SUMMARY

This was the second inspection of the adoption service provided by Poole Borough Council.

p.6

SUMMARY

The inspection was carried out over four days by two adoption inspectors. Senior, middle and first line managers were interviewed, as were front line workers and administrative staff and the lead member for children’s services. One inspector observed the adoption panel, interviewed the panel chair and the medical advisor. Four adopters were interviewed. The inspectors examined the adopters and children’s files. Policies, procedures and professional practices were inspected.

p.6

SUMMARY

Completed questionnaires were received from two professional advisors, four placing social workers, six birth family members and five adopters.

p.6

What the service does well:

The agency assesses adopters in a very thorough and comprehensive way. One adopter said, “our adoption application has been a very positive experience and we are happy with the way we have been dealt with”.

p.6

What the service does well:

The agency offers adopters and children a good package of support. Another adopter said, “we feel very satisfied with the help and support that has been given to us”.

p.6

What the service does well:

Children were well matched to carers who were able to meet their needs. Siblings were placed together as appropriate.

p.6

What the service does well:

The Adoption Panel was very thorough and very well chaired. Adopters were able to attend at the approval and matching stages. Relinquishing birth parents were also welcomed at panel

p.6

What the service does well:

The adoption team and their manager were very skilled and experienced in the work.

p.6

What the service does well:

The agency had good access to a wide range of advisors for adopters and children.

p.6

What the service does well:

The post adoption letterbox exchange was very well organised and managed. Birth parents and birth family members were given assistance in using this service. One birth parent said, “I think we are well looked after in Poole”. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

Systems have been developed to track children who are looked after to make sure that there is a permanence plan in place as soon s possible.

p.7

What has improved since the last inspection?

There has been an increase in the number of staff in the adoption team.

p.7

What they could do better:

There was a need for up to date policies and procedures for all aspects of the adoption agency’s work.

p.7

What they could do better:

There needed to be a written recruitment strategy for adopters that included a review of the written material they were sent and the way this was presented.

p.7

What they could do better:

The level of adoption experience in the child-care teams was low. The agency needed to encourage experienced staff to stay and recruit permanent staff to vacant posts and those occupied temporarily by agency workers.

p.7

What they could do better:

Children’s files, and personnel records needed to include all of the relevant information.

p.7

What they could do better:

The quality of some of the permanence reports and Forms E for children was not very good. This needed to be improved.

p.7

What they could do better:

Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8

p.7

CONTENTS

Being Healthy - There are no NMS that map to this outcome

p.8

CONTENTS

Achieving Economic Wellbeing - There are no NMS that map to this outcome

p.8

CONTENTS

Statutory Requirements identified during the inspection Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9

p.8

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• The agency matches children with adopters (NMS 2) • The agency assesses and prepares adopters (NMS 4) • Adoptors are given information about matching (NMS 5) • The functions of the adoption panel are as specified (NMS 10) • The constitution and membership of adoption panels are as specified (NMS 11) • Adoption panels are timely (NMS 12) • Adoption agency decision is made without delay and appropriately (NMS 13) • The manager is suitable to carry on or manage an adoption agency (NMS 15) • Staff are suitable to work with children (NMS 19) • The agency has a robust complaints procedure (NMS 24 Voluntary Adoption Agency only) • The agency safeguards and promotes the welfare of its service users (NMS 32)

p.9

The Commission considers Standards 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 24

and 32 the key standards to be inspected.

p.9

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Quality in this outcome area is adequate.

p.9

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.9

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Assessment of adopters was thorough and well evidenced. There were gaps and inconsistencies on children’s files, forms E and child permanence reports.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

A thorough and comprehensive monitoring system had been developed to track permanence planning for children in the looked after system. The agency did not have a written plan for the recruitment of adopters. This needed to be developed and linked to the needs of those children with an adoption plan. There was a statement of priority that was made available to Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 prospective adopters. This clearly put the needs of children at the centre of the process.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

The process of matching children with adopters was thorough. Minutes of permanence planning meetings were on children’s files. Siblings were placed together and heritage needs were appropriately matched. The agency had placed, matched or linked nine children with adopters in the twelve months before the inspection. Four of those children had been adopted within that timescale.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

A combination of child permanence reports and Forms E were examined for four children. The quality of these reports and files was variable. There were gaps in the information and no evidence of supervision on the children’s files. There were no chronologies in evidence for three of these cases. In one case a child had been matched in 2006 with his current carers. The Form E was out of date and had not been updated before he was matched for adoption. Handwritten comments about management targets were observed on the front of one Form E in a child’s file. There was a comment from one of the agency’s advisors that “it is still sometimes hard to know the wishes of older children”. The agency recognised the variance in the quality of these reports. It had recently been decided that a worker from the adoption team would be allocated alongside the child’s social worker to assist in this process. Children’s

p.10

EVIDENCE:

social workers and team managers warmly welcomed this development. The impact of this development should be monitored to evidence improvements in these reports.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

A recent review of the safeguarding procedures had produced a draft section for children placed for adoption.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

The assessment of adopters was thorough and comprehensive. Second opinion visits were undertaken. The adoption team was very skilled and experienced. Several adopters made very positive comments about the service they received from their assessing social worker. They said the following, “we had every confidence in her”, “we were very thoroughly yet sensitively handled, and “we were offered a sound professional service, were never patronised or offered platitudes”. The assessments addressed applicant’s capacity to parent children in a safe way. Environmental health and safety assessments were routinely undertaken.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

Poole presented the group preparation programme in partnership with neighbouring authorities. The adoption preparation programme was thorough and well presented. Adopters described the course as, “interesting” and “thought provoking”. The preparation course was routinely evaluated and users views incorporated into future planning. The preparation course included input from the child psychologist. This was seen as particularly valuable by adopters. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 All relevant checks were undertaken and evidenced on adopters files. Adopters reported that they were kept informed of progress throughout the process.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

The adoption panel had written policies and procedures in place. These were in the process of revision following the implementation of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The most recent draft was made available to the inspectors for comment. The wording around the inclusion of at least one elected member needed to be revised alongside adopters being approved for specific children. This was discussed with managers during the inspection.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

Prospective adopters were given the opportunity to attend panel at the approval and matching stages. Birth parents were given the opportunity to attend when the panel was considering whether the child should be placed for adoption. Prospective adopters commented that they found attending the panel “a daunting experience”. However, they also said that it had been “as comfortable as possible”. There was a separate waiting room for those attending. The panel chair met with and introduced herself to those attending before they went into the panel room.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The adoption panel was skilfully chaired and properly constituted. All members were given the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. The panel had received training on the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and diversity and anti- discriminatory practice. A training day focussing on contact was arranged for January 2007.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

Adoption panels were well organised by the panel administrator. The minutes were clear and of a high standard. The reasons for recommendations were clearly recorded. There was the capacity to arrange additional meetings if the need arose.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The permanence reports for children were not always at the required standard. There was evidence that some information had been missing from a child’s information at the previous panel. Late arrival of panel paperwork led to gate keeping arrangements being less than satisfactory on occasions. It was hoped that the allocation of an experienced adoption worker in every case would lead to better quality control in all cases. The panel consistently gave feedback on quality assurance issues, however it should consider a standard format that routinely feeds back good practice examples alongside areas for improvement.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The agency decision was made in a timely way. The decision maker received all of the written information and draft minutes before reaching her decision. There was evidence of letters from the decision maker on adopters files.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The agency decision maker, advisor and panel chair met twice a year to discuss any practice issues. These meetings were minuted. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The adoption manager was suitably qualified and very experienced in adoption work. A current CRB check was in place. There was no evidence on personnel files of a system to renew CRB checks every three years. The manager advised that this was in place in the adoption and fostering unit. The recruitment procedures did not specify that written references should be followed up by telephone. There was no evidence that this was done.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The social workers in the adoption team were all qualified and experienced in adoption work. The childcare teams were experiencing staffing difficulties. There were high levels of staff sickness, vacancies and use of agency staff. The average level of experience in the childcare teams was reported to be one year qualified. The team managers, some of who were very experienced in adoption work, supervised the adoption work in the childcare teams. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13

p.12

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• The adoption agency provides support for adoptive parents (NMS 6) • The agency has access to specialist advisers as appropriate (NMS 18 • Services are tailored to meet the needs of people affected by adoption (NMS 33)

p.13

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.13

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Assessments for adoption support were good. Adopters were well prepared to help children develop a positive self-identity. There was a good range of specialist advisors available to the agency.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

There was evidence of thorough assessments for post adoption support. Support plans were agreed at the time of matching. However one adopter said that they had made contact with the agency three times before they had received a response that triggered the assessment process. This had taken place in October 2005. Once they made contact and were assessed they have been “very impressed with the efforts of the agency social worker and the network of support structures that she has accessed and provided”. This had included access to CAMHS services for individual therapy and a group work programme.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Two questionnaires were returned from approved adopters with children in placement. Both reported that they were satisfied with the support they had received from the agency. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Two adopters reported that they were unhappy with the process for the assessment of adoption allowances.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

The agency did not have any up to date procedures for adoption work including adoption support and allowances. Procedures needed to be developed and consistently applied.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Adopter preparation and training included issues of identity and the need for the child to be able to explore their history. Adopters that were visited during the inspection were able to describe to inspectors how this was achieved in practice. The preparation of life storybooks was inconsistent. They were not in place for all children. A working party had been established to examine this area of practice. Recent training had been commissioned by the adoption service and attended by childcare social workers. This will need to be repeated to address issues of high staff turnover in the childcare teams.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

There had not been any disruptions in the twelve months before the inspection. There had been one disruption just outside of this timescale. A disruption meeting chaired by an independent person had taken place. Training on attachment issues had been commissioned and delivered to the adoption panel and social workers.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The agency had access to specialist medical and legal advice. The legal advisor generally attended panel and was available for staff consultation.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The medical advisor attended panel and was available to meet with adopters.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

One adopter commented on how helpful and approachable the medical advisor had been in the matching process.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

A clinical psychologist was available jointly to the adoption and fostering teams for one session per week. The psychologist attended one session of the preparation programme. Approved adopters waiting for a child to be matched and placed commented on how useful the psychologist input had been on the preparation programme. They were anticipating having access to this service when a child was in placement. The post had been vacant for the three months before the inspection and had just been filled. The adoption service was in the process of trying to negotiate some additional time.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Additional specialist advice was available from a faith advisor, who had made a recent presentation to the adoption panel and a consultancy that specialised in issues relating to diversity.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Written protocols were not in place for specialist advisors. These needed to be developed. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 As stated previously the agency did not have comprehensive up to date procedures for the adoption service as required in the regulations. Custom and practice had developed in all areas of adoption work. This was discussed with managers during the inspection. A half time post of policy officer had recently been established and it was hoped that this work would be carried out in the near future.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

All of the service users interviewed during the inspection had been given information about the complaints procedure. Three complaints had been received within the year before the inspection. All of these had been appropriately dealt with in a timely way and had been clearly recorded.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Arrangements for services commissioned from other agencies were underpinned by written agreements and appropriate review arrangements. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16

p.15

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Birth parents and birth families are involved in adoption plans (NMS 7) • Birth parents and birth families are involved in maintaining the child’s heritage (NMS 8) • The Adoption agency supports birth parents and families (NMS 9) • Service users receive good quality services based on their needs (NMS 34)

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

The letterbox service was well organised and managed. Birth family members had access to an independent support service.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

The post adoption exchange of information service (letterbox) was organised and run by the social work assistant and a qualified social worker. There were eighty-three active transactions covering sixty-three cases. This was supported by a well-organised manual diary system that was about to be transferred onto a computer system. The letterbox system enabled birth parents and birth family members to continue to contribute to the maintenance of their child’s heritage. Staff assisted birth relatives in compiling letterbox contributions and provided an accessible and friendly contact point.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

Six questionnaires were returned from birth family members. Some of the comments received were, “ I would like to say a big thank you, they are very helpful to me”, “I am always looked after very well”,” I think we are well looked after in Poole”, “thank you for everything”. One birth family member said “I have been working for over a year with these agencies, in the beginning I felt totally let down by Social Services, from the beginning of the Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 year I have had more and more support and understanding in more ways than one, and I feel a much more stronger person, and feel able to cope with my life in general”.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

The social work assistant was also responsible for supervising some direct contact between adopted children and their birth relatives. This often took place out of office hours, at the weekend for example.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

There was a support group for relinquishing birth parents that was run jointly with Bournemouth adoption service.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

There was evidence that some birth parents attended permanence-planning meetings. It was not clear from some minutes if the birth parents had been invited and declined the opportunity to attend. There were gaps in the information obtained from birth parents for some children. The reasons for the gaps in information were not clear. There was limited evidence about the efforts that had been made to gather the information. This needed to be addressed to ensure that a full record of all attempts was held on file.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

One relinquishing birth parent attended the adoption panel when her child was being considered for adoption.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

There was no evidence that birth parents were given the opportunity to read what was written about them in the child’s permanence report, or Forms E, this needed to be addressed. There were no signatures of birth parents on these reports. This needed to be addressed. If birth parents had refused the opportunity then this was not recorded on the file. Recent training about the Adoption and Children Act 2002 had addressed these issues with child-care social workers. As previously stated it was hoped that the allocation of a worker from the adoption team would lead to improvements in this area of work. This needed to be monitored.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

The agency had recently reviewed its contract for independent services to birth parents. The contract previously awarded to SWAN had been awarded to Families For Children. This was a joint venture with Bournemouth and Dorset adoption services. Information about the independent service was available and was given to birth parents in the early stages of the permanency planning stages.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

There was direct evidence from one birth parent that the provision of an independent support worker had been very helpful to her. The agency had set up regular monitoring arrangements to ensure that the service was reaching birth parents and engaging with them.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

The agency had a vision and strategy for working with birth parents and birth families for the benefit of the child. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 As previously stated the development and provision of services to birth parents and birth families was not underpinned by up to date policies and procedures. The agency was planning to address this. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19

p.17

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• There is a clear written statement of the aims and objectives of the adoption agency and the adoption agency ensures that it meets those aims and objectives (NMS 1) • The agency provides clear written information for prospective adopters (NMS 3) • The manager has skills to carry on or manage the adoption agency (NMS 14) • The adoption agency is managed effectively and efficiently (NMS 16) • The agency is monitored and controlled as specified (NMS 17) • The staff are organised and managed effectively (NMS 20) • The agency has sufficient staff with the right skills / experience (NMS 21) • The agency is a fair and competent employer (NMS 22) • The agency provides training for staff (NMS 23) • Case records for children and prospective / approved adopters are comprehensive and accurate (NMS 25) • The agency provides access to records as appropriate (NMS 26) • The agency’s administrative records processes are appropriate (NMS 27)

p.19

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• The agency maintains personnel files for members of staff and members of adoption panels (NMS 28) • The premises used by the adoption agency are suitable for purpose (NMS 29) • The adoption agency is financially viable (NMS 30, Voluntary Adoption Agency only) • The adoption agency has robust financial processes (NMS 31)

p.19

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Quality in this outcome area is adequate.

p.19

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.19

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

The department was experiencing staffing difficulties in some parts of the service. Senior managers had a clear vision for the future and re-structuring proposals were underway. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20

p.19

EVIDENCE:

There was a Statement of Purpose in place. This had been updated for 2006- 07. The Statement of Purpose had been presented to the executive side of the council. All staff and some adopters were aware of the Statement of Purpose. The Statement of Purpose was available on the council intranet.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

There were two children’s guides one for younger children, written by the South West Consortium and the BAAF Children’s Guide, adapted to provide relevant contact details.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

There was the capacity for communication with children to include BSL and Makaton. Translation and interpreter services were available as required.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

There was no written plan for the recruitment of adopters. The recruitment information for prospective adopters was inclusive. The text was clear, however, the information was not presented in an attractive format. This needed to be developed as part of a recruitment strategy.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

Adopters confirmed that they had been treated fairly and with respect throughout the process. One adopter said, “staff have made the process as good as it can be”. Adopters were aware of the role of the Adoption Register for England. There was evidence that adopters were referred to the register as appropriate.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

Applications for adopting a child from overseas were signposted to PACT from the point of enquiry. Poole had developed a service level agreement for this work.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The assessment of adopters was prioritised by the adoption manager and based on the needs of children with an adoption plan.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The adoption manager, principal officer and unit manager had the necessary skills, knowledge and experience in adoption work. The staff in the adoption service said they felt well managed by competent managers. The adoption manager needed to gain a management qualification at NVQ level 4.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The department was in the process of re-organisation during the inspection period. The re-organisation was reported to have been ongoing for some time. Managers at all levels had applied for their posts and the adoption manager had just been confirmed in that post at the time of the inspection. The next expected development in this process was the creation of a senior practitioner post in the adoption team. It was envisaged that whoever filled this post Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 would deputise when the manager was absent, in collaboration with the principal officer fostering and adoption.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

Newly created management roles and the lines of communication with staff were not clear to all. Senior managers had a clear vision of the next stage of the process. Staff said they were unclear and uncertain where they would fit into the new structure. New levels of pay were to be introduced. Social work staff did not know where they would be on the new pay scales. This was clearly a very uncertain time for social work staff and some managers.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Activity within the adoption agency was monitored and controlled effectively. This had been achieved by the introduction of tracking systems and meetings that informed managers, adoption panel and elected members. This had lead to the decision to allocate adoption workers in all cases to address quality issues for children. Elected members received twice yearly reports of adoption activity.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

There was clear evidence of supervision on adopters files. Staff said that regular team meetings took place and that these meetings were minuted. There was no evidence of supervision on children’s files. This needed to be addressed.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

There was a good quality training programme in place. Training in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 had been provided at all levels. Staff said they valued the training programme.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Administrative support to the adoption team was shared with the fostering service. Since the last adoption inspection there had been some increase in social work posts in the adoption team. There had been no increase in administrative support. There was some capacity to provide additional temporary staff from a pool. A workload review was needed to ensure that the permanent administrative capacity was sufficient to meet the needs of the service.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

The adoption team was stable, experienced and committed. There was evidence of high staff turnover in the child-care teams. There were high levels of sickness, vacancies and use of agency staff. One adopter said that the child’s social worker was, “out of her depth”. Another reported several changes of social worker between placement and the making of the adoption order. The adoption team were being allocated alongside a child-care social worker in every case with an adoption plan. All who were interviewed during the inspection welcomed this move; however, the impact of this additional work was unknown. This needed to be kept under review to ensure that it did not impact on the ability of the team to deliver other aspects of the service, for example adopter assessments and post adoption support.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Staff did not feel the agency was a fair and competent employer. A staff retention policy had been recently devised. Some staff said that this had been Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 needed for some time and that this had been brought to the attention of previous managers without success. The result was that experienced staff had left to work in other agencies. The managers at the time of the inspection were fully aware of the situation and were committed to building a strong and competent staff team.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

The adopters records seen during the inspection were in good order. There were inconsistencies in the children’s files. There was no clear system of monitoring on children’s files. Some recent auditing had been undertaken but it was not clear what remedial action would be undertaken when discrepancies were identified, or by whom. It was difficult to read some of the handwritten entries on files, particularly when these were photocopies.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

Four staff personnel files and panel members files were looked at during the inspection. There were gaps on these files that included CRB’s that had not been renewed after a three-year period, references not verified by telephone enquiry and no photographs on panel members files. Photographs of panel members were available in the leaflets given to attendees.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The adoption team shared the basement floor of the building with the fostering team. Additional space was being made available and all welcomed this. The building was accessed by a security system. During the summer temperatures in the office had reached ninety- two degrees. This was unacceptable and arrangements for air conditioning in these circumstances needed to be in place.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The adoption archives were stored in the ex- caretaker’s flat above the court building. There was a secure entry system. The files were stored on open shelves in a locked room. The room had large windows without window locks. The building had a flat roof and a narrow balcony area around the level where the records were stored. A risk assessment needed to be done as a matter of urgency. This was discussed with managers during the inspection.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

There was no system in place for systematic archiving of adoption files. A number were stored in ordinary filing cupboards in the basement office of the adoption team. This needed to be addressed. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23

p.22

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Adoption have been met and uses the following scale.

p.23

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

4 Standard Exceeded (Commendable) 3 Standard Met (No Shortfalls) 2 Standard Almost Met (Minor Shortfalls) 1 Standard Not Met (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable

p.23

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

BEING HEALTHY MAKING A POSITIVE Standard No Score CONTRIBUTION No NMS are mapped to this outcome Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 3 34 2

p.23

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

STAYING SAFE ACHIEVING ECONOMIC WELLBEING Standard No Score Standard No Score 2 2 No NMS are mapped to this outcome 4 3 5 1 MANAGEMENT 10 2 Standard No Score 11 3 1 2 12 3 3 3 13 3 14 2 15 2 16 2 19 3 17 3 24 N/A 20 2 32 N/A 21 1 22 1 ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING Standard No Score 25 2 6 3 26 2 18 2 27 1 33 2 28 2 29 2 30 N/A 31 N/A Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes

p.23

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Voluntary Adoption and the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2003 or Local Authority Adoption Service Regulations 2003 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales.

p.24

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 1 AD10 AD33 Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 7 The agency must have written policy and procedural instructions governing the adoption panel and all aspects of the adoption agency work. 30/12/06

p.24

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2 AD21 The Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regulations 2003 10 The agency must ensure there are sufficient qualified and experienced staff working for the purposes of the agency. 31/03/07

p.24

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3 AD27 The Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 39 The agency must ensure that adoption records are kept in secure conditions at all times. 31/03/07

p.24

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

4 AD28 The Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regulations 2003 15 The agency must maintain up to date records for staff and adoption panel members. 30/12/06

p.24

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

5 AD5 Adoption Agencies regulations The agency must obtain, so far as is reasonably practicable, all relevant information about the 30/12/06 Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 2005 15(1) child as specified in Schedule 1

p.24

RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out.

p.25

RECOMMENDATIONS

No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations

p.25

RECOMMENDATIONS

1 AD12 The panel should develop a format for routine feedback in every case to highlight examples of good practice as well as areas for development. 2 AD18 The agency should secure additional input from the clinical psychologist for the adoption service. 3 AD15 The agency should ensure that written references are followed up by telephone enquiries. 4 AD18 The agency should develop a written protocol for the role of specialist advisors. 5 AD7 The agency should give birth parents an opportunity to see and comment on what is written about them before information is passed on. This should be recorded on the file. AD8 The agency should record all efforts to gather information from birth parents and families for children. 7 AD14 The adoption manager should obtain a management qualification at NVQ level 4. 8 AD16 The agency should develop clear lines of communication between managers and staff 9 AD20 The agency should review the administrative support to

p.25

RECOMMENDATIONS

the adoption service. 10 AD25 The agency should ensure that case file audits lead to clear actions. 11 AD25 The agency should ensure that decisions by supervisors are recorded on case files. 12 AD29 The agency should ensure that the office premises are maintained at a comfortable temperature. 13 AD2 The agency should develop a written recruitment strategy for adopters linked to the needs of the children with an adoption plan. Borough of Poole Adoption Service DS0000050048.V315732.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26

p.25

Commission for Social Care Inspection

North West Regional Office 11th Floor West Point 501 Chester Road Old Trafford M16 9HU

p.26

Commission for Social Care Inspection

National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI

p.26