Where did the money go — and did Smethwick actually get better?
Smethwick Pride in Place: Grants Awarded, Questions Remain — Show Us the Paper Trail
The latest Smethwick Partnership Board minutes are out, and there is both good news and unfinished business.
Some of the questions raised over recent months are finally being recognised. Processes are being changed. Applicants are getting more help. Youth engagement is improving.
Good.
But the grants are now being awarded, the revenue pot is oversubscribed and this is ultimately a £20 million programme.
So this is exactly the point when scrutiny gets harder — not quieter.
MHCLG says the Subgroup arrangement is satisfactory — verbally
One of my biggest concerns has been the Funding Subgroup making grant decisions rather than the full Partnership Board.
The Board itself eventually asked MHCLG to confirm whether those delegated arrangements were satisfactory.
The Action Log now says that on 18 September a verbal response was received confirming that the governance arrangements were satisfactory.
Sandwell has asked for that confirmation in writing.
Fair enough.
That moves the issue on considerably.
But now publish the written confirmation when it arrives.
After months of uncertainty over who decides what, there is no reason for the final answer to remain tucked away in somebody's inbox.
Three projects approved — where is the public grants register?
Seven full applications had been submitted.
Two projects were initially approved and a third was subsequently approved by the Funding Subgroup after a document omitted from the Scoring Panel pack was considered.
Four others were sent back for additional information and further support.
So public money is now moving.
Where is the simple public register showing the organisation, project, amount awarded, decision date, conditions and status?
Residents should not have to assemble this information from agendas, restricted reports and minutes spread across several meetings.
For a programme supposedly built around community power, following the money shouldn't require a forensic accounting course.
Conflicts declared — but what happened next?
This deserves clarification.
At the September meeting, K Patel declared that her organisation had submitted an EOI.
M Sibi declared the same.
Later, the Board discussed the live funding programme, prioritisation, scoring, boundary organisations and future funding arrangements.
The minutes don't tell us whether those members withdrew, did not participate, or were advised that no withdrawal was necessary because the discussion was general.
That doesn't mean anything improper happened.
It means the public audit trail stops halfway through.
If an interest is declared, record how it was managed.
Otherwise the Conflict of Interest Policy is doing an excellent impression of a very expensive umbrella left indoors.
The rolling grant race has finally been stopped
The revenue fund is now oversubscribed.
The Board has therefore introduced proper deadlines:
25 September for new EOIs.
23 October for full applications.
That is an improvement.
Applications can now be considered together rather than effectively operating on:
First through the door, first to the money.
The Board is also talking about value for money, beneficiaries and overall impact.
Exactly as it should.
The boundary wall is starting to wobble
Earlier rounds excluded organisations based outside Smethwick even where they delivered services to Smethwick residents.
Now the Board itself acknowledges that organisations just outside the programme boundary often serve Smethwick people, and future consideration may be needed about how they are supported.
Good.
Because Pride in Place should surely be concerned with benefit to Smethwick, not simply whether somebody's registered office sits on the correct side of an invisible line.
Nobody is suggesting opening the fund to the entire West Midlands.
But a bit of common sense wouldn't frighten the horses.
Grassroots groups: less paperwork, more support
Members also recognised that excessive bureaucracy risks putting off smaller community organisations and volunteers.
Officers say clearer guidance and more one-to-one support are now being provided.
That is welcome.
Pride in Place should not become a competition won by whoever employs the best bid writer.
Some of the strongest community ideas come from people who know their neighbourhood intimately but would rather chew their own arm off than write a twelve-page grant application.
Help them.
Youth engagement — finally moving in the right direction
This is one area where the Board deserves proper credit.
Engagement is being taken directly into schools and community settings.
Members even discussed a Youth Panel with its own budget which young people could influence or allocate themselves.
That is much closer to actual community power.
The Board also removed references encouraging schools to apply in the current funding round because the programme was already oversubscribed.
Again, sensible.
Consultation should produce influence, not just another colourful report explaining how engaged everybody was.
Direct commissions: still harder to follow than they need to be
Purchase orders have now been raised for benches at Victoria Park, Lightwoods Park and Smethwick High Street.
Progress.
But why still make residents reconstruct spending from several meetings?
Publish one running table showing:
Project | Cost | Supplier | Procurement route | Delivery date | Status
Done.
This doesn't require a consultancy framework, a transformation board or a 47-slide presentation.
It requires Excel.
Even the Board is fed up waiting for CCTV data
Members themselves complained that CCTV had been discussed repeatedly without enough evidence being available to make decisions.
Police hotspot data, existing CCTV coverage and other information are now being demanded before the December workshop.
Quite right.
Evidence first. Money second.
Amazing what happens when somebody insists on seeing the facts before spending the cash.
Year One: lots of governance, but what changed on the ground?
The minutes contain one particularly revealing admission.
Much of the first year has apparently been spent establishing governance arrangements and delivering the grants programme, while officer capacity remains limited.
Understandable to a point.
But at the end of Year One residents should be entitled to ask:
What actually changed?
Not how many policies were approved.
Not how many Subgroups met.
Not how many workshops were arranged.
What got better in Smethwick?
Governance is important.
But nobody ever looked at a new park bench and said:
“Lovely delegated-authority framework.”
And now a key officer is leaving
The minutes confirm that Programme Manager Rina Rahim was due to leave Sandwell Council in October, with recruitment timescales uncertain.
That is a real programme risk.
With grants moving, Towns Fund issues unresolved, strategic planning underway and a stack of actions still live, who takes over?
There should be a clear handover and interim lead.
Projects should not vanish into the traditional municipal Bermuda Triangle marked:
“Officer has left — someone will get back to you.”
Social value — thirty miles isn't Smethwick
After months of waiting, the social-value postcode data has finally appeared.
And it deserves scrutiny.
The figures include work experience and apprenticeships recorded simply as Birmingham, while some outcomes are described as being within a 30-mile radius.
For 13 employment outcomes within that radius, just two are specifically identified as Smethwick residents.
A 30-mile radius is not local.
It's a day trip.
The question was how much social value was actually reaching Smethwick residents.
So give us that figure.
Jobs for Smethwick residents.
Apprenticeships for Smethwick residents.
Placements for Smethwick residents.
Not somewhere vaguely in the Midlands with a postcode.
Grove Lane: there is flexibility, but the clock is ticking
MHCLG has confirmed that if Grove Lane cannot proceed, its Towns Fund money cannot simply be moved into Pride in Place.
However, it may be redirected to replacement Towns Fund projects if they meet the programme objectives and can be delivered by March 2028.
That provides some breathing room.
But not much.
Replacement schemes would need identifying and delivering quickly.
The contingency plan needs to be real — not discovered in February 2028 behind a filing cabinet.
The bottom line
Smethwick Partnership Board is improving in some areas.
That should be acknowledged.
It has changed the grant timetable.
It is supporting applicants better.
It is reconsidering the boundary issue.
Youth engagement is stronger.
Members are demanding better evidence.
And the Board sought MHCLG assurance over its own governance rather than pretending there wasn't a question.
Good.
But now the money is moving.
That means the standard should rise.
Publish the written MHCLG assurance.
Publish the grant awards.
Record how conflicts were managed.
Publish direct-commission spending clearly.
Show exactly how many social-value outcomes went to Smethwick residents.
And make sure December's strategy workshop leaves a proper public record.
Where they answer questions, give them credit.
Where they improve things, acknowledge it.
But where the paper trail stops short, keep asking.
Because this is ultimately a £20 million programme.
The question isn't whether the paperwork looks impressive.
It's much simpler:
