RCMFI: Project Evaluation Criteria and Scoring System - Rotary Year 2025-2026

This evaluation system is created to ensure that projects supported by RCMFI are high-impact, fiscally responsible, sustainable and aligned with Rotary’s area of focus and RCMFI’s mission and to help both the evaluators and the project proponents to understand the scoring rubric. A minimum of 85% is required for approval of the funding for a service project.

I. Relevance and Impact

RCMFI and RCM assess the needs of the community, identify beneficiaries, identify measurable goals, identify the project’s relevance to Rotary’s areas of focus, identify clear outcomes and align the goals to the mission and vision of RCM and RCMFI. RCMFI must also identify how far-reaching is the outcome of a specified service project.

20%

II. Cost-effectiveness

RCMFI analyzes the budget requested for a specific project and determines if the best outcome can be achieved by the best cost after comparing different costs and outcomes. RCMFI also determines if the cost is within the financial capability of RCMFI. In order for the evaluation process to be more objective and easier to compare across projects, concrete benchmarks or cost-benefit indicators-e.g., cost per beneficiary reached, or ratio of overhead to direct service delivery should be provided.

20%

III. Sustainability

RCMFI must determine if RCMFI and RCM have the joint capability to sustain the service project for a long period of time. This applies to continuing projects only.

10%

IV. Risk Assessment

RCMFI through case studies (testimonials, feedback forms, consultations, social media visibility) must examine the eligibility of the proposed or specified service project. Relevant paperwork should be gathered on a regular basis during the pendency of the implementation of the project. RCMFI must identify the frequency of continuing project evaluation. It is also important to incorporate pre-implementation risk factors such as feasibility concerns, logistical bottlenecks or dependency on third party institutions to make the assessment more proactive than reactive.

20%

V. Transparency and accountability

RCMFI and RCM must demand and the beneficiary or the relevant partners-in-service must provide verified financial reports regarding the utilization of funds and in relation to the identification of outcomes and beneficiaries within thirty (30) days from the completion of the project. To ensure proper compliance, RCMFI can specify the frequency and format of reporting expected from beneficiaries and/or partners-in-service – e.g., quarterly utilization reports, midterm review meetings and final project evaluation. This will help set clear expectations from the outset.

20%

VI. Stakeholder Engagement

RCMFI and RCM must have direct communication with the beneficiary/ies and be directly involved in the implementation of the service project. This will include assessment for community involvement or participation in planning, which often improves project uptake, accountability and sustainability.

10%

Optional Qualitative Evaluation: While the quantitative rubric is essential, the evaluators can fill out a qualitative section where evaluators write a brief justification or recommendation (especially for borderline cases), which will help in improving transparency and record-keeping.