ÄÛ²ÝÓ°Ôº

The information below shows how we score applications for the Supporting Communities Fund, based on the scores for each individual element of their application.

You can see an example of a blank scoring matrix here - Supporting Communities Fund scoring matrix (Excel spreadsheet, with formulae added to calculate a total score)

Community Impact

Weighting - each makes up 17% of the total score for Community Impact

Ref. Q2 - Skills Development

• Weak (score 0) - No clear learning targets
• Average (score 5) - Project has broad aims but may provide the opportunity for skills development for participants
• Strong (score 10) - Project aims to increase skills and knowledge / qualifications of participants

Ref. Q3 - Health and Wellbeing 

• Weak (score 0) - No clear health and wellbeing targets
• Average (score 5) - General statement provided without targets or means to assess impact
• Strong (score 10) - The organisation can evidence clear physical or mental health and wellbeing targets and how these will be measured

Ref. Q4 - Addressing social inclusion - targeted groups: people with disabilities, black and minority ethnic groups, young people, people on low incomes, elderly people, LGBTQ+, Vulnerable Adults 

• Weak (score 0) - General community benefit
• Average (score 5) - No specific group supporting people with protected characteristics named, but clear benefits for one or more of these groups
• Strong (score 10) - One or more groups of people with protected characteristics targeted

Ref. Q5 - Community Impact

• Weak (score 0) - Activity brings people together for personal benefit
• Average (score 5) - Activity brings people together or creates short-term (< ~1 year approx.) improvement or development of their local community (geographical or community of interest)
• Strong (score 10) - Activity brings people together for activity that creates or sustains long term improvements to their local community (geographical or community of interest)

Ref. Q6 - Alleviation of rural isolation

• Weak (score 0) - Community is not disadvantaged by its rural location for accessing services
• Average (score 5) - Project increases access for rural communities or small towns to services that are available in urban areas
• Strong (score 10) - Project increases access for island and remote rural communities to services that are available in small towns or urban areas

Ref. Q7 - Partnership working

• Weak (score 0) - Applicant evidences no partnership working or support from other organisations
• Average (score 5) - Applicant has consulted or can show support for the project from other relevant organisations
• Strong (score 10) - The project involves partners or is delivered in partnership with other organisations.  Duplication of service delivery or potential displacement of other organisations has been considered.

Organisation Stability

Weighting - each makes up 33% of the total score for Community Impact

Ref. Q1 - Has the project provided evidence of need?

• Weak (score 0) - No evidence provided
• Average (score 5) - General statement provided with limited evidence e.g. anecdotal, or not locally relevant data
• Strong (score 10) - Strong evidence of need for project provided, either qualitative (community or participative research) or quantitative (data from consultations, statistics, research reports)

Ref. Q2 - Community Engagement

• Weak (score 0) - No Engagement
• Average (score 5) - Consultation
• Strong (score 10) - Participants are involved and empowered

Ref. Q3 - Community Organisations Capacity 

• Weak (score 0) - Activities may result in individuals gaining more skills or confidence to make a difference in their community, but this is not an aim of the project or measured
• Average (score 5) - Skills and / or structures of the organisation are developed to enable it to play a stronger role within its community
• Strong (score 10) - The project supports community capacity to identify needs and priorities e.g. development of a Community-led Action Plan

Finance

Weighting - each makes up 50% of the total score for Community Impact

Ref. Q2 - Viability of project being delivered within the funding period

• Weak (score 0) - Project requires additional funding which is not yet applied for / no clear fundraising plans
• Average (score 5) - Project requires additional funding which has been applied for / or clear fundraising plan in place
• Strong (score 10) - Secured or not required i.e. application is for full funding

Ref. Q4 - Evidence of sound financial management

• Weak (score 0) - Concern around financial management including previous return of funds.
• Average (score 5) - No serious concern on financial management or return of funds.
• Strong (score 10) - Evidence of good financial management.