Guidance

Changing Futures Lived Experience Support Grant: scoring framework

Updated 30 March 2026

Applies to England

This document outlines the criteria that will be used to assess all eligible applications submitted to the Changing Futures Lived Experience Grant. Each criterion is designed to evaluate your alignment with programme objectives. Assessors will review every application against these criteria using a standardised scoring framework.

Part 1: Eligibility and your organisation (Pass or Fail)  

The eligibility check will be applied to all applications received by the closing date. This section will confirm if your organisation meets the eligibility criteria. Please refer to the prospectus for full details on eligibility criteria.

Part 2: Evaluation (scored) 

Applications will be assessed by MHCLG against the following criteria. The assessment will consider the extent to which proposals demonstrate the capability, approach and value required to deliver the learning and support role set out in this prospectus.  

1. Skills and experience
2. Understanding of the programme and objectives
3. Approach to delivery, learning and impact
4. Deliverability and risk management
5. Cost and value for money

Each of the questions (criteria) below will be scored on a scale from 0 (no or unclear response) to 3 (strong response with clear evidence). Any applicant scoring 0 on any criterion will not be eligible for funding, and scoring will stop at that point. The weighting for each section is shown. Scores for all criteria will be combined to produce a total score. Further details will be provided in a separate scoring guidance document.

• your application will be assessed in three parts; eligibility (Pass or Fail), evaluation (scored) and declaration (Pass or Fail)
• we may contact you for more information
• if your application fails to meet the eligibility criteria it will not be scored
• the amount you apply for may not be the same as the amount you are awarded

1. Skills and experience

This section is weighted at 25% and the maximum score is 75. 

Three questions in this section, 300 word limit for each:

• What relevant organisational experience and expertise do you have in safely engaging, supporting, and working alongside people of multiple disadvantage at a comparable scale and complexity?
• What skills and capability do your proposed team have to support, develop and enable lived experience leadership, including through trauma-informed principles, appropriate supervision, safeguarding and ethical engagement?
• What expertise does your organisation have in multiple disadvantage, including influencing policy and practice through lived experience participation and co‑production, and working on national or large‑scale programmes and public sector reforms?

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear explanation of the organisation’s experience or capability to deliver lived experience leadership, participation or co-production activity relevant to the programme.
1	Limited description of organisational experience or team capability. Some relevant experience may be referenced but lacks sufficient detail or evidence.
2	Clear explanation of organisational experience and team capability, with some supporting evidence of delivering comparable activity or expertise in multiple disadvantage.
3	Detailed and well-evidenced explanation showing strong organisational experience and subject matter expertise, with clear capability to deliver lived experience leadership, participation and co-production activity at the scale and complexity required.

2. Understanding of the programme and objectives

This section is weighted at 15% and the maximum score is 45. 

Three questions in this section, 300 word limit for each:

• What is your understanding of the programme context, objectives and priorities?  
• What is your understanding of the role and purpose of the lived experience provider within the programme?
• How would you tailor your approach for areas at different maturity levels, including those transitioning from the current programme and new areas joining, while ensuring meaningful involvement of people with lived experience in local systems and activity?

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear explanation of the programme context, objectives, or the role of the lived experience provider.
1	Limited understanding of the programme and its objectives. The response may reference relevant issues but lacks clarity or depth.
2	Clear explanation of the programme context and objectives, demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the role of the lived experience provider.
3	Detailed and well-evidenced explanation demonstrating strong understanding of the programme context, objectives and policy environment, including recognition of the varying levels of maturity across participating areas and the role of lived experience and co-production in supporting systems change.

3. Approach to delivery, learning and impact

This section is weighted at 35% and the maximum score is 105. 

Three questions in this section, 300 word limit for each:

• What is your proposed approach to delivering lived experience leadership, participation and co-production across the programme, and how will this support delivery of the programme’s objectives?
• How will learning from lived experience participation and coproduction be captured, synthesised and shared across the programme to improve local practice, strengthen delivery and inform wider national policy development on multiple disadvantage?
• How will your approach help areas recruit, support and retain people with lived experience, ensure safe trauma informed engagement and provide opportunities for participation including peer research, progression into training, volunteering and employment?

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear explanation of the proposed approach to delivering lived experience leadership, participation or co-production activity
1	Limited description of the proposed approach. The response may reference relevant activity but lacks coherence, detail or alignment with programme objectives.
2	Clear explanation of the proposed approach with some supporting detail demonstrating how lived experience participation, leadership and co-production activity will be supported across Changing Future areas and aligned with programme objectives.
3	Detailed and well-evidenced explanation demonstrating a coherent, credible and flexible approach to delivering Lived experience leadership, participation and co-production actively, including supporting areas to engage with lived experience safely and effectively and capturing and sharing learning across the programme.

4. Deliverability and risk management

This section is weighted at 15% and the maximum score is 45. 

Two questions in this section, 300 word limit for each:

• How will your proposed approach be mobilised and managed effectively, including how will you identify and mitigate key delivery risks?  
• How will you ensure activity funded through this programme stays aligned with Changing Futures objectives and is clearly branded and attributed, including when lived experience activity is shared through wider sector events, publications or networks?

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear explanation of the proposed activity will be mobilised or managed.
1	Limited description of mobilisation, governance or risk management. Key risks may not be clearly identified.
2	Clear explanation of how the proposed activity will be mobilised and managed, including identification of key delivery risks and some mitigation strategies.
3	Detailed and well-evidenced explanation demonstrating strong mobilisation, governance and delivery arrangements, with clear identification and management of key risks.

5. Cost and value for money

This section is weighted at 10% and the maximum score is 30. 

We will ask you to:  

• Upload an itemised budget for your proposed project in the budget template provided. Please refer to the budget template

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear explanation of the proposed budget. Costs are missing, unclear, or not linked to the proposed activities, making value for money impossible to assess.
1	Limited explanation of the proposed budget. Some costs are outlined but justification is weak or unclear, and the relationship between costs are activities is not well demonstrated. Value for money is not clearly evidenced.
2	Clear explanation of the proposed budget, with most costs appropriately itemised and linked to the proposed activities. The proposal demonstrated reasonable considerations of value for money.
3	Detailed and well justified budget with clear links between costs and proposed activities. Costs are proportionate and realistic, demonstrating strong consideration of value for money and use of funding.

Part 3: Declaration and Confirmations (Pass or Fail) 

Refer to the application form and prospectus for details

Generally:

Please refer to the full prospectus for detailed information on how funding decisions will be made.