Investing in Communities Fund
Perth and Kinross Council · 30 September 2026
Back to Housing and Social Wellbeing Committee — 30 September 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Housing and Social Wellbeing Committee Date of Meeting: 30 September 2026 Report Title: Investing in Communities Fund Report Number: 26/266 Report Author: David Stokoe, Service Manager, Community Learning and Development Organisational Lead: Elaine Ritchie, Strategic Lead, Housing and Communities. ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval on delivery of the Investing in Communities Fund (ICF) for 2026/27 and 27/28. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendation(S) 3. Background/Main Issues 4. Impact Value Assessment 5. Appendices 2. Recommendation(s) It is recommended that the Housing and Social Wellbeing Committee: 2.1 Approves the blended participatory budgeting decision-making process for the Investing in Communities Fund, combining a facilitated community assessment with a public preference vote, as set out in section 3.2.12 of the report; 2.2 Approves the proposal for the geographical funding allocation based on identified needs (option 2), as set out in section 3.3.2 of the report; 2.3 Approves the proposal for Perth City Wards to be treated as one area, as set out in section 3.3.4 of the report;
Page 2
2.4 Approves the reallocation of any underspend in the funding as set out in section 3.3.5 of the report. 3. Background/Main Issues 3.1 Historic Information/Context 3.1.1 As part of the Council budget setting process for 2026/27 and 2027/28, £350K was allocated each year to improve quality of life by reducing the impacts of poverty and the cost of living through addressing issues that matter locally. 3.1.2 This supports delivery of the PKC Strategic Objectives of Tackling Poverty and Working in Partnership with Communities 3.1.3 In 2025/26 Community Investment Fund (CIF) and Participatory Budgeting (PB) were delivered via a single process of community engagement to identify issues, workshops to develop project proposals and a single application and voting process, using PB. 3.1.4 PB is a process through which community members directly influence how public money is spent. PKC has previously used a public voting model in which residents vote on eligible projects following a screening process. Evaluation of the 2025/26 process also identified the value of facilitated ward- level collaboration and concerns that a vote alone can favour organisations with greater campaigning reach. The proposed model therefore retains a direct public voice while strengthening needs-led discussion and assessment. 3.1.5 The table below summarises the evaluations of the 2025/26 process: Positives Negatives Weighting of the funding towards areas of highest socio-economic need. Engagement levels were lower than anticipated in some areas, indicating a need for different outreach methods. Introducing engagement within the process provided meaningful opportunities for residents to identify and influence priorities within their local areas. Using a multiple-choice list within the survey may have inadvertently limited respondents ability to express wider views or innovative ideas. Collaboration workshops with community groups enabled partnership working and reduced duplication of effort. Community groups reported that the timing of the decision on Warm Welcome funding limited their ability to plan and implement activity as effectively. Community groups welcomed the simplified application process. Concerns that funding outcomes could reflect the ability to campaign for votes, rather than evidenced community need or shared, collaboratively agreed priorities
Page 3
Transitioning the voting platform to Microsoft Forms successfully removed previous technical barriers and improved overall accessibility. 3.2 Options Available to Elected Members/Board Members 3.2.1 Proposal for Investing in Communities 2026/27 and 2027/28. 3.2.2 The Investing in Communities Fund is underpinned by a PB approach, placing communities at the centre of decision-making. It aims to empower local people to identify priorities, shape solutions and influence how public resources are allocated to improve quality of life and mitigate the impacts of poverty and the cost of living. The process is designed to be supportive, transparent and inclusive, ensuring meaningful participation and shared ownership of local outcomes. 3.2.3 It is proposed that the project runs from October to February as set out below. 3.2.4 Stage 1. Discovery Phase During the Discovery Phase, existing locality data will be reviewed alongside targeted engagement with community groups, families, children and young people, residents, elected members and stakeholders. Purpose: • To build a shared understanding of local priorities. • To identify the types of projects that communities feel would best address the aims of the fund. 3.2.5 Particular focus will be placed on engaging individuals and communities who are traditionally less likely to participate, including those experiencing poverty, rural isolation or other barriers to engagement, ensuring their voices shape early priorities. This stage focuses on listening, gathering insights and ensuring communities influence the direction of investment from the outset. Early engagement strengthens PB by ensuring that decisions are grounded in lived experience and community-defined need rather than predetermined priorities. 3.2.6 Families, children and young people impacted by cost-of-living and inequality issues will be actively engaged through the Fairer Futures Project. This will help develop understanding of the challenges they face within their communities and potential solutions. Fairer Futures is a Scottish Government- funded programme aimed at reducing child poverty and is currently being delivered in Perth and Kinross using a place-based approach in Letham, Perth City (Muirton and North Muirton), South Crieff, Coupar Angus, Aberfeldy and Rattray. Existing engagement in these communities will help capture the views of people who may not traditionally engage in a PB process or other local decision-making forums.
Page 4
Workshops will be accessible and supportive, enabling participation from a wide range of community representatives, including smaller groups and those with limited capacity. A range of engagement methods will be used as set out in Appendix A. 3.2.7 Stage 2. Application Phase Groups will be invited to submit project proposals based on the priorities identified during the Discovery Phase. Purpose: • To provide a simple, accessible and fair application process. • To ensure all submissions reflect the priorities identified in Phase 1. 3.2.8 Stage 3. Screening Phase All applications will undergo an assessment by officers and elected members to ensure they meet the fund’s core criteria and clearly respond to the priorities identified by the community. Purpose: • To confirm eligibility, ensure alignment with the fund’s aims and establish that proposals are sufficiently developed to progress community decision- making. 3.2.9 This stage provides a robust quality assurance process, ensuring that only appropriate and deliverable proposals that meet the criteria proceed. It supports transparency, consistency and confidence for applicants, participating communities and decision-makers. 3.2.10 Stage 4. Community Assessment Phase Applications that pass the screening phase will be considered through facilitated community assessment sessions in each funding area. Participants will include community groups, residents, young people and relevant local partners. Eligible projects will be presented and discussed openly, with participants considering the extent to which each proposal responds to locally identified priorities, addresses poverty and inequality, is deliverable and will benefit local residents. 3.2.11 Following discussion, participants will score each eligible proposal against the published criteria. The community assessment score will account for 60% of the final project score. Facilitation and consistent scoring guidance will support fairness, constructive dialogue and transparent decision-making. Participants will be required to declare any interest in an application and will not score proposals where a conflict of interest applies.
Page 5
Purpose: • To strengthen needs-led and collaborative decision-making at a local level. • To ensure smaller, newer and less well-connected groups can participate on an equitable basis. • To assess proposals consistently against community priorities, need, impact and deliverability. • To encourage shared understanding, partnership working and avoidance of duplication. 3.2.12 Stage 5. Public Preference Voting Phase All applications considered through the Community Assessment Phase will also be presented to residents through a public preference vote. In-person voting will be supported through a series of PB roadshows in communities where applications have been received, including smaller rural communities adjoining larger towns. Schools, campuses, community centres and village halls may be used as accessible voting locations. Participants will receive a short summary of each project and the funding requested and will be asked to identify their preferred projects. 3.2.13 Officers will explore options for online voting to enable participation by those unable to vote in person due to mobility issues, caring responsibilities or other barriers. Appropriate controls will be applied to protect the integrity of the vote including collection of postcodes. The public preference vote will account for 40% of the final project score. Purpose: • To retain a clear and direct role for residents in final funding decisions. • To make the process visible, accessible and open to the wider community. • To balance broad public preference with structured consideration of need, impact and deliverability. • To reduce the risk of public voting alone determining outcomes on the basis of campaigning reach or organisational size. 3.2.14 Stage 6. Results and Payment Phase The community assessment score and public preference vote will be combined to produce a final weighted score for each project: 60% community assessment and 40% public preference. Projects must achieve the minimum standards established through screening and community assessment to be eligible for funding. Funding will then be offered in ranking order within the available allocation for each area, subject to final due diligence and the provisions for the central reserve and underspend set out in sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.5.
Page 6
3.2.15 All applicants will be notified of the outcome. Successful applicants will receive their funding allocation and elected members will be updated on outcomes. Unsuccessful projects will be offered feedback and support to explore collaboration, refinement or alternative funding where appropriate. Purpose: • To ensure the final decision reflects both informed community deliberation and wider resident preference. • To ensure projects can begin promptly and deliver benefits to communities without delay. • To provide a clear, auditable and transparent route from assessment and voting to award. • To make elected members aware of projects funded within their ward areas. 3.2.16 The overall process will enable: • Greater and more inclusive engagement with residents and organisations, particularly those experiencing poverty or disadvantage, ensuring their voices influence priorities and decisions. • Communities to influence allocation through both facilitated local assessment and a direct public preference vote. • A transparent PB approach that is community-led, evidence-based and targeted where it can achieve greatest local impact. • Elected members and council officers to screen eligibility and feasibility, cross-reference existing community and public service provision, avoid duplication and identify opportunities for external funding. • Community assessment participants to consider local need, impact and deliverability before the wider public preference is applied. • Unsuccessful projects to receive feedback and support to explore alternative funding or partnership opportunities. • Projects to start quickly and deliver timely benefits for communities. 3.2.17 The blended model strengthens the Council’s approach to PB by embedding participation at every stage, from identifying priorities through to final decision- making. It retains the visibility and accessibility of public voting while responding to evaluation findings that a vote alone may favour larger or better-connected organisations. The structured, phased approach supports meaningful participation by individuals and communities who are often least likely to engage and gives greater weight to locally evidenced need, impact and deliverability. 3.3. Proposals for Funding allocation 3.3.1 Option 1 Each area is given an equal share of 50% of the overall funding allocation with the remaining 50% being split evenly between the areas of highest inequalities in line with our Fairer Futures Partnerships.
Page 7
Ward Area 50% Equal Share 50% Top up Totals Carse of Gowrie £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Strathmore £14,583.33 £29,166.7 £43,749.99 Blairgowrie & Glens £14,583.33 £29,166.67 £43,749.99 Highland £14,583.33 £29,166.67 £43,749.99 Strathtay £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Strathearn £14,583.33 £29,166.67 £43,749.99 Strathallan £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Kinross-shire £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Almond & Earn £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Perth City South £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Perth City North £14,583.33 £29,166.67 £43,749.99 Perth City Centre £14,583.33 £29,166.67 £43,749.99 TOTALS £174,999.96 £175,000.02 £ 349,999.98 3.3.2 Option 2 Each area is given an equal share of 50% of the overall funding allocation. Areas with higher inequalities are given an uplift of £20,000. £55,000 will be retained in a central reserve to support resident participation in the process and remove barriers and to support eligible projects that meet the funding criteria and score highly but cannot be fully supported within their ward’s remaining allocation following the voting process. Officers will make recommendations to ward members on options for funding projects in oversubscribed areas. Ward Area 50% Equal Share Inequalities Top Up Totals Carse of Gowrie £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Strathmore £14,583.33 £20,000 £34,583.33 Blairgowrie & Glens £14,583.33 £20,000 £34,583.33 Highland £14,583.33 £20,000 £34,583.33 Strathtay £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Strathearn £14,583.33 £20,000 £34,583.33 Strathallan £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Kinross-shire £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Almond & Earn £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Perth City South £14,583.33 £0 £14,583.33 Perth City North £14,583.33 £20,000 £34,583.33 Perth City Centre £14,583.33 £20,000 £34,583.33 TOTALS £174,999.96 £120,000 £294,999.96 3.3.3 It is recommended that Option 2 be adopted for this year’s ICF to allow for flexibility in meeting need in ward areas oversubscribed with successful projects.
Page 8
3.3.4 In addition it is proposed that the 3 Wards comprising of Perth City South, North and Central are combined and treated as one single area as residents routinely access services across ward boundaries and many organisations deliver city-wide rather than ward-specific services. 3.3.5 Any unspent funds will be reallocated to projects that met the assessment criteria and achieved a sufficient scoring level but could not be funded due to a lack of available resources. The use of unspent funds will be overseen through Stage 5, as outlined in section 3.2.12. 3.3.6 Rationale for Recommendations made in Section 2 • Residents access services across the city area regardless of Ward areas. • Community groups may be based in one Ward but deliver services across all ward areas. • Treating Perth City as one combined area will allow the participatory decision-making workshops to ensure there is a fair spread of funding across all 3 Ward areas. • The proposal for delivery of the ICF in 2026/27 and 2027/28 takes account of key learning, evaluations and feedback from communities, elected members and council officers on the previous year’s Fairer Communities for All funding programme, CIF, PB and Warm Spaces/Warm Welcome. The blended approach retains public participation while strengthening collaborative, needs-led assessment and reducing reliance on campaigning reach alone. • Learning and evaluation from the 2026/27 ICF programme, including participation levels, equality of access, stakeholder 4. Impact Value Assessment This report has been classified as being an operational report and as such does not require a full Impact and Value Assessment. 5. Appendices Appendix 1 – Engagement Methods