Evaluation of the Democratic Engagement Grant: summary

The Democratic Engagement Grant (DEG) was launched in January 2023. The rationale for the DEG is to address challenges with unequal participation amongst different demographics in elections and democratic engagement in Wales. The DEG builds upon previous Welsh Government democratic engagement schemes. The DEG also sits within the wider context of electoral reforms in Wales.

The grant is for third sector, not for profit organisations and local authorities to fund innovative approaches to engage under-represented groups, newly enfranchised groups (including 16 and 17 year olds and qualifying foreign nationals), and disabled people in democracy. In total £900,000 of funding was available for the 2022/23 to 2024/25 financial years (January 2023 to March 2025).

The aims of the grant funding are to:

• enable several organisations to encourage and support people in their stakeholder communities to participate in democracy
• help funded organisations ensure as many people as possible are engaged, motivated, and empowered to take part in democracy, giving them the tools to make their voice heard and impact positively on the Wales around them
• support projects to engage with the population over a sustained period

In addition to delivering grant activities, DEG funded organisations were expected to take part in the Welsh Democratic Engagement Partnership (DEP). The DEP brings together grant recipients and organisations with an interest in the democratic process. The aim is to allow for collaborative opportunities to be explored and enable projects to benefit from a wide range of insight and expertise.

The Elections policy team (Welsh Government) commissioned the Internal Research Programme (Knowledge and Analytical Services, Welsh Government) to undertake an evaluation of the DEG. Three research aims were developed, with specific research questions for each aim. The aims are:

• aim 1: review the design and delivery of the current grant funding scheme, including the Democratic Engagement Partnership (DEP) element
• aim 2: understand the perceived impact of the grant funding scheme, including the Democratic Engagement Partnership (DEP) element and the wider context
• aim 3: understand how monitoring and evaluation can be improved

The remit of the evaluation also included producing a retrospective logic model for the DEG.

The evaluation primarily focuses on the first full financial year of the scheme (April 2023 to March 2024), where 16 organisations were delivering projects. Four of these projects had a multi-year grant award, meaning activity continued into the 2024/25 financial year (April 2024 to March 2025). For the multi-year projects, the evaluation covers the design and delivery element of the multi-year award, and the perceived impacts at the time of the research fieldwork.

The research methods include desk research and secondary analysis of policy documentation, logic model development (including a workshop), and interviews. Seventeen interviews were conducted with grant recipients (10), local authorities (3) and wider external stakeholders in the democracy sector (4).

Limitations to the methodology include:

• one of the completed projects had not submitted their end of grant report so this could not be assessed as part of the desk research
• the logic model workshop included participants internal to Welsh Government only
• there is a small sample size for the local authority and wider external stakeholder interviews
• the local authorities and wider external stakeholders interviewed cannot be said to be representative of other local authorities or others within the wider democratic engagement sector due to the sampling approach
• not all grant recipients were interviewed and therefore the views expressed cannot be said to represent the views of all those who received grant funding
• as this research pertains to democracy, the views of interview participants may have been affected by the 2024 UK General Election which took place shortly before the interview fieldwork period

Design and delivery

Reach of the grant

The DEG intended to reach new organisations and findings suggest this was achieved to an extent. Areas for future consideration include further broadening grant promotion to continue to reach a range of organisations, greater clarity on the availability of multi-year awards to all organisations, and encouraging involvement across the 22 local authorities in Wales.

Recipient applications included a mix of planned local, regional and national reaches, thereby aligning with the intention for the DEG to reach across Wales. However, there was variation in what constituted a ‘regional’ reach. Findings relating to both applications and delivery suggest that focused activity at the regional level in North Wales is a potential gap.

All groups that the grant aimed to engage were covered within the target groups stated by the 16 recipients at application. That said, some consideration could be given as to the utility of the term ‘under-represented’ and what this means in the context of democratic engagement. Moreover, 10 of the 16 applications noted young people as a target group so consideration of how to support more projects focusing on the other target groups may be useful. Overall, findings suggest the intended groups were reached during delivery, but this varied due to factors including reaching fewer people than intended or not reaching a broader cross-section of the group.

Findings suggest clarity, completeness and consistency in grant recipient reporting of geographic reach and reach to the target groups could be improved.

Delivery of projects

For the 12 completed projects at the time of writing, findings suggest overall the projects delivered what they intended to with the grant funding. Some had gaps in delivery compared to their plan, whereas others delivered additional outputs.

Findings show there were various barriers and enablers to delivering projects. The main enablers included existing knowledge of or experience working with the target group and harnessing existing networks and relationships with other organisations or the target group. The main barriers included low attendance from the target group, as well as building connections with other organisations where these did not exist, and low capacity or engagement from representatives of other organisations.

Specific areas of delivery where more support or guidance would be beneficial include project-specific practical information about Welsh language requirements and standardised democracy resources for recipients to use in projects.

Delivery of fund level processes

In general, interview findings regarding the application and grant administration processes were positive. In principle these processes could broadly remain similar for any future grant.

However, findings suggest greater clarity at the application stage regarding grant scope could be given, as well as additional guidance to help applicants detail what is most relevant. Expectations regarding turnaround time for assessing applications and notifying unsuccessful applicants is another area to consider. Findings also suggest communications regarding end of grant reports, final grant claims, and recipient’s delivery and reporting deadlines should be given consideration.

Interview participants (grant recipients and wider external stakeholders) were positive about the requirement to join the DEP as part of receiving DEG funding, and in principle the DEP should be retained for any future grant. The findings demonstrate there are some changes to the format or content of the DEP that could be considered to meet organisation’s needs. A particular area for consideration was collaboration, including suggestions for working with wider networks and working with other recipients. Post-grant expectations regarding DEP attendance could also be clearer.

Perceived impacts

The remit of this evaluation is to report perceived impacts only. A systematic evaluation of impact is not possible as the grant design means that funded projects are unique, and due to the way that evidence from each project was collected and reported.

Beneficiaries

One of the DEG aims which relates to beneficiaries was reflected as an intended impact in the logic model: ‘People (particularly in the target groups) are engaged, motivated, and empowered to take part in democracy, with the tools to make their voice heard and impact positively on the Wales around them’. The extent to which this can be assessed is limited as the concepts were not specifically defined or measured. Also, the underpinning assumption that outcomes are sustained after participation cannot be ascertained. In addition, recipients took varied approaches to evaluating beneficiary outcomes and these were not always included within the targets and evidence required (discussed at ‘Evaluation’).

What the findings do show are that common outcomes for end-beneficiaries (reported by grant recipients) ranged across developing knowledge, participation in events and activities linked to the DEG-funded project and beyond the initial scope of DEG-funded activity, feeling one’s voice is heard, feeling more confident, and developing wider skills such as digital or presentation skills. Where challenges to achieving outcomes were noted, this included dependence upon level of prior knowledge, and the persistence of barriers to getting involved in democracy in Wales.

Grant recipients

Findings suggest there were positive outcomes for grant recipients as part of both receiving DEG funding generally and from attending the DEP.

For the DEP, outcomes included learning from other organisations and the two-way sharing of information and resources, as well as making connections and collaborating with other organisations. However, collaborations were not always attributed to the DEP.

For the grant more generally, outcomes included building networks and relationships with both other organisations and with beneficiaries. Also, building experience and knowledge from working with beneficiaries.

Grant recipients also reported either the potential to, or actual intention to, apply learnings from their DEG funded project. This included operational project elements as well as democratic engagement issues identified through working with beneficiaries. However, challenges to applying learnings included resources (time, staff, budget).

Wider sector

One area that emerged from interviews as a wider sector impact was broadening democratic engagement sector capacity in Wales. This included bringing new organisations into the space, enabling organisations to undertake projects, and facilitating work in-between election cycles. Another area that emerged was influencing future work in the sector in Wales, including recipients undertaking a further project in Wales, or other organisations looking to recipient’s projects as an idea to take forward. In some instances, influencing future work outside of Wales was also reported, such as recipients adapting their engagement approaches in other UK nations or interest for recipients to take forward their project elsewhere. This also included a similar grant scheme to the DEG being proposed in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.

Within the logic model, two impacts relate to the wider sector. One is ‘Improved collaboration across those operating in the sector: there is a more joined up approach to democratic engagement’. Grant recipient and wider external stakeholder interview participants reported the view that the DEG has facilitated collaboration and relationship building across the sector in Wales. However, in some cases this was reported as not wholly attributable to the grant, such as where organisations had existing relationships meaning they would work together regardless of the DEG.

The second logic model impact related to the wider sector is ‘Within the sector, learnings about the target groups and interventions are applied to inform and improve future democratic engagement work’. As noted at ‘Perceived impacts: Grant recipients’, grant recipients reported being able to apply their own learnings from their DEG funded project. Grant recipients also reported a wider impact was improved sector understanding of their target groups, such as the barriers faced and successful approaches in getting target groups involved. However, the logic model impact being realised at the sector-wide level may be limited and currently this may be more so at the individual organisation level, or within the DEP network. This is due to the finding reported by all interview groups that there is a need for a greater focus on sharing the outcomes and lessons learnt from the DEG funded projects, as well as how this information reaches the wider sector.

The approach of the DEG considering the wider context

Sustainability

One of the DEG aims, ‘Support projects to engage with the population over a sustained period’, was also reflected as an impact within the logic model: ‘Organisations are able to take a longer-term approach to encouraging and supporting people to engage in democracy’.

The research findings regarding the aim and impact are mixed. Findings suggest those with multi-year projects were positive about the length of their funding and being supported to engage over a sustained period, including increased certainty and reduced pressures. On the other hand, for some with single year or short-term funding findings highlighted the time-limited nature of the funding and associated pressures on resources affected sustainability, including losing momentum when the funding ended. In some cases, participants from both single and multi-year projects noted that ultimately funding is needed to deliver, so activity ends with or is limited to the grant period.

Whether the DEG funding fills any gaps

One of the logic model assumptions is ‘That there is an appetite for this kind of funding from the sector and it meets sector needs’. Overall, findings suggest there is a need for a democratic engagement funding scheme in the sector in Wales. Findings suggest there is a lack of funding and funders in the sector, and where there is or has been funding, there have been various challenges with these schemes. Moreover, it was also reported that without funding this creates an unsustainable reliance on organisations to do engagement work, or that organisations will not be able to deliver engagement projects as funding is core to their ability to operate (related to the challenges discussed at ‘Sustainability’).

Findings also suggest that staff resource is a related challenge. Participants reported even with delivery funding, engagement projects are additional workload which needs resourcing and so may not be possible. This was particularly apparent for local authorities but was also raised by those in the wider sector. Low budgets and staff capacity in the public sector were also reported as barriers to innovative engagement practices.

Findings suggest the DEG has met funding needs to an extent, but that there are certain needs it has not met which are elements to consider for the direction of any future grant scheme.

Positives included the DEG creating more and centralised funding in the sector, with a Wales-specific focus. In some cases, participants reported that it is important or useful to continue the DEG, and to continue providing an opportunity for organisations to do work focusing on wider democratic engagement and in-between elections. Additionally, providing the opportunity to try new approaches to democratic engagement.

Where less positive, some reported the DEG lacks continuity or longevity. This included a tendency towards funding pockets of activity on a short-term or small scale. This was reported as limiting the ability to address democratic engagement issues, in particular where impact is limited beyond a certain period due to the issues discussed with sustaining activity and losing momentum when funding ends (see ‘Sustainability’). Therefore, findings suggest a need is for more multi-year and continuous funding from any future grant scheme. Also, a need emerged for any future grant scheme to support larger scale or more coordinated democratic engagement projects, taking a more strategic approach to tackling democratic engagement issues. However, findings also show there is a need to retain the ability to make small grants alongside these approaches.

Findings indicate greater clarity on the circumstances in which using funding for staff resource is eligible may be beneficial. Reporting from local authorities suggests the DEG was not perceived to address the challenge regarding staff resource to deliver projects. There were however instances where recipient organisations hired project staff as part of their DEG funding to support delivery.

A logic model assumption that findings show there were challenges with is that ‘grant recipient organisations must be able to apply for and deliver the project in line with Welsh Government financial year timings’. Particularly for single year projects, reporting highlighted that financial years do not align with other periods. The ability to have the grant awarded in accordance with the timespan project activities are planned for and over the relevant period would be an area to consider for improvement. This was also noted in the context of any future grant awarded over the lead up to, and over, the 2026 Senedd and 2027 local government elections in Wales.

Monitoring and evaluation

The findings from this evaluation suggest that the monitoring and evaluation process is a particular area of the design and delivery of the DEG where improvements for any future grant funding scheme should be considered.

The DEG application guidance for end of grant reporting stated small grants (£1,000 and less) had to provide ‘feedback covering the pilot including how success has been measured’. Large grants (£1,000 and more) had to provide an 'evaluation of activities, successes and barriers faced’. In addition, the grant award letter set out details of unique targets and evidence expected of each recipient.

Monitoring

In monitoring progress, findings show that progress update forms varied in detail and clarity across grant recipients, regardless of grant size. Some updates were also repetitive of the previous update. This may, in part, be attributable to the varied approaches to monitoring progress reported by recipient interview participants, which ranged from formal to informal. Both these factors mean there is not always a clear audit trail which Welsh Government can use to track project progress. A change to consider is the provision of guidance outlining expectations for progress reporting, proportionate to the amount of grant funding.

Evaluation

The grant application form asks for expected outcomes and how success against these would be measured. ‘Outcome’ was interpreted inconsistently by grant recipients, including what projects are delivering, anticipated changes for project beneficiaries, and learnings for the grant recipient organisation. In some cases, there were also issues with proposed measures, such as vague measures, measures which did not correspond with an outcome, or the provision of no measures.

Welsh Government inconsistently transferred outcomes and measures which grant recipients provided in the application form to the targets and evidence requirements which it specified in the grant award letters. This approach meant that some ‘large’ grants had less detailed target and evidence requirements compared to some ‘small’ grants.

In part as a culmination of these challenges discussed, the target and evidence requirements set out in the award letter did not always include the anticipated democratic engagement outcomes for end-beneficiaries. Overall, many grant recipients’ evaluations (regardless of if the grant was considered ‘small’ or ‘large’) tended towards a focus on delivery, rather than changes to end-beneficiaries’ democratic engagement. Wider external stakeholders also raised that typically reporting in the sector is delivery focused. Evaluation experience can be low and evaluating change can be difficult, particularly for concepts like knowledge and understanding.

Overall, grant recipient interview participants felt it was proportionate or sensible to provide an end of grant evaluation report. However, it was assessed that around half of the available end of grant reports did not meet the target and evidence requirements set out in their respective grant award letters. Findings identify several common reporting issues, including an unclear report structure and a lack of reporting of the expected methods and metrics. Where outcomes for beneficiaries were noted, these tended to be reported ad-hoc.

Findings show there was not a specific evaluation report template or structure for recipients to follow, nor consistent guidance from Welsh Government. While some grant recipients were happy to not have a structure, others felt more guidance could have been provided. Due to little or no feedback from Welsh Government on receipt of reports, findings show grant recipients were uncertain as to whether reports had met expectations.
Overall, the findings suggest greater evaluation support for recipients is needed throughout their grant period.

Welsh Government have a role to ensure that outcomes regarding democratic engagement are included within the application form and the award letter, with appropriate measures or metrics that are proportionate the to the grant award amount. Guidance regarding outcomes and measures would be beneficial. More broadly, a sector-agreed outcomes framework for democratic engagement was suggested by participants in some instances.

Proportionality and flexibility in evaluation reports is important, however more structure, guidance and feedback from Welsh Government would be beneficial for ensuring all relevant elements and broad areas are covered in reports. The application guidance on the reporting expectations for ‘small’ and ‘large’ grants could also be amended, with greater detail provided, dependent on any changes in reporting structure. For consistency the distinction between ‘small’ and ‘large grants’ could be re-defined where both are required to cover the same broad elements in end of grant reports, but the depth of evidence and methods expected would be the varying factor.

The recommendations span the delivery, reach, monitoring and evaluation, and the remit of the grant funding scheme, as well as the wider democratic engagement context. The following provides a summary of the recommendations, with the full recommendations available within the main report.

Delivery

Recommendation 1

The Elections policy team should review and expand the specified elements of the grant application form and accompanying grant guidance notes.

Recommendation 2

The Elections policy team should consider which standardised democracy resources recipients could be directed to for use in delivery.

Recommendation 3

The Elections policy team should consider enhancing the provision of guidance at project outset and support during projects to assist organisations to meet Welsh language requirements.

Recommendation 4

The Elections policy team should consider the learnings within the report, maintaining a working record for current and future DEG funded projects. Areas of learning include democratic engagement in the target groups and project level barriers and enablers.

Recommendation 5

The communications specified would benefit from greater clarity. These include timelines for application outcomes, processes around the financial year end, post-grant DEP attendance expectations, and response on receipt of the end of grant reports.

Recommendation 6

The Elections policy team should consider how to implement the suggestions within this report regarding the format of the DEP and for enhancing collaboration between recipients and other networks.

Recommendation 7

The Elections policy team should consider and implement approaches to support the sharing of outcomes and lessons learnt between recipients, as well as with the wider sector, including the collation of learnings across the grant funded projects.

Reach

Recommendation 8

The Elections policy team should consider how to further broaden the promotion of any future grant funding, particularly focusing on reach to local authorities, projects reaching North Wales and projects aiming to engage target groups other than young people.

Monitoring and evaluation

When reading recommendations 9 to 18 it should be considered that any changes to the monitoring and evaluation requirements for the DEG should remain proportionate and feasible relative to the amount of grant funding and the organisation’s capacity.

Recommendation 9

The application form question ‘What are your expected outcomes and how would you measure success against these? (Max word count 100)’ is amended, including the provision of definitions and guidance to support applicants to identify outcomes and measures.

Recommendation 10

Asking applicants to outline how the proposed geographic reach (especially where regional or national) and reach to target groups would be measured and reported.

Recommendation 11

Related to recommendation 9, any changes to the evaluation process should reflect on how the following DEG aim could be measured in future by recipients: ‘People are engaged, motivated, and empowered to take part in democracy, with the tools to make their voice heard and impact positively on the Wales around them’.

Recommendation 12

The provision of support to identify appropriate outcomes and measures at the outset (recommendation 9) should provide the basis for Welsh Government to consistently and proportionately apply outcomes and measures to the targets and evidence requirements within grant award letters, alongside ensuring that the award letters always contain beneficiary outcomes.

Recommendation 13

A structure is provided for the progress update in the quarterly claim forms. Specific suggestions for this structure are within the main report.

Recommendation 14

A structure is provided for the end of grant evaluation reports. Specific suggestions for this structure are within the main report.

Recommendation 15

The grant guidance should contain greater detail on the end of grant reporting expectations, including revising the current distinction between reporting requirements for ‘small’ and ‘large’ grants.

Recommendation 16

Grant recipients, where needed, should be provided with additional guidance regarding progress monitoring.

Recommendation 17

For projects which are not short-term activity, the Elections policy team could consider a mid-point (single year) or yearly (multi-year) project meeting. Discussion could include progress towards outcomes and how these have been measured to indicate if the recipient is on track or if greater evaluation support is required.

Recommendation 18

The Elections policy team, with analytical support, could explore approaches to enable longer-term impacts to be captured. This includes considering the factors that would need to be in place at the outset, such as funding and data availability and requirements.

Remit of the grant funding scheme

Recommendation 19

In developing an approach for any future grant funding scheme, the Elections policy team should consider the direction of this scheme based on the needs of the sector within the report. These include supporting more long-term or multi-year projects and encouraging organisations to take a co-ordinated, strategic approach to addressing democratic engagement issues and reaching a broad cross-section of target groups.

Recommendation 20

If longer-term and strategic projects are funded as per recommendation 19, considerations should be made regarding the overall value of available funding so that it accommodates an appropriate balance between these larger projects and short-term or ‘small’ projects.

Recommendation 21

The Elections policy team should consider whether it is feasible to award grants over a period that is aligned with grant recipients’ proposed outputs, rather than a timescale which is tied strictly to the financial year.

The wider democratic engagement context

Recommendation 22

Related to recommendations 9 and 11, the Elections policy team could consider the suggestion of working with other lead organisations in the sector to create an agreed democratic engagement outcomes framework.

Recommendation 23

The Elections policy team should inform the relevant Welsh Government policy teams of the needs raised by interview participants for the DEG to sit alongside initiatives for greater democratic education in schools and involving the public in decision making at all levels in Wales.

Recommendation 24

The Elections policy team should consider the reported challenges for local authorities with fulfilling engagement duties and associated resourcing issues. It may be beneficial for the team to engage with local authorities to share best practice regarding utilising the DEG funding in the context of these challenges.

Report author: Gareth Curless, Sophie Findlay, and Benjamin Lewis

Views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government.

For further information please contact:
Internal Research Programme
Social Research and Information Division
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Email: RhYF.IRP@gov.wales

Social research number: 69/2025
Digital ISBN: 978-1-80633-096-6