Independent review

A review decision points to a funding case and its source revision. The Independent Grant Reviewer records the decision, date, reason and evidence reference. Pending, Approved, Returned and Rejected are distinct outcomes. A return asks for correction while rejection records a negative decision for that revision. Keeping the revision with the decision protects the team from treating an approval of an earlier case version as approval of a changed request.

The reviewer sees the case’s community needs, attached evidence and state history alongside the pending decision. They can compare the submitted request with the selected program and the evidence available at validation. The reviewer should be a different person from the Program Officer who prepared the revision. That separation matters most when the request is urgent and the same team is under pressure to move it quickly.

• Assignment. A pending decision names the case, reviewer and source revision to be assessed.
• Evidence. The reviewer checks the need lines and attachments used to justify the requested outcome.
• Decision. Approval, return or rejection carries a date and reason that remain attached to the reviewed revision.

Agree who may serve as an Independent Grant Reviewer for each organization and program. Define the evidence needed for review, including how a verified attachment is identified. The Program Officer can prepare attachments and needs; the reviewer records the decision. Test the direct record permissions as well as the Funding Cases screen, because hiding a button alone does not protect the decision table.

Set a clear rule for a returned request. The Program Officer should revise the case and submit a successor revision; the earlier returned decision stays in history. Decide whether a rejected request can be reconsidered under a new revision or must begin as a separate case, and apply that policy consistently. The case’s current status and the decision outcome should be read together rather than treated as interchangeable fields.

Take a case that asks to fund a public gathering space. Have the Program Officer submit a revision with two community needs and a verified document. Assign an Independent Grant Reviewer who did not prepare it. The reviewer opens the pending decision, checks the program policy reference and the evidence, then returns the case with a concrete reason. After the officer corrects one need, inspect both revisions. The returned decision should still refer to the first revision; a new review must address the changed version. Repeat with an approval and check that the decision has the right reviewer and date.

• Pending review decisions — Assigned case revisions awaiting an independent decision.
• Review decision history — Approved, returned and rejected decisions with reason and date.
• Unverified attachments — Documents that need checking before the reviewer relies on them.

Read review and decision for the approval handoff and correction and follow-up for returned work.