Building a Fair and Efficient

Grant Review Process

CONTENTS

Introduction 3

7 strategies for a fair and efficient grant
review process 4
Build a detailed rubric 4
Be transparent with applicants 6
Assemble an inclusive review team 6
Make thoughtful assignments 8
Hide sensitive information 9
Build consensus 9
Use a numerical strategy 10

7 benefits to a digital process 11

Accessibility and ease of use 11
Eligibility and accuracy 12
Streamlined review 12
Automation for improved focus 13
Anonymous review to minimize bias 13
A centralized and secure system 13
Clear communication and easy feedback 14

Conclusion 14
Conscientious review matters
Your organization creates an impact that can be felt across
the communities you serve and beyond.

Funding deserving nonprofits, families, businesses, and

individuals is extremely rewarding and valuable. It’s also
a lot of hard work. The amount of labor on all sides that
goes into any grants cycle is often onerous, and even small
inefficiencies and hitches have a ripple effect that can dilute
your influence and endanger your mission.

One of the linchpins of the grantmaking cycle is a functional,

reliable, and fair review process. It’s in this vital step that you
select the very best applicants and begin your relationship
with your grantees. If your grant review process is wasting
energy or arriving at poor decisions, the success of your
program is at stake.

A vigorous, fair, and intentional review process for grant

applications is therefore essential.

This guide offers seven tips for making sure that your grant
proposal assessment is unbiased and productive. And
because technology can greatly assist the implementation
of these best practices, the second half of this guide
is dedicated to seven benefits of an online grants
management platform.

3
 7 strategies for a fair According to Brown University’s Harriet W. Sheridan Center
for Teaching and Learning, there are a series of vital steps
and efficient review process to creating a successful rubric. Here are six steps they
identified, refocused for grant review:

1. Define the rubric’s purpose. Consider the components

of your application and how each should be assessed.
What would an outstanding application include? How
Build a Be transparent
detailed rubric with applicants detailed do you want to be with scoring? Should each
application component receive a distinct score?

2. Choose between a holistic and analytic rubric. In terms

of basic distinctions, the holistic rubric is easier to put
Assemble an
Make thoughtful Hide sensitive together but offers less detail than an analytic rubric
inclusive review team information
assignments regarding specific strengths and weaknesses within
an application. For example, a holistic rubric might ask
reviewers to assign a score of 1-4 for the application
as a whole (where a Level 4 application includes great
mission alignment, excellent organization history, and an
Build
consensus
Use a numerical
strategy
outstanding plan). An analytic rubric would assess those
three components using distinct scales and criteria.

1. Build a detailed rubric Holistic rubric

The first step in most smart grant review processes is
Score Description
the creation of a thorough rubric. Rubrics are detailed
outlines for how each application will be read and scored. Application is complete and all materials are excellent. Applicant
4
A comprehensive rubric helps reviewers stay consistent, is clearly a great fit for the grant.
minimizes personal bias, and provides a useful reference.
Application is complete and most materials are above average.
Most commonly used in the academic sphere, rubrics are 3 Applicant is a potentially good fit for the grant.

also essential for complex evaluation processes of all kinds,

including grant review. Application is mostly complete with materials of variable quality.
2
Applicant is an unlikely fit for the grant.
If you create a rubric before building your application, it
can help ensure all requested information is relevant and Application is incomplete and/or most (if not all) materials are of
necessary. This saves time for applicants as well as your 1 poor quality. Applicant is a poor fit for the grant.

team.
4
Analytic Rubric
Below average Average Above average Excellent Score
1 2Average 3 4

Project plan does not have Project plan may not be Project plan appears Project plan appears
Approach a reasonable approach or scalable or replicable. It reasonable, scalable, reasonable, scalable,
build on relevant work in may not build on other replicable, but does not replicable, and builds on
the community. relevant work. build on other relevant other relevant work.
work.

Project plan clearly Project plan lacks Project plan contains new Project plan contains new
Innovation lacks any innovation or clear innovation and and exciting ideas, but and exciting ideas and
fresh ideas and lacks implementation. not a clear line toward proposals, with a clear line
implementation. implementation. toward change.

Project outcomes do not Project outcomes Project outcomes line Project outcomes line up
Alignment of Vision line up with either the somewhat line up with up well with both the extremely well with both
grantmaker’s mission or both the grantmaker’s grantmaker’s mission and the grantmaker’s mission
community needs. mission and community community needs. and community needs.
needs.

Reporting plan is not Reporting plan lacks Grantees have a feasible Grantees have an
Reporting Plan feasible and is not detail or implementation and acceptable reporting extensive and actionable
acceptable. information. plan. reporting plan.

3. Define the rubric criteria. These criteria identify each 4. Design the rating scale. Although this could include
component for assessment. For grants, common review letter grades, for application review, numeric scores are
criteria may include: likely to be the most useful since they can be summed.
Most scales include 3-5 rating levels.

• Approach • Feasibility 5. Write descriptions for each rating. Clarity and

consistency of language here will help accurately guide
• Innovation • Reporting Plan
reviewers. Focus on observations that can be accurately
• Justification • Sustainability measured and include the degree to which criteria are
successfully met.
• Alignment of Vision

6. Finalize your rubric. Format your rubric for easy access

and reference, assess effectiveness, collect relevant
feedback, and revise accordingly.
5
 A strong rubric not only helps guide reviewers—it also It increases the quantity of appropriate applications.
offers the opportunity to deeply assess and streamline Clarity around expectations and review criteria can help you
your application. If part of your application didn’t receive more relevant applications, saving your review team
make the rubric, do you really need it to review your time.
candidates?
It minimizes questions and doubt. If applicants know
A couple of additional rubric strategies to employ: when they’ll hear from you, they’re less likely to reach out
and inquire. You’re also likely to receive fewer inquiries
• Assess your rubric carefully for language that could be from uncertain applicants about what to include in their
misinterpreted. It’s important to avoid assumptions about application.
reviewers, especially regarding how they will process
the criteria, rating scale, and descriptions you provide. It spotlights your organization’s values. Sharing your
• Steer clear of industry jargon or acronyms. Use plain review process and criteria demonstrates that you care
language and where possible, give examples to solidify about diligent and fair review. It also demonstrates that you
what you want to say. understand the value this information holds for applicants
• Determine the relative weight of review criteria. For and you’re prepared to support them.
example, will innovation be more or less important than
sustainability? Design your rating scale accordingly. Being more transparent about your process sets you apart
from other organizations, facilitates trust from potential
applicants, and brings clarity to the whole process.
2. Be transparent with applicants
Anyone who takes the time to apply for your grant wants to A guide that details each phase of the review and selection
submit the best possible application. Unfortunately, every process is a great way to keep everyone informed on what
application process is different and prospective applicants happens once an application has been submitted. Just be
may not know what your organization is looking for. Sharing sure it’s easy to access and written in a simple, jargon-free
clear information about your assessment criteria and format.
timeline is a huge help to all.

Transparency regarding review affords benefits for 3. Assemble an inclusive review team
everyone involved in your process: The benefits of engaging diverse reviewers can’t be
overstated. Not only do a wide range of perspectives and
It demonstrates respect for applicants’ time. When experiences serve your organization overall, an inclusive
they can access assessment guidelines, applicants know review team also helps to ensure that your selection
where to focus and what to prioritize in assembling their process is equitable and that accepted applicants and their
application. work better reflect that equity, thereby serving the mission
you are likely striving for.

6
 Do your homework
Although it can take time to assess your current resources Posting an open call for reviewers may bring in some
and practices, conscientiously assemble a team, foster diversity, but you’ll have better luck reaching out to the
collaboration, and achieve consensus, research shows reviewers on the platforms where they spend the most time.
the outcomes are worth the effort. Among a multitude of If someone on staff has connections to a particular group
benefits, diversity in the workforce helps organizations grow or community, this can be the easiest way to put a call out.
and sustain innovation. Or reach out to other organizations that serve particular
communities, and ask them to help you solicit reviewers.
To welcome a diverse review board to your grants process: Consider creating a press release about openings on your
review board opportunity and share it with organizations
working in diverse communities.
Inventory your workplace culture
Begin by assessing how valued diverse viewpoints are
among your current team. Daily micro-decisions can Communicate clearly
be telling. For example, whose opinions are regularly It’s important to be up front about the workload for grant
sought out? Who is invited to meetings? Who is included application reviewers and what, if any, compensation is
in the organization’s target applicant group? Answering available. Be honest about what you can offer when you are
these kinds of questions internally will allow you to make soliciting assistance and be cognizant if considering asking
adjustments and help ensure all reviewers feel comfortable, for free labor from historically underpaid groups. Even
included, respected, and valued. If you’re bringing in modest compensation is a way to show your reviewers that
outside reviewers, this will be easier if you’ve done internal you value the work they are doing for your organization.
work towards inclusivity first.
Alternately, get creative about other ways you can provide
compensation—you might offer reviewers a discount,
Define your goals service, gift card, or organize a thank you event for them.
Carefully consider what diversity will contribute to your
review process. Additional voices and perspectives will
likely push at the boundaries of what your organization has Focus on inclusive values
done previously. Ensuring that you are ready to embrace Work to broaden your team authentically. Nothing is more
these changes is key. It’s also important to diversify your off-putting to a review team member than realizing she is
review team for more than just optics—establish a goal the only woman on the team or the only Black person in
centered around diverse viewpoints and, ultimately, the room. Diversity for diversity’s sake will leave reviewers
improved applicant selections. feeling tokenized. Ensuring that your review team is truly,
broadly diverse will help you make decisions authentically
and build diversity into your organization’s ethos. Research

7
 also shows that the most significant attributes of inclusive 4. Make thoughtful assignments
workplace leaders are humility and empathy. A review team, as opposed to a single reviewer or two, will
ensure a more fair assessment for every applicant. Whether
Diversity isn’t just about ethnicity, gender, age, ability, you provide multiple grants or just one annual award, having
or sexual orientation. True inclusivity also involves a more than one reader in your review committee is vital to
consideration of socioeconomic status and background, keeping the process fair.
education, professional and personal experience, and
political ideology, among other things. Other key strategies If you’re offering a single grant, have two or three readers
for review board diversity include commitment, ongoing on each application. If you’re running several, you could
analysis and education, and accountability. group reviewers into teams, group applications by category,
or rotate reviewers and applications throughout the
process.

Effective reading and scoring of applications calls for

rigor, undistracted attention, and considerable effort—
and reviewers are often tasked with reading hundreds of
Inclusive leaders share six signature traits: applications. Increasing the size of your review committee
can drastically ease strain for individual reviewers and
Visible commitment: They Curiosity about others: They improve the overall outcome of your process.
articulate authentic commitment demonstrate an open mindset
to diversity, challenge the status and deep curiosity about others,
Overwhelmed reviewers may give a fair and thorough
quo, hold others accountable, listen without judgment, and
and make diversity and inclusion seek with empathy to understand review to the first handful of applications but will likely
a personal priority. those around them. review later applications with less diligence if they’re
fatigued. Avoiding this scenario whenever possible will
Humility: They are modest about Cultural intelligence: They are
capabilities, admit mistakes, and attentive to others’ cultures and
ensure that no matter where an application falls in the
create the space for others to adapt as required. queue, the assessment is equally involved.
contribute.
Effective collaboration: They Be sure to give reviewers enough time to balance
Awareness of bias: They show empower others, pay attention
awareness of personal blind to diversity of thinking and
reviewing against other responsibilities so that they have
spots, as well as flaws in the psychological safety, and focus time and energy for stronger, higher quality scoring.
system, and work hard to ensure on team cohesion. Reviewing across days, as opposed to completing all
a meritocracy. reviews in a single, long session, is more likely to yield a
greater uniformity (and fairness) in your results. Encourage
Harvard Business Review
reviewers to divide and conquer over time by assigning in
batches or rounds, or by establishing multiple deadlines and
check-in points along the way.

8
5. Hide sensitive information Lean on the rubric. The more detailed, thorough, and
Consider how much of a candidate’s information reviewers consistent your rubric is, the more useful it becomes
really need to see. in cases of dissension. Guide conversations back to
established criteria wherever possible, with the awareness
To minimize the risk of implicit bias or favoritism, pinpoint that smart debate may recommend revision to the rubric as
which elements are absolutely essential for reviewers to you go.
make their decision—and which aren’t. This way, the risk
of “similar to me” bias or other harmful associations are Designate a facilitator. For in-person deliberation,
drastically reduced, allowing reviewers to score applicants choose a person to actively and conscientiously mediate
fairly and based on their relevant merits and suitability to conversations. Ideally this individual does not have power
the program. over the review team members—you can use the same
person in every meeting or rotate facilitators. Facilitators
Your review team will be thoroughly trained on how to should be skilled at keeping any debate open, kind, and
review objectively, but because implicit bias is largely safe, while encouraging those who aren’t vocal to share
unconscious, teams need to have preventative measures in their opinions.
place.
Establish thoughtful protocols. All group members
Nationalities, socioeconomic status, or anything else that should be encouraged to practice active listening, avoid
isn’t directly correlated to a student’s suitability should be interrupting, and ask questions to aid their understanding.
kept hidden from the review team. Even a candidate’s name Empower reviewers to resolve their own problems through
can sway reviewers. open conversation about what priorities matter the most to
them.

6. Build consensus Favor open-ended questions. The best way to understand

While differences of opinion can be uncomfortable, where team members are coming from and help them
they indicate an engaged grants review process where, understand one another is to use broad questions that
ultimately, individuals grow and learn from one another allow for a comprehensive response. For example, ask why
and smarter decisions are made. Not to mention that a reviewers favor a certain applicant rather than just collecting
truly inclusive review panel may be more likely to disagree a list of names. What ideas do group members have for how
because of the unique perspectives and backgrounds each to arrive at the best decisions? The questions can be posed
individual brings to the table. at in-person meetings but also digitally.

Fostering agreement (rather than deciding for your team) is Allow for time and build trust. Arriving at consensus
worth the effort. The following strategies can help: can take time but the outcomes are worth it. Build time
into your process to allow for reviewers to consider one
another’s view points, talk (or type) openly, and allow for

9
dissension. Fostering a culture within your organization are assigned a set number of applications to read and
where disagreement is embraced and divergent opinions rank in quality order. Let’s say a reader is reviewing five
are encouraged can take time to establish. Make it safe for applications—the best one would score a 1, the next best a
individuals to be “wrong,” change their mind, fumble, fail, 2, and so on, with the least favorite receiving a 5.
and learn from one another.

7. Use a numerical strategy

There are two main approaches to capturing which
applications are top contenders.

One strategy for scoring applications fairly is through a

point system defined by your rubric. This type of averaging
system is typically used for standards-based processes,
which makes it extremely useful for scoring grant
applications.
Sum of scores from all reviewers

Calculate an average by adding all scores together and

dividing by how many times the application was read. This
ensures that each reviewer’s assessment has an equal
weight. In this ranking example, three reviewers rank the same five applications
between 1 and 5 (with 1 being highest). After an average is taken, the
application represented in light blue, for example, has the highest
average ranking across reviewers.

Sum of scores from all reviewers

Then, each set of applications is passed on between other
Average application score readers, who will also rank in order of quality. If reviewers
are tasked with a high volume of applications, this method
can help alleviate the pressure.

Number of reviewers To find the strongest applications, add up the scores among
all applications—the ones with the highest scores are
A ranking system can be another great collaborative ranked highest collectively.
way to select grant winners. Using this strategy, readers

10
Whether you use averages or ranking, ideally each Attract applicants with modern forms that are on brand,
application gets a once-over from multiple reviewers. This easy to access, and straightforward to complete.
takes the strain off each individual reader, ensures greater
impartiality, and simplifies the process of selection. When Especially if your mission involves awareness, education,
passing along applications for multiple reviews, keep the or helping those in marginalized communities or those
previous score or ranking hidden to avoid unconscious bias. with fewer privileges, it’s imperative that your form and
application process welcome all.

7 benefits to a digital process And accessibility and ease of use always go hand-in-hand.

A rigorous, equitable, and unbiased application process With Submittable’s grant management software, you can
takes time. From creating a comprehensive rubric and provide the simplest possible process for applicants, from
building a top-notch review team to managing decision start to finish—including requesting additional paperwork
making and selecting top candidates for your grant, every from applicants within the same platform. Applicants can
step requires resources and attention. also automatically provide full information about their
nonprofit simply by entering their EIN number a single time
For this reason, eliminating manual work and streamlining via the Charity Check feature.
tedious processes whenever possible is key. Adopting
an online review process can serve your applicants and
organization in multiple ways.

7 benefits to a digital process

1. Accessibility and ease 5. Anonymous review to

of use minimize bias
2. Eligibility and accuracy 6. A centralized and
secure system
3. Streamlined review
7. Clear communication
4. Automation for
and easy feedback
improved focus

1. Accessibility and ease of use

Ensuring your application form is accessible and simple
for grantees will help you attract a wider applicant pool
and drive better outcomes. A quality grant application Ask for the information you need—no more and no less—with accessible and intuitive
represents your organization in the best possible light. grant application forms.
11
Submittable has also attained Voluntary Product 3. Streamlined review
Accessibility Template (or VPAT) documentation, ensuring When moving grant applications through the review
that your forms are more accessible to a wide range of process, choosing to divide and conquer improves
submitters with disabilities, including blindness and low efficiency. This entails dividing workload and optimizing
vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, workflow.
cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities,
and photosensitivity. Submittable makes it easy to distribute assignments to
reviewers based on, for example, applicant type or reviewer
speciality. Assign automatically, manually, in rounds, or
2. Eligibility and accuracy randomize assignments. Making smart assignments helps
If your grant program attracts a high amount of interest, administrators maximize resources.
you’re likely to receive unsuitable applications if you haven’t
incorporated safeguards. A digital application process Similarly, staged review, or review completed in rounds, can
can help ensure applicant eligibility, while encouraging be much more productive than reviewing a single pool in a
completion and accuracy. single overwhelming round. A first pass through applications
might include qualification confirmation, while subsequent
Eligibility screenings help applicants pre-qualify themselves rounds with fewer, higher-tiered applications may involve
before even setting foot in the main form, saving ineligible more diligent assessment or specialized criteria.
applicants time and heartache.

At the same time, required form fields save administrators

from having to track down missing materials. They also help
grantees ensure their application is complete while weeding
out applicants who fail to provide necessary materials.

Incorporating form logic in a digital process allows

administrators to include, for example, a box grant writers
must check to continue their application or different
application tracks for different applicants. Smart forms that
respond to applicant responses save individuals on both
sides of the process substantial time and energy.

Lastly, online applications that provide clear guidelines

throughout the application process make for better
applications, and thus more streamlined review and
selection.

Side-by-side review allows your board to collaborate online together—and literally stay
on the same page. 12
 4. Automation for improved focus 5. Anonymous review to minimize bias
Not all manual tasks need to still be done manually. When you’re relying exclusively on in-person regular
Submittable automates repetitive tasks and streamlines meetings or training sessions to collaborate and share
communication, moving important steps out of inboxes and feedback on applications, unconscious bias can jeopardize
eliminating file cabinets. your review process.

Save team resources for diligent assessment of The reviewer who speaks the loudest or the first, or the
applications—not spreadsheets, data entry, and email. reader that feels particularly strongly about a certain
A smart digital grant application process will include application, have the power to sway other reviewers in a
features like automatic confirmation for candidates when way that can’t be controlled.
their application is received, auto-labels that differentiate
applications from one another as they come in, and auto- An online process allows administrators to oversee reviewer
assignments for review teams. permission levels and access. It’s simple to hide applicant
information from reviewers, hide reviewer comments from
With grant management software, administration and review other reviewers, and keep reviewer scores confidential,
teams can leave low-effort, high-frequency tasks to the viewable to administrators only. This helps prevent
platform and direct more focus on mission and impact. reviewers from making decisions influenced by bias related
to applicants or informed by fellow team members.

Reviews
6. A centralized and secure system
When the applications come in, they’re likely to include a
significant amount of sensitive information and documents,
depending on your grant. Using an online system allows
assignments ratings labels
you to collect and safely store application and proposal
data in addition to all relevant documents in one centralized
location—with no email attachments and no downloads.

Administrators and reviewers don’t have to worry about

the security of a shared file or about misplacing something.
Plus, reviewers can see all application materials in one
place, side-by-side with their review.

Applicants will also appreciate the ability to access their

application from anytime inside their account, as well as
track progress online.
Utilize Submittable’s bulk message template feature to send the same message to
everyone (and save your personal inbox).
13
7. Clear communication and easy feedback Make strong choices with a successful
Your grant review process inevitably involves multiple
lines of communication. Administrators communicate with process
reviewers (and vice versa), reviewers collaborate with each
other, and applicants communicate with your institution (and Launching a grant based on a review process that’s fair,
await your response). Furthermore, this communication can rigorous, and efficient relies on intentional planning and
begin before proposals are filed and continue well after thoughtful execution.
funds have been awarded.
Just as your programs are unique, a review process that’s
An online process with messaging and automated emails both fair and rigorous will look a bit different in every
improves these exchanges and captures a central record of institution. The most important areas to focus on are a
important correspondence—while saving your inbox from strong rubric, transparency, inclusivity, a balanced, numbers-
the drama. based process, and the evasion of bias.

You can also improve your application and review process Grant proposal selection can be both a labor-intensive and
by asking the applicant a few straightforward questions delicate task, and the stakes are high. A digital platform like
about their experience, either as part of your application Submittable can make it that much easier to establish or
or through your online platform as an additional form, such fine-tune your outstanding application and review process,
as a survey. These could be simple yes/no questions or a so that both your applicants and your team appreciate the
detailed and advanced feedback section—the key is to ask results—and so that the community and the world may
targeted questions that will shed light on the applicant’s benefit from what you accomplish.
experience.

Communication builds trust, helps avoid mistakes, and

makes the grantmaking process easier for everyone.
Communication online, through a centralized platform,
brings you to an entirely new level.

14
 submittable.com | (855) 467-8264

Submittable is a cloud-based submission management platform that makes it easy to accept, review,
and select any kind of content, no matter where you are. Since 2010, Submittable has helped
organizations collect more than 10 million submissions for thousands of customers all over the world.