The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SIX: COMMUNICATION CHANNELS

6.1 Both the literature review and the workshops investigated communications mechanisms between local communities on the one hand and those who can improve service access and quality on the other ( i.e. policy makers and service providers) The literature review established that communication mechanisms are in place and that a wide variety of methods are in use. The workshops considered the levels of communication, the successes of communications between RSPA residents and policy makers/ service providers and suggestions for improvements.

Literature review findings

Methods of seeking community perspectives

6.2 CPPs and service providers are increasingly seeking to involve communities in identifying the key services they require and where and how to locate and deliver them. A wide range of methods, involving face-to-face, postal, telephone or electronic contact, are used to involve and consult the public on issues of importance to them (see COSLA 1998 for a detailed discussion of these methods). These methods vary in terms of how open or closed the questions are and in the extent to which individuals and communities can express their own ideas, views and priorities. These different methods are used separately or in combination depending on the nature of the consultation. The methods that have been employed by those CPPs included in this study are:

• Citizens' Panels and Young Citizens' Panel: Citizens' Panels are made up of a large sample of local residents recruited to be representative of the wider population, who have agreed to respond to postal questionnaires, surveys and other methods of data collection. The questionnaires allow members of the public to express an opinion on the delivery of local services, influence how local public services can be better coordinated and give direction regarding the priorities for the Community Planning Partners
• Young Citizens' Panels
• Open Consultations: Open to all members of the public to respond usually in relation to a notice and/or article in local newspapers and/or local radio
• Targeted Consultations: Aimed at specific interest groups and/or client groups representing users and/or providers of specific services or representing specific geographical areas
• Community councils are another way in which the council consults the community
• Youth Councils
• Public meetings
• Area/Community Forums
• Village appraisal/community auditing
• Have Your Say websites: These websites allow people to comment on exercises that are currently underway as well as ask questions about them
• Website 'Guestbook'/email feedback forms allow members of the public to feed back any information relevant to community planning issues
• Other websites: e.g. Dialogue Youth/YoungScot.org is a website for young people which gives them an opportunity to express their views on various issues
• Emailing, sending suggestions
• ACCESSLine (a dedicated phone line used to contact the council) can be used for raising individual issues or queries anytime with elected members and officers
• One-off surveys
• Questionnaires to users of services
• Individual interviews with users
• Group interviews
• User representatives on a management group
• Focus groups can act as sounding boards on specific issues
• Household surveys/interviews
• Community needs assessments
• Telephone Survey Panels
• Committee Question Times allow the public to question Councillors and officials following Committee meetings
• Radio Phone-ins allow the public to participate in live radio phone-in programmes with Councillors and officials

Innovative methods of involving communities

Girvan and South Carrick Social Inclusion Partnership Youth Representative Group (South Ayrshire)

The SIP established the Youth Representatives Group ( YRG) to encourage young people in the area to have a voice and engage in the planning and development of services with the intention that, through their involvement in the group, young people can have their say, participate in decision-making and have a sense of ownership over issues affecting them in their local community. The YRG has a membership of approximately 50 young people with a core group of about 20 participating on a more regular basis. The group is open to any young person in the area and representatives are also nominated from local youth projects and groups.

Source: http://www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk

Older Person's Services Development Group (Dumfries and Galloway)

The Older Person's Services Development Group ( OPSDG) involvement with the Dumfries and Galloway Better Neighbourhood Services Fund ( BNSF) is an innovative example of sharing power. BNSF has involved older people in all aspects of service provision across the geographical area. This has taken the form of older people's focus groups drawn from membership of the local Elderly Forum. However, the main vehicle has been the Older Person's Services Development Group - this is an older person-led group which holds open meetings across the region on a monthly basis. These meetings are publicised in the area in which they are located and older people are encouraged to attend to find out more about OPSDG.

Source: http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/dumgal/

Community Futures Programme, Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park (Argyll and Bute)

Since 2001, the Community Futures Programme for Loch Lomod and Trossachs National Park has provided support for 25 communities in and around the Park, including in Argyll and Bute, to prepare local Action Plans. The National Park Authority is drawing on these Plans as it develops the first National Park Plan. Communities are also, though, using their Plans to influence and contribute to other public agency policy and services. Key issues to have been raised in the Plans include the problems faced by people in rural areas trying to access trades apprenticeships and the need to improve play and recreation areas. As a result, working groups, including representatives of the communities and a range of relevant organizations, have been established to progress a pilot apprenticeship project and to share ideas and develop a joint vision for play in the Park area.

Source: http://www.communityfuturespartnership.org.uk

Focus Groups Findings

6.3 There was a strong view among the participants in some of the workshops that they had never been so consulted yet seen so little results. They believed that councils, local government and the Scottish Executive should focus on 'getting the job done' rather than discussing what needs to be done. For these communities, the communication process was seen to have already taken place. However, workshop participants in other areas felt they had never been communicated with and felt that better two-way communication was essential.

6.4 In terms of knowledge and use of existing communication channels, the focus group findings suggest that:

• There is some knowledge of the existence of community councils, but less knowledge of their role and who the members are
• local councils seem unpopular with a perception that are run by a few, influential locals, who run the meetings with their own agenda
• many people know they can attend their council meetings but would feel uncomfortable doing so due to individual personalities
• people are generally unaware of Community Planning Partnerships, but do tend to know the identity of their local councillor
• direct access to MSPs and MPs is appealing (surgeries) yet underused due to the short amount of time they are available

6.5 In terms of improving existing communication channels and developing other new ones, focus group participants suggested that:

• communication to communities on the role and potential effectiveness of Community Councils is needed. It was also suggested that councillors need to be more receptive to communication within the community. Perceived barriers to communication at the local level appear to be breeding cynicism of any comments or ideas being taken and resulting in actions
• as a result, a direct communication channel to the Scottish Executive, possibly by email (although it was recognised that this mechanism would not be available to all) is thought to be highly desirable
• they would welcome the opportunity to speak at focus groups again
• feedback on not just the findings of research and consultation exercises, but the resulting (service) outcomes is important
• improved communication with service providers ( e.g. more prompt call handling, less reliance on interactive voice response and feedback on proposed actions) is required.

« Previous | Contents | Next »