4 Common Pitfalls in the Grant Review Process (and How to Avoid Them)
Even when your grant review process involves internal staff or people who have reviewed applications before, it can still be a bumpy process. Processes and technology change. Life happens.
But when deadlines get missed and reviews take longer than expected, that delays getting funds to your grantees. Creating a streamlined and efficient grant review process can make sure you make data-driven and timely decisions so you can award your grants, and your grantees can drive impact.
Here are four common pitfalls that can get in the way of an efficient grant review process, and how you can avoid them.
1. Unclear Review Requirements
When your review requirements are unclear, reviewers may interpret the criteria differently, leading to inconsistent assessments.
What This Looks Like
When you have unclear review requirements, you’ll see inconsistent review feedback or scoring. You will likely also field a lot of questions from confused reviewers who aren’t sure how to apply the requirements. And even if you aren’t getting questions, you might be seeing procrastination because of the confusion. Your reviewers aren’t sure how to move forward and don’t have the time to reach out to get clarification.
How to Avoid It
Avoiding the confusion around criteria starts with clear documentation. Establish, document, and implement evaluation criteria that reflect your mission and funding program guidelines. This includes a formal grading rubric that aligns the questions on your application to specific metrics. Provide your reviewers with access to the rubric before they get into the review process, so they know what they are looking for before they begin.
Require reviewers to participate in training so you create a consistent understanding of the requirements and rubric. Your training should also show them how to apply the requirements based on the goals of the program. Use examples to showcase what makes an answer receive a certain score, including incomplete, not a fit, and a strong fit.
Another way to remove confusion is to spell out acronyms and define terminology reviewers may encounter to make sure everyone has the same understanding. You also want to provide an obvious point of contact and encourage reviewers to reach out with questions instead of making assumptions.
2. Technology Limitations
Whether your reviewers aren’t comfortable with your systems or your technology creates more roadblocks than workflows, software limitations can slow down your decision-making process.
What This Looks Like
If there are issues with your technology, your reviewers will be likely to miss deadlines because they don’t feel comfortable in the system or try to circumvent the required processes. In extreme cases, you might have reviewers drop out mid-cycle due to time constraints or frustration.
How to Avoid It
To address and avoid technology issues, first understand what you’re asking your reviewers to do. Follow your current process to see how long it takes and identify potential bottlenecks or confusion. Once you recognize those issues, provide resources and training on the systems you use, including asynchronous options that reviewers can refer to while going through applications.
Keep your reviewers from getting overwhelmed by scheduling and staggering review timelines so not all reviews are due at the same time. For example, open the first five one week and the next five the following week and so on, instead of having all 20 reviews due at the end of the month. You can also create a rotating team of reviewers with specific expertise, so research scientists are only called in to review applications for your science-related grants.
An intuitive grant management system with a dedicated reviewer portal can also address many of the technology issues your reviewers might have. Your GMS provides a single place for all the information reviewers need to be successful.
Also, provide a survey after each cycle to understand how to improve for the next cycle.
3. Reviewer Bias in Decision-Making
Bias in the review process is rarely intentional, but a lack of objectivity can affect what should be impartial decisions. It can also keep you from attracting and funding great initiatives.
What This Looks Like
You might find that reviewers make unintentional assumptions about an application based on factors not pertinent to the review process. For example, the applicant may be a small organization, and the reviewer may assume they don’t have the experience to manage the project. Make sure to ask follow-up questions or have the reviewer support their decision with data.
Bias isn’t just about the application or the organization applying. It could also be as simple as preferring the first application reviewed, whether it was a video or written application, or because the organization is based in the reviewer’s hometown.
How to Avoid It
Unintentional bias is hard to recognize individually, so it’s important for your grant managers to be aware. Provide information on your mission, the goal of the program, and what makes a good fit for the grant program (and what doesn’t) in your reviewer training.
Make people aware of the potential for unconscious bias—if you know people tend to grade more harshly for the first application they review, encourage them to go back to the first one and make sure it aligns with the same scoring as the last one they did.
Another way to address any potential bias is to provide blind applications. Strip any identifying information not required for decision-making, such as the name of the organization and the names of leadership, from the review process.
Finally, provide a clear conflict of interest policy with examples so people know what conflicts might look like and they can disclose them. Do you donate or volunteer for organizations that might be applying for this funding opportunity? Do you know the person who wrote the application? Those situations can insert bias—or the appearance of bias—into the decision-making process.
4. Insufficient or Inconsistent Feedback to Applicants
Without constructive feedback from your reviewers, declined applicants don’t have an opportunity to improve future submissions.
What This Looks Like
It’s difficult to provide helpful feedback to applicants when there are only options for quantitative measurements in the rubric or reviewer portal. You might also find that some reviewers provide paragraphs of feedback while other reviewers only leave a few words. If you haven’t been clear about what happens with your comments, you might find reviewers leave unhelpful or problematic comments.
How to Avoid It
To make sure you can provide details on the decision-making while still providing privacy for your reviewers, be clear in your training who will see what part of the review. Develop templates with examples for reviewers to capture the strengths and areas of improvement for each application, so reviewers know what is expected.
Instead of providing verbatim review response, create a process to synthesize reviewer comments for the applicant. This could be a good use case for a generative AI tool (just make sure you have a good AI policy in place first).
You can also include an office hours session for applicants after decisions have been made and include reviewers if they are interested.
Foster Positive Experiences in Your Grantmaking Review Processes
Ensuring an efficient, fair, and constructive grant review process is essential for the success of your grant programs and the grantees who rely on those funds. By addressing these common pitfalls and implementing the suggested strategies, you can enhance the effectiveness of your grantmaking and foster a positive experience for all parties involved.
Are you ready for a grant management system that can help you streamline your grantmaking processes, from application to disbursement? Check out our on-demand product tour of Blackbaud Grantmaking™.
