Winning a grant is only the start of the story. Now you have to monitor it.
Regular monitoring will help keep your project on track and foster a good working relationship with your grant program manager.
Monitoring a grant involves both financial supervision to ensure the grant is being spent on its purpose, and staff supervision to ensure performance is high and deadlines are met.
The monitoring process should begin the moment the grant is won.
Itís important that you can come to a mutual agreement on the monitoring process and timetable. If that information is not included in the guidelines or grant agreement, ask the grantmaker specifically what their monitoring and reporting expectations are.
You should also agree on how you should deal with any problems that crop up.
Once all terms are agreed upon the grantmaker may want to include them in the contract. This will make the process easy to follow and will ensure there are no unwanted surprises down the track. If they aren't included in the contract, keep a note yourself for future reference.
Some people within your organisation may take offence to the monitoring experience. Make sure your team understands that it is a normal, positive and constructive activity that can help to enhance the effects of your grant money.
Ensure they know what information will be required when, and let them know with whom, and how, any monitoring reports will be shared.
The monitoring process is completed in two forms: the monitoring of staff and the monitoring of finances. Each of these can be completed in a number of ways, including;
Continuous performance monitoring ensures the project and funding are not put in jeopardy as major performance issues can be detected before anything occurs.
If a problem is identified it should immediately be dealt with so that any impacts on the project are minimised.
If you encounter a significant issue, you may need to inform the grantmaker, especially if it will affect your organisation's ability to meet deadlines or complete the project, or has the potential to cast the grantmaker in a bad light. Most grantmakers respond positivity to honesty, and will tend to opt for a helpful rather than punitive approach.