Democracy Fund (2024)
“Authoritarian attacks on philanthropy are coming. Our actions now will determine whether we stand as true partners—or silent bystanders.”
Across the country, nonprofits, public charities, NGOs, especially those defending democracy, racial justice, and civil rights, are under siege.
What once seemed like isolated political attacks are now crystallizing into systemic threats. The Trump-backed reconciliation bill would give the executive branch sweeping authority to dismantle nonprofits under the vague pretext of “fighting terrorism” (Stanford Law). The Guardian has documented the rising authoritarian framework behind these policies. And the Center for American Progress warns that the implications are chilling: any organization critical of government policy could be subject to surveillance, shutdown, or reputational destruction.
These are not abstract risks. They are active threats—and they are reshaping the terrain nonprofits must navigate every day.
The Reporting Burden Is Not Neutral
In this environment, philanthropic practices matter more than ever. And yet, many funders still ask their grantees to spend precious time assembling complex reports, logging outcomes, and justifying every dollar (in complicated Excel spreadsheets) while simultaneously fending off legal threats, cyberattacks, and burnout.
As The Chronicle of Philanthropy notes, many organizations are fundraising under unprecedented stress. Development teams are exhausted. Program staff are demoralized. Leadership is overwhelmed. And in this context, grant reporting becomes more than an administrative task—it becomes a source of harm.
Every hour spent producing a report is an hour not spent building power, tending to staff well-being, or responding to crisis. What’s worse, many of these reports go unread or unshared, languishing inside funder databases instead of informing action.
We need to name this clearly: excessive grant reporting is a form of institutional self-protection masquerading as due diligence. And in this moment, it is indefensible.
Reporting as Collective Resistance
What if, instead of reinforcing power hierarchies, grant reporting became a tool of solidarity?
We believe reporting can serve as a mechanism for collective sensemaking and strategic clarity across the social sector. That means reporting that is reciprocal not extractive.
Narrative—not just numerical.
Adaptive—not standardized.
And above all, grounded in trust.
In a forthcoming article, my co-authors and I argue that reporting should be used to strengthen the connective tissue between funders and grantees; not to monitor them, but to stand with them.
By streamlining what we ask, shifting how we ask it, and sharing back what we learn, philanthropy can turn reporting into a force multiplier—amplifying what’s working, flagging what’s urgent, and allowing for coordinated action across networks.
This is not just a better practice. It is a survival tactic.
The Moment Demands Courage, Not Control
In a widely circulated piece, Democracy Fund called on funders to demonstrate “easy courage”: to keep resources flowing, reduce burdens, and publicly support grantees facing unfair scrutiny.
That courage includes how we treat reporting.
When funders remove onerous requirements, accept alternate formats, or eliminate reports altogether, they free up organizational capacity to respond to urgent threats. More importantly, they signal that they trust their grantees and not just to use funds wisely, but to share their truth, even in dangerous times.
Trust isn’t just a value. It’s infrastructure. And right now, that infrastructure is under attack.
Transform Reporting Today
Every funder—regardless of size—can take immediate steps:
Eliminate non-essential reporting requirements. Ask only for data you will use.
Accept verbal, visual, or informal updates. Make space for storytelling.
Share back what you learn. If you’re aggregating insights, tell grantees what you’re seeing.
Coordinate with peers. If multiple funders support the same group, align reporting requests.
Model trust in your language. Avoid “accountability” language that implies suspicion.
Ask grantees what would be most helpful. Then adjust accordingly.
And above all: publicly commit to reducing burden and increasing flexibility. Make your solidarity visible.
Reporting as a Signal
We’re past the point where philanthropy can afford to confuse process with partnership.
If reporting remains rigid, extractive, and opaque, we risk isolating the very organizations we need most—those on the front lines of resistance. But if we use reporting as a tool for clarity, for care, and for coordination, we can help build a sector capable of withstanding what’s ahead.
This is a dangerous time. And in dangerous times, every policy and practice sends a message.
Let’s make sure reporting sends the right one.
📣 Join the Conversation
If this article resonated with you—join us for a deeper discussion:
Making Reporting Work: Aligning Grantmaking, Learning & Change
Hosted by Philanthropy New York (PNY), Northern California Grantmakers (NCG), and Full Circle Impact Solutions (FCIS)
🔗 Register here for Session 3 on June 3rd
This session will explore how funders can redesign reporting practices to foster learning, support grantee resilience, and confront the realities of our political moment with clarity and courage. We’ll go beyond theory—discussing practical shifts, hard choices, and bold commitments.
Now is the time to stand with our partners. Let’s make reporting work for what matters.