QUESTIONS have been raised over how Bradford Council’s Children’s Services department arrived at a situation where it faces a £33.8 MILLION overspend in the coming year.

Councillor Mike Pollard (Cons, Baildon) raised the issue at a meeting of the Council this week, when he discussed the huge costs the Council faces in placing looked after children in placements outside of the District.

He said if the issue is not tackled, the Council could face financial “disaster.”

Out of District placements can cost the taxpayer up to £250,000 per child per year, and in the past year costs have risen from £3,600 a week to £4,800 a week.

A recent report into Council finances reveals that the number of children in such placements has risen to its highest level, and this was a major contributor to the Children’s Service department’s £33.8m predicted overspend for the year.

There are now 105 young people in such placements compared to 70 the previous year.

At the Council meeting Cllr Pollard pointed out that this year’s budget, approved in February, seemed to be based on the assumption that there would be a much lower number of children in such external placements – 75. He also claims the Council has underestimated the cost of these placements.

He said: “What has happened since the budget?

“It is not credible to conclude that there were only 75 such children in the system at the time rather than the 105 in the most recent documents.”

At the meeting Council Leader Susan Hinchcliffe said there were “no smoke and mirrors” and that she was happy to answer any questions about the budget.

She criticised the cost of external places, and called for Government to step in to reduce costs to Councils.

Bradford Children's Services to be run by trust after report found Council 'lacked capacity and capability' to improve fast enough

Cllr Pollard fears that the failure to predict demand for these placements meant the Council could soon face a Section 114 notice – issued when a Council is unlikely to be able to meet its costs.

He said although reserves could cover the overspend for the next few years, he had “serious worries” about the 24/25 budget.

The Telegraph & Argus asked the Council to comment on the points Cllr Pollard raised at the meeting.

Chris Chapman, Director of Finance, said: “Like all local authorities, the numbers of children in our care, along with the cost of that care, are changing constantly.

“The Council approved additional funding for Children’s Social Care in its 2022/23 budget, since then the demand for these services continues to increase due to factors including pressures on some of our families in the aftermath of Covid and the current cost of living crisis.

“Additionally charges from private providers have increased by over 30 per cent since April which is subject to national review by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

“These unforeseen pressures have led to forecast budget overspends.

“The reference to the predicted 75 cases is an incorrect assumption from an internal document regarding the level of budgeted placements prior to the allocation of the additional budget approved in 2022/23 and the progression of the Sufficiency Strategy approved by the Executive.”

Cllr Pollard responded “The response the T&A has received from the Council doesn’t really change my view of the shambles. There was indeed ‘an incorrect assumption made in an internal document’. Exactly, that’s the essence of my point! It was, however, a couple of patently incorrect assumptions that got shockingly ‘baked in’ to the Council’s main Budget in respect of Net Revenue Requirement for 2022/23.

He claimed Cllr Hinchcliffe had not answered his questions at the meeting, adding that she “Has presided over a Budget setting process which was manifestly flawed.”

He added: “I genuinely don’t understand how Council can have been presented, by the controlling Labour Group, with a Budget, purporting to balance without cuts, when at senior political and Officer level, it must have been known that the premise regarding, for example, the likely cost of external residential care placements for looked after children and young people was, bluntly, dangerous nonsense.

“I don’t disagree with Cllr Hinchcliffe that the cost of those placements is outrageously inflated and should be regulated, but even the average cost per placement, assumed in the internal document, was way adrift of known reality, calculated at just £3,000 per week – some 60 per cent short of already known reality.

“That’s only part of the point here. The disaster is likely to arise even more significantly as a result of the ridiculous assumption being made with regard to demand for those placements. It’s not new demand, not something that was genuinely unknown when the Budget was set in mid-February. The problem was hiding in very plain sight.

“The implications for the Council’s finances, not just in this financial year, but looking forward to next, when the Children’s Trust company is up and running, are potentially gravely serious.

“The Council does hold significant reserves, but two or three years of the unsustainable position we see in current financial projections will see the District seeking to press the Section 114 Notice button – in simple terms that’s a Local Authority effectively saying ‘without emergency measures, we are going bust.’”