Erasmus+ is competitive, and the gap between funded and rejected is often not the idea but the writing. Evaluators score against published criteria; applications that ignore those criteria lose, however inspired they are.
01Ideas are not enough
Applicants fall in love with their idea and assume its merit is self-evident. Evaluators do not score merit in the abstract — they score how well your text answers a fixed set of questions and hits a points threshold. The task is to translate a good idea into the language of those criteria.
02How proposals are scored
Each proposal is read by assessors who award points against weighted criteria, totalling 100. There is a minimum threshold — typically 60, plus minimums on some individual criteria — below which you cannot be funded regardless of the total. Knowing the weights tells you where to spend your effort.
Indicative weighting of the award criteria. Relevance and impact together carry most of the marks — yet are the sections applicants most often rush.
03The four criteria
The criteria recur across actions: Relevance (does it address real needs and programme priorities?), Quality of design and implementation (is the plan clear, realistic, well-managed?), Partnership (is the consortium right and well-organised?), and Impact and dissemination (will it matter, and will others learn from it?). Every paragraph you write should serve one of these.
04Relevance: the make-or-break
Relevance is usually the heaviest criterion and the one that sinks most proposals. You must show a concrete need — backed by evidence, not assertion — connect it to the programme's stated priorities, and explain why your specific partners are the ones to address it. "There is a need for digital skills" scores poorly; a documented gap in your region, tied to a named priority, scores well.
05Writing for evaluators
Write for a tired assessor reading their twentieth application. Mirror the language of the criteria so they can find each answer instantly. Be specific and quantified — numbers, dates, named outputs. Make objectives measurable. Use the structure the form gives you rather than fighting it. Clarity is not a courtesy; it is how you earn points.
A fundable proposal is a chain: a documented need, linked to a priority, met by a credible plan, with impact that outlasts the grant.
06Common mistakes
The usual failures are avoidable: vague needs with no evidence, objectives that cannot be measured, a dissemination plan that is an afterthought, partners listed but not justified, and a budget disconnected from the activities. Each maps directly to a criterion you are leaving unanswered — and each is points left on the table.
What to remember
- Funding goes to proposals that answer the scored criteria, not to ideas alone.
- Assessors award weighted points to 100, with a minimum threshold to pass.
- The criteria: relevance, quality of design, partnership, impact & dissemination.
- Relevance carries the most weight and sinks the most applications.
- Write for a tired evaluator: mirror the criteria, be specific and measurable.
- Avoid vague needs, unmeasurable goals and afterthought dissemination.
We translate advanced technology and EU policy into practical training. This explainer is part of our open Insights series for educators, youth workers and SMEs.