Follow the Money, Sandwell: The Consortium That Ate the Voluntary Sector

Follow the Money, Sandwell: The Consortium That Ate the Voluntary Sector.

You know that phrase “the voluntary and community sector”?

The one that conjures up images of plucky volunteers, borrowed kettles and heroic biscuit tins?

Well… let’s talk about what it actually looks like in Sandwell when you follow the money.

Spoiler alert: it’s not the church hall raffle.

Once upon a time, there was a Consortium…

At the centre of Sandwell’s community-funding universe sits Sandwell Consortium CIC — an organisation that markets itself as a helpful co-ordinator, facilitator, enabler and general good egg.

In practice, it now looks suspiciously like a parallel commissioning arm of the Council, only without elections, scrutiny committees, or awkward things like public accountability.

Over just two financial years:

• 2022/23: ~£759,000
• 2023/24: £901,893

That’s over £1.66 million of public money.

Not for filling potholes.
Not for cutting grass.
Not even for directly delivering most frontline services.

But for… support.
And coordination.
And advice.
And other wonderfully flexible words that can mean absolutely anything you want them to.

But wait — it gets better

Sandwell Consortium doesn’t sit alone at the top of the money tree.

Look a little wider and you find the same familiar names cropping up again and again:

• SCVO
• Citizens Advice
• Black Country Women’s Aid
• Brushstrokes
• Murray Hall
• Kaleidoscope
• Ideal for All
• St Albans
• And a growing cast of “infrastructure” bodies

Different logos.
Different mission statements.
Same small club.
Same revolving door of six-figure grants.

This isn’t diversity of provision — it’s concentration of funding, year after year.

Now let’s add politics to the mix (because of course we should)

Here’s where things become… interesting.

Sandwell Consortium’s history and operation are not politically neutral. Over time, it has been closely intertwined with people who:

• Sit (or have sat) in Cabinet
• Shape funding frameworks
• Influence partnership structures
• Oversee the very grant systems that benefit Consortium-linked organisations

Entirely declared. Entirely “within the rules”.

But if this were the private sector, people would be muttering words like “capture” and “cosy arrangements” into their coffee.

In Sandwell, it’s called partnership working.

The red flags aren’t exactly subtle

When you actually read the grant spreadsheets — line by line, payment by payment — Sandwell Consortium lights up like a Christmas tree:

• Very high total funding
• Multiple large payments
• Repeated payments in the same periods
• Near-identical descriptions reused again and again
• Money coming in from several different directorates
• Very little publicly visible performance reporting

In fact, when scored against standard transparency and risk indicators, it sits right at the top alongside other “too big to question” organisations.

At some point, a charity receiving this level of funding stops looking like voluntary sector support and starts looking like an outsourced council department with a nicer website.

And meanwhile, the rest of the sector is told to be grateful

Small groups are encouraged to “engage”.
New organisations are advised to “partner up”.
Communities are reminded to go through the “proper channels”.

Translation:
If you’re not already inside the ecosystem, good luck getting in.

Because when millions are locked into a tight network of “trusted partners”, there isn’t much left — except consultation exercises, pilot schemes, and photos for the annual report.

This isn’t about one organisation

Let’s be clear: this is not about whether Sandwell Consortium (or any other named organisation) does some good work. Many do.

This is about system design.

A system where:

• Intermediaries are paid millions to manage grants
• The same intermediaries sit at the centre of political influence
• Cabinet Members are embedded in recipient organisations
• Scrutiny is weak
• Outcomes are vague
• Accountability is blurred

All wrapped up in the warm, comforting language of community, co-production and partnership.

Lovely words.
Awful governance.

The question Sandwell should be asking

Not:
“Is the Consortium doing good things?”

But:

Why has so much public money, influence and decision-making power been concentrated in the hands of so few organisations, so close to the political centre of the Council?

Because when you follow the money, you don’t find chaos.
You find structure.
And when you follow the structure, you find power.

Next up: mapping the spider’s web — names, money, roles and relationships — all in one place.

Stay tuned. 🕷️

#FollowTheMoney #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #VoluntarySector #PublicMoney #Governance #Transparency #PoliticalInfluence #CommunityFunding #Consortium #Accountability #LocalPolitics #TaxpayersMoney #PowerAndMoney

Legal Notice & Disclaimer

This blog is based solely on publicly available information, including Companies House filings and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council financial data.

All commentary represents opinion, analysis and satire, written in the public interest.

No allegations of wrongdoing are made against any individual or organisation.

Readers are encouraged to verify all financial information independently using original source documents.