Due diligence is the verification a funder carries out before awarding a grant: confirming legal status, financial health, governance, and absence of conflicts or sanctions. The depth scales with the amount and risk involved.
Recording due diligence within the application workflow ensures it is done consistently and is evidenced in the audit trail, which matters for both compliance and reputation.
Due diligence is the verification a funder carries out before awarding a grant: confirming a prospective grantee's legal status, financial health, governance and the absence of conflicts or sanctions. It checks that an organisation is legitimate and fit to receive funds.
Due diligence verifies the applicant, whether they are legitimate and suitable to fund. GDPR governs how the applicant's personal data is handled. One scrutinises the organisation; the other protects the data collected about it.
It should scale with the amount and risk involved. A small, low-risk grant needs light checks; a large or high-risk award warrants deeper verification of finances, governance and sanctions exposure. Proportionality keeps the process rigorous without being wasteful.
By recording each check within the application workflow, so due diligence is done consistently and is evidenced in the audit trail. That record matters for both compliance and reputation if a funding decision is ever questioned.
The newest terms we've added, the words teams managing grants, sponsorship, and CSR come across most often.
Pre-award is the first phase of the grant lifecycle: publishing the call, receiving applications, checking eligibility, scoring and shortlisting — everything that happens before funds are committed.
Pre-award decides a funder's selectivity. How many ineligible applications reach human reviewers, and how consistently the eligible ones are scored, is settled in this phase and cannot be repaired in the next one.
Blind review is the practice of assessing applications with identifying details withheld from reviewers — applicant name, organisation, and often location — so that scores reflect the proposal rather than its author's reputation.
Blind review reduces one kind of bias and cannot remove all of them. Writing quality, named partners and budget scale often reveal the applicant anyway, which is why funders pair it with a declared conflict-of-interest process rather than relying on it alone.
A scoring rubric is the document that defines what reviewers assess in an application, the scale they use for each criterion, and how much each criterion counts toward the total score.
The rubric is the instrument; scoring is the act of using it. Publishing it with the call lets applicants address the criteria directly, and keeping it on file lets a funder explain a decision months after it was made.
Book a 15-minute demo and we'll show you the exact setup our client uses to track 15+ regional programs.
.png)