There is already one useful finding.
East Sussex’s own Children’s Services plan shows that adoption was being measured through NI 61 — the timeliness of placing looked-after children for adoption after an agency decision, alongside measures such as the number of new adopters approved and the proportion of children leaving care through adoption or special guardianship. The national DCSF dataset confirms NI 61 operated during the relevant period, including 2009/10.
cite:https://ckan.publishing.service.gov.uk/dataset/ni_061_-_timeliness_of_placements_of_looked_after_children_for_adoption_following_an_agency_decision
But there is an important distinction. East Sussex also had a Local Area Agreement performance reward grant system. A 2009 council audit says there was potentially £3,216,483 in LAA reward grant, with each of the 33 selected LAA indicators contributing an equal share. Crucially, however, that same audit says the mandatory DCSF targets were excluded from that reward calculation. So at present we have evidence of adoption performance targets, and separately evidence of performance-related government money, but we do not yet have evidence that adoption itself generated a cash payment per child. That is precisely the gap to investigate rather than assume. cite: https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/Data/Audit%2C%20Best%20Value%20and%20Community%20Services%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20090902/Agenda/ABV2Sept09item7InternalAuditProgressQ1.pdf
The way I would tackle it is:
- Fix the exact 2009 event involving Emily and Lauren. We need the date of each material decision, its legal description, who signed/approved it, whether it was fostering, care, placement, adoption, transfer or another arrangement, and the council team responsible. Your current PHSO correspondence already asks for who authorised the arrangements, what payments existed, their statutory basis and whether DfE money was involved.
- Reconstruct East Sussex’s money trail for 2008–10. Search its accounts, cabinet papers, Children’s Services budget papers, Local Area Agreements, grant returns and DCSF correspondence. We specifically want the account codes and grant names associated with looked-after children, fostering, adoption, special guardianship and placements. East Sussex’s accounts show substantial central-government/LAA grant structures existed, but that alone tells us nothing about your daughters. cire https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/Data/Governance%20Committee/20080626/Agenda/G260608Item5Accounts.pdf
- Identify the exact indicator attached to the decision. NI 61 is one candidate; NI 62 and NI 63 covered placement stability, and East Sussex’s own plan also measured numbers leaving care through adoption or special guardianship. cite https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/Data/Cabinet/20100126/Agenda/C26Jan2010Item5Appendix3ChildServRPR.pdf We then establish whether any of those metrics affected inspection ratings, funding, reward grants, management objectives or departmental budgets.
- Then trace the policy genealogy. Search Fabian publications from roughly 2003–2009, Labour policy documents and manifestos, DCSF white papers/guidance and East Sussex implementation documents. Your Fabian file supplies historical ideological background, including the early emphasis on state social planning, but it doesn’t itself provide the 2009 case-specific bridge. A potentially relevant contemporary Fabian source is Family Fortunes: The New Politics of Childhood from 2004, which explicitly described the children’s agenda as central to Labour’s governing programme and discussed state provision and family policy. cite https://fabians.org.uk/publication/family-fortunes-the-new-politics-of-childhood/. We’d compare its actual proposals against later government policy rather than infer influence from similarity. cite: https://stealingofemily.world/FILES/2026-09-17-The Fabian Society.pdf
- Map people only after mapping policy. For each minister, DCSF official, East Sussex councillor/officer or adviser involved, check documented Fabian Society roles or memberships where publicly recorded. Membership by itself would prove very little; what matters would be something like Person A authored Fabian proposal X → entered government/local authority role → policy Y adopted the same mechanism → policy Y governed the 2009 decision.
The next practical move is a tightly drafted records request to East Sussex. I would ask for all 2008–2010 documents showing funding, grants, performance incentives or financial consequences associated with NI61, NI62, NI63, adoption, special guardianship or children ceasing to be looked after; the complete list of East Sussex LAA indicators eligible for reward grant; all DCSF grant claims and correspondence connected with those measures; and the ledger/account codes against which the relevant placements involving Emily and Lauren were charged.
That request would answer the most important question first: was there actually a financial mechanism tied to the outcome in your case? If there was, we identify its origin. If there wasn’t, we discard that route rather than trying to make the evidence fit it.
I think that is where we should start, because we have already uncovered something concrete that neither proves nor kills the theory: East Sussex demonstrably had adoption performance targets in the relevant period, while performance-linked government funding also existed—but the evidence presently found does not show the two were the same scheme.
SO I’ve created a FOI request to East Sussex County Council at foi@eastsussex.gov.uk. That is the Council’s current published FOI address, and it says FOI requests should normally be answered within 20 working days.
| Dear Information Governance Team, Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am seeking recorded information held by East Sussex County Council concerning the relationship, if any, between children’s social-care/adoption outcomes and government or other funding during the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011. Please provide the following recorded information: Any policy, guidance, financial schedule, grant condition, funding formula, agreement, target document, performance framework or correspondence showing whether East Sussex County Council could receive, lose, increase or decrease funding, grant, reward payment or other financial benefit by reference to: NI 61 (timeliness of placement for adoption following the agency decision); NI 62 (stability of placements — number of placements); NI 63 (stability/length of placement); adoption outcomes; special guardianship outcomes; children ceasing to be looked after; or any other looked-after-children placement or permanency outcome. The complete list of Local Area Agreement indicators, targets or other performance measures used by East Sussex during 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 which were eligible for any performance reward grant, Area Based Grant, DCSF/DfE payment or other outcome-related funding, together with the value or potential value attributable to each indicator where recorded. Any document showing whether NI 61, NI 62, NI 63, adoption, special guardianship or any related children’s-services measure was included in, excluded from, or otherwise relevant to the calculation of Local Area Agreement performance reward grant or any equivalent funding arrangement. For each relevant grant or funding stream identified above, please provide: the name of the funding stream; the government department or other body providing it; the total amount received or potentially receivable by East Sussex; the formula or criteria used to calculate payment; the financial years concerned; and any recorded link between payment and the number, proportion, timeliness or outcome of children placed, adopted, made subject to special guardianship, or otherwise leaving care. Any grant claim forms, finance schedules, internal reports, Cabinet/committee papers, audit records, management reports or correspondence with DCSF, DfE, Government Office for the South East or other central-government bodies that explain how these children’s-services indicators were funded, monitored, rewarded or reported during the above period. Any recorded information identifying account codes, cost centres, grant codes or ledger headings used for money received in connection with adoption, special guardianship, looked-after children, permanency outcomes or performance-reward funding during the above period. I am not requesting personal data about individual children under this part of the request. If there was any mechanism under which a specific child’s placement, adoption, special guardianship or other care outcome could directly or indirectly contribute to a payment, reward, grant calculation or performance-related financial benefit, please provide the document that created or governed that mechanism and the method of calculation. If no such mechanism existed, please provide any recorded guidance, finance documentation or policy which shows that these outcomes did not attract or affect such payments. Please supply the information electronically, preferably in its original format where practicable (PDF, spreadsheet or native document format rather than a newly created summary). If any part of this request would exceed the appropriate cost limit, please do not simply refuse the request. Please provide the material that can be supplied within the limit and, in accordance with section 16 of the Act, advise me how the remaining parts can be narrowed while preserving the substance of the request. This request concerns systemic financial and policy records. It is separate from any request I may make for personal records relating to named individuals. Yours faithfully, Martin Newbold |
Leave a Reply