Appendix 2: Scoring and assessment criteria

This chapter takes you through the standard and programme assessment criteria and the scoring system for all core grants programmes.

It includes the following:

• the general approach to assessing applications
• scoring methods and procedures for specific criteria
• how to score using the standard scoring range
• the assessment criteria for the programme, together with specific indicators and guidance
• worksheets that give further information to help you score each criterion.

Please note that this chapter has been provided for your guidance. Feel free to re-organise the criteria and associated worksheets in any way that helps you to use them most effectively.

Even when you become familiar with assessing community involvement applications, it is advisable for you to read through all of the information in this chapter from time to time. This will help ensure that you are scoring applications consistently and in line with the Boards priorities.

Some general points

• The degree of scrutiny you should apply is related to the complexity of the application, the type of activity and the context of that activity. The application may be either to extend the existing work or projects of an organisation, or to start a new project. As a general rule, the larger the grant requested by the applicant, the higher the degree of scrutiny.
• Projects are to be carried out within the existing context of an organisation. s overriding purpose. Because of this, you should always review the way in which the organisation works, as this will help give you an understanding of how likely the project is to succeed.
• It is not your job to assess how the organisation should be developed, but we do need to know about the likely impact of our grant on the organisation.
• If the organisation has previously held a grant from the Board, you should take relevant grant history into account when assessing the new application. See "Re-application" in chapter 8.

Scoring

This section explains how you should score the standard core grants assessment criteria and the programme criteria. There are three types of criteria for which you will record your assessments slightly differently. These are dealt with in turn below.

Scoring criterion 4: additionality

This criterion is designed to help you when you make recommendations to your RAP or Committee. It is scored as either 0 or 1, but the score is not added to the overall score in Portfolio Manager.

The three questions will help you to establish the degree of overlap between the project and statutory provision. If you answer "no" to any of the questions, you should award a score of 0 for the criterion. This will occur when there is a strong indication that the project has a significant degree of overlap with statutory provision. If this happens you should not recommend the application for funding unless there are exceptional circumstances for doing so. If you feel that there are you should refer to the guidance in section 4.6.

If you have answered "yes" to all of the questions you should award a score of 1 for the criterion.

Scoring criterion 10: the summary check

This criterion consists of six key indicators. Five of these measure financial and management competence, and the sixth asks you to consider whether the application fits with the Board. s mission statement. For each of them you must decide whether the application meets the standard outlined in each indicator. In order to do this you should answer "yes" or "no" to each of the questions. Each "yes" answer will earn the application one mark towards a maximum of six.

If you answer "no" to any of the questions, you are advised not to recommend the application for funding unless there are exceptional circumstances for doing so. You will have to justify your recommendation in your assessment summary in line with the advice in section 4.6, and the application will automatically go into upward review (see section 4.8). If your manager supports your recommendation, they will then pass the application to your regional manager or country director for further review.

Scoring the other criteria

Each of the remaining criteria (1. 3, 5-9 and 11) is scored out of a total of 6 marks: there are thus 7 different values available, from 0 to 6. The meanings of each value appear later in this section.

Arriving at a score

Remember that the information on the application form may not be as precise as you would like, and you should develop questions to explore with the applicant that will allow you to come to a decision about how far each of the criteria has been or will be met.

You should always give a score on the basis of what the wording of the criterion asks for. Most of the criteria listed later in this chapter are accompanied by "guidance" about what you should take into account when awarding a score and worksheets that give prompts and examples that might help you to plan your assessment. But this guidance should never be used as a simple method of tallying up marks. Indeed, on rare occasions you may feel that the application meets the overall criterion, but for reasons other than those included in the guidance. This is acceptable as long as your commentary gives explicit reasons for your decision.

You should also note that the programme criteria are likely to rely more heavily on country (and possibly regional) priorities. For this reason worksheets are only given where programme priorities are consistent across all countries.

Overall, the score that you award must be based on evidence that you have found during the assessment process. Your commentary should record how far the criterion has been met, and as such must justify the score that you have given. Writing the commentary first may help you to decide upon the overall score you wish to award. Remember that the guidance is there to help you and is not directly linked to the number of factors present.

Please also note that if you wish to recommend the inclusion of a special term and condition in any grant that may be awarded, you must base your score on the evidence gathered before such a measure is applied. Please refer to section 4.4 for further information.

When considering scores, please remember the following:

• A low score on a particular criterion does not necessarily mean that an application is "bad", merely that it does not fulfil a particular aspect of our policy focus.
• Don. t feel uncomfortable about awarding low marks or zero if the relevant evidence is not there.
• Don. t add a point or two for good measure simply because you think it is a good application. The merits of such cases should be reflected in the text associated with the criterion. Only rarely will you be able to award a full 6 points.
• If the application is a re-application you should consider grant history when coming to your score. Please refer to the guidance in chapter 8.

Assessing small organisations

For some new or small organisations, the project may be identical with the organisation to all intents and purposes. If you are assessing such an application you may feel that criteria asking about the project overlap with those relating to the organisation. This is most likely to occur with criteria 1 and 2 (which deal with management and financial controls) and 8 and 9 (which deal with openness to and involvement of beneficiaries). You must not mark either as "not applicable" or award the same marks to the second of each by default. You should still consider how far the application meets the specified criterion, working through the guidance provided or using other evidence. You may use the same evidence in the text you write for each criterion, but you must relate that text to the wording of the criterion and score each criterion separately. Do not assume that the answer and the score must be the same.

Equal opportunities

Criteria 8 and 9 focus on beneficiary involvement, access and diversity. However, you should take equal opportunities aspects into consideration throughout the assessment process, especially in criteria 3 (needs assessment) and 7 (monitoring and evaluation).

Applying reject reasons

If you do not wish to recommend an application for funding, you will have to apply one reject reason in AMI at the end of your assessment.

The first assessment reject reasons available to you may be found in section 3.5, while those specific to full assessment appear below. Please note that all first assessment reasons will be available to you at this stage, and that they should take precedence over those specifically associated with full assessment.

Some of the full assessment reject reasons are associated with failure on one or more specific criteria and should only be used in conjunction with them.

Whatever reason you apply to recommend rejection in full assessment, please remember that you must:

• provide evidence and an argument for rejection in the assessment summary, and
• assume that any information that you record may be read by the applicant and other interested parties.

Please refer to sections 4.6 and 4.9 for more information about recording the results of full assessment.

Full assessment reject reasons

The assessment criteria

Criterion 1

The organisation is well-managed and financially sound.

Criterion 2

If awarded a grant, the organisation would be able to manage the project.

Criterion 3

The project responds to a clearly defined need.

Text has been removed. This section includes guidance that staff don't have to follow when assessing the application. They must score the criterion above.

Criterion 4

The project is additional to statutory services.

Text has been removed. This section includes shorthand versions of how staff might go about determining whether a project is additional or not. A fuller version of the same text appears in the assessment pack

Criterion 5

The project has clearly-defined objectives and a thorough and reasonable project plan

Text has been removed. This section includes guidance that staff don't have to follow when assessing the application. They must score the criterion above.

Criterion 6

The project budget is accurate and reasonable, and is matched by realistic income projections.

Text has been removed. This section includes guidance that staff don't have to follow when assessing the application. They must score the criterion above.

Criterion 7

The project will be monitored and evaluated against its objectives, and the project plan reviewed accordingly.

Text has been removed. This section includes guidance that staff don't have to follow when assessing the application. They must score the criterion above.

Criterion 8

The organisation reflects the diversity of the community it serves, and takes account of the community's needs in all its work.

Text has been removed. This section includes guidance that staff don't have to follow when assessing the application. They must score the criterion above.

Criterion 9

Beneficiaries are involved in all aspects of the project, where appropriate, and have full access to it.

Criterion 10

Summary check

Criterion 11: Community involvement

A: The project helps people to work together for the benefit of their communities.

Text has been removed. This section includes guidance that staff don't have to follow when assessing the application. They must score the criterion above.

Criterion 11: Community involvement

B: The project helps people to become more involved in their communities.

Criterion 11: Community involvement

C: The project provides support for or develops the voluntary and/or community sector.

Text has been removed. This section includes guidance that staff don't have to follow when assessing the application. They must score the criterion above.

Criterion 12: Poverty and disadvantage

The project aims to improve the quality of life of people and communities who are affected by poverty and disadvantage.

Please refer to the "Poverty and disadvantage" section of the policy repository and to local guidance in order to help you score this criterion between 0 and 6.

Contents - Introduction - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - Appendix: 1 - 2