Learn more: 2026 Annual Grants Training

Share:

You’re Still On the Hook: Three Takeaways for Strengthening Subrecipient Oversight

Megan Mesko
Sikich

Subrecipient partnerships are essential to advancing research and delivering impactful programs, but they also introduce risk. As emphasized in NGMA’s May 2026 webinar, You’re Still on the Hook: The Real Costs of Weak Subaward Oversight, federal oversight expectations are clear: While recipients may delegate work, they cannot delegate responsibility.

Drawing on federal regulations, audit findings, and real-world examples of why oversight falls short, the presentation provided practical strategies for organizations to help protect their funding, reputation, and program success.

Three takeaways from the presentation:

  1. Accountability Always Stays with the Prime Recipient

The most important concept in subrecipient management is also the simplest: Ultimate accountability remains with the prime recipient.

Even when a subrecipient is responsible for carrying out a portion of the award, the prime recipient retains full responsibility for all financial and programmatic outcomes. When compliance issues arise—whether due to unsupported costs, mismanagement, or failure to meet program goals—it is the prime recipient that must respond, resolve the issue, and potentially repay disallowed costs.

This dynamic fundamentally shapes how oversight should be approached. Subrecipient monitoring is not simply a compliance exercise. It is a risk management function designed to protect the institution, its funding, and its reputation.

  1. Weak Oversight Has Real Financial and Programmatic Consequences

Subrecipient oversight failures are not theoretical; they are consistently identified in audit findings across federal programs. Recent audit reports issued by federal oversight bodies highlight common breakdowns, including failure to conduct risk assessments, inadequate review of subrecipient audit reports, and insufficient monitoring practices, and included findings with:

  • Unallowable and unsupported costs resulting in substantial questioned costs
  • Inaccurate classification of subawards versus contracts, leading to missed compliance requirements
  • Inadequate monitoring that undermines program performance and accountability

Weak oversight can also result in missed program goals, reduced transparency, and increased scrutiny from funding agencies—ultimately putting future funding at risk.

  1. Effective Oversight Requires a Proactive, Risk-Based Approach

Strong subrecipient oversight does not happen by accident. It requires intentional, documented, and risk-based processes across the lifecycle of the subaward.

Effective practices begin before the subaward is issued, with meaningful due diligence that evaluates a subrecipient’s financial systems, internal controls, and past audit results. Importantly, this process should go beyond collecting information to verifying that key controls actually exist and function as expected.

Once a subaward is established, oversight should include:

  • Tailored terms and reporting requirements aligned to identified risk
  • Ongoing monitoring of financial and programmatic performance
  • Regular review of audit results and follow-up on any findings
  • Clear documentation of monitoring activities and corrective actions

Critically, effective oversight is not one-size-fits-all. Federal guidance emphasizes the importance of adjusting monitoring activities based on the level of risk presented by each subrecipient. High-risk subrecipients require more intensive oversight, while lower-risk partners may warrant a lighter approach—but in all cases, monitoring must be purposeful and documented.

Final Thought

Subrecipient partnerships are critical to delivering federal programs, but they require thoughtful oversight to manage the risks they introduce. By understanding the accountability framework, recognizing the real consequences of weak oversight, and implementing proactive, risk-based practices, organizations can better safeguard federal funds and strengthen program outcomes.

At the end of the day, regardless of how experienced your partners may be or how strong your relationships are, one principle remains constant: You’re still on the hook.

 

Missed the live presentation? This and all other recorded webinars are available in Grants Management Academy, NGMA’s education portal. (Member login required)

See more

Takeaways On Proposed Updates to the Uniform Guidance

By: Tiffany W. Kesslar, Esq., CGMS, The Bruman Group and Philip A. Escoriaza, Feldesman LLP

Finish Strong: SLFRF Closeout, Early Close and Audit Confidence

By: Nicole Ward and Benjamin Shay