0447 - 227 - 598


Getting Grant Assessments Right

By Kate Caldecott

AIGM as published in AIGM



Nothing is more fundamental to effective grantmaking than a sound assessment process. Having the maximum impact means that you have to choose the right projects to fund. This becomes even more important once you adopt the best practice of committing a substantial portion of available funds to multi-year projects or operational support since you will be funding fewer projects. Investing time and effort into your assessment process will go a long way towards establishing your program as well-targeted, transparent and objective.


The Assessment Process


Your assessment process will have multiple steps which will likely include:



Screening should be pretty cut and dry. Screening criteria should be created to avoid ambiguity as to whether or not a project is eligible. Some electronic systems, allow you to create an “eligibility quiz” for applicants to fill out before they’re able to access the application form, thereby preventing ineligible projects from applying in the first place. If your system doesn’t allow this, place your eligibility questions at the beginning of your application.


Eligibility questions should be clear (most can be formatted into a yes or no question), should be stated in your Program Guidelines and should be asked right up front. Applications that do not meet the eligibility requirements should not proceed in the assessment process.


Once you have narrowed the field to include only eligible applications, you need to rate and rank those applications. The people, tools, weighting and criteria used will determine the heart of your assessment process.


The Assessment Panel


Your assessment process should be proportional to the size of grants you are awarding. This principle should apply to:


If you are assessing grants for a small program, it’s okay to have a small panel. In fact, data from SmartyGrants indicates that over 40% of applications are reviewed by single assessors. However, when you’re dealing with grants valued at thousand, or hundreds of thousands of dollars, a panel (three to five members works well) will ensure that differing perspectives are given due consideration.


Who Should Be on Your Assessment Panel?


Your assessment panel may include trustees, members of your staff, representatives from other organisations that share your mission or volunteers from the community. Strive for a diverse panel that includes the necessary expertise. Consider including members of the target population (low-income people, people with disabilities, etc.), as they will have a unique perspective that is crucial to the success of the project.


In recruiting members of your assessment panel, it’s most important to ensure that no one has a real or perceived conflict of interest. You can supply perspective panel members with a list of the applicants and ask them to declare any conflicts (and recuse themselves) as soon as your application round closes.


When Should Assessment Begin?


As soon as possible! Use the time when your grant round is open to prepare for your assessment process. A significant number of grantseekers (37% in the latest AIGM Grants In Australia Survey) continue to feel that the delay between the time they submit an application and the time they hear about the result is unacceptable. Setting clear eligibility criteria, recruiting a the assessment panel ahead of time and preparing the assessment tool before hand will help to keep this step of the process compact.


How Should It Work?

You have several options in how you run your assessment panel. If you have the capacity, you may want to conduct your process electronically- easily done in SmartyGrants for example, allowing assessors to individually complete an assessment form for each application. Or you may feel that it’s important for your assessors to meet face to face and discuss their opinions on the various applications. Both ways have their advantages and you may find it best to use a combination. SmartyGrants allows you to set assessment forms as “shared” or “private”, meaning you can determine whether or not assessors are able to view each other’s responses.

Either way, you’ll need to ensure that your assessors are adequately trained. This means that they have an understanding of the programs goals, know how to access/use the system (SmartyGrants provides a Help Guide for Assessors), and most importantly, that they understand how to use the assessment tool you’re providing them.


The Assessment Tool

Your assessment tool should measure against specific criteria that were laid out in your Program Guidelines and developed to align with the outcomes you will look for in evaluating the success of your program. Consider what success would look like, research best practices that are proven to lead to those outcomes and integrate those practices into your assessment criteria.


Criteria may consider:


In creating your assessment form, follow the rules of survey writing. Use neutral language, avoiding loaded or leading words. Place your questions in a logical order, starting broad and then becoming more specific. Make sure each question asks only one thing and that your questions are clearly worded. Finally, it is recommended that you use a numeric scale for rating each criterion.


Numeric scales are useful because they are precise. It’s clear that 7.6 is larger than 7.2 which is larger than 7.1. However, even with a numeric scales there is a risk that not everyone on your panel will use them same way. Consider a scale that goes from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best possible score. Does that mean that 10 is the answer you’re looking for, 1 is unacceptable and 5 is half-way in between? Can you truly be sure that the interval between each number represents the same thing to each assessor? For numeric scales to truly be more accurate than ordinal scales (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, etc.) the numbers in the scale need to have a fixed relation to one another such that an application that scored a 10 on a specific criterion can be assumed to be 10 times better on this criterion than an application that scored 1. (Refer to page 61 of the Australia National Audit Office publication Implementing Better Practice Grants Administration for an excellent explanation of this principle.) This is something that will need to be clearly explained to assessors.


Finally, you will need to assign appropriate weight, and perhaps a minimum required score to each of your criteria. There is little case for funding a project that scores high on addressing the program goals and being needed in the community if none of the assessors believe the applicant has the capacity to carry out the project. Thus, some questions will be more heavily weighted than others in determining the applications overall score, and some questions may be deal breakers.




(Example from the Australian National Audit Office, Implementing Better Practice Grants Administration)


In a perfect world, creating an accurate assessment tool will make it easier to choose between an array of great applications. But what if the applications that come in are not what the funding body was hoping for and score unacceptably low on key criteria? The fact that you can objectively rank your applications does not oblige you to fund them. Baring any legal obligations, it may be better to reserve some funding for an upcoming round and focus your efforts on soliciting better applicants in the future.




The final step should be fairly straightforward. The authorised body, having received a detailed report rating each application and noting any comments or concerns, can simply go down the list and approve the projects until the funding runs out.


There may be cases when the authorised body chooses not to follow the recommendations, but a rigorous rating and ranking process, combined with thorough documentation will make this less likely. The more defined your strategic direction, the clearer the approval process will be, leaving less opportunity for ad hoc decision making.


If you would like assistance in refining your assessment process or developing an assessment tool, please contact me at Kate@katecaldecott.com.au or 0447 227 598.


See how your grant program stacks up. Together we'll review your grant program, how SmartyGrants can benefit your organisation, and how your program is performing.



Learn the 7 steps to build a stronger and better program evaluation. In this special Guide Kate Caldecott takes you step-by-step through the process to ensure that your Program Evaluation hits the mark.



  • Kate Caldecott worked with me on Australia Post’s Our Neighbourhood Community Grants program. She assisted with the grant process design and SmartyGrants grant management implementation.

    In working with Kate, I would describe her as being: passionate, knowledgeable, dedicated to community with a willingness to going the extra mile, above and beyond. It is always a pleasure to work with Kate.

    - Erin McKenzie, Community Events and Partnerships Advisor, Community Relations Australia Post
  • This is the perfect opportunity for me to thank you, in particular, ….. for the outstanding customer service you have all provided. You have not only helped us use SG effectively, but kept the panic at bay. There is lots more to learn about what SG can do and I’m sure we will be in regular contact …….

    Thanks to you all – you are fabulous!

    - Debra Slater-Lee, Programs Manager State NRM Office (WA)
  • Being a complete newbie on all aspects of Smartygrants I was daunted by the task of being completely responsible for the outcome of a major grant funding round at the Shire. I did the training and it still did not make much sense to me until I had my first session with Kate. The way in which Kate was able to clarify, explain and help me understand the rationale and functions of the system was brilliant, her manner always patient and professional, and her willingness to transfer knowledge and information commendable. Thanks to Kate I am now a confident user of Smartygrants

    - Marilyn A Gippsland VIC
  • Kate’s involvement in the final stages of the major review of two of Sunshine Coast Council’s funding programs added significant value to our work. As well as identifying additional sources of information for analysis, and suggesting enhancements to data presentation, Kate provided a professional critique of the review, validating our analysis of the review findings and the options identified in our report to Council.

    - Margaret Cattanach Team Leader Community Connections Community Services Sunshine Coast Council