An applicant emails asking if their application was received and whether their references have submitted yet. You check three different tools to piece together an answer.
Your applications come in fine. Everything after submit is the problem: packets, a rubric on a separate sheet, judges who don't finish, and a winner you can't fully explain. Reviewr puts the whole review in one place, with one link for every reviewer.
Your applications come in fine. The problem starts after submit: packets built by hand, a rubric in a Word doc, scores typed into a spreadsheet one person maintains, and a chair who spends the last week before the deadline asking people to please review these. Reviewr puts the whole review in one place.
One reviewer scores everything a 6. Another never gives below a 9. The applicant who drew the harsh reviewer loses, and the committee knows it, so they adjust by hand. That fix is honest, and it is indefensible the day a donor, a board member, or an examiner asks how the winner was chosen.
.avif)
In a small community the committee knows the families. Blind review is the right answer, and done by hand it takes hours and still misses the mascot on page four. Reviewr hides what you tell it to hide before anyone opens a file.
Most committees inherit a rubric in a Word doc and a process in someone's head. Reviewr turns that into a weighted scorecard, review phases, and reviewer groups before the first application lands, so the committee is scoring against the same standard from day one.
Reviewer time is the scarcest resource a scholarship program has. Reviewr checks eligibility and completeness before review opens, so the committee never spends an evening on an application that was never going to qualify.
A reviewer who works across two systems, the application in one place and the scoresheet in another, does not finish. Reviewr gives every reviewer one link to one screen: the application on the left, the scorecard on the right, and only the files assigned to them.
Pestering recommenders is the single thing scholarship administrators most want to stop doing. Reviewr sends the request when the applicant names the reference, reminds until it arrives, and lets references have a later deadline than the application, so review doesn't wait on a teacher's inbox.
.avif)
When everyone reads everything, volunteers burn out and the chair spends the last week sending "can you please review these" one email at a time. Reviewr distributes the load and tells you who to nudge.
The rubric on a separate sheet is where consistency dies. In Reviewr the scorecard sits beside the application, the weights are built in, and the totals compute as the committee works. No recompiling, no broken formula, no "which version is the master sheet."
A harsh judge and an easy judge on the same panel can decide a scholarship before the committee ever meets. Reviewr's scorer-tendency report shows each reviewer against their own average, so the committee sees the disparity instead of discovering it later, or quietly adding ten points by hand.
Scores are in and this is where programs stall: committees passing spreadsheets, award letters drafted one at a time, students waiting weeks. Reviewr moves the committee from the leaderboard to the decision to the notification in one place.
The committee's work ends at the decision. The administrator's doesn't. Reviewr carries acceptance, proof of enrollment, thank-yous, and renewal paperwork on the same applicant record, and keeps every cycle's history so next year's committee starts with context. Reviewr tracks these steps; it does not disburse funds or track fund balances.
Credit unions and banks. Fairness came up in 96% of the credit union conversations we've had. Blind review, randomized assignment, a recorded rubric, and an audit trail you can hand to an examiner.
Community, family, and nonprofit foundations. Dozens of named funds, each with its own criteria and committee. One student application matched to every fund they qualify for, and each fund's reviewers see only their own applicants.
Education foundations and K-12. Fifteen to seventy local scholarships, each with a donor who has opinions. Per-donor buckets, a print-and-enter fallback for the reviewer who won't log in, and renewal profiles that follow the student into college.
Colleges, universities, and alumni associations. Internal competitions, student awards, and the flagship scholarship that eats hundreds of hours. Anonymous peer review, weighted scorecards, SSO, and a process that survives the next student committee.
Associations and professional societies. Member verification at intake, per-committee access, and scorecards that keep a volunteer committee consistent from one scholarship to the next, under the foundation's branding or the society's.
Corporate, hospital, and rural organizations. Employee scholarships where eligibility depends on HR status and reviewers are busy clinicians or managers; farm bureaus and co-ops whose applications used to arrive by fax. One link, a short rubric, reminders that do the chasing.
Learn how AACOM established a modern, secure, and transparent research grant management process that aligns with their mission.
How March of Dimes runs award nominations, judging, and selection on Reviewr, and what changed for staff and volunteer reviewers.
How Army Scholarship Foundation is powering secure, scalable, and fair scholarship management with Reviewr.
A branded application they can save and finish later, with status visibility so they aren't calling your office. References are requested and reminded automatically, and the reference can have its own later deadline.
One link, the application beside the scorecard, and only the applications assigned to them, in a shuffled order. No login hunting, no downloads. Committee members who won't log in can print and enter scores.
Yes. Scholarships, awards, grants, board nominations, and calls for entry run on the same platform, each with its own rubric, phases, and committee.
Yes for form fields: names, schools, and any field you choose are hidden from reviewers, and review is by applicant ID. Structured reference prompts keep names out of letters. Redaction inside uploaded files is limited.
The scorer-tendency normalization report shows each reviewer against their own average, so the committee can see and account for it instead of adjusting scores by hand in a spreadsheet.
The form is one-third of the job. Reviewr handles everything after submit: eligibility checks, reviewer assignment, split-screen scoring, normalization, the leaderboard, notifications, and the post-decision paperwork, on one applicant record instead of across four tools.
Yes. Applications are bucketed by scholarship, fund, region, or category, and each committee's access is limited to its bucket. One student application can be matched to every fund they qualify for without the committees seeing each other's applicants.
Yes. A spreadsheet plus a folder of PDFs can be imported so this cycle's review happens in Reviewr, with intake moving over for the next cycle.
Reviewr is SOC 2 Type II, with SSO (SAML and OAuth) for sign-on, role-based access, and audit logs. You own your data and can export all of it.
The all-in-one platform for managing scholarships, grants and awards programs.
