4 survey respondents
Location: 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, 94043 CA
EIN: 20-1548253
0%
100%
20 hours
Median
0%
100%
25%
75%
2017 Deadlines:
Types of Grants Awarded:
Geographic Focus:
For Fiscal Year
Total Assets:
Total Grants:
Change in Assets FY :
Amount of Grants to Minnesota Nonprofits:
Largest Grant:
Smallest Grant:
Average Grant:
Reviewer 4846 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
No feedback will be shared with the non-profit on your application. Hard to know what they want or what their priorities are.
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2019
Bad
Average
Please be open in sharing who is funded. Feedback is ALWAYS appreciated, and not sharing feedback does not help us or your organization.
16
Reviewer 583 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
I don’t like the fact that “the public” votes on the 10 finalists. Here’s why:
1. This takes the responsibility off of Google for who they award the money to
2. The public doesn’t understand the complexities of nonprofit and social work, so they will pick something flashy, or an app, instead of an innovative approach that involves hard work and (gasp) People!
3. A vote favors larger and more visible nonprofits who can rally their supporters to vote, and discriminates against smaller nonprofit with great ideas who don't have the time or people to spend on a voting campaign to win the grant.
4. Of a panel of 10 judges, only 3 are from the nonprofit/social justice sector.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues
California
Applied and not funded
2018
Bad
Average
They might have more grant reviewers with experience in the causes the impact the Bay Area instead of local celebrities and tech CEOs.
Eliminate the public voting and use judges with experience who can more accurately assess the potential of a grantee's idea.
They have a lot of money to distribute. They share lessons learned from previous grantees.
20
Grant Applicant - applied in 2015
They were unprofessional and not very knowledgeable about the spaces they were funding. They contacted us and a lot of other nonprofits as a way of learning about the space they were funding. They asked us for (several rounds of) proposals, and then said "we are shifting strategy". Our sense is that they are not professionally run, are more focused on the PR of doing good, and there is no accountability around creating actual impact.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
California
Applied and not funded
2015
Bad
Bad
In some of their specific areas they have been funding things that are well known to not create impact - but they are attractive from an innovation or buzzy technology perspective.
Set impact goals, publicly hold yourself accountable. You are a large foundation with the potential of doing A LOT of good.
25
Grant Applicant - applied in 2015
Be careful engaging with Google - they have inexperienced staff, have a low understanding of the nonprofit sector, and seemed to be constantly shifting strategies.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
California
Applied and not funded
2015
Bad
Bad
Google claims to be focused on data-driven philanthropy but have consistently funded (in my field) projects that are all flash, little substance, and no impact.
To not use nonprofits to educate yourselves about issues that you are funding unless you intend to fund those same organizations - and similarly do not ask nonprofits to prepare proposals for you if you are uncertain of your strategy.
We'd like to see you transparently publish your philanthropic investments and the externally-verified impact outcomes of those organizations. Will you do that?
Market itself.
