The National Lottery Charities Board is committed to delivering fair and equitable services. That commitment imposes a duty on us to record our processes and to ensure that they are fair, reasonable and complete. The next stage of this quality assurance process is to develop procedures to ensure that required standards are being met consistently.

This manual records the processes that you carry out to assess applications for grants. Quality assurance imposes various checks to review that all staff are applying these procedures consistently and fairly, and this chapter includes steps built into the application process for quality assurance.

All of our grant-making procedures must meet standards set down and approved by internal and external auditors. All of our work is subject to random scrutiny as a check against fraud and collusion, and the procedures outlined in this and other manuals are designed to minimise such possibilities.

But quality assurance is about more than testing staff . it is also concerned with encouraging co-operative working practice between staff, especially through discussion, review and the sharing of ideas and experience.

5.1 Peer review

Peer review is the name given to the process whereby grants staff review work carried out by their colleagues. When you review a colleague. s work, you will be expected to check that their work reaches the following defined standards:

• Facts are reported accurately, objectively and thoroughly.
• All process steps have been completed satisfactorily.
• Judgement has been exercised fairly, and has been recorded clearly and in a well-reasoned manner.

Although much of the impetus for peer review arises from audit requirements, you should not see it as a "test" or "investigation". For example, you may find that your colleague has interpreted a particular area of policy rather differently from the way that you would. This will give you (and your team) an opportunity to identify and discuss areas of inconsistency. It doesn. t necessarily mean that one member of staff is "getting it wrong": it might mean that there is a need for training or refinement of policy and guidance on a particular topic.

That said, peer review may lead you to reconsider some of the decisions that you have made at various stages of the assessment process and to change decisions, scores or recommendations.

Process steps

Step 1

AMI will generate a random sample of applications from those that have passed first assessment and of those that have completed full assessment. One member of staff (normally a grants assistant or equivalent) will allocate these applications to the team.

Applications for you to review will appear on your worklist as "Peer review pending". Your manager should also have nominated a date for completion of the task.

Step 2

Obtain the relevant file and arrange a time to meet the staff member who assessed the application. This should take place in step 5.

Step 3

Read through the assessment record, the application form and supporting documents. You should develop a feel for the project and organisation, and an understanding of the recommendation made by your colleague.

Step 4

Review the assessment by considering the following questions:

For first assessment 1. Is the assessment record complete and accurate? Check: recommended amounts and the "Money is for" field coding the declaration of interest and the assessment record for signatures and dates that data . especially names and addresses . has been entered correctly. 2. Is the interpretation of policy accurate and consistent with the team? Do you agree with how your colleague has interpreted Board policy? Have they provided clear explanations of their interpretations, including evidence from the application? 3. Is there a clear argument to support the recommendation? Does the assessment summary refer you to information that explains why the application has been recommended for rejection? Is this line of argument logical and fair? Has the correct reject reason been used? 4. Have all the necessary steps been completed?

Step 5

• Discuss any comments you have with your colleague. Agree any action points and the timescale for completion.
• List the points that need action on the peer review pro forma and in the "Internal notes" field on AMI. Do not complete the assessment record or the pro forma until the action has been completed.

If you disagree with your colleague you should discuss the matter with another member of your team. If you are still unable to resolve any issues, consult your manager and record their decision on the peer review pro forma. You should then pass the application for upward review as described in section 3.6 or 4.8.

Remember: You should note any difficult areas of policy interpretation for discussion across the whole team in order to ensure consistency. You should only record your informal discussions if they are directly relevant to your decisions about the peer review.

Step 6

If you are now satisfied that the assessment meets the standards mentioned at the beginning of this section, you should record the result on AMI.

• Make any amendments to scoring, recommendation or coding that you have agreed during peer review.
• Update the "Internal notes" field on AMI to explain any amendments.
• Ensure that the Assessment Summary notes mention whether your review has recommended changes or not.
• AMI will automatically print out a review report if you have made any changes. You should sign and date it.

Management responsibilities in peer review

1. Monitor progress.

AMI will be able to give you more information about the progress of peer review. Refer to the AMI manual for further information about this.

2. Carry out an upward review of peer review changes.

You will have to review any changes made to scoring or recommendations during peer review and endorse or reject the action on AMI. You should follow the procedures described in section 3.6 (for first assessment) or 4.8 (for full assessment). You should also record your action on the relevant peer review report and sign and date it.

This process will help to identify training needs and so to maintain consistency across the team. You might also consider the type and frequency of changes made as part of your more general review of consistency that will take place during overview assessment (see chapter 6).

3. Resolve differences

You should:

• mediate between staff when they cannot agree
• identify and organise staff development and training . and/or team discussion . on any areas of difficulty that emerge
• monitor and chase the progress or the entire process.

Contents - Introduction - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - Appendix: 1 - 2