12. Assessment
The Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) uses a two-stage assessment process. Applicants should consider the full assessment criteria from the outset, as expectations increase between Stage 1 and Stage 2.
- Stage 1 - Expression of Interest (Eol)
-
At Stage 1, applications are not scored . Instead, officers assess:
- eligibility
- alignment with the scheme’s priorities
- overall fit and readiness to progress
Only applications that clearly demonstrate alignment and potential to deliver will be invited to proceed to Stage 2.
- Stage 2 - Application (Invitation only)
-
At Stage 2, applications are fully assessed and scored against the published criteria. This includes detailed review of:
- evidence of need
- evidence of community support
- expected impact
- value for money
- organisational sustainability
- Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
- environmental sustainability
Preparing your application
Although detailed information is only required at Stage 2, applicants are strongly encouraged to consider the full criteria from the beginning.
You should begin gathering evidence, data and supporting documents at an early stage, including:
- surveys, feedback and consultation results
- cost estimates and quotes
- permissions and approvals (where relevant)
This will help ensure you are ready to submit a strong Stage 2 application if invited.
Please note that invited applicants will have approximately 6 weeks to complete and submit a full Stage 2 application, including all required supporting evidence. Early preparation is therefore essential.
How applications are assessed
- Applications are acknowledged upon receipt
- Officers check for completeness and eligibility
- Stage 2 applications are independently scored by two officers and reviewed by a moderation panel
- Final decisions are made by the Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion and the Chief Finance Officer
| Criteria |
Max |
Weighting |
Total |
| 1. Project Need |
4 |
5 |
20 |
| 2. Community Support |
4 |
5 |
20 |
| 3. Expected Impact |
4 |
4 |
16 |
| 4. Value for Money |
4 |
3 |
12 |
| 5. Organisational Sustainability |
4 |
3 |
12 |
| 6. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) |
4 |
3 |
12 |
| 7. Environmental Sustainability |
4 |
2 |
8 |
| Total possible score |
100 |
| Criteria |
Things to consider |
| 1. Evidence of Need |
Is there a need to be addressed? What is the need? Is there evidence to support this need such as reports, building surveys, energy/maintenance bills, photographs? |
| 2. Evidence of Community Support |
Does this project have user and stakeholder support? Is there evidence to prove this such as user feedback, consultations, surveys, Councillors and/or Parish Council’s support? |
| 3. Expected Impact |
What will the project benefits be? And how will you measure the impact? Do you have data to showcase current position and clear aims to improve such as usage figures and how you plan to increase and/ or maintain them? |
| 4. Value for Money |
Is your proposed solution the most effective way to address the issue and why? What alternatives have been considered? How will the project improve your organisation’s financial stability? |
| 5. Organisational Sustainability |
How will the project support your organisation for the next 5+ years? How is the project going to be maintained in the long term? |
| 6. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) |
How will the project ensure widening reach and removing barriers? How will the project address deprivation and tackle inequalities? |
| 7. Environmental Sustainability |
Which of the six areas of focus in our Climate Change and Air Quality Strategy will your project support? |
For each of the above criteria, applications will be given a score in line with the table below:
| Description |
Score |
| Deficient – Response to the question significantly deficient or no response received. |
0 |
| Limited – Limited information provided, or a response that is inadequate or only partially addresses the question. |
1 |
| Acceptable – An acceptable response submitted in terms of the level of detail, accuracy and relevance. |
2 |
| Comprehensive – A comprehensive response submitted in terms of detail and relevance. |
3 |
| Outstanding – As comprehensive, but to a significantly better degree, or likely to result in increased quality, including improvement through innovation and strong likelihood of achieving great outcomes. |
4 |
Applications scoring 0 on any criteria or 1 on more than one criterion will not be recommended for funding.
Minimum score to be considered: 50 out of 100
Recommendations for funding will be made based on the scores given and the budget available.
If your proposal is not approved, feedback will be offered and alternative funding sources may be suggested.