Define the financial position
Ask finance for a dated view of the agreed budget, actual spend, known commitments and forecast position where available. Record the reporting period and any exclusions. Do not describe the bank balance as the amount available for a particular grant without the relevant finance confirmation.
If a forecast uses assumptions about future activity or costs, state those assumptions. A forecast is a view of what may happen; actual spend records a different stage of the transaction.
Describe delivery in observable terms
Use the milestones, activities or outputs relevant to the actual agreement. Record what has happened, what remains and what evidence supports the statement. A broad percentage-complete estimate can hide that a material deliverable has not started.
Where a delivery measure is estimated, identify the method and owner. Distinguish participation, activity delivered and longer-term outcomes rather than combining them into one unsupported success claim.
Explain timing and scope differences
Compare the two views at the same cut-off. Look for prepaid costs, outstanding invoices, delayed activities or commitments for later delivery. The aim is to understand the difference, not force spending and delivery percentages to match.
An apparent underspend may reflect work not yet delivered, timing differences or a change needing clarification. Confirm the cause and appropriate next step rather than treating every underspend as an automatic saving.
Turn the comparison into an action
Use a short explanation beside each significant difference. Record who will investigate, when the answer is needed and whether the issue affects the next report or a management decision. Retain the agreed version for the reporting pack.
If the question concerns eligible expenditure, restricted funds or a proposed change to the award, use the relevant finance or specialist advice and the actual funder instructions. The comparison alone does not establish permission to reallocate funding.
A worked example
Fictional illustration. These dates, amounts and requirements are examples, not a rule for every funder or a client result.
| View | Fictional position | Question to investigate |
|---|---|---|
| Finance | £20,000 actual spend and £10,000 commitments against a £50,000 budget | Which costs relate to work before the cut-off? |
| Delivery | Two of four workshops delivered; third scheduled | Is evidence for the first two complete and accessible? |
| Joint explanation | A future venue booking is committed before delivery | Record the timing difference without calling the workshop complete |
Check your working version
- The same cut-off is used in both views.
- Actual spend and commitments are distinct.
- Delivery statements have evidence.
- Assumptions and timing differences are explained.
- Any proposed funding change is referred through the correct route.
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