Evaluating Participatory Budgeting activity in Scotland: interim report year 2

Summary of Key Findings

• Since 2014 increased levels of financial investment from the Scottish Government combined with political support for PB have seen significant levels of activity by the majority of Scotland's local authorities and a wider range of community based and third sector organisations.
• Engagement and commitment to PB by communities, politicians and council officers is mixed. Evidence suggests that the varying range of approaches in use by local authorities so far is resulting in a number of differences including in levels of participation, the construction of PB (thematically or geographically), the boundaries for applicants (communities, charities, schools and other local public resources), and the processes for community engagement (events, voting, presentations).
• It is evident that the introduction of PB signifies a commitment and investment of time and resource from community applicants and participants as much as it does on the part of local authorities.
• There is limited evidence of consistent definitions of participatory or community budgeting in use across individual local authorities. A key observation is that local authorities tend to adopt, and adapt, definitions signifying a variance on standard definitions and the principles of PB.
• Participatory decision-making can be limited and challenging for both local authorities and communities. The transformation of power relations in resource allocation appears to be a cause of uncertainty. With the exception of two local authorities, communities are not engaged in specific budgetary allocations for mainstream services. The grants-based approach evident across local authorities engages communities in participatory decision-making for small community projects.
• Overall there seems to be a distinction between PB being operationalised as a transactional delivery method in community planning, and community engagement being regarded as a strategic goal and starting point for transforming relationships between communities, councils and public services and resources.
• The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 is clearly a driver and enabler for PB, but the requisite culture change towards more inclusive and shared decision making is not evident across all local authorities. Communities of place and the orientation from the Christie Commission inform some of the framing of participatory activity, but it is not evident as a lead driver.
• Similarly the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and specifically the potential of the Public Sector Equality Duty to drive community engagement and empowerment have not been noticeable drivers of practice change or community engagement. There is limited reference to both in the strategic framing of PB. It also appears that some ethnic minority communities are not integrated into the process and continue to be less included in outreach and communications work around PB, although there is some evidence of efforts to reach groups not represented by active community groups.
• To date, findings suggest that there is innovative practice developing but strategic capacity and intent require to be more clearly articulated, resourced and reflected in the structures and operations of local authorities.

In this section, the summary findings in the following table are structured around a formulation by the GCU team using the 'strategic design choices for participatory budgeting' from Harkins and Escobar (2015). In their terminology, a policy instrument re-orients the relationship between public or government authorities and civil society (op.cit., 13). A policy device is when PB is applied as a tool for community engagement, without the more transformative potential of changing the power relationships.