Post-Award Management: Turning Grants into Lasting Impact
In most funding organizations, considerable effort is invested in the front end of the program development process: defining program goals, drafting the call for proposals, and conducting the review. Once the award decisions are made and the press releases are sent out, the focus often diminishes on what comes next. But this is a critical oversight. The reality is that post-award management is the crucial phase in which funded projects are implemented, progress is monitored, and accountability is maintained. Without strong systems in this stage, even the most rigorous pre-award process cannot achieve its full impact.
The grantee experience is shaped as much by the post-award phase as by the competition that preceded it. Researchers and organizations often remember not only how rigorous the review was, but also how the funder supported them during the implementation process. Clear communication, timely payments, and consistent guidance influence how grantees engage with the program and directly affect the quality of outcomes. Post-award management, therefore, plays a strategic role: it builds trust, strengthens relationships, and ensures that resources lead to meaningful impact.
This article highlights best practices for post-award management, encompassing onboarding, reporting, risk management, payments, monitoring, and continuous improvement.
Setting the Stage with Onboarding
Onboarding that follows a grant award is one of the most important stages in the grants management lifecycle. It is the stage where expectations are reinstated, responsibilities are assigned, and the foundation for accountability is established. When onboarding is reduced to distributing documents and reporting templates alone, important details can be overlooked, and delays become more likely.
A structured onboarding process eliminates ambiguity. A live session, supplemented with recordings and written reference materials, provides recipients with clear guidance that they can refer to throughout the grant period. Importantly, onboarding should extend beyond the principal investigator or project lead to include the wider team, such as the finance team managing budgets and payments, lab managers coordinating project logistics, postdocs or research staff who may contribute to the work, and any other individuals responsible for meeting grant obligations. When all relevant contributors are aligned from the start, reporting becomes smoother, financial processes run more efficiently, and avoidable bottlenecks are prevented.
To support this, onboarding materials should go beyond a high-level overview. A comprehensive package typically includes an onboarding guide that outlines the grantee’s roles and responsibilities, funding mechanism, reporting timeline, payment schedule, and key contacts, along with standardized milestones reporting templates, a budget template for consistent financial reporting, and an expense guide specifying eligible and ineligible costs. Providing these tools upfront reduces misinterpretation, saves time for both grantees and funders, and ensures consistency across the portfolio.
Policies outlined in the agreements, such as financial compliance rules, reporting standards, data management expectations, or other funder-specific requirements, should also be reinforced during the live session, so that recipients understand how they apply in practice. Onboarding is also an opportunity to establish tone. A funder who approaches this stage as a collaborative partner, rather than simply a compliance authority, signals to grantees that they will be supported in meeting obligations. This balance of accountability and partnership sets the stage for a more constructive relationship throughout the grant lifecycle.
Reporting and Progress Tracking
Reporting is the backbone of post-award management. It is the mechanism that allows funders to monitor progress, verify accountability, and capture data that demonstrates the value of their investments. For reporting to be effective, it must be structured, predictable, and supported by systems that work for both funders and grantees.
It begins with the post-award workflow, ideally configured in the Grants Management System (GMS) during program design so that, by the time grants are awarded, recipients have a clear and consistent entry point for their submissions.
The reporting workflow defines how and when reporting takes place. For grantees, this means having a clear calendar of deadlines and knowing exactly what is expected at each stage. For funders, it outlines the internal steps for reviewing submissions, providing feedback, and escalating issues when reports are late or incomplete. A well-structured workflow reduces uncertainty for all parties and ensures reporting is both timely and consistent.
When designed this way, reporting becomes more than an administrative exercise. It provides funders with reliable, consistent data and gives grantees the structure and support needed to stay on course.
Managing Risks and Adjustments
Even with careful planning, research and innovation projects often encounter unexpected challenges. Effective post-award management must therefore include mechanisms for identifying risks early and adapting to changing circumstances.
A risk register is one of the most effective tools for this purpose. By systematically tracking potential challenges such as delays, compliance concerns, or capacity gaps, funders can monitor emerging issues across their portfolio. More importantly, a structured register enables proactive intervention, giving funders the opportunity to support course corrections before problems compromise outcomes.
Scientific risks also need to be anticipated. When a go/no-go experiment results in a “no-go,” or the data are inconclusive, studies may need to pivot in design or direction. Internal policies should outline how such situations will be managed, including whether additional funding should be provided, existing funds reallocated, or whether such projects should be terminated. For projects with a definitive “no-go” outcome, clear termination policies are essential to ensure expectations are managed fairly and resources can be redirected responsibly.
In clinical studies, early-stage risks often include slower-than-expected subject recruitment or delays in regulatory approvals. In these cases, a no-cost extension may be appropriate, which may also require budget deferrals into the following year.
Equally important is having a budget reallocation process in place. In scientific research, costs and conditions can shift unexpectedly: equipment may prove more expensive than initially estimated, suppliers may cause delays or become unavailable, or global disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic may create sudden changes in timelines and expenses. A transparent and well-governed reallocation process provides grantees with a pathway to request justified adjustments, while giving funders the tools to maintain oversight and accountability.
Together, these processes transform post-award management from a reactive exercise into a proactive system that supports accountability, adaptability, and long-term success.
Payments and Financial Management
Payments are a key component of post-award management, and the efficiency of payment processes can significantly influence the grantee experience and the pace of project delivery. Whether a program operates on a disbursement model (where funds are released in advance, in tranches, or tied to milestones) or a reimbursement model (where costs are repaid after expenditure), clarity and consistency are essential.
The process should be mapped out in advance and reinforced during the onboarding phase. Recipients must understand what documentation is required, how frequently payments will be processed, and what conditions must be met for funds to be released. Standard tools such as budget templates and expense eligibility guides help minimize errors and disputes, while ensuring costs are aligned with funder policies.
For milestone-based payments, internal workflows should link financial disbursements or reimbursements directly to the review of milestone reports. This reduces risk for funders while giving grantees a clear incentive to stay on schedule. When delays occur, internal processes should define whether a no-cost extension, a budget deferral, or a revised payment schedule is the appropriate solution.
Finance teams play a central role in this stage. They must be included in onboarding, copied on key communications, and equipped with the tools to process claims or disbursement requests efficiently. Automated functions in the grants management system can support this by flagging missing documentation, issuing reminders, or confirming when payments have been approved and released. When managed this way, financial processes become predictable for grantees, transparent for funders, and a foundation for keeping projects focused on research rather than administrative obstacles.
Monitoring and Support
Monitoring is not about policing grantees or looking for faults; it is about ensuring projects stay aligned with agreed goals and providing timely support when challenges arise. Effective post-award management combines structured oversight with a partnership mindset.
Mid-cycle check-ins are a practical way to confirm that milestones are on track, ensuring reports are not delayed, and to address risks before they escalate. They also create space for open discussion about scientific progress, operational hurdles, or financial concerns that may not surface in formal reports. Direct engagement, whether through virtual calls or site visits, adds context and shows that the funder is invested in the success of the project, while also giving grantees an opportunity to share updates, ask questions, and clarify expectations. This balance of oversight and support helps projects stay on track and reassures grantees that their success is a shared priority.
Knowledge Capture and Continuous Improvement
A critical aspect of post-award management is ensuring that lessons are continuously captured and applied. Structured debriefs with the internal team and, where relevant, institutional advisors, along with written summaries of challenges and solutions, create institutional memory that strengthens future programs. Equally important is translating these insights into action. Lessons learned from one cycle should inform refinements to workflows for the next cycle. By closing this feedback loop, funders make each round of grants more efficient, transparent, and impactful.
Conclusion
Post-award management is not an administrative afterthought; it is the phase that determines whether a program delivers on its promises. Funders that prioritize structured onboarding, standardized templates, well-configured systems, and active oversight position their programs for success. In doing so, they reduce risk, safeguard compliance, and most importantly, build stronger partnerships with grantees while maximizing the real-world impact of their investments.
Are Your Post-Award Processes Set Up for Success?
Whether you’re strengthening existing post-award systems or building them from scratch, I can help you design the processes, tools, and strategies to ensure they are effective and deliver lasting results.
📩 Contact me to explore how we can work together.
About The Author
