Decision-making rubric for requests for letters of support
Updated 4 August 2026
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/engaging-with-academics-guide-for-policy-makers/decision-making-rubric-for-requests-for-letters-of-support
Table 2 is a suggested decision-making rubric to guide decisions on providing a letter of support (LoS) for a grant proposal. It sets out 2 screening questions and 3 assessment questions (scored 0–2) covering deliverability of any HMG commitments, expectation management, and usability of outputs. It also includes space to record the total score for questions 3 to 5, and guidance on how to interpret the total score and the recommended next step (proceed, proceed with conditions, or decline). It is intended as a prompt for proportionate decision-making and does not replace departmental processes or guidance.
| Stage | Question or criterion | Outcome 1 | Outcome 2 | Outcome 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 1: Screening | 1. Does the proposal clearly address a priority evidence, skills, or data gap and avoid duplication with existing HMG work? | No. Decline request and provide feedback. | N/A | Yes. Proceed to question 2. | |
| Stage 1: Screening | 2. Is the department willing and able to meet any requirements from the funder for submitting a LoS? If unsure, ask the academic to provide evidence of funder requirements before proceeding. | No. Decline request and provide feedback. | N/A | Yes. Proceed to questions 3 to 5. | |
| Stage 2: Assessment (scoring) | 3. Are HMG’s expected contributions (time, data, expertise, secondments, etc.) realistic and deliverable over the full project lifecycle? | Commitments are unrealistic, unclear, or undeliverable. (Score: 0) | Mostly feasible, but capacity concerns exist. (Score: 1) | Fully feasible, with realistic capacity and clear ownership. (Score: 2) | |
| Stage 2: Assessment (scoring) | 4. Could providing support create unwanted expectations, dependencies, or future obligations from the academic team, funder, or ministers? | Clear risk of unwanted future obligation or expectation creep. (Score: 0) | Some manageable risks. (Score: 1) | No material likelihood of unwanted future commitments. (Score: 2) | |
| Stage 2: Assessment (scoring) | 5. If successful, would the expected research outputs be usable in practice (timing, policy windows, usability, dissemination plans)? | Outputs are unlikely to be usable or are poorly timed. (Score: 0) | Potentially usable, but not ideal. (Score: 1) | Clear, actionable, timely, and usable outputs. (Score: 2) | |
| Stage 3: Result (overall score) | Total score for questions 3 to 5 is: _ _ _ _ _ _ | 0 to 2 | 3 to 4 | 5 to 6 | |
| Stage 4: Interpretation of score | Not suitable. | Conditionally suitable. | Strong case for support. | ||
| Stage 5: Recommended action | Decline with a constructive explanation. | Clarify risks and tighten commitments or expectations. | Proceed with the LoS, subject to SCS sign-off. |