Explore how charities can connect finance and delivery, clarify grant budget ownership and improve expenditure tracking, reconciliation and funder reporting.
Contents
Why “Making Do” Costs NonProfits More
Microsoft Copilot vs ChatGPT… Which AI Should You Be Using?
A grant award brings the possibility of reaching more people, protecting a service or developing support that communities need.
It also creates a set of responsibilities that will follow the funding through every stage of delivery.
Someone needs to own the budget. Staff need to know which costs belong against it. Changes need reviewing, expenditure needs reconciling, and reports need supporting evidence.
Those responsibilities rarely sit within one team.
Fundraising might have developed the application. Finance holds the accounting records. Programme managers organise delivery, while colleagues elsewhere collect evidence of progress.
Each team understands part of the picture. The difficulty comes when those parts no longer agree.
A service manager’s spreadsheet shows money available, but finance knows that outstanding commitments will absorb it. A shared salary cost appears against the wrong project. A funder requests an explanation that nobody owns.
These problems can begin well before a reporting deadline exposes them.
For charity finance leaders, the challenge is keeping financial control connected to the decisions people make throughout delivery. That requires shared understanding, clear responsibilities and information that helps colleagues act while there is still time.
An approved application describes what a charity intends to achieve. The award agreement establishes the terms under which funding is provided.
Neither though, will automatically give everyone the practical information they need to manage delivery.
A programme manager might understand the activities promised without knowing whether certain support costs are covered. Finance might receive the award value and payment schedule without seeing reporting requirements or correspondence about eligible expenditure.
The first operational challenge is translating the agreement into something people can use.
Before spending begins, the relevant colleagues should review the award together.
That discussion should establish the delivery period, approved budget, spending conditions, reporting dates and evidence requirements. It should also identify assumptions that need checking.
Perhaps the application assumed recruitment would take six weeks. Perhaps delivery depends on a partner whose agreement remains unsigned.
Those details affect the financial plan, even when they first appear to concern service delivery.
A short, shared grant summary can help. It should point back to the approved agreement and correspondence, with a named person responsible for keeping it current.
The purpose is to give colleagues a reliable starting point without requiring them to interpret the entire application history.
Award terms will always vary.
Some allow flexibility between budget headings; others require approval before particular changes.
Where wording is unclear, someone needs to own the question and record the answer.
Verbal reassurance can become difficult to rely on months later, particularly when staff change. Written clarification gives finance and delivery a common basis for decisions.
That matters especially when discussing restricted funds. The Charity Commission’s guidance for England and Wales requires charities to manage and account for these according to their restrictions. Operationally, colleagues need to understand what those restrictions mean for the spending they approve.
Giving someone a budget doesn’t necessarily give them control over it.
A programme manager might be accountable for expenditure while having little visibility of payroll allocations, procurement commitments or central recharges. Equally, finance may record those costs without knowing that delivery plans have changed.
Both teams can work carefully and still reach different conclusions.
Useful budget ownership connects responsibility, authority and access to information.
The budget holder should understand which decisions they can make independently and which require further approval.
That includes authorising expenditure, proposing changes, updating forecasts and escalating concerns. Responsibility for contacting the funder also needs to be clear.
One person might oversee the grant relationship while another owns day-to-day delivery. Finance might advise on affordability without holding authority to change the programme.
These arrangements can work well when everyone understands them.
Difficulties arise when “finance is managing it” means something different to each person involved.
For smaller charities, several responsibilities may sit with the same colleague. Even then, recording them helps clarify approval boundaries and cover during absence.
A report showing actual expenditure answers an important question: what ‘s been recorded so far?
Budget holders also need to know what the charity has already committed to spend.
Imagine a project with a £100,000 budget and £60,000 of recorded expenditure. The apparent balance is £40,000.
However, agreed supplier work and remaining staff costs might account for another £30,000. Only £10,000 remains before considering further delivery needs.
Without that context, a manager could make a reasonable-looking decision based on incomplete information.
Actual costs, outstanding commitments and forecast remaining expenditure should therefore be considered together. Their treatment needs explaining clearly so colleagues avoid counting the same cost twice.
Some costs belong cleanly to one grant. Others though, might support several programmes, services or funding streams.
A staff member might divide their time between projects. Premises, transport and administrative support may serve several activities.
Allocating these costs requires decisions about how the charity’s work is organised and what each award permits.
Where costs are shared, the allocation method should have a reasonable basis, be documented and meet relevant funding conditions.
Depending on the circumstances, that basis might involve recorded staff time, use of space or another appropriate measure.
The method should also reflect the activity it’s intended to represent. An allocation based on an outdated working pattern will gradually become detached from delivery.
It also helps to distinguish the charity’s internal view of project costs from what a particular funder will reimburse.
A service might incur legitimate costs that an award does not cover. Those costs still need funding somewhere.
If teams discover that gap during final reporting, their options may be limited. Recognising it earlier supports more realistic decisions about the charity’s own contribution.
Finance can’t always determine the purpose of an invoice from its description.
“Room hire” might relate to a funded workshop, a volunteer event or an internal meeting. The colleague arranging it usually knows which.
Capturing the project, activity and funding source when expenditure is requested makes later allocation easier. Clear guidance helps people select the right codes without becoming accounting specialists.
There’s a balance to find here though. Too little detail leaves finance guessing; excessive coding requirements create work without necessarily improving decisions.
Start with the information needed to manage the award and explain expenditure. Add further detail where it serves a clear purpose.
Financial reconciliation checks that records agree and differences are investigated but grant management also needs a regular comparison between those records and what’s happening operationally.
A balanced ledger can’t explain why a planned activity hasn’t taken place.
Likewise, a programme update might describe successful delivery without revealing invoices that have yet to arrive.
Bringing these perspectives together helps charities understand their position before preparing a funder report.
An underspend might reflect efficiency. But it could also indicate recruitment delays, reduced participation or a service that started later than planned.
An overspend might arise from incorrect coding, an unexpected price increase or a deliberate change in delivery.
The response depends on the explanation.
Finance can identify the variance and check the records. Delivery colleagues can explain what happened and what remains achievable.
Together, they can decide whether to correct an allocation, revise a forecast, adjust activity or seek funder approval.
That discussion should lead to an action, an owner and a date. Otherwise, the same unexplained difference may return in the next reporting cycle.
The review schedule should suit the grant’s scale, complexity and risk.
A short project approaching its end might need closer attention than a stable programme with predictable expenditure.
Whatever the frequency, colleagues need a shared reporting date and an understanding of what the figures include. Pending invoices, payroll adjustments and unresolved allocations should be visible.
The Charity Commission recommends regular financial monitoring and information that explains significant differences against budget. For grant teams, that information becomes more useful when colleagues review its delivery implications together.
Charity services respond to changing circumstances.
Demand shifts, staff leave, suppliers become unavailable and people need support in unexpected ways.
A grant management process should accommodate that reality.
The question is whether colleagues can recognise a potential exception and get a timely decision.
A manager facing an urgent delivery problem needs to know who to contact and what information to provide.
For example, a venue cancellation might create additional costs and affect the delivery timetable. The implications could cross several responsibilities at once.
A clear route for escalation helps colleagues explain the proposed change, its cost and its effect on agreed activity.
It should also distinguish internal approval from any approval required by the funder. Permission to incur expenditure internally does not automatically amend an award’s terms.
Where funder consent is needed, that should be obtained before acting wherever the circumstances and agreement require it.
Important decisions can disappear into individual inboxes.
Months later, the person preparing a report might find the revised expenditure but no explanation of who approved it.
A shared record should capture the issue, decision, approver, supporting correspondence and effect on the budget or delivery plan.
The level of documentation should also be proportionate. A minor coding correction and a substantial programme change don’t need identical treatment.
Both, however, need enough context for someone else to understand what happened.
That continuity becomes especially valuable during staff absence, handovers and changes in the funder relationship.
Reporting becomes difficult when it’s the first occasion on which finance, delivery and fundraising compare their records.
By then, differences can be expensive to resolve. Staff may have moved on, evidence may be incomplete, and deadlines might restrict the opportunity for clarification.
Agreeing reporting responsibilities at the start changes the work required at the end.
One colleague should coordinate the submission, but they shouldn’t have to create every part of it.
Finance can prepare and reconcile expenditure figures. Programme colleagues can explain delivery, changes and progress against agreed measures. The funder relationship owner can check the response against the award requirements.
Someone also needs authority to approve the completed submission.
In a small charity, the same person might cover several stages. What matters is that preparation, checking and approval are understood, with proportionate oversight.
Set internal deadlines early enough to investigate questions before the funder’s submission date.
Expenditure figures and delivery evidence should tell a coherent story.
If activity changed, the report should explain the financial effect. If spending was lower than expected, colleagues should understand whether delivery was delayed, achieved differently or reduced.
Spending the agreed amount does not, by itself, demonstrate the intended outcome. Equally, positive feedback doesn’t explain whether expenditure met funding conditions.
Reports might also differ from the charity’s routine management accounts. A funder might require different cost categories, reporting periods or a particular treatment of expenditure.
Those differences need a documented explanation and reconciliation where appropriate.
The aim is to submit figures that can be traced and a narrative that colleagues can support.
Separate systems and spreadsheets can make these challenges harder.
Finance might hold expenditure in one place, programme staff maintain forecasts elsewhere, and grant correspondence sits within fundraising records.
Someone then has to reconcile the versions manually.
A more connected approach reduces that work and helps colleagues access relevant information sooner. However, the process still depends on agreed ownership, meaningful coding and timely updates.
Before reviewing technology, ask what each person needs to know.
Can a budget holder see remaining commitments? Can finance identify missing allocations? Can the reporting owner find approved changes and supporting evidence?
These questions provide a more useful starting point than a long list of desired features.
Platforms such as Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central may form part of the answer, alongside grant and delivery systems. Their suitability depends on the charity’s requirements, configuration and any additional capabilities needed.
The priority is helping people work from consistent information, with permissions and controls suited to their responsibilities.
Improving grant management doesn’t have to begin with an organisation-wide programme.
Choose one active award and trace how information moves from the agreement to the next report.
Check whether the approved budget is easy to find. Ask the budget holder what remains available to commit. Follow a shared cost back to its allocation basis.
Then examine a recent change. Is its approval recorded, and do finance and delivery understand its effect in the same way?
These checks often reveal where responsibility becomes unclear or information arrives too late.
The next step might then be a better handover, clearer guidance, a shared review or a change to how commitments are recorded.
A successful grant award gives a charity the resources to act. Keeping finance and delivery connected helps colleagues protect that opportunity throughout the work.
By the time the funder report is due, they should already understand what was spent, what changed and what the funding helped achieve.
Written By:
What Does ‘Doing More With Less’ Mean in The Real World?
Agentic AI Is Already Here… But Are You Ready?
Ready For More?
Every organisation’s technology journey is different. Whether you’re planning a Microsoft Dynamics 365 implementation, upgrading Business Central, modernising your IT infrastructure, moving to Azure, exploring Microsoft Copilot or looking to make better use of your data, we’d love to discuss your goals and how we can help.
Tel: 01432 345191
A quick call might be all you need. If it makes more sense to meet in person, we’re happy to visit you anywhere across the UK.
