Achieving government adoption targets will require more front-line staff and extra funding, a national conference heard last week.

"There isn't long to get the staff," warned British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering chief executive Felicity Collier. "We need action from the government and we need it now," she said at the conference on adoption targets organised by BAAFand Children Law UK.

She welcomed the Department of Health's commitment to a national recruitment campaign for social workers, but cast doubt on its chances of success, especially given the expected adverse publicity during the Victoria Climbie inquiry.

According to BAAF's figures, the government aims to increase the number of adoptions by 40 to 50 per cent by 2005. This translates into 4,050 adoptions for the financial year ending 31 March 2005.

To meet the target, 4,050 children would need to be matched with prospective adopters during 2003 to allow for the 15 months on average that the courts take to grant an adoption order. Because 13 per cent of children approved for adoption do not successfully find matches, a higher number of children would need to be approved for adoption during the preceding year - about 4,650 during 2002, according to BAAF.

"That's quite a task when you look at the current figures," added Collier. She admitted there were some "potential unknowns" which affected BAAF's calculations, including the impact of the recently launched adoption register on finding suitable families and possibly speeding up the process.

But she remained concerned that the targets could skew adoption work from pursuing appropriate rehabilitative measures to return children to their birth families. Councils could also sideline older or damaged children or those with special needs in order to meet targets.

Meanwhile, a leading children and families charity has warned that adoption targets will lead to an "increased fear" of social services departments.

Family Rights Group chief executive Robert Tapsfield told the conference it was an "unintended consequence" of having targets that birth families would be less likely to become involved with social services departments because of fears of the removal of their children.

The targets would inevitably focus a "disproportionate energy on adoption as opposed to family support", added Tapsfield. This would lead to more adoptions which would be "at the expense of some children [who could] be rehabilitated to their birth families".