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 KA210 Small-Scale Partnerships — the action where lump sum logic is most directly relevant — how it differs from the KA220 hybrid budget model, how to choose the right grant amount, 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 on smaller, less-experienced organisations. Under a cost-based model, coordinators must track every euro, collect receipts for every purchase and submit detailed financial accounts with the final report. Under the lump sum model, none of that is required — but the accountability shifts entirely 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 absence of receipts as meaning there is nothing to document are the ones that encounter problems at the final report stage. The lump sum removes financial documentation requirements — 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 irrelevant — the grant is not adjusted based on actual expenditure. Deliver the activities and outputs — receive the grant. Fall significantly short — receive less.
2. KA210 Lump Sum Tiers Explained
KA210 Small-Scale Partnerships uses a tiered lump sum structure. At the application stage, you select one grant tier from a predefined set. The tier 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.
The standard KA210 lump sum tiers run from €10,000 to €60,000. The exact tier increments are published in the Programme Guide for each call year and may vary slightly by sector. As a general reference for 2026, the standard tiers are:
| Tier | Grant Amount | Typically Suits |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | €10,000 | 2 partners, 12 months, 1–2 online meetings, 1 modest output (e.g. a short guide or toolkit draft) |
| Tier 2 | €20,000 | 2 partners, 12–18 months, 1 transnational meeting + online sessions, 1–2 outputs |
| Tier 3 | €30,000 | 2–3 partners, 18 months, 2 transnational meetings, needs analysis + 1–2 developed outputs + pilot activity |
| Tier 4 | €40,000 | 2–4 partners, 18–24 months, 2–3 transnational meetings, research + multiple outputs + pilot + dissemination event |
| Tier 5 | €50,000 | 3–4 partners, 24 months, 3 transnational meetings, full research + multiple developed outputs + piloting + 2 dissemination events |
| Tier 6 | €60,000 | 3–4 partners, 24 months, 3+ transnational meetings, comprehensive outputs with validated multilingual resources, multiple pilot activities and dissemination events across partner countries |
Always verify the exact tier amounts and increments in the Programme Guide for the specific call year you are applying to — the tiers above are standard reference points but may be adjusted in any given call.
Payment structure. The KA210 grant is paid in two tranches. A pre-financing payment — typically 80% of the selected tier — is made at project start, following grant agreement signature. The remaining 20% is paid after the National Agency approves the final report. 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 Budget Models Compare
KA210 uses a lump sum model. KA220 uses a hybrid model — predominantly unit costs for staff, travel and individual support, with real costs for subcontracting and equipment. Understanding the differences between the two models is essential for organisations deciding which action to apply for and for those who have applied for KA210 in the past and are considering moving to KA220.
| Feature | KA210 — Lump Sum | KA220 — Unit + Real Costs |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum grant | €60,000 | €400,000 |
| Budget construction | Select one tier from predefined amounts — no line-by-line budget | Built line by line — staff days × rates, travel bands, subcontracting items |
| Financial reporting | No financial receipts required | Timesheets required for staff; receipts required for real cost items |
| Payment basis | Activity and output delivery demonstrated in final report | Units actually used × rates + real costs actually incurred |
| Interim report | Not required | Required at project midpoint (as specified in grant agreement) |
| Underspend risk | None — actual costs are irrelevant to grant amount | Grant reduced if fewer units used than budgeted |
| Non-delivery risk | High — grant proportionately reduced if activities/outputs not delivered | Lower — grant reflects actual units used even if some activities do not happen |
| Administrative complexity | Low — no cost tracking, no financial reporting | High — timesheets, receipts, unit calculations, financial reconciliation |
| 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 — It Is a Different Model Entirely
A common misconception is that KA220 is simply a larger version of KA210 with more money and more partners. In reality, the two actions have fundamentally different budget models, different documentation requirements, different accountability mechanisms and different evaluation expectations. Moving from KA210 to KA220 is not a natural step up — it requires a significant increase in administrative capacity and financial management sophistication. Build the track record and systems with KA210 first.
4. How to Choose the Right Lump Sum Amount
Selecting the right KA210 lump sum tier 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 a tier 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 tier is the output of the selection 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 tier selection. Consider: travel and accommodation for transnational meetings (using the KA220 unit cost rates as a reference), 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 tier choice.
Step 3 — Select the tier that fits, not the highest available. Match your cost estimate to the nearest tier. If your estimated costs come to approximately €28,000, select Tier 3 (€30,000) — not Tier 6 (€60,000). The evaluator is checking proportionality: does the scope and complexity of the described activities justify the selected amount? A €60,000 request for activities that could realistically be delivered for €25,000 will raise a red flag that costs points on project design.
Step 4 — Build in a modest buffer — but not an excessive one. It is reasonable to select the tier one level above your cost estimate to allow for contingencies — unexpected travel costs, additional translation needs, or a pilot activity that takes more effort than planned. Selecting one tier above your estimate (e.g. Tier 4 at €40,000 when your estimate is €28,000) is reasonable. Selecting three tiers above (€60,000 when your estimate is €28,000) is not.
The proportionality test. Before finalising your tier selection, apply this proportionality 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 tier. A slightly conservative selection that is fully justified scores better than an ambitious selection 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, multiplier 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 intellectual 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 | EPRP 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 maximum tier 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 tier 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 80% pre-financing payment is not the full grant — it is an advance. The remaining 20% 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 tier — or are asked to return part of the pre-financing. Plan your project delivery to justify the full selected tier, not just the 80%.
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 intellectual outputs to be published open-access on the Erasmus+ Results Platform 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 costs, you can reallocate resources between activities freely during implementation without NA approval — as long as you deliver the activities and outputs described in the application. If one meeting costs less than anticipated, that saving can be used to strengthen an output or add a pilot activity. This flexibility is one of the key benefits of the lump sum model — use it strategically.
7. Lump Sum Checklist
- ✅ Activity plan defined before selecting the lump sum tier — not the other way around
- ✅ Realistic cost estimate made for all planned activities to inform tier selection
- ✅ Tier selected proportionately — activity plan clearly justifies the selected amount
- ✅ Tier verified against the current Programme Guide for the specific call year
- ✅ 80% pre-financing noted — full grant payment conditional on final report approval
- ✅ 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 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 Budget and Lump Sum?
GrowthProjects.eu supports organisations with KA210 project design, lump sum tier selection and full proposal writing — ensuring your activity plan is proportionate, credible and well-evidenced from the start. Over 32 funded projects across 18 European countries.
✅ Check Your Organisation’s Erasmus+ Eligibility
Free eligibility checker — takes 2 minutes, no sign-up required.
