Grant funding for various programmes - including global development, scientific advancement and crisis response - is often limited, with many initiatives relying on grants from grantors such as development banks, public authorities and philanthropic organisations. These programmes are exposed to governance and exploitation risks that grantors and implementers cannot always manage alone, highlighting the need for effective grant integrity controls and ongoing monitoring.
Our latest quarterly review shows that integrity challenges continue to affect a wide range of grant sectors. Infrastructure development, emergency and crisis response, education and skills training, research and innovation, and health systems and public health all continue to feature prominently. These challenges persist despite growing funding volumes and increasingly complex delivery models, pointing to systemic risks across grant operations.
Global funding context
The global grant‑funding landscape has grown significantly in recent years, driven by escalating climate, development and crisis response needs. Official development assistance (ODA) reached a historic peak of USD 224 billion in 2023, the highest level ever recorded. Whilst preliminary OECD reporting indicates that ODA decreased in 2024 for the first time in several years, overall volumes remain significantly higher than pre‑pandemic levels (OECD ODA). The World Bank’s IDA replenishments since 2017 have similarly increased overall financing and the share of grant-based support for fragile and conflict-affected countries. At the regional level, the EU’s 2021–2027 budget and NextGenerationEU together exceed EUR 2 trillion, the largest multi-year funding package in EU history.
Beyond supranational and multilateral actors, major non‑profit grantors continue to play an influential role. For example, the Gates Foundation disbursed over USD 7 billion in grants in 2023, illustrating the growing scale and influence of philanthropic grantmaking in the global ecosystem.
At the national level, grant spending has also risen. In the United Kingdom, approximately £153.2 billion in grants were issued in 2023/24, accounting for around 12.5% of total government expenditure and supporting local authorities, public bodies, universities, charities and businesses (UK House of Commons Library; Cabinet Office).
Together, these figures illustrate a clear message: grant‑based funding is substantial and complex across global, regional, national and philanthropic levels, creating both opportunities for impact and heightened exposure to risks of misuse.
What we are seeing: Insights from Q4 2025 to Q1 2026 monitoring
Drawing from 101 publicly reported cases of grant-related misconduct captured through our monitoring throughout Q4 2025 and Q1 2026, several important patterns stood out:
1. Misconduct continues and investigations progress slowly
70% of the cases we identified remain under investigation or in proceedings. These delays reflect the complexity of grant delivery structures, limited investigative capacity and the challenges of gathering evidence across multiple subjects and jurisdictions.
2. Americas and Europe feature strongly in public reporting
A high share of publicly reported cases continues to originate in both the Americas and Europe. This does not necessarily indicate higher levels of misconduct, but rather reflects active investigative efforts, stricter procurement regimes, higher number of grant funding programmes and higher levels of transparency in public reporting.
3. High value and emergency programmes carry the highest exposure
Both Emergency and crisis response and infrastructure development grants accounted for more than USD 2 billion in affected funds respectively, making them the highest value sectors. Emergency and crisis response grants were one of the most frequently identified sectors, highlighting the inherent risks relating to accelerated disbursement timelines and reduced upfront controls.
4. Fraud remains the dominant typology
General fraud remained the most frequently reported form of misconduct, followed by misappropriation and falsification, reflecting both the nature of grant abuse and limitations in publicly available case detail.
5. Audits and internal control mechanisms remain critical sources of detection
Audits, internal investigations and whistleblowing triggered over 60% of the cases identified across the last two quarters. Audits and internal control mechanisms remain essential to effective grant oversight, but are most effective when complemented by proactive, intelligence‑led regular monitoring that provides earlier visibility of emerging risks across the grant lifecycle.
A closer look: COVID‑19 funding risks have not gone away
Over the last two quarters, emergency and crisis response accounted for both the highest number of cases and the greatest amount affected. This concentration reflects the inherent vulnerabilities of rapid‑disbursement models, including compressed decision‑making, relaxed upfront controls and limited verification at the point of award. The COVID‑19 response remains a clear illustration of how these vulnerabilities manifest.
Although most pandemic‑era schemes have now closed, recent reviews continue to identify misconduct cases across multiple jurisdictions, especially in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, UK enforcement data shows that COVID-19 support scheme abuse remains a live issue. According to management information published by the Insolvency Service, 54 defendants in England and Wales had been convicted of Covid‑19 offences as of 31 March 2025. Convictions have risen year‑on‑year, from 6 in 2022/23 to 23 in 2023/24 and 33 in 2024/25. As these figures reflect only cases where Covid‑19 abuse was the primary offence, the true extent of enforcement activity may be higher.
This demonstrates how weaknesses introduced during periods of accelerated disbursement can persist long after programmes have ended. The cases highlight issues seen more broadly across emergency funding environments, including inflated or falsified claims, improper use of funds, inadequate eligibility checks and the misuse of rapid‑release grants by intermediary bodies.
Whilst COVID‑19 examples remain prominent within the publicly reported cases we collated, the underlying patterns are not unique to the pandemic. The same risk factors such as speed, scale and reduced controls apply across other emergency and crisis‑response grants, which were the most frequently identified category in our dataset. As grantors continue to deploy fast‑moving funding mechanisms in response to crises, these cases underline the importance of reinforcing control frameworks, strengthening early‑stage due diligence and conducting more periodic reviews to prevent long‑term integrity gaps.
What the Quarterly Insights aim to deliver
Our Quarterly Insights are designed to help grant‑making organisations see around corners. The insights bring together a structured view of emerging global misconduct trends using open‑source information, reflecting behavioural indicators, typologies and red flags that appear consistently across sectors and regions. This cross‑regional and cross‑sector approach helps grantors assess where vulnerabilities are most concentrated and supports stronger programme design, monitoring and control frameworks.
These insights align with what oversight bodies are increasingly demanding: greater transparency, stronger risk‑based monitoring and systematic documentation demonstrating that risks are being managed proactively.
Why this matters now
Several forces are reshaping grant operations. Expanding funding cycles have increased operational scale, while oversight demands now extend across delivery chains spanning NGOs, multilaterals, sub‑recipients and private contractors. Emergency funding models compress decision‑making and reduce upfront controls, whilst third‑party risks introduce additional layers of exposure, often outside the direct line of sight of the grantor. Geopolitical tensions further amplify these vulnerabilities, alongside rising public expectations around transparency and governance.
In this environment, relying on reactive remediation measures alone is not sufficient. Organisations need continuous monitoring and earlier visibility into risks as they emerge, not after they have manifested.
A proactive solution: Grant Integrity Services (GIS)
The patterns above point to a clear conclusion: grantmaking organisations need earlier visibility, rigorous thirdparty due diligence, and stronger governance architectures across the entire funding cycle.
Control Risks’ Grant Integrity Services (GIS) is a comprehensive, modular suite designed to strengthen integrity at every stage of grant operations. GIS integrates governance framework design, enhanced due diligence, forensic review and investigations, geopolitical analysis, and intelligence led monitoring to help organisations prevent and respond to integrity risks across the grant lifecycle.
To explore how GIS can support your programme, speak with our team at [email protected]
Subscribe to the Global Grant Integrity Quarterly Insights
Stay ahead of emerging risks with a concise, intelligence driven quarterly summary of global grant integrity issues. Subscribe to receive updates directly and help strengthen the integrity and impact of your programmes.
Article written by: Aiden Kwangjik Yang & Lily Jones