Sandwell's Paper Trail Gets Thicker – £7.6 Million, A Cabinet Call-In And Some Questions That Should Have Been Asked Earlier
Updated 13 August 2026
A few days ago I wrote about Sandwell Council's growing Forward Plan and the pile of reports heading towards Cabinet and scrutiny.
The point was fairly simple.
Don't wait until the decision has been made before reading the paperwork.
Ask the questions beforehand.
Well, barely had the virtual ink dried before another bundle of Sandwell paperwork arrived.
And this one is particularly interesting.
On Thursday 20 August at 6pm, the Budget and Corporate Scrutiny Management Board will hold what is effectively a special meeting to consider the call-in of Cabinet's decision on the Crisis and Resilience Fund 2026/27–2028/29.
Apart from the minutes and usual housekeeping, that's the only substantive business on the agenda.
So here we have something I've been asking for:
Scrutiny actually scrutinising something.
Steady now.
£7.6 Million A Year Is Not Small Change
The Crisis and Resilience Fund replaces elements of the old Household Support Fund and Discretionary Housing Payments.
Sandwell has been allocated approximately:
£7.599 million for 2026/27
with similar sums expected in each of the following two years.
So potentially we're talking about roughly:
£22.8 MILLION over three years.
The proposed first-year spending includes:
- £1.451m for housing payments;
- £1.335m for crisis payments;
- £1.850m for other crisis support;
- £494,000 for additional Welfare Rights staff and software;
- a whopping £2 million for new resilience pilot projects;
- and £469,000 for administration.
This money is supposed to help some of Sandwell's most financially vulnerable residents.
Food.
Energy.
Housing.
People suffering an unexpected financial shock.
Families struggling to cope.
People leaving domestic abuse.
Disabled residents.
People at risk of homelessness.
This is not some obscure procurement exercise involving photocopier toner.
It matters.
So Why Has The Decision Been Called In?
The Cabinet decision of 15 July has been challenged by councillors on a fairly substantial collection of grounds.
These include:
- no published Equality Impact Assessment;
- insufficient consideration of continuing free-school-meal holiday vouchers;
- no consultation with affected families;
- concerns about how late the decision was made;
- no figures showing how many families would be affected;
- barriers created by replacing automatic support with an application system;
- no clear indication of processing times;
- uncertainty over administration costs;
- and inadequate information about how the scheme would be publicised.
Having now read the whole 48-page pack, I think several of these questions deserve proper answers.
RED FLAG ONE: The Equality Assessment That Was Coming Later
This one immediately jumped off the page.
The Cabinet report states:
“An Equality Impact Assessment will be undertaken to support this decision.”
Will be?
Cabinet was already being asked to make the decision.
Now, before anybody starts sharpening the lawyer, this does not automatically mean the Cabinet decision was unlawful.
The legal requirement is to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty. A particular document carrying the title “Equality Impact Assessment” isn't magically the sole determining factor.
But the Equality and Human Rights Commission's guidance is pretty clear that where an Equality Impact Assessment is required it should be undertaken before the decision is made, because the whole purpose is for equality evidence to inform the decision-making process.
The Government's own Crisis and Resilience Fund guidance also tells councils to consider whether their local schemes disadvantage people with protected characteristics and to identify mitigation where necessary.
So the question for 20 August is very straightforward:
What equality evidence did Cabinet have in front of it on 15 July?
If the assessment was produced afterwards, what exactly was it influencing?
The wallpaper?
RED FLAG TWO: Government Did NOT Simply Ban Holiday Food Vouchers
This needs clearing up because there has been plenty of argument around it.
Sandwell decided against continuing blanket holiday vouchers for all families whose children receive benefit-related free school meals.
That is a policy decision the Council was entitled to consider.
But the Government guidance is rather more nuanced than simply saying:
«“You can't do vouchers anymore.”»
It says councils should decide how best to ensure the poorest children do not go hungry during holidays and specifically says that this may or may not involve blanket vouchers for children receiving free school meals.
In other words:
Sandwell had discretion.
That doesn't mean blanket vouchers were necessarily the best option.
But if Cabinet chooses a different system, I would expect to see the evidence.
How many children previously received the vouchers?
What did that cost?
How many of those families are expected to qualify under the replacement scheme?
How many are expected to apply?
How many may never apply?
What assessment was made of the effect on food insecurity?
What alternatives were properly costed?
Those numbers are conspicuous by their absence from the Cabinet report.
You cannot meaningfully compare two options if nobody tells you what one of them actually costs or how many people it affects.
RED FLAG THREE: Automatic Support Has Become “Tell Us About Your Crisis”
Under the new scheme, people generally have to apply.
And that means demonstrating financial hardship.
The policy can require proof of identity, address and benefits, evidence of the crisis and a month's bank statement.
Applicants can also be asked about income, savings, expenditure and exactly what has happened to cause the crisis.
Again, targeted support isn't inherently wrong.
Indeed, the new national fund is deliberately more needs-based.
But there is a difference between:
“Your child qualifies, here is some holiday food support.”
and:
“Please apply, explain your crisis, provide evidence and show us your bank statement.”
Some people will do it.
Some people won't.
Some people will not know the scheme exists.
Some will struggle digitally.
Some will be embarrassed.
Some won't realise they qualify.
And some of the people least able to navigate bureaucracy are precisely the people this fund is supposedly designed to help.
That needs monitoring from day one.
RED FLAG FOUR: A Crisis That Can Apparently Wait Up To 14 Days
Government guidance says councils should communicate expected processing times and should aim to provide payments for urgent needs within 48 hours of a completed application. It also tells councils to consider arrangements for people needing help outside normal working hours.
Sandwell's policy merely says applicants will be notified:
“as soon as reasonably practicable.”
Meanwhile, Sandwell's current public Crisis Payment webpage says applications may take up to 14 days, although it says they are usually processed more quickly.
Fourteen days.
For a crisis payment.
If somebody has no food, no electricity, has suddenly lost their income or has fled domestic abuse, two weeks is a very long crisis.
So members should ask:
What is the target for genuinely urgent applications?
How many are processed within 48 hours?
What happens at weekends?
What happens out of hours?
Is emergency same-day support available?
Simple questions.
RED FLAG FIVE: “We'll Put It On The Website”
The Council's Crisis Payments Policy actually has an entire section entitled:
Publicity.
Sounds promising.
Its substance is basically that the scheme will be publicised on the Council's website.
Unfortunately, Government guidance goes rather further.
It requires councils to provide both a website and a non-digital offer, and specifically expects schemes to be promoted through different channels rather than merely online. It gives examples including community and family hubs and GP surgeries.
So where's Sandwell's proper communications plan?
Libraries?
Schools?
Family hubs?
GP surgeries?
Food banks?
Community centres?
Housing offices?
Citizens Advice?
Voluntary organisations?
Printed information?
People who aren't on Facebook?
People who haven't got MySandwell?
People who haven't got broadband?
You cannot target help at people experiencing poverty and then assume they'll all stumble across the correct Council webpage.
RED FLAG SIX: You Need To Be Liable For Council Tax?
Another part of the eligibility rules caught my eye.
The Sandwell policy says an applicant should:
- be aged 18 or over;
- live in Sandwell;
- be liable for Council Tax;
- be responsible for household costs;
- and be experiencing financial hardship or crisis.
The Government gives councils significant discretion over local eligibility, so I am not saying this condition is necessarily prohibited.
But I'd like it explained.
What happens to somebody sofa-surfing?
Someone fleeing domestic abuse?
Someone temporarily staying with family?
Someone living in a household where another person is the Council Tax liable person?
Someone moving out of homelessness?
Someone in genuine crisis without their name appearing on a Council Tax bill?
Government guidance itself recognises that crisis needs can look very different for disabled people, homeless people, carers, care leavers and families with children.
Again:
This is exactly what equality analysis should test.
RED FLAG SEVEN: £2 Million Worth Of Pilots – Details To Follow
This could get very interesting.
Cabinet agreed £2 million for new “resilience pilot projects”.
These could cover food security, healthy living, financial resilience, employment, skills and similar interventions.
But the actual projects weren't approved by Cabinet.
Instead senior officers, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, have delegated authority to determine what the pilots will be.
Two million pounds represents more than a quarter of this year's entire Fund.
So eventually I want to see:
Project
Organisation receiving money
Amount
Procurement or grant process
Why they were selected
Intended beneficiaries
Geographical coverage
Targets
Outcomes
Evaluation
What happened when it didn't work
“Pilot project” must not become local-government shorthand for:
«Here's some money. We'll discover what happened later.»
RED FLAG EIGHT: And Future Years Are Delegated Too
This one deserves much more attention.
Cabinet also delegated authority to senior officers, in consultation with the Cabinet Member, to formulate and agree the expenditure plans for:
2027/28
and:
2028/29.
They can also make in-year changes to the 2026/27 programme.
If funding remains around £7.6m per year, the next two years represent roughly another:
£15 MILLION.
I appreciate why operational flexibility is necessary.
But I would still expect annual expenditure plans involving sums of this magnitude to come back into public view.
Preferably Cabinet.
Certainly scrutiny.
This money belongs to the public.
“Delegated authority” shouldn't mean “see you again in 2029”.
RED FLAG NINE: Predictive Data, Poverty And Algorithms
There's another part of the report that deserves a whole article of its own.
Sandwell intends to introduce an advanced data analytics platform to help identify households at risk of poverty, homelessness, debt and other financial vulnerability.
There is a very positive side to this.
Instead of waiting for somebody to fall into complete financial disaster before helping them, the Council could intervene sooner.
Government guidance actually encourages councils to use available data proactively to identify vulnerable people.
Fine.
But if Sandwell is going to start using predictive analytics involving potentially sensitive information about vulnerable residents, I want to know:
What data?
Whose data?
How is it combined?
Who has access?
How accurate is it?
Is there automated decision-making?
How is algorithmic bias prevented?
Can residents see or challenge incorrect information?
Has a Data Protection Impact Assessment been completed?
How long is information retained?
Technology can improve services.
It can also produce very sophisticated mistakes at enormous speed.
AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE MODERNGOV MYSTERY...
The Cabinet decision reproduced inside the scrutiny papers describes the Crisis and Resilience Fund decision as:
56/26
But the formal Notice of Call-In describes the decision being challenged as:
60/26.
Presumably one of them is simply wrong.
I don't suggest the republic will collapse over a numbering error.
But if you're formally calling in a Cabinet decision, identifying the correct Cabinet decision number does seem a fairly reasonable starting point.
There is also duplicate section numbering in the adopted Crisis Payments Policy, with two different sections labelled 3.3.
Again, minor.
But we're discussing a policy administering millions of pounds.
Maybe one final proofread wouldn't have hurt.
There Is Actually Some Good News Here
Yes, you read that correctly.
This is precisely why scrutiny exists.
Councillors have used the constitutional call-in mechanism.
The decision has been paused for scrutiny.
A public meeting has been arranged.
The Cabinet report, policy, decision and full call-in notice are all inside the public pack.
That is democratic scrutiny functioning.
The next test is whether the meeting becomes genuine examination or simply:
«Officer gives answer.
Member thanks officer.
Everyone notes report.
Tea.»
Scrutiny members have the opportunity to demand evidence.
They should use it.
Meanwhile... The Rest Of The Paper Mountain Continues To Grow
And this isn't happening in isolation.
Over 11 and 12 August Sandwell also published a substantial collection of new 2026/27 scrutiny work-programme items.
Budget and Corporate Scrutiny now has subjects including:
- the 2027/28 budget;
- procurement and contract management;
- digital transformation;
- workforce strategy;
- corporate performance;
- customer feedback;
- WMCA accountability;
- and monitoring of the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge.
Safer Neighbourhoods now has:
- Housing Improvement and Transformation;
- a specific repairs and maintenance review;
- housing complaint handling;
- ASB performance;
- neighbourhood working;
- green spaces;
- and the Play Area Strategy.
Health and Adult Social Care has:
- CQC's Adult Social Care findings;
- maternity and neonatal services;
- Section 117 mental-health aftercare;
- and Black Country Healthcare.
That is a lot of serious business.
Good.
Put difficult subjects on the agenda.
Then ask difficult questions.
This Is Why I Started Watching The Forward Plan
My original point remains.
Residents normally see the political press release at the end of the process.
“Council launches...”
“Cabinet approves...”
“Exciting new...”
“Transformational...”
“Investment...”
Lovely.
But before the press release comes the report.
Before the report comes the Forward Plan.
And somewhere in those documents are the risks, costs, delegated authorities, alternative options and things somebody has decided not to do.
That's where the interesting stuff is.
So What Should Scrutiny Demand On 20 August?
At the very least I'd want answers to these:
Where was the equality evidence when Cabinet made its decision?
How many children and families lost automatic holiday voucher support?
What would continuing those vouchers have cost?
How many Crisis Payment applications are expected?
What percentage will be processed within 48 hours?
What is the full offline application route?
How will the scheme be publicised away from the internet?
Why is Council Tax liability part of the eligibility test?
What controls apply to the £2m pilot programme?
Will the 2027/28 and 2028/29 spending plans come back for public scrutiny?
What governance surrounds the predictive-data system?
And is the Cabinet decision 56/26 or 60/26?
None of those questions require torches, pitchforks or wild conspiracy theories.
They merely require:
scrutiny.
Funny old thing.
I'll Keep Updating This
The September paper trail has now started arriving rather earlier than September.
And I'll continue updating this as the reports, scrutiny programmes, decisions and minutes appear.
Sometimes the paperwork will reveal a genuine problem.
Sometimes councillors will receive a perfectly satisfactory explanation.
Either outcome is useful.
But one thing should change.
We should stop finding out what Sandwell Council has done after it has already done it.
The documents are there.
The Forward Plan gives warning.
The scrutiny work programmes tell us where the questions should be asked.
So let's read them.
Preferably before somebody signs off the next £20 million.
Because, judging by the rate Modern.Gov is currently sending emails...
I may soon need another filing cabinet.
#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #CouncilScrutiny #CrisisAndResilienceFund #CostOfLiving #FreeSchoolMeals #PublicMoney #CouncilFinances #Governance #Accountability #Transparency #LocalGovernment #SandwellPolitics #WestMidlands #ForwardPlan #EqualityImpact #DigitalTransformation #WatchThePapers
