🎭 Scrutiny, but Make It Selective
Notes for Today’s Safer Neighbourhoods & Active Communities Scrutiny Board...you can watch this meeting online today, Thurs 8th Jan, see: SNAC Mtg Online
There’s something oddly comforting about a Sandwell scrutiny agenda.
You know what you’re going to get before you even open the papers.
Warm words.
Bold headings.
A strong belief that if you say “engagement” often enough, outcomes will eventually follow.
Today’s Safer Neighbourhoods & Active Communities Scrutiny Board is no exception.
Tenant engagement.
Community cohesion.
Asset mapping.
Voluntary sector partnerships.
All very worthy.
All very familiar.
And all sitting on top of some rather awkward unanswered questions.
🗣️ Engagement: When “Listening” Has a Volume Control
The papers acknowledge low participation and trust deficits.
Good.
What they don’t acknowledge is that many people haven’t disengaged — they’ve opted out after repeated experiences of being ignored.
If engagement never changes outcomes, residents eventually learn the rules:
Turn up if you like
Speak if you must
Decisions will proceed regardless
That’s not participation failure.
That’s system fatigue.
🗺️ Community Asset Mapping: A Directory or a Gate?
The proposed Community Asset Map sounds harmless enough — a helpful guide to who’s active where.
But maps don’t just show what exists.
They also define what matters.
Without safeguards, asset mapping risks becoming:
a shortcut for “approved” voices
a filter for consultation invites
a quiet prerequisite for funding or influence
If you’re a constituted Friends Group:
volunteer-led
independent
lightly resourced
sometimes critical
…you should be paying close attention.
Because invisibility by process is still exclusion.
🏘️ Housing, Trust, and the Elephant Doing Laps Around the Room
It’s ambitious to talk about community cohesion while:
safety surveys remain incomplete
repairs are backlogged
tenants are still waiting for basics
You can’t meaningfully rebuild trust from a kitchen table that’s been waiting three years for a repair.
Engagement strategies don’t fix unsafe homes.
Delivery does.
🤝 Now Let’s Talk About the Voluntary Sector (Properly)
This is where things get uncomfortable.
Across multiple meetings, consultations, and strategies, the same organisations keep appearing — not as a conspiracy, but as a pattern.
That pattern matters.
🧩 Sandwell Consortium – When Coordination Becomes Concentration
Sandwell Consortium plays a central role in the borough’s voluntary sector ecosystem:
funding coordination
partnership access
engagement infrastructure
That in itself isn’t the problem.
The problem is concentration.
When one body becomes:
the coordinator
the gateway
the convenor
the familiar voice
…it inevitably shapes who gets heard and who doesn’t.
Unaffiliated groups.
Critical Friends Groups.
Small place-based organisations.
They don’t disappear — they just stop being visible.
And scrutiny should always ask whether coordination has quietly turned into control.
🏢 BWA – Delivery, Engagement, Representation (All at Once)
BWA regularly appears as:
a delivery partner
an engagement intermediary
a representative voice
Again, this isn’t about motives.
It’s about structure.
When one organisation occupies multiple roles simultaneously, scrutiny should ask:
Who checks independence?
Who tests representativeness?
Who challenges conflicts before they harden into norms?
Because the risk isn’t wrongdoing.
The risk is unquestioned authority.
🧱 CBO – The Umbrella That Flattens the Crowd
CBO is often framed as an umbrella body.
Umbrellas can be useful — but they also:
hide what’s underneath
blur differences
muffle dissent
Scrutiny should be cautious about assuming that an umbrella organisation:
speaks for all
reflects internal diversity
carries a democratic mandate
Communities are not monoliths.
And engagement that treats them as such is not inclusive — it’s convenient.
💃 Let’s Dance Again – When Safeguarding Meets Silence
Some concerns are more serious than others.
Where organisations operate in spaces involving:
elderly participants
vulnerable people
safeguarding responsibilities
scrutiny has a duty to slow down, not speed up.
Concerns raised around Let’s Dance Again — including governance, financial transparency, exclusion practices, and accountability — should not be brushed aside because the activity sounds positive.
Safeguarding is not optional.
Governance is not a technicality.
And reputation is not a substitute for assurance.
If scrutiny can’t ask hard questions here, it’s not scrutiny.
🌳 And Meanwhile… Friends Groups Wait Outside the Room
Friends Groups:
look after parks
flag problems early
ask awkward questions
don’t have comms teams
They are often the first line of accountability — and the easiest to sideline.
Any engagement system that:
favours intermediaries
rewards scale over stewardship
mistakes polish for legitimacy
…will slowly edge these groups out.
And once they’re gone, problems stop being spotted early — and start appearing in inspection reports instead.
🪑 Final Thought Before Today’s Meeting
Scrutiny isn’t about admiring strategies.
It’s about asking:
who benefits
who is missing
who gets repeated access
who quietly drops off the list
If today’s meeting doesn’t interrogate those questions, then it isn’t scrutiny.
It’s choreography.
And we’ve all learned the steps by now.
#Sandwell #SNAC #Scrutiny #CommunityEngagement #VoluntarySector #FriendsGroups #Governance #HousingCrisis #Accountability #Safeguarding #ConsultationFatigue #CommunityVoice
No comments:
Post a Comment