Council’s £65m Savings Plan Undermined by Weak Data, Flawed Models, and Unclear Delivery

An independent review by EY Parthenon has raised serious concerns about Bristol City Council’s flagship £12m Families First transformation programme. The consultancy identified six major risks in the business case developed internally by the Council’s Children and Education Directorate, specifically by a team led by Executive Director Hannah Woodhouse.

The risks include poor financial modelling, unreliable baseline data, limited scenario planning, and an over-reliance on external delivery partners whose methods may not suit the local context. The review also warned that delivery plans and risk mitigations remain underdeveloped.

Despite these red flags, the council is pushing ahead with the programme, which aims to save £65 million over the next five years by shifting focus to early help and reducing costly residential care placements. The business case—recently updated—projects a 5:1 return on investment, with six core delivery workstreams covering fostering, placement stability, family support, and cost-efficient commissioning. A new pilot will also test hyper-local early help coordination.

The council hopes to begin delivery in May 2025, but with £6 million in savings targeted for the first year alone—and a shortfall already predicted—much depends on whether the governance and oversight now being put in place can catch up with the programme’s ambitions.

Deeper Dive

The risks and the euphemisms employed by the consultancy about the work done so far by the CYP leadership team are worth quoting below (link). I am adding quotes from the supplementary annex, followed by my interpretation of each. If I have gone astray, you’ll be able to see how and where:

1. Weak Baseline Verification

Quote:

“There is limited evidence of the rigour applied to verifying the underlying baseline associated with each KPI, which makes it hard to follow the process that has been undertaken without recourse to detailed discussions with specific Council and Provider individuals involved. Further, the process results in varying analysis being applied with minimal supporting change controls.”

Plain meaning:
The Council has not properly verified or documented the data that underpins key performance indicators. As a result, it's unclear how figures were arrived at, and only those directly involved can explain them. The process lacks consistency and has little formal oversight, increasing the risk of error or manipulation.

2. Poor Financial Model Design

Quote:

“The financial models reviewed are comprehensive, however, are not structured in a manner that represents a HMT Green Book compliant best-practice financial model. The model lacks explanatory documentation, and the logic of the approach is difficult to follow. The models are also encumbered with a number of issues including hard-coded figures, external links and unverifiable data sources.”

Plain meaning:
Although the financial models cover a lot of ground, they are poorly constructed. They don’t meet government standards, lack clear documentation, and are difficult to understand or audit. Key figures are hard-coded or linked to unverifiable sources, making the model fragile and potentially misleading.

3. Lack of Clarity on Delivery Mechanisms

Quote:

“The delivery approach being proposed establishes a broad number of 'levers' which will be deployed under each opportunity to deliver the assumed impact. The quantifiable impact of these individual levers has not been derived at this stage, with the approach proposed a process of prioritisation to determine which are likely to have an impact post business case approval.”

Recommendation (paraphrased):
Disclose the “full suite of levers and activities proposed by delivery partner” before starting the programme. Add a robust process for due diligence.

Plain meaning:
The council has not clearly defined what actions will drive the programme’s success. The proposed changes are vague, with no measurable impact calculated yet. Key delivery details are to be worked out only after approval, creating major risks around accountability and effectiveness.

4. Inadequate Documentation of Baselines

Quote:

“Lack of formal process in documenting and verifying the baseline which limits the degree to which Council can understand the underlying assumptions.”

Plain meaning:
The Council hasn't put in place a clear or standardised method for recording and checking the starting data used in the programme. This makes it difficult to fully understand or challenge the assumptions that underpin projected benefits or savings, increasing the risk of flawed decision-making.

5. Risks to Deliverability and Value for Money

Quotes:

“Financial models not structured in a manner that represents best practice. Hard-coded figures, external links and unverifiable data sources, limits the Council in engaging in the analytics of the programme.”

“Manual interface between the underlying financial model and the benefit profile limits the Council’s ability to ensure clarity over components of the business case.”

Plain meaning:
The programme's financial planning and delivery structures are flawed. Without clear data, robust models, or detailed plans, the Council could struggle to track savings or implement change effectively—making it difficult to demonstrate that the programme offers value for public money.

6. Serious Risk Around Delivery

"The delivery approach leaves detail on individual opportunities to be determined post FBC approval, including factors such as a detailed delivery plan, key delivery risks, dependencies and associated mitigation strategies."

Plain meaning:

This suggests the council approved the business case before having a fully worked-out plan—raising serious risks around delivery.

Final Point: Increased Costs

In January 2025, the business case estimated the cost to be around £7m. The revised costs have increased to £12m to include internal staffing (part of which is £130k on a new director), risk contingency, and governance infrastructure—not just contractor fee.

Total Cost Now Accounted For:

• £7.5m (partner)

• £3.1m (internal team)

• £1.3m (contingency)

• £0.13m (director post)
  ➡️ Grand Total = £12.0 million

The Children and Young People Policy Committee meets 8 May 2025.

Whether all these issues I have pointed out are raised or not, remains to be seen. In a further appendix to this item, the council acknowledged the risks cited by EY and said they would mitigate them through a risk register, which will be reviewed initially monthly and then quarterly.