5 Funders, 1 Grant Report: Less Paperwork and Better Results

Nonprofits are being asked to solve complex, fast-moving problems — from gaps in public benefits to shifts in the policy landscape — while working within funding structures that often make it hard to adapt.

In our work at New America, to improve how families access public benefits, we ran into this tension often. Like many organizations, our team at the New Practice Lab juggles multiple grants, each with its own reporting requirements, timelines, and definitions of success. 

The administrative burden is significant. More important, it constrains how we work. When new information points us in a better direction, changing course isn’t always easy — or even possible — without risking misalignment with what was laid out in our grant agreements.

So we tried something different.

Inspired by our peers, we redesigned grants around a shared goal.

We looked to nonprofits that had experimented with more flexible approaches to grant seeking. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement, for example, built partnerships with funders around shared learning goals. Community Solutions brought together a small group of funders to support long-term progress on specific outcomes, rather than discrete programs. At Civilla, a nonprofit design studio in Detroit, the team focused on achieving concrete results first, trusting that funding would follow.

The Schusterman Family Philanthropies, one of our existing funders, urged us to move in this direction. We drew from these examples and, with Schusterman and a small group of foundations that also included the Ballmer Group, the Open Society Foundations, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, proposed and tested a new model of grant making. Instead of structuring grants around individual projects, we asked them to align around a shared goal and a collaborative way of working.

We weren’t sure how many foundations would go for this. But within 18 months, five had signed on as lead partners.

The approach had a few key elements:

• A clearly defined outcome. Funders invested in a shared result, not a specific set of activities.
• Longer-term support. Commitments extended beyond a single grant cycle, allowing us time to learn, adjust, and invest in our team’s capacity.
• Flexible funding. Resources could shift as we learned what was working and what wasn’t.
• Streamlined reporting. Funders agreed to use a common reporting process, rather than fulfilling separate requirements.
• Regular, open communication. We met as a full group twice a year to review progress and make decisions together — fostering two-way learning, open exchange, and a sense of teamwork that knit all our funders together.

We weren’t sure how many foundations would go for this. But within 18 months, five had signed on as lead partners.

Changing the structure transformed our work.

The operational impact was immediate. We reduced time spent on compliance-related work by 55 percent — more than seven weeks of staff time each year. Just as important, the nature of our work improved. We saw a 36 percentage point increase in time spent on activities that created value for both our team and our funders, rather than just meeting reporting requirements. 

For example, our deep dives into our own evaluation data now served doubly as preparation for our semiannual funder meetings, where we would share what we were learning while also getting each funder’s advice on where to go with that new information. These learning reviews no longer felt punitive but instead helped everyone in the room refine their individual and collective strategies.

Instead of focusing on whether we had delivered exactly what was proposed months earlier, conversations centered on what we were learning — and what we should do next.

“Aligning behind a set of shared results made all of our lives easier,” said Korey Klein, director of technology and data at the Ballmer Group. “It strengthened our funder-to-funder partnerships, it made reporting much easier for the Lab, and it made pitching the grant internally easier in the sense that none of us were cleaving off individual parts of the work and then trying to piece it back together.” 

The shift also changed our relationships with our grant makers for the better. Instead of focusing on whether we had delivered exactly what was proposed months earlier, conversations centered on what we were learning — and what we should do next. This accelerated our progress, but it also helped funders become more effective grant makers across the sector.

“I see it as one model of philanthropic best practice,” said Meeghan Prunty, senior adviser to the Schusterman Family Philanthropies. “Centering grantees, simplifying reporting, and providing multiyear general operating support so organizations can plan with confidence. It’s efficient, it’s collaborative, and it demonstrates what it looks like when funders truly trust and support their grantees.” 

Four ways to start shifting to collaborative funding.

Adopting this model won’t be possible in every situation. Some programs require tightly defined activities or short-term deliverables. But for organizations working on complex problems, there are practical ways to move in this direction without overhauling everything at once.

• Start small. Consider piloting your own version of this model with one or two foundations. To maximize trust, start with those who already understand your work and let them become ambassadors to their funder peers.  
• Align on purpose, not projects. Ask whether grant makers would be open to investing in a common outcome, even if their individual grants support different pieces of it. Be clear up front that no activity or program strategy will be held sacred, but that the overall outcome will drive strategy. This means funders may find themselves invested in a very different set of activities at the end of the grant than they originally anticipated. 
• Find low-risk ways to test new arrangements. Even if you can’t overhaul your grant structures yet, consider exploring a shared reporting template or inviting all of your funders into one annual learning session. These small steps can build comfort and trust that pave the way for deeper, more streamlined collaboration later. 
• Get in a room together regularly. This work isn’t about portals or dashboards. Our twice-annual in-person gatherings with all five funders became the foundation for real trust — the kind where you can share what’s not working alongside what is. Shifting from paper reports to ongoing, live conversation changed the relationship entirely and made everything else in this model possible.

Accountability doesn’t require rigidity.

None of these steps require abandoning accountability. In fact, they can strengthen it by focusing attention on results rather than process. For us, this approach made it easier to respond to changing conditions, pursue promising opportunities, and work more closely with funders as partners. It also reduced friction in ways that benefited everyone involved.

At a time when many of the problems nonprofits address are becoming more complex, funding structures need to support — not hinder — the ability to learn and adapt. There isn’t a single model that will work everywhere. But as more funders and grantees look for ways to make their work more effective, practical changes like these offer a place to start.