Grant Risk Management: Identifying and Mitigating Potential Issues

Comprehensive risk assessment and management strategies for grant programmes, including early warning systems and mitigation approaches.

By Plinth Team

Grant Risk Management: Identifying and Mitigating Potential Issues

Effective grantmaking accepts uncertainty while reducing the likelihood and impact of foreseeable problems.

  • Be systematic: Identify risks at application, award and delivery stages.
  • Be proportionate: Match mitigations to grant size and complexity.
  • Be prepared: Agree escalation routes and variation processes in advance.

A simple risk framework

Use a simple matrix to rate likelihood and impact, then plan mitigations and monitoring. Typical risks include safeguarding weaknesses (mitigate through policy checks, a named lead and training evidence; watch for out‑of‑date policies or unrecorded incidents), financial instability (review accounts, use phased payments and check reserves; watch for late filings or reported cashflow stress), under‑delivery of outputs (set realistic targets, schedule a mid‑point check‑in and agree a variation route; watch for missed milestones or low attendance) and fraud or misuse (ensure segregation of duties, documentation and a whistleblowing channel; watch for inconsistent invoices or refusals to provide evidence).

Practical steps at each stage

  1. Application: capture key risks in the form; assess governance and finances.
  2. Award: set proportionate conditions; schedule payments and evidence.
  3. Delivery: monitor signals; act early; offer support before sanctions.
  4. Close: document lessons; refine criteria and mitigations for next time.

How Plinth helps you stay ahead

Plinth flags risks automatically from applications and reports, highlights missing or outdated policies, and keeps a clear log of mitigations and decisions. Dashboards surface portfolio risk so teams can intervene early.

See risk management in Plinth

Frequently asked questions

How do we decide what is proportionate?

Consider grant size, organisational maturity and delivery risk. Err on the side of support first, sanctions last.

What should trigger payment holds?

Missing reports, evidence of safeguarding or financial issues, or significant departure from the agreed plan – documented and approved.

Can we fund start‑ups safely?

Yes, with higher support and clearer milestones. Use smaller initial payments and more frequent check‑ins.

How do we handle suspected fraud?

Follow your policy: pause payments, investigate, record evidence, inform trustees and relevant authorities as required.

Citations and trusted sources

About the author

Prepared by the Plinth Editorial Team. Updated August 2025.

Recommended next reading