Digital Democracy Initiative Hackathon

• More than a hackathon: beyond just being a hackathon, this is also a design challenge. More than the technical sophistication of the proposal, we are looking for proposals that match the chosen scenario by taking into account the users and beneficiaries of your proposed solution.
• We do not expect perfect solutions: the focus of this event is on prototyping ideas rather than creating perfect tools. If your idea is pre-selected, you will have the opportunity to refine your solution.
• Work in teams!: it can be challenging to address all aspects of the scenario alone: someone with data modeling skills may not have design skills and vice versa. Your mission is to come up with a good proposal, our mission is to provide you with resources and ideas how to prototype it best.

Applications will be reviewed by a panel of experts from the organizing partners. The selection will be based on the following criteria:

• Relevance to thematic areas
  This criterion evaluates how well the proposed idea aligns with the core themes and goals of the Hackathon. Specifically, it assesses whether the idea clearly addresses one or more of the defined thematic areas—such as disinformation and fact-checking, digital security and rapid response, secure organizing and rights reporting, or youth-led civic engagement. In addition, the idea should be contextually grounded in the realities and challenges of the civic space, demonstrating a clear understanding of the problem it seeks to address.
  Score: 1-20 from unrelated to highly aligned
• Clarity and feasibility of the idea
  This criterion assesses the clarity and feasibility of the proposed idea. It focuses on how clearly the concept is presented and whether it is logically structured. Priority is given to teams that demonstrate a clear vision of how they intend to implement their idea. The evaluation also considers whether the proposed solution can realistically be prototyped or tested within the available project timeframe and resources, and whether the outlined steps toward implementation are practical and achievable.
  Score 1 - 20: from vague or unrealistic to highly feasible and actionable
• Civic impact and innovation potential
  This criterion evaluates the civic impact and innovation potential of the proposed idea. It considers the originality of the concept and its ability to offer a fresh or creative approach to addressing civic challenges. The idea should either introduce something entirely new or significantly improve an existing solution that currently has limitations—particularly within the countries of focus. Strong proposals will demonstrate potential to generate meaningful change, enhance democratic participation, and possibly be scaled or replicated in other contexts.
  Score 1–25: from low-impact/standard to innovative and high-impact
• Team capacity and motivation
  This criterion assesses the team's capacity and motivation to successfully implement their concept beyond the hackathon. It considers whether the team members bring relevant skills, experiences, and a strong sense of motivation, as well as a demonstrated commitment to fully participate in both the hackathon and the subsequent granting phase. Priority is given to teams composed of members with diverse yet complementary backgrounds and expertise that are essential for the effective execution of the proposed idea. The presence of diverse voices and lived experiences within the team is also valued, as it can enhance the depth and relevance of the project.
  Score 1–15: from unclear or weak capacity to strong and committed team
• Inclusiveness and values alignment
  This criterion evaluates the extent to which the application reflects an inclusive and rights-based approach. It looks for a clear commitment to principles such as equality, participation, and respect for human rights, ensuring that the proposed idea considers marginalized or underrepresented communities. Additionally, the concept should align with the core values of CIVICUS, Metamorphosis Foundation, and the Civic Literacy Initiative — including transparency, civic freedom, accountability, and social justice. Projects that embody these values in both their design and intended impact will be rated more favorably.
  Score 1–10: from not demonstrated to clearly embedded
• Geographic and Demographic Balance
  This criterion considers how the application contributes to geographic and demographic balance within the overall cohort of selected teams. It evaluates whether the applicant comes from an underrepresented country, region, or community, and whether their inclusion enhances diversity in terms of geography, gender, age, and thematic focus. Priority is given to applications that help ensure a broad and inclusive representation across the participating countries and civic issues, aligning with the initiative’s goal of fostering equity and diverse civic engagement.
  Score 1–10: from overrepresented or imbalanced to strongly contributing to diversity