How to explain your reviewing process to applicants

Imagine you have spent weeks working on a grant application. You click ‘Submit’ and then hear nothing. Who is reviewing the application? Against which criteria? And when will a reply arrive?

For applicants, these are real worries. For grant program managers, they are an opportunity. If you explain your review process clearly, you build trust, save yourself follow-up questions and receive stronger applications. A dedicated communication strategy for applicants is well worth the effort!

What does transparency in the review process mean?

A transparent review process means that applicants know in advance which criteria their applications will be assessed against and which requirements they need to meet to be approved. They can see the rules and the timeline, so they do not have to guess.

This does not mean you have to disclose every detail. Reviewers’ confidential opinions can (and should) stay internal. What matters is that the rules of the game are clear.

This is especially important for foundations, associations and public funders, whose funding is often vital to the applicants. Transparent processes also make rejections easier to accept.

What to tell applicants

A good explanation of your selection process answers five simple questions:

1. What are applications assessed on? Share your criteria, ideally with their weighting. For example: impact 40 percent, feasibility 30 percent, sustainability 30 percent.

2. Who reviews? Name the roles, such as the program team, external reviewers or a panel. Names are not necessary, though it depends on your program.

3. How does the review work? Describe the stages of your review cycle: completeness or eligibility check, assessment of content, the selection committee, and the decision.

4. When will the decision be made? Give a specific date or the period in which the decision will be announced. Mention any interim steps too.

5. What happens afterwards? Explain whether applicants will receive feedback and in what form.

Tip: Present your criteria as a practical checklist in the call for applications. Add guiding questions such as ‘Who does the project reach?’ or ‘Why is there a particular need for action right now and for the chosen target group?’ This way, applicants can tailor their texts to your criteria and your team has fewer queries to answer.

When and where to communicate

Transparency works best when you share information several times and in the right places.

Before applying: Publish the process in the call for applications and on the program page. A short overview or graphic helps more than a long block of text. Add a page of frequently asked questions (FAQs) with the most common queries.

On submission: Send a confirmation of receipt. It should state the next step and the expected date. This gives applicants reassurance.

During the review: Long silences create unease. A short status update is enough, for example: ‘Your application is currently in content review. The decision will be announced by the end of November.’

After the decision: Inform all applicants at the same time and respectfully. It is a sign of fairness.

With Good Grants, you can set up such messages as templates and send them automatically at the right moment. This saves your team time and ensures everyone receives the same information.

Why feedback makes the difference

Our data at Good Grants shows that only 10 percent of grant programs give applicants feedback after the assessment. Most unsuccessful applicants are simply told that their application was not selected, without knowing why.

Yet feedback can be a valuable measure. It makes decisions easier to understand and strengthens fairness and transparency in the funding process. Because so few grant programs give feedback, those that do can stand out positively and strengthen their relationship with applicants. Even two or three specific sentences can make a difference: What was convincing? Where were there gaps? Standardised feedback on the individual assessment criteria is helpful too.

With the assessment features in Good Grants, reviewers can record their evaluations in a structured way. The program team can then turn these into clear feedback for applicants with little extra effort.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Too much jargon. Terms such as ‘scoring’ or ‘peer review’ are familiar to your team, but applicants do not always know them. Explain your terminology briefly or choose simpler words.

Promises you cannot keep. Only give dates that are realistic. An honest delay notice is better than silence.

Criteria that change during the process. This undermines trust. Set your criteria before the start and stick to them. If you would also like to know how to make your assessment criteria fair and easy to follow, read our guide to creating an equitable grant review process.

Unclear responsibility. Provide a named contact person or a central email address.

Your next step: Start small

You do not have to change everything at once. Begin with a page that explains the process of your program in five steps. Then add your criteria and a timeline. When you are ready, try providing short feedback.

Each of these steps makes your program fairer and easier to understand. It also relieves your team, because fewer queries come in.

At Good Grants, we believe grantmaking can be simple and fair–for applicants and  the people who manage funding programs. If you would like to see how to bring communication and assessment together in one platform, request a free 14-day trial.