Best Practice Principles and Case Studies

The Sub-Group agreed to utilise the National Standards for Community Engagement (NSCE) as the framework for this guide.

The NSCE were first launched in 2005. A decade later, after the passage of new Community Empowerment legislation, the need for a refresh and a relaunch was clear. In 2016, the new NSCE were published after being developed by a partnership of the SCDC, the Scottish Government, public sector bodies, the third sector, and community organisations.

The NSCE are important in supporting organisations in putting the Act into practice. They can be used to shape the participation processes of public bodies, as well as shape how community organisations can involve wider community interests.

The NSCE are clear principles that describe the main elements of effective community engagement. They provide detailed performance statements that everyone involved can use to achieve the highest quality results and the greatest impact. Alongside this, VOiCE is planning and recording software that assists individuals, organisations and partnerships to implement the NSCE.

The NSCE are not designed to replace existing community engagement or participation frameworks. They are intended to act as a central benchmark and reference point for best practice. They are designed to reflect the emerging policy commitments and requirements across a host of areas relating to participation, engagement and community empowerment in Scotland.

There are seven principles of best practice in community engagement which should be implemented by all bus operators and local authorities in Scotland: Inclusion, Support, Planning, Working Together, Methods, Communication, and Impact.

Inclusion

Inclusion is all about making sure to ‘identify and involve the people and organisations that are affected by the focus of the engagement’ from the earliest opportunity and in a meaningful way. Quality engagement should be prioritised over quantity.

Firstly, everyone should have an opportunity to participate and to be heard. Leaders or organisers of any community engagement should make a conscious and sustained effort to design and deliver a process which is open and accessible to all. There should be a conscious focus on promoting diversity to ensure that one or another demographic does not unfairly or disproportionately dominate. For example, in-person meetings should take place in fully accessible venues and discussions should be safe, welcoming spaces free from discriminatory behaviour or language.

A mapping exercise should take place to recognise local people, communities and organisations with a stake in the issue, whether they are residents living nearby or along the bus route; members of an affected demographic group, such as younger, older or disabled people; or representatives of organisations with a relevant interest or expertise, such as community councils, local clubs, schools or employers.

Inclusive community engagement processes reveal and welcome a wide range of opinions, including minority and opposing views, which are encouraged, recorded and valued. All participants’ contributions should be treated equally.

Secondly, however, an inclusive process must also be a pro-active one in which there are targeted efforts to engage with people and communities who are identified as being disproportionately affected, typically underrepresented or less-heard. Some communities or interests may be better organised or represented than others, including those who are not currently regular bus passengers, which could impact the extent to which participation is representative or useful.

Inclusion should be a means of increasing and promoting equality, diversity and representation. There could be, for example, specific outreach to people with protected characteristics to encourage them to participate or a distinct part of the process which is tailored to their particular needs. It could involve outreach to local or national representative bodies or organisations to provide advice and support on how best to do this (see examples on page 6).

An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) is best practice and could be informed by data and evidence gathered from participants during the process to improve equality, diversity and inclusion. The public sector equality duty requires public authorities such as local authorities to carry out an EqIA to evaluate the likely impact of the proposed policy or practice, whether it is new or revised, especially on people with protected characteristics.

Protected Characteristics

Equalities legislation means it is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of one of the protected characteristics – age, disability, sex, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation.

Case Study B: Including Perth’s Disabled Community

Stagecoach East Scotland have a strong and positive track record in Perth of engaging with disabled people in the community in an inclusive way. In recent years, they have worked with the Centre for Inclusive Living, Perth & Kinross (CILPK) to promote bus use to wheelchair users in the area, including as part of Disabled Access Day 2023. They have also held an Autism Engagement Day where passengers could share ideas and feedback based on their experiences of using local bus services.

This partnership is a strong example of a bus operator working with local groups, identified during a stakeholder mapping exercise, to develop targeted outreach to less-heard demographics and deliver engagement accessible to all in the community.

Checklist 1: Inclusion

Community and stakeholders mapping exercise
Open, accessible and welcoming to all
Targeted outreach
EqIA

Support

Providing support to ‘identify and overcome any barriers to participation’ should be an integral part of community engagement. Some individuals or groups may require more support than others to participate due to their background, circumstances or needs.

It should not be assumed that every community member or stakeholder identified through the mapping exercise has an equal ability or opportunity to engage. Addressing this inherent inequality of access requires concrete steps. It can be beneficial to go where people are rather than expect them to come to you and to work with local groups like community councils, Community Transport operators and others to help facilitate effective engagement.

An assessment of support needs, which ideally involves likely or potential participants, should be carried out at an early stage. This assessment will highlight action which can be taken to remove or at least reduce any practical barriers which make it costly, difficult or unattractive for people and communities to participate. Remember that disabilities and disadvantages can often be hidden or invisible.

Emerging best practice in co-production is to not only pay upfront or reimburse expenses, but also to recompense participants for their participation. There are different approaches. Payment can be monetary or take the form of vouchers or other ‘in kind’ resources. An important consideration is the potential implications for an individual’s tax obligations or benefits entitlement.

The location, timing and type of engagement can often address some support needs. For example, ensuring that in-person meetings or events are held at suitable and accessible premises with appropriate catering is essential and can enable older people, disabled people and religious minorities to participate. Online engagement can be an appropriate additional means of engagement, especially for younger people or communities spread across a large geographical area. Digital exclusion, however, can be a significant barrier to participation, especially for individuals on low incomes or communities in areas of poor connectivity.

Other potential support needs could include:

Transport - How will attendees make it to your event or meeting? Working with your local Community Transport operator to provide accessible, door-to-door transport to your event or meeting could be an inclusive, sustainable and cost-effective solution, especially for older people or disabled people.
Expenses - Costs incurred by participants are likely to deter participation, especially for those on low or fixed incomes. How will you pay upfront or reimburse out-of-pocket expenses?
Interpretation or Translation - Will any of your materials or remarks need interpreted or translated for deaf and hearing-impaired people or participants whose first language may not be English?
Personal assistance - Some participants may need personal assistance during the process. How will you accommodate those with personal assistants?
Childcare - Parents or carers may not be able to attend due to childcare commitments. Could you schedule your engagement at a more suitable time? Is there a way to make it child-friendly? Could you even provide some kind of support for childcare for participants, or join the local playgroup?

Case Study C: Removing Barriers to Participation for Asylum Seekers and Refugees

In March 2023, the Community Transport Association (CTA) launched a new partnership with the Mental Health Foundation (MHF) to improve the transport system for asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow by listening to and learning from their lived experiences of the city’s bus, rail and active travel networks.

Significant potential barriers to participation were identified by CTA and MHF at the outset. For most, the financial cost of travel to attend in-person events would be prohibitive. For some, English may not be their first language or they may require translation support. For others, they may lack confidence or trust in a new and unfamiliar process.

The engagement process was designed and resourced jointly by CTA and MHF to remove these barriers to participation in the focus group. All travel expenses were covered to ensure that cost was not a barrier to participation. It was scheduled to avoid clashes with community activities and during school hours to enable parents to attend. Although all participants had at least intermediate English, bilingual and multilingual Sessional Workers from MHF were on hand to assist with language where needed. Invitations were extended through them, who are all from refugee backgrounds and are trusted members of the community.

Partnering with organisations with expertise, as well as community leaders with broad networks and relevant lived experience, can address blind spots and shape plans early to help deliver more inclusive community engagement.

Checklist 2: Support

Assess support needs
Partner with other organisations to provide support to participants
Reduce or remove barriers to participation
Work with people with relevant lived experience

Planning

A well-planned community engagement process has a ‘clear purpose’ and a ‘realistic timetable’ based on a ‘shared understanding of community needs and ambitions’.

The focus and objectives of the engagement, such as what is within and outwith the scope to manage expectations and channel input, as well as how success will be measured, should be defined and agreed by partners and clearly communicated to the community. A plan to deliver the process with realistic timescales and sufficient resources should be in place and clearly communicated to the community.

The scale of the engagement should be appropriate for the scale of the task at hand based on what is necessary and achievable. Whether the subject is the wholesale renewal of a long-term transport strategy, the permanent removal of a major bus route or a temporary alteration to a minor route will be a determining factor.

Timescales are a major challenge for community engagement in Scotland’s bus sector, particularly when services are reduced or withdrawn on the basis of a lack of commercial unviability. At present, bus operators are required to give at least 70 days’ notice to local authorities, 42 days’ notice to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) and 21 days’ notice to passengers.

The consultation or engagement which, therefore, occurs across Scotland around bus network changes is typically not effective, meaningful or worthwhile. This is due to a range of factors related to poor planning – very limited timescales, a lack of resource and weak communication and cooperation.

Local Community Transport operators, which could be supported by local authorities and bus operators to mitigate the negative impacts of withdrawn services; redesign connecting services; or deliver replacement demand responsive or scheduled community bus services, are rarely brought into these discussions.

Meanwhile, other key stakeholders like community councils or community planning partners often do not receive timely notification or are not even notified at all. There is often little or no time for public meetings to take place. There is, as a result, often a lack of data or evidence to understand the impacts of the decision or to prepare mitigations. Local employers, for example, may be able to adapt schedules or shifts to reduce the negative impact of network changes for workers.

There is currently no legal obligation for consultation or engagement with communities and changes are often presented as a fait accompli. Decisions should not be made before community engagement has taken place. Decisions should be informed and influenced by community engagement. If this cannot be the case, the reasons for this should be robust and should be communicated clearly.

Longer lead-in times beyond the current statutory minimums alongside earlier communication and a commitment to partnership working are essential to widen the scope for and improve the quality of community engagement. Therefore:

Bus operators and local authorities should seek to engage meaningfully with local people and communities as early as reasonably possible prior to making any decisions about network changes.
Bus operators should seek to give more notice of proposed network changes to local authorities than statutory requirements to allow time for community engagement.
Local authorities and bus operators should seek to give more notice of agreed network changes to local people and communities to allow time for adjustments and preparations.
Local authorities should convene community planning partners and other local stakeholders - like Community Transport operators, major employers, the NHS and others – to identify impacts of network changes, discuss potential solutions and agree a joint response – including investing in Community Transport services to mitigate negative impacts, redesign connecting services or deliver replacements.

The Public Service Vehicles (Registration of Local Services) (Provision for Service Information) (Scotland) Regulations 2022, which came into force on Saturday 1 April 2023, aims to improve communication through a new information sharing process for specific information on services to be varied or cancelled between bus operators and local authorities.

This could be utilised to provide other operators with information if they wish to bid to provide a similar service to the one being withdrawn or varied. It also underlines the wider importance of information sharing, such as providing real-time data to Traveline Scotland so that it can be accessed by third party journey planners to encourage use of bus.

Local authorities and bus operators should have plans in place to engage with their local communities, bus passengers and community planning partners on an ongoing basis related to timetable and service design, as well as in the context of network changes, long-term strategic planning and environmental goals.

Ongoing engagement builds trust, relationships and patronage. It also creates opportunities for new partnerships to address emerging issues in a more responsive way, such as with Community Transport operators to develop new services to fill emerging gaps in the bus network.

Case Study D: West Lothian’s Community Bus Pilot

During 2020 and early 2021, Handicabs Lothian (HcL), a non-profit Community Transport operator, and West Lothian Council conducted extensive engagement with local communities to gather data, evidence and views on local unmet transport needs. Significant gaps in the bus network were identified, such as connections to Broxburn’s main retail street. Residents with mobility issues and seeking greater independence were identified as a target group.

In April 2021, a new Community Bus Service, the Broxburn and Uphall Town Service (2A/2B) funded by the local authority and delivered by HcL, was launched on a pilot basis. It was extended due to its great success in increasing patronage, tackling isolation, connecting with other services and supporting local businesses.

It is a great example of what can be achieved through planning and partnership between local authorities and Community Transport operators.

Case Study E: ‘New Era’ for Public Transport in Glenfarg

Glenfarg Community Transport Group (GCTG) was established in 2022 as a community response to dwindling public transport options in the local area and fill the gaps left by the loss of scheduled buses by commercial operators.

The contract for the 55 Bus was previously operated by Earnside Coaches, which ceased operations. It was then passed on to GCTG as part of a new Public Social Partnership with Perth and Kinross Council. The 55 Bus will develop into an hourly service throughout the day and a fully flexible, demand responsive service backed by new digital systems.

It has been heralded as the start of ‘a new era in public transport for Glenfarg’. Perth and Kinross Council’s investment in the service and the loan of a 16-seater minibus has been vital, as has support from Stagecoach, who recognised it will ‘allow customers to make onward connections to Stagecoach services to/from Edinburgh at Kinross Park & Ride and to/from Perth at Milnathort’.

Checklist 3: Planning

Agree focus, outcomes and indicators of success
Agree realistic timetable
Allocate sufficient resources
Engage community before decision-making on network changes
Convene community partners and local stakeholders
Consider how service information sharing could inform or improve community engagement

Working Together

All parties involved in community engagement should ‘work effectively together to achieve the aims’ agreed collectively at the outset, which will vary by the nature, scale and complexity of the process. This applies equally to the leaders or organisers, participants and other stakeholders.

The ethos should be one of partnership and co-production, which necessitates sharing power and responsibility. Community engagement is a shared process which identifies joint challenges, opportunities and solutions.

Roles and responsibilities, as well as procedures for reaching decisions, should be clear, understood and followed by everyone. Communication between all participants needs to be open, honest and clear.

The process should be based on trust and mutual respect. This can often be challenging when participants hold opposing views or represent conflicting interests, but it is essential that local people and communities approach discussions with bus operators and local authorities constructively and in good faith.

Working with partners based in the community (whether local charities, community councils, Elected Members or employers) and support organisations from across the public and third sectors (such as organisations like CTA, MACS or SCDC and community planning partners) can secure access to capacity, expertise and networks to help facilitate more positive conversations and reach new or target audiences.

It can also offer opportunities to improve joint planning to combine or streamline engagement exercises by different partners to maximise efficiency and reduce the risk of consultation fatigue in the community. The same pool of people can often be asked the same or similar questions by different organisations over short timescales, when data and evidence could be easily shared. Quality engagement should be prioritised over quantity.

Community Planning Partners

Community planning is about how public bodies work together, and with local communities, to design and deliver better services that make a real difference to people's lives. A Community Planning Partnership (or CPP) is the name given to all those services that come together to take part in community planning. There are 32 CPPs across Scotland, one for each council area. CPPs convene local authorities, police, the NHS and others in the community and voluntary sector.

Case Study F: Engaging Target Groups

In 2022, proposals to close or reduce the opening hours of rail ticket offices across Scotland were released. Transport Focus sought to consult ScotRail passengers, understand how they might be affected and suggest improvements.

In addition to the traditional approach of notices at stations to encourage engagement, they worked with several organisations, including DES, MACS and the RNIB, to reach out directly to disabled people, who were a key target group. Local authorities and bus operators should work together with such groups to reach new audiences.

Checklist 4: Working Together

Establish ethos of partnership and co-production between participants
Agree roles and responsibilities
Agree decision-making procedures
Find partners who can help reach new or target audiences
Identify joint actions and solutions

Methods

It is essential that the methods of community engagement are fit for purpose to maximise participation and support constructive dialogue. The methods utilised can determine which voices are heard – and which voices are heard can determine outcomes.

The methods should be acceptable, accessible and appropriate for participants with particular consideration for any target groups and protected characteristics. Some groups may lack the confidence or skills to engage.

A mix and variety of methods should be used throughout the engagement to make sure that many and diverse voices can be heard, as well as to gather quantitative data and qualitative evidence, like the rich stories of people’s lived experiences.

There are a wide range of different methods for community engagement offering a flexible menu of different options, from the more traditional to the more innovative, which can be utilised according to circumstances. Different approaches are required for different audiences. Methods can include:

Commissioned research like focus groups - a small group of carefully selected participants who participate in an organised, in-depth discussion
Public meetings and ‘town halls’ open to all
‘Mini-publics’ - an assembly of citizens, demographically representative of the larger population, brought together to discuss, learn and decide
Surveys and questionnaires (online or paper-based)
Community action research - research conducted by and for the community utilising more innovative methods
Digital and social media campaigns
Charrettes - a design-based planning process using maps, masterplans and other visuals to discuss places, neighbourhoods, developments or transport services in a short or intense period of time
Participatory budgeting - a democratic process through which local residents are empowered to directly decide how public money is spent

The increasing use of digital tools to facilitate engagement has widened access and increased participation. Online meetings and surveys lower barriers to participation for many by eliminating the costs or challenges of travel, reducing the time required to participate and enabling 24/7 feedback.

However, it remains important to create in-person and face-to-face spaces and platforms for engagement. Digital exclusion can be a barrier for low-income groups or older people. Online methods should not be a replacement for face-to-face methods.

Hybrid or ‘blended’ approaches offer a useful balance. Recent experience suggests these are becoming best practice to allow more people to engage in a way and at a time which best meets their needs or preferences.

Commissioning Focus Groups

Focus groups can be commissioned from, and independently run by, research agencies to gather more and better evidence. Focus groups can convene people from specific target groups and demographics, for example, less-heard groups, such as young people, who are often excluded or under-represented in conversations about bus, or a representative sample of the community.

Case Study G: Reaching New Audiences in the Borders

In early 2023, Scottish Borders Council gathered very useful and more representative data about travel patterns, habits and asks to shape the future of the region’s bus network by working with partners to reach a wider, more diverse audience, including many younger people who are often less-heard.

Bus Users UK provided support to reach bus passengers. Borders Buses included the survey in their app. Local employers promoted the survey to staff, while colleges and schools shared with pupils and students. Key challenges with bus services for young people emerged, such as uncoordinated and inconvenient timetables acting as a barrier to accessing education and employment.

Case Study H: Mass Online Participation in Fort William

The Highland Bus Partnership Fund commissioned research into options for enhancing bus priority, improving reliability of bus services and increasing patronage in and around Fort William. This included a study of local views through an online survey, which closed in February 2023.

A ‘very healthy’ response rate was secured. Over 7% of the total local population, or an estimated and remarkable 15% of households, completed the survey to have their say. This is a great example of the ability of online surveys to reach across a whole community and facilitate mass participation to gather more representative and robust data and insights.

Case Study I: Glasgow Disability Alliance’s ‘Purple Poncho Players’

In 2011, activists with Glasgow Disability Alliance created a new community theatre group, known as the ‘Purple Poncho Players’, to use music, comedy and drama to express their lived experiences of barriers and oppression, as well as challenge audiences to build a more accessible city and a better world.

Their work brings challenges with transport and other major issues to life in a creative and innovative way, leveraging entertainment to encourage participation in community engagement by those who might not otherwise.

Checklist 5: Methods

Ask participants how they would like to be involved
Identify and implement online/in-person methods
Identify and implement qualitative/quantitative methods
Consider methods to reach target groups and protected characteristics

Communication

Communication with the people, organisations and communities affected by the engagement should be clear, regular and transparent as part of a two-way process on realistic timescales. This should be planned in advance prior to the engagement and at an early stage of the process to maximise participation, ensure diversity of representation and identify any financial costs.

Information about the process, from how to participate to what decisions have been reached, should be easy to find and understand, both online and offline. Communication should be in plain English and everyday language without unnecessary, unexplained or overused acronyms, jargon and technical terms. Braille resources, Easy Read versions or other appropriate formats could be provided.

Content should be communicated in a way which is relevant and engaging to an audience with concepts, ideas and proposals placed firmly in a local context. Communications should ‘make it real’ for people in their daily lives.

Clear, regular and transparent communication is a useful tool to manage expectations and bring people with you. Participants and the wider community should be kept up-to-date on process and progress in a timely way, including good news or positive steps forward and, perhaps especially, delays or setbacks.

Feedback is a critical part of communication, but one which can often be neglected, whether due to capacity, priorities or timescale. Participants should be able to provide and receive feedback throughout the process, learning about the options which have been considered, the actions that have been agreed and why.

Participants should know where and how to share concerns, views or questions. Realistic timescales for receiving feedback should be shared and adhered to.

Participants should be asked for their consent and preferences in relation to communication. Systems and procedures must be in place to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other related legislation to protect the privacy and security of participants and their data.

Case Study K: Stagecoach’s Customer Contact Centre

Stagecoach opened a new Customer Contact Centre in Perth as a ‘one-stop phone and digital contact point’ in 2022. Over 60 customer service advisors now operate an improved 7-day a week service answering high volumes of calls and social media traffic. The team answer questions about timetables, help with smartcards, find lost property and gather feedback on bus services, which is passed on quickly to depots and staff on the ground.

The Customer Contact Centre has improved communication with the communities which Stagecoach serves. It has created new opportunities and more effective channels for customers and passengers to share feedback and experiences, which can be utilised to improve services.

Checklist 6: Communication

Communicate clearly, regularly and transparently
Communicate in plain English
Provide appropriate alternative formats
Provide feedback and progress updates to partners/participants
Create opportunities for feedback from partners/participants
Comply with GDPR and related legislation

Impact

Once the community engagement is complete, it is time to assess its impact and use the lessons learned to improve future community engagement, which should be promptly shared with participants and the wider community to demonstrate how you have listened and acted.

Impact is central to the National Standards for Community Engagement, because monitoring and evaluation must take place to assess:

Whether the aims, objectives and deadlines were met;
To what extent decisions about strategy, policy or service design were shaped by participants and reflect the views of the community; and,
How local bus services and outcomes were (or will be) improved as result of the community engagement.

Participants and partners should be involved in this process of review, as well as identifying areas of improvement and agreeing how future processes could be improved. Community engagement is an ongoing process of learning.

Feedback should be provided to the wider community on how the engagement process has influenced decisions and what has changed as a result. A lack of timely feedback can leave participants feeling that the process was tokenistic or their participation failed to actually change anything, encouraging distrust and ‘consultation fatigue’.

On the other hand, investing the time and resources to take a ‘you said, we did’ approach to reporting back to participants and the wider community, builds credibility, goodwill, support and trust with the public.

Case Study J: Glasgow City Council’s Public Conversation on Transport

During 2020 and 2021, Glasgow City Council lead a large-scale ‘Public Conversation on the future of transport in your city’ with local residents.

An EqIA was conducted to ‘identify people who are most impacted by transport’ and then develop ‘an engagement approach which would have the best chances of hearing their voices’. Sustrans and SCDC supported direct engagement with community organisations, community councils and their members.

After its conclusion, the local authority published a report with all of its findings, including participants’ problems and solutions, such as ‘more segregated cycleways’ and ‘better access to bikes’, while also producing a ‘quick read version’ and sharing highlights on social media.

The impact of the community engagement on the city’s Transport Strategy, Active Travel Strategy, City Centre Transformation Plan and Liveable Neighbourhoods Plan has been clearly demonstrated online and on the ground. In the months which followed, the city has rolled out major new active travel corridors and on-street bike storage facilities, with ambitions to go further in the years ahead.

Checklist 7: Impact

Review the process with partners/participants:

Inclusion: How well did we identify and involve the people and organisations that are affected by the focus of the engagement?
Support: How well did we overcome any barriers to participation? Did we reach a diversity of participants representative of the community?
Planning: How well did we plan the engagement? Was there a clear purpose?
Methods: Were the methods of engagement fit for purpose?
Working Together: Did we work effectively together to achieve the aims of the engagement? Did we harness the expertise of partners?
Communication: Did we communicate clearly and regularly with the people, organisations and communities affected by the engagement?
Impact: What impact has the engagement process had? How have the views of the community changed our approach, plan, policy or strategy?

Review the outcomes with partners/participants:

Assess how community engagement shaped decisions
Assess how community engagement improved outcomes/services
‘You Said, We Did’: Report back to partners, participants and the wider community in a pro-active, timely way

< Previous | Contents | Next >