Consultative Role Survey Report
Survey Report · June 2024 · Scottish Community Councils
Community Council Consultative Role
13 respondents · 12 community councils represented · Prepared by Findochty Community Council
Key Findings at a Glance
Perceived Influence on Decisions
Frequency of Feedback from Public Bodies
Quality of Feedback Received
Main Barriers to Effective Participation (number of respondents selecting each barrier)
1. Respondent Profile
Responses were received from 13 community councillors across 12 named councils. Roles represented span the full range of community council functions - chairs, secretaries, treasurers, vice-chairs, elected members, and co-opted members. The majority of respondents are experienced: ten have served for three years or more, and six have served for more than five years. This is not a survey of newcomers uncertain of their role; these are people who know the system and are telling us it is not working.
| Role | Count |
|---|---|
| Co-opted member | 3 |
| Chair | 2 |
| Secretary | 2 |
| Treasurer | 2 |
| Member (elected) | 2 |
| Vice-Chair | 1 |
| Length of service | Count |
|---|---|
| More than 5 years | 6 |
| 3–5 years | 4 |
| 1–2 years | 2 |
| Less than 1 year | 1 |
2. Understanding and Confidence
No respondent described their understanding of the consultative process as "Very well." The largest group (38%) selected "Somewhat," suggesting that even experienced community councillors feel only partially familiar with how the process is supposed to work. Two respondents described their understanding as "Poorly" or "Not at all."
| How well do you understand the consultative process? | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Somewhat | 5 | 38% |
| Reasonably well | 4 | 31% |
| Poorly | 2 | 15% |
| Very well | 1 | 8% |
| Not at all | 1 | 8% |
On confidence in representing their community, only 4 of 13 respondents (31%) expressed positive confidence. The largest single group selected "Neutral," and 5 collectively reported low confidence - a significant finding given that confidence is a prerequisite for effective participation.
| Confidence in representing the community | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Neutral | 4 | 31% |
| Not very confident | 3 | 23% |
| Not confident at all | 2 | 15% |
| Very confident | 2 | 15% |
| Confident | 2 | 15% |
3. Workload and Manageability
When asked how manageable the volume of consultations is, only 4 of 13 described it as "Manageable." Six found it "Difficult to manage" - nearly half the sample. Three selected "Neutral." The picture aligns with the broader finding that community councillors are being asked to do more without commensurate support or resources.
| How manageable is the volume of consultations? | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Difficult to manage | 6 | 46% |
| Manageable | 4 | 31% |
| Neutral | 3 | 23% |
4. Perceived Influence
| Perceived influence on decisions | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Little influence | 9 | 69% |
| No influence | 3 | 23% |
| Don't know / no experience | 1 | 8% |
5. Feedback from Public Bodies
The survey asked separately about the frequency and quality of feedback. The two findings together are damning: most respondents rarely or never receive feedback, and among those who do, no one rates it as good.
On frequency: 77% of respondents rarely or never receive feedback on how their views were considered. Only 2 of 13 receive it "sometimes."
| How often is feedback provided? | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Rarely | 8 | 62% |
| Never | 2 | 15% |
| Sometimes | 2 | 15% |
| Don't know / no experience | 1 | 8% |
On quality: among those with experience of feedback, no respondent rated it as "Good" or "Very good." The majority rated it as very poor - views clearly not considered.
| Quality of feedback received | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Very poor - views clearly not considered | 6 | 46% |
| Poor - tokenistic or formulaic | 3 | 23% |
| Adequate - acknowledgement with little explanation | 2 | 15% |
| Don't know / no experience | 2 | 15% |
6. Examples of Poor Feedback
Respondents were invited to describe specific instances. The accounts provided are consistent in their theme: community councils being informed of decisions rather than engaged in them, with no explanation of how their input was weighed.
7. Barriers to Effective Participation
Respondents were asked to select up to three main barriers. Lack of volunteers is the single most frequently cited barrier, selected by 8 of 13 respondents. Poor communication and limited influence over decisions follow closely, pointing to structural rather than individual failings. The barriers are interconnected: limited influence demotivates volunteering; poor communication compounds both.
| Barrier | Count (of 13 respondents) |
|---|---|
| Lack of volunteers | 8 |
| Poor communication | 6 |
| Limited influence over decisions | 6 |
| Lack of training or guidance | 5 |
| Lack of support from public bodies | 5 |
| Difficulty engaging the wider community | 5 |
| Complexity of procedures | 3 |
| Lack of time | 3 |
| Consultation fatigue | 2 |
8. Overall Experience
Respondents were asked to select the statement that best reflects their overall experience of the consultative role. No respondent selected a positive overall experience statement. The dominant view is one of resource-constrained obligation or tokenism.
| Statement | Count |
|---|---|
| Expected to do more without additional resources | 5 |
| Consultation often feels like a tick-box exercise | 4 |
| The number of consultations is excessive | 1 |
| Have no experience or knowledge of the process | 1 |
| I understand the processes but struggle with capacity | 1 |
| The processes are too complex | 1 |
9. Suggested Improvements
Respondents were asked to select up to three things that would most improve their ability to engage effectively. Greater influence in decision-making is selected by 9 of 13 respondents, making it the clear priority. More local authority support and more volunteers follow, pointing to both systemic and organisational needs.
| Improvement | Count (of 13 respondents) |
|---|---|
| Greater influence in decision-making | 9 |
| More support from local authorities | 6 |
| More volunteers | 5 |
| Better feedback from public bodies | 4 |
| Simpler processes | 3 |
| Better training | 3 |
| Better sharing of good practice between CCs | 2 |
| More guidance | 2 |
| A paid trained clerk | 1 |
| Clearer explanation of roles | 1 |
10. What Would You Change?
The open responses to "what single change would you make?" produced four consistent themes:
Timelier consultation. Several respondents noted that notice periods are too short for monthly meeting cycles, making it impossible to consult the community before deadlines pass.
Early involvement. Multiple respondents want to be engaged at the start of a process, not once a proposal is effectively final.
Substantive feedback. Respondents want to know how their specific input was weighed and what effect it had, if any, on the outcome.
Direct access to officers. The difficulty of getting timely responses from council officers was cited as a practical barrier to effective engagement. One respondent specifically called for community councils' views to be formally reflected in council committee reports.
11. Recommendations
The following recommendations are drawn directly from respondent priorities:
- Public bodies should provide structured, substantive written feedback on community council responses, specifying how views were considered and what influence they had on the outcome.
- Consultation timelines should accommodate monthly meeting cycles. A minimum notice period aligned to community council operational rhythms should be established as standard practice.
- Community councils should be consulted at the earliest stage of policy or project development, not at the point where decisions are substantially made.
- COSLA and the Scottish Government should review resourcing arrangements, given that demands on community councils are increasing without commensurate support.
- A peer support or good practice network for community councils should be developed or better promoted, given the clear interest in cross-council knowledge sharing.
12. Conclusions
The survey results, though from a small sample, paint a coherent picture. Community councillors are fulfilling a statutory consultative function whilst receiving little evidence that their input is valued, considered, or acted upon.
The combination of perceived powerlessness, inadequate feedback, volunteer scarcity, and procedural complexity is corrosive to the role. No respondent described a positive overall experience. No respondent believed their council had significant influence. No respondent who had received feedback rated it as good.
These are not isolated complaints. They are consistent findings across roles, councils, and regions — and they point to a systemic failure of engagement rather than a failure of effort on the part of community councillors themselves.
Prepared on behalf of: