Scottish Government

4. CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE FOR SCOTLAND'S RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Future needs and options

4.1 This chapter considers the future for the sustainability and changing role of community facilities across rural Scotland. The postal survey asked RCF contacts what changes, if any, they would like to see happen to their RCF and associated facilities in five years' time (Q67). The wide variety of responses that were generated offers a good illustration of the diverse needs of these buildings, the committees running them and the communities they serve. A full list of responses is given at Appendix 5, but they could largely be grouped under the following headings:

• external changes to the building (e.g. maintaining appearance, car-parking, a play are, recycling facilities);
• internal changes to the building (.e.g. improved toilets - a recurrent theme, improved heating, insulation and storage);
• management (more young people on more robust committees appeared to be wide-spread desire);
• use and users (largely to widen and increase levels);
• general issues (such as less red tape, more favourable insurance arrangements, help with compliance and water rates exemption).

4.2 Open responses to Q67 highlighted a number of recurrent themes. Often, for instance, the RCF is the only community facility remaining in a village:

"Hopefully we can keep the building going - there's no Post Office, no shop, tea room or hotel or B&B left in the village…"

4.3 Some committees were clearly struggling and would continue in the future to face the challenge of the "spiral" (mentioned by a funding interviewee) of poor condition leading to less use which leads to poor condition:

"XX Hall was the focal point of our community. The Hall is very rarely used as the toilets need upgrading, the whole hall needs renovating. Lots of local groups have had to cease because of the condition of the hall. We are currently seeking funding to restore XX Hall which our community back wholeheartedly. The community needs a safe, secure environment to allow community activities to take place."

"It is a chicken and egg situation - we need improvements to the building and more people involved but we will not get more involved until there are improvements. We need recognition of the needs of small communities where nothing else exists and less talk of social enterprise which would be a non-starter here."

"We provide a community facility and would like to see some financial assistance from the government/local council to relieve the burden of fund-raising to pay bills. The added incentive of being able to do something more beneficial than pay bills would encourage a more positive response from both fund raisers and sponsors."

4.4 To face this, there was a desire to increase the strength of the committee whilst also wanting to keep its size manageable due to the limited number of people within a locality:

"Management needs to be kept to a minimum as all committee members also work on other committees et - this is a very small community so we all do several community volunteer roles…"

4.5 A key aspect of this, echoed elsewhere in the survey and case study findings, was the recruitment and retention of management committee members for the future:

"The current committee have run the hall for over twenty years. In the next five years all of us wish to stand down as all senior citizens. For many years we have had no support from the local community and no-one will volunteer for office. In order to avoid dissolution we continue as a caretaker committee for the benefit of the children's groups… We hope that someone will come forward to continue the work we have put in for the last twenty years."

4.6 Their "sense of the future" was explored also with the six case study committees, and some of the same themes emerged as in the postal survey. Common to all case-studies was a sense of uncertainty over the future financial viability of the facilities under their current organisational model.

4.7 There were three broad challenges. The first was related to the recruitment and retention of members for management bodies, and their capacity to negotiate what was perceived to be an increasingly complex funding and legislative context. This problem was believed to be one they had in common with many voluntary organisations. The second was related to the financial viability of facilities, particularly those facing a retraction in use, and the dependency upon external grant-aid to undertake large capital improvements, extensions, and in one case, a re-build. There was a shared feeling of fragility and dependency upon certain users and inadequate support from local authorities to meet increasing running costs, for water, electricity, gas, health and hygiene training, steward training, and to meet regulatory standards for electricity, fire protection and wheelchair and pushchair access. Third, was the increasingly complex regulatory framework which governs public buildings, and which also affects user-groups wishing to use the buildings. There was a shared concern that compliance with the regulatory framework affecting these buildings was difficult for volunteers to achieve.

4.8 Those consulted valued their community building and considered it to play a central social role, particularly in localities where no alternative facilities were open for community use. Indeed, in the Highland case-studies they were perceived as central to rural life and their current (and potential in the case of H1 Village Hall) diversity of uses was testimony to this. All management bodies and user groups felt that these facilities played an important social role in their community, but a common theme was that local authorities, and central government, did not acknowledge this. The case-studies that exhibited a relatively wide level of community, public-sector and commercial use felt that the current maintenance grants from local authorities did not reflect the facilities' critical role:

P6: think we want the government to appreciate, or the local authority to appreciate, that these halls need to be funded. We don't want them to take over. We don't want Fife Council to run the hall. But we do want them to recognise that halls run at a loss. (F1 Public Hall)

4.9 Finally, greater dialogue between the government and those involved in running and using community facilities was called for, in order to progress a model of funding for community facilities that recognises: the particular circumstances of rural areas; the capacity for communities with differing social, demographic and geographical circumstances to be self-reliant and self-generating; and the need for a funding-regime that recognises the diverse needs of communities, and, therefore, the type of buildings which are appropriate to them.

Sustainability and community facilities in rural Scotland

4.10 In this context, the term 'sustainability' is used in two different senses. Firstly, what is the likelihood of Scottish RCFs enjoying longevity? In other words, do RCFs demonstrate characteristics that point towards their continuing to exist and to thrive well into the future? Secondly, how much of a contribution do the RCFs make to the 'sustainability' - in a broader social, economic and environmental sense - of the area in which they are located? Each of these is taken in turn.

The sustainability of RCFs

4.11 Table 4.1 focuses on various attributes which may be considered a 'good thing' when assessing whether an RCF is likely to thrive well into the future; for each attribute, the findings from the survey are highlighted together with some brief observations:

Table 4.1. Desirable attributes of RCFs

The overall picture, in relation to attributes listed shows that, for the surveyed RCFs: there is fairly limited diversity of funding sources; management is falling on a small number of people, coupled with struggles to recruit and retain management bodies; there is the potential for increased systematic interaction and communication with the local community; and the strength of networks and knowledge exchange across the surveyed RCFs are highly variable.

The contribution of RCFs to 'local sustainability'

4.12 In several ways, RCFs can serve the cause of 'sustainability' in the broader sense by helping to conserve the environment and scarce resources, support the local economy, and underpin a viable local community. The following components in particular can be highlighted: energy conservation, employment and the local economy, promoting social inclusion, and the development of human and social capital. Pertinent findings are briefly discussed.

4.13 Energy conservation: findings presented in this report show the low percentage of energy conservation measures within surveyed RCFs and limited use of renewable energy (less than 5% of cases). The location of RCFs may reduce the need for community members to make lengthy trips to distant service-providing centres, journeys which would be made very largely by car. However, only a low percentage of RCFs reported being used by external service providers, although this could have an additional social or community benefits.

4.14 Employment and the local economy: many RCFs could be called "social enterprises" in that they "trade" and market their facilities to a wide range of users, whether individuals from the area or groups or service providers. They are a venue for a range of activities, some of which generate at least some income for the RCF and possibly for the local community and economy. Furthermore, the findings show that approximately 55% of RCFs employ at least one member of staff - albeit many working on very much a part-time basis. In a small village context, this employment role may not be inconsequential

4.15 Promotion of social inclusion: surveyed RCFs include in their management a diverse range of people (Q30) including many from groups who often may not be actively engaged in community participation. A high proportion are used by a wide range of people (young people in 77.7%; elderly people in 73.1% ). Figures on use by other groups (e.g. BME or those with disabilities) were less informative.

4.16 Development of human and social capital: another potentially important product of the operation and use of RCFs is that in one way or another they develop local people as a potential resource for the community ('human capital') and cement and strengthen the links and the trust that bind communities together ('social capital'). How far is that the case for the surveyed RCFs? The responses to several questions give some indication of this.

4.17 First we may consider the involvement of people in RCF management as a 'developmental exercise' even if that is not deliberate. The median size of a management committee appears to be about nine (Q49) and about one-third of RCFs included in some aspect of their management at least six volunteers who are not committee members. Another third included between one and five such people in that way.

4.18 Between 80% and 90% of RCFs have 'community representation' on the committee as a way of improving communication with the local community. Just what is understood to be 'community representation' may well have differed between respondents to the survey, but nevertheless a picture emerges from the answers to Question 33 and 49 that the management of RCFs does serve to develop quite a large number of people as 'community activists' of some sort, and to enhance interaction between people at the local level - a key element of the development of 'social capital'.

4.19 Looking further at the involvement of particular types of local people in RCF management, it is interesting (Q30) that a substantial proportion include on their committee at least one or two younger people - despite halls traditionally being managed by older, often retired, people. Thus, 28.6% of halls had at least one person under 25 years on the committee, and 54.4% had someone who has pre-school children. Such inclusion may constitute a 'training activity' for younger people who may go on and do other voluntary or community work in later life or use the experience of their involvement in development of their skills more generally.

4.20 Across the 322 RCFs for which data are available, an average committee size of nine people suggests that approximately 3,000 individuals are involved in managing a community facility.

4.21 Finally, another way in which the RCFs may be held to increase or sustain the social capital of rural Scotland is by providing a venue for community activities of one sort or another which themselves involve the fostering of social interaction and the cementing of trust between individuals.

Key policy and practice issues

4.22 This section summarises recurrent or particularly salient themes from findings across the project that suggest areas for particular attention and action for those involved in the use, management, administration, funding and support for rural community facilities, from the level of individual committee members up to national organisations.

4.23 Advice and support for RCFs: the findings suggest that committees would welcome and benefit from improved, more readily available support and advice, of a consistent standard, particularly in relation to: energy conservation and renewables; legislation and regulatory responsibilities; business and budget planning; and the evaluation of their potential to be multi-service outlets where appropriate.

4.24 Age and condition of the buildings: at least two-thirds of surveyed RCFs are more than 50 years old; a high proportion of buildings had unsatisfactory or unsuitable physical fabric, and high running costs associated with the energy forms used and poor energy efficiency were common. It is important for the structural implications to be understood and to explore strategic ways to address these. Rural Direct provides advice on how to access funding from a variety of sources, including the SRDP, which can be used for this.

4.25 Location: as well as understanding local needs, committees need to be aware of their facility's proximity to other service venues and providers that could complement or compete with them and the implications this has for business planning and their longer-term sustainability. It would be interesting to investigate the significance of the relative location of venues, that is, how close to other similar ones, and their different functions.

4.26 Ownership and capacity: over 80% of surveyed RCFs are owned and managed by local communities, which has implications for their future, particularly given the difficulties that experienced in recruiting and retaining people to manage and run RCFs and the fact that in smaller communities there are simply less people to run such a resource. The data also demonstrate variations in the skills-base, confidence and knowledge levels of committees. Understanding how resources could be shared, at national, regional and local levels, to support those with less experience, or with less professionals in their locality with a willingness to be involved, would be valuable.

4.27 Management and business planning: there were varied models of RCF management. Almost one quarter of committees met only once or twice a year or even less regularly. Less than one fifth of surveyed committees had prepared a business plan in the past five years, and two-thirds had no annual business plan, which could have implications for the sustainability of individual facilities. Related to this, it would be helpful to better understand how RCFs have widened their range of funding sources even within the capacity and time constraints of the current committees.

4.28 Administration and compliance: some committees expressed concern at the 'amount of red tape' in relation to such requirements as risk assessments, energy audits and health and safety audits. Almost half did not have written policies on: health and safety, equal opportunities, environmental practice, volunteers, child protection, food hygiene or employment. It would seem to be beneficial for there to be some way to share assistance and guidance in terms of legislation and compliance, including the sharing of pro-forma templates.

4.29 Training: over 95% of committees had not received training in business planning, meeting management, governance or overall RCF management in the past year. In the same period, less than one-fifth had been to events such as workshops, seminars, conferences, open days or networking events. Distance and time were raised as constraining issues. It is important to understand the extent to which this finding disadvantages committees and an RCF's sustainability, and whether there could be ways to improve access to training and capacity-building.

4.30 Users: almost half the surveyed RCFs were used by fewer than 50 people a week; over three-quarters of surveyed RCFs served a catchment population of fewer than 1,000 people; and more than half were used by less than 20% of the local population. However, to identify understand the potential implications of these findings for the sustainability of RCFs, in terms of how vital they might be in their communities and whether they could be used for service provision by external agencies, would require data on local demographics, needs and services and understandings of relations between these factors. Towards this, it would be beneficial to investigate how RCFs have already been successfully addressing the issue of a low and dispersed population base (for example, as multi-service outlets), and exchange this knowledge to enhance the RCF sector as a whole. It is therefore important for committees to asses how their existing "catchment" and positive social networking can be built upon, for example, through service delivery, for health or education or for governance.

4.31 Service delivery through RCFs: a principal purpose of surveyed RCFs was to provide a venue for activities generated by the local community, rather than being a provider of 'services' in a conventional sense. It is important to investigate whether there could or should be greater partnership working between public sector service providers and the existing resources or venues in rural areas, particularly in more remote locations. For example, RCFs could be "docking stations" for mobile services, where customers or patients wait in the warm, exchange news and views, and then use the mobile service. Multi-service outlets could provide a real contribution to the challenge of service delivery in rural Scotland, and could contribute to the achieving the SG Indicator and Target: "Improve people's perceptions of the quality of public services delivered" (5)

4.32 Specifically, in the light of Healthier Scotland commitments, there could be increased use of RCFs for primary health services or GPs, as well as regular fitness classes. Given the Scottish Government's 2008 report Delivering for Remote & Rural Health¹⁶ and 2007 Action Plan Better Health, Better Care,¹⁷ and findings from this research on current use, there may be scope for innovative ways of providing greater access to health services through these buildings. It may be worthwhile considering whether there could or should be greater partnership between public sector service providers and rural community facilities. Activities, exercise and social 'getting together' are potentially more difficult in rural areas due to transport needs, longer distances and poor access to a range of facilities and to other, like-minded and bodied people. Committees could explore whether they can optimise their potential for these.

The future for RCFs in Scotland

4.33 Despite the considerable challenges to their ongoing sustainability that many facilities are facing, there are plentiful (and often unrecognised) examples of good practice and imaginative approaches to finding solutions. Given this, it would seem fundamental to the continued sustainability of many facilities in rural communities that ways should be found to:

• share experiences and advice in relation to the facilities' physical condition and maintenance;
• provide assistance, guidance, templates and experience in relation to administrative and regulatory responsibilities;
• share experiences of how management committees could be encouraged to build on their existing "catchments" through, perhaps, more diverse service delivery, for health, education or governance;
• share good practice on better engagement with the wider community;
• find leadership for the development and sharing of new and existing resources and opportunities.

4.34 This research illustrates the central role that community facilities - and the dedicated volunteers who manage them - play in the lives of many of rural Scottish communities, as hubs for local activity and service-provision and in the sustenance and development of social and human capital. There is a vast diversity of buildings and management models, of uses and users, of facilities and needs. Just as varied are the difficulties and challenges to their survival faced by individual facilities, but the research has also captured the opportunities for sharing lessons, expertise and skills between facilities across the country which will help them adapt to a changing funding landscape and the demands placed upon them.