5 Ways to Elevate Application Review and Selection Processes

5 ways to elevate application review and selection process.

As a program manager it’s easy to focus on streamlining personal operations and efficiencies, but what if we told you that you’re maybe not as important as you think you are? Sure – we want you to stay focused on high impact activities and less time and energy with spreadsheets but ultimately program mangers make up only 35% of the total participants in scholarships, grants, awards, etc. It’s time we start to structure programs and operations around providing an engaging and impactful experience for submitters, reviewers, volunteers, board members, and other key stakeholders.

In this article and recorded webinar we dive into the 5 ways to elevate the award, scholarship, grant, abstract, etc review and selection process with the mindset of creating an efficient, engaging, and non-bias review workflow.

1. Using nominations to boost volume but using applications for review.
2. Random distribution of submissions to reviewers to ensure we have a compliant, non-bias, selection.
3. Redacting of personal information to avoid any personal bias that may negatively impact the results.
4. Easy access to applicant deliverables to provide volunteers the efficient workload capacity desired.
5. Leveraging quantitative scoring and normalizing of results to identify evaluator discrepancies. 

Split the award nomination process into two

Leverage a dual process where the nominator starts the submission by inputting who they are, who they are nominating, and why and then let the nominee finish the form by answering more personal questions about themselves.

• Nominator and Nominee Information: Start by collecting basic details from the nominator and about the nominee, including names, contacts, and their relationship.
• Essays and Statements: Include prompts for nominators to explain why the nominee is deserving, focusing on specific achievements or impacts.
• Supporting Documents: Provide an option for uploading documents like recommendation letters or work samples that substantiate the nomination.
• Nominee Participation and Confirmation: Implement a system where nominees are notified to complete their part of the form, ensuring a collaborative and thorough nomination process. Confirm submissions via email to both parties.

This streamlined approach focuses on the essential elements while ensuring a comprehensive and collaborative nomination process.

Often an afterthought, yet critical to get right, is the collection of references. When an external variable such as references is added to the award nomination application and selection process we must ensure this too follows both proper protocol for data security, but also best practices.

Avoid reference letters:

• Historically references were collected in a letter format but this is now an outdated and risky method.
• Letters create a barrier for references.
  • Hard to write
  • Takes time and effort
  • Multi-step to create, write, and send back.
  • Not all references are created equal – some are better written than others, some had more time put into it, etc. Is this a fair representation of the applicant?
  • Hard to blind PII in a letter.

Leverage reference templates:

• Outline 3-5 questions that each reference should answer.
• Lowers the time and effort barrier for references.
• Creates data consistency amongst all applicants.
• Creates consistency in the review process with defined data sets.

Random distribution of submissions to reviewers

In the quest to make selection processes more equitable and effective, one often overlooked yet powerful strategy is the random assignment of applicants to review teams. This method, which involves distributing applicants randomly among different reviewers, plays a crucial role in minimizing bias, ensuring fairness, and enhancing the overall reliability of evaluations. By leveraging the power of randomness, award, grant and scholarship programs can not only foster a more transparent and balanced review process but also ensure that every applicant receives a fair shot at success.

• Fairness and Equity: Random assignment helps ensure that all applicants have an equal chance of being reviewed by different reviewers, reducing biases that might occur if certain reviewers were consistently assigned to specific applicants.

• Reviewer Bias Reduction: It minimizes the risk of systemic biases that could arise from individual reviewers’ preferences, prejudices, or backgrounds, leading to a more balanced and impartial assessment process.

• Diverse Perspectives: By mixing up the review teams, applicants are evaluated by a variety of reviewers, which can lead to a more comprehensive and diverse evaluation of each application.

• Improved Reliability: Random assignment can improve the reliability of the review process by averaging out the subjective differences between reviewers, leading to more consistent and dependable outcomes.

• Transparency: It increases the transparency of the review process by making it clear that no applicant is favored by being assigned to a particular reviewer or team.

• Workload Distribution: Randomly assigning applicants helps to evenly distribute the workload among reviewers, preventing any one reviewer from becoming overburdened and potentially reducing the quality of their assessments.

• Process Efficiency: It can streamline the logistics of the review process by simplifying the assignment mechanism, making it easier to manage and monitor.

• Workflow Example: Randomly assign submissions to review teams to ensure that every single applicant is reviewed no more, and no less, than 5 times while also ensuring that no evaluator is scoring more than 20 individually but not less than 15.