The application and assessment phase of a grants programme gets most of the design attention — the form, the criteria, the scoring. Post-award management gets less. This is why so many funders end up with a well-run intake process and a chaotic post-award phase: grants made, conditions recorded in spreadsheets, milestone tracking in email, and reporting obligations managed from memory.
Grant reporting software addresses the post-award phase specifically — tracking what grantees are obligated to deliver, chasing outstanding reports, and recording what has actually been received. This guide explains what funders need from this functionality and how to evaluate it.
When a grant is made, the administrative work is not finished — it is just beginning. The post-award phase typically involves:
Conditions. Most grants are made subject to conditions — requirements the grantee must meet before funds are released, milestones they must achieve during the grant period, or obligations they must fulfil at close-out. These conditions need to be recorded, tracked, and marked as met (or escalated when they are not).
Milestone reporting. Grantees are typically required to submit progress reports at specified intervals. The funder needs to know which reports are due, which have been received, which are overdue, and what they contain.
Financial reporting. Grantees may be required to submit financial acquittals — evidence that grant funds were used as agreed. Tracking these against payment schedules is an accounting function as much as an administrative one.
Correspondence. Communication with grantees during the grant period — clarifications, change requests, extensions — needs to be logged against the grant record so that any reviewer can reconstruct the history.
Payment management. For grants paid in tranches, the payment schedule needs to be tracked against milestone completion. A payment should not be released before the relevant milestone has been met.
Close-out. When a grant reaches the end of its period, a close-out process documents that all obligations have been met (or records any unresolved issues). The close-out record is part of the permanent file.
Post-award management is the phase where spreadsheet-based systems most visibly break down:
Grantee obligations accumulate faster than they are tracked. With dozens or hundreds of active grants, each with different milestone schedules and reporting due dates, a spreadsheet quickly becomes unmanageable. Overdue reports get missed. Conditions that were never formally closed remain in ambiguous status.
There is no automated chasing. A spreadsheet does not send reminder emails when a report is due. Staff end up manually checking the spreadsheet and sending individual emails. As programme scale increases, this becomes unsustainable.
The correspondence trail lives in email. When a grantee requests an extension, that exchange is in someone's inbox. When that person leaves, the record is at risk. When an auditor asks for the correspondence history of a grant, reconstructing it from email threads is slow and incomplete.
Conditions lack formal status. In a spreadsheet, a condition is a row. Whether it has been met is a manual entry, with no timestamp or attribution. For an auditor or OIA reviewer, this is inadequate.
Change management is informal. When a grant is varied — different outputs, extended timeline, changed budget — tracking the approved variation and its impact on conditions requires a structured process. Spreadsheets do not support this.
A purpose-built grants management system handles post-award tracking as a core feature, not an afterthought. The key capabilities:
Conditions register. Each grant has a structured register of its conditions — the specific requirements, the deadline for each, the evidence required to close them, and the current status. Conditions can be linked to payment tranches so that funds are not released until the relevant condition is met.
Reporting obligations calendar. The system tracks all reporting due dates across all active grants. Programme managers can see, at a glance, what is due this week, what is overdue, and what has been received. Automated reminders to grantees remove the manual chasing burden.
Grantee portal for reporting. Grantees submit progress reports and financial acquittals through the same portal they used to apply. Reports arrive in the system in structured form, attached to the correct grant record, with a receipt timestamp. No email attachments to manually file.
Correspondence log. All correspondence with a grantee — sent from inside the system — is logged against the grant record automatically. The complete communication history is always available, regardless of staff turnover.
Variation management. When a grant is varied, the variation is documented in the system with the original approval, the requested change, the funder's decision, and any revised conditions. The audit trail for the variation is complete.
Payment tracking. Payment tranches are tracked against milestone completion and condition satisfaction. Payment status is visible in the grant record.
Close-out workflow. When a grant reaches the end of its period, the close-out process is managed in the system — checklist of outstanding obligations, formal close-out sign-off, archiving of the complete grant record.
When evaluating a grants management platform, the post-award features deserve as much scrutiny as the intake features. Specific questions:
Can conditions be attached to individual grants with different deadlines? A single template for all grants is not sufficient for programmes with varied conditions.
Can payment be linked to condition completion? The system should prevent a payment from being processed before the associated condition is met.
Does the system send automated reminders to grantees? Manual chasing is not scalable. Ask what triggers reminders, how they are configured, and whether they can be customised per grant.
What does the grantee portal look like? Ask to see the portal from the grantee's perspective. If it is confusing or cumbersome, grantees will not use it well, and reporting quality will suffer.
What is logged in the correspondence record? Is all correspondence with grantees logged automatically, or only some of it?
Can you produce a complete post-award history for any grant? Ask the vendor to show you a sample grant record at close-out. Everything that happened during the grant period should be visible in a single view.
Many grants management platforms invest heavily in intake — an attractive applicant portal, flexible form configuration, a clean assessment workflow — but treat post-award tracking as a secondary feature. This post-award gap is where programmes that look well-run during the funding round fall apart during the grant period.
When evaluating vendors, give post-award tracking equal weight to intake. A platform that handles applications well but does not support structured post-award management will leave you managing the harder part of the job in spreadsheets.
For funders evaluating post-award tracking capabilities, the government grants management solution page covers what Tahua provides for compliance-heavy programmes. To see how post-award tracking works in practice.
**.