Erasmus+ final report: how to write it and what assessors look for

The Erasmus+ final report is the last significant deliverable of your project — and one of the most important. Get it right and you secure your balance payment, close your grant agreement cleanly and build credibility for future applications. Get it wrong — or submit it late — and your grant can be reduced, you may be required to repay pre-financing already received, and your organisation’s track record with the National Agency suffers.

Most project coordinators treat the final report as an administrative formality — something to complete quickly after the project ends. The assessors reviewing it do not treat it that way. This guide explains what the final report contains, how it is assessed, what the three conditions that trigger grant reduction actually mean in practice, and how to write each section in a way that protects your full payment.

What the final report is — and why it matters financially

The Erasmus+ final report is the formal document through which your organisation accounts to the National Agency (or EACEA) for how the project was implemented. It is the basis on which the final payment — the balance — is calculated and released.

For most KA1 and KA2 actions, the payment structure works as follows: the National Agency pays a pre-financing amount — typically 80% of the approved grant — when your grant agreement enters into force. The remaining 20% is held until the final report is received, assessed and approved. The final payment is issued within 60 calendar days of receipt of the final report.

For some actions, the NA pays 100% of the grant as pre-financing upfront. In these cases, the final report is still required — but instead of triggering a balance payment, it is the basis on which the NA assesses whether any part of the pre-financing already paid must be repaid.

Understanding these three conditions is the most important financial literacy point for any Erasmus+ coordinator. They define exactly what the assessor is looking for in your final report — and what you must demonstrate to protect your full payment.

Condition A: activities implemented as planned

For lump sum actions (KA210 and KA220), the grant is not based on costs incurred — it is based on whether the activities and outputs described in your approved application were delivered. This is the fundamental difference between lump sum funding and cost reimbursement: you do not submit receipts, but you must demonstrate delivery.

The assessor reviewing your final report checks: did the activities described in your grant agreement actually happen? Were the outputs produced? Were they of the scope and type described?

What “implemented differently than planned” means in practice

Minor deviations from the original plan — a transnational meeting held online rather than in person due to unforeseen circumstances, a slight delay in one work package, a minor change to the format of a planned output — are normal and generally acceptable, provided they were communicated to the National Agency and documented.

Significant deviations that were not approved by the NA in advance are a different matter. If your approved application described 3 transnational meetings and you organised 1, your grant may be reduced proportionally. If you planned to develop a training curriculum and instead produced an informational leaflet, the assessor may determine that the approved activity was not delivered.

The practical implication: Any significant deviation from your approved grant agreement should be communicated to your National Agency in advance — not disclosed for the first time in the final report. NAs have a process for approving project amendments during implementation. Use it. An amendment approved by the NA cannot later be used as grounds for grant reduction.

Condition B: unit costs correctly applied (KA1 and unit cost actions)

For KA1 mobility actions (KA122, KA152, KA153 and others), the grant is calculated from unit costs — travel grants and individual support rates per participant per day. The final report for these actions requires you to account for actual participants, actual travel distances and actual activity durations.

If the actual number of participants was lower than planned, or if activities were shorter than planned, the final grant is recalculated based on actuals and the difference is either not paid (if still owed) or recovered (if pre-financing was already paid). This is not a penalty — it is how unit cost grants work. The final payment accurately reflects what was delivered.

What this means for your reporting: For each mobility activity, you must record: participant names, sending and hosting organisations, actual travel distances (from the EC Distance Calculator), actual activity dates and duration, and Europass Mobility or Youthpass documentation as applicable. All of this must be entered into the Beneficiary Module (for NA-managed actions) or the equivalent EACEA system.

Condition C: quality of activities and outputs

This is the condition that most coordinators do not anticipate. Even if all activities were implemented and all outputs were produced, the assessor assesses whether they were of sufficient quality. For lump sum actions particularly, this is a significant lever — a project can implement all planned activities and still face grant reduction if the outputs are deemed to be of poor quality or insufficient scope.

In practice, quality assessors look for:

• Outputs that match the description in the approved application — in scope, format and depth
• Evidence that activities genuinely involved the target participants — attendance records, participant lists, photos, feedback forms
• Outputs that are accessible and usable — not draft documents, internal working papers or materials clearly not suitable for external use
• Consistency between what the final report claims was produced and what can actually be found on the project website or dissemination channels

The most reliable protection against quality-based reduction is to write the final report narrative in a way that demonstrates quality — not just lists outputs and activities, but explains how each output was developed, validated, reviewed and made available. Evidence is everything.

What the final report contains

The final report is submitted through the Beneficiary Module (for NA-managed KA1 and KA2 actions) or the EU Funding and Tenders Portal (for EACEA-managed actions). The report is structured differently by action type — but most KA2 final reports include the following components:

1. Project summary and context

A brief narrative summary of the project: what it set out to do, who the target groups were, and what the overall context of implementation was. This is not an application narrative — it is an executive summary written for someone who may not have read your original application. Keep it concise and factual.

2. Activities implemented

A structured account of all project activities: what was implemented, when, where, who participated and what each activity produced. For each activity, the assessor checks this against your approved application to verify delivery. This section should be written activity by activity, following the work plan structure of your original application.

For transnational meetings: include dates, location, participating organisations, agenda summary and outputs from each meeting. For output development activities: describe the development process, who contributed, how the output was reviewed and validated, and in what format it was finalised.

3. Outputs and results

A dedicated section for each approved output: what was produced, where it can be accessed (URL or attached file), how it was validated, and who the intended users are. For KA220 projects, outputs should be published on the Erasmus+ Results Platform (EPRP) before or alongside the final report — the assessor will check whether outputs claimed in the report are actually publicly accessible.

4. Impact and follow-up

A description of the project’s actual impact on participants, partner organisations and (where applicable) the wider community. This section is assessed against the Impact criterion commitments made in your application — assessors check whether the outcomes described in the report are consistent with what was promised. Vague impact claims (“the project had a positive effect on participants”) score poorly here. Specific, evidenced impact statements — with data from participant surveys, feedback forms or follow-up assessments — score well.

5. Dissemination activities

A list of all dissemination activities carried out during and at the end of the project. This must include: EPALE or European Youth Portal publications (where applicable), social media and website publications, presentations at events, and any other channels used to share results. Include dates, platforms and approximate reach where available.

6. Evaluation of the project

A narrative evaluation of whether the project achieved its objectives — based on the evaluation framework described in your application. If you included measurable indicators in your application, report against each one. If actual outcomes differed from planned outcomes, explain why and what you learned.

7. Financial overview (for unit cost actions)

For KA1 mobility actions: a complete participant mobility table showing actual dates, distances and unit cost calculations for each participant. For lump sum KA2 actions, a financial section is not required — you declare that activities and outputs were delivered, not that specific costs were incurred.

What assessors actually evaluate

The assessor reviewing your final report is essentially checking five things:

1. Completeness — is every approved activity accounted for? Every output claimed accessible?
2. Consistency — does the report match the approved application? Do claimed outputs actually exist at the URLs or formats described?
3. Evidence — is delivery demonstrated, not just claimed? Are there participant lists, photos, output files, dissemination evidence?
4. Quality — are the outputs of the scope and quality described in the application?
5. Impact narrative — is there evidence of actual impact on participants and organisations, consistent with the application’s commitments?

The most common assessor flags are:

• An activity claimed as implemented with no supporting evidence (no participant list, no agenda, no photos)
• An output described in the report that cannot be found publicly — the URL does not work, the EPALE publication does not exist, the file is missing
• A participant number claimed in the report that does not match the mobility table entries
• An impact section that makes the same general claims as the application with no actual evidence of delivery
• Dissemination claimed that cannot be verified — publications that do not exist, events that cannot be confirmed

How to write each section for maximum assessor confidence

Activities section: the before, during and after structure

The most effective activities sections describe each activity in three phases: preparation (what was done to set up the activity), implementation (what happened during the activity, with evidence), and follow-up (what the activity produced and how it connects to the next project phase).

This structure naturally provides the evidence an assessor needs — preparation shows it was planned, implementation shows it happened, follow-up shows it contributed to the project’s objectives.

Outputs section: links, files and validation evidence

Every output must be publicly accessible and referenced with a working URL or attached file in the final report. Before submitting, test every URL. Check that EPALE publications are live. Verify that the project website contains the outputs described. A broken link or missing file on a claimed output is a red flag for assessors.

For each output, include: a brief description of what it is, the development process (how many revision rounds, who validated it, what feedback was incorporated), the final format and length/scope, where it can be accessed, and who the primary users are. If the output was translated into multiple languages, note this — it demonstrates additional dissemination investment.

Impact section: evidence not aspiration

Write the impact section with evidence. If you collected participant satisfaction surveys, cite the results. If you conducted pre/post competence assessments, report the findings. If you tracked how many organisations outside the consortium have accessed your outputs, include that figure. If participating staff members implemented new practices in their work, describe specific examples — one or two case studies are more convincing than general statements about impact.

Compare your actual outcomes against the indicators you committed to in your application. If you achieved them, say so with evidence. If you fell short of a target, acknowledge it and explain why — assessors respond better to honest, reflective reporting than to inflated claims that do not withstand scrutiny.

Common mistakes in Erasmus+ final reports

Submitting after the grant agreement deadline. The final report deadline is specified in your grant agreement — not in the Programme Guide. It is not the same for every project. Late submission can trigger reductions under Condition A (activities not implemented as per the agreement). Check your grant agreement for the exact deadline and submit at least 2 weeks before it.

Claiming outputs that are not publicly accessible. If your final report references a training manual published on your project website and that URL returns a 404 error, the assessor will note the discrepancy. Before submitting, verify that every output referenced is live, accessible and in the format described.

Not reporting against your application’s indicators. If your application committed to specific measurable indicators — 30 practitioners trained, 3 outputs produced, 80% satisfaction rate — and your final report does not reference these indicators and report against them, assessors will note the gap. Write a short evaluation subsection that explicitly addresses each indicator.

Treating the impact section as a copy of the application’s impact plan. Many coordinators paste the impact section from their approved application into the final report with minor edits. Assessors who read both will identify this immediately. The final report impact section should be retrospective — describing what actually happened, not what was planned.

Not informing the NA of significant deviations before the final report. If activities were significantly changed — a planned physical meeting shifted entirely online, a key output replaced by a different format, a partner withdrew — these should have been communicated to the NA during implementation through the project amendment process. Disclosing them for the first time in the final report puts the coordinator in a much weaker position for defending the grant amount.

Missing Europass Mobility or Youthpass documentation for KA1 actions. For KA1 mobility actions, issuing Europass Mobility (for VET learner mobility) and Youthpass (for youth actions) is a grant condition, not optional. Final reports that show mobility activities without corresponding documentation raise flags.

The final report timeline: planning backwards from your deadline

The final report deadline is in your grant agreement. Most KA2 projects have a final report deadline 60–90 days after the official project end date. The sequence to plan backwards from:

• Project end date — all activities must be completed by this date
• Output finalisation — all outputs must be published and accessible before the final report is submitted (not after)
• EPALE/EPRP publication — for KA220 projects, results must be published on the Erasmus+ Results Platform; this should be done before submitting the final report so that URLs can be included
• Internal review — allow at least 2 weeks for partner review of the final report draft before submission
• Grant agreement deadline — the hard deadline in your agreement; submit at least 10 working days before this date

Frequently asked questions

Do I need to submit receipts with my KA210 or KA220 final report?

No. KA210 and KA220 are lump sum actions. The grant is not based on costs incurred — it is based on whether activities and outputs were delivered as approved. You do not submit expense receipts, invoices or financial accounts with the final report. The National Agency does have the right to request access to your accounting records if an audit is conducted, but this is separate from the final report process.

What happens if we did not deliver everything we planned?

The grant may be reduced proportionally based on what was actually delivered. If you know before the project end date that certain activities or outputs will not be delivered as planned, contact your National Agency immediately and request a project amendment. An amendment approved by the NA changes the terms of your grant agreement and prevents the undelivered element from being used as grounds for reduction at final report stage.

When will I receive the balance payment after submitting the final report?

The Programme Guide states that the final payment must be issued within 60 calendar days of receipt of the final report. In practice, the NA must first assess the report — if they request clarifications or additional information, the 60-day clock may restart. Straightforward reports with no issues typically result in payment within 6–8 weeks of submission.

How long should the final report narrative be?

There is no mandatory length — the Beneficiary Module sets field limits for each section. Aim to be comprehensive but concise: provide enough evidence for each activity and output to satisfy the three conditions (delivery, consistency, quality) without padding. A well-written final report for a KA210 project is typically 8–15 pages of narrative content across all sections.

Can the National Agency audit our project after the final report is approved?

Yes. The NA and the European Commission retain the right to audit funded projects for up to 5 years after the final payment. An approved final report and a released balance payment do not close the file permanently. Keep all project documentation — participant lists, output files, meeting records, communication with the NA, partner agreements — for at least 5 years after the project end date.

All financial provisions, payment conditions and grant reduction rules cited in this article are extracted from the official Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026 (Version 1, published 12 November 2025), pages 436–437 (payment procedures and conditions for grant reduction). The three conditions for grant reduction (a, b, c) are quoted directly from the Programme Guide. The 60-day final payment timeline is confirmed from page 437. Specific final report formats and deadlines vary by action and grant agreement — always verify with your National Agency. GrowthProjects.eu is an independent consultancy and is not affiliated with any National Agency, the European Commission or EACEA.