Civic Intelligence Initiative

What works in society.
What doesn't.
What the data says.

Civix21 measures how well societies actually function — not through political opinion, but through independent, evidence-based frameworks. In a post-truth world, that distinction matters.

View the data at trustgap.org →
90
Countries scored
3
Framework tiers
318
English councils
14+
Primary sources
What Civix21 produces

Three outputs. One framework.

Everything we publish is built on the same evidence base — scored, sourced, and open. The commercial layer sits on top of that public foundation.

Live
01
The Trust Gap

A country-level scoring model measuring the distance between institutional capacity and public trust. 90 countries. Three tiers. Updated annually.

trustgap.org →
Live
02
Local Council Monitor

England's only structured, repeatable governance scorecard for all 318 local authorities. Statutory data only. Zero estimates. May 2026 baseline.

View all 318 councils →
Available
03
Reports & Briefings

Commissioned analysis built on the public dataset. Country reports, council briefings, regional comparisons, political baseline assessments.

The central finding
"Across almost every liberal democracy we have scored, institutions perform significantly better than citizens believe they do. That gap — between structural capacity and public trust — is not a communications problem. It is a legitimacy crisis."
Civix21 — Trustgap Framework, 2026
Denmark
88 / 62
Structural / Relational
Trust Gap: 26 points
Japan
81 / 51
Structural / Relational
Trust Gap: 30 points
United Kingdom
72 / 49
Structural / Relational
Trust Gap: 23 points
Explore all 90 countries
Independence

No government funding.
No institutional affiliation.
No adjustments.

Civix21 is built on a simple conviction: civic debate should be grounded in evidence, and the tools to do that can be built and published openly.

Every score comes from independently published statutory or international sources. No estimates. No survey-based adjustments. No methodology that can be tuned to produce a preferred outcome.

Source transparency
Every data point citable. Every score reproducible. Methodology published in full at trustgap.org.
Zero estimates
If a country or council fails to publish required data, the absence is scored at the lowest band. Non-publication is a transparency failure.
Absolute scaling
All metrics scored against fixed benchmarks, not relative to other countries or councils. A score of 70 means the same thing in every dataset.
Political neutrality
The framework measures governance outcomes, not political choices. It does not recommend parties or policies.
The Civix21 Framework

A three-tier model for
measuring civic health

How do you measure whether a society is working? Not through political opinion or economic output alone — but through the full relationship between institutions, citizens, and the world they operate in.

Architecture

Three tiers. One picture.

The framework layers three independent assessments into a single classification. Each tier is scored separately and can be used independently. Together they produce the most complete picture of civic health available for any country.

1
Tier 1 · Trust Health
Structural & Relational Scores

The foundation of the framework. Every country receives a Structural Score — measuring what its institutions deliver across eight sub-indicators drawing on 14 primary sources — and a Relational Score measuring how citizens experience those institutions. The Trust Gap is the distance between the two.

Structural score 0–100 Relational score 0–100 Trust Gap (±) Quadrant classification
2
Tier 2 · Strategic Position
Power vs Exposure

Measures the country's strategic position relative to global forces. A Power Score captures economic weight, geopolitical influence, and institutional resilience. An Exposure Score measures vulnerability to external shocks — economic, security, and climate. Net Strategic Position is the balance between the two.

Power score Exposure score Net strategic position
3
Tier 3 · Resilience Band
Six-band synthesis

A synthesis classification combining Tiers 1 and 2. Six bands — from High Resilience to Systemically Vulnerable — describe how a country's internal civic health and external strategic position interact. The band is the headline assessment a country receives.

High Resilience Stable But Constrained Resilient But Exposed Powerful But Fragile Strained Systemically Vulnerable
Data sources

14 primary sources. Zero estimates.

World Bank WGIRule of law, regulatory quality, government effectiveness, control of corruption
Freedom HousePolitical rights, civil liberties, internet freedom
Transparency InternationalCorruption Perceptions Index — annual sovereign score
OECD / GallupInstitutional trust, government satisfaction, judicial confidence
V-Dem InstituteElectoral democracy, liberal democracy, deliberative components
Press Freedom IndexRSF annual ranking — editorial independence and safety
IMF / World BankGDP per capita, debt ratios, fiscal resilience indicators
Notre Dame GAINClimate vulnerability and adaptive capacity by country
SIPRI / IISSMilitary expenditure, conflict exposure, security environment
Design principles

What makes this framework different

Absolute scaling
All metrics use fixed benchmarks, not relative rankings. A score of 70 means the same thing regardless of how many countries are in the dataset.
Non-publication penalty
Where a country fails to publish required data, the absence is scored at the lowest band. Opacity is treated as a governance failure.
Source transparency
Every sub-indicator cites its primary source. Every score is reproducible from publicly available data without access to our working files.
Political neutrality
The framework measures governance outcomes, not political direction. Countries are not rewarded or penalised for ideological choices.
Separation of tiers
Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 are independently scored. A country can be strong on civic health and weak on strategic resilience — or vice versa.
Annual cadence
Scores are updated annually using the most recent published data. The methodology is versioned so changes are documented and reproducible.
Explore the full dataset →
Reports & Briefings

The public data is
the foundation.
We go deeper.

Commissioned reports built on the same independently sourced, formula-driven scores that power the public framework. The interpretation is ours. The underlying numbers are not.

What makes these different

Not consultancy. Not opinion. Evidence, applied to your question.

Most policy and political analysis relies on the analyst's judgement and prior assumptions. Civix21 reports start from independently sourced, formula-driven scores that predate the commission and cannot be adjusted to produce a preferred outcome. If a country scores poorly on governance effectiveness, that is what the World Bank's data shows — not what we think. That distinction matters for organisations that need analysis they can publish, cite, or act on.

Pre-existing scores
The underlying framework scores exist before any commission. We cannot adjust them to suit a client's preferred narrative.
Fully citable
Every claim in a Civix21 report traces to a primary source. Clients can verify independently and share with confidence.
Publishable
Reports are designed to be shared. Clear methodology, no proprietary black-box scoring, built to withstand scrutiny.
Report types

Four core formats

Each built on the public dataset. Scope, depth, and format adapted to the commission.

Most requested
Report type 01
Country Report

A full Tier 1 analysis for a single country — structural and relational scores, Trust Gap calculation, quadrant classification, and sub-indicator narrative. Goes significantly beyond the public scorecard to explain the story behind each number.

Full sub-indicator breakdown with source citations
Biggest strength and weakness analysis
Peer group comparison (regional or income-band)
Historical trend analysis where data permits
Tier 2 strategic position and Tier 3 resilience band
Report type 02
Council Report

Governance analysis for a specific English council. What the scores reveal indicator by indicator, how the council compares to its peer group, and the precise baseline the current administration has inherited.

Sub-indicator breakdown: Financial, Services, LGO Ombudsman
Peer group comparison (type, region, similar demographics)
Political context and inherited baseline assessment
Key signals: biggest strength, biggest weakness, watchpoints
Report type 03
Regional Briefing

All councils in a region compared and ranked. Peer group benchmarking. Finance officer and monitoring officer-ready briefings for councils wanting to understand where they stand relative to comparable authorities.

Full regional scorecard with rankings
Cross-council pattern analysis
Political comparison across administrations
Report type 04
Political Comparison

How incoming administrations compare to the governance record they inherited. Reform UK's baseline across 11 councils. Green and Lib Dem gains in context. Trend analysis from October 2027.

Before/after governance baseline for changed councils
Party-level performance aggregation
Longitudinal tracking framework for October 2027

Request a report or briefing

Tell us which country, council, region, or question you need answered. We'll confirm what's available and the turnaround. No obligation.

Insights

Analysis grounded
in the data

Essays and briefings from the Civix21 framework. Each piece draws on the Trust Gap dataset and is written for a general audience — not academic journals.

About Civix21

Independent civic
intelligence

We exist because genuinely agnostic, evidence-based civic analysis is rare and valuable — and because the tools to produce it can now be built and published openly.

Mission

Highlight what doesn't work. Learn from what does. Ground it all in data.

We are living through a period of acute democratic stress. Trust in institutions is falling across the developed world. Misinformation is displacing evidence in public debate. Policy decisions are contested not on their merits but on the perceived political allegiance of whoever is making them.

Civix21's response to that is not to shout louder. It is to build frameworks that are harder to dismiss — scored against independently published data, with transparent methodology, no political alignment, and no institutional funder with an interest in the outcome.

The Trust Gap framework at trustgap.org and the Local Council Monitor are the first outputs of that approach. Both are published openly. The commissioned reports layer interpretation on top of the same public foundation.

Independence

No government funding. No institutional affiliation. No political alignment.

Civix21 is supported by commissioned report revenue and open to partnerships with foundations and research institutions on terms that preserve what makes the work worth supporting: its independence.

If you represent an organisation that values rigorous, non-partisan civic analysis and wants to support its continuation,

Principles
Open methodology
The full scoring methodology for the Trust Gap framework is published at trustgap.org. Every sub-indicator, binding rule, and data source is documented.
No adjustments for context
Countries and councils are scored against fixed benchmarks. No allowance is made for extenuating circumstances, political direction, or historical legacy.
Non-publication penalty
If a government or council fails to publish data it is required or expected to publish, the absence is scored at the lowest band. Transparency failures are not gaps.
Corrections welcomed
If you believe a score is wrong, tell us. Include the country or council, the metric, the value you believe is correct, and the source. We take data accuracy seriously.
Annual versioning
Methodology changes are documented and versioned. Historical scores remain available so trend analysis is not distorted by methodology updates.
The data is at trustgap.org

90 countries scored across three tiers. 318 English councils on the Local Council Monitor. All public, all free, all open.

Explore trustgap.org →
Get in touch

Commission a report.
Ask a question.
Correct a score.

Reports & briefings

Tell us which country, council, or region you need covered. We'll confirm what's available and the turnaround. All report types are available on request.

Data corrections

If you believe a score is wrong, please include the country or council, the metric, the value you believe is correct, and the source. We investigate all corrections.

Press & research

Journalists, academics, and researchers are welcome to use the public data freely with attribution. For bespoke research access or press comment, use the form.