Is compliance monitoring a bad thing for a funder to do?
Compliance monitoring isn't a bad thing for a funder to do, because funders are accountable to their own boards for how grant money is used and whether the agreed work happens. Reviewing budgets, required reports, and progress on promised activities is a reasonable part of managing a grant responsibly.
The problems usually come from how monitoring is handled: it works best when it's labeled as monitoring, kept to what the grant agreement requires, and applied the same way to every grantee. Grantees can plan for a requirement they understand, and what damages trust is a requirement that grows over time without explanation, or one that is hidden inside something offered as help. If your reporting requirements have grown heavier than they need to be, How do I ask grantees for data without overwhelming them? looks at how to scale them back.
What makes grantee support feel like monitoring?
Grantee support starts to feel like monitoring when grantees can't determine what will happen to what they say, or when taking part doesn't feel like a choice, and because the funder decides whether a grantee is funded again, grantees pay close attention to anything that could reach the people making that decision.
Some of the things that can shift support toward monitoring, even when no one intends it:
- An unclear purpose. Grantees aren't told what the session is for or who it serves.
- The program officer in the room. A grantee may talk differently about what isn't working when the person who reviews its renewal is listening.
- Notes that go into the grant file. What grantees said in a learning session shows up later in a review.
- Participation that feels required. Grantees attend because they worry about how it will look if they don't.
None of these has to rule out support on its own, but each one can change what grantees are willing to share, and that limits what the support can do for them.
Can one activity serve both support and learning for the funder?
One activity can serve both the grantees and the funder's own learning, as long as that's decided in advance and grantees know how it will work. For example, a funder might offer a cohort where grantees work through common challenges with an outside facilitator, and also want to learn which needs come up most often across its portfolio.
That can work if the facilitator shares only themes across the group, with no organization or person named, and grantees agree to that before the cohort starts. It stops working if the funder later asks for notes on individual organizations, or uses what one grantee said in a funding decision. The safest approach is to settle these questions before the first session and put the answers in writing. If you're thinking about paying for this kind of help, Should we sponsor evaluation help for our grantees? covers how to structure it.
How do we tell grantees what will be shared with us?
Tell grantees what will be shared with you at the start, in writing and in person, and be specific about what will stay confidential, what will be reported to you as themes across grantees with no names attached, and what, if anything, will be shared by name. If there are limits on confidentiality, say what they are.
Then follow through. Keeping the promise matters as much as making it, because grantees may judge the next offer of support by how the last one was handled. If your organization later wants to use the information differently, ask grantees before you change anything. These are the same principles that guide ethical evaluation with participants, and How do we evaluate students or participants ethically? covers privacy and power dynamics in that setting.
The Grantibly perspective
Angelika's perspective
We value the knowledge people have about their own experiences and organizations. As sociologists, we pay attention to who is included, who is missing, and who holds decision-making power, and in a funder's relationship with its grantees, the funder holds most of it. That's why the line between support and monitoring matters so much to the people on the other side of it.
When a funder sponsors learning for its grantees, we think it should be described honestly as support for learning, capacity, and shared progress, and designed that way. The purpose, the choice to take part, what grantees can expect to stay confidential, and anything that will be shared with the funder should be clear before anyone is asked to speak. We want the people taking part to see the work as a source of information they can use, not a judgment.
