isolation or those communication needs a community area. living with a disability. or who are at risk of The applicant has social isolation. provided evidence that the accessibility to the project is based on the demographic profiles identified in the JSNA and any local priorities. There is little/no The applicant has The applicant has The applicant has a evidence that ensured all relevant provided evidence robust and safeguarding individuals will have that all relevant comprehensive implications are DBS checks, there is individuals will have safeguarding policy in considered. Or there limited evidence about appropriate DBS place, has demonstrated are concerns that the applicants checks. The a good understanding of How well will the vulnerable people safeguarding policy organisation has local safeguarding project/activity safeguard the may be put at risk as and understanding of demonstrated they processes and individuals welfare of vulnerable people? a result of this project. local processes. have a safeguarding have all relevant DBS (If concerns exist a 0 policy in place. checks in place. score must be given and more clarification sought from the applicant) The applicant has The applicant has The applicant has The applicant has included very little/no provided a framework provided evidence of provided a evidence setting out for evaluating the a good evaluation comprehensive plan how this project will be project. The framework that setting out how the impact How well has the applicant evaluated. evaluation focuses measures output and of the project will be ensured that they will monitor very much on impact (outcome). evaluated. The impact and evaluate their project / performance There are some links measures are activity involving older people measures, e.g number with JSNA and local comprehensively framed and carers? of people accessing priorities. within the priorities the service and does identified in the JSNA and not extend to local area priorities. measuring the impact Impact measures go
isolation or those living with a disability. communication needs or who are at risk of social isolation. a community area. The applicant has provided evidence that the accessibility to the project is based on the demographic profiles identified in the JSNA and any local priorities. How well will the project/activity safeguard the welfare of vulnerable people? There is little/no evidence that safeguarding implications are considered. Or there are concerns that vulnerable people may be put at risk as a result of this project. (If concerns exist a 0 score must be given and more clarification sought from the applicant) The applicant has ensured all relevant individuals will have DBS checks, there is limited evidence about the applicants safeguarding policy and understanding of local processes. The applicant has provided evidence that all relevant individuals will have appropriate DBS checks. The organisation has demonstrated they have a safeguarding policy in place. The applicant has a robust and comprehensive safeguarding policy in place, has demonstrated a good understanding of local safeguarding processes and individuals have all relevant DBS checks in place. How well has the applicant ensured that they will monitor and evaluate their project / activity involving older people and carers? The applicant has included very little/no evidence setting out how this project will be evaluated. The applicant has provided a framework for evaluating the project. The evaluation focuses very much on performance measures, e.g number of people accessing the service and does not extend to measuring the impact The applicant has provided evidence of a good evaluation framework that measures output and impact (outcome). There are some links with JSNA and local priorities. The applicant has provided a comprehensive plan setting out how the impact of the project will be evaluated. The impact measures are comprehensively framed within the priorities identified in the JSNA and local area priorities. Impact measures go
hwg-spending-guidelines-2.docx