Summary - Session 5 - Survey responses
Cairngorms 2030 Communities Fund Panel
Session 5 — Survey Responses
The purpose of this survey was to capture your thinking on the best approach for the fund. This will inform Session 6. There are several options on the table, so you were encouraged to consider the options and share your view. We also asked you to reflect on the structure and provided an open text space for feedback or questions about the Panel process.
The survey was open from Friday 15 May to Tuesday 19 May.
12 out of 18 members of the panel responded.
Unedited and anonymised survey responses are available to view. Where numbers are reflected we have rounded to the nearest whole number.
Summary of your responses
| Topic | Page |
|---|---|
| Grant size ranges | 2 |
| When people should be able to apply | 2 |
| Criteria principle | 3 |
| Idea generation | 4 |
| Community decision-making | 5 |
| Eligibility | 7 |
| Project scope | 8 |
| EDI statement | 9 |
| Comments on process | 10 |
Grant size ranges
Respondents were asked to suggest minimum and maximum figures for each grant size. Results below show the range of suggestions with the median.
| Grant size | Minimum range | Maximum range |
|---|---|---|
| Small | £200 — £1,000 | £2,000 — £15,000 |
| Medium | £2,000 — £15,001 | £10,000 — £50,000 |
| Large | £10,000 — £100,000 | £50,000 — £250,000 |
Comments
- Several respondents felt the large grant maximum should be capped to prevent two or three awards consuming the whole fund.
- One respondent suggested £100,000 is far too high as a maximum.
- One noted flexibility on the small grants lower threshold. Note that the Park Authority will have a view on what is feasible in terms of an upper limit on the number of small grants they can process.
- One raised concern about grants for CPD or courses without evidence of long-term community benefit. Note that the Panel decided not to have legacy and skill as a dedicated ‘pot’ but we might want to consider this as part of the eligibility and criteria development.
When people should be able to apply
We invited open text responses to this question. Responses showed a preference for rolling applications for small grants and fixed rounds for medium and large grants, though views varied.
| Grant size | Summary |
|---|---|
| Small | Strong instinct for rolling, open at any time (majority view) |
| Medium | Mixed, leaning toward fixed rounds |
| Large | Strong instinct for fixed rounds with set deadlines |
Comments
- One respondent suggested medium grants every 6 weeks and large grants every quarter.
- One felt all sizes should have fixed rounds to allow fair comparison.
- One wanted all sizes open all year round.
Criteria principle
Respondents were asked whether they agreed with the following principle: criteria check if you’re in the running — the community decides the rest.
Does this principle feel right to you: criteria check if you’re in the running, the community decides the rest 11 responses
Image: A pie chart showing responses to the question “Does this principle feel right to you: criteria check if you’re in the running, the community decides the rest?”.
- Yes, I agree with this: 45.5%
- Mostly, but with some reservations (please share in section open text box): 45.5%
- No, I think criteria should play a bigger role (please share in section open text box): 9.1%
Comments
- One respondent questioned whether the Panel had fully agreed the principle and noted that a definition of “community” is still needed.
- One suggested small grants could skip community decision-making entirely if the criteria check is sufficient.
- One felt criteria could play a scoring role rather than just a gateway role.
Idea generation
Respondents were asked to comment on how the fund should reach applicants and presented options which were emerging from discussion.
Direct applications and active outreach are the dominant preferences across all three grant sizes. Distributed dialogue grows in support as grant size increases. Ideas challenge has modest but consistent support.
| Approach | Small | Medium | Large |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct applications | 11 (92%) | 11 (92%) | 8 (67%) |
| Active outreach | 10 (83%) | 10 (83%) | 9 (75%) |
| Distributed dialogue | 6 (50%) | 8 (67%) | 8 (67%) |
| Ideas challenge | 3 (25%) | 3 (25%) | 4 (33%) |
Small grants
Image: A bar chart showing responses for small grants idea generation approaches.
- Direct applications — people hear about the fund and apply directly: 11 (91.7%)
- Active outreach through local networks, community groups a…: 10 (83.3%)
- Distributed dialogue — community conversations held across the…: 6 (50%)
- An ideas challenge — a themed prompt or question that invites…: 3 (25%)
- simple criteria apply and you then get the funding: 1 (8.3%)
Medium grants
Image: A bar chart showing responses for medium grants idea generation approaches.
- Direct applications — people hear about the fund and apply directly: 11 (91.7%)
- Active outreach through local networks, community groups a…: 10 (83.3%)
- Distributed dialogue — community conversations held across the…: 8 (66.7%)
- An ideas challenge — a themed prompt or question that invites…: 3 (25%)
- Criteria may do more than just check you are in scope, maybe…: 1 (8.3%)
Large grants
Image: A bar chart showing responses for large grants idea generation approaches.
- Direct applications — people hear about the fund and apply directly: 8 (66.7%)
- Distributed dialogue — community conversations held across the…: 8 (66.7%)
- Active outreach through local networks, community groups a…: 9 (75%)
- An ideas challenge — a themed prompt or question that invites…: 4 (33.3%)
- Local Rag/Newspaper: 1 (8.3%)
- Greater role for criteria but final decision taken by community: 1 (8.3%)
Community decision-making
Respondents were asked to comment on how the fund should involve communities in decision-making and presented options which were gaining broad support based on our discussions.
Small grants
Community panel 6 (50%), distributed dialogue first 3 (25%), ideas challenge 2 (17%)
Image: A bar chart showing responses for small grants community decision-making approaches.
- A local community panel that reads applications and decides: 6 (50%)
- Distributed dialogue first — helping people develop ideas before ap…: 3 (25%)
- An ideas challenge — a themed prompt that invites people to ap…: 2 (16.7%)
- A blended panel of local and park-wide people (possibly with…): 1 (8.3%)
- Simple community panel to decide after shortlisted by criter…: 1 (8.3%)
Medium grants
Recruited local panel 9 (75%), deliberative process 5 (42%), ideas challenge 2 (17%)
Image: A bar chart showing responses for medium grants community decision-making approaches.
- A recruited local panel that discusses and decides together: 9 (75%)
- A deliberative process — a group of community members who w…: 5 (41.7%)
- An ideas challenge to generate applications, followed by a pan…: 2 (16.7%)
- A blended panel of local plus park-wide people: 1 (8.3%)
- Distributed dialogue: 1 (8.3%)
- Above follows on from the ideas challenge to elicit applications: 1 (8.3%)
Large grants
Community panel after shortlisting 8 (67%), public showcase then panel 6 (50%), public vote 2 (17%)
Image: A bar chart showing responses for large grants community decision-making approaches.
- A community panel that makes…: 8 (66.7%)
- A public showcase where appli…: 6 (50%)
- A public vote: 2 (16.7%)
- A blended panel of local plus p…: 1 (8.3%)
- Above follows on from the idea…: 1 (8.3%)
- I believe the CNPA should also…: 1 (8.3%)
- A deliberative process — a grou…: 1 (8.3%)
Comments
- One respondent strongly opposed the same people who sit on multiple community panels being involved.
- One raised concern about geographic representation with a risk that the park fringes could be sidelined.
- One respondent felt a professional board should make decisions on merit.
- One suggested a consensus approach.
- One noted opposition to a public vote feeling “too popularity contest-like.”
Eligibility
Respondents were asked two open questions: who should be able to apply and why, and who should not be eligible. Responses are summarised below.
There was strong consensus that the fund should be broadly open.
Key themes from open text:
- Open to anyone with a project that fits the Cairngorms 2030 themes.
- For medium and large grants, constituted groups expected or required.
- Geographic connection to the park is important — those living or working within the boundary.
- Small grants more open, larger grants require evidence of capacity to deliver.
Key themes on who should NOT be able to apply:
- Large organisations with other significant funding sources.
- Academic bodies with access to research funding.
- NGOs based outside the national park.
- Those who could access funding elsewhere for the same project.
- One respondent noted under-16s should not apply directly (though their ideas could be supported through another applicant).
- Private businesses above a turnover threshold.
- One respondent felt eligibility should be based on the project, not the applicant type.
Project scope
Respondents were asked what would help someone know if their idea is right for this fund.
There was no clear consensus, but some direction. We will further develop this during Session 6 and 7. Respondents broadly felt:
- The four Cairngorms 2030 themes are wide enough to cover most ideas and that should be communicated.
- A list of example projects would help, but must be clearly non-exhaustive.
- Video examples or case studies could be more effective than written category lists.
- One respondent felt categories are needed; others felt naming categories risks exclusion.
EDI statement
Respondents were asked to read the revised equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) statement and share their response.
The fund will direct a minimum of 10% of its total value toward projects whose primary beneficiaries are people and communities in the Cairngorms who are least likely to benefit from a standard funding process — because of who they are, where they live, or the barriers they face. This is not about ticking boxes. It is about making sure the fund reaches people it would otherwise miss.
Equity recognises that some people need more targeted support to have a fair chance, and directs resources accordingly. Reaching those people is not just about keeping the fund open — it requires active promotion and practical support to apply.
8 respondents (67%) were happy with the statement and 4 (33%) were mostly happy but had suggestions. No respondents had significant concerns.
What do you think of this statement? 12 responses
Image: A pie chart showing responses to the question “What do you think of this statement?”.
- I am happy with this statement: 66.7%
- I am mostly happy but have some suggestions: 33.3%
- I have significant concerns about this statement: 0%
For information, we had also included the following note in the survey. There was some comments suggesting that we include this in the statement itself rather than as a footnote:
Note: The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination on the basis of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. In the Cairngorms context, the Panel has also raised that people in remote or rural areas and older people are also groups the fund is particularly keen to reach. EDI is assessed on who a project benefits, not on the characteristics of the person or organisation applying.
Suggestions
- Delete the word “primary” — one respondent felt it implies a binary EDI/non-EDI distinction.
- The commitment to active promotion and practical support needs to be real, not just stated.
- EDI weighting in decision-making needs to be discussed practically.
- One respondent opposed a separate EDI pot (note that the group resolved this in Session 5 and we will not have a separate pot).
- One respondent queried how EDI is weighted once applications are received.
Comments on process
An open text space was provided for feedback or questions about the Panel process. Several respondents shared the following.
- Not enough time in online sessions to reach shared understanding before breakout rooms.
- In-person sessions are significantly more useful than Zoom.
- Concern that collective language is being used to mask individual views (note our group agreement principle of speaking from the ‘I’ rather than the ‘we’).
- A lot to cover with limited time.