Listening for the Beat of Change: Conversational Grantmaking Where Accountability Demands Listening

Today, nonprofit leaders are navigating a challenging and ever-changing political and financial environment. According to the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s State of Nonprofits 2025 report, over 90 percent of nonprofit leaders cite political and economic instability as a barrier to advancing their mission, and nearly as many report staff burnout as a significant challenge.

In this context, funders face a critical choice: reinforce the system’s pressures or become more adaptive, grounded partners.

Influenced by their grantee partners, there is an increasing demand for trust, responsiveness, and boldness in how philanthropy interacts with communities. As Vu Le has highlighted, many traditional funding practices—such as overly complicated applications, delayed decisions, and excessive reporting—create unnecessary harm and waste. A shift toward relationship-based approaches is not only more humane but also more effective.

As John Palfrey of the MacArthur Foundation put it, “Courage is contagious.” Funders who lead with trust and flexibility make space for others to follow and set a tone that honors the moment.

Conversational Grantmaking: A Dialog-Centered Alternative

Traditional practices like lengthy, compliance-driven reports and transactional relationships fail to generate the learning funders need and compound the administrative burdens grantees can no longer afford. They pose risks by eroding trust, reinforcing top-down dynamics, and stifling the feedback that could enhance funders’ effectiveness and promote growth in the social impact sector.

Currently, many funders are shifting towards conversational reviews and other relational approaches to grantmaking. But what exactly do we mean by conversational reviews and reporting? Conversational reporting is a trust-based, dialogue-centered alternative to traditional written reports. Instead of submitting formal documents, grantee partners are invited to share reflections through conversation—via scheduled calls, voice memos, video check-ins, or other formats that prioritize relationship and context over compliance.

These shifts aren’t cosmetic. Conversational and participatory reviews often arise during moments of disruption—public health crises, political upheaval, or internal restructuring. These inflection points create space for funders to question old norms and try new approaches. Recent Oral and Alternative Reporting (OAR) shifts began during COVID, when urgency and uncertainty made the status quo untenable. While some funders now use these methods as standard practice, most began with a catalytic moment.

Resonant Currents: Pressure Beneath the Surface

Some nonprofits are facing challenges to their funding and operations, and philanthropy must adapt if these organizations are to survive and carry out their missions. Many funders remain slow to respond, constrained by outdated frameworks designed to minimize risk rather than support resilience.

This isn’t a theoretical concern—reporting requirements and the terms of funding relationships can expose grantees to legal, reputational, or operational risk. The information funders collect—and how it’s stored, shared, or demanded—can endanger the very people they aim to support. Rethinking reporting is about more than reducing burden—it’s about aligning philanthropic practice with safety, strategy, and solidarity, now and in the future.

Disruptive moments, while challenging, also create opportunities for significant positive change.

Funders like Liberty Hill Foundation and North Star Fund emerged from the legacy of the Funding Exchange and refocused their practices to center community voice and participatory review. At Liberty Hill, the Environmental Leadership Initiative (ELI) is a powerful example of participatory infrastructure building. Co-developed with grassroots leaders, this fellowship offers liberatory coaching and flexible support for frontline environmental justice leaders to enhance their capacity. The application process includes the ability to submit three short responses in written, audio, or video format. While Liberty Hill has practiced participatory grantmaking for over 40 years, ELI highlights the need for foundations to adapt continually to the evolving needs of their community partners. These shifts weren’t always smooth, but they laid the groundwork for many of today’s more relational grantmaking models.

Improvising the Flow: How the Work Moves Through Us

Here are a few examples of how funders are incorporating more conversation-based reporting in their grantmaking.

Grove Foundation: Listening First

Throughout its grantmaking, Grove has maintained a service-oriented, relationship-based approach long before trust-based philanthropy became common language. Rather than enforcing a standardized reporting format, Grove has consistently invited grantee partners to choose the method that works best for them, whether a brief written update or a phone conversation. This approach reflects our belief that grantee partners’ relationships should be rooted in respect, responsiveness, and shared trust, particularly for partners engaged in high-stakes, frontline work.

Optional conversations are guided by shared questions, and what’s learned is synthesized internally and often shared back. We’ve also seen growing interest across the sector in Grove’s simplified award letters and conversational practices. Over 70 funders have requested copies of our award letter templates, and hundreds joined sessions this year focused on aligning grantmaking practices with learning and equity. This growing momentum is rooted in what our grantee partners have told us works: reduce the burden, listen well, and make reporting a space for reflection, not just compliance. These changes weren’t just about lowering the burden but building mutual understanding and accountability.

As Grove grantee partner, Eduardo Esquivel, Co-Director of New Mexico Dream Team, rightfully points out:

“We feel the power imbalance—we are nervous we might do something to jeopardize our funding. But funders are either unaware or pretend that dynamic isn’t there. Then, they try to skip over the discomfort, thinking that by ignoring it, we can form a trusting relationship. There cannot be any trust without honesty. They ignore the main reason our relationship exists—they have the money we need to operate.”

Initially published in Reevaluating Practice: Rewriting the Rules of Philanthropy, Edward W. Hazen Foundation.

Kataly Foundation: Funding the Ecosystem

As a spend-out foundation, Kataly is now asking itself what the “highest and best use” of its resources is. According to Kataly CEO Nwamaka Agbo, this includes resourcing frontline organizations and the broader ecosystem they rely on, lawyers, coaches, storytellers, and policy allies.

Their question, “Who else needs to win so that you can win?” guides much of their ecosystem-based funding strategy. They support national alliances like Right to the City, member organizations, and technical allies like Sustainable Economies Law Center.

Kataly’s approach is grounded in the belief that scarcity is a manufactured constraint that undermines long-term movement building. As part of its commitment to abundance, Kataly makes large, multi-year grants from the start of a relationship rather than “testing” grantee partners with small grants. This choice reflects their trust in grantee partners’ leadership and rejection of false binaries like “either/or” funding decisions. Instead, they ask: “Who else needs to be strong for this work to thrive?” That ecosystem view shapes both who they fund and how they support deep infrastructure across legal, healing, narrative, and organizing capacities.

Kataly’s reporting practices are similarly aligned with this abundance and trust-centered approach. Kataly emphasizes open communication and narrative reflection over formal reports, creating space for grantee partners to share how ecosystem support is unfolding in practice. Rather than isolate outcomes, they listen for interconnections—how different roles, relationships, and strategies are contributing to long-term change.

As Zaineb Mohammed, Kataly’s Director of Communications, writes, “An abundance vision for philanthropy should not be defined by an attempt to live forever in relationships of supplication, but rather to create the conditions where philanthropy is no longer needed because we live in a world of shared prosperity.” This holistic view of infrastructure, care, and resilience reinforces the idea that movements need more than grants. They need systems.

Borealis Philanthropy: Participatory Tools

The Communities Transforming Policing Fund (CTPF) at Borealis, led by Jeree Thomas, piloted a participatory review tool with directly impacted individuals. These tools guide not only decision-making, but also strategy, learning, and reflection.

Instead of relying on traditional reporting forms, CTPF invites grantees to engage through conversations and collaborative evaluation tools that reflect their lived expertise. This participatory approach allows Borealis to adapt funding and support based on real-time feedback, not just static metrics.

Borealis emphasizes transparency, especially when integrating tech and AI tools into reporting. Without clarity, these tools can reinforce harm. With care, they can free up more time for listening and reflection—and reduce the administrative burden on organizations already navigating surveillance, burnout, and risk.

The Opening Measure: When Trust Begins to Move

Relational grantmaking starts early. At Grove, we often meet new grantee partners through trusted network recommendations. These conversations aren’t about evaluation—they’re about alignment. Just as conversational approaches can deepen early trust, they also play a role in how learning and accountability unfold after the grant is made. Especially for organizations like the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area and Communities for a Better Environment, our job is to listen, understand context, and build trust from the outset.

At Kataly, even when programs aren’t accepting new applications, staff listen to grantee partners and network partners to understand gaps, referrals, and long-term needs.

For funders worried about legal risk, this isn’t about throwing out accountability but redefining it. True accountability means showing up with care, not just compliance. Especially when grantees are under threat, accountability must align with trust and safety. As John Palfrey warns, we must be careful not to “mentally obey in advance.”

Conversational practices offer a way to resist that reflex, to protect space for truth-telling and reflection in moments of rising repression. For example, with heightened scrutiny and legal uncertainty, community organizations working on immigration and civic engagement face increased oversight and record requests. Some funders, in response, are pausing formal reporting and shifting to secure, verbal check-ins asking how they could help, listening without conditions, and providing additional aid through collaborative efforts with peer funders.

This isn’t less responsible—it’s more responsive. In high-risk contexts, the reporting method matters as much as the content and can either deepen solidarity or reinforce danger.

Toward Accountability That Builds Power

Recent data from Candid’s 2025 Foundation Giving Forecast Survey shows that while 37% of foundations anticipate increasing their giving, the majority expect to maintain current levels, and less than 9% plan to give less. Yet, when adjusted for inflation, overall giving in 2024 was flat. The median payout rate among independent foundations remained at 5%.

These trends raise a critical question: In a moment of escalating threats and rising needs, are foundations truly meeting the moment or preserving the status quo?

Conversational reviews aren’t lax. They require clarity, time, and trust. However, they offer a way to transform the reporting relationship from surveillance to strategy and from transaction to partnership.

They are a signal, and a tool, for the kind of philanthropy the moment demands. Conversations allow funders to listen across power lines, not just collect information, whether at first contact or year-end reflection.

In a time when many foundations default to preserving endowments and protecting assets, funders like Kataly and MacArthur model what it looks like to act with urgency, humility, and faith in community-led solutions. MacArthur, for example, increased its payout to 6 percent, not as a ceiling, but as a response to the urgency nonprofits face. This is what it means to fund as if we want our movements to win.

Small Ripples, Shared Rhythms: A First Step Toward Change

Are you thinking about piloting a conversational review? Start with one grantee partner and ask what works for them. Try a 30-minute reflection call instead of a written report. Document what you learn and follow up transparently.

We have curated tools from the field, including a downloadable conversation guide and reflection questions. Visit the Reporting Resource Hub.

Still want to learn more? Check out Listening Practice: Shifting from Compliance to Conversation, for a candid, field-informed webinar about conversational reviews and other relationship-based reporting approaches. You’ll get tools, stories, and lessons from funders and grantees who are making this shift in real time.

Resources for Deeper Exploration

• Reporting Resource Hub
• How Participatory Grantmaking Supports a Community-Driven Vision of Safety
• Movement-Defined Learning Project
• The Advancing Participation in Philanthropy Tool (APPT)
• It’s Time for Funders to Move Into Swift Alignment with Movements- Participatory Processes Can Help

Rachel Kimber, a strategist and founder of Full Circle Impact Solutions, co-authored this piece.