KA210 award criteria: how evaluators score your application

A scenario, not a real case. A youth worker in a small association has a strong idea: a year of local workshops with a partner in another country, for young people who rarely travel. She writes the project text over three weekends. The partner's details arrive two days before the deadline, pasted from an old form, with a staff list that no longer matches and no clear tasks. Months later the result letter comes. The total is 64 points, above the pass mark of 60, but the partnership criterion has 9 out of 20. Under the rules, that alone means the project cannot be funded.

That is how the scoring works: a proposal needs at least 60 points in total and at least half of the maximum in every criterion (Programme Guide 2026, p. 249). This guide explains each of the four criteria in the words of the Programme Guide and of the Commission's guide for the experts who score them, so you can see where points are won and lost.

On 9 November 2026, the Commission's Programme Guide page still shows the 2026 Guide, version 1 of 12 November 2025, as the current version, and says it is part of the 2026 call (European Commission, Erasmus+ website, 'Erasmus+ Programme Guide'). The 2027 Guide has not been published yet, so the rules below are the 2026 rules.

For the differences between KA210 and KA220 (partners, caps, duration, deadlines), read our side-by-side guide. KA210 vs KA220: what each partner needs to know

If two or more applications have the same total score, priority goes to the higher score for Relevance, and then for Impact (Programme Guide 2026, p. 249).

Passing the thresholds does not guarantee a grant. At the end of the evaluation, the Agency decides on the basis of the ranking list proposed by the evaluation committee and the budget available for the action (Programme Guide 2026, p. 435). The experts' consolidated assessment is the basis for ranking each application on the list of eligible grant applications (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 12).

KA210 applications in school education, vocational education and training (VET), adult education and youth go to the National Agency of the country where the applicant is established (Programme Guide 2026, p. 246). The Agency checks admissibility, eligibility, exclusion and selection, then runs a quality assessment against the award criteria, which is in most cases carried out with the support of independent experts (Programme Guide 2026, p. 434). If a proposal fails any of the earlier checks, the other criteria are not evaluated (p. 434).

The experts follow the Commission's Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment. They assess applications only against the award criteria in the Programme Guide, score each criterion in whole points, without half points or decimals, and comment on each criterion (Guide for Experts 2026, pp. 9–11).

The same page adds that information for one criterion may appear in different parts of the application, and experts must take all of it into account (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 9). Each score falls into a quality band (Guide for Experts 2026, pp. 10–11):

• If two experts assess an application and their totals differ by less than 30 points, one of them prepares a consolidated assessment with the other's agreement (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 12).
• If the difference is 30 points or more, the National Agency asks a third expert, unless both scored the application below the thresholds (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 12).
• Depending on the National Agency's approach, Relevance may be assessed first, and a proposal below the Relevance threshold may be rejected at that stage (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 11).
• Experts must apply proportionality: quantity is judged in relation to the capacities and potential of the applicant and partners, not in absolute terms (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 12).

Relevance is worth up to 30 points. The Programme Guide lists the elements experts consider (Programme Guide 2026, p. 248):

• the proposal is relevant to the objectives and the priorities of the action, and is considered highly relevant if it addresses the priority "inclusion and diversity" or, for National Agency projects, one or more "European Priorities in the national context" announced by the Agency;
• the proposal is relevant for the respect and promotion of shared EU values, such as human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, and fighting discrimination;
• the profile, experience and activities of the participating organisations are relevant for the field of the application;
• the proposal brings added value at EU level by building the capacity of organisations to engage in cross-border cooperation and networking.

A KA210 must address at least one horizontal priority and/or at least one specific priority of the field it mostly impacts (Programme Guide 2026, p. 245). In 2026, the four priorities for all sectors were inclusion and diversity; environment and the fight against climate change; digital transformation; and common values, civic engagement, preparedness and participation (Programme Guide 2026, pp. 228–229). National Agencies may give more consideration to priorities that are particularly relevant in their national context, and must inform applicants on their websites (Programme Guide 2026, p. 245).

On the organisations' profile, experts look beyond formal relevance: at the expertise of the staff, the organisation's area of activity and its previous experience in the field (Guide for Experts 2026, pp. 59–60). Past Erasmus+ projects are not required.

For EU added value, experts judge whether the partners will achieve results that organisations from a single country could not reach (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 60).

This criterion is worth up to 30 points. Experts look at the extent to which (Programme Guide 2026, pp. 248–249):

• the objectives are clearly defined, realistic and address the needs and goals of the participating organisations and their target groups;
• the activities are accessible, inclusive and open to people with fewer opportunities;
• the methodology is clear, adequate and feasible: a clear, complete and effective work plan with phases for preparation, implementation and sharing results, and a cost-effective project that gives appropriate resources to each activity;
• digital tools and learning methods complement the physical activities and improve cooperation, including, if applicable, the European School Education Platform, EPALE, the European Youth Portal or the EU Youth Strategy Platform;
• the project is designed in an eco-friendly way, with green practices in different phases;
• the project encourages participation and civic engagement.

On value for money, the lump sum must be in line with and justified by the activities, and experts look at each activity and at the whole project (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 61). There is no separate budget for project management: those costs come from the amounts given to each activity. The experts' guide says around 20% of the lump sum is typically used for management, with flexibility depending on resources, size and complexity (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 61).

If the deliverables are entirely insufficient to justify the grant, this criterion should be scored below its minimum threshold (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 61). Experts cannot move a KA210 to the other lump sum: if cost-effectiveness is not adequate, the proposal will not reach the minimum for this criterion and must be rejected (Guide for Experts 2026, pp. 11, 13).

Inclusion counts here too. Experts check whether the proposal recognises the barriers that can stop people with fewer opportunities from taking part, and proposes realistic actions to involve them (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 60). In the youth field only, experts also look at whether the project is based on non-formal and informal learning methods (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 61).

The partnership criterion is worth up to 20 points, and a proposal needs at least 10 (Programme Guide 2026, p. 249). Experts look at the extent to which (Programme Guide 2026, p. 249):

• the project involves an appropriate mix of participating organisations in terms of profile;
• the project involves newcomers and less experienced organisations to the action;
• the proposed allocation of tasks demonstrates the commitment and active contribution of all participating organisations;
• the proposal includes effective mechanisms for coordination and communication between the participating organisations.

The experts' guide adds what this means in practice (Guide for Experts 2026, pp. 62–63). The proposal should explain why each organisation takes part and what it contributes. Experts judge whether the organisations have the skills to run the activities, even with little or no Erasmus+ experience. They expect a clear and balanced distribution of roles, and an active, substantial role for newcomer and less experienced organisations.

A less experienced organisation is one that has not received support in a given type of action more than twice in the last seven years (Programme Guide 2026, p. 447). Experts must use the past-participation information in the application form and apply these exact definitions (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 63).

The application form asks how the partnership was formed, the strengths each partner brings, how management and communication will work, and the tasks and responsibilities of each partner (2026 KA210-SCH application form template, 'Cooperation arrangements').

Impact is worth up to 20 points. Experts look at the extent to which the proposal (Programme Guide 2026, p. 249):

• includes concrete and logical steps to integrate the results in the regular work of the participating organisations;
• has the potential to positively impact its participants and organisations, and the wider community;
• includes an appropriate way to evaluate the project outcomes;
• includes concrete and effective steps to make the results known inside the organisations, share them with other organisations and the public, and publicly acknowledge the EU funding.

Experts judge evaluation and wider impact in proportion to the project's size and scope (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 64). They also consider whether the partners have used all possibilities at their disposal to spread the results and knowledge about Erasmus+ as widely as possible (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 64).

KA210 has two pre-defined lump sums, €30,000 and €60,000. The applicant and the partners choose one according to the activities and results they plan (Programme Guide 2026, p. 249). The choice should be based on the estimated overall cost of the project. Because projects are expected to be co-financed, that estimated cost shall be higher than the lump sum chosen (Programme Guide 2026, pp. 249–250).

• In doubt between the two amounts, you can reduce the cost, for example with more cost-effective ways to reach similar results, or increase the scale, for example with more participants, activities or outputs (Programme Guide 2026, p. 250).
• How well the number, scope and complexity of the activities fit the amount chosen is an important part of the quality assessment (Programme Guide 2026, p. 250).
• The proposal must list and describe the activities and give the portion of the grant for each one (Programme Guide 2026, p. 250). In the form, the activity amounts must add up to the lump sum requested (2026 KA210-SCH application form template, 'Activities').
• The full grant is paid when all activities are completed to the quality described in the application; unfinished or unsatisfactory activities can lead to reductions at the final report (Programme Guide 2026, p. 250).

The objectives, activities and expected results must be coherent and clearly linked to each other (Programme Guide 2026, p. 250). The Commission publishes a template of the application form for information; you apply through the application website (European Commission, Erasmus+ website, '2026 template application form: Small-scale partnerships in school education (KA210-SCH)'). The table maps the form's sections to the criteria they mostly feed. The mapping is our reading, not an official rule. See the 2026 KA210-SCH template page

Write it yourselves. All applications must contain original content authored by the applicant or partner organisations (Programme Guide 2026, p. 428). Applicants are strongly advised against relying on external entities or individuals to draft the application, and no one outside the partnership can be paid for drafting it (Programme Guide 2026, p. 428). Proposals are screened automatically for double funding and plagiarism, and unjustified similarities may lead to rejection (Programme Guide 2026, p. 428).

For Key Action 2 projects managed by National Agencies, the award decision and the grant agreement come indicatively 5 months after the deadline (Programme Guide 2026, p. 435). Every applicant receives an evaluation result letter, and applications that are not invited to grant preparation go to the reserve list or are rejected (Programme Guide 2026, p. 435).

The experts' summary is used by National Agencies to give feedback and justify rejections, and for failed proposals it should show the strengths, the weaknesses and what could be improved in future (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 11). If you believe the rejection came from an error in the selection procedure, you can complain following the notification letter; complaints must concern the procedure, not the merits of the proposal (Programme Guide 2026, p. 435).

Two of the four criteria look straight at the organisations. Relevance asks whether the profile, experience and activities of the participating organisations are relevant for the field (Programme Guide 2026, p. 248). The partnership criterion asks for the right mix of profiles and a clear role for every partner (Programme Guide 2026, p. 249). Experts cannot assume what is not written (Guide for Experts 2026, p. 9). So every partner's facts need to be accurate, current and ready when the coordinator writes.

A Partner Identification Form (PIF) is how many partnerships share those facts. Check yours against our checklist. Check your PIF against the checklist

Starting from nothing? Use our free PIF template, then see how MyPIF keeps it in one place. Get the PIF template

Need your OID for the partner details? Our guide explains which code goes where. OID and PIC: which code goes where

Joining as a partner? See which documents coordinators usually ask for. Erasmus+ partner documents

MyPIF, which opens soon, will turn your organisation's details into a PIF behind one permanent link that always shows the latest version, with version history, an AI Quality Score, PDF and Word export, and a copy button on every field. It does not write your application or score it: it keeps your partner facts ready the moment a coordinator asks. Join the waiting list before 1 December 2026 and get 2 months of Pro free, no card needed. Join the waiting list: 2 months of Pro free