Democracy Matters phase 2: analysis of responses

10. Conclusions

Many individuals and organisations with detailed knowledge took part in Democracy Matters Phase 2, sharing their views in their consultation responses or conversations in their community. Reflecting on their experience and perspectives, this report provides a high-level summary of the themes evident in responses. For more detail, readers are encouraged to look to individual responses where permission was given for publication.

There was considerable support for community decision-making bodies to have greater powers and for communities to have more say in decisions that affect them. It was suggested that this could be achieved through building on existing initiatives such as community wealth building, community action plans or place-based projects. Participants also suggested that new bodies could have powers covering financial management, budget distribution, collaboration, and service delivery. While the idea of existing public bodies sharing power with communities was popular, there was also support for public bodies to retain existing powers, allowing communities to have a greater say in managing resources.

Participants frequently highlighted the importance of new community decision-making bodies reflecting their communities, with calls for diverse and balanced representation. In addition, participants thought that existing local organisations could play a role in these new bodies. A wide range of suggestions were made for increasing diversity, such as through jury-type service, citizen assemblies, voting and avoiding self-selection. It was suggested that the role of the representatives should be to represent community concerns, ensure all voices are heard and deliver change to communities. Participants felt encouraging participation in community decision-making could occur by ensuring the roles and bodies have impact and reducing multiple barriers to participation. Facilitating inclusive engagement methods and accessible communication channels were also recommended to encourage participation.

Many highlighted the need to define local communities and encourage collaborative working across geographical and sectoral boundaries. There was support for using community events to engage people; it was felt that these, when well organised and promoted, could improve knowledge, enhance community cohesion and provide accountability. However, others felt such events lacked representativeness and were resource intensive. Others suggested ways of engaging communities included digital methods such as surveys, outreach and face-to-face engagement, and creative approaches. Using a flexible range of approaches, building up engagement gradually and paying people with expertise were also considered as valuable ways to improve participation.

Participants reflected on a range of ways that community decision-making bodies can achieve a strong mandate, ensure accountability and demonstrate high standards in how they operate. Building trust through transparent and accessible communication and effective priority setting and evaluation was seen as critical. There was support for the standards proposed in the consultation paper, particularly the rights-based approach. Suggestions for further development were made, with calls for regulation, monitoring and evidencing compliance with the standards. There were calls for standards and a charter to be designed in an open process with all relevant stakeholders, with a charter focusing on clarifying roles, duties, voting rights, communication and powers of different bodies. However, a few participants questioned the value of standards or a charter, or whether they would work effectively in practice.

Greater funding for community decision-making was a prevalent theme in responses. Sustainable, fair or participatory funding models were requested, alongside highlighting the need to ensure there is oversight of how community decision-making bodies use funds. Non-monetary resourcing was suggested, including staff support or expertise, training and practical supports like transport and meeting spaces.

Implications for public bodies were also highlighted. It was suggested that public bodies might have a more facilitatory role and develop closer relationships to communities due to needing to listen more closely to community concerns and support communities to take action. Some felt this devolution of responsibility could allow public bodies to adopt a more strategic role. However, some others felt the proposals could have a negative impact on public bodies, such as compromising their ability to deliver services. It was noted that public bodies might need support and training to shift more towards collaboration, transfer funding, and improved channels of communication.

Overall, the key message was that while there is support for greater community decision-making in Scotland, participants also highlighted multiple considerations that need to be addressed to ensure a new layer of decision-making in Scotland works effectively.