Grantmaking 101: Assessment Panels, Scoring and Moderation
In the last Grantmaking 101 article, I suggested that one of the best ways to design a grant programme is to think about the assessment process before writing the application form. That might sound back to front, but there’s a good reason for it. One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that organisations often spend months refining application forms and guidance, then relatively little time thinking about how applications will actually be assessed.
In reality, the assessment process is where funding decisions are made. If that process isn’t fair, transparent and well understood, it doesn’t really matter how good the application form is.
Assessment isn’t really about scoring
When people hear the word assessment, they often think about scores.
- Five out of ten.
- Eighty-five per cent.
- Ranked first, second or third.
Scoring is important, but it’s only one part of the picture. The real purpose of assessment is to help funders make good decisions. That means applying published criteria consistently, considering evidence fairly and making decisions that can be explained with confidence if they’re ever challenged.
Good assessment is about judgement, supported by structure.
Start with the criteria
Whenever a new funding programme is being designed, one of the first questions I’d ask is: “How will we decide which applications should be funded?”
The answer should come before anyone starts writing application questions.
- If reviewers need evidence of partnership working, ask for it.
- If innovation is one of the programme objectives, make sure it’s reflected in the assessment criteria.
- If value for money matters, decide how that will be assessed before applicants start writing their bids.
I’ve seen application forms that ask for large amounts of information simply because similar questions were included in previous funding rounds.
It’s always worth asking a simple question: “Will this information actually help someone make a funding decision?”
If the answer is no, it probably doesn’t belong on the form.
Good panels don’t always agree
One of the biggest misconceptions about assessment panels is that everyone should reach exactly the same conclusion. In my experience, that’s rarely the case. Panels are usually made up of people with different backgrounds, different expertise and sometimes very different perspectives. That’s one of their strengths.
- A finance specialist may notice risks that a technical expert doesn’t.
- Someone with lived experience may see strengths that aren’t immediately obvious from a written application.
Healthy discussion isn’t a sign that something has gone wrong. It’s often a sign that the panel is doing exactly what it was brought together to do.
Why moderation matters
Moderation is sometimes misunderstood. It’s not about changing scores until everyone agrees. And it certainly shouldn’t be about engineering a particular outcome.
Good moderation helps ensure that assessment criteria have been applied consistently across all applications.
- One reviewer may naturally score more generously than another.
- Another may place greater emphasis on one aspect of the criteria than their colleagues.
Moderation gives the panel an opportunity to explore those differences and reach a shared understanding of how the criteria should be applied.
The goal isn’t identical opinions. It’s consistent decision-making.
Managing conflicts of interest
Trust is at the heart of every grant programme. That’s why conflicts of interest need to be taken seriously. Most conflicts aren’t the result of misconduct. They’re simply an inevitable consequence of working in sectors where people know each other.
The important thing isn’t pretending conflicts don’t exist. It’s identifying them early, recording them properly and managing them transparently. That might mean asking a reviewer to step away from a particular application, bringing in an alternative assessor or simply ensuring the conflict is recorded as part of the audit trail.
Handled well, conflict management strengthens confidence in the process rather than undermining it.
Good records matter
Assessment doesn’t end when the funding decision has been made. Applicants may ask for feedback. Internal teams may review decisions months later. Auditors may need to understand how recommendations were reached. Future programme teams may want to learn from previous funding rounds.
That’s why it’s important to keep clear records of assessment scores, reviewer comments, moderation discussions, conflict declarations and final decisions.
Good record keeping isn’t just about compliance. It’s one of the best ways organisations can learn and improve over time.
Technology should support judgement
Technology has transformed grant assessment over the last decade.
- Applications can be allocated automatically.
- Reviewers can work remotely.
- Panel papers can be generated in minutes rather than days.
- Audit trails can be maintained without creating additional administration.
All of that makes assessment more efficient. But technology shouldn’t define the assessment process. It should support a well-designed process that’s already fair, proportionate and transparent.
The same is true of artificial intelligence. AI is likely to become increasingly useful in helping reviewers summarise applications, navigate large documents or identify information more quickly. Those are valuable uses of the technology. But I don’t believe AI changes the fundamentals of good assessment.
Funding decisions still require judgement, context and accountability. As organisations explore AI, they’ll also need to think carefully about transparency, bias, data privacy and human oversight. That’s becoming increasingly important as regulatory frameworks, including the EU AI Act, shape expectations around the responsible use of AI in decision-making.
One final thought
I’ve never seen a grant programme succeed because it had the perfect scoring matrix. I’ve seen plenty succeed because everyone involved understood what the programme was trying to achieve and applied the assessment criteria consistently.
Assessment isn’t really about giving applications a score. It’s about making good funding decisions. And that’s something that will always depend on people as much as process.
This article was written by Steve Buckley, Commercial Director at AIMS Software, drawing on more than 25 years’ experience working with governments, research funders and charitable organisations to design and deliver grant programmes.
Read more of our latest Grant Management insights
-
Grantmaking 101: What Makes a Good Grant Programme?
Good grant programmes do not start with software. They start with clarity. This Grantmaking 101 article explores the foundations of effective grant programme design.
-
EU Tech Sovereignty: Why It Matters for Grant Management in 2025 and Beyond
EU tech sovereignty is reshaping how organisations think about data, compliance, AI, and digital resilience. For grant-makers, it raises important questions about control, transparency, audit trails, and the systems used to manage public and organisational funding.
-
Grantmaking 101: Standardisation vs Flexibility in Grantmaking
Should grantmakers standardise their processes or allow flexibility across programmes? This article explores how organisations can balance governance, efficiency and consistency with the need for programme-specific design in modern grantmaking.
-
Grantmaking 101: What is a shared grant management service?
Grant programmes rarely sit neatly in one place. Across government, local authorities and public bodies, different teams often manage different funding schemes with their own processes, systems and reporting requirements. But while grant programmes may vary in purpose, many of the core grant management activities are fundamentally the same.
A shared grant management service provides a common foundation for managing multiple grant programmes through shared systems, governance controls and operational processes. Rather than forcing every scheme into a single rigid model, a well-designed shared service standardises the areas that should remain consistent — such as audit trails, reporting, approvals and applicant registration — while still allowing flexibility for different policy objectives and funding models.
For organisations managing grants at scale, shared grant management services can improve governance, reduce duplication, strengthen reporting and create a more consistent experience for applicants and administrators alike.
-
How Manual Grant Processes Slow Teams Down
Manual grant management processes can quietly slow down entire organisations. From spreadsheets and email chains to reporting delays and compliance risks, disconnected workflows create inefficiencies that impact teams, applicants, and leadership alike. This article explores the hidden operational costs of manual grant administration and why more organisations are moving toward modern grant management software.
-
Digital Sovereignty in Grant Management: Why Control, Resilience and Deployment Choice Matter
Digital sovereignty in grant management is becoming a critical priority for public sector and research organisations. As requirements around data control, security, and deployment flexibility increase, grantmakers must ensure their systems can meet evolving regulatory and operational demands.
