Use a stable starting structure
Start with a grant identifier and separate areas for the agreement, obligations, financial schedules, delivery evidence, reports and decisions. Keep names understandable to a new colleague. Avoid structures that depend on knowing who originally saved each file.
The exact folder names are a local choice. What matters is that the index tells a reviewer which record supports each requirement and which version is current. Do not move source records in ways that break existing access or retention arrangements.
Name files for retrieval
Use a consistent convention that includes the grant or project identifier, record type, relevant period and version where needed. For example, ‘GrantA_Q2_DeliverySummary_v03’ communicates more than ‘final report new latest’.
Distinguish a draft, an approved version and the copy submitted. Keep the submission receipt beside the submitted report. If a file changes after approval, make the new status clear rather than silently replacing the approved record.
Create an evidence index
The index should map an obligation or reporting claim to a file location, owner and review status. Add a short description where a file name alone is not enough. Test a few links using the access level of the intended reviewer.
A broken link or access-denied message is an operating gap even if the file exists elsewhere. Name a person to restore the appropriate access or reference and record the action in the exceptions log.
Preserve a reporting snapshot
At submission, retain a dated index of the records used and the report actually sent. Follow the organisation’s document management and retention rules. A reproducible reporting snapshot is more useful than a continuously changing folder with no record of what the reviewer saw.
Keep personal or sensitive information in the approved location with appropriate access. The general grant index can point to a controlled source without making that source available to everyone who can see the grant folder.
A worked example
Fictional illustration. These dates, amounts and requirements are examples, not a rule for every funder or a client result.
| Fictional folder | Contents | Control to check |
|---|---|---|
| 01 Agreement | Award agreement and approved variations | Current version identified |
| 02 Working controls | Obligations register and evidence index | Named owner and refresh date |
| 03 Reporting | Drafts, approvals, submitted report and receipt | Submitted copy distinguished from later drafts |
| 04 Decisions | Clarifications, approvals and open exceptions | Decision source linked to affected requirement |
Check your working version
- A deputy can find the current agreement.
- File names identify purpose and period.
- The evidence index maps to the reporting requirements.
- Access is tested with the intended reviewer.
- The submitted report and supporting snapshot can be reproduced.
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