This project or publication was produced before or during the merger of What Works for Children’s Social Care (WWCSC) and the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF).
A study, conducted by researchers from the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, examining the impact of the Adoption Support Fund on the mental health of adopted children.
The Adoption Support Fund (ASF) aims to provide adoptive families with funding support to access mental health services. The Fund was rolled out across all 152 local authorities in England from May 2015 to pay for essential therapeutic services for eligible adoptive and special guardianship order (SGO) families. However, little is known whether the ASF policy helped improve the mental health of adopted children. This study, conducted by researchers from the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health at King’s College London, used a quasi-experimental design to examine the impact of the introduction of the ASF on the mental health of adopted children.
This study aimed to examine whether the ASF policy improved mental health outcomes for adopted children who were eligible to receive ASF funding.
This study used a difference-in-differences analysis as a quasi-experimental design. This difference-in-differences approach was employed to compare changes in mental health for a treatment group (adopted children) to similar changes for a control group (non-adopted children). Data were pooled from three datasets: the Longitudinal Study of Adoptive Parents, the Millennium Cohort Study, and the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Mental health outcomes for children were measured using scores from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) as a proxy for children’s mental health.
The study found that the introduction of the ASF policy had no impact on the mean SDQ scores for adopted children compared to the control group. However, the results suggest that the ASF policy has improved the mental health of adopted children with relatively high SDQ scores (17 and higher). This suggests that the ASF policy may benefit some groups of children in particular. No consistent evidence was found for specific externalising and internalising behaviour.
The results of this study suggest that the ASF policy led to some improvements in the mental health of adopted children, particularly among adopted children at high risk of ill mental health. This improvement may be explained by their increased access to mental health services, as provided by the ASF. Further research is needed to identify the effectiveness of specific types of therapeutic interventions on adopted children’s mental health.
The study’s findings regarding the limited mental health improvements among adopted children on average also highlight the need for complementary approaches that do not only offer therapeutic services to adopted families but complement this with interventions that address the broader social and economic wellbeing of adoptive families.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.