The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Introduction

2.1 This chapter presents the findings from a desk review of materials relating to the pilot project, including both project documentation and information gathered to understand the wider context. ⁴ It also draws on in-depth interviews with stakeholders. The chapter starts by outlining the context of the project, followed by three sections looking at the main aims of the evaluation: the effectiveness of the pilot in terms of its impact on community engagement, the pilot's contribution to the functioning and role of involved Community Councils ( CCs) and the potential for wider rollout to other CCs and groups throughout Scotland.

Community Councils in Scotland

2.2 CCs in their current form, were legislated for by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to act as a link between local authorities and their communities. The legislation indicates that the CC role is "to ascertain, coordinate and express…the views of the community which it represents", thereby ensuring that statutory bodies are informed of the opinions of local communities. In particular, CCs must be consulted on two specific issues: liquor licenses and planning.

2.3 However, CCs are not actually part of the formal government structure in Scotland and are run by volunteers alone. Local authorities are required to set out a scheme for the provision of CCs in their area and as a result their remit and roles vary considerably across the country. There is little guidance for the CCs on actually how they should carry out their roles (Goodlad et al 1999, in Whyte et al, 2005).

2.4 CCs may be involved in a wide range of activities from organising events to providing public bodies with a means of consulting with their community. It is this latter task which has in recent years become the main focus of the councillors' work, as there is increased emphasis on the importance of enabling local people to have an influence over issues affecting their lives. CCs are considered well-placed to judge the potential impact of new or changed policies and as a result now find themselves inundated with consultation papers and the corresponding administrative burden of ascertaining local people's views in response.

2.5 Community Councils were established by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and were formed to bridge the gap between local authorities and local communities and to make local authorities and other public bodies aware of the opinions, needs and preferences of the communities they represent. The provisions require local authorities to introduce community council schemes for their areas and provided them with a fair amount of discretion in determining the arrangements for their area, e.g. elections, procedures for meetings etc. In addition to their primary role of obtaining and expressing the views of the community which they represent on issues of local interest, Community Councils can also involve themselves in a wide range of other activities including organising civic and charitable events and the provision and maintenance of flower beds etc.

It is through responding to these consultations that CCs can have an actual impact on the development of policy and service provision relating to their constituents. However, the literature suggests their ability to respond can be limited by a range of factors:

• Membership of CCs often does not reflect the diversity of the communities they aim to represent. The Association of Scottish Community Councils ( ASCC) national survey in 2004 showed that the average age of a councillor was then 55 (Bonney, 2005).
• There is a shortfall in membership and the election process is not formalised - elections are often not held for new members, since there tend to be fewer nominees than posts to fill (Bonney, 2005).
• CCs rely on volunteer resource alone.
• In addition to reliance on volunteer resource, the CCs work with very limited budgets (in 2004, the mean administrative grant for a CC was £677) which vary according to the local authority (Bonney, 2005).

2.6 The pilot project provided an opportunity to address some of the challenges CCs face, by exploring methods of engaging with the public through the use of new technologies. The outcomes of the pilot project were intended to help CCs to improve and enhance their methods of working.

Broader policy consultation

2.7 At a broader level, the Scottish Executive is currently carrying out a wider review of the role of CCs. Aside from the factors mentioned above, the consultation has recognised:

• that there is a lack of interest in CC elections;
• there are concerns that the volunteer councillors do not receive any formal training; and
• communication between local councils and CCs on what their role should be, is insufficient.

2.8 The Scottish Executive consultation will help to determine the next steps to be taken in determining the future of the CCs. ⁵ Learning from the Renewing Democracy pilot will also need to be fed into mainstream policy development as it provides valuable lessons in relation to the Councils' ability to meet their aims and objectives.

Pilot project planning stage

2.9 The 'Renewing Local Democracy' pilot project was funded by the Scottish Executive through the 21 ^st Century Government Unit and ran from January 2004 to January 2006.

2.10 The project was seen as a "ground up"(Whyte et al, 2005) initiative, since it was instigated by Strathfillan Community Council and its partners, who sought the funding from the Scottish Executive.

Pilot aims and objectives

2.11 The funding agreement with the Scottish Executive stated that the purpose of the funds allocated (£169,000) was to "investigate the use of information and communication technologies to facilitate the renewal of participation in the democratic decision-making process at the local community level".

2.12 The overall aim was further divided into specific objectives including:

• "Develop efficient ways of summarising and disseminating appropriate information to community groups throughout Scotland"
• "Encourage an increase in responses by those communities that have not typically participated previously". (Scottish Executive, 2003)

2.13 The Mission Statement of the 'Renewing Local Democracy Working Group' also demonstrated a strong commitment to these overarching aims, to enable people to have a greater influence over their lives.

2.14 In-depth interviews revealed that the aims and objectives of the project were interpreted differently by project stakeholders with some - the International Teledemocracy Centre at Napier University ( ITC) as well as some of the councillors - focussing on the pilot website as a tool to help CCs function more effectively rather than as a method of engaging the community in democratic processes.

Identification of needs

2.15 During phase one of the project, the needs of the CCs were identified through a process of consultation with the steering group. This included questionnaires and interviews with the councillors, as well as observation at CC meetings. A prototype toolkit was designed by ITC and demonstrated to the steering group and the initial pilot CC, Strathfillan. This particular Community Council was chosen for the first pilot phase because of the members' proficient IT skills (thereby enabling the first testing phase to avoid obstacles presented by difficulties in using IT). A demonstration of the system was also held in a Strathfillan school and young people were asked to make contributions.

2.16 The first phase of the project was used to inform refinements of the prototype and a revised version was then piloted during the second phase across a wider group of CCs, chosen to represent a cross-section of groups - both with and without previous access to and familiarity with IT, from urban and rural areas and from a 'wide economic background'.

2.17 A strength of the project was therefore the commitment to involving CCs from the very start in the design and testing of the tools, in order to ensure they fully met their requirements.

Community involvement

2.18 During the planning stage of the project - and afterward - there appears however to have been little involvement of the general public / local communities in informing the design of the pilot website. We would perhaps have expected to see local communities consulted on whether they would use a website such as this, and what features it might include. Generally stakeholders reported that they relied on their own experience of their local communities to input the communities' views into the pilot project and communities themselves were not consulted. This may have been due to a lack of time since the councillors worked on a voluntary basis.

2.19 The only area where communities were involved to any great extent was in ITC's final report. The final report outlined several activities undertaken to ensure the evaluation was informed by the public including both users and non-users of the website. However the response rates appeared to have been relatively low.

2.20 Regarding the objective to 'encourage an increase in responses by those communities that have not previously participated' the project partners chose to focus on the community as a whole, since traditionally public participation in community councils has been very low. In the design phase, participation by the community was limited to the opportunity to attend and comment on a demonstration of the prototype at a community council public meeting. The Community Councillors themselves were relied upon to articulate the needs of the communities they represent, including communities that have not traditionally taken part in public meetings and those considered to be less inclined to use the internet. In the evaluation phase, the ITC chose to target communities in areas of relative socio-economic deprivation by holding hands-on testing sessions in public internet access points ( e.g. in libraries) in those areas, which were advertised in local community newspapers. They stated that while it would have been desirable to make contact with groups representing the (very small) ethnic minority communities in the areas concerned, they regretted the community councils had not been able to identify any specific groups to involve in the evaluation.

Assessing pilot project outcomes and impacts

2.21 It was important to bear in mind the scale and context of this pilot project when assessing the outcomes and impacts to date. The final 'live' trial period of the pilot website was only three months, following more than 18 months of planning and testing of the prototype toolkit. We would suggest that three months was not long enough to thoroughly test out the pilot website. Also, the trial was carried out in six CCs, out of a total of 1,200 CCs across Scotland.

2.22 Furthermore, while written documentation relating to all stages of the Renewing Democracy Project was used in this evaluation ⁶ much of this material was from the planning stages and the main source of information on project outcomes and impacts was the final report produced by the project development partner, ITC (Whyte et al, 2006). In many instances the conclusions given in this final report were based on small samples, with the exception of the Stirling Panel survey.

Impacts on Community Engagement

2.23 The first broad aim of the pilot project was to engage the community in local issues of relevance to the CC's remit. Given the short timeframe the pilot website was available, and the small scale of this project, awareness and usage of the pilot website by members of the public was low, as explained below.

Usage and awareness

2.24 Overall, awareness of the pilot website was fairly low within the six pilot areas. In terms of awareness, ITC's survey of the Stirling Citizens' Panel showed that two in five (41%) people living in the participating CC areas were aware of the website ⁷. Despite the inclusion of a 'work package' during phase two of the project to carry out local promotional activities, no centrally coordinated campaign for dissemination was implemented. Stakeholders also confirmed that only limited marketing activity was undertaken in local areas (such as posters, postcards and newsletters) and that no door-to-door activity was completed.

2.25 Looking at usage, the ITC final report (Whyte et al, 2006) noted that during the three month pilot, 96 contributions from the public were made to the six pilot websites; with the number of visitors rising to 1,296 in the third month (November). Take-up varied between the CCs involved and was higher in communities where there had been a prominent public issue during the period. For example 'hot topics' in some areas stimulated high levels of usage ( e.g. the housing stock transfer debate on the Bannockburn website). Stakeholders had mixed views on the usage levels; some had very low expectations that were surpassed, whereas others were disappointed the website had not been used more.

2.26 In a paper on the roll out of the E- CC project (Riley, written July 2005 and modified July 2006) a councillors, and founder of the Renewing Local Democracy group, noted that the project had been criticised because of low levels of utilisation by local people. They questioned whether this was in fact "a symptom of the democratic malaise in society" rather than a problem connected with the actual pilot website. In fact, the ITC final report claims that the level of usage of the website compares favourably with other e-democracy tools (such as local authority websites). Usage levels are explored in more detail in the chapter three.

Involving new users

2.27 The pilot website encouraged some new people into the discussion of local issues that may not have taken place otherwise.

2.28 To put this in context, the ASCC 2004 national survey showed that the average level of public attendance at CC meetings was five persons (Bonney, 2005). Response rates to paper surveys distributed by CCs were also typically low. ITC's survey of the Stirling Citizen's Panel found that 71% of the respondents had never contacted a CC before about an issue, showing that the level of engagement using traditional communication methods was low. However, more than two thirds of those surveyed on the Panel expressed an interest in using a website to give their views and two in three respondents (67%) indicated that they used the internet at least once a week. Further, 11 out of 13 respondents to field tests carried out by ITC among members of the public in Bannockburn and Cambusbarron either agreed or strongly agreed that the e-Community Council site would help a wider range of people to have a say on local issues. The convenience offered by the pilot website may therefore present a significant advantage to members of the public who may wish to communicate with their local CC but find themselves constrained by the restrictions of the existing communication channels available.

2.29 Corroborating this, one councillor said attendance at their regular meetings had grown from 2-3 people to around 3-5 people each time, and attributed this to raised levels of interest due to the pilot website. Stakeholders also confirmed one new member of the public had been convinced to join the CC as they could mainly participate through convenient online tools rather than face to face. An evaluation questionnaire placed on the phase one website by ITC showed that already, three users of the website were people who had not had any previous contact with the CC, which - although very small scale - was positive.

Involving disadvantaged groups

2.30 The project also aimed to "encourage an increase in responses by those communities that have not typically participated previously". As stated above, at the planning stage, the project team had not attempted to identify these communities.

2.31 The ITC report points out that by nature, the pilot website may be more attractive to groups which traditionally do not participate in democracy - in fact the survey of the Stirling Citizen's Panel showed that the tools have most appeal for those in the age groups 25-34 and 35-44. The level of interest for those aged 16-24 was also high at 77%, which was very positive, given that younger people are often seen as the most politically disengaged. (Whyte et al, 2006). However no evidence was available on the extent to which this level of interest translated into usage of the website.

2.32 There was also a commitment in the Working Group Mission Statement to "developing an e-democracy model which can be used by people with limited skills" (Renewing Local Democracy Working Group) and the tools were designed to be compliant with Web Accessibility Initiative ( WAI) content guidelines, which showed that the steering group was aware of the need to address skills and accessibility issues. ⁸ The councillors were provided with a manual with clear instructions on how to use the site, as well as training sessions.

2.33 The CCs involved in the pilot varied in terms of their experience / skills in using IT, as well as in demographic characteristics. However the ITC final report (Whyte et al, 2006) noted that they were mainly small urban and rural communities with relatively affluent, middle-aged characteristics (apart from Bannockburn); where internet access was likely to be high. A user survey conducted by ITC revealed 19 of the 20 respondents were accessing the pilot website via internet at home ⁹. Furthermore, aside from the demonstration in the Strathfillan school, the project did not appear to have incorporated activities to ensure groups with specific needs (young people, BME groups, disabled people) were able to participate. This is not to say necessarily that such groups were in any way excluded.

2.34 In the in-depth interviews, stakeholders agreed that the pilot project did not successfully engage 'disadvantaged or excluded' groups and most suspected that very few 'new' or 'diverse' groups had been involved in the pilot project. In fact most took a very narrow view of 'disadvantaged' taking it to mean those without access to IT, without considering the wider issues around why particular groups do not or cannot participate in their community (for example due to learning or language difficulties, disability, or simply lack of interest). Given the timescale and scope of the pilot, run mainly by volunteers, it was perhaps understandable that this issue could not be addressed in full. In addition it should be noted that the project's working assumption was that "those communities that have not previously participated" referred primarily to the majority of geographic communities represented by the community councils. In the evaluation phase, ITC chose to target communities in areas of socio-economic deprivation.

2.35 Furthermore, there were no mechanisms to identify or measure the diversity of contributors to the website (there was no registration facility for example and visitors were required to provide only a name and e-mail address to post a message). Therefore for future roll out, as well as implementing additional activities in order to address this objective, we feel it will be important to include monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the extent to which disadvantaged groups are engaged can be measured.

Impacts on users of the pilot website

2.36 A user survey conducted on the phase one website by ITC, suggested some positive impacts on the community in terms of increasing awareness of the CCs and improving peoples' attitudes towards joining in - with seven respondents said they were more likely to become involved in the CC. (However, the small number of survey respondents means that the results of this survey were limited in scope.) ¹⁰

2.37 In the in-depth interviews stakeholders felt that the pilot website had several positive impacts on the community including:

• improved awareness in the community of CCs;
• improved understanding of the CC's roles (enhanced profile);
• improved transparency of the CC's business - in some cases leading to improved trust in public administrations; and
• local people raising and discussing local issues, with some issues resolved via the website. ¹¹

Contribution to the functioning and role of involved Community Councils

2.38 The second broad aim of the pilot project was "to help Community Councils to engage with the community and participate in decision making by government and service providers" (Whyte et al, 2005).

2.39 Existing methods used by CCs to facilitate their work included newsletters, community notice boards, surveys, face-to-face and telephone contact, letters and public meetings. The general consensus was that meetings were ineffective in gathering community views due to the low level of public attendance (Whyte et al, 2006). Furthermore, the ASCC national survey showed that in 2004, just over one in three CCs e-mailed the minutes of their meetings to others in the community and only one in five CCs dealt with planning matters by e-mail. This suggested that an increase in the use of electronic communication could help many CCs to improve their efficiency and communicate with a wider audience. This is further supported by the respondents to the field tests carried out by ITC among members of the public in Cambusbarron and Bannockburn - 12 out of 13 indicated that they felt the e-Community Council site would help a Community Council to keep people informed more effectively.

2.40 The pilot project was therefore intended to offer a new medium to help CCs undertake their usual activity more effectively and perhaps for some, to facilitate new activities, or links with new groups. The pilot website included a toolkit which incorporated functions to enable information provision, awareness, consultation and dialogue. As well as the chance to publish documents of interest (minutes, consultation papers), the toolkit included an events and news diary and the chance for individuals to write comments or submit items for the home page. The tools were not intended to replace traditional methods but to complement them and offer a more convenient (faster, cheaper, easier and available 24/7) means of undertaking CC business.

2.41 The pilot website was also intended to allow CCs to communicate amongst themselves, as well as with the community. The website incorporated a facility for the councillors to communicate in 'private' in a secure area.

2.42 The toolkit also facilitated consultations. The User Requirements noted that this was now the main activity of the CCs and as outlined earlier, the workload involved in administering the increasing number of consultations was too great for many of the volunteer councillors. Prior to the pilot, many consultations were not distributed to the wider public (the cost implications alone in terms of copying and postage rendered further distribution impossible and the short deadlines for responses meant that there was often no CC meeting before submission was required). Instead the CC tended to respond on behalf of the community. The pilot website was designed to support and facilitate this process.

2.43 Overall, the ITC final report shows that the councillors involved in the pilot were positive about the benefits the pilot website offered them and this was confirmed in the in-depth interviews we undertook. However usage of the website among the CCs involved was rather low and restricted to two key councils, as described below.

Impacts on community councils - understanding the local community

2.44 The ITC final report noted that, in particular, the councillors welcomed the ability to communicate more effectively on the different levels - amongst themselves, with the public and with stakeholders. Councillors were keen to improve community involvement and to ensure that the responses they provide to stakeholder consultations are well-informed, and it was recognised in feedback provided to ITC that the pilot website could help them to improve their current level of interaction with the public. The in-depth interviews confirmed that CCs felt they now better understood their local community and could now more easily tap into their local community's views. Similarly, eleven respondents to ITC's phase one evaluation questionnaire felt the website would help the CC to represent their views. This suggests that for members of the public who used the website, it represented a useful tool which could help the CCs to accurately reflect their views upwards.

Impacts on community councils - creating local change

2.45 In some cases, the website allowed CCs to facilitate change in their local community through consultation with the public. The Phase One Status Report argued that the tools "helped one CC [Strathfillan] to make advances in gaining new speed restrictions in the community, a new pedestrian crossing and financial support for new recreational facilities" (E- CC Steering Group, 2005). In in-depth interviews stakeholders also gave some examples of local changes that had taken place, such as a local bus route that had been altered due to a petition organised online.

Impacts on community councils - practical benefits

2.46 There were also other more practical benefits for CCs ¹²:

• documents could be distributed more quickly and effectively;
• savings were being made on postage and photocopying;
• summaries of consultations and incoming documentation could be posted on the website;
• CC meetings had become shorter, more productive and better informed;
• agendas and minutes could be circulated more easily;
• items could be added to the agenda from the discussion parts of the website; and
• responses could be provided more quickly (for example a representative could be found to attend any relevant local meetings taking place).

2.47 Most participating councillors said they found the website toolkit helpful and found it relatively easy to learn to use.

Councillors' usage of the website

2.48 However, the enthusiasm for the website toolkit was not reflected in actual usage by the CCs involved. The ITC final report shows that over half of the activity on the website was undertaken by two Councils (Bannockburn and Cambusbarron) and during the pilot phase, only five consultations were posted (with one single response received). By the end of the project, none of the websites were routinely used by the councillors to communicate privately and less than half of the councillors involved had written an item for the website. This was in part due to the short timeframe of the pilot - three months did not allow sufficient time for the councillors to adjust their working methods. In addition, consultation with the councillors revealed that some felt that online communication was 'inferior' (in comparison to face-to-face contact or public debate) and there were concerns over lack of internet access for the public.

2.49 The ITC report also highlighted a concern that the upkeep of the websites would represent an administrative burden to CCs. At the end of the pilot, it was found that for the secretaries involved, their workload had increased. It was important to bear in mind that the councillors were all volunteers and increasing their workload may have a negative impact on both recruitment and retention. In order to be effective and for the public to perceive the website as high quality, regular updates are required, which although relatively low cost in terms of technology, will require ongoing time-commitment.

Issues around rollout to other Community Councils and groups throughout Scotland

2.50 The 'Phase Two Work Plan' outlined a commitment to disseminating the outcomes of the pilot and to "recommend how best practice e-democracy systems should be rolled out in local communities across Scotland" (International Teledemocracy Centre, 2005) in order to assure the long-term success of the project. However this issue was only now being tackled by the project steering group. Our experience of programme management leads us to suggest that further sustainability planning at an earlier stage of the project may have been beneficial to ensure smoother continuity of the project once the funding from the Scottish Executive ran out, together with an element of 'risk assessment' (what action would be taken in order to address a lack of take-up from the public, etc) in order to have been able to quickly address problems which arose as the project was implemented.

Options for rollout

2.51 Once funding had ended, it was clear that all the stakeholders were committed to extending the pilot into a longer-term project although the format for this was undecided. The project documentation presented various possible ways of rolling out the project in a more sustainable way, including forming sub-groups or debating groups, setting up a 'virtual CC forum' and employing dedicated staff for maintaining the website and providing specialist support (Riley, 2006). The tools could also be used in varying ways - for example by pooling resources or forming 'clusters' of CCs and stakeholders (Whyte et al, 2006) in one area, in order to share out the associated workload and improve coordination among local stakeholders.

2.52 Stakeholders reported they were also beginning to explore several possible avenues for future rollout of the project including:

• Securing funding from Stirling Council to extend the project to the whole Stirling area;
• Securing funding from other local authorities to extend to other areas;
• Establishment of a company with charitable status;
• Approaching a bank to borrow the funds; or
• A self-funding model where all 1,200 CCs pay a subscription fee from their own core funds to take part in the rolled out scheme.

2.53 The stakeholders were not willing to fund the website through commercial means (such as allowing paid advertising) as other community websites do, although we would recommend consideration of this option alongside the others.

Barriers to rollout

2.54 Our review of the literature, documentation and in-depth interviews suggests that rollout - if undertaken - may be hampered by a number of barriers.

2.55 First it was clear from the wider literature, and from in-depth interviews that each CC was different and as shown by the pilot, the impact of the tools can vary greatly depending on factors such as the level of enthusiasm of the councillors involved. A 'one-size-fits-all' model would not be appropriate and instead the functionalities in the toolkit could perhaps form part of a 'selection box' from which each CC could choose those which would best meet its needs.

2.56 Secondly, doing more to encourage take-up by both members of the public and the councillors would be vital. Effective, targeted publicity would be essential. For the public, the website must be seen to meet users' needs (responding within a reasonable timeframe to comments, ensuring the website is regularly updated, removing items which are out of date) ¹³ and demonstrate impacts (so people can see where they have helped to make a difference). For the councillors, the website should show how it will improve and enhance their working processes, rather than add to their workload. It would be therefore be advisable for the steering group to 'start small' by trying to encourage neighbouring CCs to come on board before attempting anything at a wider scale.

2.57 Thirdly, it was clear from the documentation and from our in-depth interviews that the tools need to be accessible and easy to use. The pilot website was designed for end-users with 'no more than basic IT skills' (Whyte et al, 2005). However, the councillors required fairly complex IT skills in order to use all the facilities on the website and many councillors had to receive additional training. This would represent an additional cost and/or barrier to take-up on a wider scale given that councillors were volunteers; tend to be older; do not have high level expertise in IT; and might not be willing to spend time attending a training course. Other solutions, suggested in the in-depth interviews included the development of a user-manual or interactive self-help training DVD for future users. The manual produced for councillors could be used as a starting-point to develop such products.

2.58 Fourth, a lack of IT equipment was also a barrier to rollout. In 2004, over four out of five CCs did not have their own computers or photocopiers (Bonney, 2005), therefore any rollout of the tools would rely on the volunteer councillors using their own equipment. This also applied to the public. Of the pilot population of 16,051 ¹⁴, the ITC final report states that roughly 7,000 would have internet access, very few with broadband - and few public internet facilities were available. ¹⁵ It was therefore essential that such tools are maintained as complementary, rather than alternative to traditional communication methods.

2.59 Fifth, many other CCs already have their own websites. In 2004, one in four CCs had their own website (Bonney, 2005) and we suspect this has since increased. There are also many free facilities available for groups to formulate their own websites and implement tools such as questionnaires and surveys. The ITC final report of the project acknowledged this but suggested that the benefit of the pilot website was its interactive facility, which allowed not only communication from and with the public but also private communication amongst councillors. Our review of comparison websites in chapter five presents more information on this issue.

Summary

2.60 The pilot project demonstrated some small-scale impacts in terms of attracting some new users to participate in community consultation and led to some changes in local issues (such as changing bus routes). However, it did not market itself well to local communities and did not engage any specific BME and disabled groups.

2.61 More notably the pilot influenced the role and functioning of CCs. The councillors involved in the pilot felt it helped to raise the profile of CCs, allowing local people to gain information and to communicate with their CC representatives, and speeded up communications and improved the efficiency of certain CC functions. However in some cases it actually increased workloads, particularly for secretaries and only two CCs actively used the website for any reasonable period of time. The success of the tools particularly depended on factors such as the level of enthusiasm from the councillors involved.

2.62 Our review of the documentation suggested that the toolkit may receive a positive response if opened out to a wider number of CCs - dissemination activities carried out during the pilot have in fact already generated some interest. The recent consultation around the future of CCs (carried out by the Scottish Executive), suggests that this is a timely opportunity for learning from the project to be shared on a wider basis, in the hope of improving the working methods and profile of CCs.

2.63 However several barriers exist to rollout including varying levels of IT skills (particularly among older CC volunteers) and access to IT equipment and the internet (for councillors and the public), as well as the fact that many CCs already have their own website and may not wish to subscribe to an alternative model.

« Previous | Contents | Next »