Built for Fairness: Automating What Matters in Charity Review Processes

Every funding decision made by a charity reflects trust: trust in a person, a project, or a purpose. But with growing applications, tighter regulations, and pressure to stay transparent, how can teams ensure every review is fair, consistent, and efficient? At Submit.com, we’ve worked closely with charitable organisations across Ireland to digitise what matters most: review workflows that uphold fairness without slowing your mission down.

As your applicant volume grows, maintaining fairness across every submission becomes more challenging. That is exactly where automation can help. This blog explores the core principles of fair reviewing and how the right systems can support those principles in the background, giving your team more time to focus on what matters the most - your mission.

Putting Fairness First in the Non-Profit Sector

Philanthropic organisations carry a unique responsibility. They are not just managing funds but managing trust. That means fairness in how applications are reviewed is more than a compliance issue. It becomes an ethical one.

Manual processes often introduce inconsistencies. One reviewer may interpret a criterion differently from another. Important deadlines can be missed. Biases, even unconscious ones, can slip through. Fairness begins to erode when workflows are not standardised.

With clear, transparent processes, charities can demonstrate that every applicant is treated equally, every decision is well-informed, and every outcome is traceable. Dr. Clíona Hannon, CEO of the Katharine Howard Foundation and one of our valued clients, shared how transitioning from a manual system helped bring greater clarity and structure to their review process.

“Before I joined, grant applications were mostly paper-based and emailed in. It was messy and time-consuming, and creating any meaningful reporting from that process was a real challenge.”

What 'Fair' Actually Means in a Review Process:

A fair review process is not just about being kind or well-intentioned. It involves a few key operational pillars:

• Equal access: Everyone should have the same opportunity to apply, with no barriers around format, timing, or communication.
• Consistent criteria: All reviewers should evaluate applications against shared, pre-agreed standards.
• Transparency: Every decision should be traceable, so that outcomes can be explained to stakeholders and applicants alike.

A fair process does not need to be more complex. It just needs the right structure in place.

Where Automation Helps Without Taking Over:

Automation often gets misunderstood. It is not here to remove the human element from decision-making. Instead, it is here to remove the administrative clutter that gets in the way.

Here are some of the areas where charities are already using automation to support fairer reviews:

• Scoring rubrics: Pre-set criteria ensure that all reviewers assess the same elements the same way.
   
• Reviewer assignment: Automatically distribute applications based on expertise, availability, or to avoid conflicts of interest.
   
• Reminders and deadlines: Stay on schedule without chasing people over email.
   
• Blind reviews: Withhold names and personal details to minimise unconscious bias.

These features support, rather than replace, thoughtful decision-making.

A Real-World Review Flow in Action

The Katharine Howard Foundation used Submit.com to manage their ‘Children’s Promise’ Grants Programme. In their first year, they received 172 applications, which were reviewed through a two-phase process: an expression of interest, followed by a full application stage.

When dealing with that level of volume, fairness and clarity in review do not happen by chance. They need to be built into the process from the start.

“We can look at the numbers or we can look at the outcomes, and then we can share it and discuss it with all the organisations. It's not just a numbers game. It's really about a developmental process,” explains Dr Hannon.

With Submit.com, that process became easier to manage. The platform helped the team structure their reviews, facilitate deeper conversations with applicants, and stay focused on meaningful outcomes rather than just application counts.

This is a perfect example of technology enabling better collaboration, not just better administration.

Here’s a simplified version of how a fair and automated review workflow might look:

The Human Element Still Matters — and That’s the Point

Even with automation in place, the final decisions are always made by people. The goal is not to replace human judgment. It is to clear the path for it.

“One of the questions was, will the Board of Trustees be able to use the platform because there were varying levels of technological ability. But we had very few queries where people were not able to use the platform.”

When reviewers are not burdened by formatting issues, manual tracking, or version control, they can focus more energy on what really matters: the quality and impact of each submission.

“Technology should be an enabler to greater collaboration and connectivity…not the thing that runs the show,” she said. And we couldn’t agree more.

Build a Process You Can Stand Behind

Fairness is not just a principle. It is a promise your organisation makes with every application cycle.

With the right structure in place, supported by automation, you can keep that promise consistently, across teams, across programs, and as you scale.

If you’re reviewing how your current process supports your goals, I’d be happy to walk you through what’s working for other charities and foundations using Submit.com. You can book a demo here or just drop me a message if you'd prefer a quick chat instead. Either way, I’d love to hear more about the great work you're doing.