Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review: Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development review report
This review report is part of the Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review. The report sets out results from a review of Community Led Local Development, Scottish Rural Network and Scottish Rural Action.
5. Community Led Local Development Review
5.1. Overview of Community Led Local Development
The Scottish Government’s Community Led Local Development funding programme is based on the principles of the EU’s LEADER programme[57], which provided funding for bottom-up community-led development in Scotland as part of the Common Agricultural Policy[58] until December 2021. LEADER formed part of the Common Agricultural Policy’s Pillar 2 (the Scotland Rural Development Programme) and was the EU’s programme for supporting bottom-up community led development of rural areas. A historical overview of LEADER and Community Led Local Development funding is provided in Appendix B.[59]
The Scottish Government has committed over £44 million of funding for Community Led Local Development since 2021. These funds have supported community groups and private businesses in rural and island areas, and were dispersed by Local Action Groups across rural and island Scotland (many of which have long experience of delivering LEADER) and at national level by Inspiring Scotland. The Community Led Local Development programme[60] has a number of key features, including a place-based, partnership approach, guided by local vision documents and delivered through local funding decisions, and an emphasis on capacity-building.
Projects have promoted innovation and contributed to local and national policy priorities (e.g. addressing poverty and recovery from the Coronavirus disease [COVID-19] pandemic and delivering sustainable and inclusive economic growth, net zero and just transition). Key aims of Community Led Local Development are to address social, environmental and economic issues affecting rural and island communities by[61]:
- Driving community action on climate change
- Enhancing rural services and facilities, including transport initiatives
- Enhancing natural/cultural heritage, tourism and leisure
- Supporting food and drink initiatives (for example short supply chains, community food)
- Building co-operation with similar groups in Scotland, United Kingdom and the European Union
- Empowering communities to exchange learning and knowledge with each other, realise their potential and build opportunities for all
Community Led Local Development is a programme that distributes funding to regional groups (Local Action Groups), who then decide how the money is distributed locally, and for what purposes. Local Action Groups are volunteer-led organisations made up of public, private and third sector representatives that make decisions on Community Led Local Development funding, with the support of a paid Community Led Local Development Coordinator. Most Local Action Groups have a separate ‘Accountable Body’ which, amongst other things, ensures the effective operation of the Local Action Group and maintains financial management and accountability of the funding (but does not directly control the allocation of the funding). The Scottish Government issues yearly guidance on the responsibilities and legal basis of Local Action Groups, setting out operating requirements including on the establishment of an Accountable Body and the election of volunteer members. Local Action Groups thus have a participatory budgeting democratic function, with members making funding decisions on behalf of local people.
Local Action Groups can have an Accountable Body which can be a local authority or an anchor organisation, such as a Third Sector Interface, community council or other community group or be an Accountable Body themselves as a separate legal entity (most commonly, companies limited by guarantee with charitable status).[62] In 2025-2026 there were 20 Local Action Groups across rural and island Scotland. Most of these (15) have a local authority as Accountable Body and three have a Third Sector Interface. One group has a national park as Accountable Body and one group is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation and does not have a separate Accountable Body. The allocation of funding to each Local Action Group area is determined by an area-based allocation formula called the Socio-Economic Performance Index (SEP Index), developed through a research-based approach led by the James Hutton Institute in 2022-23.
The Scottish Government’s decision to continue funding Community Led Local Development in rural and island communities makes it unique in a UK context as there is no equivalent successor to LEADER in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government’s approach has included a period of testing change through the Community Led Local Development programme[63], in particular to tackle some of the criticisms and challenges of LEADER, not least the increasing amount of bureaucracy at national and local levels associated with running the programme. This has also involved working with Inspiring Scotland, as a national organisation that divested some of the funding for local projects in 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, and has continued to be involved including by producing case studies for the Scottish Rural Network website[64].
5.2. Advantages and strengths of Community Led Local Development
Participants highlighted a wide range of positive impacts from the Community Led Local Development programme and overall provided strong and consistent support for it. Where this positivity came through strongest was with end-users and recipients of funding, who described the programme as “wholly positive”, “straightforward and supportive”, an “invaluable mechanism” and “transparent, robust and supportive” (Community Led Local Development applicants, survey). For example:
“I would like to reiterate how appreciative we have been of the funding support - and the advice, guidance and support from those leading the delivery of the Community Led Local Development programme in our area. The impact the funding has had in our community is huge - and has, and continues, to positively impact so many in our community.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
“[Community Led Local Development] has allowed us to deliver transformational work within our community to the point we can showcase overcoming challenges in rural coastal areas, turning the tide of economic decline, loss of industry, using people, space and place to build back better.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
One participant from a place-based case study effectively summed up the unique advantages of Community Led Local Development:
“[The] Aim of CLLD is to give local people the opportunity to actually make decisions, because there's always the risk when a decision is made purely by councils or by national government that there is a lack of knowledge, a lack of local understanding. CLLD gives both local people in all of our communities an opportunity to actually put forward projects, and for local people to make decisions about their own priorities.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Alongside broad positivity from project applicants, were also more specific aspects highlighted by participants. One strong theme was how complimentary applicants were for the tailored support provided by Community Led Local Development Coordinators, Local Action Group members and Accountable Body staff, all of whom assist with project design, application and delivery. A selection of quotes demonstrates this:
“The CLLD staff understand how projects work - especially that they do not always go to plan. We found them efficient, resourceful and helpful.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
“It's always a good thing when it's easy to work with your funding partners to find flexibility within the grant… In reality, things cost more or less, things take longer or not… So, flexibility is an important part of that.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
Those who had been involved with LEADER tended to appreciate the reduction in administration in the Community Led Local Development programme. For example:
“How it's administered now by the Scottish Government, it's given a lot more freedom to Local Action Groups to actually deliver something really good with the money, as opposed to worrying about a two pence underspend on a set of roller doors.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Participants highlighted cross cutting strengths of the programme, including it being locally delivered, focused on rural and island areas, and its ability to support a breadth of projects, as well as a breadth of organisations from small charities to well established charities with significant property, to the private sector.
Applicants and those involved in administering the fund also saw the ‘fit’ of the programme as positive, especially how the fund was tailored to the needs of the locality and also its fit with other funds. For example:
“It is local funding and therefore the criteria has a better comprehension and understanding of local needs.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
“CLLD fits perfectly with all of the other funds. It's doesn't duplicate, it is unique and I totally support the concept.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
This was echoed by participants who could see other funding programmes associated with national priorities as not appropriate for the smaller, more local projects that the Community Led Local Development programme was considered to excel at supporting. For example:
“Currently virtually all the available funding is targeted at climate change initiatives, improving biodiversity and addressing mental health. Worthy as these are, there are very few funds for boring maintenance issues and local initiatives that might not save the planet but will bring pleasure and pride to our communities - when did you last see a grant to allow you to create a picnic area or improve your car park?” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
The benefits of receiving Community Led Local Development funding were diverse. Most obvious was that it allowed groups to deliver their projects, with some participants expressing that these would not have been possible without this funding. One participant who had received a small grant from the programme appreciated ‘easy’ impacts at the local level:
“I think we would be lost without Community Led Local Development. I think because it's an easy way to get local funds in and it's very relevant.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
Further, although the levels of funding were small compared to other national funding programmes, in rural and island areas these small injections of funds were seen as ‘vital’ for their continued existence:
“We are still in business!” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
“We could not have delivered our projects without this funding and support. Other funding streams could have been sought but I can't imagine finding another funding source that so closely matched what we wanted to do.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
This sentiment extended to the Local Action Groups and Community Led Local Development Coordinators – that despite precarity they were still able to deliver:
“The funds make a real difference in our communities. However it takes work by all to make this happen. Therefore this entire process is a very significant achievement.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“Our main achievement has been [to continue] to support our communities despite our own limited capacity and funds.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Community Led Local Development Coordinators and Local Action Group Chairs/Members also reflected on the key strengths and achievements of the programme. Comments included how groups were strengthened or reinvigorated (although this is a nuanced point, also discussed in Section 5.13.):
“When I took up post, I found a LAG whose membership with a few exceptions was fairly apathetic, uncertain of what their role was or what the future held, and who had lost the enthusiasm and drive … Thinking back, I find it quite incredible that within three years and despite ongoing uncertainty about long-term funding, continued short funding cycles and now a significant cut to the budget, the LAG have somehow come through this, rediscovered their enthusiasm and are once more doing what they are supposed to be doing: using their combined expertise to discuss what the main issues are our communities face and identifying solutions to try and address these.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Another strong theme from Community Led Local Development Coordinators (and for some, framed as their biggest achievement) was the creation of a Youth Local Action Group (discussed further in Section 5.14.):
“Successfully establishing a YLAG [was our greatest success]. It has taken a lot of effort to do so and involved overcoming many - at times very valid - doubts, but our YLAG has probably become our Number 1 success story. They have really come together as a group and display great professionalism when undertaking tasks people their age are normally not trusted with, such as allocating budgets, assessing fund applications and awarding funds. Each and every member has also grown in some way in a personal capacity, and of late they have had a real focus on leadership and their role as young leaders.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Increased community capacity was another theme, whether this be the ability and confidence of community projects to apply for funding, the efficiency of Local Action Groups (who are community members) “being able to administer funds in a challenging timescale” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey), the creation of new partnership arrangements, and the upskilling of funding recipients through training courses.
Participants in this study very often referred to a wide range of indirect benefits and impacts from the funded projects. It was also acknowledged that these were in many cases intangible and therefore hard to quantify. Some of these intangible benefits included increased community capacity (skills and training), bringing joy and connection, reducing isolation and improving wellbeing, building sustainability, and supporting future community activities.
Other strong themes that arose were that Community Led Local Development had a distinctive geographic (rural and island) rationale, that there were no alternative funding programmes available to deliver these projects, and that the process was relatively simple and flexible compared to other funds. Some participants highlighted the unique support for the private sector provided by Community Led Local Development and noted the potential benefits of working between the charity and private sectors within the programme. For others, however, the small size of the funding pot has discouraged the private sector from getting involved. One respondent also noted that in his area, as the funding pot has got smaller, the Local Action Group has tended to be less inclined to fund private sector businesses and has instead focused on third sector organisations and projects.
One participant involved in administering the fund identified how Community Led Local Development’s flexibility allows it to deliver across policy silos, highlighting this as a key aspect of rural development:
“At the local level, all those strands of policy are not distinguishable. So you've got community empowerment, community led level development, climate action, community wealth building, social enterprises, you want to see more voluntary action, blah blah blah. And they're all funded from different things, from people with different agendas within a single entity, which is Scottish Government… But at the local level they're all joined- up. Community led local development has the potential for recognising this. Rural development depends on all those trends being addressed at the same time and therefore needs to be less prescriptive.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
There was consistent and strong support for place-based funding such as Community Led Local Development, and many participants noted the importance of rural- and island-specific funding on various grounds. A number of participants highlighted increased costs as a particular challenge facing the implementation of projects in these geographies, justifying a targeted fund. Other participants expressed support and suggested ways a rural and island fund could be further improved, arguing that it should be designed by rural and island residents and that national and centralised community funding didn’t have an appropriate understanding of rural and island requirements. Participants suggested more place-based funding should be provided for particular local areas, such as very remote communities, islands, or post-industrial communities. This evidence of support underlines the demand for the Community Led Local Development programme as a fund for rural and island communities that recognises their specific challenges, opportunities and characteristics. For many participants, there was strong overall support for the fund, and advocacy for it to improve, for example:
“[CLLD is being] proactive or inspiring groups to do things differently… [rather than it being] just another fund that people kind of compete for funding.” (Stakeholder, place-based case study interview)
The programme was identified as ‘critical’ to continue by one participant, who also noted it was important for the fund to improve:
“I think for those who have successfully applied and received funding it's a huge help. It’s one of the main strands of funding, without having to go to Lottery and other external [funds]...I think it's critically important that it continues.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
5.3. Projects funded – participants’ perspectives
Community Led Local Development supports a very wide range of projects determined by local community priorities identified by a ‘Community Led Vision’. In their survey responses, funding applicants provided information on various aspects of project delivery. For example, survey respondents provided 34 references (out of 69 responses) to capital funding being used for the improvement or establishment of community infrastructures (for example, village halls/community buildings, community housing, warm spaces, green spaces) or services (for example, equipment/tools/resources for community groups, community events, workshops). Others used the funds to create new strategic plans (Community Action Plan, Local Place Plans) or other required plans and studies (for example, Pre-planning applications or feasibility studies, Future Proofing reports), often consulting with, and employing the services of, architects, researchers, website designers and consultants in the process. Providing training courses led by community groups for community members was another popular response.
The place-based case studies provided valuable insights on projects, including those projects supported over time. One participant, for example, had been in their role for over a decade and described their applications to LEADER and subsequently Community Led Local Development, illustrating a wide range of projects supported by both programmes which have changed over time. In this case, LEADER was described as having (part) funded a housing project, an environmental tourism project, a community hall, and another housing project. Under Community Led Local Development, funding was used to prepare materials for planning applications for two houses, an application was submitted for a cultural project which was rejected, and an application which was pending for feasibility work for a community shop.
5.4. Projects funded – project data
In the data review for this project the Scottish Government provided descriptions of Community Led Local Development projects for 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 for Local Action Group area (see Section 2.3). In 2022-2023, there was evidence of Community Led Local Development funding supporting 380 projects, and in 2023-2024 it supported 515 projects. Figure 1 shows the number of projects funded by Local Action Group areas for the two years.
Note: Project data is not available for the Kelvin Valley and Falkirk Local Action Group before the 2024-25 programme year, as the group had been stood down following the closure of the LEADER programme and was not formally reinstated until then. The group therefore did not receive any funding or deliver projects from December 2021 until April 2024.
The number of projects funded by a Local Action Group varies as a result of many things, including capital/revenue divisions and other funding categories, as well as the different financial amounts allocated to the area (see Section 5.10). Figure 1 illustrates the variation which can exist between Local Action Groups, with some delivering less than 10 projects (West Lothian), and others upwards of 70 (e.g. Highland in 2023-24).
A further breakdown of the projects into themes (identified by Scottish Government) is displayed in Table 6 below.
| Theme | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | 2024-25 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community Asset | 48 | 80 | 0 |
| Just Transition | 58 | 35 | 0 |
| Health & Wellbeing | 16 | 64 | 106 |
| Young People | 35 | 40 | 46 |
| Rural Poverty | 35 | 13 | 93 |
| Net Zero | 0 | 0 | 82 |
| Inclusive Growth | 0 | 0 | 63 |
| Community Wealth Building | 20 | 27 | 0 |
| Inclusion | 34 | 8 | 270 |
| Support for Micro-enterprises | 15 | 18 | 37 |
| Tourism | 21 | 9 | 34 |
| Enhancing Connectivity | 0 | 0 | 19 |
| Housing | 10 | 4 | 0 |
| Partnership | 1 | 5 | 234 |
| Others* | 87 | 212 | 0 |
| Total | 380** | 515 | 585 |
*Note: Projects that fall under “Others” were due to data limitations preventing categorisation. Most projects cut across various themes delivering multiple benefits; thus, these numbers should be treated as indicative and not an actual representation of trends and funding priorities.
**Note: This total includes three projects that were delivered across Scotland as part of Rural Communities Ideas into Action (RCIA).
During the review period, a new assessment tool was introduced to provide Local Action Groups with UK-accredited software for monitoring the Social Return on Investment of their funded projects. Introduced mid-year 2022-2023, this software - the Social Value Engine[65] proprietary software - supported increased measurement of the impacts of projects, and particularly determining the social return on investment.
In the 2024-2025 report, the overall result was a Social Return on Investment of £3.70 for every £1 spent in the Community Led Local Development programme in that year, arising from 585 projects assessed. This follows on from £3.68 for every £1 in 2023-2024 arising from 377 projects, and £3.66 for every £1 spent from 161 projects assessed in 2022-2023.[66] Further data and analysis relating to Social Return for Investment will be explored in future outputs from this project.
5.5. Funding structure – Short term annual funding issued in ‘tranches’
Since 2021-22, Community Led Local Development funding has been distributed annually in the form of two ‘tranches’, with total amounts confirmed in the annual Scottish Government budget (see Table 8). For two of the years (2021-2022 and 2022-2023) a national organisation (Inspiring Scotland) also distributed funding nationally, supporting the Local Action Group structure and providing funding directly to community groups (including in areas where Local Action Groups had not continued after EU exit). This is summarised in Table 7.
| Year | Total claimed by Local Action Groups | Total claimed by Inspiring Scotland | Total Amount of Community Led Local Development Funding Claimed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | £1,156,960 | £2,000,000 | £3,156,960 |
| 2022-23 | £7,221,522 | £3,000,000 | £10,221,522 |
| 2023-24 | £10,034,744 | n/a | £10,034,744 |
| 2024-25 | £11,206,105 | n/a | £11,206,105 |
From 2022 to 2025, an average of £10.4 million was provided annually to the Community Led Local Development programme, a comparable level to the previous LEADER programme which was around £11million per year for Scotland in the 2014-2020 programming period. In 2025- 2026 the allocated amount was reduced to £8,816,000, with final claimed amounts for the year not yet confirmed at the time of writing.
Under LEADER, some participants felt there was greater certainty around the schedule and size of payments as Local Action Groups could choose how to spread funding over the programming period (i.e. multi-year funding distributed at the same time each year, or spreading it across the programme period of ~5 years). Currently Community Led Local Development funding is annual, with amounts confirmed in the annual Scottish Government budget, and provided in two tranches each year, usually with considerable uncertainty about the size or timing of the second funding tranche until shortly before it is distributed.
Table 8 shows the monthly timing of the funding tranches that Scottish Government provided to Local Action Groups which had to be spent by March of that year (the end of the financial year).
| Year | Tranche 1 | Tranche 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | August (RCIA) September (RCTC) | December (RCIA) |
| 2022-23 | August (CLLD) | October (RCIA) |
| 2023-24 | May | August |
| 2024-25 | May | November |
| 2025-26 | April | June |
Note on abbreviations used: Rural Communities Ideas into Action (RCIA), Rural Communities Testing Change (RCTC) and Community Led Local Development (Community Led Local Development).
Table 8 demonstrates the variation in when funding has been distributed to Local Action Groups. In two of the four years, funding was made available in November/December requiring to be spent within just a few months over the winter period to meet the end of financial year (i.e. end of March) deadline. In terms of funding disbursement to applicants, time would be required to advertise and award the fund, so the time for project delivery could be as short as a month or two in cases where funding was issued to Local Action Groups in December.
The tranche funding was termed ‘intermittent’ funding by one participant. One place-based case study participant acknowledged that 2025-2026 funding, while still coming in two tranches, had all come much earlier in the financial year “which was transformative” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview).
There were two very clear friction points for participants around this funding arrangement; firstly, that annual funding cycles made it very difficult to plan delivery over the long- and medium-term, and secondly, that uncertain and inconsistent timings within this annual cycle also caused multi-faceted challenges for all aspects of delivery, including animation work[67], staffing (and associated morale and workloads) and monitoring and evaluation.
All Community Led Local Development Coordinators who completed the survey (17 out of 20 nationally) identified the annual funding cycle as the most influential delivery challenge, from a range of options. Figure 2 below demonstrates this clear finding (2nd row – ‘Challenges associated with annual funding’).
Community Led Local Development Coordinators were asked to name their three biggest challenges in their survey. Some Coordinators framed all three challenges around funding issues and/or cycles. The following two quotes demonstrate how this has had knock-on effects:
“We didn't realise the impact of moving from the multi-annual approach … to the [annual cycle] until we no longer had the multi-annual facility. It has been quite a shock and has had a huge impact on the community groups [as] they now have to apply for their funding and deliver their 'projects' within sometimes a 9-month timescale.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“The effective delivery of the [Community Led Local Development Programme] is hampered by a challenging annual funding cycle. … Delays in confirming yearly funding from the Scottish Government create operational instability. This has a direct impact on staffing. […] Consistent, guaranteed annual approval and upfront expenditure confirmation by April from the Scottish Government would provide essential additional time for the Programme and its projects to maximise their impact and achieve desired outcomes.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
This was a key theme also raised by participants across all of the place-based case studies, with one participant simply saying that with multiyear funding:
“…we would get better projects with better social impact for the same amount of money” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, place-based case study interview).
Applicants also highlighted it consistently as a challenge in their survey, for example:
“The biggest constraint is the timescales... It's always a case of fund opens, applications within six weeks, spend the money within four months, capital project of 40 grand or something, spend it within four months. Unless the project is already worked up, and you’re doing to do it anyway you can’t deliver” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
The short-term nature of the funding cycle was argued to limit ambition, with stakeholders throughout the funding chain resorting to projects that were easily deliverable within uncertain and short timeframes, rather than taking a longer-term strategic approach to tackle what are sometimes systemic issues. There was an attitude of “firefighting” the issues at hand (Local Action Group Chair, survey) rather than attempting to tackle issues at the source, or to deliver on bigger more ambitious projects and that they are “not doing the big projects that they love doing.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview):
“Annual funding has by far presented the biggest challenge to the fund. It impacts all aspects of applicant experience from initial application - through to claims. Staffing and recruitment have also been significantly impacted and arguably most importantly it has created a huge challenge with animation of the fund. […] From LAG members, to Applicants, to [Accountable Body] staff members and Fund staff members, everyone agrees that this is by far the biggest challenge” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Applicants also highlighted how the short-term funding approach could undermine long-term community plans, for example:
“It's quite frustrating when you're trying to do community development that you know it's going to take years to achieve what you need to achieve and you can only get funding for a year.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
It was noted that it is hard to keep Local Action Group members together with an annual funding cycle and reducing levels of revenue which leads to the loss of staff:
“Each year 50% of our LAG leaves, universally citing workload caused by [Scottish Government] decisions as the reason!” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Delays to the receipt of funding in some years (with Tranche 2 funding in 2024 released in November, for example) amplified the challenges. The timescales for allocating funds were short, with communities having less time to prepare their bids and Local Action Group members having to evaluate project proposals in a rushed manner. In some of the place-based case studies, short-term funding meant the same groups or projects repeatedly applied successfully, effectively reducing the inclusive nature of the funding. These groups had experience and ‘shovel ready’ projects and understood how to engage with short-term stop/start funding. In contrast, groups with lower capacity to apply in short timescales were less likely to apply, resulting in an increasingly uneven landscape of community capacity and Community Led Local Development projects:
"We would get far, far better projects if we had multi-year funding. … That is the biggest constraint on us is that we are running to get all of the money out by September because projects need to be finished by the end of February. That leads to worst projects. It leads to projects from groups … that have a project that's shovel ready on a shelf just looking for funding dig that out. Those may be brilliant projects, but they may also not be as good as we could have achieved with the same amount of money. … That's our biggest challenge" (Community Led Local Development delivery, interview, place-based case study)
In some areas, the Local Action Group has helped to address this by implementing an early expression of interest process based on indicative spend to try and give as much time to applicants as possible. This was noted to be helpful but created added work and pressure for Community Led Local Development Coordinators. In other cases, small funding pots were used to support smaller groups usually with a less onerous application procedure and therefore a more efficient process than larger grants.
The effects of the funding structure were felt through the entire funding chain, down to the community groups, charities and businesses delivering the programme on the ground:
“The one request consistent for 10 years or more from community groups and the third sector is consistent and multi-year funding.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“The time factor leads to very responsive projects with ability to deliver and spend quickly rather than perhaps those with more time to research, work up something new/different and that will have a longer lead in time for delivery” (Local Action Group Chair, survey)
The compression of time to deliver funded projects was frustrating for funding recipients, with some expressing how this was a stressful process, particularly as it was misaligned with the farming calendar and forced some projects to deliver through winter months. One place-based participant noted the impact of short project delivery cycles:
“A whole degree of emphasis on the recipient, which means that they don't end up with a with an optimal solution because they're just busy spending the money in order to get the claim in before the year end...and the applicants don't have time to explore if there are synergies between two organisations in the third sector.”(Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Further, participants noted that reputational damage had been caused to some Local Action Groups:
“Not only did this create a lot of work and frustration at a time of year when everyone has plenty of other things on their mind, it created an impression of incompetence among some community groups, with some believing that we had kept funds back from our initial budget to release on such impossible terms. It also meant that we had to severely curtail activity on other project strands, as all focus had to be on the design, award and shortly after rolling up, of another fund, when our intention had been to during this time undertake community engagement, review the LAG's governance and develop a more long-term strategy.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
The lack of long-term programme vision also impacted on the attitudes of staff, volunteers, projects and beneficiaries:
“The biggest single challenge has been when resources have been allocated. […] It undermined strategic planning; mitigated against good community led development work; put additional time pressures on projects to develop and submit ideas and then run their activities; frustrated how and when the scheme could be promoted; and disillusioned members of the LAG.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“How can the LAG be effective or empower local communities/groups to drive their own development when there is no long-term confidence of the funding and time to spend funds to allow for anything other than supporting short term measures or funding existing activity.” (Local Action Group Member, survey)
Survey data demonstrated that Local Action Group members and staff could lose their enthusiasm or experience burnout operating under such conditions (15 out of 16 Local Action Group survey participants said this was moderately or very influential). This had knock-on impacts in terms of damage to communication, networks and collaborative working and trust, as well as reducing levels of knowledge and expertise, and the overall ambition of the groups, for example:
“There are concerns that LAG members will continue to lose their enthusiasm in continuing to commit their volunteer time and remain on the board. LAG members have expressed serious concerns and are of a view that low allocations, is not enough to sustain long term projects or ambitions set out in the initial Community Led Vision.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Participants raised a broader concern about the increased workloads of Community Led Local Development Coordinators and Local Action Groups in recent years, with some Coordinators describing their workload as becoming unmanageable at peak times when funding tranches come in and there is pressure to spend money quickly. This was expressed in a number of ways, as illustrated in these quotations:
“The experience was pretty exasperating for myself and greatly increased my workload … but to treat a committee of volunteers, i.e. the LAG, with such little regard is really unacceptable. … The importance of getting the funds allocated and spent as quickly as possible trumped any ambitions of doing so in the most strategic and efficient manner.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“Also, the fact is you're dealing with fairly large numbers of projects for small amounts of money. The sheer amount of staff effort required and the time scales involved were such that it was out of all proportion to how you could deliver... It was all this rush at the last minute, which is really very unfair for the staff involved.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Participants said precarious funding situations cascade into precarious working arrangements for those delivering projects, as described below:
“Funding for 6 months or less is difficult to create a meaningful contract for our employees, all of whom are on 12-month contracts.” (Community Led Local Development recipient, survey)
“The inability to fund more than one year means you're effectively going to be putting people on short term contracts because you can't put them on long term contracts. Otherwise, you've got to reserve funds for redundancy and you're probably not going to get anybody transferring from a full-time job to a short term, to a short-term position - why would you? Which means that you're going to lose … institutional memory. We would lose staff, which has the knock-on effect of memory and ability.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Again, participants described how this uncertainty has knock-on effects, with one Community Led Local Development Coordinator demonstrating the impact on recruiting staff with necessary skills and experience, which in turn will affect the programme overall:
“The risk to potential staff members only being offered a twelve month or less contract means we are finding it difficult to recruit the calibre of staff we require for this work. Even if project budgets are to remain annualised ... having an admin and animation multi-year budget would make significant improvements to the management of the fund.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
In relation to young people, a participant from a place-based case study highlighted the difficulty of recruiting young people to get involved in the Youth Local Action Group when the funding is uncertain from one year to the next.
In some instances, the annual funding challenge was exacerbated by capital and revenue funding distinctions, as highlighted by one Coordinator:
“[this] adds another layer of difficulty as capital projects are notoriously slower than revenue” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Animation and collaboration work (discussed in more detail in the following Section) was also made much more difficult to achieve:
“Only projects that can be delivered within year can be supported, and we don't have time in the process to animate cold spots.” (Local Action Group Chair, survey)
There were some Community Led Local Development applicants, typically with assets and staff capacity, who were able to strategise beyond the short-term funding tranches. For example:
“What we've done with revenue funding that's been available is we've done a lot of work to make sure that we're ready. That it’s shovel ready. So, when funds become available, we have projects sitting there ready to go. So, we've got planning permission, we've got building warrants. So, we've used sort of funding in that way, which has been helpful. But you don't really want funds coming out sort of halfway through the year that needs to be spent in a few months. It's ridiculous.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
In this way, existing resources could support groups to make the most of the funding structure, although there were wide ranging implications. There was also evidence of the counter experience – where limited resources meant community groups were unable to deliver projects in accordance with the funding structure.
5.6. Capital and revenue funding balance
Community Led Local Development funding is designed to be flexible and can award both capital project funds and revenue project funds. The split between revenue and capital funding for the Local Action Groups to distribute varied in each year of this review. The overview of revenue and capital from 2021 to 2026 is summarised in Figure 3 below. In 2021-2022, a reduced overall budget was delivered through only revenue funding. From 2022 to 2025, the split varied but was generally majority revenue. In 2025-2026, the fund was predominantly for capital spending.
Note: 2025-26 amounts are indicative.
The revenue/capital balance overall is determined by Scottish Government, with flexibility by Local Action Groups in their funding awards and between funding tranches. In practice, this flexibility meant that revenue/capital balances varied substantially by Local Action Group over the funding tranches. In 2021-2022, funding was 100% revenue for the Rural Communities Testing Change (RCTC) and Rural Communities Ideas into Action (RCIA) programmes[68]. In 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, there was notable variation in capital/revenue splits used by the Local Action Groups, ranging from 70% capital-30% revenue, to almost 100% revenue. In 2024-2025, there was less variation with Local Action Groups generally using an approximate 70% revenue-30% capital split. 2025-2026 data for Local Action Group spend was not available at the time of writing (although the overall indicative split is included in Figure 3).
In addition to revenue funding for projects, the Community Led Local Development revenue fund can be spent on a range of activities. This includes Local Action Group ‘administration’, which covers staffing costs. Administration costs were capped at 15% of the total Local Action Group allocation or £57,000 (whichever is higher) from 2021; this was increased in 2025-2026. Revenue funding can also be spent on animation and collaboration activity (for example, networking). Funding for priority areas can be ‘ringfenced’ by Scottish Government annually, which specifies amounts (by percentage or as a £) to be spent on these sub-categories of revenue. No data was available on administration, animation or collaboration breakdowns for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with partial data available for 2023-2024. 2024-2025 data showing this breakdown is presented in Figure 4. Figure 4 also highlights the difference in the overall amount of funding each Local Action Group area received in 2024-25.
Figure 4 illustrates that revenue grants were the largest overall category for all Local Action Groups in 2024-2025. Collaboration was undertaken by a selection of Groups, and fewer still undertook animation. As noted above, administration was capped at 15% of total spend or £57,000.
Whilst it is useful to see this data for 2024-25, it does somewhat mask the reality of what was experienced on the ground. Participants explained that revenue/capital splits changing annually caused several delivery issues for Community Led Local Development Coordinators, Local Action Groups and recipients of funding. For example, the revenue budget for 2025-26 was relatively low at £2.9million, whereas for comparison it was more than £8 million in 2024/25.
In their survey, 12 Community Led Local Development Coordinators (approximately 70%) indicated that either ‘substantially’ or ‘slightly’ more revenue funding was required (with only 14% thinking capital funding should be increased). It was not specified in the survey if ‘revenue funding’ meant funds to support their own operation, or revenue funding distributed to community projects, however, most of the Coordinators chose to frame their answers around their own operational budgets. The reasons given for the overall preference towards increasing revenue funding were multifaceted.
With decreasing budgets overall, spending on animation or collaboration is likely to be under increased pressure. The lack of (or changing levels of) funding for revenue “makes capacity building in particular more difficult” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey). This was also seen to be the case for building collaborations, engaging in (international) networking and knowledge exchange, and administration tasks:
“We have limited funds for staffing - I cover all aspects of the programme from application processing, assessment and claims. I have no time for animation, capacity building, partnership working etc.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“There is a constant juggle of time as to whether we prioritise actual delivery and support to communities who are coming forward with project ideas (or indeed animate the communities who are not), supporting the LAG and time spent on justification of that investment - and this happens every year and on a year-round basis.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Many of the Youth Local Action Group activities (discussed in Section 5.14.) are highly dependent on revenue funding. Participants reported that, as a result of a lack of revenue funding, enhancing Youth Local Action Group activities could be severely hampered, for example:
“I struggle to see how YLAGs would continue long-term if their operating budget was entirely capital as networking and attending events is such an integral part of what they do.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Revenue funding was highlighted as crucially important, and a unique aspect of Community Led Local Development funding, by many applicants across the data collection phases in this review. Revenue can be used prior to receiving capital funding to manage activities like feasibility studies, plans and advice, as well as after capital projects are implemented to deliver on the full potential of these projects. Some groups may receive capital monies to develop infrastructure or equipment but need revenue to keep delivering into the future. A handful of participants stressed that due to large scale community landownership projects in their local areas, rural communities could be asset rich, but revenue poor, again underlining the importance of revenue funding opportunities in rural and island areas. The importance of this point in supporting Scotland’s particular successes with rural community ownership and social enterprises needs to be appreciated. Example perspectives on the importance of project revenue funding are set out below:
“Revenue funding is essential for the early preparatory works for capital projects (and is difficult to find elsewhere), but also essential to cover the other costs that most communities need to support their activities, whether or not they are interested in a capital project in the future. Revenue funding is particularly important as communities start to grow in their capacity and starting out on employing staff or contractors before they are in a position to generate income to cover staff going forward.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“I've found it really frustrating that the Scottish Government had funded us to get to the point of needing implementation, and then dropped us like a hot potato-- whereas that to me would be the point at which you invest. This community has proved that it can do things, let's invest and make this happen now.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
“The Development Trusts [had a] governance review, CLLD funded that. There's nobody else that can provide the money to do things like that... Revenue is key…the one thing that that everybody needs is revenue, revenue, revenue...” (Stakeholder, place-based case study interview)
There was recognition that if capital projects were to succeed, then revenue funding is also needed to support the sustainability and effectiveness of the projects:
“Revenue continues to be a huge demand and need within our rural communities, and capital projects can only succeed and maintain a legacy if revenue is also invested.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Although participants expressed a strong preference for revenue funding, multiple participants also said that receiving ample advanced notice of funding of whatever type would help to alleviate some of the issues:
“Knowing in advance is most important so that plans can be made to use either capital or revenue to maximise its benefit for the community.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“Most important though is to have as much advance knowledge as possible though, to give LAGs and YLAGs a chance to develop their strategy accordingly.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Additionally, some participants saw the debate as “a moot point” as their preference was for “as much flexibility as possible” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey) that allows for the split to be determined on a project-by-project basis:
“What should be encouraged is an open budget allowing the LAG to respond to community need, as with the LEADER funding. Allowing the fund to react to what the community needs are, rather than trying to fit projects around specified budget requirements.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
One place-based case study participant commented that keeping flexibility would be useful in the future, perhaps with capital and revenue both having to be a minimum of 30% of spend, but with flexibility with the other 70% of spend available at local level.
The combination of annual funding cycles, varying levels of funding, inconsistent scheduling of funding tranches, and changing capital and revenue funding splits, resulted in what participants considered a confusing and demanding landscape where medium- and long-term planning was deemed incredibly challenging. Many other issues stemmed directly from this combination of factors.
It is also worth noting that some participants did consider that these funding arrangements had particular advantages. They noted securing any budget is a success at a time of financial constraint. Some participants argued that tranche funding did not undermine the overall agility of the Community Led Local Development fund, which can be used in many different ways in different Local Action Group areas, for funding different types of projects. This agility aligns in principle with the grassroots ethos of the fund. Smaller pots of funding can also be used for match funding or as a stepping stone for projects by building resource, capacity and skills. At the same time, it was also acknowledged that having more, smaller, projects does increase the administrative burden on Community Led Local Development Coordinators in particular. Additionally, having smaller project allocations as well as less money overall may mean that the projects funded are less risky or less innovative as there is a stronger sense of resources being limited and therefore only available to projects that are perceived to have the best chance of ‘success’.
5.7. Match funding
Match funding was a recognised means of increasing budgets for Local Action Groups, and for applicants. Local Action Groups have discretion to decide if they wish to require match funding with their Community Led Local Development allocated funding. The review identified variable practice across Scotland. Match funding could include Local Action Group support for combining Community Led Local Development funding with other funds disbursed by the same organisation; this would be providing a package of funding to an applicant. There was also some in-kind support to delivery organisations, such as Accountable Body support provided in kind by a local authority. Match funding also occurred at the applicant level, with some Local Action Groups specifying a percentage of match funding required to be organised by the project applicant, and/or applicants proactively matching funds.
The majority of Community Led Local Development Coordinators completing the survey reported no match funding at the programme level, although in-kind support was provided from local authorities when there were involved (such as as an Accountable Body). There were significant differences in the levels of match funding secured between Local Action Groups, with some groups demonstrating novel approaches to securing match funding. There was emerging good practice in some groups with well-developed match funding processes in place. In these circumstances Community Led Local Development funding was recognised as providing a valuable flexible source of funding which could help access other funding opportunities. There were also examples of proactive collaborative matching with other funders, such as enterprise agencies.
Examples of external match funding sources included other Scottish Government funds such as: Scottish Land Fund; Investing in Communities Fund; Islands Team funding; Community and Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES) and the Just Transition Fund. Other matching sources included: Crown Estate / Coastal Communities; UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Levelling up Fund, new neighbourhoods fund; Local Authority funds; various Community Development Trusts / Companies; Crowdfunding / donations / community fundraising; Windfarm Communities Funds; National Lottery Community Fund; Landfill Funds; and Sports Scotland.
Community Led Local Development funds were used to ‘plug a gap’ with other funding sources, allowing for some impressive projects to be delivered:
“Amazing projects…[CLLD] provided key match-funding for communities working on large capital projects that will create immense, long-term benefits for people living in the area, and seeing some of these progress to the building stage”. (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
There were examples of headline successes, as set out in the quote. One Community Led Local Development Coordinator noted that projects in their area had sourced over £10 million in match funding since 2021.
The impetus for match funding was not always clear from the evidence. Some Local Action Groups reported the changeable nature of the Community Led Local Development funding stream had led them to seek more match funding. For example:
“It was partly at that point in time, driven through the necessity that we had to try and get the CLLD money out the door, that was actually the driver for coming up with this idea [of match funding]. And the idea being that what we would be able to do was give mixed awards to applicants. So, if the LAG approved CLLD funding, we would also look for counsellors to approve [other funded allocated by the local authority].” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)[69]
Combining funding sources could also ‘smooth over’ short timescales and other funding risks. For example:
“What we've been trying to do is work really early with groups and have a pipeline of projects that we can stream to whichever fund that we know is coming and warn them in time because we want to give them the maximum time to spend.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Others appeared to be match funding as a general policy, rather than a response to conditions.
Match funding with other funds was noted to be frequently complex, with complicated and potentially misaligned administration and monitoring and evaluation reporting requirements resulting in a challenging route to delivery. Headline successes for major projects were the rarity, rather than the norm. Participants noted that national funding sources were scarcer, and some stressed that securing match funding is more difficult in the short timescales required for Community Led Local Development funding, as expressed below:
“There has been general difficulty confirming match funding from different funding programmes in adequate time to give LAG assurance that the required funding will be in place to enable a project to start and complete by the required deadlines. These issues have often led to projects being minimised to deliver what can be achieved from solely CLLD funding and with private match.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
For some applicants in the place-base case studies, robust match funding processes by the Local Action Group made Community Led Local Development funding indistinguishable from other funders. When asked about their funding mix, these participants were not clear on how Community Led Local Development fit in with other funders as it has been provided to the applicants as a package of funding. Most likely these applicants would have been focused on project delivery rather than reflecting on the various funding sources which made up the funding package offered collectively. In one place-based case study, concern was expressed that local authority support for a project, and their ability to secure match funding, led to the local authority effectively acting as a gatekeeper for Community Led Local Development funding, thereby undermining the community led ethos of the fund. In these ways, match funding led by Local Action Groups could lead to a lack of transparency and potentially undermine the grassroots ethos of Community Led Local Development.
Match funding was also secured by applicants, either on their own volition or because it was required by the Local Action Group. These could be positive:
“Projects are quite creative with their match funding - they often bring in funds from funders we haven't even heard of before.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
One Community Led Local Development Coordinator’s experience was that applicant match funding was generated locally by the groups, not from other funding sources:
“Often these funds have been generated through fund raising activities or donations from stakeholders. Match funding has rarely been obtained from different funding streams/programmes.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
However, other Community Led Local Development Coordinators expressed that their communities had struggled to do any match funding.
Recipients of Community Led Local Development funding reflected on their experiences of seeking match funding in survey responses and interviews, with opinions varying over the ease of securing these funds. The quotes below demonstrate some of the range between opinions (positive to negative):
“Match funding was from [National Lottery] and that was much easier to apply for - a streamlined online process, followed by a few follow up questions by email.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
“Each funder has their own processes and their own application forms etc. - I wouldn't say funding was 'easy' to source, but also not too difficult. We have tried to cultivate good working partnerships with our other funders, to ensure there is clarity over the project and funding available, to try and minimise the barriers.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
“It was extremely difficult to gather the necessary funds for the project and we ended up receiving funds from around 20 funders.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey)
Another challenging experience was described by one applicant in a place-based case study who had received half of their requested project funding; their understanding was that this was due to the high demand for the fund and a decision by the Local Action Group to support as many groups as possible. They were told to find a source of match funding but had been unable to do that over a year after the original award.
The importance of unrestricted match funding with few reporting requirements which allow for a broad array of activities was raised. For example, participants in some of the place-based case study areas noted the value of wind farm community benefit funding as being essential to allow community organisations the flexibility and security to continue to function and employ staff year on year:
“You get two years funding [from the public sector] but then you're not a fancy project anymore [after two years]. No more funding. And all the work you've done and building those relationships is gone. That's the most important, and the hardest, so we make sure that we can always keep our staff as a real priority. The good thing about the wind farm money is it's unrestricted. I would say we need a lot more unrestricted funding. I completely understand why we don't have that. It's very difficult to monitor. But it's when, you know, the boiler breaks and I'm like, oh no, no one's funding that-- that's not exciting.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Many participants noted that this type of funding wasn’t available in all areas, calling it a 'post code lottery’; others stressed other rural funding mechanisms (including Community Led Local Development) should be as responsive, and also seek to address any inequalities.
5.8. Inspiring Scotland
In 2021-22, Inspiring Scotland distributed £3 million of Community Led Local Development funding over two Tranches. Tranche 1 funding was distributed to the Local Action Groups in two streams (including one stream for competitive project funding). Tranche 2 funding was called the ‘Rural Communities Ideas into Action Fund’ and it was delivered through a partnership of the Scottish Government and Inspiring Scotland.
Some participants questioned the rationale for involving Inspiring Scotland in the Community Led Local Development programme. Participants said the arrangement had been confusing to communities, duplicated work, reduced funding available at local level for locally-defined priorities, and caused tension/competition between Local Action Groups and Inspiring Scotland. These feelings were felt strongly by some, particularly given the wealth of knowledge and expertise built up in most Local Action Groups during LEADER:
“The idea that a funder without knowledge of the area could reach those that we haven't is misguided.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“The big drawback was that Inspiring Scotland didn't know our areas and the groups within them to the same degree we did. It was really unhelpful, as projects were being funded that didn't link with other projects in the area, which defeated the purpose of having a Development Strategy/Community Led Vision.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“There were projects approved in our area that were contrary to our LAG's understanding of local need. It created a confusing landscape for our communities.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Some participants also questioned the transparency of the decision to involve Inspiring Scotland, seeing them as “parachuted in without any consultation and explanation” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey). However, other participants recognised the additional expertise, experience and fresh ideas and entrepreneurial perspectives that Inspiring Scotland brought to the Community Led Local Development programme (particularly in terms of animation, capacity-building and monitoring and evaluation), and their national perspective on community-led development, built up through the experience of the other funding programmes that the organisation manages.
Some applicants who had received funding highlighted the benefits of working with their Local Action Group and Inspiring Scotland:
“The
As some Local Action Groups had disbanded after EU exit, channelling all Community Led Local Development funding through these structures would have excluded some parts of rural Scotland in the early years of this review. Therefore, involving Inspiring Scotland made the fund more inclusive at this time, as these funds were open to all rural and island areas not just those with operational Local Action Groups. Some participants also recognised the efficiencies of a national organisation distributing funding, in contrast to the higher administrative costs of the decentralised, flexible and grassroots-based Community Led Local Development programme.
The involvement of Inspiring Scotland illustrates a fundamental tension in Community Led Local Development funding - it can be more efficient to deliver funding through a national organisation, but this potentially undermines the grassroots ethos of the programme. There is a balance to be struck in future between efficiency and national level consistency, and empowering local people to make funding decisions.
5.9. Suggestions to improve the Community Led Local Development funding structure
A range of suggestions were provided by participants to improve the funding structure of Community Led Local Development. Firstly, many participants argued that overall funding should be increased. For some, the need for more funding was linked to the higher (and generally increasing) costs of delivering projects in rural and island locations. For example, one participant explained that Community Led Local Development funding was used for a feasibility study for a project with spiralling construction costs that had stopped it from being implemented: “we're just at the stage of shock, of shock with prices” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview).
There was some evidence of a broader concern over an increase in the number of feasibility studies which were not able to be implemented due to increased costs. This is a high-level question to be considered: how does funding feasibility studies help communities when there is not funding for implementation? A strategic view across different public and private funds could help to address this.
In addition to making the case for more funding, most participants also highlighted the need for changes to the timescales for Community Led Local Development funds. The most common suggestion was for the Scottish Government to guarantee longer-term funding, ideally three to five years, with participants providing other examples of funding programmes where this is possible:
“Previous LEADER funding has had longer spending times (over 2 years for example) allowing high value and strategic capital projects to be undertaken, alongside revenue funding that provides long term (not year to year or several months) support for services within rural communities.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Other suggestions included committing a partial fund (i.e. a proportion of the funding) in advance to Local Action Groups or Accountable Bodies to ensure these groups can retain staff and continue to conduct evaluation/animation work over multiple years, even if they have a lull in funding for projects. One participant commented:
“… this does not need to be seen as requiring 100% of future funding to be guaranteed. A key point from a CLLD practitioner and governance perspective is that any level of committed future funding will allow and support a transformation change in future system operations…. If a LAG can have confidence of say between 40% to 60% of year 1 funding in year 2, and 20% to 40% of year 1 funding in year 3, this allows for meaningful animation and support of development and implementation of longer-term, step-change outcomes for communities; takes away much of the future funding risk for community representatives; therefore supports and encourages community engagement and participation; gives more time to secure funding from other sources; while restricting required forward funding commitments from government. In my experience, multi-year funding is always spoken about by civil servants as being 100% committed to 100% of forward funding levels – this does not need to be the case to make significant step changes to our current operations.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview).
A number of Community Led Local Development applicants suggested this logic could also be extended to the delivery of community-led projects too: “The funding timeline is quite short; 18 months would be more practical” (Community Led Local Development applicant, survey).
A place-based participant described the additional “wealth creation” that would have been possible had the Community Led Local Development funding been available over longer time scales; instead, they commented that projects had delivered more short-term aims.
Another common recommendation provided by Community Led Local Development Coordinators was for the Scottish Government to allow for Local Action Groups to determine their own split between revenue and capital funding:
“The focus on splitting capital / revenue as a percentage is not reflective of local need but driven by Scottish Government budgeting. This is contrary to the premise of Community Led Local Development being from the community needs first.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“Some good projects come in after all revenue funds are spent, however we have capital to spend that we could have used for those projects but can't as it is capital and not revenue.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
The need for flexible capital or revenue requirements, or just more revenue funding generally, was noted by participants to arise from higher costs experienced in rural and island locations, for example:
There’s not revenue funding to be able to maintain...And because we're on an island, you have to go to the mainland to get things maintained… you have higher fuel costs, yeah, because it's island-based again.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
There was also support for small project funding (e.g. a small grants programme for say less than £5,000), with flexible and light-touch application and monitoring requirements to reduce the burden on community groups:
“One of the most useful projects was the small grants programme which allowed a lot of groups to apply for less than £5k to make change, this again gave more organisations support and built capacity to develop larger projects in the future.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“The small grants programme was introduced in December 2024. While not feeling as strategic as LEADER … [it] had a real grassroots benefit and raised the profile of CLLD and the funding process and increased number engaged, 22 awards of under £5k were made. The impact of a few thousand pounds should not be underestimated.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
There were calls for flexibility in funding administration reflecting specific island and rural contexts where it was possible that not all requirements could be fulfilled:
“...Anything between £0-1000 you need three quotes. Now…we're holding an event, and we need tea and coffee and some biscuits. I'm not going to go into the shops getting three quotes…There is only one person, there's only one organisation, there's only one company in the area that does that work. So are you wanting us to go to the mainland to get quotes from somebody in the mainland? Bearing in mind, this is what is being given to volunteers who already have day jobs and everything else.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
This highlights a tension between the community-led nature of the Local Action Group, and what was considered by some to be overly prescriptive funding administration. In short, participants said there was a need to ensure flexibility in funding to match the flexibility in grassroots priorities. While some participants did acknowledge that administrative requirements had reduced since the LEADER era, some called for further simplification and flexibility.
Participants frequently noted that ongoing funding calls for ‘innovative’ projects neglected the more ‘boring’ but important priority requirements for many communities, like toilets, heating, maintenance and covering core costs. Community Led Local Development does not require ‘innovation’ and there is evidence that it has funded a number of these types of upgrades in many areas, so these comments may reflect participants priorities and/or the wider funding landscape. It could also be that there is demand for the flexibility of Community Led Local Development funding to be incorporated in other funding schemes, or that this aspect of Community Led Local Development should be enhanced. A number of participants suggested that in the current challenging economic context, it would be ‘innovative’ to have revenue funding and flexible funding to address urgent challenges, whether that be fixing a toilet, paying a development officer, or holding a community celebration. This call for flexibility rather than ‘innovation’ could be tied to previous community development achievements. For example, a community landowner noting they are asset rich, but revenue poor, or a social enterprise listing a range of projects they had delivered over a decade and then highlighting a particular gap identified.
Amplifying the participatory democracy elements of Local Action Groups in the future was also suggested by some participants, such as having individuals who delivered previously funded projects decide on the next round of funding, or devolving funding to existing funding structures like community councils or area forums. For example:
“If it's really going to be community led local development funding, then the process for what funding is required and how it's distributed should be for the community. And it should happen soon. But then of course that'll take ages because they need to consult everyone and they'll spend vast amounts of money consulting everyone.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
Here support for community led approaches is prioritised over more formal consultations.
Participants sometimes reflected on issues relating to a lack of “trust” or Scottish Government decision makers “not listening” or “not understanding” when talking about future funding options. This argument highlighted the need for “trust” in rural and island decision makers, who could deliver as needed for their area:
“[Community Led Local Development] does have to be accounted for, it is public money, but there has to be a level of trust and a level of understanding.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
Trust is central to the ethos and practical delivery of Community Led Local Development, and should be considered in future policy recommendations.
5.10. Community Led Local Development funding allocation
The allocation of funding to each Local Action Group area is determined by an area-based allocation formula called the Socio-Economic Performance Index (SEP Index), developed through a research-based approach led by the James Hutton Institute in 2022-23[70]. The SEP Index includes key metrics relating to wealth (incomes, benefits dependencies, unemployment levels and access to services), health, demographics (including population change, and old age dependency ratios), business numbers, crime rates, and skills (including qualifications, graduate levels, and occupational structures).
The allocation formula itself was not considered in depth in this research; rather, participants were asked about the experience of the application of, and opinions on, the SEP Index. Figure 5 demonstrates the split of total funding from 2021-2025 across each Local Action Group area using this approach.
*Note that there is some variability in funding over the years which is not reflected in this graph, such as Kelvin Valley and Falkirk which was not operational for one year of the review.
Overall awareness of how the SEP Index is calculated and applied was low among Coordinators. In their survey responses, participants raised a number of issues relating to a lack of clarity, transparency and trust in decision-making relating to the SEP Index. For one Coordinator, funding allocations felt like a “lottery” whilst others, including those involved in the community case studies, said they had asked for clarification from Scottish Government about the Index and called for increased transparency on this aspect of the programme:
“I attempted to get copies of exactly how the SEP was calculated but never got any clear answers…. [I got] overview documents, but there was limited information in it.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Seven of the 17 Community Led Local Development Coordinator survey participants supported changing the formula. Some participants had strategic suggestions for the formula, such as noting it worked better under LEADER when more funding was delivered over a longer time frame[71]. One participant proposed incorporating success measurements into future funding calculations, effectively in a system that would provide financial rewards for effective delivery.
A handful of Community Led Local Development Coordinators suggested the SEP Index was “not fair or equitable”. Some questioned the subjectivity of the meaning of the geographically uneven allocations, for example:
“Does this mean the rural communities of
“LAGs operating on the periphery of urban areas tend to get less funding. The communities within these LAG areas see this as unfair. To them their location is rural and they want to deliver projects that benefit their community. They are expected to deliver projects under the same criteria and with the same expectations as more remote rural LAG areas … but the funding is not there to support them deliver large, more impactful projects.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Participants also provided examples of how the data used by the SEP Index did not match their experience of the realities in their local areas. Participants noted that funding allocations based on national social geographies may be an issue for rural areas. For example, data zones and the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), which are used by the SEP Index, do not always effectively account for the social geography characteristics of Scotland’s rural and island areas. Participants pointed to a need for more fine-grained geographies and nuanced data work to fully understand the differing rural and island area characteristics:
“I'm concerned that in [area] the funding seems to be reducing more than some other LAG areas, while [we have] very high levels of deprivation on the SMID [sic] scale. … The funding doesn't feel as if it reflects the population in deprivation.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“[Our Area], I think, loses out quite a lot because although we have a lot of poverty, and we have a lot of in-work poverty here and children’s poverty, we don't have a lot of pure SIMD[72] districts and areas. So, if you take different matrix to look at poverty, we would have child poverty matrix, we would have in-work poverty matrix, all of these types of things. But a lot of these funds are based on SIMD information, and we don't have that.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Some were critical of the indicators used (for example measuring only population change rather than density), and new indicators were suggested (such as accounting for increased costs in island or sparsely populated areas, or the differential experiences of post-industrial rural areas). One participant thought the SEP Index overall was outdated and needed refreshing:
“The data is now [outdated], which may affect its relevance and accuracy in reflecting current conditions.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Differences for areas which include islands were raised by some participants, with the need for an Island Communities Impact Assessment to be undertaken on the allocation questioned. Some argued that island communities were negatively affected by the formula for allocating funding:
“I think that island communities should get additional funds as they have higher costs e.g. transportation of materials for projects, travel costs, etc.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Lastly, some participants questioned the value of being involved in the programme considering the low levels of funds they receive as a result of the Scottish Government’s decision to fund Community Led Local Development across all Local Action Group areas:
“I understand politically why you want to be even and fund all areas, but actually for outcomes, the evenness is creating thinness of the jam. It would be better to have more meaningful results.” (Stakeholder, interview)
These geographic considerations reflect fundamental delivery questions to be considered in future Community Led Local Development programmes.
5.11. Delivering locally to grassroots priorities
Participants expressed tensions between Community Led Local Development as a Scottish Government fund which needs to deliver to national outcomes and policy goals, and the goal of prioritising local needs and issues. This included the potential for policy misalignment, i.e. these priorities diverging. The multiple geographic scales involved in administration (national, regional, local) can also create confusion or duplication. Where local authorities are involved, particularly when acting as an Accountable Body, local authority administration and policy priorities are yet another layer of complication to the national and local dynamics.
Participants said top-down policy requirements can differ from bottom-up Community Led Local Development principles and prioritisation, for example:
“The bottom-up approach aims to support community groups in what they feel should be funded in their area and not what specifically the Government thinks is important. Politics rarely comes into these discussions. They are driven by a need to support the community at grass roots.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
“That’s how you achieve rural development... you've got national priorities, but you have to give them a local twist.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Some survey participants noted that the narrowing of national funding priorities and reduced budgets have stifled the community-led ethos of Community Led Local Development in recent years. To take the point of grassroots empowerment further, one participant disagreed that there should ever be policy alignment between national, local authority and community priorities, and argued that instead Community Led Local Development should only prioritise local needs even if they are not reflected nationally.
Figure 6 is a combination of survey responses from Community Led Local Development Coordinators and Local Action Group Chairs/Members who were both asked to evaluate Community Led Local Development performance against relevant Scottish Government priorities in their respective surveys.
Figure 6 shows that participants believed that Community Led Local Development has proved effective at delivering towards some Scottish Government policies, but not so effective at delivering to others. Successes include the ‘inclusive and empowered communities’, ‘health’ and ‘environment’ priorities. Priorities which have been delivered less effectively included ‘reduce poverty’, ‘children and young people’, ‘education and skills’ and ‘inclusive productivity and fair, quality jobs’ which scored higher on the ‘not effective’ and ‘somewhat effective’ categories. Some of these could be considered more systemic and harder to contribute to. Priorities that the programme was considered to be least effective at delivering were ‘human rights’, ‘international’ and ‘building a globally competitive and sustainable economy’ which scored highly in the ‘not effective’ category, with slightly more participants rating these as ‘not applicable’.
Further, Community Led Local Development Coordinators and Local Action Group Chairs/Members were asked a similar question (using the same format) to consider the effectiveness the programme had in delivering to the stated Community Led Local Development outcomes – set out in Figure 7 below. Again, there were mixed results. The categories ‘more community-led projects’, ‘enhanced community infrastructure and services’, and ‘improved community participation and engagement’ all scored highly; these could be described as core aspects of the programme. However, other categories were deemed not relevant or not effectively addressed, including ‘increased availability of affordable housing’ and ‘reduced barriers to accessing skills training and jobs’, suggesting some refinement of Community Led Local Development outcomes could be considered in future.
For those Community Led Local Development groups which are closely aligned to local authorities, such as through their involvement as an Accountable Body (see Section 5.13), it was suggested that local authority policy priorities could influence the Local Action Group priorities, even though the Community Led Local Development guidance states that funding should not be used for local authority functions or statutory duties. One example was given of a local authority focus on economic development, when Local Action Group community engagement highlighted a desire for more environmental projects. Participants from areas where Third Sector Interfaces are involved in Community Led Local Development administration, tended to highlight that these organisations’ ongoing involvement in the community sector helped their work to be community led/grassroots. However, other participants stressed that there is varying practice for Third Sector Interfaces, with differing levels or approaches to their engagement with residents.
One Community Led Local Development Coordinator for a larger Local Action Group area expressed support for devolving Local Action Group work to smaller geographic areas and noted that this had been done under LEADER. However, this Coordinator noted that the Community Led Local Development funding structure, in terms of amounts and timescales, did not support developing further local decision-making structures. Rather, this group had consolidated to focus on matching Community Led Local Development funding with other available funds across the Local Action Group area to support project delivery.
Rural and island Scotland is hugely diverse, so local priorities vary substantially. Participants regarded one of the main strengths of Community Led Local Development being its ability to support each Local Action Group area to be responsive to these differences. For example, priorities for island communities or for post-industrial rural areas, can be identified and tackled with more nuance than through national policy interventions:
“In our area we tend to concentrate on what were the former mining areas and support them because they're not rural in the typically sort of agricultural or touristy or whatever sense, but they have a lot of isolation there in a lot of ways that some rural places have... There's things like transport issues that are very different to the transport issues they have in a rural area. They're not miles and miles from anything, but it doesn't mean it's easy for them to get to that.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
This type of thinking became evident when participants were asked about different themes or priorities that the Scottish Government were seen to have somewhat imposed from the top-down. For example, in 2021-22, Local Action Groups were encouraged to consider new governance approaches post-LEADER. Participants felt there was a strong drive for Community Led Local Development funds to be targeted at ‘innovation’ which had been encouraged under LEADER and was referenced in the 2024-25 guidance for Community Led Local Development. Some participants saw the benefit of this, but also sympathetically critiqued the ability of community groups to achieve this:
“It sometimes feels like we are pushing applicants into putting all their efforts into coming up with ever-new ideas rather than focusing on what they are actually best at. In fact, I suspect that one of our communities’ particular strengths and a reason for their general resilience and coherence, as demonstrated impressively during Covid, is that they are in general relatively traditional in their thinking and approaches. Without disregarding or disparaging innovation, we may actually learn a lot by going in the other direction and implementing some of the practices which were once common (e.g. production for local food security, arrangements for childcare and care-for-the-elderly within families and neighbourhoods).” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Some respondents involved with the programme were highly supportive of the Local Action Group as a decision-making structure, noting the efforts of volunteers to deliver the programme:
“I feel there is a lack of appreciation for the incredible resource LAGs are and the commitment shown by their members who give up their own time, offer their expertise and quite often go way beyond what may be expected of them, in return for very little other than an occasional ‘thank you’ at local level. If an expert panel of their capacity were to be formally contracted, the cost would be extortionate and probably require most of an area’s annual allocation. … Every approach has strengths and weaknesses, but I am yet to come across one that is clearly better than LAGs.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
This quote also illustrates the potential tensions between Local Action Groups operating at a regional scale and local areas highlighted by participants. Local Action Groups are not geographically local at the village scale – rather, they are made up of individuals from across the Local Action Group area. This could be considered ‘remote or’ ‘top-down’ for some, for example one participant who stated that the Local Action Group:
“[It] can sometimes feel more driven top-down, or whether that's in the context of the Western Isles from Stornoway or from the central belt” (Stakeholder, place-based case study interview)
For one respondent, a Local Action Group could become ‘skewed’ to a particular part of the area:
“CLLD is capable of making its own rules and target whatever it wants to do within the context of it’s community. And that's both a positive statement and a negative statement. It's positive because we ought to be representative of the community. We ought to be capable of identifying what's going on on the ground, and where needs are on the ground. And we are therefore ideally placed to make a difference locally. The converse of that is that you can end up with a LAG that is skewed…” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Some participants involved in the place-based case studies who had little experience with Local Action Group processes, questioned the ‘grassroots’ nature of the regional structure. Participants who were geographically distant from a Local Action Group ‘headquartered’ in a larger population centre highlighted this as a challenge, particularly where Community Led Local Development was administered through the local authority. Provision of information on group membership and functions was identified as important in this regard, but not always available, by a number of participants:
“I think if they would be a bit more open and kind of explain a bit more, first where the money comes from and where the money goes and make it more obvious and maybe even just publish this year the money went out to these various projects, I think that would already benefit the whole Community Led Local Development reputation.” (Stakeholder, place-based case study interview)
Without information on, or involvement in, Community Led Local Development and Local Action Group processes, the fund could be considered (just) another source of funding from an organisation headquartered in a distant settlement.
Understanding and delivering to local level grassroots priorities by a Local Action Group is then a process which requires engagement, transparency, and ongoing effort. Other community funds administered more locally, such as wind farm community benefits through a community council, or crown estate coastal community funding through an area forum, were pointed to as good practice at a more local scale by some participants in the place-based case studies.
Locating the Accountable Body within the local authority appeared to exacerbate this dynamic due to increased complexity of local authority administration. Those administering Community Led Local Development without a local authority Accountable Body highlighted the benefits of smaller organisations (such as Third Sector Interfaces) working more closely with communities. In practice, local authorities can and do work closely with communities, but there is inevitably a higher amount of organisational complexity when the fund is administrated as part of a local authority. This underscores the importance of transparency and engagement in community-led strategies. From this perspective, the evidence shows that ‘grassroots’ community development takes ongoing effort and is not a given.
Community Led Local Development’s community-led approach is delivered through the production of annual Community Led Vision (CLV) documents by each Local Action Group, which set out local priorities. These documents are designed as a lighter-touch version of the previous multi-annual Local Development Strategies required under LEADER.
Local Action Group Chairs/Members and Community Led Local Development Coordinators were asked to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of working with a Community Led Vision as a guiding document. Key advantages mentioned included that Visions provide local clarity and “identifies local need” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey). Participants said this helps ensure that deliverables are well aligned to local priorities and provides “context for judging merits of applications” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey). For one interview participant, the vision document was something they were “really proud of”, due to the consultations undertaken to develop it and the policy orientation towards incorporating wellbeing economy concepts.
The “light touch” nature of the document was seen as advantageous to some, with Scottish Government providing a template (of priorities) for Local Action Groups to choose from:
“[The documents’] major advantage was it gave a simple to follow formula and good basic range of questions to follow. Our LAG always chose to go for the 3-4 priority themes from [Scottish Government].” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Others however saw this light touch approach as “not particularly strategic”:
“I would say it's good to have a more in-depth document produced say every 5 or 6 years, with a lighter touch document updated on a more frequent basis to tie in with the funding award cycle.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
One disadvantage raised was that Visions tended to cover only one year, whereas a three-to-five-year timeframe was deemed a more appropriate timescale:
“They are limited in their benefit currently, due to only covering one year at a time however should the documents be expanded to cover three to five years, allowing for much wider, ambitious strategies to be envisioned and implemented I feel LAGs could work much further to integrating wider national frameworks / strategies into their approaches. As it stands this is not currently possible.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“Developing a CLV with a long-term outlook - e.g. to 2030 - and submitting annual amendments to the Scottish Government would allow for better resource allocation, clearer strategic direction, and more meaningful measurement of progress and achievements.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Respondents suggested that the documents could also prove a useful mechanism for engaging with harder-to-reach community members but some suggested that more time and capacity was needed to maximise this benefit.
Participants raised questions about how the Visions related to other community plans - Community Wealth Building, Economic Development, Place Plans, Regional Plans were all mentioned. For some interview participants, Community Led Visions were too piecemeal, with a narrower focus compared to other community plans like Community Action Plans or Local Place Plans. Nevertheless, there is the potential for duplication. There are also limited resources (within Local Action Groups and local authorities) for planning and consulting during the design stage, and for effectively implementing new plans:
“I would like to add a note of caution though about the requirement to tie in with various plans and strategies, which seems to be ever increasing. While I do understand and generally support the reasoning behind this, I do believe that there also is a risk of there being too many plans/strategies and not enough resource – in people, time or finance – to implement them, never mind review impact and learn from previous activities including mistakes.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
The regional scale of Local Action Groups could present challenges for some participants who noted that for geographically large areas, there can be little potential for local scale refinement. Some participants also questioned the appropriateness of such strategies being prepared by volunteers, with limited resources.
5.12. Strategic fit with other funds
Community Led Local Development is one of a number of funds provided by the Scottish Government, and it exists within a wider funding landscape including funds provided by the UK Government, other Scottish public bodies (particularly Crown Estate), and Scottish and UK philanthropic funders. Community Led Local Development’s funding structure is compared with others in the following tables (see Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 10).
| Fund / rules | Community Led Local Development | Scottish Land Fund | Regeneration Capital Grant Fund | Place-based Investment Programme | Vacant and Derelict Investment Programme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount (2024-25) | £11.2 million (m) | £7.1m | £23.7m | £23m (2023/2024)** | £15m |
| Geography | Rural, regional | Scotland* | Scotland | Scotland | Scotland |
| Funds for | Revenue, capital, collaboration | Capital, small amount of revenue | Capital | Capital | Capital |
| Funding process | Competitive | Competitive | Competitive | Allocated to local authorities | Competitive |
| Project instigator | Private businesses, constituted community organisations | Community organisations | Private and constituted community organisations via local authority | Private and constituted community organisations via local authority | Private and constituted community organisations via local authority |
| Funding decision maker | Regional Volunteer Community Board (‘Local Action Group’) | Independent National Board | Independent panel for Scottish Government and COSLA | Local Government | Independent panel for Scottish Government |
*Before 2016 the Scottish Land Fund was only open to rural communities. **Place-based Investment Programme was reduced by 50% in 2024/2025.
| Fund / rules | Community Led Local Development | Investing in Communities Fund | Strengthening Communities Fund | Participatory Budgeting | Islands Programme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount (2024-25) | £11.2 million (m) | £27m (2023-2026) | £2.5m | £750,000 (2018-2019)* | £3m |
| Geography | Rural, regional | Scotland | Scotland | Scotland | Inhabited islands |
| Funds for | Revenue, capital, collaboration | Revenue, small amount of capital, 3-year grants. | Revenue | Small grants, capital grants over £5,000 | Capital |
| Funding process | Competitive | Competitive | Referral/Competitive | Competitive | Competitive |
| Project instigator | Private businesses and constituted community organisations | Community anchor organisations | Community anchor organisations | Community organisations | Constituted community organisations, social enterprises, local authorities |
| Funding decision maker | Regional Volunteer Community Board (‘Local Action Group’) | Independent Assessment Panel for Scottish Government | Advisory board for Scottish Government | Public vote, managed by local authority | Panel (Scottish Government) |
*After 2019, the Participatory Budgeting Community Choices Fund was combined with the Investing in Communities Fund.
| Fund / rules | Community Led Local Development | Plan for Neighbourhoods (2025) | Pride in Place (2025) | Shared Prosperity Fund |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount (2024-25) | £11.2million | £1.5billion over 10 years | £5billion over 10 years | £58–60 million for 2024/25 (estimated) |
| Geography | Rural, regional, Scotland only | Areas most “left behind”, up to £20million for 10 Scottish towns | Local authorities, 7 in Scotland with substantial rural areas | Local authorities |
| Funds for | Revenue, capital, collaboration | Capital, small amount of revenue; split can be adjusted locally | Revenue, capital. split locally determined. | Revenue, Capital |
| Funding process | Competitive | Non-competitive | Non-competitive | Allocated to local authorities, then competitive |
| Project instigator | Private businesses and constituted community organisations | Pre-approved interventions, alternatives can be proposed | Pre-approved interventions, alternatives can be proposed | Constituted community organisations |
| Funding decision maker | Regional Community Board (‘Local Action Group’) | Local Neighbourhood Boards to be established (Local Authority as Accountable Body) | Local Neighbourhood Boards to be established (Local Authority as Accountable Body) | Local panel, local authority as Accountable Body |
Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 10 demonstrate that Community Led Local Development has several unique characteristics:
- Geographically, it is the only rural and regional (in the sense of the geography of Local Action Groups) fund provided by the Scottish Government[73]
- It is the only revenue and capital fund which allows both private and community organisations to apply
- It is the only Scottish Government fund where funding decisions are taken by local people, and outside local authority or Scottish Government ‘control’
The uniqueness of Community Led Local Development funding and it’s fit with other funds was expressed by several participants, for example:
“I think the whole basis of Community Led Local Development-- the idea that rural communities know what they need and are given an opportunity and some funding to implement things for themselves-- is absolutely essential...I think it's been a great success from the LEADER days when we had more links to European LAGs and learnt from them, as well as to now. I do think community led local development is essential. I work for the economic development team in
Notably, local decision making by volunteers has also been a feature of other recent UK government funds, via new Neighbourhood Boards for example. With many different decision-making structures, there is the potential for duplication and increased burdens on all involved. This is discussed in Section 5.11 with regard to Local Authority decision making; there was also evidence in the place-based case studies of those involved in Community Led Local Development delivery also getting involved in Neighbourhood Boards for UK funding, for example. Local Action Group decision-making also has some conceptual alignment with Participatory Budgeting (as part of the Community Empowerment Act (2015)), but this connection was not highlighted by participants.
Local Action Group Chairs/Members were asked to comment on the integration with the wider funding landscape. The overriding response was that the timings, criteria, rules and reporting of funding opportunities should be better aligned:
“Current funding streams are overlapping; [UK Shared Prosperity Fund], No One Left Behind, Place-based Investment, CLLD, Coastal Communities, etc. all have different funding criteria, different procurement rules, different reporting requirements. It's exhausting for everyone, applicants included. CLLD wants to tackle everything from poverty to climate change. The remit is so broad.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Others also suggested that the aims and scope of funding calls should be better coordinated, for example using the “same due diligence and accountability” – keeping Community Led Local Development objectives broad and advertising these across other funders would help in setting national agendas. However, participants stressed that finding the correct balance is important, as if the remit is too broad then Local Action Group expertise needs to cover many topics:
“The LAG is expected to be experts in poverty alleviation, youth, carbon reduction etc. The remit is so broad that the efforts can be diluted.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Some participants thought that Community Led Local Development interacted well with other funding opportunities. However some of these individuals framed their answers around how Community Led Local Development was plugging a gap in ever decreasing public sector funding opportunities. Others suggested that the Local Action Group structure was particularly helpful in working across funding sources. For example:
“That's a benefit of CLLD that we don't really have so much with the other funds - it involves all these other partners around the table. So, we knew we were oversubscribed after the LAG meeting. We knew that there was going to be projects that weren't getting funding, but we were able to sit with the [Third Sector Interface] and enterprise agency and run through them, and say, how do we direct these projects for support elsewhere?” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
5.13. Transparency and inclusion in Local Action Group governance
Local Action Group Chairs/Members were asked to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of these governance structures in their survey, and participants in other parts of this review offered perspectives as well. A workshop was also held with Accountable Body staff to capture their perspectives. The main advantage was the perceived capacity an external Accountable Body brought to the setup, including payment systems, information technology systems, auditing services, human resources and legal facilities. Overall, it was noted that the expertise within these (mainly) public sector organisations was a big positive:
“They 'get' community development and are technical experts at fair and transparent fund management. They have resourced the process appropriately and provide us with all the information we need to make good decisions.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Another advantage was that the Accountable Body was seen to be consistent across funding periods (mainly being well-established and known locally) and provided an element of accountability to the entire process, as it:
“Ensures all accountability particularly for finance rests with local authority and not with LAG volunteers.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
In addition to bringing practical benefits and accountability, participants cited a range of other benefits, including institutional memory and access to a “reservoir of talent” (Community Led Local Development delivery, interview, place-based case study), long-standing collaborations and the ability to ensure that the different plans and strategies were as integrated and complementary as possible. For some, the support was mutual, with the Community Led Local Development programme seen as helping the local authority to deliver on its priorities too. The ability of local authorities to support Community Led Local Development activities financially during periods when national funding is not available or uncertain was also noted.
The evidence collected in this review suggests that the relationships between Local Action Groups and local authority Accountable Bodies could be complex. As noted already, one positive of a local authority Accountable Body was the ability of the local authority to support gaps in funding for staffing (including for the Community Led Local Development Coordinator), which could be a challenge because of the funding structure for the programme. However, tensions could arise in the Coordinator role effectively sitting between a local authority and Local Action Group. For example, where the Local Action Group disagreed with a local authority decision, participants explained that it was the role of the Community Led Local Development Coordinator to advocate for the Local Action Group (even though the Coordinator was a member of staff within the local authority).
Close association with a local authority was also perceived to add layers of bureaucracy by some, with some participants noting how this was necessary, but sometimes frustrating to deal with. This caused delays in decision-making, sometimes at the expense of funds being released:
“At times the council can hold things up as there is always red tape when it comes to doing anything through the councils.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Participants said another disadvantage was that they were aware of perceptions locally that the Local Action Group was assumed to be part of the local authority, and that they were being “controlled” by the local authority, or that Community Led Local Development was seen as “yet another Council funding stream” (Community Led Local Development delivery, interview, place-based case study).
While there are checks in place on local authority involvement in the Local Action Group (for example, the Community Led Local Development guidance requires that public sector representation is not more than 49% of group membership), there could be confusion as to the extent of local authority involvement. Some participants not directly involved in local authority Accountable Body work questioned how Community Led Local Development funding was managed, indicating a need for more transparency on this.
In the place-based case studies, research participants not involved in Community Led Local Development administration could be confused by the administration arrangements and close working of the Community Led Local Development team and the local authority. In these instances, there could be (perceived) duplication, for example, the Local Action Group appearing to replicate local authority structures. Parallel approval processes with different democratic mandates could arise in match funding programmes run by local authorities, which is understandable, but adds complexity to the democratic process. For example, in one case study where there was close alignment between Community Led Local Development and the local authority, an applicant questioned why un-elected volunteer Local Action Group members were deciding on the Community Led Local Development funding programme, while other funds being matched with were decided by elected councillors or local authority officers. In another case study, also closely aligned with the local authority, a local councillor questioned the Local Action Group’s democratic. Those administering these funds recounted notable efforts in ensuring the integrity of parallel funding processes, although awareness of this was likely low as it was not noted by others. This points to the importance of transparency.
In some cases, Community Led Local Development was administered through the Third Sector Interface which could provide more procedural distance from local authority functions. This arrangement arguably also provides closer alignment with the charity or community sector, for example:
“Now, if we don't have it [Community Led Local Development], it will become immersed in public service delivery and the communities will never see the tangible benefits of that fund. And for us, of course, it is our best interest to see that happening because (especially in rural communities) third sector provision is what is really fulfilling the gaps (and there are many) left by public partners.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Generally, the flexible approach to Community Led Local Development delivered at least a degree of local decision-making about the preferred structure. However, there is the potential for confusion, both in terms of the general complexity of having different structures in different places administering one fund, and also where Community Led Local Development is closely aligned with a local authority there was benefit from efficiencies, but externally this could appear to be duplication. This points to the importance of transparency and clear communication about Community Led Local Development, as well as robust and enforced operational guidance.
Local Action Groups are made up of members from the community sector, the public sector, and the private sector, led by a Chair from the local area who should be a community representative who resides in the area. Where possible the Local Action Group chair should be a community representative rather than a public body or agency representative (for example, a Local Authority staff member). The guidance from Scottish Government is to have an ‘open and transparent selection process’ for members, with the need to avoid conflicts of interest. There is no payment for involvement, but some members are involved as part of their professional role and therefore are in a paid capacity while others are unpaid volunteers.
There were varying views amongst participants about how representative Local Action Groups were in practice. In the Local Action Group Chair/Members survey, 53% of participants thought that their group membership was representative of their local population, citing geographic representation (especially with some groups covering multiple islands), diverse knowledge bases and “a membership which represents the key sectors locally” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey) as indicators of diversity:
“I feel that it covers a very good knowledge base and a wide Section of [place-based] groups.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
“We have a reasonable geographic spread across the [islands] and a broad range of work/employment/professional skills.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
However, 29% of Local Action Group Chairs/members did not think their Local Action Group membership was representative, citing a lack of youth participation and noting the heterogenous characteristics of rural areas across their region:
“We struggle to find younger people (under 40) to be on the panel.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Participants described a range of activities that had been undertaken to improve representativeness in decision-making. One participant in the place-based case studies described their efforts to get a range of members from private businesses, those involved in public bodies, and those involved in community work, and of differing ages. Multiple Community Led Local Development Coordinator participants in the place-based case studies explained recent efforts to support inclusion in their funding activities, such as considering the uneven geographic distribution of awards and seeking to expand membership from areas where few proposals are generated. Further development with Youth Local Action Groups was widely identified as a positive inclusion step. Engagement with private businesses was identified as a potential gap in support by some participants with less awards going to this sector.
For those not involved in Local Action Groups, there could be confusion as to their structure and functions, with the occasional participant appearing sceptical or confused. For example:
“Who is the LAG? We don't know. And I've long asked the chair, because I did find out through Freedom of Information, who the chair is, his name I forget at the moment, but who are the other members of LAG? It's like a hidden cartel. We don't know. And what skills do they bring? How often do they meet? Where's the minutes? Because they're the recipients of public money… are they truly representative of community?” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
The provision of transparent information was highlighted by participants consistently as a priority:
“To me it's the make-up of the board that's important. And as I say, that's completely opaque as to how people are selected or chosen or appointed or I don't know how, I don't even. I don't know how that process happens. I don't think. Can you ever see who the people are? But how have they got there?” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
One participant highlighted that experience of delivering community work should be a priority for Local Action Group members:
“They're all umbrella level. There isn't a single community group or community council... here's no one on the ground doing the work represented in that group.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
There were also counter examples of very positive understanding of the advantages of the local knowledge of members of Local Action Groups by applicants:
“The other thing is it's local, so you stand a better chance of getting the money because the locals know about your project, they understand why you're doing it. It's not just this bit of paper that turns up in front of them that somehow they've got to understand the project from the words on the paper. So, the local LAG have an idea of what's going on around them, which is good.” (Community Led Local Development applicant, place-based case study interview)
There was limited reference to the characteristics of local populations beyond age (e.g. gender, ethnicity, income, education) in participants’ framings of diversity in this review. Nevertheless, insights from the place-based case studies indicated that diversity – albeit framed in quite a limited way in this review - was a positive aspect of decision-making:
“I would say where CLLD works really well is because the panel is made-up of quite a variety of people with a lot of experience … It means that we can make quite informed decisions on organisations that are applying for funding, ...we're all quite critical and because we come from a mix of business backgrounds, third sector backgrounds. You know we've got a lot of knowledge [and] lived experience.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
There is notable evidence around Youth Local Action Groups (Youth Local Action Groups, see Section 5.14), which shows that these groups have been highly valued locally, provide greater (age-based) inclusion, and deliver valuable networking opportunities and training for members. However, there were issues around gaining and sustaining youth buy-in to Youth Local Action Group membership:
“We did endeavour to set up a Youth Local Action Group to encourage more young people to be involved/distribute grants to youth groups however dedicated funding for an additional 'pot' for youth projects was not forthcoming therefore there was no incentive for young people to join.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Participants identified other barriers to increasing membership and/or diversity. Two respondents suggested challenges stemmed from the annual funding cycle:
“We are planning to recruit new members but have been waiting for more clarity in this post-Brexit period of change and short term and late funding, and have felt it better to use existing skills and commitment. We have recently started a recruitment process.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Relatedly (and discussed earlier), the issue around annual funding cycles manifested itself as uncertainty amongst potential, current and past group members:
“There is a distinct lack of long-term funding commitment from Scottish Government which does not provide potential LAG members with the confidence that their volunteer time and effort will affect any change through being part of a LAG group.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Other barriers for potential members included logistical issues such as distances involved and transport (both felt strongly within island communities), finding spare time whilst working other jobs or being at school/college, and attitudes (particularly amongst young people) that engaging in such activities is “boring”.
Local Action Group members are both those volunteering in the role, and those acting in a professional capacity. Relying on volunteers and professionals has inclusion implications, with those with resources or appropriate professional jobs more likely to become involved, and those with less resources or professional connections less likely. Relying on volunteers to do this work was questioned by some, within the context of increased demands on volunteer time in rural areas:
“Most difficult with community members who also have other jobs. We do therefore find a high proportion of retired folk as community members which is not ideal.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
“There aren't very many young people in the region, and those in the 20-50 age range are mostly working hard on making ends meet. If it was a paid role, that might be more appealing to that age range?” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Some participants raised questions relating to how Local Action Group members were recruited and managed, with some also emphasising a lack of transparency in terms of finding current information about who is on a group. Our evidence was that most members were recruited by being approached by Community Led Local Development Coordinators, through existing social or professional networks or through adverts, rather than there being any form of annual open election for example.
A participant highlighted the complex relationships between group members, funding decision-making and perceptions of risk, including personal risk to members who are perhaps local business owners:
“When we discuss an application that is for the [X] charity, they're not in the room, but we are familiar with them… and that has pluses… that we know them, we trust them, they understand the process that the applications come in and are sensible and focused. We know they're going to deliver, so the reputational, the actual risk and the reputational risk….each of us as committee members bear reputational risk… [it] affects us as individuals and myself perhaps I'm certainly more sensitive about it as as a [local business owner], but it is a risk for every, every man but nonetheless so….the risks are low, the reputation risks are low and there is a comfort factor in [that].” [74] (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Whilst not reflecting specifically on the representativeness of Local Action Groups, the following quote highlights one of their main benefits for one participant, in terms of bringing together different perspectives behind a shared cause:
“I also think the LAG is far more prepared to take risk than public bodies are, and I think that's one of the huge reasons that they've been successful… each of the probably 30 LAG members I've worked with over the years has been committed to making [X] a better place to live from their own point of view, which doesn't always fit with each other, but has that shared commitment, and they've always been able to discuss and work together…” (Involved in Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Local Action Groups are one of many organisations in Scotland at local or regional level that provide a representative administrative (funding) function in the public interest. The Local Action Group governance structure is compared to other organisations with a public interest remit in Tables 11.1 and 11.2 below, including community councils and development trusts. In Table 11.3, a comparator from France is provided (the SAFER system), which has many characteristics in common with the Local Action Group model - in terms of being regional, independent of government, and composed of a mix of local people - and it also has strong legal powers over agricultural land transfer in the public interest.
Tables 11.1 and 11.2 highlight the unique function of Local Action Groups within Scotland’s civil society, with members providing a representative democracy function in the allocation of Community Led Local Development funding at regional level (with geographies that do not generally align to other regional boundaries, such as local authorities) to target locally defined priorities through a community-led approach. This uniqueness is a key strength of Community Led Local Development, particularly in terms of the programme’s independence from any one organisation (such as a local authority, development trust, or community council).
Table 11.1: Local Action Group structure compared with other local empowerment governance structures in Scotland
Fund / rules
Community Led Local Development Local Action Groups
- Key function: Public funding decision maker
- Geography: Regional (rural areas only)
- Policy justification: Community led vision
Community Councils
- Key function: Express community views to local authority
- Geography: Local, area defined by community
- Policy justification: Aims in legislation
Community Planning Partnerships
- Key function: Coordinating community services
- Geography: Local authority
- Policy justification: Aims in legislation
Development Trusts
- Key function: Community led economic development
- Geography: Local, area defined by community
- Policy justification: Charity aims
Community Landowners
- Key function: Property ownership
- Geography: Local, area defined by community
- Policy justification: Charity aims
Regional Economic Partnerships
- Key function: Strategic economic planning, coordinating investment
- Geography: Regional
- Policy justification: Policy aims
Regional Land Use Partnerships
- Key function: Facilitate strategic partnership working with all land users
- Geography: Regional
- Policy justification: Policy aims, led by constituting organisation
Climate Action Hub
- Key function: Strategic approach to climate change action
- Geography: Regional
- Policy justification: Climate policy focus
Table 11.2: Local Action Group structure compared with other local empowerment governance structures (continued)
Fund / rules
Community Led Local Development Local Action Groups
- Governance structure: Local authority, Third Sector Interface or independent trust. Guidance provided by Scottish Government
- Governed by: Members, from private, public, community sectors (public sector must not exceed 49%)
- Governing position via: Appointment of members from local residents
- Oversight via: Accountable Bodies for those which are Third Sector Interface, local authority, constituted. Not for independent charities
Community Councils
- Governance structure: Statutory basis, Sections 51 to 55 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (as amended)
- Governed by: Local councillors
- Governing position via: Democratically elected from local residents
- Oversight via: Local authority
Community Planning Partnerships
- Governance structure: Statutory basis, the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015
- Governed by: Board made of public, third sector and community representatives
- Governing position via: Statutory public body partners, non-statutory community representatives
- Oversight via: Statutory duties, local governance, national improvement support
Development Trusts
- Governance structure: Non-profit private companies
- Governed by: Directors of constituting community companies
- Governing position via: Democratically elected from members
- Oversight via: Independent charity managed by directors and charity regulator
Community Landowners
- Governance structure: Non-profit private companies
- Governed by: Directors of constituting community companies
- Governing position via: Democratically elected from members, local residents must be in majority
- Oversight via: Independent charity managed by directors and charity regulator
Regional Economic Partnerships
- Governance structure: Voluntary partnerships
- Governed by: Voluntary collaborations from public, private, third or community sectors
- Governing position via: Core partners nominated, some open application for other posts
- Oversight via: Council members retain statutory responsibilities for economic development
Regional Land Use Partnerships
- Governance structure: No set required structure. 2021 pilots included national parks and enterprise agencies
- Governed by: Constituting organisation governance
- Governing position via: Self-nominating to Scottish Government
- Oversight via: Informal Board
Climate Action Hub
- Governance structure: No required structure, depends on local circumstances
- Governed by: Steering group or board
- Governing position via: Community proposals to Scottish Government
- Oversight via: Scottish Government project funding
Table 11.3: Local Action Group structure compared with SAFER, France
Fund / rules
Community Led Local Development Local Action Groups
- Key function: Public funding decision maker
- Geography: Regional (rural areas only)
- Policy justification: Community led vision
- Governance structure: Local authority, Third Sector Interface or independent trust. Guidance provided by Scottish Government
- Governed by: Members, from private, public, community sectors. (public sector must not exceed 49%)
- Governing position via: Appointment of members from local residents
- Oversight via: Accountable Bodies for those which are Third Sector Interface, local authority, constituted. Not for independent charities
SAFER, France
- Key function: Land market regulation in public interest, right of pre-emption on agricultural land and community ownership
- Geography: Regional (rural areas only)
- Policy justification: Non-profit private company under government supervision
- Governance structure: Mixed body with public representatives (state, municipality), professional agricultural organisations, stakeholders
- Governed by: Allocated seats by category, nominations and internal vote by category
- Governing position via: Coordinated by a national body, with Accountable Bodies
- Oversight via: Public interest missions
A few participants discussed the extent to which the Local Action Group functions duplicated other local civic structures, and therefore could be replaced by them, or noted they could all be somehow better aligned through future local governance reforms. For example, one participant argued for community councils to be given funding powers similar to Local Action Groups, and another promoted Development Trusts. Despite these comments, there was no consensus on change; rather, participants tended to advocate for their existing structure. Overall, however, this research shows that Local Action Groups have a unique structure and function within community empowerment governance, one which may be under-appreciated and/or under-utilised.
For some participants, the Local Action Group function was unique in their area and could usefully be scaled up to deliver more funds at regional level, thereby delivering to wider local priorities and aspirations and supporting change. Three quarters (75%) of Local Action Group survey participants (n=13/17) supported a more central role for the groups in distributing other funding. For these participants, Community Led Local Development is a key agile fund in a complex landscape, and central to any future collaboration or formal match funding arrangements. This is particularly the case where Local Action Groups are closely aligned with other funding sources within local authorities or Third Sector Interfaces for example (e.g. where one team manages multiple funds), or where other community organisations are working with the group to support collaborative match funding. This kind of good practice collaboration was highlighted in many places, such as work with the area forum in Harris, and the Borders Youth Local Action Group allocating £600,000 of UK Government money. Others noted caution in that any scaling up of Local Action Group funding work would place additional pressures on the already stretched Community Led Local Development programme.
5.14. Youth Local Action Groups
There are currently seven Youth Local Action Groups operating out of 20 Local Action Group areas in Scotland. Members of Youth Local Action Groups are typically aged between 18 and 30. Participants across all elements of this research were strongly supportive of Youth Local Action Groups, including Community Led Local Development Coordinators, Local Action Group members, staff in Scottish Rural Action and young participants themselves, both in areas that have established them and in areas that had not. For one place-based participant, having a Youth Local Action Group helped address one of the most fundamental changes facing their region:
“Young people are our future. Unless we are supporting them more, we are going to be screwed in [area] already at the rate we're going by 2032, we will have more people retired than we will have of working age in [area]. A lot of our young people leave. We really need to be doing more to keep young people there…. We need to transform and bring more young people, so I'd love to see CLLD basically making youth support mandatory.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Some Community Led Local Development Coordinators and Local Action Group Chairs framed their greatest achievements as establishing and sustaining a Youth Local Action Group in their area:
“The Chair of the LAG describes the [Youth Local Action Group] as the most successful thing the LAG has funded in the last decade!” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
Many of the participants were proud of their Youth Local Action Group achievements and believed these were making positive differences to their communities and the lives of rural and island young people:
“Word about their competence and the incredible resource they can be to all kinds of organisations and initiatives seems to be spreading, and in recent months I have found myself increasingly having to gate-keep as there are more and more requests for them to participate in consultations, provide feedback or share the views of 'young people'.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“Personally, I’ve grown in confidence and I’m proud of the role I’ve played in my community. I believe it has also shown other young people that they can have an impact and be taken seriously in decision-making." (Youth respondent, survey)
One of the main activities of Youth Local Action Groups is to distribute specific funding pots. This process is similar to that of the Local Action Groups, but with a specific focus on supporting young people. Participants noted how many funding rounds they had successfully delivered, and how they supported “amazing projects that otherwise wouldn’t have been heard of or funded” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey):
“We run one to two rounds of funding per year. We are currently running our sixth round of funding, having funded over 100 projects for over £100k.” (Youth respondent, survey)
“The funding has literally made dreams come true, some big and some small. It has enabled young folk to get equipment, qualifications and experience in the things they’re passionate about and develop future careers. For me, it has improved my confidence and knowledge around funding, policy and decision-making. I have also gained a lot from attending the national YLAG residentials; made new friends, improved lots of soft skills and had a lot of fun!”(Youth respondent, survey)
“We have been able to restore buildings, provide new equipment and sponsor sports teams. This has allowed organisations to expand what they can offer to young people. We have supported hundreds of young people across the islands to engage in activities and resources that may not have been open to them before. We have seen our group grow in membership and our name is now becoming more widely known among other island groups. This has allowed us to develop relationships and work on potential projects together in the future.” (Youth respondent, survey)
In one place-based case study, a participant commented that the Youth Local Action Group funded more risky projects than the main Local Action Group which was a positive thing. They also commented:
“I often find their questions very uncomfortable. But that's what youth is actually supposed to do.” (Stakeholder, place-based case study interview)
It was generally felt that Youth Local Action Groups were efficient at funding impactful projects and also creative in their approaches to doing so, often developing their own criteria from which to score projects and allocate funds:
“One of our group’s priorities is to provide peer-to-peer support within our membership and this has generated several internship and upskilling opportunities and even, for two members, facilitated a switch in careers, which they are very grateful for.” (Youth respondent, survey)
Youth Local Action Groups deliver a wide range of activities beyond funding projects, illustrating a host of indirect and exponential benefits. A strong finding was that Youth Local Action Groups enabled their members to develop leadership skills:
“Our YLAG … decided to put part of their budget towards a leadership course for their membership. The aim of this was two-fold: to equip them with useful transferable skills, such as a better understanding of personality and learning types and techniques for negotiating this in group situations, and also to give them some much-needed time to focus on themselves as a group and how they see themselves develop. The change that this 2-day course resulted in, has been really quite remarkable.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
“Being a member of a YLAG has been good for my personal development. I am more aware of the issues our area faces, and I can lead on projects and funding rounds.” (Youth respondent, survey)
“For me, it has improved my confidence and knowledge around funding, policy and decision-making. I have also gained a lot from attending the national Youth LAG residentials; made new friends, improved lots of soft skills and had a lot of fun!” (Youth respondent, survey)
Other wider Youth Local Action Group activities include engagement in national networking and partnership events to highlight the importance of young people’s voices and to influence policy and practice (effectively ‘youth proofing’ rural policy development), ultimately helping young people to campaign on issues they cared about locally and nationally and to stay in rural areas:
“We organise two residentials per year… We have participated in national networking and partnership events organised by [Youth Local Action Groups] and [Scottish Rural Action], including a visit to the Scottish Parliament and a [Youth Local Action Groups] residential in Orkney. I organised an international [Youth Local Action Group] residential.” (Youth respondent, survey)
Youth Local Action Groups were vitally important, not only for youth participation in rural areas, but for skills development, networking, and youth empowerment:
“Each and every member has also grown in some way in a personal capacity, and of late they have had a real focus on leadership and their role as young leaders, which makes me hopeful that when they feel the time is right, they will all feel confident enough in their own abilities and skills to take on leadership roles in other organisations and settings.” (Community Led Local Development Coordinator, survey)
For example, one young person interviewed in the review provided an overview of their involvement in a Youth Local Action Group and the outputs it has produced. They explained that they had co-managed a youth-led fund, assessing applications and supporting local projects run by young people; they then co-hosted an event and delivered a speech to Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) and community leaders about the needs of young people in their local area and how important it was to encourage their inclusive participation. They were then later part of a group invited to speak in the Scottish Parliament about their work and involvement in their Youth Local Action Group:
“I co-hosted an event… where I delivered the opening speech to MSPs and community leaders about the importance of youth participation. I was later invited to speak at the Scottish Parliament, representing our group and highlighting the impact of our work.” (Youth respondent, survey)
Young participants in this review detailed the importance of networking across different Youth Local Action Groups. They outlined the value of meeting young people from across rural and island Scotland through networks such as the Rural Youth Action Network (RYAN), and some noted how disappointed they were with the news in 2025 that this would be discontinued:
“I really liked RYAN including many rural and island groups and I am sad it is not continuing” (Youth respondent, workshop)
Some youth participants also noted that there were a range of organisations working in the youth empowerment space, naming specifically Youth Scotland and the Scottish Youth Parliament, and that this youth empowerment landscape and how Youth Local Action Groups fit into it could be better explained and understood.
“There could be more transparency and visibility about all of their [Community Led Local Development, Scottish Rural Action, Scottish Rural Network] work, especially regarding SRN and its portfolio of activities related to both funding and policymaking.” (Youth respondent, survey)
Young people involved in a Youth Local Action Group highlighted the support they had received from their Local Action Group, the Community Led Local Development Coordinator, Scottish Rural Action in their work on the rural and islands Youth Parliament and rural networking, and from the dedicated youth facilitator in their area. They recommended that there could be dedicated communication support to advertise the funding streams available from each Youth Local Action Group and to encourage more young people to be involved in the process and network, ensuring Youth Local Action Groups are inclusive and representative.
Continuing with a theme discussed throughout this report, some respondents called for larger budgets and multi-year funding to ensure stability and continuity of Youth Local Action Groups:
“… including and especially earmarked funding for YLAGs (which are extraordinarily efficient to run), and to allow important networks such as SRA, the Scottish Association of Young Farmers etc. to continue to be member-led and build the rural and island movement.” (Youth respondent, survey)
They also recommended that all Local Action Groups, where possible, consider either bringing in more youth representation on their group or consider setting up separate Youth Local Action Groups in areas where they do not already have them:
“LAGs should have greater involvement with YLAGs 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 YLAG’s existence.” (Youth respondent, survey)
However, despite much positive praise for Youth Local Action Groups, and a strong sense amongst participants that they should be further supported in various ways in future, participants also noted that this needs significant and dedicated resources in the form of funding allocated to Youth Local Action Groups, support from Community Led Local Development Coordinators and youth facilitators, and centralised communications and marketing support from a national Youth Local Action Group network:
“It is not a simple matter to engage with young people. We are aware that some LAG areas have engaged with young people however, there appears to be a high churn rate and it is time consuming.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Some thought that there was a mismatch between their area’s population demographics (which tended to be weighted towards people over 30 years old) and the drive (from elsewhere) to set up a Youth Local Action Group:
“Many of our recipient groups benefit more adults than young people. Traditionally in rural areas there is evidence that there are fewer activities for young people. This means that engaging with them in the first place is difficult.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
Lastly, due to issues stemming from annual funding and a lack of revenue funding to support animation and coordination, some Local Action Group members suggested they did not have the time or resource to establish a Youth Local Action Group:
“We have not had the time or funds to create them. We have discussed it, as it is a good idea, but it has not come to fruition yet.” (Local Action Group Chair/Member, survey)
5.15. Community Led Local Development advocacy and policy input
Work to develop a Community Led Local Development network, with an advocacy function and potentially a funded coordinator, has been underway since 2025. One of the key perceived advantages of such a dedicated Community Led Local Development network is that it would serve as one voice speaking on behalf of the collective when it comes to engaging with decision makers.
Some participants challenged the principle of a Community Led Local Development advocacy network when Local Action Group members are appointed, not elected, and focus on funding dispersal – and thus cannot claim a democratic mandate to represent the views of their local area. For example, a participant from a place-based case study commented:
“What would it take for the CLLD network to be responsive to local understandings of topics such as land reform? That is a question about the network itself, and a question of what would it take for the Scottish Government to be in a position to listen to those concerns… We don't come here as representing a community, so I am not elected… It's obviously a useful voice, but it's not a cohesive voice. It's not necessarily representative of communities there and therefore should… There should be caution hearing from that network about specific things.” (Community Led Local Development delivery, place-based case study interview)
Another participant from a place-based case study questioned the extent to which a network would be representative of all Local Action Group areas or whether it would just be representative of a few. They noted the differences between groups, in particular in terms of their ‘independence’ and the strength of their links with the public sector, with some very close to their public sector partners (especially where the local authority is the Accountable Body) and therefore likely to hold different views from those who have much weaker links with public sector partners.
Contact
Email: socialresearch@gov.scot