Guidance

Common Ground Award: scoring framework

Published 28 August 2026

Applies to England

This guidance provides you with information on the criteria used when your application for the Common Ground Award is assessed. Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) will assess all bids from eligible applicants against this common assessment framework.

Individual applicants can apply for a grant between £20,000 and £50,000. Individual applicants can set out how capital investment could be scaled up to a maximum of £100,000, which may be considered in exceptional cases - where there is clear evidence of need, with both significant expected impacts and high likelihood to deliver, supported by an exceptional application. 

Successful individual organisations will be awarded up to £100,000 as a capital grant. 

When an application is made by a consortium, the consortium can apply for a grant between £100,000 and £250,000 as a capital grant. 

Applications from both individual applicants and consortiums will be assessed on an equal basis. No funding is ringfenced for applications from consortiums. 

Eligibility

Is the organisation a:

• Registered charity
• Charitable incorporated organisation
• Company limited by guarantee
• Community interest company
• Community benefit society
• Unincorporated community group/organisation or an unincorporated association, provided it is:
  • established for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes
  • has a governing body with at least 3 members
  • has an inclusive Membership policy
  • has a governing document
  • can provide accounts for the last two financial years
  • has its own UK business bank account; and
  • can hold land or property and enter into contracts either by itself or via Trustees

Is the organisation delivering the activities in England?

Does the organisation have an annual turnover or income below £5 million? (Where an application is from a consortium, each individual organisation within the consortium must have an annual turnover or income below £5 million and meet all other eligibility criteria listed above).

Strategic alignment

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 25%.

We’ll ask for:

• the key aims and objectives of the organisation/ consortium (12.5%)
• the key activities of the organisation/consortium and how these align with the objective and core themes of the fund to build social connections across and between different communities (12.5%)

If you are applying as part of a consortium, you must ensure you demonstrate how each participating organisation aligns with the core grant objectives and at least one of the core themes.

The core themes are outlined below:

• encouraging and enabling social mixing, promoting understanding and reducing divisions between different communities and people from different backgrounds
• reducing prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed towards individuals and communities because of their background
• resolving conflict and addressing tensions across and between communities.

If applying for scaled up funding or as a consortium, there should be clear and strong evidence that aligns with the objectives and core themes.

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear explanation of how the applicant’s aims and objectives align with the objectives and core theme(s) of the Common Ground Award. No or unclear explanation of how the key activities of the applicant align with the objectives and core theme(s) of the Common Ground Award.
1	Applicant’s objective has some alignment with CGA objectives, but with limited detail. Limited alignment between applicant’s objectives and the core themes. Organisation/consortium’s activities have some alignment with CGA objectives, but with limited detail. Limited alignment between applicant’s activities and the core themes.
2	Clear explanation with supporting evidence, of how the applicant’s objectives align with the CGA objectives. Good alignment with one of the core themes. Clear explanation with supporting evidence of how the applicant’s activities align with the CGA objectives. Good alignment with one of the core themes.
3	Excellent evidence provided that demonstrates how the applicant’s objectives strongly align with the CGA objectives, and form a core aspect of the applicant’s strategy. Strong alignment with at least one of the core themes. Excellent evidence provided that demonstrates how the applicant’s activities strongly align with the CGA objectives. Strong alignment with at least one of the core themes.

Community engagement

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 15%.

We’ll ask for:

• how the organisation or consortium engages and collaborates with your communities (7.5%)
• how the organisation/ consortium collaborates with other organisations to benefit your communities? (7.5%)
• positive evidence could reference (but is not limited to):
  • how relationships are built in communities
  • working across multiple and diverse communities
  • engaging communities in the co-design of projects
  • relevant partnership working with other organisations
  • seeking feedback to improve projects
  • participation from historically excluded groups

If applying for scaled up funding or as a consortium, there should be clear, detailed evidence to demonstrate how the applicant aligns with the objectives, and generate additional reach beyond what could be delivered as an individual organisation or with a lower funding offer.

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear evidence of community engagement or partnership working with communities. No or unclear evidence of collaboration with other organisations to benefit communities.
1	Some evidence of engagement with at least one community or group, but limited scope or depth. Some evidence of collaboration with at least one other organisation to benefit communities.
2	Good evidence of engagement across multiple and diverse communities or groups. Good evidence of collaboration with multiple other organisations to benefit communities.
3	Strong evidence of thoughtful and inclusive engagement across multiple communities or groups. Evidence may include co-design of work with communities, and showing responsiveness to feedback and diverse community needs. Strong evidence of collaboration with multiple other organisations to benefit communities. Evidence may include strategic partnership working with relevant organisations that share aims in building social connections across and between communities and people from different backgrounds.

Community impact

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 25%.

We’ll ask:

• how the organisation or consortium has made a positive impact on the communities it serves, through activities that align with the objectives and core themes of the Common Ground Award (10%)

You will be asked to include recent relevant examples to illustrate your impact. Positive evidence could reference (but is not limited to):

• greater levels of interaction, trust, understanding and acceptance across and between different communities and people from different backgrounds
• formation of new networks, partnerships and friendships across and between different communities and people from different backgrounds
• reduced prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed toward individuals and communities because of their background
• resolution of conflicts or tensions across and between communities

You should ensure that your impacts align with at least one of the core themes.

• how the organisation/ consortium will continue to make an impact in the future. You will be asked to include recent relevant examples (10%)
• how the organisation/ consortium will monitor the impact of your project on your communities (5%)

To ensure you provide strong evidence, please include examples to strengthen your application.

If applying for scaled up funding or as a consortium, there should be strong evidence of how the organisation or consortium has scaled up impact beyond what could be achieved as an individual organisation or with a lower funding offer.

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear evidence of measurable impact or outcomes related to activities that align with the objectives and core themes of the CGA. No or unclear evidence that the applicant will continue to make a positive impact aligned with the CGA objectives into the future. No or unclear evidence of how the applicant will monitor impact of proposed spend.
1	Some evidence of impact, but limited and anecdotal, or not clearly linked to activities that align with the objectives and core themes of the CGA. Some evidence that the applicant will continue to make a positive impact aligned with the CGA objectives into the future, including reference to sustaining projects or measuring outcomes, but lacking detail and depth. Some evidence of how the applicant will monitor impact of proposed spend.
2	Good evidence of impact, with at least one example showing alignment with the CGA objectives and core themes. Good evidence that the applicant will continue to make a positive impact aligned with the CGA objectives into the future. Including evidence of plans to sustain or improve projects, with consideration of evaluation of impact. Good evidence of how the applicant will monitor impact of proposed spend.
3	Strong evidence of impact, with at least one example showing that the applicant’s work has formed or significantly strengthened relationships, networks or partnerships across communities and between people from different backgrounds, with explicit reference to at least one of the core themes. Strong evidence that the applicant will continue to make a positive impact aligned with the CGA objectives into the future, including credible long-term plans to sustain and improve projects, with impact evaluation. Strong evidence of how the applicant will monitor impact of proposed spend.

Use of funding

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 25% and will be used to determine the size of capital grant awards.

We’ll ask for:

• how much capital funding you are requesting (this question is not assessed)
• how you will use the funding, including an itemised breakdown (7.5%)
• the objectives of your project, and how they: (7.5%)
  • (1) meet the needs of the communities in the places where you are working
  • (2) How they align with the objectives and core themes of the Common Ground Award
• your key delivery milestones and when you aim to achieve them (10%)

If you are applying for scaled-up funding, as an individual applicant or a consortium, you should ensure you provide strong evidence of how this funding will enable the organisation to generate additional reach, outcomes and impact, with strong alignment to the objectives of the Common Ground Award and the core themes. Additionally, consortiums should demonstrate how they will generate reach, outcomes and impact beyond what could be achieved by the organisations individually.

Applicants should plan for all grant funding to be spent by 31 March 2027 and should demonstrate a credible delivery plan that enables expenditure to be incurred within this timeframe.

Scaled up or consortium applications should also provide strong evidence that funding will be spent by 31 March 2027. 

A Common Ground Award may contribute towards a project that also receives funding from other sources, provided that the same cost is not funded more than once. Applicants must declare any other funding sources, clearly identify which costs will be funded through the Common Ground Award, and ensure that total funding does not exceed the eligible project costs. Applicants are also responsible for ensuring that any co-funding arrangements comply with the conditions of all funding sources.

Score	Descriptor
0	Proposed use of funding is ineligible (not capital expenditure). No or unclear breakdown of spend. No or unclear explanation of how the funding will be used to enhance the offer of the applicant in alignment with the objectives or core themes. No evidence of engagement with communities regarding proposed spend. No confidence that funding will be spent by 31 March 2027.
1	Eligible use of funding. Some detail regarding spend breakdown. Some reference to how the funding will be used to enhance the offer of the applicant but lacking detail and depth in alignment with the objectives and core themes. Limited evidence of engagement with communities regarding proposed spend. Some confidence that funding will be spent by 31 March 2027.
2	Eligible use of funding. Good detail regarding spend breakdown. Good evidence of how the funding will enhance the offer of the applicant, with adequate detail around how the funding will be used during this financial year in alignment with the objectives and core themes. Some evidence of engagement with communities regarding proposed spend. Good confidence that the funding will be spent by 31 March 2027.
3	Eligible use of funding. Excellent detail regarding spend breakdown. Strong evidence of how the funding will enhance the offer of the applicant, with good detail around how the funding will be used during this financial year. Strong alignment between the use of funding and the objectives and core themes. Clear evidence of engagement with communities regarding proposed spend. Strong evidence that the funding will be spent by 31 March 2027.

Risk and governance

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 10.0%.

We’ll ask for:

• how you will mitigate risks throughout delivery (5%)
• what governance and decision-making structures you have in place (5%)

This evidence could include, but is not limited to, regular governance meetings to assess arising risks and issues, and specific steps planned to manage and mitigate those risks.

If applying for scaled up funding or as a consortium, there should be strong evidence that there are effective governance and decision-making structures in place to manage arising risks and issues.

Score	Descriptor
0	No or unclear description of how the applicant will manage or mitigate risks throughout delivery of the funding proposal. No or unclear details regarding governance and decision-making structures in place to manage delivery.
1	Some description of how the applicant will manage or mitigate risks throughout the delivery of the funding proposal. Some details regarding governance and decision-making structures in place to manage delivery.
2	Good description of how the applicant will manage or mitigate risks throughout the delivery of the funding proposal. Good level of detail regarding governance and decision-making structures in place to manage delivery.
3	Excellent description of how the applicant will manage or mitigate risks throughout the delivery of the funding proposal. Clear evidence that if risks emerge, the applicant will be able to effectively manage delivery of funding. Excellent level of detail regarding governance and decision-making structures in place to manage delivery. Clear evidence that the governance and decision-making structures in place will be effective at identifying emerging issues and managing these to successfully deliver funding proposal.