The following information outlines how thinkpublic and Sport England will evaluate submitted applications to the first cohort of the Patchwork Programme.

 

Each criterion can be scored on a scale of 1 to 5:

• 1: Poor - Response lacks clarity, depth, or relevance.

• 2: Fair - Response is somewhat clear but lacks detail or depth.

• 3: Good - Response is clear and detailed but could benefit from more depth or specificity.

• 4: Very Good - Response is clear, detailed, and shows depth and understanding.

• 5: Excellent - Response is exceptionally clear, detailed, and innovative, showing deep understanding and passion.

 

1. Belief and passion for embedding physical literacy in practice

• Clarity and Depth of Belief: How clearly and deeply does the applicant articulate their belief and passion in physical literacy?

• Understanding of physical literacy: Does the applicant show a comprehensive understanding of what physical literacy entails?

2. Aspiration for change and specifics of real-life project, strategy, service, or initiative

• Vision for Change: How compelling and clear is the applicant's vision for change? Does it align with our year one priority areas? Is the idea targeting CYP in need the most?

• Idea Specificity: Are the specifics of the project, strategy, service, or initiative well-defined and detailed? 

3. Location, target audience, and building on existing work

• Geographic and Demographic Details: Is the idea location and target audience clearly identified and described? Is it in a geographical location of need?

• Contextual Relevance: How well does the idea build upon or complement existing work in the specified area?

4. Interdisciplinary team and partnerships

• Partner Description: Are the individuals and partner organisations clearly identified and relevant to the project?

• Team and Partnership Strengths: What strengths and expertise do the team and partners bring to the project? Do the team have the time and resources needed to take part in the programme and deliver their vision?

5. Learning objectives and support needs

• Learning and Support Needs: Does the applicant clearly articulate their greatest needs for support? 

• Feasibility of Learning and Support: How feasible is it that the learning objectives match the team’s described support needs?

6. Amplifying learning and impact

• Potential for Wider Influence: What is the potential for the team's work to influence a broader audience or field?

7. Relationships and access to under-active, under-represented and/or minority groups of CYP

• Access and Relationships: Does the applicant have strong relationships or access to under-active, under-represented and/or minority groups of CYP?

8. Executive sponsorship and organisational support

• Executive Sponsorship: Do all individuals on the team have support from their organisation(s)?

9. Time and resource availability

• Feasibility and Sustainability: How feasible and sustainable is the idea given the time and resources stated?