Federal grant oversight faced inconsistency before the implementation of 2 CFR 200, with many agencies and pass-through entities placing insufficient emphasis on monitoring. In response to Congressional concerns over fund mismanagement, the Uniform Grant Guidance introduced more structured monitoring practices under Subpart D of 2 CFR 200.
Key Insights
- Prior to 2 CFR 200, many awarding agencies deprioritized grant monitoring in favor of other administrative tasks.
- Congress raised concerns that the lack of oversight could result in improper use or loss of federal funds.
- The Uniform Grant Guidance, under Subpart D, established specific monitoring requirements to improve accountability and risk assessment in grant management.
This lesson is a preview from our Grants Management Certificate Program. Enroll in a course for detailed lessons, live instructor support, and project-based training.
Some monitoring overview prior to CFR 200, grant monitoring was not consistently performed by most awarding agencies or pass-through entities on grant recipients. While the need to monitor was recognized and formal procedures and other administrative duties were given higher priority, which prevented those entities from adequately assessing risk levels associated with each of their grants, Congress became concerned that funds were not being properly spent or safeguarded. This led to the enactment of the Uniform Grant Guidance, Subpart D of 2 CFR 200, which contains more detailed monitoring requirements.