The grantmaker’s guide to grant acquittal red flags

The grant acquittal process is an essential part of the grant lifecycle, serving as an opportunity to strengthen the grantee-funder relationship, inform future grantmaking decisions and ultimately, ensure the greatest impact possible.

But, sometimes the grant acquittal process isn’t always smooth sailing. It’s possible for grantmakers to spot inconsistencies, gaps in timelines and information and more — presenting a tricky situation to navigate.

In this article, we’ll break down the most common red flags and how grantmakers can address them appropriately.

What is a grant acquittal?

While a grant acquittal definition can differ depending on the organisation, this process usually happens in the post-award phase and requires that the recipient of the grant (the grantee) reports on the outcomes of that grant.

Typically, this process includes giving the funder details on how the money was spent, the outcome of that expenditure and whether they achieved what they intended.

What is involved in grant acquittals?

While every grant acquittal process may differ depending on the organisations involved and the grant itself, they typically include details around:

Finances: A detailed breakdown of how the funds were spent with supporting documents like invoices, receipts and financial statements.

Project progress: Summaries of what programs or initiatives were carried out, including timelines, challenges and more.

Outcomes and impact: What the grant helped the organisation achieve with both qualitative (charts, graphs, etc) and quantitative evidence (testimonials, feedback survey responses, etc).

Reflection and learnings: A detailed breakdown from the grantee’s perspective about what worked and what didn’t, including lessons learned, goals for future improvement and more.

Top five red flags to look for in grant acquittals

1. Budget inconsistencies

Financial reporting is one of the most important parts of any grant acquittal process.

But sometimes, the numbers reported are inconsistent, don’t align with approved budgets, have little breakdown or context and don’t include supporting financial documentation and receipts.

2. Vague language and reporting

In order for grantmakers to accurately assess outcomes and make informed decisions about future grants, they need detailed, concrete documentation about the grant and its outcomes. But vague language and reporting can stunt that.

Sometimes, grantees get caught up using language like “the event went well” or “we reached many people” without mentioning specific outputs, locations or target populations.

3. Timeline gaps

Timelines are equally important for grantmakers to understand, including the dates when specific projects or initiatives were carried out.

Red flags can look like missing dates or condensed timelines without context.

4. Impact without evidence

Grantmakers need to ensure that their grants accomplish what they set out to do. But sometimes, grantees don’t provide enough detail and measurable outcomes about what they achieved.

This typically looks like broad impact statements (“we improved community safety”) with no evidence backing them up, little to no mention of how outcomes were measured and a lack of qualitative evidence, too (like testimonials, stories, etc.).

5. No reflection or learnings

No grant is going to be carried out perfectly — there’s always room for improvement. But when grantees don’t include reflection or learnings in their acquittal, it can suggest a lack of transparency and ultimately doesn’t take advantage of the ability to improve in the future.

This typically includes the inclusion of success only, without mention of challenges, obstacles or lessons learned.

How grantmakers can address red flags

Addressing these inconsistencies can be hard for grantmakers, especially those leaning into trust-based philanthropy for strong grantee-funder relationships.

But, there are several ways to connect with grantees about them in empathetic, mutually respectful ways:

Clarify: Give grantees the benefit of the doubt and gently explain the importance of certain information and documentation(i.e., explain exactly how it helps your organisation — and them — succeed).

Offer support: Explain to grantees how they might structure their reporting and walk them through what you need and how they can do it. This can be done through formal capacity building or not.

Check your templates: Ensure that you grant acquittal forms or templates specifically prompt grantees for the information you need (and revise them if they don’t). Plus, ensure they’re as simple as possible so grantees aren’t overburdened.

Normalise learning as part of the grant lifecycle: Tell grantees that inconsistencies and mistakes are normal. Offer an iterative approach, if needed.

Provide examples: Show grantees exactly what you’re looking for by showing them successful samples.

Streamline your grant acquittals with Good Grants

Ensuring an accurate and consistent grant acquittal is a huge part of a grantmaker’s job. But managing this manually can be overwhelming.

With Good Grants, grantmakers can handle every part of the grant lifecycle in one centralised place — from streamlining the management of awarded grants to maintaining reporting compliance and keeping funding on track.

Plus, with Good Grants, grantmakers can create an unlimited number of grant report forms to solicit programmatic, financial, KPI or other pertinent information, at any time and as often as required.