Small grants

Struc­ture

• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Delib­er­a­tion; Dis­trib­uted dialogue
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: 1^st choice pub­lic vote. 2^nd choice dis­trib­uted dia­logue. 3^rd choice — delib­er­a­tion. I think due to the value of these lar­ger grants, the loc­al com­munity (pub­lic) should get a vote on how the lar­ger chunks of fund­ing are spent.
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: I was not happy with some of the con­ver­sa­tion going on dur­ing Ses­sion 4. I do not believe that the cur­rent mem­bers of the pan­el are entitled to be part of a decision mak­ing pan­el for award grants. That feels uneth­ic­al con­sid­er­ing we developed the fund­ing struc­ture, and I have already noticed clear bias and a lack of objectiv­ity towards cer­tain top­ics and issues with­in the nation­al park. I see the idea that people don’t want to ​‘give up’ the chance they cur­rently have to sup­port the nation­al park in decision mak­ing as a blatant and embar­rass­ing power grab, and mem­bers of the pan­el who agree with this are speak­ing from the ​‘we’ rather than the ​‘I’, as they don’t want to speak sub­ject­ively in case they are per­ceived poorly. I don’t believe any­one with­in our group is remotely qual­i­fied and impar­tial enough to make decisions on what pro­jects and applic­a­tions should be awar­ded grants, con­sid­er­ing the circles we have gone in based on mem­bers not hav­ing bothered to engage with or read the basic inform­a­tion packs and mater­i­al provided by organ­isers. I have found that dis­cus­sion oppor­tun­it­ies often devolve into people rais­ing per­son­al griev­ances and ven­det­tas against the CNPA, choos­ing to be overly crit­ic­al instead of actu­ally enga­ging with the oppor­tun­ity to build some­thing new and excit­ing. Per­son­ally, I don’t see this as an oppor­tun­ity to cor­rect things but as an oppor­tun­ity to try some­thing new. I have also found that too much time is being spent allow­ing people to talk them­selves round in circles, bring­ing up top­ics that are wholly irrel­ev­ant to the tasks at hand. Often this is a res­ult of mem­bers not hav­ing act­ively engaged with any of the pre-read­ing or pre­par­a­tion mater­i­al. but I do think more could be done to rein in con­ver­sa­tions. I do want to say that I am still very much enjoy­ing be a part of the pan­el and going through this pro­cess and I am very happy with the pro­gress we have made with the fund­ing mod­el design.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment Local
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I think a com­bin­a­tion of cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment and a review from a Loc­al Pan­el is the ideal struc­ture for small grants. The applic­a­tions can be assessed against a stead­fast and con­crete set of cri­ter­ia to ensure that there is a con­sist approach to award the grants, rather than a wishy-washy and bias. approach which is open to influ­ence and To coun­ter­act the rigid meth­od of cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment, I think also have a loc­al pan­el to assist with delib­er­a­tion would work to bring a sub­ject view to how an applic­ants pro­ject can impact the loc­al area, know­ledge that cri­ter­ia can­not address alone. I believe the small grant size should be kept low, allow­ing for a lar­ger pool of recip­i­ent can be accom­mod­ated for. I think a fund­ing range of £500 to £10,000 would be appropriate.
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive models;Criteria-based assess­ment; Ideas
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: We want to engage people who haven’t applied for fund­ing before and make it easy so the ideas chal­lenge could help people see rel­ev­ance to them, an open col­lect­ive mod­el could encour­age par­ti­cipants and widen the decision mak­ing and dis­trib­uted dia­logue also widens decis­on mak­ing. If a cri­ter­ia based assess­ment were used then the cri­ter­ia must be simple and not oner­ous. There is poten­tial to com­bine some of these options for a mixed approach (eg: ideas chal­lenge with cri­ter­ia & based assessment)
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• If you answered ​‘yes’ please describe the change you pro­pose and the reas­on: I think we have made the fund innac­cess­ible by not being spe­cif­ic enough about what pro­jects this fund can sup­port. I believe we could fur­ther divide the money into cat­egor­ies we’ve brought up in con­ver­sa­tion such as: leg­acy pro­jects, eco-tech, per­son­al devel­op­ment, busi­ness start-up sup­port, revenue/​running costs, char­ity sup­port… without this guid­ance, there will be some people who think their needs don’t fit with­in the C2030 themes at first glance. Plus, I think we could all draw from our own beliefs and know­ledge of who we are rep­res­ent­ing with­in this pan­el, to give oppor­tun­it­ies to projects/​people we want to sup­port. Example: how will someone want­ing to apply for fund­ing for a train­ing course find this fund AND if they did find the fund, would they feel that put­ting in an applic­a­tion was worth doing? To them, it may seem that they are bet­ter try­ing to get a stu­dent loan rather than com­pet­ing with so many dif­fer­ent applic­a­tions with vary­ing levels of per­cieved import­ance to the community/​decision makers. But then, we have lost out on sup­port­ing a young per­son who wants to learn and grow to work with­in the community.
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: I think the use of more visu­als, where pos­sible, will help with the influx of inform­a­tion at times. Diagrams/​icons/​visual assist­ance. Also, some more time to reflect on our thoughts before we go into dis­cus­sions. I felt that in the last ses­sion, we were both try­ing to read and under­stand the inform­a­tion and get to grips with how we should apply it to our pro­cess whilst also in break­out rooms where people were already hav­ing dis­cus­sions and it was hard to do everything at once! Would it be pos­sible to see some of the con­tent before the ses­sions to read ahead? Alsoooo last thing, could we hear the use of more examples as part of the main dis­cus­sion when look­ing at dif­fer­ent the­or­ies? I read the examples after the ses­sion on Wed­nes­day and found it SO help­ful in my under­stand­ing of the dif­fer­ent the­or­ies and it was really cool to see how it could work in prac­tice — I think a lot of the oth­ers would bene­fit from this too if there was time to make sure every­one read these at some point? You guys are doing great and I’m really enjoy­ing all the learn­ings and con­ver­sa­tions :) thanks for your hard work!
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Ideas
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I feel that this would be a fairer way of doing it as it is not infuenced by peoples bias and opin­ions instead it is done by almost a check­list fash­ion and has to meet set standards
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive mod­els; Delib­er­a­tion; Ideas
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Des­pite the fact that we want the fund to be as easy as pos­sible, to reduce lim­it­a­tion to applic­a­tion, it is import­ant to make people get cre­at­ive for the bene­fit of the Cairngorms. Set­ting the dir­ec­tion through theme-aligned idea chal­lenge, helps to stim­u­late ideas that fit into the object­ives of the Nation­al Lot­tery Fund. I would love the bulk of this fund, to focus a lot on ideas that increase/​advance edu­ca­tion, engage­ment and vis­ib­il­ity for, on, and around the Cairngorms Nation­al Park — the flora, the fauna, the land­forms, the people, their cus­toms, com­munit­ies, and the inter­ac­tions with the fringes.
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: We need to address the ele­phant in the room, and agree on our defin­i­tion of EDI, if at all, it devi­ates from the con­nomly accep­ted defin­i­tion in the UK.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Deliberation
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Dis­trib­uted dialogue
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• If you answered ​‘yes’ please describe the change you pro­pose and the reas­on: a mixed approach of cri­ter­ia and dis­trib­uted dia­logue ends itself to geo­graph­ic­al break down of park i.e. the elec­ted mem­bers of Park board areas.
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: I feel the pal­let was a use­ful tool but should have been cir­cu­lated pri­or to the meet­ing, I was set­ting it up on a sep­ar­ate machine in order to fully access it while the dis­cus­sion of what was going to be dis­cussed in the break­outs and when we were in the break­outs sev­er­al mem­bers of the pan­el didn’t have access to it so a fully informed dis­cus­sion did not fol­low. If the organ­isers are going to use such mech­an­isms it would be help­ful to share in advance.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Con­sider just two scales small and large to sim­pli­fy pro­cesses and allow a sig­ni­fic­ant num­ber of suc­cess­ful applic­a­tions with­in the lim­it of £1,000,000
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Ideas
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: Need objectiv­ity and clar­ity, encour­age innov­at­ive ideas
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Ideas
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: Need speedy assess­ment cri­ter­ia and award whilst good to try and encour­age innovation
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Delib­er­a­tion; Loc­al panel
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I like the idea of cre­at­ing an event to show­case and award this grant. The idea of set­ting a ques­tion like ​‘what can help your com­munity thrive?’, with a loc­al board of people, with a skill set back­ground, look­ing to take the first wave of applic­a­tions and short list­ing them. This would be done in a very simple pro­cess, video, simply writ­ten etc, really the idea. Once a short list of 20 etc groups had been short­l­is­ted, an event was cre­ated for them to short list, provide details, show case their ideas in more detail and for the pub­lic to see. To award the grants, the pub­lic can get a vote along with the board, so the res­ults can not be based on how many friends you have! The event could be some­thing like Bri­tains got Tal­ent, the event would help cre­ate a launch, cre­ate an oppor­tun­ity for revenue/​business for the loc­al community.
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Ideas challenge
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: It would really empower whole com­munit­ies, pro­mote dis­cus­sion, every­body from the com­munity would be invited to par­ti­cip­ate (incl. chil­dren). The ​“fun’ aspect mit­ig­ates the risk of a core pan­el of sim­il­ar demo­graph­ics to the ones already in ​“power” makes all the decisions. Com­mu­nic­a­tion about the event(s) are paramount.
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: As per my ori­gin­al applic­a­tion, and based on the dis­cus­sions so far, I will keep lob­by­ing to avoid over-rep­res­ent­ativ­ity of typ­ic­al demo­graph­ics of people in power’.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive mod­els; Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: It seems to me that the smal­ler grants should be less work to decide on so a cri­ter­ia ish assess­ment with a quick easy form would be suit­able, maybe mix in that locals/​community members/​a pan­el like ours is the group that assesses the applications.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive models;Criteria-based assessment
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Mixed approach — please explain
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I feel the small grants should be decided by the com­munity in some form, wheth­er a panel/​distributed dia­logue, but should be com­bined with a simple cri­ter­ia based approach to help inform the over­all decision.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Easy to let staff cov­er small fund­ing releases.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive mod­els; Dis­trib­uted dia­logue; Loc­al panel
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I like the ideaof keep­ing it simple whatever that looks like, for small grants
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Deliberation
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: I like to think we as a pan­el will sim­pli­fy the whole pro­cess, and some­times it feels like we are mak­ing things too com­plex which is a reg­u­lar cri­ti­cism of fund­ing in general
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Dis­trib­uted dialogue
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: This, by its very nature will hold the most Applic­a­tions in terms of num­bers. There­fore, we need to ensure that Grants approved are geographically.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: Pan­el mem­ber asked us to not share comments

Medi­um grants

Struc­ture

• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Delib­er­a­tion; Dis­trib­uted dia­logue; Loc­al panel
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: 1^st choice — dis­trib­uted dia­logue. 2^nd choice- delib­er­a­tion. 3^rd choice com­munity pan­el. I think all these options are best suited to the the fund due to geo­graph­ic size and the vari­ety of people/​ideas apply­ing for funding.
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: I don’t think the highest tier of grants needs a dif­fer­ent set of approaches than the medi­um, it just needs to be more thor­ough and con­sidered. This might mean an expan­ded set of cri­ter­ia that the pan­el employ to ensure that the lar­ger applic­a­tion is fin­an­cially feas­ible, can be assessed effect­ively and has bench-mark­ers which can help to define suc­cess. I still believe that it should be in the hands of loc­al people to vote, pass com­ment and even­tu­ally decide on award­ing the grant. How­ever, I think that lar­ger grants should also be assessed by the CNPA, con­sid­er­ing the size of the pot and the size of grants that could be awards. I don’t believe that the large grants should exceed £100,000, and should be capped there to ensure that the small and medi­um levels have a pro­por­tion­al weighting.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Deliberation
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I believe the medi­um level grands selec­tion needs to build from the small grants, keep­ing it rel­at­ively simple for applic­ants to get to the delib­er­a­tion stage, but ensur­ing that it isn’t as straight­for­ward as box tick­ing to secure a grant. By open­ing the floor to more opin­ions and views out­side of the loc­al pan­el, through pub­lic votes and dis­trib­uted dia­logue. This fur­ther informs the pan­els decision to award these grants, hav­ing first nar­rowed them down based on the cri­ter­ia and sub­ject­ive loc­al know­ledge that they will have used in the small grants phase. I agree with the size of grants for the medi­um level, £10,000 to £50,000 can make a massive impact in loc­al com­munit­ies, but also means that the pot isn’t drained with only a hand­ful of applications.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Deliberation
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: These applic­a­tions are get­ting big­ger so the decision pro­cess needs to be more robust; Some form of cri­ter­ia based assess­ment is prob­ably neces­sary. A loc­al pan­el or pub­lic vote would ensure com­munity account­ab­il­ity and the ideas chal­lenge could help ensure a good range of ideas are sub­mit­ted. A mixed approach could work well, for example an ideas chal­lenge with the decision made by a loc­al pan­el dis­cus­sion based on a simplist­ic cri­ter­ia based approach.
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Dis­trib­uted dialogue
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: This is the fund that would be most access­ible to smal­ler groups with less exper­i­ence with fund­ing and who just need to recieve they money quickly to work on their pro­jects. The assess­ment should be made fairly simple, with mul­tiple ways of apply­ing (over the phone, video, port­fo­lio, etc. not just a writ­ten form). Incor­por­at­ing the dis­trib­uted dia­logue as a way of get­ting the work out there and spark­ing con­ver­sa­tions across the park before applic­a­tions open could be bene­fi­cial to link people togeth­er and brainstorm.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive mod­els; Delib­er­a­tion; Ideas
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Applic­a­tions com­plete a cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment in the form of a present­a­tion to a tour­ing open col­lect­ive (to cap­ture voices from around the park) where applic­ants must present and then open up for dis­cus­sions with the open col­lect­ive. Pro­jects that are sup­por­ted by the col­lect­ives go through to a pub­lic vote OR to a cent­ral col­lect­ive for deliberation.
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• If you answered ​‘yes’ please describe the change you pro­pose and the reas­on: This is not far fetched from the Medi­um Grants. I would only love a lot more scru­tiny in the grant-mak­ing pro­cess. I would like to see more focus on Eco-friendly tech­no­logy and invest­ments in the cir­cu­lar eco­nomy for this pot. More import­antly, new ideas should not be the rep­lic­a­tion of some­thing that’s already work­ing, unless it is loc­a­tion spe­cif­ic and the need is import­ant. For the size of this pot, the ideas should be revolu­tion­ary, it should include matched fund­ing of a min­im­um of 40%. It should not be an idea that’s being cur­rently fun­ded by the CNPA through oth­er grant pots, unless its a sus­tain­ab­il­ity issue, where money is being lost from the dis­con­tinu­ation of one grant, and this would aug­ment for lost grant funding.
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: I want the Medi­um Pot to have fixed dates as well. Only the small pot should have rolling apps. I also want the 10% EDI fund to be a sep­ar­ate fund all togeth­er. It is import­ant to set it aside, because ​“true inclus­iv­ity can not be achieved by writ­ing a massive gen­er­al­ised cheque to a hos­pit­al net­work or a school dis­trict. The money would nat­ur­ally flow towards the path of least res­ist­ance which is serving the major­ity demo­graph­ic. True inclus­iv­ity requires spend­ing on highly spe­cif­ic tar­geted and often unglam­or­ous interventions.”
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Ideas
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• If you answered ​‘yes’ please describe the change you pro­pose and the reas­on: I would like to see ideas matched against the use of eco-friendly tech­no­logy, cul­tur­al advance­ment, eco­nom­ic stim­u­la­tion, con­nect­ing with nature and improv­ing nutri­tion­al phys­ic­al and men­tal wellbeing
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: £50 – 75,000 as if lar­ger the whole fund starts get­ting soaked up by a very few pro­jects unless this pot is capped
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: £10 – 50,000
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Ideas
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: The sub­mis­sions need to have names attached for open­ness, trans­par­ency and account­ab­il­ity, oth­er­wise we have no way of know­ing if true views of the panel
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Delib­er­a­tion; Ideas chal­lenge; Loc­al panel
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: All funds to have a fixed date. Also think their should be a fourth pot for ​‘Leg­acy’ this would be a per­son­al, skill set fund­ing for an indi­vidu­als look­ing for fin­ic­al assist­ance to gain new skills and edu­ca­tion. The idea of those skills provid­ing the com­munity long term. Its import­ant to per­haps set this pot aside as i believe that per­son­al devel­op­ment might be lost when people look at the fur­ther afield fund­ing and see com­munity etc. people would not neces­sary apply for a skill set fund otherwise.
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: There has been a dis­cus­sion about the geo­graph­ic­al loc­a­tion of some of the board, whilst I can see what they are refer­ring to. I feel that many of the board have very strong feel­ings where the money should be alloc­ated too. People on the verge of the boarder or fur­ther afield I believe have no pre-set objec­tions to where or how the money should be alloc­ated, we are there to merely set up the fairest, and easi­est fund applic­a­tion and as a group we should be neut­ral in our approach, leav­ing aside any pro­jects or funds that are close to ourselves.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Deliberation
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: This grant should have a little more cri­ter­ia based to it, does not mean war and peace has to be sup­plied, but a more form­al approach. Again a loc­al pan­el of pro­fes­sion­al people that have an insight of the area and their fields, hos­pit­al­ity, farm­ing, tour­ism, events, PR etc. They have the abil­ity of delib­er­at­ing, ask­ing ques­tions and then agree­ing to the funds. Again work­ing to a closed date.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Delib­er­a­tion; Loc­al pan­el; Mixed approach
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: only if the pan­el is paid, ideally par­ti­cipants picked at ran­dom, to avoid usu­al prob­lems of over rep­res­ent­ativ­ity of upper middle class male white retir­ees. If this isn’t pos­sible, then pub­lic vote after short­l­ist­ing from a pro­fes­sion­al pan­el (e.g CNPA)
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• If you answered ​‘yes’ please describe the change you pro­pose and the reas­on: I don’t pro­pose a spe­cif­ic change for now, to me the struc­ture of the fund­ing is less import­ant than the process(es). So I’d rather define the pro­cesses for them to be fair, involving true rep­res­ent­ativ­ity of the com­munit­ies, and then see if some pro­cesses are bet­ter suited for cer­tain pots (geo­graphy, themes, size…)
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive mod­els; Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I espe­cially like the idea of some sort of combo of a dis­trib­uted dia­loque mixed with col­lect­ive mod­els, not sure how it’d work exactly yet though.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Mixed approach — please explain
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I also feel medi­um grants should involve the com­munity but with heav­ier input from a cri­ter­ia base.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: I think a cri­ter­ia needs to be used in all size of grants in order to inform com­munity decisions but this should be very basic at the small level and more inde­pth at the lar­ger level.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive models
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Should be great­er depth for the amount of.

Large grants

Struc­ture

• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Delib­er­a­tion; Dis­trib­uted dialogue
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: 1^st choice dis­trib­uted dia­logue. 2^nd choice- delib­er­a­tion. 3^rd choice com­munity pan­el. I think all these options are best suited to the fund due to geo­graph­ic size and the vari­ety of people/​ideas apply­ing for funding.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Same
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Same
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Ideas
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: We remove lar­ger funds, we only have £1M and giv­ing large awards by defin­i­tion must pre­vent mul­tiple smal­ler worth awards. Lar­ger Grant applic­a­tions covered mul­tiple oth­er places with­in park funding
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Ideas
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: Lar­ger grsnts need clesr cri­ter­ia, but also swift decision making
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment; Deliberation
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Grants should work to a fixed clos­ing date, with a pan­el of selec­ted pro­fes­sion­al from the com­munity. The pro­fes­sion­al sec­tors should spread across the factors of what the grants are being applied for, farm­ing, hos­pit­al­ity, tour­ism, HR etc. They would be able to delib­er­ate, ask ques­tions or award very quickly and simply.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Delib­er­a­tion; Loc­al pan­el; Mixed approach
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: only if the pan­el is paid, ideally par­ti­cipants picked at ran­dom, to avoid usu­al prob­lems of over rep­res­ent­ativ­ity of upper middle class male white retir­ees. If this isn’t pos­sible, then pub­lic vote after short­l­ist­ing from a pro­fes­sion­al pan­el (e.g CNPA)
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• If you answered ​‘yes’ please describe the change you pro­pose and the reas­on: I don’t pro­pose a spe­cif­ic change for now, to me the struc­ture of the fund­ing is less import­ant than the process(es). So I’d rather define the pro­cesses for them to be fair, involving true rep­res­ent­ativ­ity of the com­munit­ies, and then see if some pro­cesses are bet­ter suited for cer­tain pots (geo­graphy, themes, size…)
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive mod­els; Cri­ter­ia-based assessment
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: Hav­ing trouble sep­ar­at­ing this from the medi­um grants size while just think­ing about all the pos­sib­il­it­ies. I do feel like the larger/​more import­ant the grant the more com­munity involve­ment and decision-mak­ing in whatever form there should be.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Col­lect­ive models;Criteria-based assessment
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: Very open to hear­ing sug­ges­ted changes but don’t have any myself.
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Open text box
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: see my online comments
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Open text box
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: In my opin­ion this ques­tion is incom­pat­ible with the struc­ture required by this consultation
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Open text box
• Do you want the Pan­el to: Yes
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: Indeed — I believe that the above struc­ture is incom­pat­ible with the struc­ture set up by this consultation
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Open text box
• Is there any­thing else you want us to know?: Pan­el mem­ber provided per­son­al email address and no fur­ther com­ments, so we have removed this for anonymity
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Mixed approach — please explain
• Please share your think­ing for this grant size: I feel the large grants should be sub­ject to the most in depth cri­ter­ia based approach with com­munity involve­ment only after this.
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Cri­ter­ia-based assess­ment Loc­al pan­el; Pub­lic vote
• Which approach or com­bin­a­tion: Deliberation
• Do you want the Pan­el to: No