Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Measuring social value and impact in asset transfer: Tony Rich, Birmingham March 23rd 2010


Published on

Tony Rich presents on Valuing worth - the system developed by Birmingham City Council for calculating the value of community effort as part of a Community Asset Transfer.

He was speaking in Birmingham on March 23rd 2010 which was part of the learning from the Birmingham City Council Community Asset Transfer development Programme funded by AWM, which began in January 2009 and ran through until March 2010.


Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Measuring social value and impact in asset transfer: Tony Rich, Birmingham March 23rd 2010

  1. 1. Measuring social value and impact in asset transfer End of project workshop, 23 rd March 2010 Tony Rich Rich Regeneration
  2. 2. <ul><li>Objectives of the project </li></ul><ul><li>To develop tools to measure the social value and impact of asset transfer </li></ul><ul><li>To work with two community organisations in Birmingham to ‘road test’ the tools </li></ul><ul><li>To establish an action learning set of local authorities to explore asset transfer issues and help develop and test the tools </li></ul>Rich Regeneration
  3. 3. <ul><li>Helps build the case to decision makers for asset transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Provides an ‘audit trail’ for the decision </li></ul><ul><li>Helps manage risks associated with transferring property to the third sector by assessing financial viability </li></ul><ul><li>Begins to value activities of the third sector which currently are either not valued or under-valued </li></ul><ul><li>Looks at savings and costs to the Council of asset transfer </li></ul>Rich Regeneration
  4. 4. <ul><li>Assesses financial resources, investment leveraged and viability of business plan </li></ul><ul><li>Assesses contribution to local and neighbourhood priorities and whether in deprived area </li></ul><ul><li>Also calculates, using financial proxies: </li></ul><ul><li>Community usage </li></ul><ul><li>Employment and enterprise </li></ul><ul><li>Agency service usage </li></ul><ul><li>Savings to the Council </li></ul><ul><li>Value of open land </li></ul><ul><li>Finally sums the values, adjusting for financial ‘score’ and contribution to local priorities </li></ul>Rich Regeneration
  5. 5. <ul><li>Firstly, log information about group and property </li></ul><ul><li>Stage one is Financial and viability assessment </li></ul><ul><li>A. financial resources- to measure % of total project capital costs secured </li></ul><ul><li>B. Investment leveraged – how much is the group able to access to invest in the building </li></ul><ul><li>C. Viability of business plan –to give some indication of projected future income stream </li></ul>The Pool
  6. 6. Rich Regeneration
  7. 7. <ul><li>D. Location by Council priority status –relates to IMD areas </li></ul><ul><li>E. Contribution to Birmingham’ Sustainable Community Strategy priorities </li></ul><ul><li>F. Contribution to LAA priorities </li></ul><ul><li>G. Contribution to Neighbourhood priorities –(will need to be added in) </li></ul>The Pool
  8. 8. Rich Regeneration
  9. 9. <ul><li>H Community participation –breakdown by user group (uses proxy of £5 p/h) </li></ul><ul><li>I Employment and enterprise (proxies vary e.g. nat min wage p/h or av regional salary, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>J Agency service use – £5x participants p/h </li></ul><ul><li>K Value of open land (if applicable) – either no of users or cost of reinstatement (needs to be piloted further) </li></ul>The Pool
  10. 10. <ul><li>L – Savings to the local authority –e.g. current maintenance costs etc. </li></ul><ul><li>M- Impact on adjoining sites –an assessment of the change in value or usage of adjoining sites as a result of the development </li></ul><ul><li>Calculation – add points for sections A-G and calculate points as % of total available </li></ul><ul><li>Sum financial scores for sections H-M </li></ul><ul><li>Adjust for % = total </li></ul>The Pool
  11. 11. <ul><li>Aim is to allow the impact of having an asset to be mapped and monitored </li></ul><ul><li>Key question is ‘what will be different?’ </li></ul><ul><li>Core is the completion of an ‘impact map’ –i.e. looks at what difference having the asset will make to both the organisation and its activities </li></ul><ul><li>Needs to start with a baseline </li></ul><ul><li>Can be used to monitor outcomes over time </li></ul><ul><li>Decided against advocating full SRoI-type approach and ‘monetisation’ </li></ul>Rich Regeneration
  12. 12. <ul><li>Describe the organisation and what it does </li></ul><ul><li>Establish the baseline: where is the organisation and local area now? </li></ul><ul><li>Describe the asset and transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Complete the impact map with the receiving organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Attempt to show the process of change from objectives to outputs to outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>There will be a number of milestone outcomes –it’s a journey </li></ul>Rich Regeneration
  13. 13. Rich Regeneration Rich Regeneration
  14. 14. Rich Regeneration Objectives/ aims of the organisation Outputs Outcomes Outcome indicators Strengthen governance X no of residents applying for directorships Promote wider acceptance of WLCA Board elections well contested Increase participation X no of volunteers at centre Increase in involvement in WLCA Residents reporting feeling more involved Improve communication X no of +ive responses to marketing Improved access to WLCA services Recognition of role of WLCA by local people Strengthen local partnerships No of people using stat services from centre Improved access to stat services for local people Value of stat service contracts delivered from centre
  15. 15. Rich Regeneration Objectives/aims of services delivered Outputs Outcomes Outcome indicators Promote skills/tackling worklessness No. of people accessing training centre Increase in local skill levels Sustainable employment gained Promote education No. of children undertaking afterschool activities Improved education outcomes Education performance by target group Alleviate poverty No of people transferring to Credit union Reduction in local indebtedness Value of credit union loans Promote community safety No. attending police surgeries Improved community safety Reporting of anti-social behaviour
  16. 16. <ul><li>Impact measurement offers a more ‘rounded’ picture than the social value tool does </li></ul><ul><li>Allows the opportunity to project further forward than one year </li></ul><ul><li>Looks at the journey that the organisation is going through </li></ul><ul><li>Requires engagement by the receiving organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Needs to be ‘qualified’ i.e. what would happen anyway or how far do other groups contribute? </li></ul>Rich Regeneration
  17. 17. <ul><li>Need to be clear about why we are trying to measure social value and impact in the first place </li></ul><ul><li>Social value tool intended to help LA make decision and begins to calculate value of third sector organisation receiving the asset </li></ul><ul><li>Impact tool starts to ask –what difference does owning/leasing an asset make to the organisation and also its activities </li></ul><ul><li>Needs to be robust but avoid over-complication – a difficult balance! </li></ul>Rich Regeneration
  18. 18. <ul><li>Tony Rich </li></ul><ul><li>Rich Regeneration </li></ul><ul><li>E: [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Tel. 07905 264 705 </li></ul>Rich Regeneration