The lump sum grant model is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Erasmus+ programme — both by first-time applicants who assume it means they will receive a fixed amount with no strings attached, and by more experienced organisations who do not fully understand how the lump sum interacts with project delivery, evidence requirements and the final report approval process.
This guide explains exactly how the Erasmus+ lump sum works for both KA210 Small-Scale Partnerships and KA220 Cooperation Partnerships — because both actions actually use the lump sum model, not just KA210 — how to choose the right grant amount for each, what evidence you need to secure the full payment and the most common lump sum mistakes that result in reduced or withheld balance payments.
1. What Is an Erasmus+ Lump Sum Grant
A lump sum grant is a fixed, predefined amount of funding awarded to a project based on the scope and ambition of its planned activities — not based on the actual costs incurred during implementation. Unlike cost-based grants where the funder reimburses documented expenditure, a lump sum grant is paid upon demonstrated delivery. If the project delivers what it promised, the full amount is paid. If delivery falls short, the amount is reduced proportionately.
The lump sum model was introduced into Erasmus+ KA2 cooperation actions specifically to reduce the administrative burden of tracking every euro of expenditure. Under a pure cost-based model, coordinators must track every purchase and submit detailed financial accounts with the final report. Under the lump sum model, the payment itself isn’t a reimbursement calculation — but the accountability shifts to whether the activities and outputs described in the approved application were actually delivered.
This shift in accountability is the defining feature of the lump sum model and the source of most lump sum problems. Organisations that treat the reduced financial documentation as meaning there is nothing to document are the ones that encounter problems at the final report stage. The lump sum removes detailed cost-reimbursement accounting — it does not remove accountability for delivery.
💡 Lump Sum = Payment for Delivery, Not Reimbursement of Costs
The most important conceptual shift when working with a lump sum grant is to stop thinking about it as money that covers your costs — and start thinking about it as a payment you earn by delivering what you promised. The grant amount is determined at application stage based on the scope of your activities. Whether your actual costs end up higher or lower than the grant amount is largely irrelevant to the amount paid — deliver the activities and outputs, receive the grant; fall significantly short, receive less.
2. KA210’s Two Lump Sum Amounts Explained
KA210 Small-Scale Partnerships offers exactly two lump sum amounts to choose between — €30,000 or €60,000. There is no sliding scale, no six-tier ladder and no in-between options, despite what you may read elsewhere. At the application stage, you select one of these two amounts. The amount you select is the maximum grant your project can receive — there is no mechanism to increase it during implementation if activities cost more than anticipated.
| Amount | Typically Suits |
|---|---|
| €30,000 | A focused, small-scale project — 2 partners, a manageable duration, a handful of meetings (in-person and/or online), and one or two modest, well-defined outputs. This is the right choice for most first-time KA210 applicants. |
| €60,000 | A more substantial project — more partners and/or countries, a longer duration, multiple transnational meetings, several developed outputs, piloting activity and dedicated dissemination events. Only justify this amount if your activity plan genuinely requires this level of resource — evaluators explicitly check proportionality. |
Payment structure. Payment follows a pre-financing plus final payment structure — an initial payment after the grant agreement is signed, with the remainder settled once the final report is approved. The exact proportions and any instalment conditions are set out in your specific grant agreement, so don’t assume a fixed universal split. If the final report is not approved, or if delivery is judged to be significantly below what was promised, the balance may be reduced or withheld, and in cases of serious non-delivery, part of the pre-financing may be recovered.
3. KA210 vs KA220: How the Lump Sum Models Compare
Both KA210 and KA220 are lump sum grants — this is worth stressing because KA220 is often described as a completely different “unit cost” or “hybrid” model, which isn’t accurate. The real difference between the two is how many amounts you can choose from, and how much cost detail you need to work through to justify your choice.
| Feature | KA210 | KA220 |
|---|---|---|
| Available amounts | 2 fixed amounts: €30,000 or €60,000 | 3 fixed amounts: €120,000, €250,000 or €400,000 |
| How you justify your choice | Narrative justification — no detailed budget required | A detailed cost estimate (staff days × rates, travel bands, subcontracting items) that determines which tier is appropriate |
| Financial documentation | No receipts; activity evidence demonstrates delivery | Timesheets recommended for staff time; invoices needed for real-cost items (subcontracting, equipment) within the cost estimate; activity evidence still demonstrates overall delivery |
| Payment basis | Activity and output delivery demonstrated in final report, against the fixed amount awarded | Activity and output delivery demonstrated in final report, against the fixed tier awarded — not a reimbursement of the itemized cost estimate |
| Additional reporting | Typically just a final report | May include a periodic or progress report depending on your grant agreement — check your specific agreement rather than assuming |
| Administrative complexity | Lower — no line-by-line cost estimate required | Higher — building and maintaining the detailed cost estimate, work package structure and partner budget distribution takes real effort |
| Min. partners | 2 organisations, 2 countries | 3 organisations, 3 countries |
| Best suited to | First-time applicants, smaller organisations, focused outputs, limited admin capacity | Experienced organisations, systemic outputs, larger partnerships, established grant management capacity |
💡 KA220 Is Not a Bigger KA210 — But It’s Not a Different Grant Type Either
A common misconception is that KA220 works on a completely different funding mechanism from KA210. It doesn’t — both pay a fixed lump sum for demonstrated delivery. What’s genuinely different is the scale, the number of amounts to choose from, and how much cost-estimate detail is needed to justify the choice. Moving from KA210 to KA220 is still a real step up in administrative capacity and financial management sophistication — just not because the underlying grant type has changed.
4. How to Choose the Right Lump Sum Amount
Selecting the right KA210 amount is one of the most consequential decisions in the application. Too low and you cannot fund the activities you have planned. Too high and you fail the proportionality assessment — one of the specific sub-criteria evaluators check under Quality of Project Design.
Step 1 — Define your activities first. Never select an amount before defining your activity plan. Write out the activities you intend to deliver — how many transnational meetings, how many online sessions, what outputs you will produce, how many partner countries are involved and over what duration. The activity plan is the input; the amount you select is the output of this process.
Step 2 — Estimate the realistic costs of your activities. Even though you do not submit a detailed budget for KA210, make a rough cost estimate to inform your decision. Consider: travel and accommodation for transnational meetings, staff time for output development, any subcontracting needed (translation, design), and participant costs for pilot activities. This estimate does not go into the form — it informs your choice between the two amounts.
Step 3 — Choose the amount that fits, not the higher one by default. The evaluator is checking proportionality: does the scope and complexity of the described activities justify the selected amount? If your realistic cost estimate comes to roughly €28,000, select €30,000 — not €60,000. A €60,000 request for activities that could realistically be delivered for €25,000–€30,000 will raise a red flag that costs points on project design.
Step 4 — Only move up to €60,000 if your plan genuinely needs it. With only two amounts available, there’s no fine-tuning between them — you’re making a binary decision. If your realistic estimate sits closer to €45,000–€55,000, or your project genuinely involves more partners, a longer duration, or multiple substantial outputs, then €60,000 is defensible. If your estimate is meaningfully below that, stick with €30,000 rather than reaching for the higher figure “just in case.”
The proportionality test. Before finalising your selection, apply this test: could a reasonable, informed evaluator read your activity plan and agree that it justifies the selected amount? If the answer is yes — the activities are specific, credible and clearly require meaningful resources — your selection is defensible. If you are uncertain, select the lower amount. A conservative selection that is fully justified scores better than an ambitious one that raises proportionality concerns.
5. Evidence Requirements for the Lump Sum
No receipts are required for a KA210 lump sum grant — but this does not mean no evidence is required. The National Agency approves the balance payment based on its assessment of the final report, and the final report must convincingly demonstrate that the activities and outputs described in the approved application were actually delivered. The evidence you collect throughout the project is what makes that demonstration possible.
Activity evidence — what to collect for every activity. For each project activity — meetings, workshops, pilot events, dissemination events — collect the following immediately after the activity takes place: a signed attendance list with participant names and organisation affiliations, brief meeting minutes or activity summary (3–5 sentences describing what happened and what was decided or produced), any outputs produced during or as a result of the activity, and photographs where appropriate and consented.
Output evidence — what to collect for each output. For every output your project produces, retain the final published version, any draft versions that show the development process, translation documents if the output is multilingual, validation records if the output was piloted with end users, and the URL or access link for the open-access publication on the Erasmus+ Results Platform.
Partnership evidence — correspondence and agreements. Retain all significant email correspondence between partner organisations throughout the project. This correspondence demonstrates the genuine transnational cooperation that underpins the lump sum. Signed partnership agreements, meeting minutes and shared working documents are all part of this evidence base.
Retention period. All project evidence — regardless of format — must be retained for a minimum of 5 years after the project end date. The NA may conduct a monitoring visit or request evidence at any point during this period. Organise your evidence in a named, dated folder structure from the start of the project rather than trying to reconstruct it at the end.
| Evidence Type | What to Collect | When to Collect | Retain For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meeting evidence | Signed attendance list, minutes, agenda, photos | Within 48 hours of each meeting | 5 years after project end |
| Output files | Final version, drafts, translation documents, validation records | As each output is completed | 5 years after project end |
| Pilot activity evidence | Participant list, feedback forms, session materials, evaluation summary | During and immediately after the pilot | 5 years after project end |
| Dissemination evidence | Erasmus+ Results Platform publication URL, event attendance records, social media screenshots, EPALE article links | As dissemination activities occur | 5 years after project end |
| Partnership correspondence | Signed partnership agreement, significant email exchanges, shared working documents | Throughout the project | 5 years after project end |
6. Most Common Lump Sum Mistakes
Selecting the higher amount by default. The most common and most costly lump sum mistake is requesting €60,000 without a proportionate activity plan. Evaluators assess proportionality explicitly — and an application requesting €60,000 for a two-partner project with two meetings and one modest output will score below its potential on project design. Build the activity plan first, estimate realistic costs, then select the amount that fits.
Assuming no receipts means no documentation needed. The absence of a receipt requirement is not a licence to document nothing. Activity evidence — attendance lists, meeting minutes, output files — is what the NA uses to assess whether delivery occurred. Organisations that deliver excellent projects but fail to collect evidence consistently throughout implementation find themselves unable to demonstrate delivery convincingly in the final report. Collect evidence in real time — not at the reporting stage.
Treating the pre-financing as the full grant. The pre-financing payment is not the full grant — it is an advance. The remainder is released only after the final report is approved. Organisations that spend the pre-financing and then deliver fewer activities than planned may find they receive less than the full selected amount — or are asked to return part of the pre-financing. Plan your project delivery to justify the full selected amount, not just the advance.
Changing the project significantly without notifying the NA. If your project deviates significantly from the approved application — activities not delivered, outputs changed, partner withdrawn — these changes must be communicated to the NA before the final report, not disclosed for the first time within it. NAs are generally reasonable about changes communicated proactively. They are not reasonable about discovering undisclosed changes in a final report that was supposed to confirm delivery of the approved project.
Publishing outputs after submitting the final report. The NA expects outputs to be published open-access before or at the time of final report submission. Outputs described as “forthcoming” or “in progress” in the final report are treated as undelivered for the purpose of the lump sum assessment. Ensure all outputs are finalised and published before you submit the report.
Not using the lump sum flexibility to your advantage. The lump sum model has a significant advantage that many coordinators underuse: because the grant is not tied to specific line-item costs, you have real flexibility to reallocate resources between activities during implementation — as long as you deliver the activities and outputs described in the application, and any significant deviations are communicated to the NA. If one meeting costs less than anticipated, that saving can be used to strengthen an output or add a pilot activity. Use this flexibility strategically.
7. Lump Sum Checklist
- ✅ Activity plan defined before selecting the lump sum amount — not the other way around
- ✅ Realistic cost estimate made for all planned activities to inform the choice
- ✅ Amount (€30,000 or €60,000) selected proportionately — activity plan clearly justifies the amount
- ✅ Payment structure understood — full amount conditional on final report approval, not guaranteed at pre-financing stage
- ✅ Activity evidence collection plan in place from project start — not left to reporting stage
- ✅ Signed attendance list collected within 48 hours of every project activity
- ✅ Meeting minutes or activity summary written within 48 hours of every meeting
- ✅ All output files retained — final versions, drafts, translations, validation records
- ✅ All outputs published open-access on the Erasmus+ Results Platform before final report submission
- ✅ Partnership agreement signed before project activities begin
- ✅ Significant deviations from the approved plan notified to the NA proactively — not disclosed in the final report
- ✅ Final report describes what was actually delivered — consistent with the evidence collected
- ✅ All project evidence retained for minimum 5 years after project end date
💶 Need Help Planning Your KA210 or KA220 Budget?
GrowthProjects.eu supports organisations with project design, lump sum amount selection and full proposal writing — ensuring your activity plan is proportionate, credible and well-evidenced from the start.