Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review: Stage 4 Final Report

7. Community Led Local Development delivery recommendations

In this chapter, we provide recommendations on how to improve the delivery of the Community Led Local Development programme. The chapter begins with a recap of the most pertinent evidence and then, as with Scottish Rural Network and Scottish Rural Action, the recommendations are presented by theme.

7.1 Key evidence themes^[13]

The Scottish Government’s funding for Community Led Local Development has its origins in programmes and policy developments in the European Union during the 1980s^[14]. It subsequently became part of the Common Agricultural Policy’s Pillar 2 (known in Scotland as the Scotland Rural Development Programme).

Participants in this review who were involved in Community Led Local Development generally provided strong support for it, while noting a number of challenges and opportunities. For participants, the grassroots and flexible nature of Community Led Local Development was its ‘unique selling point’, with decisions on funding priorities and allocation made locally by local people. This also resulted in some tensions, however, in terms of delivering simultaneously to Scottish Government and local priorities, and in having 20 Local Action Group areas doing things differently within one national level programme. Some participants also raised the question of administrative efficiency noting that, generally-speaking, flexibility and local control added administration cost.

Participants were particularly positive about the expertise of local Community Led Local Development delivery staff (including Coordinators and Local Action Group Chairs/members) and the relatively straightforward application procedure. Participants were also very positive about the revenue awards from the fund noting that, while revenue grants are decreasing across the sector, they play a key role in supporting a wide range of community organisations and enterprises in rural and island Scotland. The importance, and uniqueness, of this revenue funding was confirmed in the strategic interviews, where revenue funding was also identified as a gap in the sector.

In general, all participants were strongly supportive of Youth Local Action Groups, both in areas that had established them and in areas that had not. There are currently eight Youth Local Action Groups operating out of 20 Local Action Group areas in Scotland^[15]. Members of Youth Local Action Groups are typically aged between 18 and 30. The emerging good practice and learning on Youth Local Action Groups is a significant success for the programme.

The key challenge for Community Led Local Development identified by participants was the annual funding arrangement, which was considered to limit the scope and ambition of the programme. This issue was amplified through the inconsistent and unpredictable release of multiple funding tranches within each year, sometimes late in the financial year. Participants detailed many significant knock-on impacts reducing the benefits and reach of the funding, including: reducing strategic planning, capacity-building, collaboration, monitoring and evaluation work; creating uncertainty amongst Coordinators and Local Action Group members (leading to staff retention challenges); and prioritising established groups with ‘shovel ready’ (but not necessarily the most impactful) projects.

Overall, the short-term nature of the funding distribution was felt to lead to a situation where Community Led Local Development Coordinators were forced to be responsive and firefight rather than be proactive and think strategically, which reduced the positive impacts of the programme. These challenges were compared to the situation in the predecessor LEADER fund which was considered to provide more strategic development opportunities as part of multi-year Scotland Rural Development Programme (Pillar 2) funding.

Strategic interviews confirmed the cross-cutting nature of the challenges of annualised funding for both community organisations and for Scottish Government to deliver. Ultimately the Scottish Government commitment to an annual balanced budget constrains it’s ability to provide multi-year funding grants. However, the issue has been identified strategically across the third sector, and there is ongoing work to address the challenge by the Third Sector team in Scottish Government. Emerging good practice consists of an arrangement where there is a grant amount for the first year, and a to be confirmed, indicative budget amount for the/any subsequent year(s). A Fairer Funding pilot currently underway in the Third Sector team in Scottish Government^[16] will have learning on this to be shared in the near future. Other ideas suggested by participants included having a proportion of funding available over at least two financial years so that staff can be retained and/or animation activity continue, even if project funding had to pause.

Participants also emphasised challenges relating to the designation of an annual revenue-capital split in Community Led Local Development funding which did not always suit local circumstances (participants felt it was decided at national level to fit with Scottish Government budgeting rather than based on local priorities) and had varied over recent years, leading to some uncertainty. It was generally felt that more revenue funding would be useful to fund animation and capacity-building work and to support groups to sustain their projects (which is often difficult after set-up funding has been secured). However, for some participants, simply knowing the amount of future funding they would have, in whichever category, was most important. The evidence gathered here also suggested a generally low level of understanding of the method of distributing the fund across the 20 Local Action Groups (which is based on a spatial allocation formula) amongst those delivering it.

The programme has governance flexibility built in, with delivery through varying local bodies supporting the Local Action Group as an Accountable Body (local authorities or third sector interface), or the Local Action Group constituting as an independent charity. Opinions were split amongst participants on the democratic functioning and representativeness of Local Action Groups and their relationships with their Accountable Bodies situated in local authorities or third sector Interfaces (with close relationships bringing both benefits and disadvantages). Some participants expressed a number of benefits for Community Led Local Development from their Accountable Bodies, while others were concerned about these relationships becoming too close to the detriment of the grassroots-led principles of Community Led Local Development. The involvement of a national organisation (Inspiring Scotland) supporting the Community Led Local Development programme also resulted in mixed views amongst participants. There was evidence of a low level of knowledge of this flexible delivery approach outside the Community Led Local Development programme, and of its potential relevance to ongoing work within Scottish Government (“Democracy Matters”) on community empowerment governance structures (See Section 8.6).

Some participants felt that the role of the Local Action Group could be enhanced in future, including through distributing other public and private funds. There was nuance here, however, with some participants regarding the (regional scale) Local Action Group as distant and not local, some questioning the inclusiveness, sustainability, transparency and democratic governance of the groups, and some regarding them as being too close to their Accountable Bodies leading to questions of independence. The latter was particularly the case where the Accountable Body was a local authority, although it was recognised that this also often brought benefits in terms of additional expertise, practical support to Community Led Local Development activities, and sometimes financial underpinning (when required due to funding delays or uncertainties, for example). There was widespread recognition of the considerable expertise and knowledge of Community Led Local Development staff and how this could be brought together more coherently – in a way which acknowledges and draws benefits from their diversity of local experiences – to support Scotland’s rural and island communities.

7.2 Unique selling points of Community Led Local Development

The evidence points to Community Led Local Development as having a number of unique selling points, including:

• Provides the only Scottish Government community development funding specifically for rural and island communities
• Flexibility to be delivered by different organisations (local authorities, third sector Interfaces, Trusts)
• Funding available for community groups and private businesses
• Provides flexible funding for revenue and capital spend, and to support a range of different activities, organisations and businesses
• Maintains a participatory funding element, with local actors (communities, businesses, public sector, third sector) working together to create funding visions and invest in locally-identified priorities
• Empowers communities while delivering national policy outcomes, linking local action to wider strategic goals

7.3 Recommendations

From the breadth of evidence generated in the review we suggest a number of delivery recommendations for Community Led Local Development.

Responsibility for leading on the following recommendations varies, but an indication is provided in the text.

Community-Led Vision Documents and Policy Development

7A. Ensure that Community-Led Vision documents are light-touch and easy to produce, with an appropriate balance between clear guidance and validation from Scottish Government and the need for local flexibility and differentiation.

7B. Consider extending Community-Led Visions over a five year period, with annual reviews. This would reduce the current workload for Coordinators and Local Action Group members, and enable closer alignment with other local plans.

7C. Explore scope for efficiencies and better alignment between these visions and other community-led plans (for example, Local Place Plans and community action plans)^[17] and for introducing further elements of participatory democracy in their design (for example, citizens’ assemblies or participatory planning).

7D. Consider how Community-Led Visions could be more closely aligned with wider Scottish Government priorities for Community Led Local Development and for rural policy more broadly (see separate recommendations in Section 8.3). Collaborative approaches to Community-Led Visions, aligned to a national rural vision, could be a significant new means of achieving rural policy coherence.

Responsibility: Scottish Government, Local Action Groups and Community Led Local Development Coordinators

Network Support

7E. Support networking in order to share strategic insights from the Community Led Local Development programme, such as sharing learning and good practice, particularly to inform proposals in relation to Public Service Reform, Democracy Matters, local governance and Community Wealth Building as they are further developed and implemented. It is also important to share learning from these domains back to Community Led Local Development.

7F. Support engagement between Community Led Local Development Coordinators and relevant third sector organisations to share learning and expertise with regard to building capacity or delivering projects to particular national policy goals. This engagement should be led by the Coordinators to ensure its benefits for Community Led Local Development are maximised.

Responsibility: Scottish Government (including rural communities team and other relevant policy teams), All Local Action Groups and Coordinators

Annual Funding structure

7G. Review the potential for multi-year funding awards for Community Led Local Development. This should be on an ongoing basis with feedback given to those involved in programme delivery on key considerations and progress in relation to this. This could be through involvement in or learning from the Fair Funding pilot being run by the Third Sector Team in Scottish Government to provide indicative budgets for future years for example, or committing to consistent budget lines in advance (following the Scottish Land Fund model). This is a cross-cutting issue for Scottish Government. The strategic and unique nature of Community Led Local Development for rural Scotland means that it should be a high priority for decision makers and politicians.

7H. Consider and report (to those involved in delivering Community Led Local Development) on alternatives to multi-year funding if this is not possible. This includes the possibility of continuing some funding over financial years to enable staff to be retained even if project work pauses. A tiered approach could be explored, with baseline funding (small projects and animation), combined with more targeted funding for larger projects over different geographies and timescales.

7I. Consider the potential to release all funding at once, rather than in tranches, particularly if annual funding remains the only option. If tranches remain the preferred option for Scottish Government, consider standardising when tranches are released to build consistency for forward planning, and ideally allowing maximum time to create calls, build proposals, and deliver and evaluate projects. It may also be valuable to prioritise support to identify and secure independent and complementary revenue streams for Community Led Local Development, which will help to ‘smooth’ short term funding cycles (see also recommendation on how Community Led Local Development fits with other funds, Section 8.7).

7J. In line with the previous recommendations, ongoing discussion and collaboration on financial arrangements should occur between the Scottish Government team distributing the funding, and Local Action Group members and Community Led Local Development Coordinators implementing the funding. Open and ongoing collaboration on the experiences of creating and distributing the fund will help to address future challenges.

Responsibility: Scottish Government (including Rural Communities and Third Sector Teams), with involvement of Local Action Groups and Coordinators; other third sector organisations

Capital and revenue funding balance

7K. Consider the implementation of a three year plan for the split of capital-revenue funding, ideally at national and local levels, to allow for longer term planning.

7L. Acknowledge the uncertainties that exist around capital-revenue splits, including different preferences between Local Action Groups, and limitations on flexibility due to current Scottish and UK Government budgetary processes. Collaboration with Local Action Groups and Community Led Local Development Coordinators will be needed to address challenges and make the most of opportunities. Increased discussion, collaboration and decision-making transparency on revenue and capital awards would be beneficial.

7M. Consider allowing more flexibility for the capital-revenue balance to be set at Local Action Group level depending on local priorities and preferences. This could be within certain parameters, for example, with proportions given as guidance.

7N. Consider the potential to provide loan funding through Community Led Local Development, in particular for businesses (in line with the Community Futures funding model in Canada for example). Initial feasibility work to better understand the potential and requirements of such an approach would be needed, such as the administrative approach required, resource allocations, and appropriate means of delivering.

Responsibility: Scottish Government, Local Action Groups and Coordinators

Funding allocation

7O. Increase transparency and communication of information about the current allocation formula, ideally in multiple formats (e.g. written explanation, workshop to allow discussion) to support inclusive understanding across the wide range of volunteers and staff involved in Community Led Local Development.

7P. Explore the appetite and technical potential for collaboration and co-design to improve community engagement with allocation decisions. Share data-related outputs regularly and provide a forum for questions and ongoing discussion (including in relation to updating the formula and associated data).

7Q. Consider updates and refinements to the existing formula on an ongoing basis and in discussion with those involved in Community Led Local Development delivery, in terms of the function of the formula, it’s geography and the data and indicators used (e.g. technical advancements in geographic units, use of different typologies and classifications in order to reflect island or remote mainland circumstances differently). Explore the possibility of higher funding for particular geographies or issues over set time periods – the latter could match priorities for other Scottish or UK Government funding programmes, or proactively seek to address other priorities, for example (see Section 8.6). Ongoing monitoring would be important to ensure a ‘postcode lottery’ situation does not emerge.

Responsibility: Scottish Government, James Hutton Institute (data analysts) and Local Action Groups and Coordinators

Community Applications

7R. Continue with the flexible and inclusive nature of Community Led Local Development in terms of eligibility to apply for the funding.

7S. Review the inclusiveness and reach of the programme at national and individual Local Action Group scales, including:

• considering the provision of a small annual fund for projects under £5000 (e.g. for feasibility work or small-scale capital purchases), and learning from existing good practice in some Local Action Groups on such funds
• simplifying administration processes where possible to support wider involvement, especially for smaller projects, learning from existing good practice in some Local Action Groups.

7T. Rural and island proof procurement requirements at both Scottish Government and Accountable Body levels. For example, accounting for spend is important, but must be workable in small communities (e.g. requiring three quotes for teas and coffees when there may only be one cafe within 30 kilometres is unrealistic)

7U. Provide pre-notification of future funding rounds to allow for more preparation time.

7V. Provide more support to Accountable Bodies for retrospective claims (i.e. for money to be claimed back after having been spent) or provide a flexible inclusion fund for groups who are not able to do this. Advance payments are an option for Local Action Groups, but are not supported by Accountable Bodies in some areas and/or circumstances.

7W Allow unconstituted groups to apply, potentially for smaller funding or with a constituted ‘sponsor’. There is the potential to learn from the Scottish Land Fund process here.

7X. Raise awareness of and provide specific support for Community Led Local Development funding amongst private and social enterprises.

7Y. Provide more dedicated targeted support for applicants in geographic areas or amongst demographic groups where uptake is currently low. This could form part of a Network Coordinator role where there is national oversight (though would require improved data at national level across all Local Action Group areas).

Responsibility: Scottish Government, Local Action Groups, Community Led Local Development Coordinators, Accountable Bodies, Network Coordinator

7Z. Provide networking support for learning between Local Action Groups and project applicants on administration simplification and on the application process generally such as support for various forms of technical assistance, which could be in the form of guidance or workshops, for example.

Responsibility: Scottish Government (in particular Scottish Rural Network), Local Action Groups, Community Led Local Development Coordinators, Accountable Bodies.

Transparency and inclusion in Local Action Group governance

7AA. Increase transparency in relation to Local Action Group membership, recruitment and governance. At a minimum, membership information and Local Action Group governance guidance should be publicly available online and annual appointment processes shared as a public notice. The Scottish Rural Network website and newsletter could be used more proactively for sharing this information.

7AB. Strengthen governance arrangements where possible, for example in relation to standardised and publicised meetings and Annual General Meetings (some organisations are already doing this). Training should be provided to Local Action Group members around governance issues.

7AC. Consider creating a “quality mark” standard for good governance practice, perhaps adopting some aspects of the quality scheme for village halls used in rural England.^[18]

7AD. Provide inclusion support to see if process changes (e.g. meeting times, etc.) can attract new members and enhance representativeness. An inclusion audit and training at national and/or local levels could be beneficial. This could be co-ordinated by Scottish Rural Network and run in conjunction with other relevant national, regional and local organisations to share learning and good practice.

7AE. To more appropriately reflect the value of local expertise, to aid inclusivity, and to take account of the higher costs of living in rural areas, it may be appropriate to explore paying those Local Action Group members acting in a personal capacity an honorarium for their inputs. This would not be applicable to Local Action Group members participating in their professional capacity. Initially, we propose dialogue with Local Action Groups to better understand the potential impacts of such a step. It may be appropriate to consider aligning an honorarium scheme with an inclusivity strategy. For example, this could include honorariums for a set number of Local Action Group members, and be combined with a recruitment exercise for new members. An inclusivity audit would help to identify priority perspectives missing (such as those of 30-40 years olds or private sector representatives), and the honorarium could help to address inclusivity barriers (such as paying childcare costs).

7AF. Enhance the potential for Local Action Groups to network with other community-based bodies and private enterprises to share learning, including on transparency and inclusive practice, data collection, monitoring and evaluation, etc. This support could come centrally from Scottish Government (in particular Scottish Rural Network) or from a dedicated proportion of funding at Local Action Group level.

Responsibility: Scottish Government (including Scottish Rural Network and policy officials leading on Democracy Matters/local governance work), Local Action Groups, Community Led Local Development Coordinators, Accountable Bodies.

Youth Local Action Groups

7AG. Encourage more communication and sharing of learning and information between Youth Local Action Groups, between Youth Local Action Groups and Local Action Groups and between Youth Local Action Groups and other youth-focused networks and organisations such as the Young Islanders Network. This would also help to improve transparency between the different bodies in relation to timing of funding, reporting, etc. This may require increased national co-ordination and networking activity by Scottish Rural Action and support from Scottish Rural Network, and could also draw in Youth Local Action Group facilitators.

7AH. Provide centralised but specific and tailored communications support for all Youth Local Action Groups, to encourage more young people to get involved and more applicants to apply for funding.

7AI. Consider supporting existing Youth Local Action Groups to deliver more, such as policy advocacy work, networking across the Youth Local Action Group network, specific skills workshops, and/or larger budgets to support more significant youth projects.

7AJ. Encourage new Youth Local Action Groups to be established in areas that do not currently have them. This may require new funding for set-up and ongoing operational costs, including for youth coordinators. Where this is not possible, ensure young peoples’ ideas are heard more effectively by placing greater emphasis on incorporating youth ideas and priorities in the Scottish Government guidance on the work of Local Action Groups.

7AK. Consider the benefits of, and required support for, placing Youth Local Action Groups on an ‘equal footing’ with Local Action Groups, with their own funds, and supported by an overarching structure to continue their work and to gather and share information on their impact. Consider the benefits and challenges of a governance-centred approach, such as requiring Local Action Group governance to allocate a seat for a Youth member.

7AL. Share learning about the processes and outcomes associated with Youth Local Action Groups, and their relationships with Local Action Groups, with other rural youth focused schemes and organisations, particularly on a national level. Consider further funding and support for the Rural Youth Action Network and its relationship with Youth Scotland. Funding for networking should come from a centralised Scottish Government fund, rather than from any one Youth Local Action Group or Local Action Group.

Responsibility: Scottish Government (including Scottish Rural Network), Community Led Local Development Coordinators, Youth Local Action Groups, Local Action Groups