Guidance

The Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method

Published 22 December 2023

The Community Ownership Fund: Evaluation Method

Institute for Community Studies, with Verian and WPI Economics

December 2023

Introduction

This paper scopes the methodology to conduct an evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund (COF) programme, including its social, economic, and fiscal impacts, and lessons on the processes involved in the implementation of the programme. To deliver the evaluation, The Institute for Community Studies (ICS) is working in partnership with Verian (V) and WPI Economics (WPI).

The £150 million fund was introduced in the 2021 Spring Budget. It was presented as part of a package of UK wide levelling up interventions (see below). The programme was launched on 15 July 2021, and is expected to run until March 2025. Although the fund will include four bidding rounds, with a bidding window approximately every 3 months, this evaluation will focus only on the first three rounds of the evaluation, with a selection of case study projects from Round 1, 1b, 2 window 1 and 3.

In the first three bidding windows, considered within this evaluation, the programme provided up to £250k of capital funding (up to £1m for sporting assets). To receive funding, projects had to match the Community Ownership Fund funding with funding from external sources, capping programme funding to 50% of the total funding needed. Subsequent rounds have seen the funding cap increase to £2 million, and the match funding requirement decrease to 20%. Additionally, development support in the form of a UK wide consortium led by Locality was brought in to support projects in the pre-application stage. As there is significant lead time between the granting of funds and the eventual re-opening of the asset, the evaluation will focus on the first three rounds of the fund which are most likely to re-open to their communities within the evaluation timeframe. Changes brought in afterward these rounds will therefore not be subject to evaluation.

The Community Ownership Fund has four strategic objectives:

• to provide targeted investment for communities to save and sustain community assets that would otherwise be lost to community use;
• to strengthen capacity and capability in communities, supporting them to shape their places and develop sustainable community businesses;
• to empower communities in left behind places to level up; and
• to strengthen direct links between places across the UK and the UK government.

While the fund is still live, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) seeks to undertake an evaluation process to consolidate learnings and support future policy developments in this space.

Community assets and community ownership

There is a long-term trend of communities losing assets that foster community pride and bring people together. Between 2014 and July 2018, more than 12,000 publicly owned assets, worth a total of £2.8bn, were sold by local councils in England alone, some to community groups, but many to be converted for private use, such as housing (Hancox, 2019). In 2020, a report by Onward found closures of 26% of pubs since 2001, 27% of libraries since 2005, and 50% of post offices since the 1980s (Tanner et al., 2020). This is believed to have had a knock-on impact on people’s wellbeing, satisfaction with the place they live in, and the strength of local communities.

At the same time, there is a rising interest in community ownership, with more than 6,300 assets in community ownership in England in 2019, 590 in Scotland and over 400 in Wales (Theminimulle et al, 2022; Scottish Government, 2020; Building Communities Trust, 2023). These trends reflect both rising interest in community ownership by community members and governments, as well as rising precarity for private and public sector owners of existing ‘community assets’.

Northern Ireland has lagged significantly behind other regions of the UK, due to low prioritisation on the political agenda, which has also resulted in a gap in publicly available information on asset ownership (Murtagh, et al., 2012). Data by Development Trusts NI shows that only 11 assets were transferred into community ownership between 2014-2020 (2021).

Community ownership is of interest because:

• community ownership may ensure continuity for assets providing local community services that run the risk of closure under private or public sector ownership. This may be because the asset is better used or managed under community ownership; or because the community is willing to financially support the asset where other actors cannot (‘Continuity of service’).
• community ownership may accrue general benefits to the community, such as building the capacity of local community organisations and volunteers, strengthening social connections, and increasing sense of belonging and pride in place (‘Community Benefits’).

The benefits of community ownership are urgently needed in areas of higher deprivation, many of which may lack community infrastructure (Nielsen, 2021). Community ownership of assets may therefore also help to reduce regional inequality, levelling up the United Kingdom.

Theory of Change for the programme

A Theory of Change (ToC) maps out how an intervention or change is expected to achieve the desired objectives. It shows the links between the inputs and activities comprising an intervention, and how this is expected to lead to outputs and outcomes that produce the expected impacts. Understanding how and why the programme is intended to work will better inform the evaluation questions and therefore the proposed methodology (Coryn et al., 2011).

To articulate a high level Theory of Change, indicative example case studies were developed to represent the types of projects supported under the programme. Although these approaches are not representative of all possible projects, they represent distinct ways in which the funding is supporting community assets. Theories of Change were also developed for different asset types (e.g. community pubs, community energy projects). Finally, Theories of Change were created for each of the case studies which combine the project and asset type theories of change with the specific context of each location. For this exercise and in alignment with the eligibility requirements of the Fund, long term leases (more than 15 years) are considered a form of community ownership.

The programme financially supports community organisations in projects that deliver against all of the following outcomes:

• protect a community asset or amenity that is at risk and preserve its community value;
• develop a sustainable operating model to secure the long-term future of the community asset in community ownership;
• safeguard the use of community assets and associated local amenities.

(Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 2021)

With reference to these intended outcomes from the programme prospectus, the following indicative case studies were developed:

Case 1: Protecting an asset through transfer to community ownership

The programme financially supports projects that seek to transfer a community asset at risk of closure, or which has closed to a community owner or long term leaseholder.

Case 2: Reopening a community owned asset that has closed

The programme financially supports an asset in community ownership that has closed due to disrepair to undergo essential works and refurbishment.

Case 3: Safeguarding a open community owned asset at risk of closure

The programme financially supports an asset in community ownership at risk of closure due to disrepair or limitations of the operating model to achieve greater sustainability, for example by refurbishing the asset or extending its services.

Overall high level Theory of Change

The following components are identified as important to the high level Theory of Change for the programme:

Inputs

• time and effort of the project team
• financial support from the Community Ownership Fund
• financial support from external sources, such as match funding from other organisations, issuance of community shares, in-kind support from the local authority or other concerned stakeholders.

Activities

• preparation of business plan
• engagement of local stakeholders or partners
• assessment of asset, identifying essential works, refurbishment needs and income generation potential
• essential works and/or refurbishment to prepare assets for use
• hiring and training individuals for new roles
• marketing and communications to engage with the local community
• in case 1 (asset transfer to community ownership), the asset purchase negotiation with landowners and preparation work to understand local needs, build supporter base and arrange legal transfer of the asset
• in case 1 (asset transfer to community ownership), activities may include establishing a new organisation to deliver the project and/or take on the asset as necessary
• in case 3 (extending the use of an asset), essential works may also include refurbishment to extend or improve the use of an asset, supported by an updated business plan.

Outputs

• essential works and refurbishments completed
• asset in operation, open to the local community & producing community benefits
• services provided by the asset in operation, in accordance with the asset type (e.g. community hub)
• volunteers and paid roles in place
• in case 1 (asset transfer to community ownership), asset transfer completed.

Intermediate outcomes

• maintaining or creating jobs, volunteering and training opportunities
• procurement of local goods, labour and services to run, refurbish and/or maintain the asset
• availability of new goods/ services for local community
• in cases 1 (asset transfer to community ownership) and 2 (rescue of closed community asset), increased number of community owned assets in the community. Asset loss is avoided and/or the asset is brought back into community use
• in case 3 (extending the use of an asset), use of the asset is extended, with the aim of improving the usability of the asset and/or adding an income stream to improve financial and/or environmental sustainability. This may also increase opportunities for employment and/or volunteering and community benefits to be produced.

Long-term outcomes

• increased capacity and capability for community groups to own assets
• increased skills in volunteers and/or individuals employed by or engaged to support the project
• maintained employment opportunities (where they existed beforehand) and/or creation or reinstatement of employment, training and/or volunteering opportunities
• economic multiplier effects within local ecosystem – retaining wealth locally which could be a catalyst for wider regeneration and new project development
• long term, sustainable, secure, independent asset base to underpin organisation
• maintained or increased social infrastructure for community members to meet others and mix socially, supporting social trust and cohesion and reducing loneliness and social isolation
• increased pride in place, sense of belonging and self-determination
• provision of community and/or locally-hosted public services, responding to the needs of local residents
• environmental benefits addressed through sustainable build and operation choices
• in case 1 (asset transfer to community ownership), an asset is transferred from private ownership to community ownership, avoiding the potential loss of an asset and potentially accruing new benefits associated with community ownership
• in case 2 (rescue of closed community asset), a dilapidated asset is rescued that would otherwise be lost to community use
• in case 3 (extending the use of an asset), The asset has been refurbished or its use extended, increasing the useful life of the asset for community use and potentially increasing the benefits derived by users from the asset.

Evaluation aims and objectives

Based on the literature review, the stated objectives of the fund, and interviews with DLUHC staff, a set of ‘ideal’ evaluation questions have been identified. These questions mirror the evaluation questions set out by DLUHC in the Invitation to Tender, expanding or modifying them through the additional information accrued. The proposed methodology has been designed to respond to these questions to the greatest extent possible.

Taking a realist evaluation approach, some challenges have been identified that limit the power of the full evaluation. These emerge based on how the fund has been designed, and the complex social reality projects operate within, where the programme funding is one of many factors driving change. The main concern is the ability of the combined methods to isolate the impact of COF funding due to complementary funding, including through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and other government and match-funds; and some elements of the design of the fund and the method for selecting case studies. In addition, confounding factors in the context of each case study may mean the same intervention generates different outcomes.

Below, each of the ideal evaluation questions is presented alongside the fund objective it relates to and a brief commentary on the limitations of the evaluation in answering each question.

Objective 1: To provide targeted investment for communities, to save and sustain community assets that would otherwise be lost from community use.

To evaluate the success of the Community Ownership Fund in achieving this objective, evaluation questions include:

• to what extent and how has the programme contributed to saving assets that deliver local benefits, that would otherwise be lost to the local area?
• what contribution/benefits have the projects funded by the programme provided, for asset users, people living in the local community and their place?
• to what extent and how has the programme contributed to increasing outcomes such as wellbeing, pride in place, increased social trust and social cohesion?
• does the programme and projects funded by it represent good value for money?What is the relationship between the value of the benefits derived from the programme and funded projects, and the cost of investment?

However, there are several challenges to fully answering these questions, such as:

• it is difficult to identify a counterfactual to compare impact against, as alternative funding may have been available (‘Funding counterfactual’).
• funding may have maintained the status quo rather than changed local conditions, making isolating the impact of funding complex (‘Asset counterfactual’)
• some projects may be targeted to communities of interest (for example, hobbyist communities or certain demographic groups) which affects the size of the impacted population and may make impacts difficult to evaluate (‘Community of impact’)
• funding is split into a ‘capital’ and a ‘revenue’ component that may have differing impacts (‘Nature of funding’)
• it is difficult to infer from the case studies the impact of the entire fund (‘Generalisability’)
• it may take time beyond the scope of the evaluation timeline for the full impact of projects on their places to be perceived, meaning the evaluation is limited to capturing impacts and outcomes that occur during the evaluation timeline (2024-2026) (‘Time’)
• it is difficult to attribute the outcomes to programme funding alone, as projects receive funding or support from other sources (‘Attribution’)

Objective 2: To strengthen capacity and capability in communities, supporting them to shape their places and develop sustainable community businesses.

An evaluation question which would allow an assessment of the success of the Community Ownership Fund against this objective is:

• to what extent and how has COF contributed to the capacity and capability of communities to run community assets sustainably?

However, there are several challenges to fully answering this question, such as:

• funding may have maintained the status quo rather than changed local conditions, making isolating the impact of funding complex (‘Asset counterfactual’)
• some projects may be targeted to communities of interest (for example, hobbyist communities or certain demographic groups) which affects the size of the impacted population and may make impacts difficult to evaluate (‘Community of impact’)
• it is difficult to infer from the case studies the impact of the entire fund (‘Generalisability’)
• other economic or social processes may also impact the capacity and capability of communities (‘Confounding factors’)

Objective 3: To empower communities in left behind places to level up.

An evaluation question which would allow an assessment of the success of the Community Ownership Fund against this objective is:

• how do the conditions of place affect the process and outcomes of saving a community asset at risk of being lost from community use?

However, there are several challenges to fully answering this question, such as:

• it is difficult to infer from the case studies the impact of the entire fund (‘Generalisability’)
• the fund did not specifically target priority ‘levelling up’ areas (‘Fund targeting’)
• Earlier windows of the Fund do not include later improvements that aimed to support applications from more deprived areas, potentially limiting inferences that can be made from some of the case studies (‘Fund design’)

Objective 4: To strengthen direct links between places across the UK and the UK government.

An evaluation question which would allow an assessment of the success of the Community Ownership Fund against this objective is:

• To what extent and how has COF contributed to strengthening the links between places across the UK and the UK government?

However, there are several challenges to fully answering this question, such as:

• it is difficult to infer from the case studies the impact of the entire fund (‘Generalisability’)
• other economic or social processes may also impact the capacity and capability of communities (‘Confounding factors’)

Methodological considerations and final overall approach

The evaluation team will apply a mixed methods approach to the evaluation, combining:

• a hyper-local survey quantitative approach, which will use Address-Based Online Surveying (ABOS) across six of the case studies to collect hyper-local data in case study areas that can be compared to data in secondary datasets such as the Community Life Survey. Data will be analysed using a ‘difference-in-difference’ approach, ‘matching’ case study areas that witnessed programme intervention with similar areas that did not, to control for confounding contextual factors that may have influenced the outcomes of interest. The survey treatment will be applied at three points (Jan-Feb 2024, Jan-Feb 2025, Jan-Feb 2026) to capture a baseline measure and change over time.
• qualitative fieldwork, which will collect data from all twelve case study projects through a combination of ethnographic fieldwork and participatory workshops or focus groups, before conducting a comparative analysis between case study sites to identify patterns and themes. This methodology is expected to generate a deep understanding of how impact is created through the case study projects, as well as identifying unintended or unexpected impacts.
• a value for money assessment for each case study project, which will look at how the public resources used by the programme translates to additional economic, social, and environmental value by assessing the costs and benefits associated with the programme. The method proposed will rely on HM Treasury Green Book guidance on appraising projects, incorporating insights from the qualitative and hyper-local survey (quantitative) strands.

Quantitative approaches, which produce numerical data that can be aggregated and analysed, allow for an exploration and attribution of potential causal relationships (in this case, whether the Community Ownership Fund caused particular outcomes in the case study area). These relationships can be rigorously tested using statistical methods, reducing the risk that improvements in places caused by chance or some other factors are mis-attributed to the Community Ownership Fund. Qualitative research is essential to then explain causal relationships identified through quantitative analysis and elucidate contextual differences between cases that are difficult to measure, or that emerge from the complex dynamics of wider systems- such as the capacity of the lead community organisation.

Findings from both qualitative and quantitative approaches will then inform the Value for Money assessment, which will aim to distinguish the various costs and benefits identified into monetary values, that show the additional public value generated by the resources spent on the Community Ownership Fund, thus allowing DLUHC to compare success against other programmes. The extension of the COF evaluation timeline for an additional year, strengthens the opportunity to look at impacts which may take time to develop at place and community level following the asset’s opening; enables greater consideration of what ‘sticky’ capacity has remained in terms of the team running the asset (process evaluation); and controls for temporal bias (where there may be a spike in positive or negative response to the asset in the 3-6 months immediately after opening in the community).

The selection of the twelve case studies (including six case studies for the survey treatment) was based on a project typology, with the aim of maximising variation across the case study portfolio. The typology was based on a review of the documentation of all the projects in funding rounds 1, 1b and 2.1 (a total of n=68). Case studies were selected for examination through the evaluation, representing 17.6% of the sample under evaluation, and covering the four nations, different types of geographies (e.g. urban, rural, town), and a range of project characteristics (e.g. asset type, involvement of local authorities, project budget).

Six of these case studies will be subject to the hyper-local survey quantitative methodology, and all twelve will be subject to the qualitative and Value for Money methodologies. Although the selection of case studies is not representative of the full sample, it reflects the variety of projects in the fund portfolio, allowing the evaluation to cover a broad range of factors which may be mediating projects’ impact on places. The majority of case studies are selected from rounds 1 and 2 of the Community Ownership Fund; additions of projects from Round 3 will be considered upon further review of the feasibility and value of understanding how differing criteria and funding levels in round 3, affected applicant type; project type; and experience (therefore providing potential to strengthen the process evaluation).

The diagram below (Figure 1) illustrates the two work packages that make up the evaluation: the feasibility study, an initial assessment of the feasibility of reaching the evaluation aims through the proposed methods, and the full evaluation, made up of three simultaneous and interconnected workstreams.

The diagram illustrates the expected outcomes of each methodology used within the full evaluation, where:

• the value for money methodology is expected to identify and quantify of the costs and benefits of each of the case study projects to determine value for money of the fund.
• the hyper-local survey (quantitative methodology) is expected to isolate and quantify the impacts of the case study projects on their places.
• the qualitative methodology is expected to generate an in depth understanding of how the impacts of the case study projects on their places is happening, and what factors of the funding process and project characteristics are mediating the impacts.

Figure 1. Structure of the proposed evaluation, including the feasibility study (conducted prior to methods paper) and expected outcomes.

Qualitative methodology

Qualitative research is a process of enquiry and meaning making where the researcher is the instrument of enquiry (Quinn Patton, 2015). In evaluation, qualitative enquiry is used for “evaluative meaning making”, or understanding how a program works and what it results in, making a judgement about its effectiveness (Quinn Patton, 2015). Qualitative research can make a range of contributions to a mixed method approach, including elucidating how systems function and their consequences on people’s lives, understanding the context of programmes or interventions and identifying unanticipated consequences (Quinn Patton, 2015). Furthermore, qualitative research is an ideal tool for making case comparisons, as will be the case in this research, to discover patterns or themes across cases (Quinn Patton, 2015).

Qualitative research can use a range of methods and types of data. The proposed method below is centred around ethnographic evaluation, an umbrella term which encompasses observation and fieldwork ‘in situ’ (i.e. in place) as well as in-depth, open-ended interviews, review of documents and triangulation. The strengths of ethnographic evaluation are its ability to connect quantitative data to observed outcomes, the flexibility of the method, its “thick description” of impact, and the potential to clarify processes within the evaluated programme (Youker, 2007). Ethnographic evaluation is open-ended, which means that it does not focus solely on the identification of expected outcomes. This allows for the identification of unintended or unexpected impacts, both positive and negative (Youker, 2007).

Although ethnography is commonly used for programme evaluation, it is not recommended as the sole tool but rather one of multiple data collection methods (Youker, 2007). In this case, it will be combined with focus groups, workshops and desk research, as well as the wider programme of quantitative research and value for money evaluation.

This strand will be led by the ICS, and primarily addresses the impact and the process evaluation.

Impact evaluation

In situ research by ICS researchers will be conducted at the location of each of the twelve case study projects. Each case study project will be visited on two occasions, using a consistent approach and methodology for the identification of change over time.

The fieldwork will include ethnographic observation at the asset site, pulse interviews with asset users, and focus groups with community organisations and (where applicable) local authorities will be used to identify the intended and unintended impacts of projects on their local communities. Additional interviews will draw on the knowledge of local organisations and stakeholders, such as local health and care and social services to understand the wider environmental context within which the asset is situated.

In situ research is preferable to solely relying on interviews and workshops as it takes an open-ended approach, allowing for the identification of unintended or unexpected impacts and providing rich data that can be connected to the quantitative analysis. It also allows for observation of communities of impact that are smaller or more fluid in form (for example, communities of interest) than what the quantitative approach can capture. Given the sequential nature of the fieldwork, there will be opportunities for the evaluation team to adjust the tools and methods iteratively, improving their effectiveness.

Process evaluation

The process evaluation component of the qualitative fieldwork will open with an online workshop with teams managing case study projects, and background research gathering information about the conditions of case study places. This will be combined with the findings of the in situ research described above to conduct an iterative, comparative analysis across the case studies, identifying points of similarity and difference. After completing this analysis, a final online workshop with project teams will share and test the findings and contextualise the emerging insights with participants’ in-depth knowledge of their places and projects.

Discussion

A benefit of the qualitative approach chosen is in identifying possible counterfactuals with project teams and local users, who have access to local knowledge regarding alternative sources of funding and the potential impact of asset closure. Counterfactuals may be similar assets in place (community owned or otherwise) that the community would need to solely rely on in case of the absence of the community asset being funded by the COF. For example, it may be that with the closure of a local community shop, the ‘counterfactual’ would entail individuals travelling to a nearby town with a high street or relying on online shopping. Where there is no easily identifiable ‘alternative’ asset the counterfactual is formed of people’s behaviour in the absence of the asset, (e.g. a community pub closes, the alternative options are more people choosing to drink at home, potentially increasing isolation or decreasing community social relations and bonding).

The qualitative fieldwork will additionally complement the findings from the quantitative methodology, for instance by focusing on the outcomes that are too subtle for the survey to capture (e.g. an increase in local employment of 2-3 people). The process and qualitative impact evaluation will be able to identify these benefits through interviews as well as any records of participation, employment, and training the community organisation shares with the evaluators. Additionally, the qualitative fieldwork will include areas of focus and questions that will inform the Value for Money methodology.

However, it is difficult to generalise findings from the case studies to the entire programme or control for confounding factors outside the saved asset that have improved conditions in local places. In addition, the qualitative methodology will use a lens of deprivation or place status as ‘left behind’ in the comparative analysis to tie the findings back to the fund’s aim of ‘levelling up left behind’ places.

Quantitative methodology

Some of the programmes intended outcomes, such as those related to social trust, sense of belonging and wellbeing, can only be reliably measured through collecting data directly from local communities. In line with this, the quantitative impact evaluation will use hyper-local surveys of residents living in the areas surrounding selected assets to record these outcomes. This strand will be led by Verian (formerly Kantar Public), which will conduct these surveys both before the asset is opened to the public (or as soon as possible after the opening) and after the asset has opened to the public, to measure the change in outcomes.

Survey data will be used to compare the change in outcomes observed in these areas against the change observed in a set of comparison areas. This will allow us to quantify the extent to which the Fund has delivered against its intended outcomes and has provided added value to people living in the funded communities. The data for comparison areas will come from the Community Life Survey (CLS), a large scale national survey, conducted by Verian on behalf of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Crucially, the Community Life Survey collects a number of relevant outcomes using very similar procedures to the proposed hyper-local surveys. It can, therefore, provide a good source of comparison data.

Other surveys were considered, including amongst others:

• Understanding Society, rejected as it includes few neighbourhood-focused questions
• the National Survey for Wales, which overlaps with the Community Life Survey but is more limited e.g., no questions capturing trust, cohesion and belonging
• the Annual Population Survey, which it mainly focuses on employment/demographic questions that are already captured in the Community Life Survey
• the Scottish Household Survey, which overlaps with the Community Life Survey, although, also in this case, is more limited overall such as having no participation questions
• the Northern Ireland (NI) Life and Times Survey, rejected as there is no Northern Ireland case study planned for the survey method.

This approach builds on previous successful deployment of hyper-local surveys by Verian to estimate the impacts of local community businesses (as part of Power to Change’s Empowering Places programme) and of locally delivered initiatives to tackle crime and feelings of safety (such as the Safer Streets Fund evaluations). The impact analysis will use a matched Difference-in-Differences framework, aligned with the guidance set out in the HM Treasury Magenta Book. By comparing trends in key outcomes, Difference-in-Differences can account for some of the external factors which could influence outcomes over the course of the evaluation. In this way, this method can offer a robust approach for causal attribution in the absence of random assignment to treatments.

Hyper-local survey

The evaluation team will use the hyper-local surveys to measure the change in key outcomes for people living in the areas near to selected assets supported by the fund.

There are three key design considerations to ensure the hyper-local surveys support robust impact evaluation:

• the surveys must collect the relevant outcomes for each asset, as well as any other variables needed to support the analysis
• the surveys must provide data that is representative of the communities that are expected to benefit from the fund
• the surveys must be conducted in a way that mirrors the Community Life Survey so that the two data sources are comparable.

Questionnaire design: What data will be collected?

The quasi-experimental impact evaluation will use key outcomes collected in the hyper-local surveys. Verian will map each case study area’s targeted outcomes (or in the absence of this, the intended use of the asset from which related outcomes can be derived) to metrics collected in the Community Life Survey and replicate the relevant questions in the hyper-local surveys. This will ensure there is comparable data on the trajectory of outcomes for the impact analysis. Drawing on the theories and previous evaluations identified in the literature review and the high-level theories of change for the project, key outcomes are likely to include: reduced social isolation and loneliness; improved social trust; community cohesion and sense of belonging; and greater participation in community life.

There may additionally be some outcomes of interest which are not included in the Community Life Survey. Verian will include bespoke questions in the surveys to fill these gaps. However, these outcomes cannot be included in the quasi-experimental impact analysis; this is because the evaluation team will not have equivalent data for the comparison areas. Instead, the hyper-local surveys will measure the change over time in these outcomes. While this change cannot be robustly attributed to the impacts of the fund, this analysis can still contribute to the wider findings about if and how the fund has affected local communities.

Another purpose of the surveys is to gather evidence for the process and Value for Money evaluations. Therefore, the surveys will also include questions mapped to the causal mechanisms and impact pathways identified in each of the case studies’ individual Theory of Change. This will help the evaluation team determine the enablers or barriers to impact, for example, whether people are aware of the assets in their local areas and the community ownership scheme, whether and how often the assets are used, willingness to pay and general opinion about the asset. Verian expects that these types of questions will be common between case studies, but there is some flexibility to add bespoke questions in each case study area informed by their Theory of Change. Again, these questions will not be included in the quasi-experimental impact analysis but can still provide valuable evidence about how the fund is working.

Verian will also collect key demographics that will be used for weighting the treatment area sample and for matching with the counterfactual. Examples of these variables are age, sex, ethnicity, adults and children in the household, years lived in current neighbourhood, working status, as well as health status. These demographics must be consistent with the variables available in the national surveys selected to construct counterfactual measures.

Sample design: Who will data be collected from?

The evaluation team plans to include six assets in the quasi-experimental impact evaluation. Around each of these assets, a “community of impact” will be defined. This community of impact represents the local residents expected to benefit from the asset and will be made up of surrounding Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) or Output Areas (OAs). Verian has developed an initial idea of the reach of the assets from the application documents, but the specific area in scope will be refined with each of the case study projects selected for the survey.

Once the Lower Layer Super Output Areas or Output Areas in scope are defined and confirmed with project staff, Verian will draw a systematic random sample of addresses from the Royal Mail Postcode Address File (PAF) in each area. The advantage of a random sample is that it ensures that the selected sample fairly represents the range of experiences within the community.

The aim is to achieve 1,000 completed questionnaires per case study area at both the baseline and follow-up stages. Verian will sort the list of eligible addresses by postcode and first line of address, before drawing a systematic random sample, that is, from a random starting point selecting every nth address to obtain the necessary sample size. This will ensure the selected sample is representative of households in the area.

Fieldwork procedures: How will data be collected?

The survey will be conducted using a form of Address-Based Online Surveying (ABOS). This is an established method for collecting robust local data across the UK. Verian pioneered the development of ABOS for the CLS, and now similar methods are used on a range of high-profile studies including designated official and national statistics.

The data collection procedures are designed to be very similar to the Community Life Survey to maximise the comparability of the two data sources. Verian will send a letter to every sampled address in each of the case study areas, inviting all residents aged 16+ to take part in the survey online. The letter will include login details for up to four adults in each household. To maximise response rates, a conditional incentive of £5 will be offered and non-responding addresses will be sent up to two reminders, each around a fortnight apart. Paper questionnaires will be included in the final reminder to ensure the survey is inclusive of hard to reach groups, particularly offline population, older residents and people in more deprived areas. Further information about Community Life Survey data collection procedures can be found in the Community Life Survey technical report.

The baseline survey is scheduled to be carried out in January-February 2024, and the follow up surveys are scheduled to be conducted in January-February 2025 and January-February 2026.

Although the sample will be designed to be representative of the communities of impact in each area, it is inevitable that some sub-groups will be more likely to take part in the survey than others. Verian will therefore weight the survey data to ensure that the achieved sample matches the demographic profile of the local resident population, using Lower Layer Super Output Areas or Output Areas level official population statistics. Specifically, the survey data will be weighted to match the local population with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, household structure, housing tenure, and disability status as recorded in the 2021 Census.

Estimating the counterfactual

The hyper-local surveys described above will provide a measure of change in key outcomes for local communities after the transfer of assets. However, to understand the impacts of the fund, the evaluation team also needs to estimate what this change would have been in the absence of the fund. This can be done by looking at the change in outcomes in a set of similar comparison areas.

Ideally, the evaluation team would conduct an equivalent hyper-local survey in a set of areas selected to be similar to the set of case study areas. However, it is possible to make use of the fact that the Community Life Survey is an existing large-scale survey collecting relevant measures and conducted using very similar procedures. Therefore, a more efficient use of the available resources will be to build the comparison sample out of data already collected as part of the Community Life Survey. This allows the survey resources for the evaluation to be focused on maximising the sample sizes in the case study areas, increasing the statistical power to detect impacts of the fund.

In summary, there are three steps for each case study area:

1. Selecting areas within the Community Life Survey dataset which are similar to the case study areas.

2. Matching the sample of individuals from the Community Life Survey in these matched areas to the sample of individuals in the hyper-local surveys. This is to account for any remaining individual-level differences observed between the two groups.

3. Estimating the impact of the fund using difference-in-differences models.

Selecting counterfactual areas

The comparison sample for each case study area will consist of respondents from the Community Life Survey who live in the most similar Lower Layer Super Output Areas or Output Areas to the case study area. Verian will build a profile of the Output Areas within each case study area based on a set of publicly available area-level characteristics. The set of characteristics could vary between case study areas depending on the type of asset but is likely to include: index of multiple deprivation, population size and demographics (as recorded in the 2021 Census), police recorded crime, rural/urban classification, Department for Transport (DfT) journey time statistics, proportion of accommodation units that are flats (as a measure of housing density), among others.

Verian will then build an equivalent profile of the local areas for Community Life Survey respondents. For each Output Area in the Community Life Survey dataset, the Euclidean distance relative to each Output Area in a case study area will be calculated. This is a measure of the similarity between the area profiles; it takes the difference between two Output Areas on each variable to define how similar or different the Output Areas are to one another. The lower the Euclidean distance is, the more similar the areas are with respect to these area-level characteristics. One key advantage of using the Euclidean distance is that it is a simple metric to calculate which can be easily replicated or extended to include additional variables. Using these Euclidean distances, the evaluation team will construct a rank order of similarity, where the most similar set of Output Areas for each case study area will be selected as the comparison sample.

Matching comparison cases

The selection of comparison areas (described above) will ensure the comparison sample and the sample from the hyper-local surveys are drawn from similar areas. However, there may still be differences between the types of individuals providing data in those areas. Therefore, the evaluation team will additionally use propensity score matching to generate weights for individuals in the comparison areas so that they match as closely as possible the profile of the respondents in case study areas. This step will help to account for remaining observed differences between treatment and comparison cases.

These weights will be based on individual characteristics available in the secondary datasets used for the comparison sample, which the evaluation team will replicate in the survey in case study areas. The final set of variables will be decided as part of the matching model selection and could include sex, age, employment status, household composition, marital status, among others. After this matching, the weighted profile of the comparison sample will look similar to the weighted profile of respondents from the case study areas. The evaluation team can then more confidently attribute a difference in outcome trends between the two groups to the effects of the fund.

Estimating impacts

After selecting comparison areas and weighting comparison cases, the evaluation team will carry out a Difference-in-Differences analysis. to compare changes in outcomes of interest in the case study areas versus comparison areas. The key assumption of this method is that the change for key outcomes observed in comparison areas is the same as the change that would have been observed in a case study area without the fund. In other words, the trend in the comparison areas represents the counterfactual trend for case study areas.

An important strength of this approach is that it accounts for differences between the case study areas and the comparison areas, to the extent that these differences remain stable over time. These are sometimes described as unobserved, time-invariant area fixed effects. In other words, there may be some differences between the case study areas and the comparison areas that cannot be accounted for in the selection and matching process described above; Difference-in-Differences provides a framework for estimating the impacts of the fund, making the assumption that those differences do not change over time.

A Difference-in-Differences approach also accounts for external factors which could influence outcomes, but have a similar effect in both case study areas and the comparison areas (sometimes described as time fixed effects). For example, wider national economic trends may have similar effects in different areas (especially as the case study areas and the comparison areas will have been selected to have similar characteristics).

To effectively use Difference-in-Differences, data must be collected in each of the survey case study areas at two timepoints: before the asset has been transferred and/or opened to the public (baseline), and in a future point that will allow enough time for treatment effects to unfold (follow-up). For the comparison data, the evaluation team will use Community Life Survey data collected at the same time points to ensure the two data sources are comparable.

Value for money methodology

This strand will be led by WPI Economics and will look at how the public resources used by the Community Ownership Fund translate to additional economic, social and environmental value by assessing the costs and benefits associated with the programme in each case study area. This exercise will be informed by the qualitative and quantitative strands, supplemented by additional desk research, literature review and interviews with stakeholders.

The evaluation team conducted a rapid evidence review regarding how Community Ownership Fund costs and benefits could be identified, quantified and monetised for the Value for Money analysis. Headline findings from the review were:

• the largest Community Ownership Fund cost is monetisable. The programme investment itself will be the largest cost in saving a community asset.
• smaller costs are more difficult to identify and monetise (yet still possible). Such as the use of DLUHC resources to manage the programme, e.g. the amount of time officials have spent working on the programme will have to be estimated.
• five sources will be used to identify and monetise benefits:
  • Community Ownership Fund applications. These include narrative descriptions of an asset’s ‘potential to deliver community benefits’ and ‘added value to the community’.
  • business plans. These set out information on income flows, anticipated employment etc. (business plans vary in level of detail).
  • hyper-local surveys. Using the impact evaluation results to estimate the value of the increased community wellbeing generated by the asset.
  • qualitative insight. Taken from interviews that form part of the process evaluation.
  • values attributed to benefits in existing literature. for example, the value of training a person to enter the labour market.

The headline conclusion is that there is enough existing information - which will be supplemented by qualitative and quantitative research - to form the basis of a credible value for money analysis. The initial aim is to produce cost benefit ratios, but cost effectiveness analysis may be more appropriate for some case studies (with the best approach established as the analysis progresses).

The twelve case study areas that are the focus of the evaluation potentially give rise to very different types of costs and benefits. The evaluation team’s appraisal framework will identify if and how these differences arise by identifying:

• the likely economic, social and environmental costs and benefits that may be associated with each type of project.
• the relevant metrics for each cost or benefit, and the feasibility of data collection and/or analysis to undertake measurement.
• the ways in which non-monetary values might be monetised, so that any further data needs are clearly identified.
• the level of confidence (along with any caveats and/or ranges that need to be used) of inputs and outputs to conduct the cost effectiveness and cost benefit analyses.

The value for money approach will draw on HM Treasury’s official guidance on appraising projects (the ‘Green Book’ methodology). Applying a value for money methodology to the Community Ownership Fund requires several key assumptions around the availability of funding (i.e. that programme funding was necessary to save the asset), isolating the benefits of Community Ownership Fund funding against the other matched funding sources, the period over which to calculate benefits, and making judgements about benefits that could still arise in counterfactuals without programme funding. HM Treasury Green Book experts will be consulted to inform approaches around these assumptions.

Expected evaluation outcomes

This section explains how each approach informs each aspect of the three strands evaluation, and thus how the ‘overall’ mixed methods evaluation methodology will enable an assessment which is greater than the sum of any one method alone.

Process evaluation

Qualitative fieldwork

Understanding of:

• the process of receiving and implementing the funds
• the factors that are supporting/ impeding the process of the transfer, rescue or extension of the asset
• the factors that are amplifying/diminishing the impact of the asset on the community.

Hyperlocal survey

• identification of causal mechanisms and impact pathways for each case study project, in line with project theories of change
• identification of enablers or barriers to impact (for example, local awareness of asset).

Value for money evaluation

• Input into understanding around how costs are incurred and how benefits arise.

Overall

Identification, measurement and in-depth understanding of the mechanisms and factors that are impeding or enabling the impact of the project on the local areas.

Impact evaluation

Qualitative fieldwork

• in depth, contextual understanding of the intended and unintended impacts of the asset on its local community and specific groups within it
• where possible, these impacts will be compared to a counterfactual.

Hyperlocal survey

• measure of change in key expected outcomes in six hyper-local case study areas
• comparison to counterfactual areas to isolate contribution of Community Ownership Fund.

Value for money evaluation

• appraisal of value for money through conversion of impacts identified through other methods into costs and benefits to the economy, society and the environment.

Overall

Identification, measurement and appraisal of the intended and unintended impacts of case study projects on local communities.

Value for money evaluation

Qualitative fieldwork

• identification of unexpected or unintended benefits derived from projects, which will inform the cost benefit analysis.

Hyperlocal survey

• identification and quantification of benefits derived from projects, which will inform the cost benefit analysis.

Value for money evaluation

• production of Cost Benefit Ratios (CBRs) and Cost Benefit Analysis for all twelve case study projects
• potential inclusion of Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) if more appropriate.

Overall

Insight on how effectively COF converts public resources into additional public value. 

Conclusion

The evaluation team has defined a method for evaluation that will:

• identify, measure, and appraise the intended and unintended impacts of case study Community Ownership Fund projects on local communities
• identify, measure and understand in-depth the mechanisms and factors that are impeding or enabling the impact of case study projects on their local areas
• Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of overall programme, providing insight on how cost effectively outcomes have been achieved when compared to alternative approaches.

The proposed methodology mitigates several of the key challenges that emerged when considering our ‘ideal’ evaluation questions. In particular, identifying appropriate counterfactuals to compare the Community Ownership Fund outcomes against as well as controlling for confounding variables is delivered through our proposed mixture of quantitative, qualitative and Value for Money approaches.

A key remaining challenge is evaluating whether the fund is meeting its aim of ‘levelling up left behind’ places. Given that the fund did not specifically target ‘left behind’ places, it may be necessary to conduct additional evaluation to determine whether the fund as a whole is supporting the aim of levelling up ‘left behind’ areas; this is alongside challenges in generalisability beyond the case studies given the variation in project types, and changes to the fund across rounds. However, the evaluation will be able to provide key insights about differential impacts between case studies in ‘left behind’ and other areas, informing additional future evaluation and design of similar policies.

Annex: Asset Theories of change (indicative)

Indicative TOCs and change models

The table below shows the most common classes of assets, in order of frequency within the reviewed sample. It illustrates the services that these assets commonly provide, as well as expected impact from the literature. It is worth noting that most of the reviewed assets combine two or more of these asset classes within a single space.

Table 1: Common classes of assets.

Asset	What they provide	Expected impact	Notes
Hub (community services)	-Facilities for the use of the local community. -Services for the local community. -Opportunities for community engagement, volunteering, and empowerment. -Activities or spaces aimed at a segment of the population (e.g. older people, children or young people). -Other common activities: -Community hall or meeting space (59%) -Health or well-being activities (17%) -Educational activities (13%) -Skills and employment training (12%) -Community café (11%) (Power to Change, Local Trust and Locality, 2020).	-“Local, accessible meeting spaces directly benefit people living nearby”, enabling them to build trust, share their concerns and develop projects (Power to Change, Local Trust and Locality, 2020). -A “welcoming venue” with accessible activities has been found to foster social capital (Power to Change, Local Trust and Locality, 2020). -The diversity and changing nature of services provided enables the hub to directly address community needs (Power to Change, Local Trust and Locality, 2020). -Potential to affect the “self-belief and ambition of local residents” (Power to Change, Local Trust and Locality, 2020) -Enhancing community life.	Beyond impacts on social outcomes, many key impacts of Community Hubs are indirect – they facilitate access to a wider range of community services by providing a physical location and other forms of material support. This makes it difficult to pinpoint a universal ‘theory of change’ for the asset class. One hypothesis to explore could be whether Community Hubs magnify the impact of other community initiatives. Community Hubs often include events spaces, which focus on providing a location for community or private events.
Training	Skills and employment training	-Training programmes can result in long term benefits for participants through higher incomes (see Dearden et al. 2006) and there is some evidence it results in stronger future employability (e.g. Heinrich et al. 2013). -Stronger local economic conditions provide benefits beyond those employed by the community assets (Abel & Deitz 2019). -Many community assets that are not directly aimed at training highlighted the provision of new employment opportunities to manage the asset. This is particularly important in less populated rural communities. -Several assets also intended to invest in apprenticeships to upskill employees.	Training was usually listed as an ancillary benefit emerging from day-to-day activities within the community asset. Some assets intended to provide dedicated training programmes, for example in digital (Grow the Glens) or heritage skills.
Café	“Social impact” cafes are those that prioritise social impact over profitability. They provide: -Access to low cost drinks and/or food for members of the community. -Volunteering opportunities for vulnerable people, long-term unemployed, people with learning difficulties or mental health issues (Power to Change, 2018). “Commercial” cafes, or those that prioritise profits, provide: -Employment opportunities for local people. Both types of cafes may provide catering to support events in the asset/elsewhere.	Cafes can be included in projects as sources of income or as part of delivering social impact. This distinction impacts how cafes are staffed and run, as well as their potential impact (Power to Change, 2018).	All projects that included cafes within the analysed sample also had other functions, most of which were community hubs.
Pub	-Food and alcohol. -Events space. -In some cases, community pubs also provide -Local shop -Post office -Facilities for the use of the local community, including local groups and events.	-Increase a sense of belonging among residents. -Contributing to social cohesion and social capital. -Reducing social isolation and improving wellbeing. -Strengthening and extending social networks. -Hosting local groups and events -Enhancing the cultural identity of the area, maintaining local heritage/ an important social asset. This contributes to increasing the attractiveness of the place to current and potential residents. -Where applicable, delivering local services (e.g. shop, post office). -Contributing to the local economy by: -Creating training and employment opportunities for local people. -Buying goods and services from local suppliers. (Barnard et al, 2017).	Pubs that are run for community benefit look to serve the community by providing services beyond drinks. They tend to have a dual focus on achieving financial sustainability and delivering social and economic benefits to their local community. They measure their own success through “hard” indicators such as profit/loss, and “softer” indicators such as feedback from shareholders, users and the wider community. Where pubs are owned by a group of stakeholders or community shareholders, it may be important to generate enough surplus income to pay interest to investors. Community pubs often emerge from the closure of a local pub, as a route to preserve an asset. Community pubs are predominantly located in rural areas, where their functions are particularly important due to a lack of alternative spaces and/or employment opportunities (Barnard et al, 2017).
Sports facilities	-A physical space for sport activities, for the use of local sports (and other) groups. -Provision of affordable and accessible sports and leisure activities. -Volunteering, training and paid employment opportunities. Business opportunities for local suppliers. -Facilities for the use of local NHS services (e.g. for rehabilitation services or social prescribing). (Local Government Association, 2023).	-Increased participation in physical activity. -Increased accessibility, encouraging groups who may not have used the asset before. -Development of skills and capacity amongst the individuals managing the building. Attracts new people with additional skills. -Generation of income that can be re-invested locally. -Potential to reverse economic decline of an area and attract investment. -Renewed sense of pride and confidence in the community. (Local Government Association, 2023).	-Community ownership of sports facilities “protects facilities that may otherwise be lost and fall into disrepair”, and incentivises investment in the physical asset to reduce running costs (e.g. energy efficiency) (Local Government Association, 2023). -Community ownership can also enable more intensive use of the sporting asset than other forms of ownerships (Local Government Association, 2023).

Bibliography

Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2019). ‘Why Are Some Places So Much More Unequal Than Others?’, Economic Policy Review, 25/Dec. Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Archer, T., Batty, E., Harris, C., Parkes, S., Wilson, I., Aiken, M., Buckley, E., et al. (2019). Our assets, our future: the economics, outcomes and sustainability of assets in community ownership (Research Report). Power to Change. Retrieved August 10, 2023, from Our assets, our future: the economics, outcomes and sustainability of assets in community ownership (PDF, 1,055 KB)

Archer, T., Batty, E., Harris, C., Parkes, S., Wilson, I., Aiken, M., Buckley, E., Moran, R. and Terry, V. (2019). Technical Report “Our assets, our future: the economics, outcomes and sustainability of assets in community ownership”.Research Report. Power to Change.

Barnard, M., Davies, M., Hughes, S. and Miscampbell, G. (2017). What works: Successful community pubs. Research Report. Power to Change.

Bramley, J., & Zappia, Z. (2020). Building a sustainable data ecosystem around community assets in England. Research Report. mySociety. Retrieved August 10, 2023, from Building a sustainable data ecosystem around community assets in England (PDF, 1,047 KB)

Bruni, F., Marks, R., Newman, S. and Ruseva, V. (2017). Economic appraisal of community asset transfers. Practice Guide. Power to Change.

Bruni, F., Marks, R., Newman, S., & Ruseva, V. (2017a). The Economics of Community Asset Transfers: An Economic Framework to define and measure Social Value in Community Asset Transfers. Research Report. Pro Bono Economics. Retrieved August 10, 2023, from The Economics of Community Asset Transfers: An Economic Framework to define and measure Social Value in Community Asset Transfers

Building Communities Trust. (2023). Mapping Community Assets in Wales. BCT. Mapping Community Assets in Wales

Coutinho, S., Hamlyn, R., Smith, K. and Williams, J. (2021). Empowering Places? Measuring the impact of community businesses at neighbourhood level. Research Report. Power to Change.

Davies, M., Miscampbell, G., Barnard, M. and Hughes, S. (2017). What works: Successful community housing. Research Report. Power to Change.

Davies, M., Miscampbell, G., Barnard, M., & Hughes, S. (2017). What works: Successful community pubs, Research Report. Power to Change.

Dearden, L., Reed, H., & Reenen, J. V. (2006). The Impact of Training on Productivity and Wages: Evidence from British Panel Data.

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. (2021). Community Ownership Fund Round 1: Prospectus (not in use). GOV.UK. Community Ownership Fund Round 1: prospectus (not in use)

Development Trusts Northern Ireland (2021). Review of Community Rights for Asset Transfer in Northern Ireland (PDF, 346 KB).

DTNI. (2023). DTNI CAT Process.

Dubb, S. (2018). Ownership as Social Relation: Nonprofit Strategies to Build Community Wealth through Land. Non Profit News Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved August 30, 2023, from Ownership as Social Relation: Nonprofit Strategies to Build Community Wealth through Land

Falkirk Council. (2023). Community Asset Transfer. Falkirk Council. Retrieved August 31, 2023, from Community Asset Transfer in the Falkirk Council area

Foley, N. (2019). Last orders? The decline of pubs around the UK, House of Commons Library.

Forbes, D. and Nichols, G. (2020). The community asset transfer of libraries: Considerations in community managed libraries taking a lease. Research Report. Power to Change.

Gilbert, A. (2016). A common interest: The role of asset transfer in developing the community business market. Research Report. Power to Change.

Groot, W., & De Brink, H. M. V. (2000). Education, training and employability, Applied Economics, 32/5: 573–81. Routledge. DOI: 10.1080/000368400322471

Hancox, D. (2019). Great British sell-off: how desperate councils sold £9.1bn of public assets. The Guardian.

Heinrich, C. J., Mueser, P. R., Troske, K. R., Jeon, K.-S., & Kahvecioglu, D. C. (2013). Do Public Employment and Training Programs Work?, IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 2/1: 6. DOI: 10.1186/2193-8997-2-6

Higton, J., Archer, R., Merrett, D., Hansel, M. and Howe, P. (2021). The Community Business Market in 2020. Research Report. Power to Change.

HM Treasury. (2021). Budget 2021: What you need to know. GOV.UK. Retrieved August 22, 2023, from Budget 2021: What you need to know

Kotecha, M., Davies, M., Miscampbell, G., Barnard, M. and Hughes, S. (2017). What works: Successful community transport. Research Report. Power to Change.

Local Government Association. (2022). Levelling Up White Paper: LGA briefing. Retrieved August 31, 2023, from Levelling Up White Paper: LGA briefing

Locality. (2018a). Building powerful communities through Community Asset Transfer: A guide for councillors. Practice Guide. Locality. Retrieved August 10, 2023, from Building Powerful Communities Through Community Asset Transfer: A guide for councillors (PDF, 2.3 MB)

Local Government Association (2023). Supporting community ownership of leisure and sports assets. Retrieved November 30, 2023 from Supporting community ownership of leisure and sports assets.

Loh, T. H., & Love, H. (2021). The emerging solidarity economy: A primer on community ownership of real estate. Brookings. Retrieved August 30, 2023, from The emerging solidarity economy: A primer on community ownership of real estate

Maybery, D., Pope, R., Hodgins, G., Hitchenor, Y., & Shepherd, A. (2009). Resilience and Well-Being of Small Inland Communities: Community Assets as Key Determinants, Rural Society, 19/4: 326–39. DOI: 10.5172/rsj.351.19.4.326

Meghjee, W., Pacot, M., Alraie, M. and Chan, J. (2022). Thematic Paper: Assets & Community Businesses. Working Paper. Power to Change.

Meghjee, W., Pacot, M., Alraie, M. and Sturgis, R. (2022). Thematic Paper: Sector & Community Businesses. Working Paper. Renaisi.

Morgan-Trimmer, S., Wood, F. (2016) Ethnographic methods for process evaluations of complex health behaviour interventions. Trials 17, 232. Ethnographic methods for process evaluations of complex health behaviour interventions

Murtagh, B., Bennett, E., Copeland, L., & Goggin, N. (2012). Community Asset Transfer in Northern Ireland. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Community Asset Transfer in Northern Ireland.

Nason, S. (2022). Legislating to Empower Communities: Comparing Community Asset Acquisition Law in the UK. SSRN Scholarly Paper, Rochester, NY. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4208277

Nielsen, E. (2021). The impacts of social infrastructure investment (pp. 1–49) [A report for Local Trust]. Frontier Economics. The impacts of social infrastructure investment (PDF, 843 KB)

Newman, J. (2021). Levelling up: the (surprisingly long) history. UK in a changing Europe. Retrieved August 30, 2023, from Levelling up: the (surprisingly long) history

Nichols, G., Findlay-King, L. and Forbes, D. (2020). The Community Asset Transfer of Leisure Facilities in the UK: A Review and Research Agenda. Research Report. Voluntas.

Power to Change. (2018). Community asset transfer: The role of intermediation across Liverpool City Region. Research Report. Capacity. Retrieved August 10, 2023, from Community asset transfer: The role of intermediation across Liverpool City Region (PDF, 3.7 MB)

Quinn Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications.

Rex, B. and Foxton, K. (2020). The “Locally Rooted” Community Business: Meanings, practices, challenges and the role of community assets. Research Report. UAL Social Design Institute.

Reynolds, J., Lewis, S. (2019). Ethnography and evaluation: temporalities of complex systems and methodological complexity, Anthropology & Medicine, 26:1, 1-17, DOI: 10.1080/13648470.2018.1507106

Richards, L., Vascott, D., Blandon, C. and Manger, L. (2018). Factors that contribute to community business success. Research Report. Power to Change.

Richards, L., Vascott, D., Blandon, C. and Manger, L. (2018). What works: Successful community hubs. Research Report. Power to Change

Richards, L., Vascott, D., Blandon, C. and Manger, L. (2018). What works: Successful health and wellbeing community businesses. Research Report. Power to Change.

Richards, L., Vascott, D., Blandon, C. and Manger, L. (2018). What works: Successful sport and leisure community businesses. Research Report. Power to Change.

Scottish Government. (2019). ‘Community ownership in Scotland: 2018. Scottish Government. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from Community ownership in Scotland: 2018

Scottish Government (2023). Scottish Land Fund. gov.scot. Retrieved August 31, 2023, from Scottish Land Fund

Scottish Government (2022). Community Ownership in Scotland 2021. gov.scot. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from Community Ownership in Scotland 2021

Sensier, D. M., & Devine, F. (2020). Levelling Up Regional Resilience: policy responses to the (Policy Report). Bennett Institute for Public Policy.

Tanner, W., Krasniqi, F., Blagden, J., & O’Shaughnessy, L. J. (2020). The State of our Social Fabric. Onward. The State of our Social Fabric

Theminimulle, S., Lee, N., Swann, P., Archer, T., Chan, J. and Meghjee, W. (2022). People shaping places, places shaping people: Community asset ownership. Research Report. Institute for Community Studies.

Turnbull, N. (2023). ‘Austerity’s afterlives? The case of community asset transfer in the UK’, The Geographical Journal, geoj.12513. DOI: 10.1111/geoj.12513

Unspecified (2017b). Economic appraisal of community asset transfers (Practice Guide). Power to Change. Retrieved August 10, 2023, from Economic appraisal of community asset transfers (PDF, 18.4 MB)

Unspecified (2018). Building powerful communities through community asset transfer: A guide for councillors. Practice Guide. Locality.

Unspecified (2018). Community asset transfer: The role of intermediation across Liverpool City Region. Research Report. Capacity.

Unspecified (2018b). Understanding community asset transfer: A guide for community organisations (Practice Guide). Locality. Retrieved August 10, 2023, from Understanding community asset transfer: A guide for community organisations (PDF, 3.3 MB)

Unspecified (2019). Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge. Research Report. Local Trust.

Unspecified (2022). Community Shops “A better form of business” 2022. Research Report. Plunkett Foundation.

Unspecified (2022). ‘Places & Spaces: The future of community asset ownership’. Locality. Retrieved August 30, 2023, from Places & Spaces: The future of community asset ownership

Welsh Parliament. (2022). Community Assets (Working Paper). Welsh Parliament.

Willis, D., Coutinho, S., Fitzpatrick, A. and Williams, J. (2017). The impact of community business on local communities: A feasibility study to test new measures based on the Community Life Survey. Research Report. Power to Change.

Woodin, T., Crook, D., & Carpentier, V. (2010). Community and mutual ownership: a historical review (Historical Review)., p. 58. Retrieved August 30, 2023, from Community and mutual ownership: a historical review

Youker, B. W. (2007). Ethnography and Evaluation: Their Relationship and Three Anthropological Models of Evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 2(3), 113-142. Ethnography and Evaluation: Their Relationship and Three Anthropological Models of Evaluation

Ystadau Cymru. (2019). ‘Community Asset Transfer’. Llywodraeth Cymru.

Ystadau Cymru. (2022). Community Facilities Programme. gov.wales. Retrieved August 31, 2023, from Community Facilities Programme