Summary - Session 6 - Survey responses

Cairngorms 2030 Com­munit­ies Fund Pan­el Post Ses­sion 6 – Sur­vey Responses

The pur­pose of this sur­vey was to cap­ture your indi­vidu­al views on key ele­ments that still need to be developed for the fund. Your responses will inform the dis­cus­sion at Ses­sion 7. You were asked to choose between a num­ber of options on spe­cif­ic ques­tions, and also giv­en open text space to share any wider reflec­tions, feed­back, or ques­tions about the Pan­el process.

The sur­vey was open from 23 to 27 May.

11 out of 17 mem­bers of the pan­el responded.

Uned­ited and anonymised sur­vey responses are avail­able to view.

Sum­mary of your responses

• Eli­gib­il­ity & repeat applic­a­tions (Page 2)
• Match fund­ing (Page 3)
• Mean­ing­ful com­munity bene­fit (Page 3)
• Geo­graphy in decision-mak­ing (Page 4)
• Pan­el mem­ber­ship going for­ward (Page 5)
• Decision-mak­ing pri­or­it­ies (Page 6)
• Applic­a­tion inform­a­tion require­ments (Page 6)
• Report­ing and account­ab­il­ity (Page 7)
• What suc­cess would look like (Page 7)
• What would put applic­ants off (Page 8)

Eli­gib­il­ity & repeat applications

There was near-unan­im­ous agree­ment (10 of 11) that repeat applic­a­tions should be per­mit­ted, provided a pro­ject deliv­ers genu­ine com­munity bene­fit. One respond­ent pre­ferred spread­ing fund­ing as widely as pos­sible by restrict­ing repeat applic­a­tions. Sev­er­al noted the import­ance of not being too pre­script­ive with eli­gib­il­ity cri­ter­ia, while offer­ing clear guid­ance to applicants.

Should applic­ants be able to apply to the fund more than once? (11 responses)

• 90.9% Yes — repeat applic­a­tions should be allowed if the pro­ject deliv­ers com­munity benefit
• 9.1% Yes — but only across dif­fer­ent grant sizes (not the same size twice)
• No — fund­ing should be spread as widely as possible
• I’m not sure

Com­ments on eli­gib­il­ity more broadly

• Exclud­ing large organ­isa­tions: One respond­ent felt the fund should not be avail­able to gov­ern­ment­al bod­ies or large NGOs, pre­fer­ring it to sup­port indi­vidu­als, smal­ler organ­isa­tions, and com­munity groups.
• Age of applic­ants: One respond­ent stated that applic­ants should be at least 16, though they noted this would not exclude young­er people, who could have an applic­a­tion sub­mit­ted on their behalf.
• Trans­par­ency: One respond­ent called for open pub­lic­a­tion of all applic­a­tions, both suc­cess­ful and unsuc­cess­ful, as part of a trans­par­ent process.
• Avoid­ing over-pre­scrip­tion: There was a view that eli­gib­il­ity cri­ter­ia should not be overly pre­script­ive. Guid­ance on who is most likely to be eli­gible is prefer­able to rigid rules, so that less typ­ic­al applic­ants are not ruled out but may simply have a lower chance of success.
• Match fund­ing and eli­gib­il­ity: One respond­ent sug­ges­ted match fund­ing could be a require­ment tied to spe­cif­ic eli­gib­il­ity cri­ter­ia; anoth­er described ​‘pre­ferred but not essen­tial’ as appro­pri­ate wording.

Match fund­ing

Opin­ion was split, with no clear consensus.

Break­down of views

• 4 respond­ents sup­por­ted match fund­ing being encour­aged but not required at any grant size
• 3 respond­ents opposed match fund­ing, cit­ing it as a poten­tial bar­ri­er for under-resourced applic­ants. One respond­ent who opposed match fund­ing named ​“dehu­man­isa­tion of the fund­ing pro­cess” as a concern.
• 2 respond­ents felt it should be a require­ment spe­cific­ally for large grants
• 2 respond­ents were unde­cided and wished to dis­cuss it further

Sev­er­al noted that match fund­ing could sig­nal com­mit­ment from applic­ants and improve the like­li­hood of suc­cess, while oth­ers were con­cerned it would exclude the very people the fund is try­ing to reach.

Do you think match fund­ing has a role in this fund? (11 responses)

• 36.4% Yes — it should be a require­ment for large grants
• 27.3% Yes — it should be encour­aged but not required, at any grant size
• 18.2% No — requir­ing match fund­ing could be a bar­ri­er for the people this fund is try­ing to reach
• 18.2% I’m not sure — I’d like to dis­cuss this in Ses­sion 7

Mean­ing­ful com­munity benefit

Respond­ents described mean­ing­ful bene­fit in var­ied ways, reflect­ing a range of priorities.

Themes

• Tan­gible bene­fit to people and place – pro­jects that make a notice­able dif­fer­ence to those liv­ing in, work­ing in, or con­nect­ing with the Cairngorms, wheth­er that bene­fits one per­son or a whole community
• Leg­acy and last­ing impact – devel­op­ing and passing on skills and know­ledge; improv­ing access to people, places, and facil­it­ies, or address­ing an unmet need in the community
• Align­ment with Cairngorms 2030 themes – sus­tain­ab­il­ity, well­being, inclus­iv­ity, travel, energy, cli­mate, and the arts
• Pro­jects assessed on what they demon­strably deliv­er, with clear and tan­gible evid­ence of benefit
• Bene­fit that is felt across a range of com­munit­ies and demo­graph­ics, not just the lar­ger set­tle­ments like Aviemore and Braemar

Oth­er views

• One respond­ent described mean­ing­ful bene­fit simply as bring­ing people to the Cairngorms for work or pleasure
• Com­munity bene­fit should be val­id­ated through dis­cus­sion and research, includ­ing surveys

Geo­graphy in decision-making

Respond­ents broadly agreed geo­graphy mat­ters, though views on how to address it differed.

Themes

• Broad con­cern that smal­ler com­munit­ies are under-rep­res­en­ted and may lack capa­city to access fund­ing without support
• The out­reach and applic­a­tion stage was seen as a crit­ic­al point to build geo­graph­ic diversity
• Geo­graph­ic spread of the £1M should be tracked and evid­enced as a meas­ure of success

Oth­er views

• Tiered mod­el with loc­al pan­els divided by area, feed­ing into a cent­ral panel
• Rep­res­ent­a­tion from each ward of the park at both applic­a­tion and decision-mak­ing stages
• A single diverse cent­ral pan­el is more prac­tic­al than coordin­at­ing loc­al­ised input at decision-mak­ing stage
• The value of mak­ing the full £1M vis­ibly avail­able to any deserving pro­ject across the park, as a sig­nal of geo­graph­ic openness
• There was one dis­sent­ing view that geo­graphy should not fea­ture in decision-mak­ing at all. If the pub­lic have a heavy vote, more pop­u­lous areas will dom­in­ate regard­less of pro­ject mer­it. This respond­ent pre­ferred decisions based on mer­it, with lim­ited pub­lic input as a steer

Pan­el mem­ber­ship going forward

The most com­mon view (5 respond­ents) was that pan­el mem­bers should have the option to remain involved in decision-making.

Oth­er views

• Two sup­por­ted reg­u­lar rota­tion to bring in fresh perspectives
  • Linked points:
    • if deciders are paid, restrict repeat ser­vice; if unpaid, no restric­tion needed
    • but rota­tion should include people from with­in and out­side the main Cairngorms com­munit­ies (such as Aviemore and Braemar)
• Two felt mem­bers should return only in a non-vot­ing, advis­ory capacity
• Pan­el mem­bers should step back entirely after serving, to avoid bias and neg­at­ive pub­lic per­cep­tion; also expressed con­cern that some indi­vidu­als might use ongo­ing involve­ment to unduly influ­ence others
• Decision-mak­ing should not be handed to CNPA for fil­ter­ing or awarding
• Pan­el­lists for medi­um and large grants should be paid and selec­ted for demo­graph­ic representativeness
• Future pan­el­lists should have rel­ev­ant skills and no con­flict of interest with applicants.

What role do you see for mem­bers of this pan­el on an ongo­ing basis? (11 responses)

• Pan­el mem­ber­ship should have the option to remain involved in decision-mak­ing (5 respond­ents / 45.5%)
• Pan­el mem­bers should be able to apply to be involved in the decision-mak­ing for future rounds of fund­ing (2 respond­ents / 18.2%)
• Pan­el mem­ber­ship should rotate to bring in fresh per­spect­ives (2 respond­ents / 18.2%)
• Oth­er var­ied responses (each rep­res­ent­ing 1 respond­ent / 9.1%):
  • Once someone has served on the pan­el they should step back entirely
  • I think people should have oppor­tun­it­ies to be involved in future pan­els but on a non-vot­ing, advis­ory capacity
  • I am not sure. I see no reas­on to restrict indi­vidu­als from apply­ing again
  • They can be part of the decision-mak­ing pro­cess but in a non-vot­ing, advis­ory capacity
  • Not handed over to Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity (CNPA) for fil­ter­ing or awarding
  • Cer­tainly, over­see­ing the fruits of the grant pro­cess for all applic­ants will be essential
  • Ideally the deciders should be paid.

Decision-mak­ing priorities

Themes

When weigh­ing up applic­a­tions, respond­ents most com­monly poin­ted to:

• Com­munity impact and bene­fit – breadth, depth, and longevity
• Leg­acy – wheth­er the pro­ject will con­tin­ue giv­ing back
• Geo­graph­ic spread – avoid­ing the fund being con­cen­trated in lar­ger, bet­ter-resourced communities
• Equity and access – bene­fits to mar­gin­al­ised groups, people who live in the park, and those who may not oth­er­wise be able to access it
• Evid­ence and feas­ib­il­ity – clear deliv­ery plans, meas­ur­able impact
• Align­ment with Cairngorms 2030 themes

Oth­er views

• The fund should pri­or­it­ise the biggest bene­fit to people or an area, not neces­sar­ily the largest num­ber of beneficiaries
• Com­munity decision-mak­ing should come after applic­a­tions have passed ini­tial CNPA and/​or loc­al pan­el screen­ing, not as a first-stage filter
• One respond­ent pro­posed a struc­tured yes/​no rat­ing sys­tem mod­elled on HR recruit­ment criteria
• Envir­on­ment­al sus­tain­ab­il­ity and car­bon impact should be an expli­cit priority
• People who have stood for elec­ted roles (com­munity coun­cils, CNPA ward rep­res­ent­at­ives) have demon­strated account­ab­il­ity and should have a role in decision-making

Applic­a­tion inform­a­tion requirements

Respond­ents con­tin­ue to broadly sup­port a pro­por­tion­ate approach, with require­ments scal­ing up by grant size. They want to keep the pro­cess access­ible and human, par­tic­u­larly for smal­ler grants. Shared views were:

• Small grants: Basic per­son­al details, a clear descrip­tion of the pro­ject, how it bene­fits the com­munity, and amount reques­ted. Flex­ible formats wel­comed (writ­ten, video, voice note)
• Medi­um grants: As above, plus a timeline, evid­ence of organ­isa­tion­al struc­ture, and some indic­a­tion of pri­or fund­ing or pro­ject experience
• Large grants: Full busi­ness plan, detailed budget and spend pro­file, con­sti­tu­tion or equi­val­ent, named respons­ible indi­vidu­als, and evid­ence of how the pro­ject is dis­tinct from exist­ing provision.

Report­ing and accountability

Themes

Respond­ents sup­por­ted report­ing require­ments that are pro­por­tion­ate. They also sup­por­ted keep­ing report­ing access­ible and avoid­ing unne­ces­sary bur­eau­cracy, espe­cially for smal­ler grants.

• Small grants: a short writ­ten or video testi­mo­ni­al; simple evid­ence of implementation
• Medi­um grants: fin­an­cial accounts with receipts; a brief run­ning diary or pro­gress log
• Large grants: staged pro­gress reports (e.g. at 6, 12, and 24 months), with more pre­script­ive require­ments; some form of audit

Oth­er views

• one-to-one catch-up meet­ings with one or two pan­el­lists as a pro­gress check-in
• quarterly reports, with pan­el mem­bers invited to see the fin­ished result
• agree upfront on lump sum vs instal­ments, who man­ages the money, and the mon­it­or­ing cadence
• no require­ment to obtain quotes for work should apply at medi­um grant level

What suc­cess would look like

Themes

• Fund­ing spread geo­graph­ic­ally across the whole nation­al park, not con­cen­trated in lar­ger settlements
• A wide vari­ety of pro­ject types, includ­ing some unex­pec­ted or innov­at­ive applications
• Pro­jects still run­ning and deliv­er­ing bene­fit years after the grant
• Skills and know­ledge passed on with­in communities
• More people feel­ing con­fid­ent to apply in future rounds

Oth­er views

• the £1M should be fully spent
• people and busi­nesses improv­ing and bring­ing ideas and vis­it­ors to the park
• the fund as a pos­it­ive show­case for CNPA’s com­munity-facing approach and Cairngorms 2030 goals
• car­bon-zero impact, with com­munity sur­veys and inter­views used to evid­ence outcomes
• full trans­par­ency — all applic­a­tions, suc­cess­ful and unsuc­cess­ful, pub­lished openly
• What fail­ure would look like: little real bene­fit delivered; most of the fund spent in a few geo­graph­ic areas; money going primar­ily to recip­i­ents who had already received grant fund­ing before

What would put applic­ants off

Themes

• A sense that the fund isn’t for them — need for clear worked examples show­ing the range of eli­gible projects
• Overly com­plex or bur­eau­crat­ic applic­a­tion processes
• Match fund­ing requirements
• Lack of sup­port from CNPA staff through the process
• Not know­ing the fund exists

Oth­er views

• feel­ing the qual­i­fy­ing cri­ter­ia don’t fit, or that apply­ing isn’t worth the effort
• doubt about wheth­er a pro­ject would suc­ceed or wheth­er they could see it through
• feel­ing the idea isn’t good enough to receive funding
• too much inform­a­tion required upfront
• CNPA fil­ter­ing and award­ing grants