Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review: Youth case study

What could be improved?

Communications, understanding and transparency Participants suggested that improving communications and the visibility of rural support mechanisms, as well as increased transparency regarding Youth Local Action Group funding allocation, would be beneficial. Little was known about the Scottish Rural Network or how programmes intersect and interact:

“There could be more transparency and visibility about all of their [Scottish Government’s] work, especially regarding [Scottish Rural Network] and its portfolio of activities related to both funding and policymaking.”

Relatedly, participants noted that a range of other organisations do youth empowerment work in Scotland, and that the Youth Local Action Group initiative could be better communicated and integrated. Participants also wished for wider awareness of available funding, continued support from Scottish Rural Action, and increased support from national organisations such as Youth Scotland. Suggestions for improvement included enhanced online digital communications and visual diagrams showing how the rural community support system functions.

Improved networking and collaboration

As well as understanding the structures and interactions between the initiatives, one of the central themes of this case study was the importance of collaboration and networking, both between young people and with other rural development initiatives.

Participants emphasised that networking at local, regional and national levels is vitally important for personal development, sharing learning, and amplifying the collective voice of rural and island young people. There was disappointment at the discontinuation of the Rural Youth Action Network (RYAN), which had facilitated such interaction and engagement across the country, where there is now a gap:

“I’d like to see more collaboration with others like in the Borders, islands, the North.”

Suggestions for improvement included dedicated funding for networking, communications support and staffing, as well as improved communication channels and social media outreach to encourage participation.

Participants also encouraged stronger collaboration between Youth Local Action Groups and Local Action Groups, as well as between young people and policymakers to ensure that the voices of rural youth are more integrated with local and national decision-making:

“[Local Action Groups] should have greater involvement with [Youth Local Action Groups] and take a greater interest in what issues they think are important, rather than simply being satisfied that the ‘youth box’ is ticked by the [Youth Local Action Group’s] existence.”

“More contact between young people and policymakers and senior decision-makers is needed to include the youth perspective in all policy, planning and decision-making.”

This continued demand for further influence reflects the perspective that, while Youth Local Action Groups are a valued mechanism, more is required to adequately represent the perspectives of young people.

Increased, multi-year funding

Participants called for larger budgets and multi-year funding to ensure stability and continuity of both the Youth Local Action Group and its support structures. This was specifically noted for youth facilitators and coordinators, whose support was considered invaluable, with calls for them to be employed on a permanent basis:

“We need multi-year funding for [Community Led Local Development], including and especially earmarked funding for [Youth Local Action Groups] (which are extraordinarily efficient to run), and to allow important networks such as [Scottish Rural Action], the Scottish Association of Young Farmers etc. to continue to be member-led and build the rural and island movement.”

The continuity of funding was important to ensure that the current structures remained in place, while the call for increased funding reflected the desire for expansion of the role and network of young people.