Updated: 3rd June, 2026
Created: 20th May, 2026
Robert joined Barker in 2002 and is a Partner based in our Braintree office. A Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, he has over 20 years’ experience of all core building surveying services and provides strategic estates advice to key accounts in the education, commercial, ecclesiastical and public sectors.
An education specialist, he provides the following services: estates and energy strategy, asset management planning, project management and capital funding applications.
Robert works closely with clients to plan and implement energy efficiency and sustainability strategies to save money, reduce carbon emissions and meet ESG objectives.
As a RICS Certified Historic Buildings Professional he provides conservation consultancy for clients with listed and historic buildings.
Robert is an experienced APC Assessor and Chairman and is also an external examiner for Anglia Ruskin University
As a Partner Robert leads the Business Development and Marketing function at Barker, builds relationships with key sector bodies and helps steer the strategic growth of the company.
Email: rgould@barker-associates.co.uk
Tel: 01279 648057
Before looking ahead to what replaces the Condition Improvement Fund (CIF), it’s useful to understand how it is currently working across the sector. The latest allocation data offers a clear snapshot.
From 2,525 applications, 813 projects secured funding. That’s an overall project success rate of 32.2%, highlighting how demand for capital investment continues to exceed the funding available each year.
In value terms, schools and trusts requested around £1.35bn, with £456.9m awarded. Roughly a third of the funding sought translated into successful allocations.
At a school level, the pattern is similar. Of 3,925 eligible schools, 684 received funding, meaning around one in five schools secured CIF support in this round.
Competition is therefore significant, particularly as pressures on the school estate continue to increase.
There is a correlation between project scale and success rates. Regions delivering larger, higher‑value schemes tend to see stronger outcomes. In London, the average successful project value sits at around £708k, with a success rate close to 39%. The South East follows closely, averaging approximately £716k per project and converting a relatively high proportion of bids into funding.
Other regions show different characteristics. In the North East, average successful project values are lower, at around £372k, with success rates below the national average. Yorkshire and the Humber also records more modest project values and outcomes by comparison.
The variation is notable and can be partly explained by higher costs in London and the South East but it is worth noting that lower-value applications are not necessarily viewed more favourably. The focus of funding allocation is on urgency of need, evidence for need and value for money over simple cash values.
Applications for London schools are almost twice as likely to succeed as those in the North East. The South East submits the highest overall demand, with more than 400 applications requesting close to £276m, while London demonstrates how fewer applications can still translate into high funding totals through larger, more complex schemes.
Overall, the Condition Improvement Fund outcome points to a system that prioritises scale, urgency, and clearly evidenced need. Organisations with the capacity to develop larger, data‑led proposals are generally better placed to secure funding.
This context is important as the capital funding landscape begins to evolve. For years, CIF has been a lifeline for academies, small trusts, and sixth‑form colleges needing to tackle essential building improvements.
But with the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) long‑term estates capital strategy now in motion, many school leaders are asking the same question: When will CIF end, and what comes next?
The short answer is reassuring. CIF funding isn’t disappearing overnight. Instead, the government is reshaping how schools access capital funding, aiming for a system that is fairer, more predictable, and less burdensome.
Let’s break down what’s changing, when it’s happening, and why schools can feel confident about the future.
CIF will continue to run annual funding rounds until Autumn 2028. That means schools can still apply for CIF in the coming years while the new system is being built and tested.
This gradual transition is intentional. The DfE wants to ensure that schools continue to receive support for urgent and essential works while the replacement model is developed.
The new programme, which is part of the government’s 10‑year Education Estates Strategy, will fundamentally change how capital funding is allocated. While the official name is still to come, the direction is clear: it will be a move away from competitive bidding and towards a data‑driven allocation model.
The DfE is introducing a new requirement for annual estate data returns from 2026, ensuring that every responsible body maintains up‑to‑date, consistent information about the condition, compliance, and risk profile of its buildings.
This data will feed into a national picture of estate need, allowing the government to distribute capital more fairly and transparently. Alongside this, the DfE is rolling out the Manage Your Education Estate digital platform, which will eventually become the central hub for estate information, guidance, and tools.
The intention is to create a system where funding flows automatically to the areas of greatest need, without schools having to produce lengthy narratives or commission multiple reports simply to compete for limited funds.
We also know that the new model will place a much stronger emphasis on strategic, long‑term estate planning.
Rather than focusing on isolated projects, responsible bodies will be expected to demonstrate how they are managing their estate holistically by prioritising safety, resilience, and lifecycle maintenance.
The DfE has emphasised that the new approach will align closely with Good Estate Management for Schools (GEMS), meaning trusts will need to show they have robust asset management plans, risk registers, and maintenance strategies in place.
Importantly, the government has stressed that the new system is designed to be simpler and less burdensome, particularly for smaller trusts and standalone academies that often struggle with the resource demands of CIF.
While the finer details, such as the exact allocation formula, are still being developed, the general direction is unmistakable. The new system will focus on:
Change often brings uncertainty, but in this case, the shift is intended to reduce pressure on schools, create a more predictable approach to school estates capital funding, and ensure funding is directed towards the buildings most in need.
The Department for Education outlines several expected benefits of the transition away from CIF:
The government has committed £38 billion in capital investment between 2025–30, the highest level in over a decade. The money is still there, but it is being delivered through a more strategic system.
CIF success rates have hovered around 35%, meaning many high‑need schools miss out each year. A data‑driven model removes the “lottery” effect by using condition data to help prioritise need and reduce variability in outcomes.
Schools will no longer need to produce lengthy narratives, gather multiple reports, or compete against each other. This frees up time and resources for a more strategic approach to estate management.
The introduction of more predictable allocations is intended to help schools plan multi-year maintenance and improvement programmes, rather than relying solely on annual bid cycles.
Urgent Capital Support (UCS) is expected to remain in place to address buildings at immediate risk of closure during and beyond the transition period.
Although CIF will likely continue for at least two more rounds, schools can start preparing for the education estates strategy today by:
These steps will help schools transition smoothly and position themselves strongly under the new model.
CIF may be coming to an end, but capital funding for school buildings is not.
The DfE’s aim is to replace CIF with a system designed to be simpler, fairer, and more strategic, ensuring that funding reaches the schools that need it most, without the headache of competitive bidding.
