What is grant evaluation?
Grant evaluation is the assessment of funding applications against criteria the funder has published in advance. It covers eligibility screening and scoring against the criteria, followed by the moderation that settles differences between assessors. Every unsuccessful applicant has read the published criteria, which makes the standard applied a matter of public record.
Also called: Grant assessment, Grant appraisal
Why a grant decision is read by people who will apply again
An unsuccessful grant applicant is a continuing relationship, which is what separates grant evaluation from most selection processes. They have read the published criteria closely and will apply again in the next round. A funder whose stated criteria and actual scoring diverge loses credibility with exactly the community it exists to serve. Public funders carry the additional exposure of information requests on the assessment itself.
- Published criteria are a public commitment the funder has to honour in scoring.
- Applicants compare feedback between themselves, so inconsistency becomes visible quickly.
- Assessor panels are assembled per round, so consistency across rounds is fragile.
- Public funders face information requests on how an individual application was scored.
How grant evaluation works
- Eligibility is screened against stated conditions before any scoring begins.
- Each application is assessed against the published criteria with weightings fixed in advance.
- Scores are linked to the passages in the application that support them.
- Divergent assessor scores are moderated, with the resolution recorded.
- Totals are compared against the threshold set for the available funding.
- Feedback to the applicant is generated from the recorded scores rather than written afresh.
How grant evaluation is evaluated
Grant evaluation is judged on consistency between assessors and between rounds. Examine the following on completed rounds:
- agreement between assessors before moderation
- proportion of scores changed during moderation and by how much
- stability of the standard applied between consecutive rounds
- success rates across applicant types where that data is held
- share of feedback letters traceable to recorded dimension scores
Limitations, risks and common failure modes
- Assessors with subject expertise apply a stricter standard than generalists on the same panel.
- Moderation converges on the most confident assessor rather than on the criteria.
- Criteria are published in one wording and scored against an internal expansion of it.
- Feedback written separately from the scores contradicts them under scrutiny.