Are the early benefits of the Adoption Support Fund (therapeutic support for adoptive families) sustainable?
| Pages | 66-72 |
| Date | 18 March 2019 |
| Published date | 18 March 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-08-2018-0056 |
| Author | Sadie King,Matt Gieve,Giorgia Iacopini,Anna Sophie Hahne,Heather Stradling |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health,Public mental health |
Are the early benefits of the Adoption
Support Fund (therapeutic support for
adoptive families) sustainable?
Sadie King, Matt Gieve, Giorgia Iacopini, Anna Sophie Hahne and Heather Stradling
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 (n¼792) and follow-up (n ¼481), an
online survey of adopters (n ¼586) and professionals (providers n ¼50, local authority staff n ¼124) 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.
Keywords Adoption, Evaluation, Mental health, Adoption Support Fund, Looked-after children
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR) is an independent charity established in 1947
with the aim of applying interdisciplinary social sciences to study group life and address
organisational problems. One important strand of its contemporary work is programme and
project evaluation. The mental health and wellbeing of looked after children are an area of
historical and contemporary importance for the TIHR. Over the decades, this has encompassed
a wide range of work on measuring outcomes and supporting organisational design. Examples
Received 3 August 2018
Revised 3 December 2018
Accepted 7 December 2018
Sadie King, Matt Gieve,
Giorgia Iacopini,
Anna Sophie Hahne and
Heather Stradling are all based
at The Tavistock Institute of
Human Relations, London, UK.
PAG E 66
j
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH
j
VOL. 18 NO. 1 2019, pp. 66-72, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-5729 DOI 10.1108/JPMH-08-2018-0056
To continue reading
Request your trial