Written evidence from Dr Derek Kirton (CFA0060)
HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY
Evidence to Select Committee
Dr Derek Kirton, Emeritus Reader in Social Policy and Social Work, University of Kent
What has been the effect of the repeal of the requirement to consider ethnicity, religion, race, culture and language in England when placing a child for adoption? Are any further legislative or other measures needed to address disparities?
1.1 I write this as an academic who has researched and written about issues of ethnicity and adoption over the past three decades, and prior experience as an adoption social worker and adoption panel member. My short answer to the question is that effects have been very limited as judged by key indicators, but more importantly, that this is unsurprising given the history of law, policy and practice in this area, including the Children and Families Act 2014. A caveat to this is that research (broadly defined) into any effects, has also been quite limited.
1.2 In seeking a way forward, it is important to understand the reasons for the relative lack of change and it is my contention that these stem significantly from the political context within which law and policy have evolved. This has been a long term focus of my own work – including on the 2014 Act - and here I will draw upon it to propose a shift of emphasis that will better serve the interests of BAME children.
2.1 In an analysis of the Parliamentary debates relating to the 2014 repeal (where the full set of characteristics is usually shortened to the ‘ethnicity clause’), I demonstrate the contradictory nature of government policy relating to ethnicity and adoption (Kirton, 2016a) full text available (with draft rather than final title) at The Characteristic That Dare Not Speak Its Name - revised.pdf (kent.ac.uk). In particular, I show how this combined an unwavering determination to remove the so-called ‘ethnicity clause’ (and refusal of a compromise amendment that would have included it in the welfare check along with age and sex), with repeated assurances during the HL Committee stages that ethnicity was vitally important and must be considered at every stage of decision-making. Lord Nash stated that:
We have no intention of moving away from the importance of the child’s cultural and ethnic background. It is imperative that these are taken into account on every front. (HL Deb 9 Dec 2013 c608)
2.2 The most plausible explanation for this contradictory stance is on the one hand, a desire for a headlining political ‘victory’ over the perceived scourge of ‘political correctness’ (PC), while the response in the Lords represented a lower profile, but far more measured debate about the undoubted significance of ethnicity in adoptive decision-making.
3.1 It is also important to note the huge influence of the media in framing debates and pressing for change (the case for adoption reform in the early 2010s was significantly ‘led’ by the Times newspaper as was regularly acknowledged by Prime Minister David Cameron and further signalled by the seamless transition of Martin Narey from writing a ‘blueprint’ report for the Times to being appointed as the government’s Advisor on adoption). I have analysed national newspaper coverage of reform in the years of coalition government (Kirton 2020) and a final draft copy of the full text is available from De.pdf (kent.ac.uk). In summary, it is documented there how, on the one hand, the significance of ethnicity for BAME children is downplayed or even erased - through for example, a largely unchallenged reporting of the success of transracial adoption, regular messages that ‘love is all you need’, claims about the declining significance of racism and using the language of ‘racial equivalence’ despite the fact that transracial adoption almost invariably involves BAME children and white parents.
3.2 On the other hand, ethnic matching (always assumed to be disproportionately emphasised) is portrayed as a threat not only to the interests of BAME children and to prospective white adopters, but to the adoption system more broadly and to cherished liberal values. This is conveyed by a series of exaggerations, such as claims of a long standing national ban on transracial adoption, explaining overall trends in adoption in terms of race when no such link exists and a series of often misreported and occasionally fictitious statistics, all of which serve to exaggerate the lower levels and longer timescales of adoption for BAME children. Although difficult to gauge, coverage also implicitly over-estimates the scale of interest in transracial adoption. Ethnic matching was frequently denounced as racist, or as an example of ‘apartheid’, and is rarely accorded any positive value. There is also a strong emphasis on perceived systematic discrimination against white middle class couples, readers’ concern for whom, the Times (6.10.11) explained, was a key driving force of its campaign.
3.3 Politicised disparagement of social workers is also an important and pervasive feature of most coverage and this has proved highly flexible. As noted above, in the run up to the 2014 Act, they were regularly accused of bias against white middle class couples, and by the then Education Secretary Michael Gove, of following ‘left wing prescriptions’. Strangely, however, the current government’s Adoption Strategy accuses social workers of having idealised, implicitly conservative views of the adoptive family, stating that ‘The adoption system should not expect adoptive families to be middle class, have a certain income, own their own home or have a spare room’ (Department for Education, 2021, p.6).
3.4 It should be noted that none of these claims are particularly well documented through research (in terms of their extent, their context etc), but the contradictory stereotyping and denigration of social workers is striking and deeply unhelpful. Tellingly, alongside dozens of Times’ articles hammering home the dominant view, one (but only one) based on a journalist following adoption social workers produced a completely different, nuanced and more sympathetic account of their work and its challenges (Times, 9.5.11).
4 Beyond interest to academics, why does this matter? I would argue that it does in the following ways.
4.1 Particularly in an area of limited public knowledge, media accounts have a significant influence over what is ‘known’ and this is more pronounced when the media and politicians operate within an ‘echo chamber’ (in both spheres white voices dominate – see recommendations below). Thus, what is often to varying degrees, misinformation, is presented and likely to be taken by many as ‘fact’. My article cites several examples of this, including statements from government politicians and officials.
4.2 In turn, these (mis)representations shape the problem that is to be solved and this poor grounding always makes ‘failure’ likely (although the template for blame requires that this is attributed to recalcitrant adoption workers and agencies). None of this of course, is to deny that social work and adoption agency practice has its flaws, merely that these are unhelpfully exaggerated and often misrepresented.
4.3 Since the first controversies over BAME adoption arose, the dynamic between media and politicians has been pivotal to a cycle of perceived ‘scandal’ – typically contentious cases involving (thwarted) transracial adoption, or a focus on low rates of BAME adoption which are explained in similar terms – followed by ‘muscular’ political responses including the 2014 repeal and then often a ‘loss of interest’ until the next media-driven scandal.
4.4 An example of this, is that despite the government pressure for increased use of transracial adoption, there is to my knowledge no monitoring of this (or at least none that is publicly available) and key measures remain non-specific in terms of matching processes. Thus, when we might look at different adoption statistics across local authorities or now RAAs, there is no indication of whether for example higher rates of BAME adoption are being achieved by better recruitment or matching with BAME adopters and/or by greater use of transracial adoption. It is extraordinary that in such a long running, contentious area of public policy, we are still reliant on occasional usually fairly small-scale snapshot evidence from research studies or inspections (Dance et al., 2010; Selwyn et al., 2010).
4.5 Crucially, adoption is the only form of permanence to receive significant media attention (there is minimal coverage of special guardianship, long-term fostering, kinship care or reunification). In turn, this appears to reinforce the government’s prioritisation of adoption, which has seen repeated initiatives, then critiqued for their neglect of other forms of permanence and subsequently concessions made e.g. including special guardianship in the Leadership Board structure and the Adoption Support Fund. While these moves are welcome, the adoption centred mindset appears deeply entrenched and is likely to reflect anticipated favourable media reception. Crucially, as explained below, this issue is important for permanence in relation to BAME children
4.6 This context has created an unhelpful situation whereby ethnic matching is recognised in guidance as advantageous, but always under threat of ‘undue emphasis’. This, combined with the sporadic cyclical interest of governments, may explain why there has never been any sustained work to recruit BAME families (on the relatively rare occasions of commitments being made, they have not been followed through for any period of time). Instead, this has been left to the initiative of particular agencies. It should also be noted that in the run-up to the 2014 Act, the government was quite clear in its desire to see more transracial adoption, with DfE officials stating in evidence to the House of Lords that it did not see greater BAME recruitment as the answer to low adoption rates. To my knowledge, adoption agencies have never been clearly or strongly challenged by government agencies, officials or ministers regarding poor performance in BAME recruitment and this is certainly massively outweighed by criticism of their perceived obstruction of transracial adoption.
4.7 Finally, material support such as adoption allowances, which may be particularly helpful to minority ethnic and working class adopters, has anecdotally (I am not aware of any published data on this) fallen very significantly over recent years.
5.1 Racial disparity is clearly an important issue in relation to BAME adoption, but with the above framing of debate, there is a danger that it is understood too narrowly. The headline figures for Black, Asian and Other children’s adoptions are of course very low in comparison with those for white and mixed race children and appear to provide strong evidence for the case regularly made by media and politicians (notwithstanding the misrepresentation of the mixed race group), which includes the corollary that children ‘languish’ in care as a consequence. However, this masks a more complex situation and one where again there is limited evidence.
5.2 An important piece of evidence is that on average, BAME children spend (significantly) less time in care than white children (this has been found in both national and more recently local level analysis (Owen & Statham, 2009, Neil et al., 2020). While this does preclude that low adoption rates may mean some children (or sub-groups of children) remaining in care longer, it suggests that moving from low adoption rates to generalised claims of ‘languishing’ may be at best over-simplified and possibly misleading. To my knowledge, there is no research that adequately unpacks this issue of BAME pathways through, and exit routes from, care or offers an overview of the relationship between ethnicity and permanence. However, the above mentioned studies are likely to reflect the fact that BAME children may be equally or even favourably relative to white children, represented in certain other forms of permanence. It is also worth noting here that less high profile forms of permanence such as reunification, kinship care etc are those prioritised under the Children Act 1989, even though adoption is often favoured in ‘outcome’ terms. Overall, it is crucial to avoid a simplistic pursuit of parity through the idea that all ethnic groups should be adopted at similar rates, at least until there is a much stronger evidence base.
6 Recommendations
6.1 In relation to the 2014 legal change, the very strong but unsuccessful case made in Parliament for including ‘ethnicity’ in the welfare checklist should be accepted and the appropriate amendment made.
6.2 More broadly, if the interests of BAME children are to be better served, there is a need to move beyond what has become a dominant, unchanging narrative relating to adoption rates and adoption practices as this is based on an amalgam of selective evidence and significant misrepresentation.
6.3 Recognition of the advantages of ethnic matching (where the current grudging tone in guidance should be revised) should drive policy in two senses. The first by placing a consistent and well supported (including through material help) emphasis on maximising BAME family recruitment. This must also take into account the additional challenges involved in state engagement with minority communities and the associated potential of mistrust. Second, as regards white transracial adopters, there is a need to ‘raise the bar’ in terms of their awareness of the significance of racial/ethnic identity issues, and expectations that this is already reflected in their lives (geographically, in terms of networks, experiences etc). At present, the significance of identity issues is underplayed and often subsumed entirely by naive, colour blind, claims that ‘love is all you need’.
6.4 Addressing the problem of ‘rigidity’ where it occurs should be based on ongoing engagement rather than through the periodic public ‘shaming’ that has dominated to date. Notably, this should involve good disaggregated, data collection including on ethnicity and matching and a consistent and constructive focus on this issue in inspections. (My research on foster care and diversity has shown that OFSTED reports are highly inconsistent in this regard (Kirton, 2016b) , and although I have not catalogued this in detail, the same seems to apply to adoption inspections.)
6.5 As indicated above, there is a need for more research in relation to BAME adoptions, and while responsibility for this rests to a degree within the research community, government and government bodies could do much more to facilitate and promote it.
6.6 It is important that policy is framed more comprehensively around permanence than merely adoption. This would facilitate a more rounded and accurate picture of the extent to, and ways in which BAME children are being ‘failed’. It would also allow recognition that plenary adoption may sit less comfortably in some minority communities and that while one approach is engagement to change attitudes (and there has been positive work on this), there should be some flexibility on this in terms of routes to permanence. For a useful discussion of this in relation to children of Muslim heritage note the work of Cheruvallil-Contractor and colleagues (2018), including their most recent article (2022).
6.7 Much greater attention should be paid to ‘voice’ in relation to BAME adoption and particularly voices from those communities. My media research showed how white voices dominated this debate and how, with limited exceptions, reported minority ethnic voices tended to be those supporting the dominant view. Although there have been occasional public opinion exercises undertaken, these have tended to be very superficial and lacking in any background knowledge. There is a strong case for deliberative democracy that would help to refine and legitimise policy in this area, and this should include a range of adoption and child welfare stakeholders. My own earlier research and similar US studies within social work have shown that while there are wide variations within ethnic groups, on balance, support for ethnic matching is clearly stronger among minority communities than in the white majority (Kirton, 1999).
6.8 I am aware that arguing for a paradigm shift in the government’s treatment of adoption and permanence for BAME issues is challenging, This will require a ‘reset’ in terms of framing the issues, desistance from ‘culture wars’ rhetoric that has dogged this issue, and a willingness to prioritise the interests of children over courting good publicity. However, there have been encouraging signs recently of attempts to engage in a more nuanced way e.g. with a renewed emphasis on BAME recruitment which in itself marks a move away from the philosophy underpinning the 2014 repeal, and strong focus from the Adoption and Special Guardianship Leadership Board. It is my hope that these can be built upon. If not, and there is no significant shift, I fear we are likely to be repeating, in the years to come, the largely unproductive cycle outlined earlier.
References
Dance, C., Ouwejan, D., Beecham, J. and Farmer, E (2010) Linking and Matching: A survey of Adoption Agency Practice in England and Wales, London: British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
Department for Education (2021) Adoption Strategy: Achieving Excellence Everywhere, London: DfE.
Kirton, D. (1999) ‘Perspectives on Race and Adoption: the Views of Student Social Workers’, British Journal of Social Work, 29(5), 779-796.
Kirton, D. (2016a) ‘Neo-liberal racism: Excision, ethnicity and the Children and Families Act 2014’, Critical Social Policy, 36(4), 469-488.
Kirton, D. (2016b) ‘(In)sufficient?: Ethnicity and foster care in English local authorities’, Child and Family Social Work, 21(4), 2016, 492-501.
Kirton, D. (2020) (De)racializing ‘common sense’: media perspectives on adoption reform in England, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(7), 1208-1226.
Neil, E., Gitsels, L. and Thoburn, J. (2020) Children in Care: Where do children entering care at different ages end up? An analysis of local authority administrative data, Children and Youth Services Review, 106.
Owen, C, and Statham, J, (2009) Disproportionality in Child Welfare: The Prevalence of Black and Minority Ethnic Children within the 'Looked After' and 'Children In Need' Populations and on Child Protection Registers in England. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Selwyn, J., Quinton, D., Harris, P., Wijedasa, D., Nawaz, S. and Wood, M. (2010) Pathways to Permanence for Black, Asian and Mixed Ethnicity Children. London: British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
April 2022
7