Guidance

Democratic Engagement Fund: Scoring criteria

Published 8 June 2026

Applies to England

This guidance provides you with information on the criteria used when your application to the CSO Innovation Grant Fund is assessed. 

Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) will assess all bids from eligible applicants against the sections set out in this scoring framework.  

Each of the criteria in sections 2 to 6 will be scored from 0 to 3. The weighting of each section is set out below. If any scored question receives a score of 0 then the application will be rejected and will not progress. Full details are set out in the prospectus.

Summary

Section	Scoring mechanism
1. Applicant details and eligibility	Pass / Fail
2. Project proposal	Scored 0-3 40% weighting / 1,200 words limit
3. Budget and value for money	Scored 0-3 10% weighting
4. Barriers, risks and safeguarding	Scored 0-3 10% weighting / 500 words limit
5. Reach	Scored 0-3 15% weighting / 400 words limit
6. Outcomes and evaluation	Scored 0-3 25% weighting / 750 words limit
7. Declaration	Pass / Fail
	Totals 100%, 300/300

Sections 1 to 7

1. Applicant details and eligibility - Pass/Fail

Applicants must demonstrate they are:

• A UK-based, non-governmental, non-profit CSO
• Delivering funded activity in England
• Politically impartial and independent of political parties
• Not using funds for lobbying or party-political activity
• Reaching at least one less engaged group as defined in the prospectus
• Committed to accessible communications
• Legally constituted, operating for 2+ years, with sound governance and controls
• Free from relevant unspent convictions (organisation / leaders / trustees)
• Willing to meet monitoring and evaluation requirements

Applicants who do not meet this criteria will fail and their application will not proceed.

2. Project proposal - Democratic engagement challenge and rationale (the “why”) – section weighting: 40%

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 40%. The Maximum score is 120.

We will assess target group(s) and barriers; category alignment; outcomes, rationale and beneficiaries; impartiality safeguards; delivery plan and milestones; and organisational fit.

Section 2.1 - Democratic engagement challenge and rationale (the “why”)

Sub weighting: 15% (Maximum score is 45)

Question: What democratic engagement challenge is the project seeking to address, and why does it matter for the target group?

Assessors will consider:

• how clearly the challenge is explained
• who the challenge affects (including the primary target group)
• why this matters for democratic or civic participation
• whether relevant evidence, insight or lived experience is provided

Section 2.2 - Project delivery and feasibility (the “how and when”) 

Sub weighting: 25% (Maximum score is 75)

Maximum score:

Question: How clear, realistic, and achievable are the plans for delivering the project?

Assessors will consider:

• whether it is clear when the project will run and how often activities will take place
• whether it is clear how the project will be delivered and proposed outcomes (delivery model and key steps)
• whether roles, responsibilities, and delivery arrangements are clear
• whether timelines, milestones and any Gantt chart are realistic and achievable
• whether delivery risks or dependencies are acknowledged and manageable

The below scoring table will be used for this section:

Score	Descriptor
0	Unclear or incomplete, with weak/absent need definition and alignment; delivery is not credible; capability is insufficient; impartiality risks are evident or unmanaged.
1	Meets minimum requirements but lacks clarity, evidence and strong activity‑to‑outcome links; delivery feasibility or fit is uncertain; impartiality not clearly embedded.
2	Clear and coherent, with adequate need definition and alignment; outcomes and delivery are broadly credible, with some gaps in detail/evidence; political impartiality addressed.
3	Clear, compelling proposal with strong evidence of need, well‑aligned activities/outcomes, credible rationale, feasible milestones, capable delivery and robust political impartiality.

3. Budget and value for money – section weighting: 10%

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 10%. The Maximum score is 30.

Section 3.1 - Budget

Sub weighting: 5% (Maximum score is 15)

We will assess:

• a clear, accurate budget
• eligible, reasonable costs
• additionality
• other funding/in‑kind support
• alignment with activities

Section 3.2 - Value for money

Sub weighting: 5% (Maximum score is 15)

We will assess:

• whether costs represent good value relative to expected outcomes
• strength of justification for spend
• efficiency and use of resources

The below scoring table will be used for this section:

Score	Descriptor
0	Budget unclear, inaccurate or incomplete; costs appear unreasonable/ineligible or misaligned; value for money not demonstrated.
1	Meets basic requirements but lacks clarity/detail; some costs weakly justified or loosely linked; limited value‑for‑money explanation.
2	Clear and mostly itemised budget; costs reasonable and broadly aligned; value for money shown but justification could be stronger; additional funding identified.
3	Clear, detailed and accurate budget; eligible costs fully justified and linked to activities; strong value‑for‑money evidence; other funding/in‑kind support clearly explained.

4. Risks, barriers and safeguarding – section weighting: 10%

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 10%. The Maximum score is 30.

We will assess risks/barriers and mitigation; safeguarding (including current policies); and how accessibility barriers will be addressed.

The below scoring table will be used for this section:

Score	Descriptor
0	Risks not adequately identified or mitigated; safeguarding missing/unclear/inappropriate; accessibility issues not considered.
1	Risks identified at a high level with limited mitigation; safeguarding meets minimum but lacks detail; accessibility considerations limited.
2	Main risks identified with reasonable mitigation; safeguarding adequate and appropriate; some consideration of accessibility barriers.
3	Risks and barriers clearly identified with realistic mitigation; safeguarding robust and current; accessibility barriers clearly addressed.

5. Reach and engagement – section weighting: 15%

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 15%. The Maximum score is 45.

We will assess:

• strength of relationships with target groups
• credibility of reach assumptions
• place-based delivery and geographic focus
• accessibility and inclusivity of engagement methods

The below scoring table will be used for this section:

Score	Descriptor
0	No clear evidence of how the target group will be reached; reach estimates unrealistic/unexplained; engagement approach unclear/inappropriate; accessibility not addressed.
1	Limited evidence of relationships/engagement; reach estimates broad or weakly justified; methods may not match the target group; accessibility minimal.
2	Some evidence of engagement; reach estimates reasonable but may lack detail; approaches appropriate; accessibility considered.
3	Strong evidence of trust/relationships; reach estimates credible and well explained; methods well suited and place‑based; clear accessibility and inclusion plans.

6.  Monitoring and evaluation – section weighting: 25%

This section is assessed. It is weighted at 25%. The Maximum score 75.

Section 6.1 - Experience with project monitoring and evaluation (Q6.1)

Sub weighting: 4% (Maximum score is 12) 

We will assess:

• experience collecting monitoring or evaluation data
• experience designing and running evaluations

Section 6.2 - Collecting accurate data (Q6.2, Q6.3)

Sub weighting: 17% (Maximum score is 51) 

We will assess:

• commitment to collect data pre/during/post projects
• ability to engage and support participants throughout evaluation
• recognition of challenges and proposals of mitigations for collecting accurate data
• identification of resource allocated specifically for data collection

Section 6.2 - Practicalities of research (Q6.4, Q6.5) 

Sub weighting: 4% (Maximum score is 12) 

We will assess:

• agreement to use MHCLG tools and guidance
• availability of data storage and sharing agreements

The below scoring guidance will be used for this section:

Score	Descriptor
0	No commitment to collect data pre/during/post projects; No information on ability to engage and support participants throughout the evaluation; No information on barriers or mitigations for accurate data collection; No information on resourcing; No agreement to use tools, guidance, or appropriately handle data.
1	Limited experience of collecting data; Commitment to collect data pre/during/post projects; willing to engage and support participants throughout the evaluation; Identifies barriers for accurate data collection; Brief overview of resourcing included; Agreement to use tools and guidance, and appropriately handle data.
2	Substantial experience of collecting data; Commitment to collect data pre/during/post projects; Clear and deliverable plan to engage and support participants throughout the evaluation; Identifies barriers and mitigations for accurate data collection; Clear overview of resourcing; Agreement to use tools and guidance, and appropriately handle data.
3	Substantial experience of collecting data; Commitment to collect data pre/during/post projects; Plan to collect additional data; Detailed and deliverable plan to engage and support participants throughout the evaluation; Identifies multiple barriers and mitigations for accurate data collection; Detailed overview of resourcing; Agreement to use tools and guidance, and appropriately handle data.

7. Declarations - Pass/Fail