Program Integrity

Would Your Program’s Decisions
Hold Up?

Reviewr is the end-to-end platform for everything after submit — scholarships, grants, awards and sponsorship requests, from application to decision to outcome. Judging done the right way, impact you can measure, and every decision defensible to your board, your donors and your applicants.

Free · Four Minutes · No Account Needed

Where does your program sit?
Find out in twelve questions.

Twelve questions about how your program handles everything after submit — who reads what, how it’s scored, whether a decision can be explained, and how impact can be measured.
12
questions, each with three answers written so you pick the one that sounds like you
4 min
to complete, answered by the person who runs the program — no account, no prep
0–100
integrity score, five pillar sub-scores, your stage, and the two fixes to start with
Take the Program Integrity Check

A Great Application Is Where It Starts.
Everything After Submit Is Where It Breaks.

The work (and your programs integrity) starts when someone hits Submit — and in the conversations we have with program administrators every week, three problems come up more than any other.
schedule

Everything after submit is manual.

Export, check eligibility by hand, build packets, chase reviewers, tally scores in Excel, notify, then chase paperwork. Administrators describe it as a quarter of their year, most of it in a three-week crunch — and because the whole process lives in one person’s head, it stops the day that person is out, promoted or gone.
balance

Judging is done on instinct, not a standard.

No shared rubric, or one that lives on a separate sheet. Some judges score harder than others and nobody can see it, so the outcome reflects which reviewer an applicant drew. Conflicts of interest run on the honor system. And when a declined applicant, a donor or a board member asks why this person was awarded, the rationale is in someone’s memory — not in the record.
insights

Nobody can prove the program was worth it.

After the awards are made, acceptance, enrollment proof, grantee reports and thank-yous get chased from one inbox — if they get chased at all. So donor stewardship rests on anecdote, and when a board or a CFO asks what the program achieved, there is no impact data and no ROI story. Programs that can’t show their impact are the first ones questioned.
The Five Pillars

Five Things You Can
Measure. One Score.

Program integrity breaks into five things you can measure, in the order the work happens: get in, know the rules, be judged fairly, have the decision stand up, close the loop. Each comes with the question your board, a donor or an applicant will eventually ask.
login
01 · Fair Access
Can the right applicants find the program, do only eligible, complete files reach your committee, and is applying proportionate to what’s at stake? Two applicants for two awards is an access problem. So is a scholarship that fell from forty applications to ten because the form was paper. Board question: how many of the right people never applied, and how many of the wrong ones got through?
checklist
02 · Transparent Criteria
Are the criteria written down, weighted, and visible before applications open — or is the rubric on a separate sheet, or in nobody’s hands at all? If two staff would describe the criteria differently, applicants are guessing and reviewers are grading with vibes. Board question: if two of our people described our selection criteria, would they say the same thing?
balance
03 · Impartial Review
Do reviewers score against the same standard, is the spread between them measured, and are conflicts of interest prevented rather than trusted? Some judges scoring harder than others is normal; not knowing it happened is the problem — especially when the reviewers are volunteers and board members who know the applicants. Board question: when two reviewers score the same application four points apart, what happens next?
verified_user
04 · Defensible Decisions
Can any decision from the last twelve months be reconstructed — who scored what, against which criteria, and what was said in the room? The standard is simple: if anyone asks, here’s everything. The test isn’t whether you’d win the argument; it’s how long it takes you to have it. Board question: a declined applicant or an auditor asks for the full record. How long until we have it?
autorenew
05 · Closing the Loop
Do declined applicants get a reason tied to the published criteria, and does the program learn from its own outcomes? A decline with no reason teaches nobody anything, and a program with no outcome data can’t prove to a board or a donor that it was worth running. Board question: what did last cycle actually change about this one — and can we show the impact?
Built for Integrity

One Platform From Submission to Decision —
and Every Pillar in Between

Reviewr is not a form tool with a scoring plug-in. Application, review, decision and outcome live in one record — no exports, no packets, no spreadsheet tabulation — which is what makes a program both efficient and defensible end to end, and why one subscription covers every program you run: scholarships, grants, awards, fellowships, competitions and sponsorship requests.
01 · Fair Access

Knockout questions and eligibility matching so the committee only sees eligible, complete submissions. Applications tiered to the size of the award. Save-and-return and automatic reminders so more of the right applicants finish. References requested, chased and tracked on the applicant’s behalf.

02 · Transparent Criteria

Weighted rubrics built once and shown split-screen beside the entry — application on one side, scorecard on the other — with the same criteria and weights the applicant saw before the deadline.

03 · Impartial Review

Blind review with identifying fields hidden. Random distribution to a set number of reviewers, with caps, so nobody reads everything. Enforced conflict-of-interest declarations. A scorer-tendency report that shows which judges score hard or easy, so outcomes reflect merit, not which reviewer you drew.

04 · Defensible Decisions

Every score, comment and status change in one record with a full audit trail, on a SOC 2 Type II platform where you own and can export all of your data. When a board member, a donor or an applicant asks how a decision was made, the answer is minutes away — from one place, without calling anyone who was in the room.

05 · Closing the Loop

Criteria-linked feedback to every applicant, not only the ones who ask. Then the post-selection work — acceptance, proof of enrollment, grantee reports, thank-yous — in the same record as the application, with reporting by program, category and cycle, so you can show your board and your donors what the program actually achieved.

One Subscription, Every Program

Scholarships, awards, grants, fellowships, competitions and donation requests under one roof — unlimited programs, users, reviewers and applicants, so the cost doesn’t move as the program grows.

Every Decision Should Hold Up.
Reviewr Makes Sure It Does.

Everything after submit — efficient, fair, and measurable, with nothing living in one person’s head. See how Reviewr runs a program from submission to decision, or take the check first and bring your score to the call.