Lay Links Giving
How giving reviews work
A giving review is a dated, scoped record of evidence and conditions. It is not a guarantee, audit opinion, or substitute for a donor's own decision.
Qualified cause review
Six separate review lenses
Each reviewer must hold the exact current capability, have capacity, declare conflicts, and assess the same immutable proposal version. Recusal and replacement preserve history. One reviewer cannot stand in for the whole panel.
Finance
Tests arithmetic, assumptions, controls, co-funding, restrictions, reporting and financial feasibility.
Legal and governance
Tests authority, governance, conflicts, lawful delivery responsibilities, partners and accountability.
Safeguarding
Tests beneficiary-data minimisation, risk controls, supervision, escalation and restricted incident boundaries.
Technical or professional
Tests intervention design, evidence, feasibility, delivery dependencies, indicators and professional limits.
Ministry and context
Tests contextual fit, ministry or social value, community participation, language and unintended effects.
Other approved capability
Adds an explicitly approved specialist lens without granting generic review authority.
Improvement before decision
Reviewers may request bounded evidence or clarification and provide actionable improvement guidance. A corrected proposal creates a new immutable submission and requires current review again.
Decision and continuing status
Approval, conditional approval where permitted, decline, withdrawal, appeal, expiry, suspension, restoration and closure remain dated events. Suspension removes the public record without exposing a protected concern.
Reports and remedies
What happens after a cause is approved
Approval starts a dated accountability obligation. It does not promise that a project will succeed or allow a report to replace its approved scope, budget, milestone, or evidence requirements.
Exact milestone and version
Every report names the exact approved cause submission, budget currency, milestone, due date, progress, use of funds, evidence, variance, risks, next steps, and accountable-owner declaration.
Independent review and correction
A currently qualified, independent reviewer checks narrative, progress, expenditure, evidence, variance, and changes. Clarification or rejection requires a new retained report version.
A deliberately limited donor update
Donor updates contain only reviewed milestone progress, aggregate uses, explained variance, suitable risks, and next steps. Private evidence, beneficiary details, protected concerns, and financial-control findings stay restricted.
Overdue work changes eligibility
An overdue report creates reminders and escalation and stops new contributions. Qualified review can suspend, investigate, or restore the cause without publishing incident details.
Failure preserves accountability
Failure and closure never erase the approved proposal, contributions, ledger, reports, corrections, protected-case reference, decisions, or remedy history.
- Step 1
Prepare the opportunity
The applicant identifies the responsible entity, purpose, requested support, budget, delivery plan, and reporting commitments.
- Step 2
Strengthen readiness
Readiness work addresses gaps in feasibility, governance, accounting, safeguarding, evidence, and reporting.
- Step 3
Complete a scoped review
Authorised reviewers record the evidence considered, limitations, conditions, risks, review date, and expiry date.
- Step 4
Publish and remain accountable
Only an approved public record can be listed. Material changes, reports, concerns, suspensions, and expiry remain visible.
What a public review record must show
Review basis
Scope, reviewer, evidence considered, evidence date, decision date, and the responsible entity.
Risks and limitations
Material risks, unresolved conditions, exclusions, and limitations stated in plain language.
Dates and reporting
Expiry date, expected reports, milestones, and the next scheduled review.
Changes and renewal
Material changes, concerns, suspensions, corrective actions, and renewed decisions retained in history.
Profile verification and giving review are different
Profile verification addresses the identity and ministry profile process within its stated scope. Giving review addresses a specific recipient, request, budget, readiness evidence, risks, and reporting commitment. Neither status automatically grants the other.