Scottish Government

COMMUNITY BUDGETING
Responses to a consultation on local services and community engagement

This document is also available in pdf format (42k)

Table of Contents

1. A Summary of Consultation Responses

2. Summary of Responses by Question

3. Annex A - List of Organisations that submitted a response

COMMUNITY BUDGETING - A SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

1. Introduction

1.1 The Scottish Executive is committed to improving public services and ensuring that services offer people and communities what they need. At the same time the Local Government Bill 2002 provides a statutory basis for community planning in Scotland.

1.2 On 15 March 2002 The Executive launched the Community Budgeting Consultation and 5m Community Budgeting Grant. The consultation proposed a community budgeting based approach, as one means for providing greater local understanding of and engagement with the delivery of these services, in the context of the over-arching service priorities set down by Community Planning partnerships.

1.3 The consultation document ' COMMUNITY BUDGETING - A consultation document on local services and community engagement' sought the views from across the statutory agencies and their Community Planning Partnerships, social inclusion partnerships, local rural partnerships, the community and voluntary sectors.

1.4 The document also invited Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs), Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIPs), Better Neighbourhood Services Fund (BNSF) pathfinders, Local Rural Partnerships and other local partnerships with at least 2 statutory agencies to register an interest in the Community Budgeting Grant.

2. Consultation Response

2.1 The Community Budgeting Consultation was launched on the 15 March 2002 along with the announcement of the attached 5 million community budgeting grant to be made available as 2m over 2002/03 and 3m in 2003/04. The consultation invited responses to a series of 13 questions and the comments received were used to support our decision on the distribution of the fund and to draw up guidelines.

2.2 Responses were invited to a series of key questions outlined in the document. The consultation officially closed on 14 June, but responses up to the end of June were facilitated.

2.3 As part of the consultation, interested parties were given the opportunity to speak with officials and as a result members of the Social Inclusion Division attended at least 10 consultation events during the consultation period. These were arranged by a variety of organisations and were held in venues across Scotland. Some local authorities and CPPs held their own consultation processes, and in addition Executive Officials dealt with many queries by phone and email in order to support the organisations involved.

2.4 The consultation process was a successful one, with over 90 responses received. The general thrust of the responses to the consultation document were largely positive, with many responses going into great detail and providing valuable further insight on a community budgeting approach.

2.5 Responses were received from almost all of the 32 local authorities (or their associated Community Planning Partnership).

2.6 A wide range of organisations submitted comments on the consultation document, ranging from statutory agencies to grass roots level community groups, and including a number of national voluntary organisations. A list is attached at Annex A.

3. Discussion

3.1 Community Planning Partnerships

2. The consultation document identified Community Planning Partnerships as the key structure in the development of community budgeting and comments were invited on the role that these partnerships should play, and also asked what role SIPs and other local partnerships could also support in this process.
4. The responses reflected the key role of Community Planning Partnerships in taking community budgeting forward and emphasised the need to also consider existing structures on the ground, particularly to support community engagement on this matter.

3.2 Data Collection

2. Responses from statutory agencies and in particular those agencies involved with the Better Neighbourhood Services Fund (BNSF) Pathfinders indicate that there are a number of challenges to be overcome in terms of the mapping of mainstream spend. The main issues centre around the implications for current finance/IT systems used by local authorities and other agencies, which in most cases do not currently collect data on a geographical basis. In many cases BNSF pathfinders report that they have had to disaggregate data by hand, often by employing a 'pro-rata' approach. There is wide agreement that the use of GIS systems and collection of postcode level data would assist with this.
4. Further issues with data collection centre around consistency between agencies, in terms of compatibility of systems used and methodology employed. There are many suggestions that a Scotland wide approach to this will greatly assist in taking community budgeting forward, and a consensus on the need for central guidance on developing data collection systems. In particular assistance would be required by those agencies such as Health Boards, Police Services etc where boundaries encompass a number of local authorities and these agencies could potentially therefore receive requests for data from a number of different local authorities, each employing different collection methods.
6. Finally, the experiences of the BNSF pathfinders have shown that the collection of mainstream spend data can be time consuming and require significant resources. They have demonstrated the need for a realistic, pragmatic approach, whereby the collection of mainstream spend data is seen as a tool to be applied selectively and in a focused manner under circumstances where this data will clearly be of value. It is likely that many of the community budgeting pilots will want to consider where best use can be made of this approach.

3.3 Community Engagement

2. On the issue of community engagement there were wide ranging discussions reflecting the different stages of existing work undertaken in this area across Scotland. Many of the key issues regarding the role of communities in various aspects of community budgeting centred on the level of community capacity that would be required. There was some criticism of the lack of direction on community engagement in the consultation document itself and some responses expressed concern that the most vocal communities and community representatives should not be allowed to benefit at the expense of others.
4. Many comments did echo the view in the consultation document that community budgeting is a potentially useful tool for making service delivery more responsive to the needs of the community.

4. Summary

4.1 A brief summary of some of the key points made is contained below:

2. The majority of respondents expressed the view that Community Budgeting should sit clearly within a Community Planning framework and that Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) are therefore the key partnerships to drive forward community budgeting. In addition to this Social Inclusion Partnerships and Local Rural Partnerships were identified as being important, where applicable, in supporting CPPs, particularly in developing greater understanding of service delivery on the ground and customer satisfaction/community engagement actions.
4. Whilst many local authority responses stated that it is not possible to extract the type of spend information that community budgeting would require, there was a clear understanding and interest in the benefits that this information could bring to service delivery, particularly in area-based communities and in key communities of interest (eg children's services) which demands inter-agency work.
6. There were suggestions that there should be some form of central assistance available to provide national guidance, in terms of circulating best practice and in the development of national protocols and systems for data collection.
8. Respondents recognised that community budgeting alone cannot shift cultural differences between agencies, and that we must be realistic and see community budgeting as part of the process of encouraging greater joint inter-agency working. Community budgeting approach is seen as asking hard questions on resource use and delivery, which can be often avoided within Community Planning Partnerships.
10. The majority of respondents agreed that community budgeting is potentially a useful tool with which to approach community engagement in service delivery, in finding out more about what mainstream resources are delivering for communities on the ground and how this reflects customers needs and experience of services. The community budgeting approach is also seen as a way of exploring how resources are being used to tackle key cross-cutting priorities such as crime within a community, and how this can be better used to match the specific needs of a community.
12. Some responses stated the need for significant investment in community capacity building. This will ensure the necessary support and training can be made available to allow communities to engage effectively with the work of Community Planning Partnerships.
14. A clear message from local authorities was that the Community Budgeting Grant should not be subject to ring fencing or administered as Challenge Funding. Many respondents suggested that the next step should be the use of the community budgeting grant to fund 'pilot' community budgeting initiatives in order to ascertain the best way forward and test a series of approaches and conditions. This is an approach supported by CoSLA.
16. Responses also highlighted the need to ensure realistic expectations of community budgeting from the outset. Agencies have statutory duties to deliver a wide range of services which ties up resources, but there is an understanding that service delivery can be responsive and joined-up between agencies, and still meet statutory requirements.
18. Statutory agencies face considerable challenges in the collection of mainstream spend data below the local authority level. These challenges are particularly apparent for local authorities, where a wide range of services are provided across the area, and are subject to different recording procedures. In particular lack of co-terminosity is an issue in many areas. The sharing of more detailed budget information is also a sensitive issue.
20. There is a need to ensure that the minority and less vocal groups within a community are met. There was interest expressed in using the community budgeting approach for exploring service delivery for communities of interest, from spend to need to appropriate methods of delivery.

COMMUNITY BUDGETING CONSULTATION - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES BY QUESTION

Question A: Community Planning Partnerships are currently developing joined-up strategic frameworks within which initiatives such as SIPs, BNSF pathfinders and local community groups can be better co-ordinated. From your perspective, what do you think the role for Community Planning Partnerships is in relation to community budgeting where local community planning structures are either in existence and/or being developed?

1. There was a clear consensus from the submissions that Community Budgeting should sit within a Community Planning framework, and that Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) are therefore the key partnerships to drive forward Community Budgeting. In addition to this Social Inclusion Partnerships and Local Rural Partnerships were identified as being important, where applicable, in supporting CPPs.

2. Other common points:

• Role of CPPs in identifying local needs and priorities and matching to national/regional strategies.
• CPPs to co-ordinate shared vision for the area.
• Need to recognise the fact that CPPs are better developed in some areas than others.

Question B: What are your views on the role of Social Inclusion Partnerships in community budgeting?

1. General agreement that SIPs offer an existing partnership structure targeted at designated disadvantaged communities (either geographic or thematic) with mechanisms for community engagement already in place. However, concerns over the suitability of SIPs as the key driver behind community budgeting include; issues regarding the long term future of SIPs, and the need to extend community budgeting beyond SIP boundaries. A number of respondents noted that the SIP in their area had either been brought into the Community Planning framework or that this was in progress.

Question C: How do the BNSF pathfinders want to build upon the work they are currently undertaking on determining mainstream spend?

1. Agreement from the local authorities where BNSF pathfinders are located that current work to determine mainstream spends has proved difficult. Issues identified include; limitations of current financial systems and in particular the ability to break down information on a geographic basis, compatibility of data between agencies, and difficulties with the short timescale involved.

2. Several comments supported the value of a service delivery/thematic approach, such as children's services or the elderly, which was adopted within many of the BNSF areas.

Question D: How do you think the community budgeting approach can support community engagement?

1. Responses to this question were varied and tended to reflect the extent of work already underway locally to support community engagement. Almost all responses agreed that Community Budgeting could support community engagement, although one response expressed the view that Community Budgeting could potentially be counter productive to community engagement by raising unrealistic expectations. Other comments noted that there was not enough detail included in the consultation document on community engagement. Several respondents saw effective community engagement as being one of the key challenges for community budgeting.

2. Suggestions on how community budgeting can support community engagement include:

• Increasing awareness of funding mechanisms among the general public

• Supporting the development of Community Planning at a local/neighbourhood level.

• Increasing accountability of service providers to the general public.
• Inclusion of community organisations as key stakeholders will 'create a more even playing field' between government agencies and community organisations.
• Provision of accurate mainstream spend information in an area as "a crucial factor in developing and extending meaningful patterns of community engagement."
• As "..part of the toolbox of approaches to community engagement and may be more appropriate in some areas and for some communities than others."
• Promoting 'active citizenship' and strengthening local democracy.
• Involving local residents in meaningful decision making will provide an incentive to engagement.
• Using community budgeting to identify mainstream spend on capacity building within a community.

3. A general theme in responses was the recognition that there needs to be clarity from the outset over the extent to which communities will be able to influence mainstream spend in order to avoid raising unrealistic expectations, and recognising the statutory obligations of agencies.

4. Issues raised in response to this question included:

• The need to utilise existing approaches to community engagement
• That non-participation should not result in communities being disadvantaged,
• The risk that any views expressed during engagement are not necessarily representative of the whole community
• The potential that increased scrutiny of public spend could become divisive (i.e. put one community against another)

Question E: What ability do statutory agencies have to map local spend in areas that are smaller than local authority areas?

1. The majority of responses from local authorities indicate that this is not currently possible or that there is limited ability to do so (13 responses to this effect). Two local authorities noted that they currently have work in hand which will assist with this, and four local authorities commented that this would be possible. One smaller local authority thought that it would be possible to obtain data at council level and did not see that it would be productive to further disaggregate below this.

2. Highlands and Islands Enterprise responded that they already keep data at Local Enterprise Company level, and that this could be further disaggregated as required, (although this would be easier with some areas of spending than others).

3. NHS Highland noted that all health sector expenditure in the area could be analysed to GP practise level, and that they had recently produced Community Health Budgets.

4. There were some comments that mapping local spend could place an administrative strain on agencies operating on a geographic scale either equal to or above that of local government.

5. Other general comments made in response to this question include:

• Smaller local authorities/rural areas will need to be aware of confidentiality issues which could arise when publishing information on a geographic basis in areas of low population density.
• Need to establish a uniform approach to data collection across Scotland.
• Need to balance the costs of such an exercise against the likely outcomes.

Question F: What are the implications for statutory agencies in terms of developing and refining these systems in terms of resources, be it staffing, software, equipment etc?

1. There were some wide ranging discussions in response to this question, with a general agreement that there will be significant resource implications for statutory agencies in terms of both funding and staff. There were also several comments on the need to balance these costs against outcomes to ensure that the resources required do not outweigh the benefits in terms of improved service delivery.

2. A number of responses indicated that the need to invest in appropriate IT/software would be a key requirement, with consensus on the importance of developing compatible systems from the outset both within and between agencies in order to facilitate sharing of data.

Question G: How can agencies operate their systems across a range of different boundaries, due to the lack of co-terminosity for service provision compared to other agencies delivering services into communities?

1. Whilst several councils replied that lack of co-terminosity was not a particular problem in their area there was general consensus among respondents that this was a major challenge for community budgeting. There was also general agreement that there needed to be a Scotland wide strategy, in particular to assist agencies such as health boards and the police that are likely to received requests for data from several sources. Comments were also made that in light of the increasing role of Community Planning Partnerships it was perhaps time to address the issue of co-terminosity across CPPs. General agreement that collection of postcode data was the way forward.

Question H: How important is it that data generated is truly consistent between agencies in the Community Budgeting process? Is this a practical aim?

1. General agreement that consistency of data between agencies is important. A significant number of these thought that consistency was 'vital' or 'critical' to the community budgeting process. A smaller number of responses indicated that this was perhaps not practical in the short term due to the implications of the work that would be involved.

2. Several agencies noted that they had already undertaken work that would assist with this aim.

3. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy saw the Best Value Accounting Code of Practice as a delivery mechanism for achieving consistency.

Question I: How do you think that a response from both the community and voluntary sector can be facilitated at Level 2 above? How can the agencies respond to this type of approach, also, taking into account various working cultures and practices?

1. This question might be better phrased as 'How can the community and voluntary sectors engage in defining service provision priorities, and how well are statutory agencies able to respond to this approach?'

2. Responses from statutory agencies (including Community Planning Partnerships) and SIPs were varied, with wide ranging discussion points arising from this question. It is clear that agencies are at different stages in terms of engaging with their communities and the community and voluntary sector's ability to define service level priorities. Some agencies identified work that has already been undertaken in their communities and others noted that significant support would be required to develop sufficient community capacity in order to take this approach forward.

3. Key concerns include ensuring that the needs of minority or less 'vocal' community groups are taken into account, with the point being raised that the more affluent communities are often better placed to engage with the statutory sector. Also identified was the need to distinguish clearly between voluntary organisations and the community itself.

4. There was some feeling that the identification of local priorities should be central to local community planning and that the community budgeting process could support this. There were also suggestions that the community budgeting grant should be used to pilot different approaches to community engagement. On the other hand there were comments that identification of local priorities already happens without spend information eg through Citizens Panel, focus groups and other research, with a questioning of whether budget information would provide any added value in return for the significant costs this would involve. Further comments made regarding identification of service provision priorities ('Level 2' referred to in the consultation document), included the view that this approach is essentially already taking place through 'Best Value'. There were also some comments during consultation events, particularly from the community sector, that statutory agencies already know what these priorities are and that the community now wishes to see improved delivery of these services. Level 2 was felt to be the starting point for the process, with the priorities identified used to focus the community budgeting process.

5. There was general consensus that it was important to use established community structures and lines of engagement in this process and Local Rural Partnerships and Community Councils were identified as having a key role to play in identifying local priorities.

6. It was noted that there are issues regarding voluntary organisations providing services but not themselves being large enough to ascertain levels of spend.

7. Key concerns centre on the fact that the ability of the statutory sector to respond to this approach is limited by statutory responsibilities and the need to define the scope of community influence from the outset in order to avoid raising unrealistic expectations was widely raised. Further more the 'Level 2' approach assumes that sufficient community capacity is already in place and it is clear that not all communities will be ready or willing to undertake this.

8. The sharing of best practise was identified as potentially being very useful as community budgeting develops.

9. Responses from the Voluntary and Community Sector, together with Local Rural Partnerships echoed many of the above points and in addition commented that:

• Engaging communities in defining service provision priorities will require the establishment of a fair and inclusive method of prioritising budget spend, with this being identified as a major challenge.
• There is a need for the allocation of funds to develop community capacity, as this is not currently sufficient.

• Community/Voluntary sector may also wish to be consulted on 'Level 1' ie the gathering of local mainstream spend data, particularly in terms of how figures are presented since full understanding of this information will promote effective engagement.
• The implications of 'Level 3' as outlined in the community budgeting proposals, where communities might have some responsibility for service delivery was found attractive by some due to the potential for establishing new forms of sustainable community assets.

• There is a need for cultural change within agencies to allow the community to engage in a meaningful way.

• Needs to be a joint agency/community sector approach rather than 'top down' approach

• There is a need for clear lines of communication between partners.

Question J: What systems are required to engage the community in contracting for service delivery and local spend?

1. Responses to this question, and in particular from feedback during consultation events, highlight two key issues here. Firstly, the community would need to be sufficiently motivated to wish to undertake this, and secondly, there would need to be significant investment in order to build the required community capacity to undertake this. Objections to this approach centred on the feeling that communities expect the local authority to undertake this role for them, and would not wish to be burdened with the work and responsibility that contracting for service delivery would involve.

2. Key responses from the statutory sector include:

• The need to build sufficient community capacity, for example community reps would require training in contractual procedures/finance etc, and will also require ongoing access to good advice (legal/financial).

• The need to monitor the process to ensure the same levels of accountability as those currently required. There will also be a degree of risk management necessary.

• Again there were also comments on the need to ensure that the community is fully represented - and not just the vocal minority. This involves ensuring that the needs of the entire community are fully met - which will require a clear system for prioritising funds. There will also need to be mechanisms for consultation and community involvement.

• Communities that do not wish to go down this route must not be disadvantaged in any way

• It was suggested that there could be a review of guidance by the Scottish Executive (eg Best Value) to facilitate this approach.

3. Other comments from the voluntary and community sector in addition to Local Rural Partnerships:

• One LRP reported that the required systems are already in place within their partnership.
• An example was given of some Island Authorities with devolved administration whereby Community Councils undertake some local functions within agreed budgets.
• The community based Housing Association movement was suggested as a model for the regulation of expenditure by publicly funded community organisations.

Question K: How can communities assess their needs and priorities in service delivery and utilise emerging data sources such as neighbourhood statistics?

1. Responses to this question build upon many of the points raised earlier, with community capacity being a key issue alongside the need for more resources to be made available to develop this.

2. Statutory Sector:

• Significant resources will be required in training, development and ongoing professional support.

• Comments indicating that a range of work in this is area already underway.
• Availability and form of data available - must be 'user friendly'. The Public Health Institute for Scotland's health profile of Paisley was suggested as an example of good practise in terms of format.
• This requires effective community engagement.
• Community structures must be open, transparent and representative.
• This will require working partnership between agencies, communities and the voluntary sector.

• Work is currently underway by the Community Planning Task Force and Audit Scotland to develop a framework for measuring / monitoring achievement of community wellbeing - data development work for community budgeting purposes should sit within this framework.

• Communities can assess their needs and priorities through the community planning process.

3. Other responses:

• One LRP responded that although there would be resource implications for communities in assessing their priorities through the use of data such as neighbourhood statistics, it was felt that the structures and systems are already in place.
• Poverty Alliance commented that they have experience in enabling communities to develop profiles of their area and identifying local need.
• Forward Scotland commented to the effect that use of neighbourhood statistics as a basis for identifying need is flawed, since data collection is not through community engagement and there is therefore a danger that generalisations will be made which do not fully reflect locally important issues.

Question L: Are these systems already in place in either your particular community area or one that you are familiar with?

1. Responses to this question were quite limited but tended to be positive, particularly from the community sector, indicating that these systems were at least partly in place or that work was underway. Several responses did however indicate that such systems were not in place in their community, or those that they were familiar with, and from this perspective work needs to be done before communities can effectively engage in assessing their own needs and priorities.

Question M: What are your views on the challenges for community budgeting?

1. Many of the key challenges for community budgeting have already been discussed, however responses to this question identified the following as key issues:

• Problem of how to define a 'community' on a geographical basis.
• Problem of how to define a 'community' of interest and how to determine lines of service delivery.
• Building sufficient community capacity and undertaking effective community engagement.
• Existence/absence of robust local partnerships.
• Availability of sufficient resources.
• Reconciling local & regional priorities with national objectives, ensuring the whole community is fully represented including minority groups.
• Effective community engagement.

• IT/software implications.
• Possible politically sensitive nature of information - idea of areas essentially 'competing' against each other for funding.
• Agreeing definitions and methodologies across and within agencies.
• Breaking down cultural barriers and establishing trust between partners.
• Managing expectations - if this is not effective could lead to further disillusionment.
• Ensuring co-operation of all relevant agencies.

2. Other issues raised:

Oxfam and the Engender Women's Budget Group highlighted the need to ensure application of principles of equality to the process, for example, disaggregating data to provide evidence of impact of spend on different groups eg along gender lines.

Question N: What can be done to meet these challenges?

1. A variety of practical solutions were identified to these challenges, of which funding was high on the list:

• Develop appropriate management and financial systems, including utilisation of GIS systems software.
• Make sufficient resources available - both in terms of start up costs and ongoing support.
• Development of Scotland wide framework for data collection.
• Building sufficient community capacity i.e. provide resources for this.
• Co-ordination of the community budgeting process by Community Planning Partnerships.
• Rationalisation of agency boundaries.
• Development of Local Outcome Agreements as a means of providing more flexibility on statutory agency spend whilst ensuring that targets are met.
• Setting realistic, long term, timescales to meet challenges.
• Sharing of good practice.
• Commitment from all partners to community budgeting.
• Further details and clarification from the Scottish Executive.

2. Several responses indicated that the Community Budgeting grant should be used to introduce pilots that can address these challenges. There were fewer responses indicating that money should be made available to all Community Planning Partnerships to take community budgeting forward.

ANNEX A

Organisations that submitted a response to the Community Budgeting Consultation

Aberdeen City Alliance

Aberdeen City Council

Aberdeen Trades Council

Aberdeenshire Council ( including Aberdeenshire Community Planning Partnership)

Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland

Angus Community Planning Steering Group

Angus Council

Argyll & Bute Council (including Argyll & Bute SIP)

Association of Dundee Community Councils

Association of Scottish Colleges

Association of Scottish Community Councils

Ayrshire & Arran Primary Care NHS

Ballater (RD) Limited

Capital City Partnership

Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

City of Edinburgh Council

Clackmannanshire Council (including the Clackmannanshire Alliance)

Commission for Racial Equality

Community and Voluntary Alliance

Community Health Exchange (CHEX)

Community Planning Task Force

Convention Of Scottish Local Authorities

Couple Counselling Scotland

Drumchapel Community Council

Drumchapel Social Inclusion Partnership

Dumfries & Galloway Council

Dundee Accessible Transport Action Group

Dundee City Council

Dundee Partnership Forum

East Ayrshire Council (including East Ayrshire Community Planning Partnership)

East Dunbartonshire Community Planning Board

East Dunbartonshire Council

East Dunbartonshire CVS Ltd

East Renfrewshire Council

Engender Women's Budget Group

Falkirk Council (including Falkirk Community Planning Partnership)

Fife Council (including Fife Community Planning Partnership Group)

Forward Scotland

Glasgow City Council

Greater Pollock SIP

Harris Voluntary Service

Health Education Board Scotland

Highlands & Islands Enterprise

Inverclyde Council

Lochaber Forum

Midlothian Council (including Midlothian Community Planning Partnership)

Nairn & Ardersier Locality Planning Group

NCH Upper Nithsdale Family Project

NHS Grampian

NHS Highland

North Ayrshire Council (including North Ayrshire Community Planning Partnership)

North Lanarkshire Council (including North Lanarkshire Partnership)

Orkney Islands Council (including Orkney Islands Community Planning Partnership)

Out of School Care Federation

Oxfam

Perth and Kinross Council (including Perth & Kinross Community Planning Partnership)

Poverty Alliance

Renfrewshire Council (including Renfrewshire Community Planning Partnership)

Scottish Borders Council (including Community Planning Partnership , SIP and LRP)

Scottish Community Development Centre

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

Scottish Enterprise

Scottish Human Services Trust

Scottish Natural Heritage

Social Justice Committee

South Ayrshire Council (including Community Planning Partnership )

South Lanarkshire Community Planning Partnership

South Lanarkshire Council

Stirling Community Planning

The Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association (Scotland)

The Highland Council

The Moray Council (including Community Planning Partnership)

Unison

West Dunbartonshire Community Planning Partners

West Lothian Council

Westerhailes Rep Council

Western Isles Community Planning Partnership

WWF Scotland