The Final Years of CIF: Are schools bidding for need or approval?

At AEC, we recently analysed a decade of CIF data. On the surface, the most recent round of results appears positive. More schools successfully secured funding in the latest round than in the previous year, despite a reduction in the overall funding available. However, a closer examination of the data reveals a more nuanced picture.

A review of funded project titles suggests that successful applications are increasingly focused on targeted repairs and isolated condition issues rather than comprehensive infrastructure replacement, with project scopes often limited to specific buildings or areas. In simple terms, more projects are being funded, but often at a lower value and with a narrower scope of works.

We believe this trend points to a growing challenge within the CIF programme. Faced with intense competition for funding, many schools appear to be scaling back their ambitions and limiting bids to the most immediate failures rather than presenting the full extent of their condition needs. For example, when a boiler reaches the end of its operational life, schools may submit a bid solely for its replacement. Yet, in many cases, the wider heating distribution network and associated infrastructure may also be nearing the end of their serviceable life. While the immediate issue is resolved, the underlying condition risks remain.

This may help explain why a greater number of schools are receiving funding despite increasingly constrained budgets. While this broadens access to investment, it also raises important questions about whether the programme is addressing root causes or simply funding short term remedial works.

The long-term resilience of the school estate depends on addressing underlying condition issues rather than repeatedly responding to individual failures. With CIF approaching its conclusion and a new capital funding framework expected to follow, academy trusts and school leaders should be careful not to underestimate their requirements out of concern that larger projects may be rejected. The danger is that schools begin bidding for what they believe is most likely to be approved rather than what their estate genuinely requires. CIF was established to address condition need, and applicants should feel confident in presenting a clear, evidence-based case for the full scope of investment required.

Our experience across multiple successful CIF rounds has shown that taking a strategic, long-term view of estate management can deliver significantly greater benefits than focusing solely on urgent repairs. Projects that address compliance, sustainability and future operational resilience often provide the strongest outcomes for schools and their communities.

As the programme enters its final years, schools have a narrowing window in which to secure meaningful investment. Playing safe by understating requirements may improve perceived chances of success, but it can also leave fundamental estate issues unresolved and lead to further expenditure in the years ahead.

The most effective applications are those that clearly identify the root causes of estate challenges and present a robust case for long term improvement.