Systematizing Grant Management

The Hidden Complexities of Grant Management

Grant management involves far more than simply collecting applications and selecting recipients. The process encompasses multiple stages, stakeholders, and systems that must work together cohesively:

Application Collection

• Creating accessible application forms
• Designing effective eligibility screening
• Gathering organizational information securely
• Collecting project proposals
• Managing letter of support submissions
• Receiving budgets and financial documentation
• Handling program narratives and impact statements

Operational Management

• Tracking application progress
• Sending reminder communications
• Managing deadlines
• Ensuring data security
• Maintaining applicant privacy
• Creating application packages for review
• Pairing applications with appropriate reviewers

Review and Selection

• Facilitating fair evaluation processes
• Creating standardized scoring criteria
• Managing reviewer workloads
• Normalizing scoring variations
• Supporting deliberation processes
• Documenting selection decisions

Post-Award Management

• Disbursing funds
• Tracking project milestones
• Collecting impact data
• Managing multi-year grants
• Generating impact reports
• Demonstrating outcomes

The Pitfalls of Disconnected Processes

When grantmakers attempt to manage these complex processes using disconnected tools, several critical issues can emerge:

Lost and Missed Applications

One alarming trend reported by grantmakers is the loss of deserving applications due to disconnected processes. When applications arrive via email, many are automatically filtered to spam folders, resulting in qualified candidates never receiving consideration.

As one foundation discovered months after completing their selection process, several highly qualified applicants had applied but were never reviewed because their applications were trapped in spam filters. These applicants eventually reached out asking about results, only to learn their applications were never seen.

Data Security and Privacy Concerns

Grant applications contain highly sensitive information, including:

• Tax documents
• Financial records
• Strategic plans
• Confidential project details
• Personnel information

When this information is transmitted via unsecured channels like email or stored in unprotected spreadsheets, it creates significant privacy and security risks—both for applicants and for the organization managing the grants.

Inefficient Review Processes

Disjointed review processes create unnecessary burdens for volunteer reviewers:

• Downloading numerous files
• Navigating multiple systems
• Manually entering scores into spreadsheets
• Struggling with incompatible file formats
• Managing excessive application volumes

These challenges lead to reviewer fatigue, inconsistent scoring, and potentially unfair selection outcomes.

Biased Selection Results

Without structured, systematic review processes, grant selections can be influenced by unconscious biases:

• Applications reviewed early may receive more attention than those reviewed later
• Reviewer fatigue may affect scoring consistency
• Individual reviewer tendencies (scoring high or low) may unfairly impact results
• Incomplete application packages may disadvantage qualified candidates

The Problem of Unredacted Information

A particularly significant source of bias in grant selection comes from exposure to identifying information that may trigger implicit biases. When reviewers can see:

• Organization names (which may indicate size, prestige, or connections)
• Addresses (revealing geographic location that might be favored or disfavored)
• Executive leadership details (revealing demographics or connections)
• Prior funding history (creating potential for status quo bias)

This information can trigger unconscious biases that influence scoring decisions, regardless of a reviewer’s intentions. Research consistently shows that identical proposals receive different scores based solely on the perceived identity of the applicant organization.

The Challenge of Reviewer Assignments

Another often overlooked source of bias stems from how applications are paired with reviewers. Manual assignment processes face several critical challenges:

• Personal Connections: Reviewers may have relationships with applying organizations, creating clear conflicts of interest
• Institutional Bias: Reviewers may favor applicants from organizations they’re familiar with
• Uneven Workload Distribution: Without systematic assignment, some reviewers may receive significantly more applications than others
• Reviewer Expertise Mismatch: Applications may be assigned to reviewers lacking relevant subject matter expertise
• Geographic Clustering: Manual assignments may inadvertently cluster applicants from similar regions to the same reviewers

These pairing challenges become particularly problematic in specialized funding areas where relationships between reviewers and potential applicants are more common. Without a system to identify and manage these conflicts of interest, grant selections may be influenced by personal connections rather than merit.

Difficulty Measuring Impact

Without systems to track outcomes and collect data from grantees, funders struggle to:

• Demonstrate impact to donors and board members
• Show the return on investment from grant funds
• Gather compelling stories for communications
• Improve program effectiveness based on results

The Solution: Systematic Grant Management

The key to addressing these challenges lies in implementing comprehensive systems that manage the entire grant lifecycle. As Kyle emphasized, “Most grantmakers focus on point A) collecting applications and point B) the selection of grantees. However, the meat and potatoes and what makes these programs highly successful is what happens between points B and Y.”

Grantee-Centered Profiles

At the core of effective grant management is the concept of a centralized profile—a single location that houses all information related to an applicant:

• Organizational information
• Application forms
• Uploaded documents
• Support letters
• Communications
• Scoring and feedback
• Post-award reporting

This profile-based approach ensures that all information about a grantee remains connected, accessible, and secure throughout the entire grant lifecycle.

Lowering Barriers for Applicants

Effective grant systems prioritize the applicant experience by:

• Grant Matching: Instead of forcing applicants to wade through eligibility criteria, automated matching tools can instantly show applicants which funding opportunities they qualify for.
• Simplified Reference Collection: Automated systems can send reference requests directly to recommenders and automatically attach their responses to the correct application.
• Streamlined Document Submission: Secure portals for document uploads eliminate the need for emails and attachments, ensuring that all materials are properly associated with the correct application.
• Giving Applicants a Voice: Well-designed applications include opportunities for organizations to differentiate themselves through narratives, videos, and personalized content that showcases their unique qualities.

Operationalizing Efficiency

Behind the scenes, grant management systems create operational efficiencies by:

• Centralizing Information: All applicant data, documents, communications, and review information is accessible from a single dashboard.
• Automating Communications: Automated reminders for applicants, references, and reviewers ensure that everyone stays on track throughout the process.
• Securing Sensitive Data: Confidential information is securely stored and can be selectively redacted from view when appropriate.
• Tracking Progress: Real-time dashboards show application status, reference completion, reviewer progress, and selection outcomes.

Creating Fair, Unbiased Selection Processes

Perhaps the most critical component of effective grant management is implementing structured review processes that ensure fair consideration for all applicants:

• Managing Reviewer Workload: Research shows that reviewer effectiveness declines significantly after evaluating approximately 20 applications. Effective systems manage reviewer workloads to prevent fatigue and ensure consistent scoring.
• Standardized Scoring Criteria: Well-designed scorecard templates ensure that all reviewers are evaluating applications using consistent criteria.
• Data Redaction: Selective hiding of identifying information helps prevent unconscious bias from influencing scoring.
• Score Normalization: Advanced systems can identify and adjust for individual reviewer tendencies to ensure fair comparisons across applications.
• Data-Driven Deliberation: Selection committees benefit from comprehensive scoring data and leaderboards that facilitate informed discussions about finalist candidates.
• Intelligent Reviewer Assignment: Sophisticated systems can automatically detect and prevent potential conflicts of interest, ensuring applications are assigned to appropriate reviewers without personal connections or biases.

Measuring Long-Term Impact

Effective grant management doesn’t end with the selection of recipients. Comprehensive systems facilitate ongoing impact measurement through:

• Post-Award Reporting: Structured forms allow grantees to report on their project progress, fund utilization, and achievements.
• Outcome Tracking: Organizations can collect data on key metrics aligned with program goals.
• Impact Storytelling: Testimonials and success stories provide compelling content for stakeholder communications.
• Renewal Management: Systems can automate the process for multi-year grants, collecting updated information and verifying continued eligibility.

Reviewr: A Systematic Approach to Grant Management

As grantmakers face increasing complexity and rising expectations, platforms like Reviewr offer comprehensive solutions that address the entire grant lifecycle.

A Single, Centralized Hub

Reviewr eliminates disconnected processes by providing a single platform that manages every aspect of grant administration:

• Application Collection: Custom forms, document uploads, and reference requests are all managed within a unified system.
• Operational Management: Real-time dashboards, automated communications, and progress tracking simplify administrative tasks.
• Review and Selection: Structured scorecards, reviewer assignment tools, and automated scoring calculations create fair, efficient evaluation processes.
• Post-Award Management: Impact reporting forms, grant renewal management, and outcome tracking complete the grant lifecycle.

Grantee-Centered Design

At the heart of Reviewr’s approach is a focus on the grantee experience:

• Profile-Based Structure: All information about an applicant is centralized in a single profile, creating a comprehensive view of each candidate.
• Grant Matching: Applicants can instantly see which funding opportunities they qualify for based on their profile information.
• Simplified Submission: User-friendly interfaces make it easy for applicants to submit required information and documents.
• Secure Communications: Built-in messaging tools facilitate direct communication between grantmakers and applicants.

Fair, Transparent Evaluation

Reviewr’s evaluation tools are designed to create fair, unbiased selection processes:

• Bucket System: Applications can be organized into buckets for phased review, committee assignment, or grant-specific evaluation.
• Randomization: Applications can be randomly assigned to reviewers to distribute workload and prevent bias.
• Side-by-Side Review: Reviewers see application content and scoring criteria side-by-side, streamlining the evaluation process.
• Score Normalization: Advanced analytics identify and adjust for individual reviewer tendencies, ensuring fair comparisons.
• Comprehensive Leaderboards: Real-time scoring dashboards provide a clear view of top-ranking candidates to support selection discussions.
• Conflict Management: The system helps identify and prevent potential conflicts of interest in the reviewer assignment process, ensuring applicants receive fair, unbiased evaluation.
• Identity Redaction: Identifying information can be systematically hidden from reviewers, focusing evaluation on merit rather than identity.

Impact Measurement

Reviewr’s post-award features facilitate ongoing impact tracking:

• Supplemental Forms: Grantees can easily submit impact reports, project updates, and renewal applications.
• Centralized Reporting: All post-award information is connected to the grantee’s profile, creating a complete view of each recipient’s journey.
• Outcome Analytics: Organizations can generate reports demonstrating the impact of their grant programs to stakeholders.
• Best Practices for Grant Management

Regardless of the specific tools used, grantmakers can benefit from implementing these best practices:

Designing Effective Applications

• Balance comprehensiveness with simplicity: Collect essential information without creating unnecessary barriers for applicants.
• Consider three key components:
• Provide opportunities for differentiation: Give applicants multiple ways to showcase their unique qualities and perspectives.
• Consider optional video submissions: Video content can provide powerful insights into an organization’s work and impact.
• Use clear, consistent language: Ensure that questions and instructions are easily understood by all applicants.

Streamlining Support Documentation

• Replace traditional reference letters with structured templates: Instead of open-ended letters, provide specific questions for references to answer.
• Automate the pairing process: Ensure that reference responses are automatically connected to the correct application.
• Send automatic reminders: Help references complete their submissions on time with gentle automated reminders.

Creating Fair Review Processes

• Manage reviewer workload: Limit the number of applications assigned to each reviewer to prevent fatigue and ensure consistent evaluation.
• Implement structured scorecards: Create clear, consistent scoring criteria that align with your grant program’s goals and values.
• Systematically redact identifying information: Remove organization names, locations, and other potential sources of bias from reviewer-facing materials when appropriate.
• Implement conflict of interest management: Create systems to identify and prevent potential conflicts between reviewers and applicants.
• Monitor and normalize scoring patterns: Be aware of individual reviewer tendencies and consider adjusting scores to ensure fair comparisons.
• Use data to inform deliberation: Combine qualitative discussion with quantitative scoring data to make informed selection decisions.

Measuring and Communicating Impact

• Design post-award reporting processes: Create structured forms for grantees to report on their progress and achievements.
• Track key outcome metrics: Identify and measure specific outcomes that align with your program’s goals.
• Collect compelling stories: Gather testimonials and success stories to illustrate the human impact of your grant program.
• Share impact with stakeholders: Communicate outcomes to donors, board members, and other stakeholders to demonstrate the value of their support.

Conclusion: From Disconnected Tools to Systematic Management

The evolution of grant management has reached a critical juncture. As grantmakers move away from paper processes, they face an important choice: continue with disconnected digital tools that create new challenges, or implement comprehensive systems that streamline operations and enhance the grant experience for all stakeholders.

The most successful grant programs recognize that they’re not just managing data—they’re managing organizations and their impact journeys. By implementing systematic approaches that prioritize the grantee experience, operational efficiency, fair selection, and impact measurement, grantmakers can maximize the value of their programs for applicants, recipients, reviewers, and funders.

As Kyle emphasized, “We want to make sure that we’re collecting very targeted, relevant information from applicants. The name of the game here is to help your applicants build a compelling case about their work, differentiate themselves from other candidates, putting them in the best position for achieving success and funding.”

In an era of increasing complexity and heightened expectations, grantmakers who embrace comprehensive management systems position themselves to create more impactful programs, deliver better experiences, and ultimately fulfill their missions more effectively. Whether using platforms like Reviewr or developing their own systematic approaches, the future of grant management lies in connected, centralized, and people-centered systems.

By moving from disconnected processes to integrated grant management, funders can focus less on administrative challenges and more on what truly matters: creating meaningful impact through strategic, effective grantmaking.