Grantmaking Workflows: Best Practices for Efficiency
Practical ways to optimise each stage of the grant cycle for speed and fairness.
Grantmaking Workflows: Best Practices for Efficiency
Efficient workflows reduce turnaround times while improving consistency and applicant experience.
- Map the process and remove steps without value.
- Standardise criteria, forms and evidence requirements.
- Use AI to accelerate checks and draft communications.
Design the intake well
Clarity at the front door saves the most time overall.
- Plain‑English questions mapped to scoring.
- Eligibility gates and auto‑validation.
- Example answers for transparency.
Key takeaway: good intake reduces incomplete and ineligible submissions.
Run structured reviews
Reviewers should have clear roles and confident tools.
- Conflict logging and assignment rules.
- Side‑by‑side views of criteria, answers and evidence.
- AI summaries highlighting strengths, risks and gaps.
Key takeaway: Plinth keeps decisions focused and well‑documented.
Communicate consistently
Applicants deserve timely, constructive updates.
- Automated reminders and status changes.
- Drafted feedback for both approvals and declines.
- Clear next steps and conditions in agreements.
Key takeaway: consistency builds trust and reduces queries.
FAQs
How many reviewers per application?
Two is common; add a third where risk or value is higher.
Should we use scoring or ranking?
Use scoring against criteria; ranking can follow after normalisation.
Can volunteers review securely?
Yes. Plinth provides restricted access and activity logs for assurance.