Setting

Kent ME14 IRF

Announced 5-8th September 2005 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

p.1

Kent ME14 IRF

• 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

Kent ME14 IRF

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 Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 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

Kent ME14 IRF

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

Kent ME14 IRF

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

Kent ME14 IRF

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. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 4

p.3

SERVICE INFORMATION

Name of service Kent County Council Adoption Service

p.4

SERVICE INFORMATION

Address Adoption Service, Brenchley House, 123 -135 Week Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1RF

p.4

of places

N/A Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 5

p.4

Brief Description of the Service:

Kent County Council has a large adoption agency with a number of teams offering a range of adoption services to meet the needs of children, adopters and birth families. The agency is located within the County Services Children's Provider unit, which is part of the Social Services Directorate. The adoption agency is managed by a County Adoption Manager based at Brenchley House in Maidstone. There are five teams within the agency. The West Kent and East/Mid Kent teams, recruit and assess adopters and have a family finding role for children in the localities. The Central Adoption Services team deals with the management of the adoption panels, inter country and non-agency adoptions in the county. The Concurrency team offers an assessment, rehabilitation and placement service for children aged, 0-2 years. The Adoption Support Kent team has a county wide remit to provide support services to children and adopters. Kent County Council subscribes to the Post

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

Adoption Centre to offer independent support to birth parents. They also have a contract with NCH, who have established the Kent Independent Support for Kinship and Adopters (KISKA). This service provides independent support to birth parents and their families. They will also as intermediaries in direct contact and letterbox services, section 51 counselling, guidance, advice in family tracing, reunions;support groups and workshops are also provided. A range of partnerships with other services has also been established to provide consultancy and treatment services. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 6

p.5

SUMMARY

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

p.6

SUMMARY

The adoption agency demonstrated their commitment to this inspection and had prepared well for it. They ensured all the pre-inspection documentation provided was thorough and arrived within the agreed timescales.

p.6

SUMMARY

Prior to the inspection, the pre-inspection material and the questionnaires, which had been returned to the inspection team were read and analysed. The information obtained from these documents has been incorporated into the inspection findings.

p.6

SUMMARY

Four inspectors carried out the inspection over three days, with one inspector spending an additional day reading file documentation, observing an adoption panel and undertaking a visit to an adoptive family. In addition, two inspectors observed two adoption panels for half a day. Interviews were undertaken with the Head of children’s services, other senior personnel, team managers, adoption and childcare social workers and administrative staff. An elected member, who had lead responsibility for looked after children was also interviewed, as well as the adoption panel’s medical, legal advisor and chairperson. A sample of children’s link/family finding files, adopters’ and children’s adoption files were read and six adoptive families were visited. A variety of agency records were inspected, administrative resources examined and seven office premises seen. Security issues relating to both record keeping

p.6

SUMMARY

and the premises were also considered. In addition, the inspection team received thirty-six questionnaires from prospective and approved adopters, eight from birth family members, thirty-three from placing social workers and six from specialist advisors. The responses received from these questionnaires, together with the information obtained in interviews with adopters have been reflected in the main body of this report.

p.6

What the service does well:

The executive member of the Council with lead responsibility for children’s services was a good advocate and supported the development of good practice and outcomes for children.

p.6

What the service does well:

The Directorate’s senior management team, together with the adoption agency’s managerial team shared these aspirations and were working hard to realise them.

p.6

What the service does well:

The agency’s management team had a clear vision for the future development of the adoption service. They also had the necessary experience and skills to manage and organise the service in an effective and efficient manner. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 7 Adoption staff had a high regard for the agency’s managerial team and considerable knowledge, experience and skills in their field of work. Staff working within the agency were committed to improving practice and achieving a high standard of work.

p.6

What the service does well:

Adopters’ were consulted and their views about the adoption service obtained. There were plans to formalise this in the establishment of an Adoption Advisory Board, which will meet on a quarterly basis to consider improvements and developments to the service.

p.7

What the service does well:

The establishment of the concurrency team minimised the placement changes for very young children, prevented drift in the care system and ensured their care plan was effectively realised.

p.7

What the service does well:

The agency had developed a robust tracking system, which ensured all children with an adoption plan were closely monitored and the care plan realised in an effective, timely manner. This system was strengthened by the independent reviewing officers, who chaired the looked after children’s reviews.

p.7

What the service does well:

Adopters stated the agency’s initial response to their enquiry was very helpful and information packs were sent to them speedily. Inter country adopters found the specialist inter country adoption packs were “very valuable”. The preparation training provided was regarded as being of “excellent quality” and an “excellent grounding for adopting”. Foster Carers were fulsome in their praise for the preparation groups specifically designed for “foster carers who adopt”. Adopters were generally positive about the assessment indicating that it had been “thorough” and handled in a “sensitive and skilful manner”.

p.7

What the service does well:

The agency worked hard to obtain detailed and accurate information regarding adopters and children and gave careful consideration to matching to ensure that good practice and outcomes were achieved.

p.7

What the service does well:

There was some good multi-agency partnership working and specialist services within the county, which adopted children and their family were able to access.

p.7

What the service does well:

The adoption panels demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the complexity of adoption work. The panels observed were well organised and chaired. Administrative support provided was of a high standard and the panel minutes were excellent. Decision-making was thorough and timely.

p.7

What the service does well:

Family group conferencing had recently been introduced, which demonstrated the value and importance the authority ascribed to birth parents and families in the resolution of their difficulties. These conferences provided families a real opportunity to actively engage and involve themselves in the care planning process for their child, at an early stage.

p.7

What the service does well:

The inclusion of birth parents and families in the adoption process was clearly reflected in the agency’ s policies and procedures and the independent Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 8 counselling service, which they had commissioned from KISKA and the post adoption centre.

p.7

What the service does well:

The agency had made strenuous efforts to improve the quality of information provided adopters, with the introduction of life appreciation days.

p.8

What the service does well:

The agency had access to a number of specialist advisors, which was appropriate to the agency’s needs and staff were generally of the view that a good, quality service was provided.

p.8

What has improved since the last inspection?

This was the first inspection of the agency under the current legislation.

p.8

What they could do better:

Recruitment plans to broaden the range of adopters for the children who need families were to be extended to identify families who could match the needs of children from black and ethnic minority groups.

p.8

What they could do better:

The agency should consider whether adopters would benefit from further preparation on the emotional aspects of the introductory and placement stage of the adoption process.

p.8

What they could do better:

The agency’s child protection procedures should include specific references to children placed for adoption and staff provided with up-dated child protection training.

p.8

What they could do better:

Adoption support was a developing aspect of the agency’s work and this was reflected in the varied picture presented by adopters. To ensure effective development and accessibility to these services, the agency should address capacity issues within the adoption support team and develop a coherent, strategy of support. The adoption agency was involved in partnership working with a number of agencies, though this was variable in the County, the agency should consider developing a Countywide approach to such work.

p.8

What they could do better:

The adoption panels should develop its quality assurance role. Regular meetings between the panel chairpersons and agency decision makers would assist this process and provide an additional and useful mechanism for feedback to the agency.

p.8

What they could do better:

The independent counselling and support service provided by KISKA and the post adoption centre should be actively promoted.

p.8

What they could do better:

Legislative changes in adoption are likely to result in increased demands being made on the service. In view of this, the allocation of resources to this service should be closely monitored and reviewed. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 9 The Directorate should ensure staff are able to fully utilise the training opportunities provided and the training programme meets the needs of all staff. Consideration should also be given to the provision of core training on adoption to childcare staff

p.8

What they could do better:

The quality assurance systems in relation to the adoption records should be increased, as some of the files were not maintained in accordance with the agency’s policies, procedures, current legislation and the adoption regulations.

p.9

What they could do better:

The procedures for the recruitment and selection of staff must be more robust with all personnel files and panel members’ files kept in accordance with the adoption regulations.

p.9

What they could do better:

The adoption services’ records were held securely, however, the agency should risk assess the premises where these records are stored, to ensure they are stored in a manner to minimise the risk of damage from fire or water. The agency should develop a disaster recovery plan.

p.9

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. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 10

p.9

CONTENTS

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

p.10

CONTENTS

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

p.10

CONTENTS

Statutory Requirements identified during the inspection Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 11

p.10

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)

p.11

2,4,5,10,11,12,13,15,19 &25

The agency had systems in place to ensure effective planning for children. The agency was careful in the matching of children and adopters to ensure successful placements. Quality assurance systems must be more robust though if children are to be kept safe.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The agency had a clear written recruitment strategy, which was based on a thorough analysis of the current need of local children waiting to be adopted. A tracking system to monitor the progress of all children who had an adoption plan was in place and at the monthly resource meetings, consideration was given to potential matches of children with approved adopters.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

Evaluation of the agency’s recruitment activity routinely took place. The agency’s recruitment activities effectively ensured 75% of Kent children requiring adoptive homes were placed with families assessed and approved in Kent. In the twelve months preceding the inspection, the adoption service had placed eighty-five children for adoption; sixty-four were placed with the council’s adopters and twenty-one had been placed elsewhere. There had been six children whose placement had disrupted, which included a sibling group of two. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 12 There were thirty-four approved adopters waiting for a placement. Five families were waiting to be withdrawn; three families were not ready for a placement. The County adoption manager agreed to provide the inspectors with further information regarding the remaining families.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

There were positive links with the regional consortium, which was used along with other agencies to meet the needs of children that could not be placed with Kent families. External resources were likely to be sought for children from black and minority ethnic groups, specifically children of a dual heritage. The agency was broadening its strategies to recruit black and minority ethnic adopters within Kent, for example with targeted advertising and had established a multi-agency group, the Culturally Competent Care group, which was developing policies and procedures in relation to the recruitment and support of service-users from different cultural groups.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The agency was also actively addressing issues related to the recruitment of same sex couples and those with disabilities.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

There was evidence of the agency responding to the needs of very young children, who required permanence, with the establishment of a concurrency team. The agency also demonstrated a strong commitment to enable siblings, where appropriate, to be placed together and evidence was obtained of the effective placement of a large sibling group with adopters.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Information from adopters indicated that the agency’s response to initial enquiries was excellent and stated that they were spoken to in a “friendly”, “positive”, “enthusiastic” and “helpful manner” and had received their information packs “quickly”. Several adopters stated that it was Kent’s “helpful” website and the “positive” and “prompt” response to their initial enquiry that had led them to pursue an adoption application with this agency.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

A formal preparation, assessment and approval process was carried out in respect of adopters. Whilst some adopters indicated their assessments and approvals had been carried out speedily; other adopters commented on the delays that had occurred in commencing the preparation groups and their assessment. Some adopters stated that the agency had maintained good contact with them and kept them well informed about the reasons for these delays, which had mainly been due to staff shortages. Other adopters suggested quite the opposite, stating there had been a lack of contact from the agency and that it had been left to them to initiate and maintain contact, so that they were able to keep themselves informed of progress with their application. Discussions with the agency’s managerial team indicated that the adoption agency had experienced some staff shortages in one area, which accounted for the delays referred to by adopters. However, the matter had

p.12

EVIDENCE:

now been addressed and it was expected that prospective adopters’ assessments and approvals would be completed in a timely manner. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 13 The agency’s preparation course was clear, well structured and routinely evaluated, with changes implemented where necessary. Preparation groups were held at convenient times and venues to meet the varying needs of prospective adopters and were held several times a year. Adopters indicated that the venue and times of the preparation groups had been “well thought out”, for example disabled access, crèche facilities etc. They also stated that the preparation programme was well organised, well presented and the materials used were of an “excellent quality”. However, several placing social workers suggested the preparation groups would benefit from a greater emphasis being placed on a child’s self-identity, bereavement and the

p.12

EVIDENCE:

introductory process of placement. A number of adopters indicated that the introduction to the groups had been “warm and friendly” and the programme “helpful and informative”; others stated that it had afforded them the opportunity to explore a variety of adoption issues, which had been “stimulating” and “thought provoking”. Most stated that they had found the whole experience extremely “valuable” and an “excellent grounding for adopting”. Several adopters commented on the value of hearing from other adopters. Whilst several other adopters talked about the benefits they had gained in attending a preparation group, which had been specifically designed to meet their needs, as second time adopters. Similarly, the preparation groups for foster carers applying to adopt were considered to be really useful and adopters spoke positively about them. Adopters interested in inter country adoption attended the Overseas Adoption consultation day and a three

p.13

EVIDENCE:

day preparation course. These days were specifically designed to meet the needs of those adopting children from abroad and a number of adopters spoke highly of them.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Adopters generally spoke positively about their assessment, which they described as “thorough”, “comprehensive” and the issues that arose were “sensitively “ handled. A number of adopters commented on the “knowledge” “skills” and “professionalism” of the adoption worker and several indicated that they were “happy” at the manner the assessment was “conducted”. One adopter described the assessment process, as being “too personal” though was able to understand the reasons for this. Several adopters stated that they had been “kept fully informed” of their progress in the assessment process.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

The information obtained from placing social workers presented a similar picture with a number commenting on the “thoroughness of approach” to assessments, stating that the adoption workers provided “comprehensive”, “detailed” and “sound assessments”. A number of placing social workers spoke about the form F’s, which were generally regarded as providing a good picture of the family, for example, one worker said the form had provided an “accurate, insightful picture of the applicants.” However, one worker suggested “the form F had not done justice to the adopters”. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 14 Examination of a sample of adopters’ files indicated that adopters’ assessments were of generally of a good quality. Most assessments seen were detailed, analytical and insightful, with consideration given to ensuring that applicants had the capacity to look after children in a safe and responsible way, for

p.13

EVIDENCE:

example there were some good pet and health/safety assessments. In one file though there was no evidence of a health and safety checklist. The agency should give consideration to enhancing this aspect of their work. In another file, there were no contemporaneous notes of the assessment. Good written support plans were found on several of the files examined. In one file, the inter country assessment was not as detailed and analytical, as the previous assessments examined. Moreover, the agency did not appear to have obtained adopters’ employment references independently, nor was there any evidence of police checks from abroad being obtained by the agency when the applicants first applied to adopt. In other papers examined an adoptive family received support from a family member in caring for their disabled child, however there was no evidence of a CRB check having been obtained for this family member. Whilst the inspectors would acknowledge there was evidence

p.14

EVIDENCE:

of Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks being carried out in all other files, given the crucial importance of CRB checks in safeguarding children, such issues of practice must not occur again. Managerial scrutiny of the assessment process should be increased, as this would ensure all relevant matters in relation to the adopters and their immediate family, including appropriate checks have been carried out.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

In considering safeguarding issues, the agency should reconsider its policy in relation to contact with applicants’ ex-partners, where there are no children, as sometimes, significant information emerges from such contact, for example, issues of anger management.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The agency had written information about matching, introduction, the placement process and the support services available. This information was provided at various points in the adoption process, for example, the website, initial enquirers pack, at preparation groups and copies were included in the Adopters’ handbook. Adopters indicated that the information provided was detailed and informative.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The agency’s practice was child focussed and as a consequence, careful consideration was given to matching a child with adopters. There was evidence of good matching reports being completed and a number of adopters and placing social workers spoke of the high quality of information that had been provided in the matching process, so ensuring good practice and outcomes were achieved. In the returned questionnaires though, one adopter commented that the form E and photographs of the children they were considering for matching had been considerably out of date.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

In examining a selection of panel papers, it was noted that the panels were extremely vigilant in addressing out of date or poor quality form E’s. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 15 Strenuous efforts had also been made to improve the quality of information provided to adopters about a child, as evidenced by the training provided childcare workers in relation to the assessment of children’s needs and form E’s. Childcare staff were clearly appreciative of such training, as they were of the support and advice given them by the adoption link worker in the completion of form E’s. A number of placing social workers also commented on the proactive stance that the adoption agency had taken in relation to the quality of information provided adopters and were extremely complimentary about this. Several cited the introduction of life appreciation days as being

p.14

EVIDENCE:

highly beneficial in increasing the qualitative information provided adopters. Despite all this work, the quality of the forms E found on some of the children’s files were variable and on occasions not up-to-date. This should be addressed though by the recent appointment of a Panel Co-ordinator, who will quality assure all documentation presented to the adoption panels. In addition, the directorate should give consideration to form E training becoming part of the mandatory training provided childcare workers. Good practice was evident in the availability of the medical advisers for consultation by the adopters.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Several placing social workers stated that the introduction of child and adopter was well managed, through well-structured meetings and clear planning. In one returned questionnaire, it was suggested that adopters would benefit from further preparation on the emotional aspects of the introductory and placement stages of the adoption process.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

The children’s files examined confirmed that their wishes and feelings regarding adoption had been taken into account. In panel papers, relating to three children though, there was no evidence of this work being undertaken. Similarly, in some children’s records there was clear evidence that work was being carried out to prepare and enable the children to move into their adoptive placement, whilst in others, where children had the same needs, such evidence was absent or there were delays in the work being carried out. The agency should ensure direct work, where appropriate, is carried out in a timely manner to ensure placement stability.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

The adoption panels’ policies and procedures contained in the panel handbook, together with the draft terms of reference provided all the necessary information required in the National Minimum Standards (NMS) for adoption. These documents had been circulated to agency staff and panel members, however a couple of panel members did not appear familiar with the draft terms of reference. It is recommended that once these terms of reference have been formally approved; the document is re-circulated to panel members to ensure their familiarity with it.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Arrangements had been made for regular meetings to take place with the adoption panel chairpersons, adoption team leaders, the panel advisors, legal and medical advisors. Meetings between the panel chairpersons and the agency decision makers were also to take place, though they had not been in Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 16 operation during the past year. These arrangements clearly promoted and assisted the adoption panels to operate and practice in a consistent manner. It is recommended that meetings between the panel chairpersons and agency decision makers should be resumed.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Prospective adopters were invited to attend panel and an informative leaflet had been produced to inform them of this process. This leaflet could be further enhanced with the inclusion of panel members’ photographs. Several Adopters’ commented positively on their experiences of attending panel stating that panel members were “friendly”, “put them at their ease”, and the meeting was well handled. However, one adopter stated panel questions were “interrogating”. Several workers expressed similar views and suggested that panel questions were sometimes “inappropriate”. In the selection of panel papers examined though such comments were not verified.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

The agency had six adoption panels and one concurrency panel. Whilst the constitution and membership of all panels were in accordance with regulations, one of the inspectors was advised that in the past, the panel resource manager had stepped in to become a panel member, when a panel had not been quorate. This arrangement is not acceptable; the agency must ensure that the adoption panel is always quorate and appropriately constituted. The agency should also give consideration to increasing the appointment of panel members from ethnic minority groups. In the selection of panel members’ files seen not all contained a CRB check and one file did not contain a confidentiality agreement. There was evidence to confirm new panel members observed adoption panels and in the case of Councillors and independent panel members there was an expectation that they would observe three different adoption panels. New panel members received induction training and all panel

p.16

EVIDENCE:

members received regular and appropriate for their roles. Inter country adoptions were dealt with by one panel and the work had recently transferred to another panel. The agency was arranging specialist intercountry adoption training for this panel.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

Three adoption panels were observed. All were well organised, chaired and operated in an efficient and effective manner. Panel members had a good knowledge and understanding of adoption work and were extremely committed to their work, paying a great deal of attention to the details of the cases presented. In one of the panels observed though, there was a lack of evidence of CRB’s, being undertaken on family members who participated in the care of the child. A form E had also not been amended as requested and two other form E’s had not been up-dated prior to panel. These matters were addressed with the chairperson at the end of panel. An examination of a selection of panel minutes and observation of two other adoption panels however indicated that the panels’ were generally thorough in their scrutiny, and ensured relevant concerns were noted and effectively addressed. The panels were convened at appropriate frequencies to meet the needs of prospective adopters

p.16

EVIDENCE:

and children. In areas where the panel had a heavy workload, cases could be Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 17 transferred to other panels. However, there was some suggestion that such transference was not easy, especially with children, over the age of one, due to the heavy workload of the panel medical advisers. Two adopters also raised this matter stating that they had been unable to be considered at the planned panel, due to a full panel agenda. They had been considered a month later, but indicated the delay had caused them a great deal of stress. Three dedicated administrators provided the administrative support to the panel, which was of a high standard. All had received specialist training in panel minute taking. The panel minutes were of an excellent standard, in so far as they were well structured, fully detailed the panels’ discussions and clearly indicated the

p.16

EVIDENCE:

reasons for the panel’s conclusions and recommendations.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

The agency decision – makers took their responsibilities seriously and practice was extremely child focussed. All panel papers and minutes were thoroughly examined prior to the agency’s decision being made. The agency’s decision was made without delay and effectively communicated to the prospective adopters, child and birth parents.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

There were clearly written recruitment and selection procedures. At the time of the inspection, one written report was obtained in the appointment of internal candidates. The agency should consider this employment practice given that the adoption regulations’ specify two references should be obtained in relation to those persons seeking to manage or work for the purposes of the adoption service. The personnel files examined did not contain all the information required by regulation, for example, files did not contain two references. In one file, the work report was not signed. In others there was no evidence of telephone enquiries being made to verify the legitimacy of references, nor was there proof of identity, for example, a recent photograph. Good practice was seen though in the application for enhanced CRB checks in respect of the agency’s administrative staff. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage

p.17

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

p.18

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 6&18

The agency provided a variety of support services for adoptive parents, with access to a developing range of post adoptive services. However, the lack of a consistent approach in the provision of support services across the county and capacity issues within the adoption support team was compromising the quality of support provided.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

In the preparation, assessment and approval process, applicants were encouraged to recognise and consider the complex needs of children placed for adoption and the likely support required to ensure a child was provided with a permanent home. Prospective adopters’ family and close friends were invited to an information evening to help them understand and consider the implications of adoption, including the support that they might be able to provide. Once a match was being considered, all the professionals involved, including where appropriate foster carers, school and medical personnel, decided with the adopters the support required to ensure a successful adoptive placement. Adoption support plans were agreed and presented to the adoption panel. The needs of adoptive parents both post placement and prior to the adoption order were assessed on an on-going basis by both the child and the adopters’ social worker.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

On approval adopters were provided with the BAAF adopters’ handbook and a one-year subscription to Adoption UK. All adopters were provided with a parenting pack and received regular newsletters from the agency. They were also invited to Buddy Groups and were able to access a variety of training to address all aspects of adoption. The agency also ran a number of events for prospective adopters’ extended family members/friends to facilitate their understanding of some of the issues, which arise within adoptive families. This enabled extended family members to provide appropriate support to adopters.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

The Adoption Support Kent Team (ASK) had also been established which provided assessment of need for adoption support, post order and ensured the Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 19 recommendations for adoption support packages were implemented appropriately.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

Whilst there were a variety of packages to support adopters, they were accessed via the districts’ budget. In all there were fourteen budget holders and there was evidence of some inconsistency in provision. Thus agreement to the support packages appeared to vary dependent on the culture of the district, time of application and state of the budget. Inconsistencies were also seen in relation to the funding of therapy packages from independent sources to support an adoptive family, which again appeared to vary from one budget holder to the next. Similarly, inconsistencies were seen with foster Carers who adopt, as some foster carers, for example in the “staying together” project were given a guarantee that they could retain their allowance at the fostering level, until a child was eighteen; whilst others received a much lower allowance. At the time of the inspection, the directorate was giving consideration to the adoption support budget being centralised.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Some inconsistencies also emerged in relation to adopted children and adopters access to the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAHMS). In some areas, inspectors learnt of adopted children gaining access to CAHMS via a fast track system, whereas in other areas, access was difficult and there were long waiting lists.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

In some areas, there was evidence of good partnership working between agency’s, which had led to a multi-agency service for children, young people and their families, whilst in other areas no such multi-agency services existed.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Some adopters indicated that the information provided in relation to support services was good; others suggested it could be improved and one adopter stated they had received no information. A number of adopters stated that “care was taken with support” and they felt “well supported”. One adopter stated that they had found the group they had attended for foster Carers who adopt had been “excellent”, another that there was “good communication” with the agency and the support provided them was “brilliant”. One adopter indicated that they had only been offered “minimal support”, though their need had been greater. Another adopter indicated that there was a need for an increase in “allowances” and “access to therapy”; one adopter indicated there had been a delay in finances being forwarded to them, which had caused some difficulties. Several stated that the “support staff were exceptional”, however,

p.19

EVIDENCE:

a number indicated that they believed the support team was “under resourced and under staffed” and one adopter stated that the team was “under pressure” and as a consequence, was “not as supportive as they could be.” Several placing social workers and authorities said the agency was “proactive in accessing support services” provided “good practical support”, if required and that adopters were “well supported” by the agency. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 20 Adopters who were matched with a child from abroad received on-going support in line with statutory requirements from specialist staff within the agency. They were also able to access advice from the Overseas Adoption helpline. Adopters, if they are in agreement, can also be included in the mailing list of ASK and receive the same information as other adopters. Information obtained from inter country adopters indicated that they were

p.19

EVIDENCE:

confident of receiving support from the agency should this be required.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The future development of adoption support packages is likely to require greater collaborative and multi-agency partnership working within the County. Consideration should be given to the development of such partnerships. Consistency of response in the provision of adoption support packages should also be addressed.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The agency’s preparation and assessment process ensured adopters received information about the significance of a child’s history and its relevance in enabling a child to develop a positive self - image. Adopters were helped to understand the need for and to develop strategies to assist a child to address all forms of discrimination. Adopters visited clearly understood the importance of ensuring information provided by birth families was kept safe.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The agency had access to a variety of specialist advisors and services to meet its needs. These included the panel medical and legal advisers. A concurrency service consultant, looked after children nurses and education advisors, a regeneration and equalities manager, equalities champions, a specialist inter country worker, the Overseas adoption helpline, the post adoption centre, access to BAAF and a variety of therapeutic services from the multi-agency centre in Thanet.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

Staff confirmed that the advisers were available for consultation, if required and were described as being “extremely knowledgeable” and provided “a good service”. It was reported that all the advisers were highly committed to their work and extremely “child focussed”. Some staff indicated though that some medical advisors had a heavy workload, which had impacted on their capacity to provide the service. In the returned questionnaires, medical advisors expressed a similar view and mention was made of the time consuming nature of the task. There was clear evidence of the adoption agency’s ability to access other specialists, as and when required.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

There were no written protocols governing the role of specialist advisers; the agency should develop these in line with the NMS for adoption. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 21

p.20

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)

p.21

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 7,8 & 9

The adoption agency demonstrated a clear commitment to developing services for birth parents and their families so they were able to contribute to their children’s future. Further work in this area was required though, if the outcomes for these standards were to be fully realised.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

The Council valued birth parents and their families, as demonstrated by the recent introduction of family group conferencing into children’s services. The principles, values and individual’s rights, which underpinned these conferences, together with engagement of families in the early stages of their difficulties, provided a good foundation for the continued involvement of the families in the child’s care planning process, should this prove to be necessary.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Similarly, the concurrency team in working intensively and supportively with birth parents, in their efforts to regain the care of their child, provided a good opportunity for effective engagement and co-operation being developed between the birth parents and the adoption agency.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

There was evidence that the service provided to birth parents recognised the life – long implications of adoption. Children’s social workers were encouraged to involve birth parents and families in the care planning processes for their child. There was also evidence of birth parents’ views about adoption and contact being clearly recorded, though this was not evident in every file examined.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

The agency also provided parents with independent support with the commissioning of services through KISKA, which was available to birth parents from the time an adoption plan was made in respect of their child. The importance of support to birth parents and their families was recognised in the adoption support plans, which was evidenced in some of the records seen. In Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 22 addition, birth parents were able to seek advice and independent support from the post adoption centre, which provided a telephone helpline and also held local surgeries. Information about independent local and national support groups was provided both by KISKA and the post adoption centre.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Birth parents were encouraged to express their views regarding their child or children’s adoption plan and contact, which were clearly recorded in the file documentation. Birth parents were encouraged to contribute to information included in the form E, which was made available in a format accessible to them. They were also asked to sign the form to indicate that they were aware of the content. In several of the files examined evidence of this practice was seen, though it was not evidenced in every file, for example, some form E’s were not signed by parents and no reasons recorded to account for this.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The agency’s policies recognised birth parents and their families’ inclusion in the adoption processes and encouraged them to contribute to their child’s heritage in providing information, letters and photographs. However, whilst childcare staff clearly recognised the importance of life story work many workers felt unable to complete such work due to a variety of reasons such as lack of knowledge, skills, training and a heavy workload. Since the completion of this work is of vital importance for the child and greatly assists in placement stability, this work should be given priority and carried out by appropriately trained staff.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

Birth parents and families were given further opportunities to pass on information through direct or indirect contact via the letterbox system and later life letters. The letterbox system was managed, on behalf of the adoption agency, by KISKA and was not seen as part of this inspection. Examination of some children’s files indicated that there was some inconsistency in the use of later life letters, however, there were also some examples of very thoughtful and sensitive letters being written, which were likely to prove extremely helpful to the child.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

In the returned birth family members’ questionnaires, three questionnaires were positive about the service; one of these indicated they were receiving support from a voluntary agency outside the County. The remaining two indicated that some sensitive and skilled work had been carried out, which had proved helpful to them. However, the remaining questionnaires were not positive and stated that they had not had access to or been provided with information about counselling, support groups or received any other help in relation to the adoption of their child. The agency should consider promoting the independent counselling and support services in a more proactive manner to birth parents and their families. In addition, it is recommended that the agency develop a more qualitative monitoring system in relation to the service provided by KISKA and the post adoption centre. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage

p.22

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.23

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.23

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 1, 3, 14, 16, 17,

The adoption agency was well managed and a good service was provided to children and adopters. This service would be improved though with a more robust quality assurance system.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

The agency had a statement of purpose, which had been approved by the executive side of the Council in May 2005. This statement contained most of the information required, though could be enhanced with more detailed Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 24 information being provided regarding the agency’s services, for example the inter country adoption service, section 51 counselling and the non-agency adoption service. The monitoring and evaluation section could be amplified with reference to the six monthly reports presented to the Executive members and the quarterly meetings that take place between the Head of the Children’s Services Provider Unit, the County Adoption Manager and Chair of the Children’s Champion Board. Details regarding the complaints procedure could have been presented in a clearer manner. The agency may wish to consider whether the office address and telephone number of CSCI should be revised to

p.23

EVIDENCE:

reflect the adoption inspection team’s base. There was evidence that all those working in the adoption agency were fully aware of the contents of the statement of purpose and had a copy. It was also available on the agency’s website. The agency’s written policies and procedures clearly and accurately reflected the statement of purpose.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

Kent’s Child Protection Procedures do not specifically refer to children placed for adoption and this must be addressed. The agency must also ensure all staff have access to information, which would enable them to contact the Commission for Social Care Inspection regarding any concern about child welfare and safety. In addition, consideration should be given to providing all adoption staff with up-dated child protection training.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

The agency had developed a leaflet for “Over 12’s” and this together with the BAAF booklet was used as the children’s guide for the older child. A leaflet for “Under 12’s” had also been produced, however, this leaflet contained a factual inaccuracy in relation to the frequency of CSCI’ s inspection of the adoption agency. In addition, there was also no information provided regarding the role of the Children’s Rights’ Director or any contact details. The agency was in the process of completing a children’s guide for the younger child.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

The adoption agency’s website, which was available to the general public provided good information regarding the County’s adoption service. Any initial enquiry about adoption was made through a customer care team, the Gateway team. This team had access to a duty adoption social worker should additional expertise be required in responding to an enquiry. In addition, prospective adopters interested in inter country adoption were referred to staff with specialist knowledge of this work.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

The agency’s adoption policy and recruitment plan clearly emphasised the importance of ensuring those enquiring about adoption were welcomed without prejudice and treated in an fair, open and respectful manner. There was evidence that these principles permeated the whole of the adoption process and were clearly reflected in the agency’s practice.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

The agency provided an information pack to those who enquired about adoption. This pack was in a user-friendly form and contained clear, well - written information about the agency’s eligibility criteria, the adoption process Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 25 and support services. Qualitative information was provided about the needs of local children, who required families. The agency also had a preparation pack for prospective adopters, who might wish to adopt a child from abroad.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

A number of adopters spoke positively about the written information received stating that it was “clear” and of “good quality”. One adopter though stated that the information provided was not sufficient. The inspectors were able to evidence that the agency ensured that all foster carers, who applied to adopt, received the same information as other adopters.

p.25

EVIDENCE:

The agency had effective systems in place to prioritise prospective adopters, who were most likely meet the needs of children waiting for adoptive parents.

p.25

EVIDENCE:

The County adoption and team managers were all extremely knowledgeable, experienced and skilled in this field of work. Staff interviewed spoke highly of the managers, respected them and had confidence in their managerial ability to develop the service. Their management style was described as “accessible”, “open,” “responsive” and “ very supportive”. Whilst the managers clearly had the necessary professional experience and skills to manage the agency’s work in an efficient and effective manner, not all team managers had a management qualification. Consideration should be given to addressing this.

p.25

EVIDENCE:

There were written job descriptions available for the managers of the agency and well-defined managerial arrangements in place to identify, who was in charge when the manager was absent. There were clear roles for managers and staff, with well-established lines of communication and accountability. The agency had a supervisory and appraisal system, which was used to monitor staff’s performance and ensure a quality of service. There was evidence though that staff were being supervised and appraised, in accordance with the agency’s policies.

p.25

EVIDENCE:

There were clearly written procedures for monitoring the work of the agency and a number of effective systems were in place to monitor and control the activities of the adoption service. These procedures included a tracking system to monitor the care planning process for the child and adopters. The supervision and appraisal systems in place monitored the adoption workers’ performance. The panel advisers’ quality assured all documentation presented to the panel. Council members’ were represented on each of the Adoption Panels and the panels undertook a monitoring role in respect of the quality of cases being presented to panel. Independent reviewing officers monitored the adoption service through the chairing of children’s reviews. The Heads of Children’s Services and the Directorate Management Team regularly considered reports on the work of Children and Families in adoption, as well as the work of the County Adoption Service. Three monthly meetings took place

p.25

EVIDENCE:

with the Head of the Children’s Services Provider Unit, the County Adoption Manager and the Chair of the Children’s Champion Board. In addition, the Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 26 executive Committee of the Council received an annual report regarding activities of the agency and arrangements had been made for a six monthly report to be made available in the future.

p.25

EVIDENCE:

The adoption service was well supported by administrative staff and procedures. The quality of the administrative support provided was of a high standard and a considerable strength to the agency.

p.26

EVIDENCE:

The adoption teams included a high proportion of workers with considerable knowledge, skills and experience. The staff were generally a stable workforce and there was relatively little staff turnover within the service. In the past, staffing shortages had occurred in one area, which had impacted on some processes; particularly in causing delays in the assessment and preparation of adopters, however, this had now been addressed.

p.26

EVIDENCE:

Childcare workers interviewed showed a strong commitment to providing a good, qualitative service to the children and their families. Some staff though were of the opinion their workloads were heavy and this, together with pressures on time, prevented them developing specialist skills and implementing best practice. All staff were aware of the various adoption procedural guidance available on the Council’s intranet, however, several staff indicated that they did not have the necessary time to access, fully internalise the information and effectively reflect it in their practice. There was a mixed picture presented regarding the adoption link workers ’s role and guidance on adoption issues provided by the adoption link worker, for whilst some staff indicated the support and guidance on adoption issues was “excellent”, others were less complimentary. A similar mixed picture was presented with regard

p.26

EVIDENCE:

to support and guidance provided in the team, which appeared to be dependent on whether the team manager or their colleagues had significant experience of adoption.

p.26

EVIDENCE:

The Council had developed a wide range of initiatives to encourage the recruitment and retention of staff. In the main staff spoken with were positive about them, however, some staff indicated that they were not as effective in practice, for example, the work life balance scheme. The salary offered workers was also seen as less favourable than other neighbouring authorities. Whilst the inspectors were generally of the view the agency had sufficient staff with the experience and skills to provide a good service. There was some concern at the staffing levels and capacity issues within the adoption support team. It is recommended that the agency review the resources allocated to this team. Moreover, in view of the current legislative changes in adoption, resources allocated to this service should be closely monitored and regularly reviewed.

p.26

EVIDENCE:

Staff interviewed generally considered the county Council to be a fair and competent employer, although some childcare staff stated that they believed Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 27 they were undervalued. Dissatisfaction was also expressed regarding the mobile telephone system currently used by staff in the adoption service.

p.26

EVIDENCE:

The Directorate provided a variety of training opportunities to all staff to ensure their on-going professional development. Some childcare staff reported though that their heavy workloads prevented them from fully utilising the training opportunities and they expressed some disappointment at the lack of support provided them by their managers. This picture though was once again variable as some staff stated they were well supported by their managers to access and maximise the training opportunities provided. A number of childcare staff indicated that they would appreciate core training being provided on Adoption. Adoption staff indicated that they were able to access good quality, specialist training and cited several examples of this. Generally though they were of the view that the Directorate’s training was heavily weighted to the needs of childcare staff.

p.27

EVIDENCE:

There were written policies and procedures in place for case recording, as well as the maintenance and formatting of adoption case records. Examination of a sample of records indicated that these policies and procedures were being followed, with the records seen were well organised and in good order. There were some shortfalls in the adopters’ files though some shortfalls were found, as several had no evidence of case decisions being recorded in the files, managerial oversight or a file audit being carried out. In a couple of files the checklist had not been completed, in another there was no disclosure number on the CRB letter and in a third file, there was no date indicating when a police check had been carried out.

p.27

EVIDENCE:

Similarly, with regard to the children’s files some shortfalls were found, for example, in two files, there were also some documents missing, for example, the child’s birth certificate and in another the copy of the care order was missing. In one child’s file, there was documentation relating to the professional experiences, qualifications and CV of a therapist, who was undertaking work with the child. This information should be removed from the child’s file, as it is clearly not in accordance with current legislation. .

p.27

EVIDENCE:

There were written policies on confidentiality and access to case records, which were in accordance with current legislation. The agency also had good systems in place to support these policies. Staff, panel members and specialist advisors were fully aware of these systems and ensured that there was strict adherence to them.

p.27

EVIDENCE:

Separate records were kept of complaints, allegations and staff, including agency staff and there was evidence to confirm all the agency’ s adoption records were stored securely.

p.27

EVIDENCE:

The agency should risk assess all adoption records to ensure they are stored in a manner to minimise the risk of damage from fire or water. There was Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 28 evidence of contingency plans in place to ensure the provision of premises and the safeguarding of records through an appropriate back up system.

p.27

EVIDENCE:

Personnel and panel members’ files, as discussed earlier in the report, did not comply with the adoption regulations and this must be addressed.

p.28

EVIDENCE:

The adoption teams operated from a number of different sites, which although fit for purpose, were of variable standard in terms of the accommodation and I.T. systems provided. In one of the premises there appeared to be some difficulty accessing meeting rooms, which caused some frustration and stress for staff. It would appear that these difficulties were related to a lack of adherence to the room booking system. All sites visited had restricted access and security systems. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 29

p.28

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.29

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.29

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 2 9 2

p.29

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

STAYING SAFE ACHIEVING ECONOMIC WELLBEING Standard No Score Standard No Score 2 3 No NMS are mapped to this outcome 4 2 5 3 MANAGEMENT 10 3 Standard No Score 11 3 1 2 12 4 3 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 3 19 3 17 3 24 x 20 3 21 3 ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING 22 3 Standard No Score 23 2 6 2 25 2 18 2 26 3 27 3 28 2 29 3 30 N/A 31 N/A Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 30 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? N/A

p.29

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.30

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 1. 4,19,20 & Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regs 2003 10(a) & 10(b The manager of the service must ensure that there are a sufficient number of competent, experienced social work and administrative staff working for the purposes of the adoption agency. 31/01/06

p.30

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2. 4 Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regs 2003 7(a)(b). The agency must implement and maintain robust quality assurance systems for all aspects of adoption service. 31/01/06

p.30

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3. 4 The Adoption Agency Regs. 1983 7(2) (b) & Schedule, part I,14 The agency must ascertain the child's wishes and feelings in relation to adoption. 31/12/05

p.30

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

5(5),as The adoption agency must ensure that the panel is quorate at all times. 31/12/05 Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 31 amended by the Adoption Agencies & Children Regs.199

p.30

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

5. 11,15,18, 19 & 28 Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regs 2003 6(2)(c), 11(3)(d), 15(1) & Schedules 3 & 4 The manager of the service must ensure that information is held on all persons who work for the adoption service in accordance with Schedule 3 and 4. This applies to all staff, panel members and specialist advisors, who provide services to the agency. 31/01/06

p.31

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

6. 4 & 25 The adoption agency regs.1983 7(2)(a), schedule 1, part I and LAC (97) 13 The manager of the agency must ensure a case record is set up for a child, where the adoption agency is considering adoption for a child. This case record must contain the information specified in the Adoption Agency Regulations 1983 and the guidance provided in the local government circular. 31/12/05

p.31

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

7. 4 & 25 The adoption agency regs.1983 8(2)(b)(d) schedule 1 part VI & Local Authority Adoption Service (Englan d) Regs

p.31

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Schedule 1,part V1,V11 Where the adoption agency is considering a person may be suitable to be an adoptive parent, the manager of the agency must ensure a case record is set up. This case record must contain the information specified in the Adoption Agency Regulations 1983 and 2003. 31/12/05

p.31

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

8. 1 Local Authority The manager of the service must ensure that the Statement of 31/01/06 Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 32 Adoption Service (England) Regs 2003 2(1) & Schedule Purpose contains all the information required in Schedule 1 of the Adoption Services Regulations, 2003.

p.31

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

9. 1 Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regs 2003 3(1) & Schedule The manager of the service must include in the children’s guide, all the information contained in Schedule 2 of the Adoption Services Regulations 2003. 31/01/06

p.32

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

10. 1 Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regs 2003 4(a)(B) The manager of the service must keep under review and where appropriate revise the Statement of Purpose and the Children’s Guide. The Commission must be notified of any such revision within 28 days. 31/01/06

p.32

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

11. 1 Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regs 2003 9(1)(a)(b) The agency must ensure that its child protection policies and procedures specifically refer to the measures intended to safeguard children placed for adoption by the authority from abuse and neglect. They should also include arrangements to be made for persons working for the adoption agency, prospective adopters and children who have been placed for adoption by the authority to have access to information that will enable them to contact the Commisssion regarding any concern about a child's welfare and safety. 31/01/06

p.32

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

12. 25 Data Protection Act 1998 The agency must ensure that the documentation held on file relates to that person 30/12/05

p.32

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

13. 18 & 28. Local Authority Adoption Service (England) The agency must ensure that those working for the service are suitably qualified and competent. In view of this documentary evidence must be obtained in 31/01/06 Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 33 Regs 2003 10(b) relation to panel members and specialist advisors’ registration with the appropriate professional bodies. This evidence must be held on their file. 14.

p.32

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

p.33

RECOMMENDATIONS

No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations

p.33

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. 4 The agency should consider further preparation work being undertaken with prospective adopters regarding self identity, bereavement and the emotional aspects of the introductory and placement stage of the adoption process. 2. 4 Prospective adopters should be kept fully informedof the progress of their appliaction. 3. 4 The agency should consider developing its health and safety checklist. This checklist should be applied in a consistent manner in all assessments carried out by the agency. 4. 4 The agency should re-examine its policy in relation to contact with appliacnt's ex-partners. 5. 4 All written assessments of a child should be comprehensive, detailed an dup-to-date. 6. 4 Consideration should be given to the training on form E ’s being a standing item on the training programme. 7. 10 The adoption panels' policies and procedures should be re- circulated to staff and panel members. 8. 11 The agency should give consideration to panel members

p.33

RECOMMENDATIONS

from ethnic minority groups being increased. 9. 6 Consideration should be given to the centralisation of the adoption support budget. 10. 6 The agency should address the inconsistency of adoption support packages provided adopters. 11. 6 & 18 In the provision of services to adopted children. Partnership arrangements with other agencies should be developed on a countywide basis 12. 6 Issues relating to a lack of capacity amongst some specialist advisors used by the agency should be addressed. 13. 18 A written protocol governing the role of specialist advisers Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 34 should be developed. 14. 8 The independent and support service provided to birth parents and their families should be more proactively promoted. 15. 8 A qualitative monitoring system should be developed in respect of the independent and support services provided birth parents and their family's.

p.33

RECOMMENDATIONS

16. 1 The agency should consider whether the office address and telephone number of CSCI in the statement of purpose and the children's guide should be amended to reflect the adoption inspection team’s base. 17. 21 In view of the legislative changes in adoption, the resources allocated should be closely monitored and reviewed. 18. 23 Consideration should be given to ensuring staff are able to fully utilise the training opportunities provided. 19. 23 Child care staff should receive core training on adoption. 20. 23 Adoption staff should be provided with up-dated child protection training 21. 25 The agency should risk assess the premises, where adoption records are held, to ensure that they are stored in a manner likely to minimise the risk of damage from fire and water. 22. 27 The adoption agency's should develop a disaster recovery plan. 23. 29 The agency needs to ensure all adoption staff have sufficient IT equipment and facilities to ensure the service

p.34

RECOMMENDATIONS

is provided in an efficient and effective manner. Kent County Council F57 F00 S55722 Kent V248202 050905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 35

p.34

Commission for Social Care Inspection

TH Floor, West Point 501 Chester Road Old Trafford, Manchester M16 9HU

p.35

Commission for Social Care Inspection

National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 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.35