Progress in Bradford Children’s Services must not blind us to the risks

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with Anthony Douglas CBE, the Government-appointed Children’s Services Commissioner for Bradford. Anthony, as he prefers to be called, is the former Chief Executive of Cafcass and was appointed by the Government to oversee improvements in Bradford’s children’s services.

Bradford has a Children’s Services Commissioner because of the long-standing failure of children’s services under Labour-run Bradford Council. Ofsted judged the Council’s children’s social care services to be inadequate, and the Government concluded that the Council did not have the capacity to improve those services on its own. This led to the creation of Bradford Children and Families Trust, which now delivers children’s social care functions on behalf of the Council.

These arrangements are expensive. Bradford now has senior leadership and infrastructure sitting around both the Council and the Trust. That may be necessary while improvement is being driven, but residents are entitled to ask whether this is sustainable in the long term, especially when services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities are already under such financial strain.

The current arrangements will not last forever. At some point, the Government will need to decide whether Bradford Council is fit to take back responsibility for children’s services, whether the Trust continues, or whether some other arrangement is required. That decision must be based on evidence, not optimism.

No one should underestimate the effort that has gone into improving services. Staff, social workers, managers, foster carers and outside experts have worked extremely hard. Ofsted monitoring visits have recognised real progress, and that should be welcomed. The most recent monitoring visit, which focused on care leavers, found that Bradford Children and Families Trust and Bradford Council were working effectively together and that support for care leavers had improved.

But the same Ofsted monitoring work also shows that Bradford is not yet where it needs to be. Inspectors have continued to identify issues with records, risk, planning, supervision and consistency of practice. Earlier this year, Ofsted also noted the legacy of poor practice, staff churn in some teams and ongoing challenges in the sufficiency of placements.

In children’s social care, these are not abstract performance issues. They affect the lives, safety and futures of vulnerable children.

I remain deeply concerned about whether Bradford Council’s financial position creates additional risk. I asked Anthony Douglas about the very substantial savings being required of the Council and the Trust. His view was that the financial challenge process put in place by the Government is robust and achievable. I respect his experience, but I do not share his confidence.

Children’s social care is an inherently risky service. We have seen, too often and too tragically, what happens when systems fail, when professional curiosity is lacking, when staff are under pressure, and when warnings are missed. Bradford knows this better than most. The death of Star Hobson should remain a permanent reminder that safeguarding cannot be treated as just another budget line.

The Council is still relying on Exceptional Financial Support. It is selling assets to pay for day-to-day spending. It is under pressure to reduce costs, reduce external placements and bring spending closer to that of statistical neighbours. These may be necessary ambitions, but they are not risk-free. Reducing the number of children placed outside the district, for example, is only right if there are safe, suitable and stable local placements available.

There are wider pressures too. Families with children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities are already waiting too long for diagnosis and support. School transport has been cut. Government reforms to SEND funding remain uncertain. For many vulnerable children and families, the system already feels unpredictable, confusing and stretched.

I also raised the issue of Bradford’s legacy children: those who were failed before the Trust was created. These are children and young people for whom help came too late, or was too weak, or did not come at all. Their experiences cannot simply be filed away as history. Many will carry the scars of those failures for the rest of their lives.

I was told that there is an open door for victims and survivors to come forward, and that historical investigations can take place. That is important. But it also requires trust. We should not be surprised if some people harmed by past failures do not feel able to approach the very system they believe failed them. Bradford must think much harder about how it reaches out to those young people and families, rather than waiting for them to come forward.

There is progress in Bradford children’s services. I welcome that. But progress is not the same as safety, and improvement is not the same as success. The question is not whether things are better than they were. The question is whether they are yet good enough for every child who needs help, protection or care.

My view is that Bradford still has a long way to go. Financial instability, shortages of suitable placements, pressure on staff, delays in SEND support and the legacy of past failure all remain serious risks. The journey from “inadequate” to “outstanding” will take more than structural change, more than inspection preparation, and more than warm words.

It will require sustained investment, honesty about risk, and a relentless focus on the lived experience of every child.

Bradford’s vulnerable children deserve nothing less

Cllr Jeanette Sunderland