Agree the question before comparing numbers
Choose one grant and one reporting period. State whether the discussion concerns recorded expenditure, committed expenditure, forecast completion cost or available cash. These measures answer different questions and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Bring the award budget, current finance schedule, delivery milestones and evidence index. Record their dates. A current narrative compared with last month’s financial schedule can create a false impression of agreement or disagreement.
Reconcile a small set of differences
Ask finance to explain the basis of the expenditure schedule and ask delivery to identify work completed, work outstanding and commitments known to the team. List differences individually, with their cause and the person who can resolve them.
A purchase order may represent a commitment without being a posted cost. A reported output may still lack the evidence needed for the narrative. These are different exceptions; do not resolve both by changing a single percentage-complete figure.
Separate decisions from explanations
Some differences need only a timing explanation. Others need a correction, an approval or a question to the funder. Record the next action, owner and due date for each. Keep unresolved matters visible in the management briefing rather than burying them in meeting notes.
Where the issue concerns accounting treatment, cost eligibility or interpretation of a funding condition, route it to the appropriate authorised person or specialist. An operational review should not invent an answer to make the schedule balance.
Keep the agreed position reproducible
Save the dated schedules used in the review and a short record of the decisions. The next reviewer should be able to see which period and assumptions produced the position. Give the report owner a concise summary that can be carried into the funder narrative.
Repeat the review at an interval suitable for the grant. Start with an achievable routine and test whether actions close between meetings. More meetings do not help if the same unexplained differences recur.
A worked example
Fictional illustration. These dates, amounts and requirements are examples, not a rule for every funder or a client result.
| Difference | Possible explanation to check | Owner | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery forecast includes £5,000 not in actual spend | Supplier order may be committed but not invoiced | Finance lead | Check the order and record actuals and commitments separately |
| Narrative says a milestone is complete | Evidence index has no approved output record | Delivery lead | Locate or complete the required evidence before sign-off |
Check your working version
- Finance and delivery use the same reporting period.
- Actuals, commitments and forecasts are labelled separately.
- Each difference has an owner and action.
- The report owner can trace the agreed position to dated sources.
- Specialist questions are referred rather than assumed away.
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