Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 - part 3 participation requests: findings report review

4. Findings

4.1 Are Participation Requests, Part 3 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 being implemented as intended by Public Service Authorities?

Introduction

Annual reporting since 2017-2018 remains low and this review has not been able to provide any robust evidence of why this is the case, although it is important to note that the majority of Public Service Authorities have never received a participation request, and therefore for some of these Public Service Authorities there may be an understanding that there is nothing to report. Because of this reporting issue, and the challenge of presenting and reporting on the available quantitative data, it has been important to also consider qualitative data provided by Public Service Authorities in the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 reporting templates. This is to help assess whether participation request legislation is being implemented as intended by Public Service Authorities. An additional section was included in both the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 annual reporting templates specifically to inform this review which asked four questions:

• what were Public Service Authorities experience in engaging with the legislation?
• suggestions for improvements or changes to participation requests from Public Service Authorities
• their knowledge of available support
• how they thought Scotland’s communities could be further empowered

Responses were low as out of 77 Public Service Authorities only 12 Local Authorities provided comments in 2021-2022 and 14 Local Authorities provided comments in 2022-2023. Ten of those Local Authorities provided comments for both years, two for 2021-2022 only and four for 2022-2023 only. Therefore information is informed by the 16 individual Local Authorities who responded.

In August 2024, the 77 Public Service Authorities were provided with another opportunity to comment on participation requests legislation to inform the review. They were asked a series of five questions focused on outcome improvement processes, invalid participation requests, annual reporting, promotion, and appeals. These questions are included in Annex B. Responses were low, with 27 Public Service Authorities responding from a total of 77. Of those that responded, 13 were Local Authorities, five NHS Health Boards, five Further Education Colleges, five Regional Transport Partnerships, a National Park Authority and an Enterprise Agency. From the 27 that responded, only the 13 Local Authorities and two of the NHS Health Boards have received participation requests.

As a number of the same Local Authorities responded to each of the three commissions, a total of 35 Public Service Authorities took part in the information gathering at least once (21 Local Authorities and 14 other Public Service Authorities). Although responses were low, information was provided and findings are summarised below.

Overview of Findings from Public Service Authorities

As noted earlier, 104 participation request applications have been made in the last seven years, with 96 of these being received by Local Authorities, seven by NHS Health Boards, and one by Police Scotland.

From the 21 Local Authorities who provided information as part of this review, there is a general consensus that overall, participation requests legislation has provided a useful framework that facilitates a level of community involvement that may not have happened otherwise. Many were keen to highlight that participation requests do not replace other community engagement mechanisms; however they can be helpful when all other informal routes have been exhausted. Another advantage of participation requests is they have helped to initiate dialogue with community groups with whom Local Authorities are not normally in routine dialogue with, through enquiries about the purpose of participation requests.

A number of Local Authorities highlighted that they received few or no participation requests and explained that they already have processes in place to involve communities in service delivery and as such, the legislation has not had any material impact in terms of working with communities to improve services. One island Local Authority highlighted that participation requests have made little difference to the ability to participate in decision-making, as the small and close-knit nature of the community means that the Local Authority is in close contact with a wide variety of community groups, is aware of the community’s needs and interests and facilitates engagement by community groups.

Another Local Authority highlighted the need for clearer definitions regarding what is a complaint, a proposal or a request as a number of participation requests were invalid due to lack of understanding of their purpose. Examples provided of invalid participation requests included lack of clarity, unclear purpose, the group not meeting the criteria or requests around involvement in the planning process when any individual and organisation is able to comment on any planning changes.

Approaches to the Outcome Improvement Process are mixed and appear to be dependent on the quality of engagement with the Community Participation Body and the complexity of the participation request involved. There is still ambiguity about the participation request process among Community Participation Bodies and better support to complete the Outcome Improvement Process is needed. For example, some formally accepted participation requests did not result in a completed Outcome Improvement Process. Reasons include that the time to submit the request had elapsed, a process was mutually agreed outwith an Outcome Improvement Process and alternative participation options were considered and taken forward. It was suggested by one Public Service Authority that case studies could be published to show where participation requests have led to positive change for communities.

The majority of Local Authorities confirmed that they were aware of the support available from SCDC should it be required and how to access it. However, it was felt that better signposting to participation requests resources and improved promotion through various channels such as Community Councils could be beneficial.

A number of Local Authorities were keen to highlight that instead of promoting participation requests directly, they promote the opportunity for potential applicants who are considering an application to contact them in advance. This enables the Local Authority to work in partnership with the community organisation using alternative methods on issues they want to be involved in, before a formal legislative route needs to be explored. Local Authorities commented that participation requests are often only needed as a formal process when other methods have failed. Other Local Authorities reported that participation request applicants are supported by the Community Learning and Development Workers in localities that experience the most disadvantage, with the aim of reducing inequalities through their targeted work.

The 14 other Public Service Authorities who responded confirmed they have participation request webpages with contact details for enquiries including signposting to other information, and they either complete the annual reporting template or publish information on their website. As only two NHS Health Boards from all 14 respondents have received participation requests, displaying information on a website was reported by respondents to be more practical than completing an annual report with a nil return.

Overview of Research Findings from the School of Innovation and Technology (SIT) at Glasgow School of Art

Researchers from Glasgow School of Art were commissioned by the Scottish Government to investigate the implementation and impact of participation requests to help inform the review. The research was framed by phases of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, and the visualisation and presentation of findings. Glasgow School of Art’s report provides important quantitative data analysis covering 2017-2023 annual reporting data that was provided by the Scottish Government in addition to desk based data collection. This helped Glasgow School of Art to identify patterns and gaps in participation requests, with consideration to a range of socioeconomic and geographic factors. However, it should be noted that the information provided in the tables in section three of this report is provided by the Scottish Government, as it covers the most up to date information to 31 March 2024.

Glasgow School of Art’s research also included 11 semi-structured interviews with 14 representatives from Public Service Authorities, and Community Participation Bodies with experience of engaging with the legislation. Although a small sample, this qualitative thematic analysis provided further insights to inform this review. The research findings highlighted challenges and opportunities surrounding participation requests, emphasising the importance of effective communication, inclusive engagement, and meaningful outcomes. The findings also provided insights into the distribution, evaluation, and impacts of participation requests, shedding light on the effectiveness and sustainability of the legislation.

SIT’s Understanding Participation Requests: Informing User Experience, Guidance, and Legislation report makes seven recommendations and these are included at Annex C. Eight core themes were explored and Glasgow School of Art’s analysis has been summarised by the Scottish Government for the purpose of this report as follows:

1. A Forum For Dialogue: All participants viewed the legislation as a positive feature that helps to create a platform for community dialogue and provides a meaningful framework for service re-design. Some Public Service Authorities highlighted that early and informal contact with the Community Participation Bodies prior to the formal submission of a participation request, resulted in issues being resolved without the need for a participation request being submitted.

2. Capacity to Engage: Community Participation Bodies’ experience of submitting, handling and being involved in the Outcome Improvement Process can vary depending on their capacity and the support available when needed. Public Service Authorities’ role is important in supporting Community Participation Bodies throughout the process, including assisting them to construct the participation request to meet the eligibility criteria and framing outcomes that are both meaningful and achievable.

3. Perception and Process: Public Service Authorities have varying perceptions of and attitudes towards the legislation, impacting upon their approaches to engaging with the process. Some Public Service Authorities view the low numbers of participation requests as an indicator of successful engagement approaches already in place and that receiving one represented failures of local empowerment. Also, that it is an unnecessary additional legislation that has been imposed with little consideration for implementation. One example is that the advancement of social media has enhanced the visibility of public services and online methods could be used alongside participation requests to extend access, inclusion and flexible engagement processes.

4. Diversity of Outcomes: Community Participation Bodies and Public Service Authorities noted the benefits of participation requests in helping improve relationships and enhance transparency and accountability. The perceived purpose of participation requests can at times be misunderstood and seen as an enabler for community groups to become directly involved in public service provision and delivery, or as a statutory opportunity to complain. Public Service Authorities highlighted that current definitions and framings of outcomes within the legislation and guidance could be revised to enhance clarity which would help influence the Outcome Improvement Process.

5. Partnership Working: All participants were clear that the Outcome Improvement Process is a key milestone in the participation requests process and co-designing was seen as an essential requirement to ensure that the rights steps are in place to make the outcome achievable. Where multiple engagement approaches are used by Public Service Authorities to sustain positive relationships with diverse communities, it can result in none or low numbers of participation requests.

6. Monitoring and Reporting: The extent to which participation requests are monitored and reported is an area of contention between Public Service Authorities and Community Participation Bodies, as varying approaches are taken to meeting the legislation’s requirement for annual data to be made publicly available by the end of June each year. Consideration could be given to how annual reporting practices could be further formalised as a statutory requirement within the legislation, and the ways in which this could inform evaluations of participation requests impacts and benefits. Both Public Service Authorities and Community Participation Bodies recognised the value for Community Participation Bodies to also document and publish their experiences and that appropriate methods for doing so could be considered.

7. Evaluation and Impact: The need for a strategy for evaluating the immediate and long-term impacts of participation requests at local and national level was highlighted in order to gain a realistic understanding of their benefits and value. An evaluation could consider the cumulative impact of several participation requests across a Public Service Authority area, and how such ongoing improvements can inform public perceptions of service providers and have a benefit for Public Service Authorities.

8. Participation Requests in a National Context: Participation requests exist alongside a broad range of formal and informal approaches that enable communities to have more understanding and influence over decisions that affect them. Some examples provided are complaints procedures, feedback forms, freedom of information, co-production and participatory budgeting. Participation requests unique features could be more beneficial to groups experiencing particular issues in complex contexts.

Conclusion

The majority of the 77 Public Service Authorities have never received a participation request and this may be a reason why annual reporting remains low, as no other evidence was found why this was the case. Evidence gathered from Public Service Authorities showed that the legislation compliments existing community engagement strategies, and can be useful for community organisations that may benefit from a more structured approach, particularly when informal routes have been exhausted.

Participation requests have helped to initiate dialogue with communities who would not routinely engage with Public Service Authorities and is considered a useful framework that provides a mandate for meaningful dialogue.

Research conducted by Glasgow School of Art supports these findings, highlighting the value of strong communication between Public Service Authorities and Community Participation Bodies prior to the start of formal processes. Glasgow School of Art also highlighted the need for greater understanding of the purpose of participation requests and that their immediate and longer term impacts were yet to be fully understood. Participation requests have helped to enable Community Participation Bodies to be more involved in decisions and processes aimed at improving outcomes for communities but their purpose needs to be clarified to make them better understood. Glasgow School of Art research found that whilst barriers and challenges surrounding participation requests were raised, their intent to promote democratic renewal at a local level is recognised. When done well, participation requests can be effective and can help lead to other forms of participation. However they found that better understanding of the process is needed including clearer guidance on handling and transparency.

Key Findings

• When first enacted the purpose of participations requests could at times be misunderstood by Community Participation Bodies
• Public Service Authorities view the decrease in numbers as an indicator of successful community engagement approaches already in place and low or no participation requests can be a positive outcome
• Although participation requests have encouraged Public Service Authorities to be more accessible and transparent, the quality of engagement with Community Participation Bodies is varied
• Approaches to the Outcome Improvement Process are mixed and not well implemented – the review found calls for case study examples to be shared where participation requests have led to improvement for communities
• Some Public Service Authorities felt that participation requests should be considered when all informal engagement has failed as alternative opportunities for communities to work in partnership with them is more productive than encouraging a statutory route to initiate dialogue
• Public Service Authorities reported that participation requests exist alongside a broad range of formal and informal approaches and participation requests unique features could be more beneficial to groups experiencing particular issues in complex contexts
• Capturing robust data to define the value and impact of participation requests remains a challenge due to low reporting practices by Public Service Authorities, particular around the relationship between inequalities and participation requests

4.2 Are Participation Requests enabling Community Participation Bodies to be more involved in decisions and processes aimed at improving outcomes for communities?

Introduction

To help answer if participation requests are enabling Community Participation Bodies to be more involved in decisions and processes aimed at improving outcomes for communities, SCDC were commissioned by the Scottish Government to contribute to the review by exploring potential approaches to strengthening participation requests.

SCDC conducted their research between 2022 and 2024, and established a working group to consider three key areas:

• the development of a set of principles to underpin the implementation of participation requests
• ways to strengthen the statutory guidance
• the value of introducing a process of reviews and/or appeals

This chapter provides an overview of findings for the first two key areas and the reviews and/or appeals findings will be provided in the next chapter. SCDC’s Strengthening participation requests: evidence-based improvements report makes seven recommendations. The list of their recommendations are included at Annex D.

Also included are findings from two online workshops hosted by the Scottish Government and SCDC in November 2023, attended by Community Participation Bodies and Public Service Authorities with experience of the participation request process.

Overview of Findings

SCDC’s review found that there are broadly two approaches to using participation requests. One category is aimed at challenging a decision taken by a Public Service Authority, often where it is felt by Community Participation Bodies to have been insufficient participation prior to decisions being made. This approach tends to be reactive and can emanate from a sense of frustration or grievance. The other approach involves participation requests aimed at collaboratively improving services/outcomes which is more proactive and in the spirit of the legislation.

There is ambiguity about aspects of the legislative intent which could explain the differences in how participation requests are being promoted, received, determined and whether their learning was being consistently mainstreamed. The SCDC review found that much of the existing guidance for promoting and supporting participation requests is working well but it is not being implemented consistently and in some geographical areas, the right to make participation requests is hardly known about at all. Local implementation of the duties and regulations are being interpreted differently which can affect how participation requests are perceived by Public Service Authorities.

SCDC found that, despite significant Scottish Government funding since 2017-2018 to support the implementation of participation requests, more work needs to be done to raise awareness of participation requests legislation and more training is required to support communities understand its purpose and value to be able to use it effectively. Also more needs to be done to promote and support participation requests among disadvantaged and marginalised groups. SCDC also called for the need to establish a set of implementation principles to support the legislative intent of participation requests and their report outlined a set of specific principles for participation requests to make elements of the legislation less ambiguous and more effective. SCDC have also provided proposals to strengthen the participation requests statutory guidance in their report.

SCDC also considered the Outcome Improvement Process and whether it had improved outcomes locally for communities. They reported that in addition to the declining numbers of participation requests submitted, their review found there has been limited meaningful Outcome Improvement Processes that have led to positive outcomes. They found that at times the process has led to different outcomes than the original participation request set out to address, with Community Participation Bodies and Public Service Authorities developing improved relationships.

The review found that a number of participation requests have been rejected, or not validated on the basis that a community body has not been seen to meet the criteria to be a Community Participation Body. When this happens they suggest more could be done by Public Service Authorities to find ways to work collaboratively or offer an alternative engagement process. SCDC propose that annual reporting should track what happens in these cases, which would increase transparency in how communities seeking participation are being treated and capture learning which could be reinvested in participation approaches more generally.

Proposed changes to the legislation includes consideration should be given to which public authorities should be listed in Schedule Two of the Act in addition to the current list of 77 Public Service Authorities that are eligible for participation requests. Another proposed change is that Section 32 of the Act should be revisited, and consideration given to requiring all Public Service Authorities to respond to Scottish Government requests to complete the annual reporting template and that this duty should be included in refreshed regulations and guidance.

Attendees of the two November 2023 online workshops found that the legislation provided a useful formal mechanism but highlighted that there can be some misunderstanding as to what the legislation was trying to achieve and more training for local points of contact within Public Service Authorities was needed.

The workshops also noted the participation request application forms can be difficult to complete and may be a reason for the low uptake. They also noted there was no current obligation to include the Community Participation Body in annual reporting returns and that this could have value to report on their experiences too. The workshops noted that improvements are needed to agree the Outcome Improvement Processes. It was suggested that the statutory guidance should be updated and that a set of principles for participation requests would be useful so that everyone understood their intent.

Conclusion

SCDC’s Working Group and subsequent report Strengthening participation requests: evidence-based improvements provides further evidence on whether participation requests have improved outcomes for communities and the two workshops provide helpful learning for this review. The report suggests that participation requests have gone some way to enable Community Participation Bodies to be involved in decisions and processes aimed at improving outcomes for communities, however the number of participation requests since 2017-2018 is low and their purpose needs to be clarified to make them better understood for when they are needed.

Key Findings

• Much of the existing guidance for promoting and supporting participation requests is working well however, it is not being implemented consistently and in some geographical areas, the right to make participation requests is not widely known
• Local implementation of the duties and regulations are being interpreted differently which can affect how participation requests are perceived by Public Service Authorities
• The review found that there has been limited meaningful Outcome Improvement Processes that have led to positive outcomes but at times the process improved relationships between Community Participation Bodies and Public Service Authorities
• Mixed understanding remains within some Community Participation Bodies of what participation requests purpose is, as they can be used reactively to challenge decisions instead of proactively to improve outcomes, in the spirit of the legislation
• More needs to be done to raise awareness of participation requests legislation among disadvantaged and marginalised groups and more training is required to support communities understand its value to be able to use it effectively
• There is interest for a set of principles for participation requests to be adopted, clearly demonstrating their purpose, and expectations for the method of delivery to achieve outcomes
• Updating the Statutory Guidance has been proposed to ensure equity of access and continuity of experience

4.3 Should an appeals or review mechanism be introduced for participation requests?

Introduction

Section 30 of the Act includes the ability to introduce an appeals or review process for participation requests in future should this be required. The independent evaluation on participation requests conducted by Glasgow Caledonian University and published in April 2020 found that it was too early to introduce an appeals or review mechanism for participation requests due to the low numbers submitted, and recommended investigating the need for an appeals or review mechanism and how it could be fair and robust.

Interest in appeals and/or a review mechanism for participation requests has continued since that time, including from the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee who in 2021 recommended that an appeals mechanism should be introduced for participation requests. The Committee felt this would keep Public Service Authorities disciplined and focused on handling participation requests.

A key part of this review was to investigate the potential need for an appeals and/or review mechanism and how it could work in practice, which was undertaken by SCDC’s independent working group. During 2023, their working group gathered views about what actions were needed as part of their wider survey to inform the review. They held a national proposals conference in May 2024 to explore how the responses to the survey could be implemented. This section synthesises findings relating to reviews and/or appeals in SCDC’s report ‘Strengthening Participation Requests: Evidence-based Improvements’^[3]. Findings from two online workshops held by Scottish Government and SCDC in November 2023 and information provided in August 2024 by Public Services Authorities are also included.

Overview of Findings

Although the SCDC led working group found that there was significant support for an appeals and/or a reviews mechanism, mainly from Community Participation Bodies, overall the majority of those who engaged with the SCDC research agreed that ideally, there should be no need for appeals because the process should work correctly in the first place. It was also highlighted by respondents to the SCDC research that reviews and/or an appeals process would require time, energy and resource for both Community Participation Bodies and Public Service Authorities, and that the potential adversarial nature of reviews/appeals could works against the collaborative spirit of the Act.

The working group was clear that their goal was to help improve participation outcomes more generally and although supportive of introducing an appeals and/or review process, introducing a set of principles for participation requests and updating the Statutory Guidance would be a practical first step to achieving that goal and reduce the need for appeals.

In their report, SCDC’s working group proposed that a set of principles for participation requests are provided to help clarify and strengthen the process and make them less ambiguous and more effective. These proposals include:

• ensuring participation requests are recognised as part of a broader ecosystem of community engagement and empowerment rights
• the wider empowerment learning from participation requests and Outcome Improvement Process should shape how other local participation functions more generally
• better support for Community Participation Bodies at the point their participation requests is submitted to be compliant with regulations and guidance, rather than having participation requests rejected

As highlighted above, the SCDC report outlines proposals to strengthen the statutory guidance in order to reduce the need for reviews and/or appeals. This is presented in six sections:

• information about the participation request process
• submission of participation requests
• the Outcome Improvement Process
• reviewing and reporting on participation requests
• implementation of the guidance
• suggestions relating to practice

SCDC suggested updating the statutory guidance including creating accessible versions. They also proposed that Public Service Authority application forms should be reviewed to ensure user friendly versions are produced and improvements to reporting and training were also highlighted. On submitting participation requests, SCDC suggested more flexibility for Public Service Authorities to satisfy that a community group is community controlled, and a call for the guidance to reinforce the need for Public Service Authorities to support groups with their requests. Another suggestion was for the Outcome Improvement Process to be co-designed and agreed by all parties and guidance should focus on the outcome rather than the technicality of the process. SCDC proposed that guidance should include summary information of Public Service Authority reporting requirements, and SCDC proposed a regulatory process to offer communities, where Public Service Authorities are not complying with the Act. SCDC suggested a number of practical solutions including creating a community of practice for Public Service Authority staff, greater awareness training outwith Local Authorities, and the creation of a national Community Empowerment Fund for community groups to access.

The working group also recommended that a system of local reviews is implemented for testing and that stakeholders should be consulted on a national level appeals process. In their report SCDC outlined a two stage appeals process which included an initial first stage local review process, and a second stage national appeals process. They proposed that the local review process should be co-produced within a national framework and participants in the process should come from Public Service Authorities, community representatives, and possibly stakeholders from Community Planning Partnerships. They proposed that the review process would include a screening process, and reviews could be considered in batches every two months. For second stage national appeals, they proposed a national appeals body should be established by the Scottish Government for issues that do not lend themselves to local resolution. For example they proposed that the national body should supply and support suitably qualified panels to consider appeals with membership from Public Service Authorities, Community Participation Bodies, SCDC, and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

From the November 2023 workshops hosted by the Scottish Government, there was interest in developing an appeals mechanism, however some attendees felt that this was not needed and would be unhelpful. They highlighted the importance of training and upskilling for staff involved in the participation request process, and the need to develop a flexible model for participation requests. Attendees also commented that if an appeals mechanism was to be introduced it would first have to be carefully considered to see how it could work fairly and robustly.

Information provided by some Local Authorities who provided feedback to the Scottish Government’s August 2024 commission expressed concern that a review and/or appeals mechanism for participation requests has the potential to impose a significant administrative burden on Public Service Authorities and more work needs to be done to ensure that participation requests are used for the purposes outlined in the legislation and not used to make a complaint or secure resources.

It was also highlighted by a few Public Service Authorities that an appeals process is unnecessary as Section 24 of the Act is clear that all requests should be agreed unless there is good reason for them not to. However, one Public Service Authority commented that the process does not seem to include any provision where there is disagreement over the conclusion or when the process ends and that a possible appeals process could address this. Other Public Service Authorities suggested that an alternative to introducing an appeal or review process could be better sharing of good practice examples which would benefit both local groups and the Local Authority and further monitoring of the Outcome Improvement Process once agreed, would be helpful. The Local Authority felt that an appeals mechanism was not needed given the low numbers of participation requests, and that they could be improved if their purpose and scope were better defined.

Responses from the other Public Service Authorities who responded revealed alternative methods for engaging with their communities that did not require a participation request. For example, NHS Health Boards who responded provided links and details of their community engagement strategies including a ‘Putting People First’ community engagement approach, and local community empowerment groups such as a ‘Maternity Voices Partnership’. NHS Health Boards felt these approaches and the very low numbers of participation requests show there is no need for an appeals process at this time. Other responses were received from Regional Transport Partnerships, Further Education Colleges, and Scottish Government Agencies who felt that appeals were not needed at this point given the very small numbers of participation requests submitted, however one agency felt that an appeals process was likely to strengthen confidence in the legislation. One transport partnership felt an appeals process would require a public consultation before implementation.

Conclusion

A key part of this review was to investigate the potential need for an appeals or review mechanism for participation requests. SCDC’s working group has provided a comprehensive report outlining support for a local review or national appeals process. However, it was acknowledged by the group that this process could be time consuming and costly and would not be in the spirit of the Act. SCDC proposed introducing a set of principles for participation requests and updating the statutory guidance which could reduce the need for appeals. The SCDC led working group highlighted the importance of training, better transparency, more sharing of good practice examples and further monitoring of the Outcome Improvement Process once agreed.

This review found that, given the low numbers of participation requests, the alternative community engagement mechanisms being used by Public Service Authorities to work with communities, and the potential financial and administrative costs of an appeals or review mechanism, that an appeals or review mechanism would add minimal value to the process. Evidence provided by Public Service Authorities stated that participation requests are one tool in a wider community engagement landscape, and they could be improved if their purpose and scope was better defined. It was found that participation requests are not intended to replace good quality existing community engagement or participatory processes but are designed to complement and enhance them.

Taking all the information gathered as part of this review into account, the Scottish Government’s assessment is that insufficient evidence has been provided to support the implementation of a review or appeals process. Alternative actions identified by this review may benefit both Community Participation Bodies and Public Service Authorities, more than an appeals or review mechanism could.

Key Findings

• There is support from some Community Participation Bodies in exploring an appeals and/or a reviews mechanism but acknowledge the potential increased administrative and financial burden on Public Service Authorities
• Due to the low number of participation requests, instead of a review or an appeals process, a focus on defining the use of participation requests could be more practical and cost effective
• An alternative to introducing an appeals or review process could be more training and better sharing of good practice examples which would benefit both Community Participation Bodies and Public Service Authorities
• There is no conclusive evidence that a local review or national appeals process will improve outcomes for communities and it should also be noted that the introduction of such a process could negatively impact relationships between the Public Service Authorities and Community Participation Bodies
• Introducing a set of principles for participation requests and updating the statutory guidance could reduce the need for a review or appeals mechanism