Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund: feasibility study report

Published 20 March 2025

Institute for Community Studies, with Verian and WPI Economics

March 2025

Foreword

Local growth is a priority outcome for the Department – and a central objective of government as a whole – with a range of policies, programmes and measures in place seeking to reduce geographical economic and social inequalities across the UK. Policy and programme evaluation have a critical role in helping us to understand what works and what doesn’t work alongside effective monitoring to ensure planned outputs are being delivered in line with agreed plans.

High quality evaluation evidence will enable us, ultimately, to better target our interventions, maximise the chances of having impact and achieving the desired objectives, including value for money, and reduce delivery risks by ensuring policies and programmes are well designed.

A starting point is a thorough feasibility study of data sources and methods to help guide the selection of the preferred approach. The publication of this Community Ownership Fund evaluation feasibility study and our previous evaluation methods paper The Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method are consistent with this approach and seek to ensure transparency and objectivity in the delivery of the Fund. We are grateful to the Institute for Community Studies, Verian and WPI Economics for their work on it and the oversight provided by Karen Irving in the MHCLG team.

Stephen Aldridge
Director for Analysis and Data & Chief Economist
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Will Garton
Director General for Local Government, Growth and Communities
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

1. Executive summary

1.1. The £150 million Community Ownership Fund (COF) supports both the outright purchase or renovation costs of community assets across the United Kingdom. It was set up to help communities “save” assets and amenities at risk of closure. The fund was launched in July 2021, and is expected to run until March 2025. The fund will include 4 bidding rounds, with a bidding window approximately every 3 months.

1.2. This paper assesses the feasibility of using a mixed method case study approach to evaluate the impact, process and Value for Money of the COF programme, delivered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This study builds on the proposed methods, which are described and discussed in full in the ‘methods paper’ produced by the evaluation team The Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method.

1.3. The evaluation team reviewed relevant literature on the public benefit of community assets and fund documentation to lay out the strategic context and objectives of the fund. The objectives of the fund are then mapped against a series of ideal evaluation questions, and a series of limitations that were identified in answering those questions.

1.4. To respond to the evaluation questions, the evaluation team proposes a mixed method approach which will be applied to 12 case study projects, as follows:

• Quantitative survey methodology, expected to isolate and quantify the impacts of case study projects on their places through a difference-in-difference design using hyper-local surveying compared against data from the Community Life Survey (CLS);
• Value for Money methodology, expected to assess the impacts and potential alternative impacts of the funding used for COF through quantification of costs and benefits of case study projects using the ‘Green Book’ methodology;
• Qualitative methodology, expected to generate an in depth understanding of how the impacts of the case study projects on their places is happening, and what factors are mediating the impact, including parts of the funding process. This methodology relies on the use of ethnographic field work in the case study location, and workshops with project teams.

1.5. The study draws on other examples of mixed-method case study approaches to evaluations to enlist and assess the key challenges that the COF evaluation might face, including establishing contribution using qualitative evidence, capturing ‘legacy’ impacts, and the diversity of intended outcomes within the project portfolio which create complexity in drawing comparisons across a coherent analytical framework.

1.6. A selection of 12 projects selected as case studies for the evaluation from Rounds 1 to 3.^{[footnote 1]} In the first 2 rounds COF provided up to £250,000 of capital funding (up to £1 million 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. From Round 3, the funding cap increased to £2 million, and the match funding requirement decrease to 20%.

1.7. The case study projects have been selected to try and capture the full variation in the wider portfolio of projects funded by COF. Variation between projects emerges from nation, geography, asset type, applicant type, funding amount and match funding sources.

1.8. The selection method was based on a project typology created by the evaluation team and aimed to maximise variation across the case study portfolio. The case study selection introduced a number of risks, including bias from the stringent requirements of the survey methodology, and low generalisability given that the sample is not representative. However, compared to a programme-level study it opens the opportunity for a rich understanding of how different contextual factors affect the theorised mechanisms and outcomes of COF funding. These insights enhance the power of the evaluation to move beyond simply evaluating the process, impact and value for money of the COF into enhancing government understanding of how to best design policy that supports communities.

1.9. The feasibility study includes an overview of the case study portfolio characteristics as compared to the overall portfolio, followed by pen portraits of each of the case study projects. Following the case study selection, an assessment is made of the evaluation methodology and the expected outcomes. The assessment confirms the appropriateness of the selected methodologies and the feasibility of evaluation through the selected case studies. However, some limitations are identified, including the potential complexity of comparative analysis given the variation in the case study portfolio, the difficulty of isolating the impact of COF in an environment with several potential sources of money, and the challenge of linking all strategic impacts of the COF with the fund design. Where possible, these limitations will be mitigated through the comparative case analysis approach in the full impact and process evaluation, and through the collection of rich qualitative insights from project teams.

1.10. At the time of publication of this study, the evaluation team have begun the field work for the quantitative and qualitative strands of the evaluation methodology. In the first year of the evaluation, this will involve site visits to all 12 case studies, as well as a hyper-local survey in 6 of the 12 case studies. The second year of the evaluation will involve a second visit to each case study as well as a second hyper-local survey to establish a comparison over time. Data from field visits and the surveys will then be used to conduct the full impact, process and Value for Money analysis.

2. Introduction

2.1. This paper assesses the merits and viability of applying the methodology described in The Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method (the ‘methods paper’) to 12 case studies across the United Kingdom as an evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund (COF) programme. The evaluation seeks to measure the full impact of the COF programme (including social, economic, and fiscal impacts) along with lessons on the processes involved in the implementation of the programme. This paper is presented by the Institute for Community Studies (ICS) in partnership with Verian and WPI Economics (WPI), the cohort that will be delivering the full evaluation.

2.2. The feasibility study draws on relevant literature and project documentation to explore the application of the theory-based evaluation framework articulated in the methods paper, to investigate whether and how the COF programme has met its objectives. The approach entails the selection of 12 case study projects from Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Community Ownership Fund and a mixed-methods methodology to measure impact, value for money and review the process. Changes to the application process and funding requirements across these rounds, detailed in ‘Background to the Community Ownership Fund,’ will be evaluated through comparative analysis of the case study projects. Despite the program being ongoing, MHCLG aims to conduct an evaluation process to consolidate insights and inform future policy development.

Public benefit of community assets

2.3. The COF’s purpose is for communities across the United Kingdom to take ownership of or refurbish assets at risk of closure, to continue benefiting from local institutions whose future may be in doubt. A literature review conducted as part of the methodology selection found that community ownership of assets was of interest for policymakers as it could allow for ‘Continuity of service’ for local community services at risk of closure and accrues ‘Community Benefits’ to the community through local capacity building and stronger social ties (Bruni et al., 2017; Theminimulle et al., 2022).

2.4. Research by Local Trust (2019) and Power to Change (Archer et al, 2019), focused on England, to provide supporting evidence that by providing more local places to meet and connections to the wider economy community assets and produce positive social and economic outcomes in places.^{[footnote 2]} However, there is also evidence of a long-term trend of communities losing these assets to private use, such as conversion to housing (Hancox, 2019; Tanner et al., 2020). Given that the presence or lack of community assets may reduce or exacerbate regional inequality (Neilson, 2021; Newman 2021; Local Trust 2019), community assets may also be important to local growth in the United Kingdom. However, the relatively recent focus on the concept of community ownership means few studies have measured the potential relationship between the protection and maintenance of community assets and spaces, and their contribution to reducing social disadvantage and relative spatial inequality. There is a growth in recent studies, including the comparative examination of social infrastructure led by the Young Foundation for Power to Change and the British Academy (2023), but from an evaluation perspective it is comparatively early – and complex to isolate the long term impact on inequality focused outcomes that is hypothesised from the preservation and maintenance of local assets. The full evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund will make an important contribution to this literature and understanding.

Background to the Community Ownership Fund

2.5. The £150 million Fund was introduced in the 2021 Spring Budget. The Fund will run for 4 years until 2024/25. Funding may support both the outright purchase or renovation costs of community assets. COF was also introduced as part of a suite of UK wide interventions, such as the, UK Shared Prosperity Fund and Community Renewal Fund.

2.6. The Fund has 4 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
• to strengthen direct links between places across the UK and the UK government

2.7. Since the completion of the extended Round 1, the fund has aimed to run one Round per financial year, with a bidding window approximately every 3 months, this evaluation will focus only on the first 3 Rounds of the evaluation, with a selection of case study projects from round 1, 1b, round 2 window 1 and round 3 windows 1 and 2. Changes brought in afterward these windows will therefore not be subject to evaluation.

2.8. Key changes across each Round of the Fund relevant to the evaluation include:

• Round 1: The programme provided up to £250,000 of capital funding (up to £1 million for sporting assets), and up to £50,000 of revenue funding. To receive funding, projects had to match Community Ownership Fund funding with funding from external sources, capping programme funding to 50% of the total funding needed.
• Round 1b: Round 1 reopened for a limited period Dec 2021 – Feb 2022 to eligible unfunded bidders from Round 1 facing urgent time sensitivities to save their asset.
• Round 2: An Expression of Interest (EOI) stage was introduced where applicants received early initial feedback on whether their project was eligible before submitting the full application. Additionally, early stage development support coordinated by Locality was brought in to support projects up to the EOI application stage.
• Round 3: Match funding requirement was reduced to 20% of total funding or 10% for highest-need projects and opening the Fund to applications from parish, town and community councils. In-Depth Development support coordinated by Locality was brought in to support some projects with their application and business plans. The Funding Cap was extended to £1 million for all asset type in window 1 and up to £2 million from window 2.

2.9. COF represents a historically large pot of funding and is a first of its kind model for the department. Previous actions in the community ownership space such as the Community Ownership and Management of Assets programme (COMA) had focused on working with local partnerships between communities and local authorities on individual projects, or on a narrow range of assets such as community pubs.

3. Evaluation questions and methodology

3.1. In the Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method, the evaluation team identified an overarching Theory of Change, and a set of ‘ideal’ evaluation questions to evaluate the impact of the Fund, the alternative impacts of the government using the funding for different processes, and the factors in the process of delivering COF that may have influenced outcomes. These evaluation questions are listed below against each of the Fund’s strategic objectives:

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

• 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.6. Alongside these evaluation questions were identified limitations to answering those questions given the complex social reality projects operate within:

• 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’)
• other economic or social processes may also impact the capacity and capability of communities (‘Confounding factors’)
• the fund did not specifically allocate funding to priority 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’)

3.7. To best answer the evaluation questions and address these limitations, the evaluation team concluded on a mixed methods approach utilising the following methods:

• The quantitative methodology is expected to isolate and quantify the impacts of the case study projects on their places. It uses a difference-in-difference design to compare key outcomes for people living in the area around the asset (collected using a hyper-local survey) to a comparison group of matched areas drawing on data from the Community Life Survey (CLS).

• The Value for Money methodology assesses the impacts and potential alternative impacts of government funding used for COF. It is expected to identify and quantify of the costs and benefits of each of the case study projects using HM Treasury’s official guidance on appraising projects (the ‘Green Book’ methodology) to determine value for money of the fund.

• 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. It uses a combination of in situ research such as ethnographic observation and pulse interviews, as well as online workshops and focus groups with relevant stakeholders involved in the case study projects.  

4. Mixed-method case study approaches to evaluation

4.1. As discussed in the methods paper, a challenge of evaluating the outcomes of the COF is that the complex social reality projects operate within, where programme funding is just one of many factors driving change. This complex social reality varies from place to place: such as regional economic conditions which may affect people’s spending power and thus utilisation of community assets, or the presence of place-based complementary funding such as the Shared Prosperity Fund and match funding pools which may engender complementary or competing infrastructure development in places. Isolating the impact of COF funding at a nationwide level therefore poses a challenge as confounding factors may mean the same intervention generates different outcomes depending on context.

4.2. The approach proposed draws on and innovates in previous ‘realist’ evaluations which address challenges of social complexity using case studies and the application of a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. The advantages of using a case study methodology are the ability to capture underlying factors of such complex cases, how they change across time, and wider contextual conditions (Yin, 1992). Case studies are therefore particularly useful in process evaluation, as a way of capturing the dynamic relationship between interventions and context (Grant, Bugge, Wells, 2020). By generating a programme-level theory of change (found in the methods paper) and individual case study theories of change, the evaluation team have identified the intended mechanisms and outcomes of the programme, with different components of the theory tested and relevant contextual factors identified using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data.

4.3. Other examples of evaluations which take similar approaches to those proposed by the evaluation team include:

Great Place Fund (BOP Consulting, 2022 & 2023):

• Method: The National Lottery Fund, in partnership with the Arts Council England, successfully used an in-depth case study approach to evaluate the impact of Great Place, a fund supporting local investment in arts and culture (2016). The theory-based mixed methods evaluation used qualitative and quantitative methods including annual surveys, data analysis, project and stakeholder interviews, policy analysis focus groups as well as in-depth, longitudinal case studies of 4 Great Place projects. The case studies provide insight into the process of delivering change in places that benefited from the funding. They were compared with 2 ‘counterfactual’ case studies of unsuccessful applicants. An additional longitudinal study conducted after the main evaluation explore the ‘legacy’ of the programme.

• Findings: Compared to counterfactual case studies, the Great Place programme appeared to galvanise resources to centre culture in local decision making, and improved cultural, social, and economic outcomes in outcome areas.

• Limitations: Limited resourcing for the evaluation team and projects narrowed the potential data collection to what was essential and reasonable for projects to access. Much of the data on impact, particularly legacy impact, was self-reported by project teams, with some audience data collected by projects and desk research conducted by BOP. Projects also had the flexibility to seek a range of outcomes, meaning that not all projects were tracked for all outcomes and making comparisons across projects complex. Weaker outcomes for counterfactual case studies may have reflected the strength of plans in unsuccessful applications, limiting the ability of the evaluation to isolate programme impact.

Local Enterprise Growth Initiative Programme (AMION Consulting & DCLG, 2010):

• Method: This evaluation of a Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) programme seeking to support entrepreneurial activity in ‘deprived local areas’ combined difference-in-difference modelling across all LEGI programme locations, survey of beneficiary businesses, an interview programme with relevant stakeholders, review of programme management information from a sample of LEGI areas, and an intensive qualitative review of 6 case study areas. These then fed into a Value for Money evaluation.

• Findings: The evaluation overall found evidence that LEGI had a positive impact on enterprise activity and promoted ‘enterprise’ as a priority across relevant stakeholder organisations. The impact on worklessness was unclear.

• Limitations: Many people-based interventions supported under the programme were concerned with longer-term cultural and attitudinal change. In addition, many worklessness interventions were targeted at ‘hard to reach’ groups. The final impacts of the programme were therefore unlikely to have manifested at the time of the evaluation, approximately 4 years after its initiation. Qualitative data was therefore useful to identify future trends. Another challenge of evaluating the programme was the local flexibility of funding which allowed areas to set their own priorities in line with programme core objectives. This made a common measuring framework capturing all outcomes difficult to establish.

Sharing in Growth (SiG) (SQW, BEIS, 2021):

• Method: This evaluation of a 2013-2019 programme seeking to transform the competitiveness of UK aerospace firms used a theory-based approach comparing the programme level theory of change to actual impacts and outcomes whilst accounting for contextual factors that may have influenced outcomes. Data was collected through programme monitoring, interviews with stakeholders and 44% of business participants, in depth case studies with 8 beneficiary businesses and econometric analysis of SiG beneficiaries to 6 comparator groups using Difference-in-Difference analysis.

• Findings: The evaluation found statistically significant benefits in jobs and turnover for beneficiary firms compared to comparators through the Difference-in-Difference analysis. Productivity impacts were not found to be statistically significant. Combined with qualitative and survey data from case studies and beneficiary interviews, strong evidence was found that SiG was a ‘critical’ or ‘important’ factor for most beneficiaries in achieving outcomes more quickly and at a larger scale than would have otherwise been possible. The evaluation found limited evidence of ‘knock-on’ effects across the wider aerospace sector and mixed evidence on knowledge spillovers to suppliers and customers.

• Limitations: SQW attempted to contact unsuccessful SiG applications for a telephone survey but received little to no response. Evaluating knowledge spillover effects relied on self-reported data from SiG beneficiaries rather than their customers or suppliers, resulting in unreliable evidence. The original remit of the evaluation did not include process evaluation, information on which was requested after the evaluation had been scoped, limiting the available evidence on SiG’s processes.

4.4. Examining these examples against the task of evaluating the community ownership fund, indicates that key challenges faced in evaluating the COF, may include:

• Establishing contribution using qualitative evidence - counterfactuals: This challenge arises due to difficulties in identifying suitable counterfactuals (one means of isolating contribution). Identifying counterfactuals for COF is challenging as there are ethical and operational difficulties in applying the proposed case study methodology to projects which did not receive COF funding. In addition, the uniqueness and complex local context of each project creates methodological difficulties in establishing projects ‘similar’ enough to isolate contribution. The proposed Difference-in-Difference counterfactual comparison group is constructed, rather than representing a specific project. However, this does not pose a strong challenge to the evaluation overall due to its theory-based approach which primarily relies on testing the causal mechanisms in project Theories of Change to identify contribution.

• Establishing contribution using qualitative evidence - positionality: This challenge arises from relying on data from respondents self-reporting on the success of their own projects. The evaluation team will attempt to address issues of positionality by speaking to wider stakeholders in place where possible, and in integrating our analysis of quantitative survey data (collected from the local area) with qualitative data to identify where information corroborates or contradicts stakeholders’ perspectives.

• Capturing ‘legacy’ impacts: This challenge arises given the timing of evaluations 1-3 years after the asset has been saved. Some of the longer-term outcomes for the projects, such as enhanced economic opportunities for young people, may arise over a longer timeline than the evaluation allows. Data on these potential legacy outcomes will rely on self-reported data from project teams but could in future be supplemented with additional legacy evaluation work.

• Diverse project intended outcomes: As projects have a wide range of intended outcomes, generalising from case studies to the entire COF portfolio raises challenges, as well as creating barriers to comparison across case studies. Linkage is also unclear between intended project and programme outcomes, such as empowering communities in left behind areas to level up, and what comparative or relative set of outcomes this would or could be assessed against; and how the fund intends to strengthen direct links between places across the UK and the UK government.

4.5. For a full discussion of the methods proposed for this evaluation study of the COF, their limitations, and expected outcomes for the overall evaluation, see the methods paper the Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method. This feasibility study discusses the application of these methods to the 12 case studies identified in the next chapters.

5. Case study selection

5.1. Twelve projects from Rounds 1, Round 1b, Round 2 window 1, Round 3 window 1 and 2 were selected as case studies for evaluation. The case study portfolio includes the 4 nations, different types of geographies (e.g. urban, rural), and a range of project characteristics (e.g. asset type, project budget).

Project typology

5.2. The selection of the 12 case studies 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=62). Four projects were excluded because of a lack of data. The team developed a typology that clusters projects within the portfolio by a range of key characteristics. The categories for the typology are based on a review of relevant literature, as well as an iterative process of project review to understand the spread of the portfolio:

• Asset characteristics: captures what is known about the asset in question, its asset transfer status, and who it might potentially impact.
• Characteristics of place: geographic characteristics of both the place where the asset is located and the location of the expected impact. These details inform the viability of the projects as case studies for the survey.
• Project characteristics: captures the characteristics of the project scope and the team leading it, including the potential involvement of local authorities. Financial information about the funding sought and total funding required were used as proxy for the size of the project, while information on match funding was used to identify potential supporting/impeding factors, including the issuance of community shares. This information will be invaluable for the process evaluation.
• Team characteristics: characteristics of the team leading the project, including whether they own the asset and whether they’ve involved the local authority. These are key factors which can affect the process of the asset transfer and the impact of the asset on the local community, forming a key part of the process evaluation.

5.3. Based on the project typology, 8 case studies from Rounds 1, Round 1b and round 2 window 1 were selected as case studies for the full study. A “most different” or “maximum variation” approach was used to select a longlist of projects that represents cases which represents the maximum possible variation across the key characteristics in the portfolio, ensuring a strong distribution across each nation. This will allow the evaluation to explore the widest range of factors influencing the process and impact evaluation.

5.4. Subsequently, a selection of 4 projects from Round 3 were added, for a total of 12 case studies. The selection was based on maximising variability based on characteristics that reflect changes to the funding requirements, as well as increasing the diversity of project locations and asset types. Comparative analysis will be used to identify the impact of the changes to the funding requirements on the outcomes of case study projects. Project characteristics that led the selection were:

• Match funding below 50% (to reflect lowering of match funding requirement).
• Higher funding (to reflect higher funding cap on all asset types).
• Town and parish/community councils (to reflect their addition as eligible applicants).

5.5. The selection of projects was checked against the requirements of each methodology before being finalised. Case study projects were contacted by the evaluation team and the fund management team to request monitoring information and assess the capacity of project teams to engage with the evaluation.

5.6. Six of these case studies will be subject to the hyper-local survey quantitative methodology, and all 12 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).

Risks introduced through case study selection

5.7. The selection of projects for case studies introduces additional risks of bias in the evaluation. Firstly, bias may be introduced as case studies must meet the requirements for selected methodologies. The survey methodology has the most stringent requirements around the timing of the project (must be assets not currently in operation or prior to major changes), the amount of available geographic information (must be detailed) and the size and form of the community impacted (must be of sufficient size and identifiable via survey parameters). To avoid the evaluation being ‘focused’ only on the types of projects that meet such requirements, the additional case studies not subject to the survey method were selected after the initial 4, to maximise the spread of projects across the entire evaluation.

5.8. The selection of projects for case studies introduces additional risks of bias in the evaluation. Firstly, bias may be introduced as case studies must meet the requirements for the selected methodologies identified as suitable to evaluate the assets supported by the fund.

5.9. The survey methodology has the most stringent requirements. The key ones can be summarised as follows:

• The timing of the project (must be assets not currently in operation or prior to major changes – this allows for a baseline survey to be conducted).
• The size of the community impacted (the geographical area impacted must be neither too large that a survey would not be able to identify individuals impacted by the asset, nor too small that the number of responses would not achieve the target sample size).
• The target population impacted (the survey is not targeted towards specific subpopulations so the impact could not be measured accurately if the asset were focused towards specific subgroups of people).

5.10. To avoid the evaluation being ‘focused’ only on the types of projects that meet such requirements, the additional case studies not subject to the survey method were selected after the initial 4, to maximise the spread of projects across the entire evaluation.

5.11. Additionally, case study selection was led by “most different” approach, maximising variability in line with the project typology. Therefore, the case study selection will not be representative of the full sample, meaning that the findings from the case studies have limited generalisability. An alternative approach would be to choose a ‘representative’ portfolio of case studies, where the distribution of key characteristics in the selected sample mirrored the distribution in the wider portfolio. However, due to the small number of case studies and the wide variation in the portfolio, this selection would still not be ‘generalisable’ to the entire program and it would be arguably harder to make an assessment of this type of fund’s impact on both expected and unexpected community and place-based outcomes in different places (‘external outcomes’), as opposed to simply identifying which project types might be more or less likely to be proposed and funded, through the design of a fund of this type and its delivery by government.

5.12. The following chapter presents an overview of each of the projects selected as case studies for the present evaluation. The information is derived from the project documentation submitted as part of the application process, as well as some engagement with the project teams.

6. Case studies

The Hub community centre and café (England, Round 1)

6.1. Dilapidated public building on the fringes of Leicester that will be converted into an advice centre and café. The project is led by the Parochial Church Council of St Luke, and will serve the local community of Thurnby, a conurbation of Leicester. The total project cost is around £1.4 million, with £250,000 of the funding coming from the COF and the rest through donations, the church and a contribution from a local redevelopment project. The Hub will provide financial, social care and health advice as well as meeting spaces and a café. The advice offered is expected to improve access to services, leading to improved wellbeing outcomes.

6.2. The provision of meeting rooms and counselling spaces is expected to increase opportunities for participation in community life, reducing social isolation. Additionally, the rescue of the dilapidated asset through refurbishment and maintenance is expected to reduce anti-social behaviour and improve the sense of community cohesion and pride. The provision of volunteering, employment and training opportunities is expected to improve economic outcomes for local people.

6.3. Methodological considerations: There may be challenges in isolating the impact of COF funding, which represents a low percentage of total project funding. This project will be subject to all 3 methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, VfM).

Save the Hop Pole (England, Round 2 Window 1)

6.4. The last remaining pub in the Limpley Stoke village, the Hop Pole was closed 8 years ago by its former private owners due to low profitability. Residents of the village came together as the Limpley Stoke Community Benefit Society and bought the pub, reimagining it as a self-sustaining community hub and pub.

6.5. The project, worth a total of £1.2 million is financed through a combination of funding from the COF (25%, £300,000), other grants and the issuance of community shares. The project is supported by the local authority, who designated the pub as an Asset of Community Value. However, the pub is severely dilapidated and requires significant refurbishment before reopening to the public.

6.6. The project is expected to reduce social loneliness and isolation by providing a meeting place for local residents, groups and societies and through a regular programme of social events. Thus it will contribute to individual health and wellbeing and environmental outcomes. The provision of opportunities for employment, volunteering and performance (for local artists), alongside the issue of community shares, are expected to improve economic outcomes for local people and increase the voice of local residents in how the pub is run.

6.7. Methodological considerations: The quantitative strand of the evaluation will not be able to measure the environmental outcomes which are part of the expected impact. This project will be subject to all 3 methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, VfM).

Vogrie Hall refurbishment (Scotland, Round 1b)

6.8. Refurbishment of a derelict hall in rural Gorebridge for use by a local brass band, other musicians and community organisations. The project, led by St David’s Brass Band, will renovate a hall previously owned by the council, adding solar panels and improving accessibility.

6.9. The total funding needed is £383,375, of which 33% (£127,251) is covered by the COF and the rest originates from donations and funding from the local Environment Trusts, Foundation Scotland and People’s Postcode Trust. The hall will provide a permanent home for the Brass Band to rehearse, perform and record music, as well as providing low-cost brass and percussion tuition for young people.

6.10. The expected impact is greater participation in expressive arts, as well as improved potential for employment in music, leading to improved mental wellbeing and greater economic opportunities. Additionally, hall spaces will be leased to other community organisations who are expected to provide opportunities for participation in leisure activities, which are expected to improve wellbeing and boost inter-group collaboration. The activities offered, alongside the restoration of the building are expected to improve community pride and social cohesion, reducing petty crime related to dilapidation.

6.11. Methodological considerations: There may be challenges in identifying the impacted population as the activities associated with the project primarily serve a community of interest, albeit with spillover effects expected and opportunities for other community organisations to lease facilities. This quantitative strand of the evaluation will not be able to measure the environmental outcomes which are expected from the addition of solar panels. This project will be subject to all 3 methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, VfM).

Refurbishment and redevelopment of the Queen’s Ballroom (Wales, Round 1)

6.12. Refurbishment of the historic Queen’s Ballroom, located in the South Wales town of Tredegar, which has fallen into disrepair. The building, which was initially built as a cinema in 1910 but has since served multiple purposes, will be converted into an accessible communal hub which will host local organisations and events. The project is led by Creations of Cymru Film and Media, a local non-profit organisation that teaches young people skills in professional filmmaking.

6.13. The project will cost £150,000, of which 60% (£90,000) will come from the COF and the rest from the National Lottery. The refurbishment of the dilapidated building is expected to avoid the loss of a historic asset and avoid further dereliction, while improving accessibility and energy efficiency. Restoring the building for use by local community organisations is expected to improve the high street and economic outcomes for local organisations and individuals. Through the provision of a low-cost venue and a regular programme of community film events, the project expects to increase opportunities to socialise and reduce social isolation.

6.14. The creation of volunteering and employment opportunities is expected to improve skills and employability, leading to improved economic outcomes. The consultation of the local community, organisations and local authorities in the redevelopment process is expected to increase local voice in decision making, leading to increased capacity and capability to take on local assets.

6.15. Methodological considerations: There may be challenges in capturing the more diffuse expected impact, such as the improvement of the high street. Additionally, the main impacted population is a community of interest (film makers and film enthusiasts), and it’s unclear how impact will extend beyond this aside from providing low-cost venue space for local community groups. This project will be subject to all 3 methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, VfM).

Rannoch Hub (Scotland, Round 1)

6.16. Outdoor centre being converted into a multi-purpose space including community office spaces, meeting rooms, public outdoor space connected to local walking paths, café, restaurant and bar facilities. Located in Kinloch Rannoch, Scotland, the project is led by Rannoch Community Trust, a charity owning a private company that can trade for income.

6.17. The project received £250,000 of funding from COF, representing around 36% of the total funding needed (£679,680). Rannoch Community Trust will reinvest any profits generated from the Hub, supporting future projects in favour of the Rannoch Community. Through the provision of an inclusive space for socialisation the project expects to reduce social isolation and loneliness, renewing a sense of community spirit.

6.18. The project targets young people and underrepresented groups, with the expected impacts of increased their participation in community life and their retention in the area. Additionally, the project expects to promote local economic development, reversing trends of economic decline through employment opportunities and business facilities, boosting entrepreneurship opportunities.

6.19. Furthermore, the project hopes to boost access to and use of local public services and assets, increasing health and wellbeing and improving stewardship of services within the community, leasing to increased community pride. The expected outcomes of Rannoch Hub correspond with the Perth and Kinross Council’s plans for the local community.

6.20. Methodological considerations: There are challenges in capturing the longer term expected impacts, such as youth retention in the area, especially when they are tenuously linked to activities. This project will only be subject to the qualitative and VfM methodologies.

Acquiring Plas Antaron, a place for wellbeing and hope (Wales, Round 2 Window 1)

6.21. Purchasing a converted hotel to provide activities for people with terminal illness and their carers, including emotional and peer support, arts and sports activities. Located in Southgate, Aberystwyth, the newly named Living Well Centre is led by Aberystwyth and District Hospice at Home Volunteers (HAVAV).

6.22. The project received £179,730 from COF, which was matched by the Welsh Government Community Facilities Programme and charitable donations, for a total sum of £579,730. The funding was used to purchase the formerly leased hotel, improving the financial sustainability of HAVAV’s activities and sustaining a community asset.

6.23. The hotels’ facilities and spaces offer a range of services by HAVAV and other local partners such as Hywel Dda Palliative Care Team and Credu. This includes continued support for the terminally ill and those with life limiting conditions, as well as their carers.

6.24. The expected impact is an improvement in the physical and mental health of beneficiaries, as well as reduced costs for the public sector. Additionally, the centre will improve the accessibility and offer of events and programmes, which is expected to improve participation in community life, arts and culture. This in turn is expected to reduce isolation and loneliness amongst beneficiaries, leading to improved social trust, cohesion and a sense of belonging.

6.25. Lastly, the centre will provide volunteering opportunities alongside training and upskilling, with the expected impact of greater satisfaction and better employability for local volunteers.

6.26. Methodological considerations: This funding will be used in part to maintain the status quo in Southgate, Aberystwyth, as the organisation already uses this building, making it more difficult to understand and capture the full impact of the funding. This project will only be subject to the qualitative and VfM methodologies.

Teach Uidhilin (Northern Ireland, Round 2 Window 1)

6.27. Semi-derelict building in Castlewellan, Co Down, to be converted and used as an Irish Language family centre and community space, led by Glór Uachtar Tíre (Teach Uidhilin). The project received £204,316 from the COF, of a total project cost of around £423,000, sourced from donations, loans and charity reserves. The project has seen unforeseen challenges as the building that was originally under consideration (a derelict bank), became unavailable. This led to the identification of an alternate building, but the project failed to purchase it within the funding timeline. The project has now lost the opportunity to use funding from COF, becoming unsuccessful.

6.28. Methodological considerations: Given that this project is now unsuccessful, it will only be subject to a light touch qualitative methodology, which will look to capture insights for the process evaluation, and understand the factors that led to the loss of the funding. However, there are concerns about the appetite and capacity of the project team to engage with the evaluation.

Aurora (Northern Ireland, Round 1b)

6.29. Purchase and restoration of St Columb’s Hall, one of Derry’s most historical buildings, for use as a community venue. St Columb’s Hall Trust, the project leader, received £181,800 from the COF, alongside donations and funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, for a total project fund of £1.1 million. With this funding, the Trust has taken a 30 year lease and will complete repairs and renovation of the Hall, alongside a conservation plan for the building’s future.

6.30. The Hall will offer a digital museum space, which is expected to promote heritage activity, supporting a greater sense of belonging for the local community and greater pride in the rejuvenated high street. Additionally, the Hall will provide a creative therapy unit and events space for live music and other cultural events, which is expected to improve mental health and wellbeing.

6.31. Through the delivery of a community and deliberative democracy programmes, such as the Young Citizens Assembly, the project expects to provide greater opportunities for social mixing and learning, reducing isolation and improving social cohesion. Additionally, a small business incubator space is expected to support economic development through the creation of jobs and apprenticeships. Lastly, the renovation is expected to support income generation activity, supporting the sustainability of St Columb’s Hall Trust, and in turn generating job and apprenticeship opportunities.

6.32. Methodological considerations: This project will use the funding in part to maintain the status quo in Derry, as the organisation already uses this building, making it difficult to distinguish the full impact of the funding. This project will only be subject to the qualitative and VfM methodologies.

The Old Clyne School redevelopment (Scotland, Round 3 Window 2)

6.33. Redevelopment of a semi-derelict building in rural Brora, northern Scotland, for use as a museum and heritage centre. The Clyne Heritage Society requested £1.95 million from the Community Ownership Fund, contributing to the overall project cost of around £4.5 million.

6.34. The funds will be used to renovate the space, converting it into the permanent home of the Clyne Heritage Society, with an expected impact of increased self-sustainability, securing the future of heritage services in the parish. The space will be improved through new accessibility features and a focus on creating a comfortable social environment, with the expected impact of increased use of the space, including by new segments of the community. This in turn is expected to support the development of new social relations.

6.35. The Society will oversee the provision of volunteering and work opportunities, as well as innovative community activities, which is expected to support the development of new skills and deliver direct and indirect economic and social benefits. Additionally, the Society hopes to create a high quality museum, achieving the Museums Galleries Scotland accreditation and attracting visitors from other places, with the expected impact of disseminating local heritage and contributing to increased pride in place.

6.36. Methodological considerations: The aim of this project is to benefit regional tourists as well as the local community. It is not assured that the field visit will be able to engage tourists in evaluation activities or understand the impact of the project on them. This project will only be subject to the qualitative and VfM methodologies.

Cove Sailing Club (Round 3 Window 2)

6.37. Building of a new sailing clubhouse with accessible facilities in Loch Long, Scotland, to support the local community to undertake water sports by providing recreational activities and facilities.

6.38. Led by Cove Sailing Club SCIO, the project required approximately £688,000 of funding, £478,627 of which was from the COF, to build a new clubhouse that avoids flooding issues, meets regulations and provides accessible facilities such as a kitchen and bar area.

6.39. The new facilities are expected to continue and enhance the provision of social events and sailing activities, such as regattas, competitive events, recreational sailing and training, accompanied by a youth engagement programme. This is expected to contribute to increased participation and inclusivity in club events contributing to the development of skills in sailing and attracting regional tourism. Additionally, the project will deliver a heritage project around Loch Long sailboat and an environmental programme, expected to contribute to local maritime knowledge and preservation skills, alongside enhanced community pride.

6.40. The project will be delivered by Cove Sailing Club SCIO, with community engagement in the management of the asset, for instance through consultations, surveys, advisory committees and collaborative decision making. The transfer of land and assets to Cove Sailing Club SCIO is expected to improve the organisation’s financial sustainability. The participation of local communities and Cove Sailing Club SCIO in the management of this asset is expected to contribute to increased inclusivity, greater social cohesion, and strengthened capacity to take on assets.

6.41. Methodological considerations: This project will maintain the status quo, as the sailing club already operates in the area. However, the mediating effect of the new clubhouse will be evaluated. The project will only be subject to the qualitative and VfM methodologies.

7. Expected evaluation outcomes following case study selection

Full methodology case studies

7.1. The feasibility assessment has affirmed that the expected outcomes identified in the methodology statement can be addressed in the context of each case study. That is, for case studies where the full methodology will be applied, the following evaluation outcomes are expected:

• Process: 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: Identification, measurement and appraisal of the intended and unintended impacts of case study projects on local communities.
• Value for Money: Insight on how effectively COF converts public resources into additional public value.

7.2. Assessing the feasibility applying the methodology to specific case studies, allows the evaluation team to more precisely identify the types of long-term impact the case studies are focused on for the ‘Impact’ evaluation outcome. These include:

• Improved economic outcomes: All projects highlighted a long-term outcome of improved economic outcomes for local people. In one case Plas Antaron, these outcomes were limited to volunteers for the organisation;
• Reduction in social isolation and loneliness: 9 projects sought to reduces levels of social isolation and loneliness in their places;
• Improved wellbeing: 9 projects sought to improve wellbeing, either for local people (7) or for beneficiaries of the services of the community organisation (2). In one case (The Queen’s Ballroom), the applicant emphasised a focus on the wellbeing of young people and people over 60;
• Enhanced community cohesion and trust: These outcomes spoke to improvements for the social environment in the places assets were located. 8 projects described these outcomes, often alongside improved social trust (3) and an improve sense of belonging to the local community (3);
• Community pride: 8 projects discussed improving people’s perceptions of their local area and community as an important impact;
• Vibrancy of places: 2 projects (Aurora and The Queen’s Ballroom) sought to rejuvenate the high street of their places. One project (Rannoch Hub) wished to retain more young people in their place;
• Improved environmental outcomes: 3 projects (The Queen’s Ballroom, Cove Sailing Club and Save the Hop Pole) sought improvements in the natural environment of their places;
• Reduction in anti-social behaviour: 2 projects described a reduction in petty crime, vandalism and other anti-social behaviour as an intended long-term impact.

7.3. These impact outcomes affirm the decision to use the Community Life Survey (CLS) as the basis for the questionnaire administered as part of the hyper-local survey, so as to ensure consistency with relevant CLS outcomes available for the comparison group in matched areas. The CLS includes questions that explore feelings of belonging, trust and pride in respondents’ local area, questions on social isolation and loneliness, and modules on employment as well as wellbeing. All the case studies selected for the survey were chosen to be well-suited for the measurement of these outcomes.

7.4. The hyper-local survey sampling numbers for the Round 3 case studies are to be confirmed, but from the 4 original case studies across Round 1 and 2, a total of 5,000 addresses in 3 areas and 4,607 addresses in one area were contacted. Whilst 1.9 adults per residential address was assumed, the survey allowed for up to 4 adults per household to respond. After some standard assumptions were applied regarding the share of residential addresses, and number of adults per residential address, a conversion rate of approximately 0.2 adults per address surveyed was calculated. This resulted in the aim of approximately 1,000 survey completes per area.

7.5. The qualitative methodology (pulse interviews, ethnographic observation, focus groups) will be able to supplement this understanding of impact both by providing rich data on people’s perceptions and subjective feelings towards their community and place, but also by identifying explanatory mechanisms for any quantitative results.

Qualitative and Value for Money methodology case studies

7.6. For case studies where only the qualitative and Value for Money methodology will be applied, expected evaluation outcomes are the same but face some limitations compared to the full methodology. These include the representativeness of the sample taken in the places where community assets are based and the identification of secondary ‘spillover’ benefits to the local community. This is because the qualitative methodology focuses on data collection from people using or involved in supporting the asset (whereas the quantitative evaluation widely surveys residents from the local area), and the Value for Money evaluation relies on project documentation as well as inputs from the qualitative and quantitative data collection.

7.7. However, the potential for the quantitative methodology to provide supplemental insights for these case studies was already limited, as either the asset will not be open to the public in time for wave 2 of the survey in January 2025, making a difference-to-difference approach impossible (e.g. Teach Uidhilin), or the asset addresses a specific sub-population of the local area meaning an addressed-based hyperlocal survey would not reflect the intended local impact of the asset (e.g. Plas Antaron, a care centre for people with terminal illnesses and their carers).

Overall evaluation outcomes

7.8. Looking beyond the individual case study outcomes to the evaluation outcomes for the entire study, an integrated Qualitative, Quantitative and Value for Money methodology will deliver a final assessment beyond the ‘sum of the parts’ of the individual methods and the individual case studies. Using a combination of methods allows for a comprehensive exploration of impact, both in terms of detailed qualitative data and robust samples collected from case study locations. This is particularly important for the impact assessment, as in the case of COF many of the impacts of interest rely on people’s perceptions of their local community and place, as well as other subjective experiences such as loneliness and trust. Qualitative data will complement quantitative data, and vice versa, to fully detail the experiences of people in places that have received COF funding.

7.9. Combining the impact evaluation with an evaluation of process and value for money will then also allow the evaluation team to understand the effectiveness of the public funds used for the Community Ownership Fund compared to alternative uses, as well as exploring how future programmes with similar strategic objectives could be improved. As the evaluation period also overlaps with the funding period itself, potential areas for improvement can be fed into the delivery of the Fund in real time using a Developmental Evaluation approach, potentially improving outcomes for projects.

7.10. Finally, applying the same approach across multiple case studies allows for a comparative analysis of the different causal and contributory mechanisms identified to produce a rich understanding of the mechanisms through which COF has created impact for communities across the UK. By maximising the variation within the selected case study portfolio, comparison of case studies will allow for the fullest possible exploration of contextual factors which will affect these mechanisms. Not only will the evaluation inform MHCLG of the effectiveness of COF and scope for improvements within the programme as well as further programmes, but it will shed light on the variable roles and functions of community assets within left behind places, across the UK.

7.11. The assessment of feasibility has therefore affirmed the appropriateness of the selected method to evaluate the fund through the chosen case studies. However, it has also revealed some limitations to the analysis.

Selection process

7.12. Firstly, the selection process for the case studies has introduced some risks and biases. The selection process seeks to maximise variation in the selected portfolio to generate the widest possible range of comparisons across different contextual factors and more rigorously test the programme level Theory of Change. However, by selecting a ‘maximum variation’ portfolio, the representativeness of the portfolio to the overall COF portfolio is diminished. For example, the portfolio contains roughly equal cases from all 4 nations, whereas the actual COF portfolio does not. This makes it harder to generalise from the impacts and value for money of the case studies to the wider impact and Value for Money of the entire COF fund. The evaluation team has determined that this is not to the detriment of the wider evaluation objectives, which seek to understand the nature of the impacts of the fund, to identify what is and is not working in the programme, and to identify what could be improved in future iterations of similar policies. A maximum variation approach delivers this outcome by allowing for a wider set of explanatory variables to explore when evaluating why observed similarities and differences between cases exist.

7.13. Choosing a ‘maximum variation’ portfolio also introduces complexity to the comparative analysis, as the different case studies are very different from each other across multiple variables (such as asset type, amount of funding applied for, funding Round). We also note that the ‘similarity’ and ‘difference’ between the case studies is based both on observed values in applications (e.g. nation, funding mix) but also on the socially constructed perceptions of the evaluation team based on a review of project documentation (e.g. asset type, geography of impact). The risk to the evaluation is that the complex array of differences and similarities makes it difficult both to identify any universal features or mechanisms across the portfolio, or adequately explain the differences.

7.14. To mitigate this risk, the theories of change for each case study as well as the overarching theory of change have been used to identify preliminary areas of comparison described below, whilst also holding open the possibility that other areas of comparison may emerge during the study as the evaluation team’s perceptions of similarities and difference are updated. Cross-case analyses will also seek to employ pattern matching logic that seeks to identify patterns between cases as a step in explaining observed processes and behaviours (for an explanation see Goodrick, 2014), whilst holding open the possibility of plural causation where similar observations could arise from different causes (or different weights on the same causes) across contexts (see Pickvance, 2001).

7.15. Drawing on the overall high-level theory of change from the Methods Paper, case studies will be compared across the ‘indicative case study’ they match (protecting an asset through transfer to community ownership, reopening a community owned asset that has closed, safeguarding a community-owned asset at risk of closure) as well as:

• Intended and experienced economic outcomes, such as the impact on local employment and local economic development.
• Intended and experienced social outcomes, such as increased pride in place and maintained/increased social infrastructure.
• Changes in the financial and environmental sustainability of the asset following the receipt of COF funding.
• Experiences of the project teams over the course of the evaluation period, in particular any changes in the capacity and capability for community groups.

7.16. Based on the case study selection process, additional areas of comparison across the project include:

• Comparison of different asset types, and how they operate over time.
• Comparison of anticipated project-level outcomes not identified in the overall theory of change but identified in case study theories of change (e.g. vibrancy of places, wellbeing), and the actual outcomes.
• Comparison of different funding mixes (e.g. funding matched with reserves, community share issuances, other types of grant funding), how these have shaped the experiences of applicants in running, renovating and/or purchasing an asset.
• Comparison of the responses of local stakeholders to their community asset over time.
• All the above areas of comparison will then be considered against local contexts such as rurality, urbanity, deprivation, and levels of social cohesion.

Isolating impact in funding mix

7.17. Another challenge in the evaluation is isolating the specific contribution of COF funding to the overall outcomes and process of applicants ‘saving’ their community asset. As the COF programme has a match funding requirement, identifying the impact of COF funds versus other funding sources is complex. Although a simple scaling may be appropriate for parts of the analysis (for example the Value for Money analysis), it may miss ancillary positive or negative impacts associated with receiving the funding such as reputation, the grant management experience and involvement in the evaluation process. These factors may have complex interactions with the impact of the overall asset, leading to the risk that the impact of COF funding is overstated or understated.

7.18. To address this risk, the qualitative evaluation focus groups will define sets of questions targeted at understanding ancillary impacts of receiving COF funding to inform the process evaluation. Furthermore, the case study portfolio contains a wide variety of funding mixes, which will form part of the comparative case study analysis. Insights from the comparative analysis will inform the case study level findings where relevant.

Fund impacts and fund aims

7.19. Finally, the strength of the logic between the strategic impacts of the COF and the Fund design itself varies by impact. Whereas the overall theory of change for the programme identified a strong link between the fund design and the strategic objectives of saving and sustaining community assets that would otherwise be lost to community use, and strengthening capacity and capability within communities, the logic for achieving the other objectives is more tenuous:

• Empower communities in left behind places to the level up: As the fund was not targeted at priority areas, evaluating the overall success of COF to empower communities in left behind places lacks a basis in the overarching theory of change for the project. From Round 3 onwards the COF did prioritise in-depth development support for bids based on deprivation and levels of social infrastructure, however this feature aimed to improve accessibility to funding rather than specifically target funding to priority areas.
• Strengthen direct links between places across the UK and the UK government: The design of the fund does not have in place any specific measures to strengthen direct links between places across the UK and the UK government beyond the grant manager and evaluation team relationship.

7.20. The challenges to generalisability beyond the case studies given the variation in project types and changes to the fund across Rounds also limit the ability of the proposed evaluation to measure the overall success of COF against these objectives.

7.21. However, as the case study portfolio does include projects in priority areas, the evaluation team will be able to provide key insights about differential impacts between case studies in ‘left behind’ areas, informing additional future evaluation and design of similar policies. Additionally, the comparison area of applicant experiences will also be able to generate insights into the role of COF in shaping links between the UK government and places across the UK. It may be necessary to conduct additional evaluation to determine whether the fund as a whole is supporting ‘left behind’ areas or improve links between the UK government and places across the UK.

8. Conclusion

8.1. The evaluation team have assessed the feasibility of applying the method for evaluation described in ‘The Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method’ (the ‘methods paper’). The assessment affirms the feasibility of applying the methodology across 12 case studies to:

• identify, measure, and understand the intended and unintended impacts of case study Community Ownership Fund projects on local communities as well as the mechanisms and factors that are impeding or enabling the impact of case study projects on their local areas
• identify and understand the shared and/or different causal mechanisms of the COF across the whole case study portfolio, how those mechanisms interact with different contexts, and how those mechanisms inform the evaluation’s understanding of impact

8.2. Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of overall programme, providing insight on how cost effectively outcomes have been achieved when compared to alternative approaches.

8.3. The feasibility study identified some limitations in the evaluation such as generalisability, isolating the impact of COF funding versus matched funding, and evaluating the strategic objectives of empowering ‘left behind’ communities as well as strengthening links between places across the UK and the UK government. However, where possible these limitations are mitigated through the overall comparative case analysis approach as well as the opportunity to collect rich qualitative insights from project teams. Overall, the feasibility study supports the proposed evaluation approach in delivering a comprehensive assessment of COF against its stated objectives as well as providing developmental feedback to MHCLG on potential future policy making in this area.

References

AMION Consulting and DCLG (2010) National Evaluation of the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative Programme. Final Report. Department for Communities and Local Government, p. 96. (Accessed: 14 March 2024).

Archer, T. et al. (2019) Our assets, our future: the economics, outcomes and sustainability of assets in community ownership. Research Report. Power to Change. (Accessed: 10 August 2023).

BOP Consulting (2022) Great Place Programme Evaluation: Final report. Arts Council England. (Accessed: 18 March 2024).

BOP Consulting (2023) Great Place Programme Evaluation (England): understanding the programme’s legacy. Arts Council England. (Accessed: 18 March 2024).

Bruni, F. et al. (2017) The Economics of Community Asset Transfers: An Economic Framework to define and measure Social Value in Community Asset Transfers. Research Report. Pro Bono Economics. (Accessed: 10 August 2023).

Goodrick, D. (2014) Comparative Case Studies. Methodological Brief 9. Florence: Unicef Office of Research, p. 17. (Accessed: 22 February 2024).

Grant, A., Bugge, C. and Wells, M. (2020) Designing process evaluations using case study to explore the context of complex interventions evaluated in trials, Trials, 21(982).

Hancox, D. (2019) Great British sell-off: how desperate councils sold £9.1bn of public assets, The Guardian, 5 March. (Accessed: 30 August 2023).

Hollis, H. et al. (2023) Social infrastructure: international comparative review. Institute for Community Studies, p. 87. (Accessed: 19 March 2024).

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

Nielsen, E. (2021) The impacts of social infrastructure investment. A report for Local Trust. UK: Frontier Economics, pp. 1–49.

Pickvance, C.G. (2001) Four varieties of comparative analysis, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(1), pp. 7–28. (Accessed: 19 March 2024).

SQW (2021) Impact evaluation of Sharing in Growth (SiG). Evaluation Report. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), p. 190.

Tanner, W. et al. (2020) The State of our Social Fabric. Onward.

Theminimulle, S. et al. (2022) People shaping places, places shaping people: Community asset ownership. Research Report. Institute for Community Studies. Unspecified (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge. Research Report. Local Trust.

Yin, R.K. (1992) The Case Study Method as a Tool for Doing Evaluation, Current Sociology, 40(1), pp. 121–137.

1. Case studies were selected from Rounds 1, round 1b, round 2 window 1, round 3 window 1 and 2. ↩

2. Whilst the literature review found limited data on community assets across Scotland, England, and Wales, there have been legislative developments supporting community ownership of assets in Scotland, and interest in supporting community ownership in Wales and Northern Ireland (see Nason, 2022). ↩