Are the early benefits of the Adoption Support Fund (therapeutic support for adoptive families) sustainable?

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the wider context in which the national evaluation of the Adoption Support Fund (ASF) was delivered and raise concerns about the sustainability of the early outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The paper briefly summarises the outcomes of a two-year mixed-methods evaluation. This included a two-wave postal survey (n=792) and follow-up (n=481), an online survey of adopters (n=586) and professionals (providers n=50, local authority staff n=124) and in-depth family interviews. The focus of the discussion on sustainability is drawn from the qualitative research of 10 local authority case studies based on 86 interviews with adoption teams and 33 providers and the perspectives of parents. Findings Whilst the ASF showed modest early outcomes for families in terms of improved mental health and wellbeing without the scaffolding of wider support of services able to understand the complex lifelong needs of adoptive children and their families, the sustainability of the benefits of therapeutic support is questioned. Adoption teams struggled with the increased burden of administration of the fund, their knowledge of therapeutic interventions, an evidence base and quality of provision from a market that is difficult to regulate. In a society that is failing to meet the mental health and wellbeing needs of children generally, how can a single intervention meet the needs of a very vulnerable group? Research limitations/implications Research and evaluation on interventions in children’s social care could be more systems aware and instead of narrowly focusing on outcomes pay attention to the complex network of services that interlink to support vulnerable children and their families and the restraints on resources that they are working with. Social implications To prevent adoption breakdown and increase recruitment of adopters, support for adoptive families needs to be improved beyond the current scope of the ASF. A wide range of services are required to support adopted children particularly as they grow into adolescence. While families have the right to live independently of social services, the awareness of their needs throughout public organisations should be raised particularly in schools. Originality/value This paper represents the views of the evaluators at TIHR of the ASF beyond the scope of the original evaluation. It reflects on the wider context of the role out of the Fund and raises important questions about the failure to support the mental health and wellbeing needs of the most vulnerable children in society. It is an organisation reflection drawing on early research in children’s social care from its archive.

The feasibility and effectiveness of a time-limited psychodynamic couple-focused therapy for adoptive parents: preliminary evidence from the Adopting Together project

“…Although the Adoption Support Fund recognises the need for those adopting to receive support, this help has tended to be focused almost exclusively on the relationship between adopted child (or children) and parents (King, et al., 2017); the particular needs of adoptive couples seemed to be overlooked. This gap in support services should be addressed, since many couples struggle to manage their relationship and without support may be in danger of experiencing significant inter-parental conflict, separation or divorce, all of which have potentially damaging effects on children’s well-being (Harold, et al., 2016).…”

Mental health screening for children in care using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Brief Assessment Checklists: Guidance from three national studies

“…The respective study methodologies of the Australian, Dutch, and English studies are reported elsewhere in greater detail (Goemans et al, 2018; King, Gieve, Iacopini, Hahne, & Stradling, 2017; Tarren-Sweeney, 2007; Tarren-Sweeney, 2013a). While general child protection practice in the three study locations are likely to be quite similar, there are some important differences in their care systems.…”

“…The questionnaire consisted of questions regarding the foster child, the foster family, and the foster placement. The Dutch versions of the SDQ (Van Widenfelt, Goedhart, Treffers, & Goodman, 2003) and the BAC (Goemans et al, 2018; King et al, 2017) were used to measure foster children’s mental health. The child sample (4- to 11-year-old) consisted of 118 children, with a mean age of 7.80 ( SD = 2.15) and slightly more boys (56.4%) than girls (43.6%).…”

“…The longitudinal survey of adoptive parents in England was part of the evaluation of the ASF commissioned by the Department for Education (King et al, 2017). The ASF is an initiative introduced in 2015 aimed at enabling adopted children and their families to access therapeutic support.…”

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy for children living with adoptive parents or special guardians: a longitudinal assessment of the impact on child and caregiver wellbeing outcomes

“…These and other reasons led in 2015 to the establishment by the Department for Education (DfE), part of UK Government, of an Adoption Support Fund (ASF) for England to meet the therapeutic needs first of children who were adopted and later to include those who were cared for by special guardians. The children accessing a range of therapies through this funding have been identified as having very significantly elevated mental health needs compared with other children in the overall population (King et al, 2017; Burch et al, 2021), with 80–90% having needs in the clinical range (Burch et al, 2021). Similarly, the parents and special guardians caring for these children had significantly worse emotional wellbeing needs compared with the overall adult population (King et al, 2017; Burch et al, 2021).…”