Write an issue that can be acted on
Describe the specific gap, affected grant and reporting or delivery consequence. ‘Reporting risk’ is too broad. ‘The December output total cannot yet be reconciled to the source records’ gives the owner something to investigate.
Separate the fact, the possible effect and the proposed response. Label an unconfirmed concern as unconfirmed. Avoid presenting a suspicion, forecast or proposed solution as an established finding.
Assign ownership and escalation
Name one action owner and a target date. Identify who can make any required decision and when an unresolved issue must be escalated. Set dates around the next material milestone rather than using the same end-of-month date for every item.
An escalation route should identify a person or role with authority to act. ‘Raise with management’ leaves the team unsure who receives the issue or what decision is being requested.
Review exceptions alongside the grant position
Use the log in the finance and delivery review. Check what changed since the previous review, whether actions were completed and whether the issue now affects the report, budget or approval route. Keep overdue items visible.
A short log of current issues is more useful than a long list that nobody closes. Retain the history, but distinguish open items from those closed with evidence. Closing a meeting action does not automatically close the underlying exception.
Close with a reason and source
Record what resolved the issue, who accepted the resolution and the supporting record. Where a proposed change requires external agreement, keep the issue open until the required confirmation is available.
If a matter involves suspected wrongdoing, a regulatory question or a disputed contractual condition, route it through the organisation’s appropriate process and specialist advice. A routine operational log is not an investigation or legal determination.
A worked example
Fictional illustration. These dates, amounts and requirements are examples, not a rule for every funder or a client result.
| Issue | Owner and target | Escalation | Closure evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fictional Grant A: output evidence missing for December | Delivery lead, 17 January | Report owner if unresolved by draft review | Approved output summary linked to the evidence index |
| Fictional Grant B: forecast not reconciled | Finance lead, next joint review | Accountable senior lead for any decision required | Dated agreed forecast and explanation of differences |
Check your working version
- The gap is specific and factually described.
- One owner and next action are clear.
- The action date relates to the reporting or delivery need.
- Escalation identifies the decision and recipient.
- Closed items have supporting evidence.
Use the free branded workbook (.xlsx) to record your own case. The workbook includes Obligations, Evidence and Exceptions tabs.
Sources and scope
The steps and example above are suggested operating practices. Confirm the actual requirements against your award agreement and current programme instructions. They are not a compliance opinion.
- Charity Commission: internal financial controls (CC8). General context for charities in England and Wales; different jurisdictions and organisations need the relevant guidance.
- National Lottery Community Fund: managing your funding. An example of funder-specific guidance, not a universal rule.
Published for Antony Draper Advisory with AI-assisted drafting. Examples are fictional and have not been presented as client evidence.
Choose a practical next step.
Use the free plan yourself, or talk to Antony about the grant that needs attention. The free call ends with one agreed priority, a suggested owner and the next action.
Get my free grant control plan