Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review: Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development review report

2. Methodology

2.1. Overview of approach

The Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review project had four stages. Stages one to three are detailed in the Sections below. A number of interim outputs were published during 2025. Appendix A includes links to all published outputs of the review to date.

The final stage (Stage four) is the analysis and reporting stage. As part of this, draft policy proposals were developed and presented to the Research Advisory Group and Scottish Government in an initial draft report over winter 2025. The decision was then taken to publish this evidence report in March 2026.

2.2. Stage one: Theory of Change

A Theory of Change provides a structured narrative explaining how a programme, initiative or intervention is expected to achieve its intended outcomes. It logically maps the elements of a programme, which can then be evaluated. Four Theory of Change models were produced in Stage one of this project one for each of the three elements under review, and an overarching Theory of Change.

These detailed documents are essential reading to understand the key vision and aims underlying each element, and set out: inputs (i.e. funding, people and skills, policy and legislative framework, wider policy landscapes and research); activities (i.e. what was delivered); outputs (i.e. tangible things that have occurred); short/medium term outcomes (i.e. positive changes made) and long-term impacts (i.e. larger societal positive changes). The Theories of Change were published separately (see Appendix A).

2.3. Stage two: Evidence review

Stage two of the project was a desk-based evidence review, comprising four main types of evidence.

Firstly, an in-depth review of the recent, current and future policy and delivery context for Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development, at both Scottish and UK levels, was conducted. This was published separately (see Appendix A).

Secondly, the research team drew on their international knowledge and networks to identify and work with local experts to undertake case study work in their countries. The four international case study reports have been published separately (see Appendix A).

Thirdly, work to explore current monitoring and evaluation approaches for the elements under review was conducted. This included both a desktop review of strategic considerations for monitoring and evaluation, as well as fieldwork data on monitoring and evaluation linked to the three elements.

Finally, a wide range of data was provided by Scottish Government to the research team, such as funding amounts over the years in question. The data provided by Scottish Government was reviewed by the research team and used to inform the fieldwork and analysis.

There is some variation in the years of the data provided. No Scottish Rural Network or Community Led Local Development information is provided for 2020-2021. The review does not consider those years because European Union co-financing was still in place for both programmes. Partial data is provided for the 2025-2026 year for all elements of the review; this financial year was not completed at the time of writing, so final amounts were not available. However, participants discussed the 2025-2026 year during the fieldwork data collection, so this funding data is provided for context.

In terms of Community Led Local Development funding, the Scottish Government currently sets the budget in the annual Budget Bill which, once passed by Parliament, is then allocated by Scottish Government to Local Action Groups for distribution locally. Funding is allocated to Local Action Groups as an indicative allocation at the beginning of each financial year. Local Action Groups mostly claim back funding each quarter and may incur underspends by year end. Where possible, Scottish Government will reallocate any underspend to other oversubscribed Local Action Groups. This means allocations can fluctuate up or down throughout the year. Each year, Scottish Government sets out a national capital and revenue budget for Community Led Local Development. Revenue funding is money used to pay for the day‑to‑day operation of services or programmes, such as wages, subscriptions or delivery costs. Capital funding is money used to buy, build, or improve long‑term assets such as constructing a new building, refurbishment or purchasing a vehicle/machine.

In 2021-22 and 2022-23, in addition to Local Action Group funding distribution, Inspiring Scotland also distributed funds via the Rural and Communities Ideas into Action Fund. During these years, not every area had an active Local Action Group. Funding was also awarded separately to the existing Local Action Groups through the Rural Communities Testing Change programme (in 2021-22) and the Rural Community Led Fund (in 2022-23). In 2021-2022, there was a significantly reduced amount of funding for Community Led Local Development as a result of the UK being in a transition period of leaving the European Union (i.e. the LEADER programme ended in December 2021, and Scottish Government provided budget to cover the remaining quarter of that financial year). Of the three years from 2022-2023 to 2024-2025, Community Led Local Development funding was relatively consistent. In 2025-2026, the budget was reduced to around £9million. The 2025-2026 budget was being spent during the period of this research, and thus final claimed amounts were not confirmed when this report was finalised. Where possible, data from 2025-2026 was considered as this likely informed the evidence collected during the fieldwork, for example, when participants discussed the current funding year (as well as previous years).

Community Led Local Development project data, including spend, are collected through use of social return on investment software provided by the Scottish Government (Social Value Engine) and alongside costs submitted to Scottish Government by Local Action Groups and end of year evaluation reports as per the grant awards process. Some of this data has been published on the Scottish Rural Network website but most is internal to Scottish Government. As a result of the transition from LEADER to Community Led Local Development following departure from the European Union, there were changes to how this information was collected during the review period.

Scottish Rural Action receives funding from the Scottish Government via grants from the Rural Cohesion Fund and the Scottish Rural Network, as set out in Table 1. Figures presented in this report do not include other sources of funding for Scottish Rural Action.

Scottish Rural Network is funded and staffed by the Scottish Government. Funding figures do not include staff costs, which are civil servant posts.

2.4. Stage three: Fieldwork

Stage three was the main fieldwork stage. This involved a number of research activities, including surveys, interviews, workshops and six in-depth place-based community case studies (see Section 2.7. for more information on these), where researchers undertook interviews with people involved in local community development in various ways.

Six surveys were run in parallel for different stakeholders involved with or with knowledge of Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development, including: Community Led Local Development Coordinators; Local Action Group chairs and members; Community Led Local Development funding recipients; those involved with Scottish Rural Network; those involved with Scottish Rural Action; and those involved with, or with an interest in, community development. A number of interviews and workshops were held with individuals directly involved in the management, coordination and delivery of the three elements, including Scottish Government officials as well as wider stakeholders. In summary, online surveys and place-based case studies allowed for wide and inclusive perspectives on the three elements, while interviews and workshops with experts (e.g. delivery staff or organisational board members) provided depth.

This stage also included research to collect the views of young people, aged between 18-30, who lived and/or worked in rural and island Scotland. An online survey and three placed-based workshops collected views from a range of young people about their experiences of engaging with the elements under review and how a future rural support system could be more inclusive of young people. The workshop locations were selected based on certain criteria, including geography, sample size, availability (e.g. to avoid clashes with college, university or work commitments), experiences of Youth Local Action Groups, and engagement with Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development.

The various data sources – including the theories of change, quantitative data sources, survey responses, interviews from the six place-based community case studies and from stakeholders and those with strategic perspectives, workshop notes, and international case studies - were analysed. Team-based thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative material to identify key themes. Triangulation was undertaken between data sets (such as survey responses, strategic and place-based interviews and workshops) to develop the analysis.

2.5. Overview of participation

Table 2 provides summary information on participants in the fieldwork. It demonstrates 296 distinct points of participant involvement. These are distinct points of involvement, rather than participant numbers, as some people will have participated multiple times in different research activities, such as a Community Led Local Development Coordinator completing the survey, attending two topic-focused workshops and participating in a place-based case study interview.

The data collection approaches provided cross-cutting information on the different research questions and elements involved, so counting specific numbers of participants relating to the three elements under review from Table 2 is not an accurate representation of the data collected for each element. However, the summary table does demonstrate the extent of engagement in this project. During analysis, the full extent of the data on each of the elements was reviewed by the research team multiple times to ensure robustness in our approach to analysis and recommendation development.

*Three Local Action Group areas which did not participate were community case studies.

2.6. Ethics

All data collected using the different methods was handled in accordance with good practice and the ethical requirements of the institutions leading each research activity. This has included potential conflicts of interest within the research team.

Participant anonymity has been handled carefully. This report includes quotes from across the surveys, workshops and interviews. In order to maintain anonymity and confidentiality we have not referred to individual’s names when presenting the quotes and instead have provided brief standardised information on participants’ role and the method through which the data was collected to provide some context to the quote. We have also removed references to individuals, organisations and the names of the place-based case studies in this report.

2.7. Place-based case study selection

The research team identified the six Local Action Group areas in which to conduct place-based community case studies with reference to a range of criteria including: governance structure, length of operation and geography, and quantitative data on the funded projects and the social return on investment generated by them as evidenced through the Social Value Engine. The selected Local Action Groups are shown in Table 3.

The place-based community case studies were selected in discussion with local stakeholders, and particularly local residents, including through facilitated online workshops held in each of the six Local Action Group areas. These were open to the public, sense-checked some of the methods and approaches being used and sought perspectives and guidance on specific communities that would serve as appropriate case studies. Through these online workshops, the research team was able to ensure local input to the research design process to select the community case studies and to refine the research instruments. All interview guides and survey instruments were designed with reference to one another to ensure complementarity and minimal duplication, as well as direct reference to the research questions.

Seven short reports setting out the findings from each of the case studies have been published alongside this report.^[39]

Local Action Group

Orkney (island, north)

• Recommended Community: Community Development Trusts
• Theme for Case Study: Community of practice

Outer Hebrides (island, west)

• Recommended Community: Harris
• Theme for Case Study: Community of geography

West Lothian (urban adjacent, south east)

• Recommended Community: Challenging the cost of living and Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic recovery
• Theme for Case Study: Community of practice

Moray (governance, east)

• Recommended Community: East Moray
• Theme for Case Study: Community of geography

Scottish Borders (highest social return on investment as per the Social Value Engine, south)

• Recommended Community: East Borders
• Theme for Case Study: Theme around transport as a “community of experience”

Highland (lowest social return on investment as per the Social Value Engine, north)

• Recommended Community: Lochalsh
• Theme for Case Study: Community of place/geography

2.8. Collaboration and co-design

As far as possible, the research team were keen to make sure the review work was based on delivering collaborative research principles, in particular through involving community voices in the design of the data collection approach. This was to ensure the research adopted the grassroots principles of the elements being reviewed, and also to be mindful of the extent to which rural and island communities have been engaged in research in recent years on a range of rural and island issues. The approach also sought to explicitly recognise the knowledge and expertise within communities on the issues on which the review is focused.

2.9. Limitations

While opportunities for collaboration with the communities involved and co-design were considered throughout this review and put into practice in the community case study selection for example, achieving extensive co-design proved challenging in the context of the timescales and resource limits of this project. Nevertheless, co-design has been a key consideration in our analysis and we will seek to embed these principles more strongly in our recommendations for the future rural support system.

The data provided by Scottish Government was partial across the years of the review, as detailed in Section 2.3. In some instances, the data was lacking detail, which has made comparisons between the elements and over different time periods problematic.

Following the methodology set out in the original tender, detailed quantitative analysis was not conducted.

Six surveys were used to collect evidence. There was low uptake of the survey for those interested in rural development (see Table 2). This survey was open to the general public and was designed to provide an important opportunity for anyone to be involved in the project. The relatively small number of responses meant that the data was used as a qualitative evidence source, considered in the analysis in the same way as other survey responses, as appropriate to the research question. The small number of responses meant that it would not be robust to analyse these quantitatively.