Reimagining Reporting, Part 2: Sharing the Vision

In a previous post, we shared what we’re learning about how funders are reimagining the reporting process, from the motivations shaping current practices to the growing adoption of alternative reporting. Building on those findings, this follow-up turns to the people helping to drive and interpret these shifts on the ground. In this interview, Blanch Vance of the Grove Foundation and Rachel Kimber of Full Circle Impact Solutions share what they’re seeing in the field, what’s working (and what isn’t), and how funders can move toward approaches that center learning, trust, and mutual accountability.

Alice Mei: We’ve discussed the findings of this project extensively, but I’d love to know: what were your initial reactions to the data?

Blanch Vance: As we reflected on CEP’s findings, we saw confirmation of what grantees, funders, and peers have been telling us in conversations across the field: reporting is shifting, but it has not yet been fully transformed. The data echoes what surfaced in our Oral and Alternative Reporting learning sessions: reporting is most powerful when it becomes a site of shared reflection, mutual accountability, and movement-centered learning. To get there, we must reduce the burden and reframe reporting as a practice of benefit. That means moving from compliance to conversation, and from extraction to equity.

And in this moment of political erosion and open attacks on nonprofits, reporting must also be understood through a lens of safety and risk. Data collected by funders can be weaponized against communities. Reporting reform is not just about reducing burden — it is also about protecting organizations from exposure, ensuring that documentation practices are careful, consent-based, and secure.

AM: What was most heartening about the findings of CEP’s survey? What surprised you the most?

BV: What heartens me is the signal that something is shifting. Two-thirds of funders in this sample are saying yes to some form of alternative reporting. That tells me grantees’ calls for dignity, trust, and movement-centered accountability are being heard, not everywhere, not fully, but enough to suggest that change is possible.

What surprised me is how rarely learning circles back to grantees or communities. Too often, reporting stops inside the funder’s walls. This adds to the burden — grantees give their time and knowledge, but see little return.

And in this political climate, that burden also carries risk: nonprofits are asked to share sensitive information without assurance of how it will be protected. When the wisdom in reports doesn’t flow back to movements, or worse, is left vulnerable to misuse, we miss the chance to turn compliance into a collective strategy. When reporting insights are shared back and aggregated responsibly, they can strengthen advocacy and systems change strategies — turning what was once a compliance exercise into fuel for collective action.

Rachel Kimber: I was struck by the gap between intention and infrastructure. Funders are experimenting with new forms, but very few are equipping themselves with the necessary tools, training, or technologies that would make these practices sustainable.

That is a reminder: shifting the format alone is not enough. Without clear documentation practices, oral reporting risks being dismissed or forgotten at the very time nonprofits most need their voices safeguarded. Strong documentation, stakeholder collaboration, and explicit feedback loops are what prevent oral reporting processes from becoming another passing experiment and instead make it a durable, movement-informed norm.

AM: Where do you see opportunities to use this data to inform funder practices?

RK: This data gives funders permission to be bolder. If most are already experimenting with OAR, the question isn’t whether to try, but how to reach critical mass and make this a best practice. That means creating menus of options that respect grantee choice while embedding strong documentation and synthesis practices. Done well, these approaches reduce burden, close feedback loops, and support responsible learning.

Documenting responsibly also means protecting nonprofits by deciding what not to collect, anonymizing sensitive data, and ensuring reporting does not increase vulnerability. In this way, reporting becomes a practice of solidarity, not surveillance. And as new tools, including AI, enter the reporting space, funders must ensure they are applied in service of learning and equity, not efficiency alone.

BV: The opportunity is to treat reporting as a site of mutual accountability and movement learning. Reporting should serve community strategies, not just funder dashboards. Oral reporting, in particular, lightens the process burden and allows nuance to surface. But to realize its benefits, funders need clear documentation guardrails: templates for consent, protocols for safe storage, and commitments to share back what’s learned. That includes protecting nonprofits from unnecessary exposure in a moment when data can be used against them.

AM: From your perspective as current and former grantmakers, what kind of support has been most helpful for transforming your reporting process, and where could you have used more support?

RK: The most helpful supports are those that build shared field infrastructure, such as the Reporting Resource Hub or grantee co-developed templates. Where support is missing is in integration: tying conversational reporting to evaluation, equity commitments, and strategy. Without that, reporting changes remains a side practice rather than a durable way to lighten the burden and center movement wisdom.

I would add: we also need infrastructure that supports safety consent frameworks, anonymization practices, and models for collective learning that don’t put nonprofits at risk.

BV: For us, the most helpful support has been peers showing us what’s possible. Hearing how others reduced grantee burden while still meeting internal needs gives us the courage to move forward. Where we saw opportunities was in bringing the entire institution along: program staff, boards, and operations teams often asked, “But how do we document this?” Having shared protocols for “good enough” documentation, coupled with guidance on what data should not be collected due to safety concerns, can accelerate adoption.

AM: What’s your vision for reporting in the future?

BV: I dream of a future where reporting is a practice of relationship, not surveillance. Where movements’ insights are treated as the compass for philanthropy’s decisions. Where funders and grantees sit together to reflect on what is shifting, what is being built, and what is needed next. And where reporting is lighter for nonprofits not only because it takes less time, but because they can trust that the data they share will not be used against them. Oral reporting, with consent and clear documentation, can anchor this shift, making reporting both lighter for grantees and richer for strategy.

RK: My vision is of reporting that is modular, equitable, and rooted in care. Modular, so each partnership designs a form that suits their needs. Equitable, so reporting strengthens grantee practice rather than taxing it. Rooted in care, so the tools we use, including AI, help us listen, spot patterns, and share learning back without replicating extraction.

And care in this moment also means safety. AI is beginning to surface in the reporting conversation, not as a replacement for human judgment but as a partner in listening, pattern-spotting, and synthesis. The question for philanthropy is not whether to use these tools, but how to do so with care and equity. Ultimately, reporting, closing the feedback loop, should feel like part of a movement’s strategy, not a funder’s compliance cycle.

As CEP’s data shows, changes in reporting won’t happen overnight, but these practices are in motion. Across the field, funders are thinking about what accountability looks like and how learning can flow in both directions, and I for one, am grateful. I will never forget being on the grantee side, where I would spend hours in deep conversation with parenting students and job training program participants about their successes and challenges only to conclude my day by breaking down that time in half-hour increments for reporting. In fact, while much less frequently, I still find myself in that position sometimes, jumping from presenting data about burdensome reporting processes to fitting my work into pre-determined checkboxes in a grant report for that very same funder.

Reimagining traditional reporting processes will require not only operational shifts, but changes in culture. With this data in hand, I invite funders to engage with nonprofits more intentionally about reporting, especially on what is possible when it’s reimagined as a practice rooted in shared learning, safety, humility, and care.

Alice Mei is a senior manager on the assessment and advisory services team at CEP.