The people on your assessment panel are the most consequential input into your grant programme. A strong panel makes good decisions efficiently. A poorly designed one introduces bias, inconsistency, and governance risk — regardless of how well your application form and scoring rubric are designed.
Getting panel design right is worth significant upfront investment. Here's how to approach it.
The right panel size depends on your application volume and the complexity of decisions.
For small programmes (under 50 applications, grants under $50,000): Two to three assessors is usually sufficient. The volume is manageable and decisions don't typically require extensive deliberation.
For medium programmes (50–200 applications, grants $50,000–$250,000): Three to five assessors. Enough to provide check on individual judgement without making deliberation unwieldy.
For large or high-value programmes (200+ applications or grants over $250,000): Five to seven assessors, potentially with a lead assessor or panel chair who manages the process. At this scale you may also use a tiered model — a larger pool of reviewers for initial screening, a smaller panel for final deliberation.
Avoid very large panels (eight or more). They're harder to coordinate, deliberation becomes difficult to manage, and individual accountability for decisions gets diluted.
Map the expertise you need against your grant objectives and your applicant pool.
Subject matter expertise: At least one panel member should understand the field your applicants are working in. For a community health programme, someone with public health or social services experience. For an environmental fund, someone with conservation or ecology expertise. This prevents panels from inadvertently disadvantaging technically strong applications that they don't have the background to assess.
Financial literacy: At least one panel member should be comfortable assessing budgets — not just whether numbers add up, but whether the budget is realistic, whether the cost structure makes sense for the type of work proposed, and whether contingency is appropriate.
Community or sector knowledge: If your programme serves a particular community (iwi, Pacific communities, disability sector), include panel members with direct connection to that community. This matters for assessing both the credibility of the need described and the feasibility of the proposed approach.
Independent perspective: At least one panel member should be independent of both your organisation and the applicant pool — someone with assessment experience and sound judgement who doesn't come with sector preconceptions.
Most programmes use a mix of internal staff and external assessors.
Internal assessors (programme staff, managers): Understand the programme objectives well, have institutional context, and are available as needed. Risk: they may be less independent, and their involvement in programme design can create unconscious bias toward certain application types.
External assessors (sector experts, community representatives, independent practitioners): Bring diverse perspectives and genuine independence. Risk: they require more onboarding, are harder to coordinate, and may have conflicts of interest in smaller sectors where everyone knows everyone.
A common model: internal staff manage the process and participate in deliberation without scoring, while external assessors do the scoring. This preserves assessor independence while keeping internal expertise in the room.
Conflict of interest management starts at the panel selection stage, not just when scoring begins.
Before confirming panel members, run a basic conflict check:
- Does the proposed panel member have a governance role at any likely applicant organisation?
- Have they received funding from your organisation in the past two years?
- Do they have close personal or professional relationships with likely applicants?
- Do they have a financial interest in any applicant organisation?
In smaller sectors, some degree of connection between assessors and applicants is almost inevitable. The question is whether the connection is material enough to affect judgement, not whether any connection exists at all.
Build a conflict of interest declaration into your panel onboarding process — a formal document that each assessor signs before seeing any applications. Include a clear process for what happens when a conflict is declared: the assessor recuses from scoring the affected application and the conflict is documented.
Panel composition shapes outcomes in ways that are hard to measure but real. A panel drawn entirely from one demographic, sector background, or professional tradition will apply those assumptions to every application they assess.
This isn't about box-ticking. It's about the quality of your decisions. A panel with diverse sector experience, geographic background, and lived experience of the communities you serve will catch things a homogeneous panel misses.
Practically: when building your panel, actively look for perspectives you don't already have. If your last three panels have all been dominated by the same professional backgrounds, consider that a signal to broaden your search.
For panels of four or more, appoint a panel chair. Their role is process management, not content — they're not there to dominate the assessment, but to:
A good panel chair is often less valuable for their subject expertise than for their meeting management skills. The content expertise lives in the panel; the chair's job is to get it out.
Confirm panel appointments with a written agreement that covers:
This doesn't need to be a lengthy legal document. A two-page letter with these points covered is sufficient for most programmes. The act of putting it in writing — and having the assessor sign — significantly reduces the risk of problems later.
Some programmes use the same panel across multiple rounds; others rotate assessors each round.
Standing panels: Build sector knowledge and consistency across rounds. Risk of entrenchment — the same perspectives get applied every time, and assessors may develop relationships with frequent applicants.
Rotating panels: Fresh perspectives each round; reduced risk of assessor capture. More onboarding overhead; less institutional knowledge.
A hybrid works well: retain one or two experienced assessors from round to round for continuity, while rotating the rest to bring fresh perspectives. This gives you institutional memory without entrenchment.
This article is part of the complete guide: How to Evaluate 500 Grant Applications Without Burning Out Your Team.