7 survey respondents
Location: Po Box 2316, Princeton, 08543 NJ
EIN: 22-6029397
60%
40%
25 hours
Median
50%
50%
57%
43%
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 461 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Our experience with RWJF was fantastic. We received funding for a three-year project, with the project officer always available for questions and annual meeting with the 11 awardees helping to keep everyone on track and creating a very collaborative environment. As the grant writer and responsible for grant implementation & compliance, I was very pleased with our relationship and experience in working with RWJF.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded, Responsive
Array
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2016
Good
RWJF is known as a leader in development of innovative ideas and approaches in tacking the socio-economic factors of healthy individuals and communities in the U.S. Their recent announcement for funding in the area of the impact of climate change on health is commendable - I will be anxious to see projects to be funded under this effort and how they can be replicated in other communities.
Good
Keep focusing on community health and those socio-economic factors that contribute to barriers to achievement of health, well-being and growth.
If you do not understand the focus of the funding initiative, pick up the phone and call them.
You can depend on RWJF to take the "lead" in investigating and funding initiatives in areas long before the federal government, state governments and many foundations will commit dollars to do so.
30
Reviewer 2427 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
They talk a lot about health equity but they only want to do place-based approaches. There is no consideration for topic-based approaches, for communities that DO define themselves as a community. Like LGBTQ community, mental health advocates, or "the organic gardening community." NOne of these are viewed as a valid form of community, only big city-wide coalitions. Way too much emphasis on coalitions when coalitions are harmful to grassroots advocates.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Array
Applied and not funded
2017
Bad
They have meetings and listen but then they don't do anything about what you say, and won't follow up with you.
Bad
You aren't going to affect health equity by locking out the most marginalized communities.
Define community according to your OWN Literature, don't define the community as place-based only.
Their apps seem easy but take a ton of time.
They have nice language about the Culture of health.
30
Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
RWJF had a frustratingly complex and overly bureaucratic process. I did not prepare or negotiate the proposal but had to execute and report on it which was hellish. The program officer demanded we set up monthly meetings then would routinely not show up to them or cancel them minutes before hand. I requested an adjustment to the allocation--in writing--and received an approval from the PO in an email, which I saved. The approval was later rescinded because I did not include the grant number in the subject line of the email and it didn't get processed. This resulted in the project not being able to access all of the funds approved.
Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
Illinois
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
Before 2014
Bad
Average
Streamline your processes and hire respectful Program Officers
They fund a lot of research
20
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
You need to have a personal relationship with this organization and I would recommend allowing several years to develop this relationship before seeing any funding. Our experience was a little different - we were funded via an award the foundation presents. I honestly think our win was based on a personal relationship rather than an honest evaluation of our programming impact. We have been able to have additional conversations about the future but they have been vague and I do not currently see a strong enough fit with what we do to what they are funding. Wish the program officers were more forthcoming about what they see in the future. Feel a bit strung along.
Georgia
Current or former grantee
Other
2017
Average
Relatively easy for us but we had a personal connection.
Good
It was an award. the amount was fixed. We were a winner in a pre-set category.
40
Reviewer 305 - Professional in the field
If you are in, this is great money. If you are looking to the Foundation to spend their money on evidence based work with strong accountability you could be disappointed (depending on the program officers and program.)
California
Professional in the field
Funded for amount requested
2017
Average
I would rate accessibility as neutral, since if you are IN with them they are very accessible. Finding out how to get IN however, is very difficult and doesn't seem to be based on consistent strategic objectives but rather gut hunches or personal relationships with nonprofit representatives.
Bad
This organization funded my organization for a large grant based on a personal relationship but did not seek nor obtain evidence that what was being proposed worked, or would work. We made a major deviation from project that was funded without providing evidence of why the change was necessary, or demonstrating goals and objective modifications. This is concerning to me since RWJF is a heavy hitter and has such important influence. I'd like to know it's based on facts and best evidence rather than being personally influenced by a nonprofit director. RWJF's support of my organization is elevating it to a status of influence in the field that I think is not deserved, and pushing the field of practice in the wrong direction - one without accountability or demonstrated outcomes.
Ask harder questions and ask for more evidence (for the programs that lack it, which is obviously not all.) This can be done without sacrificing practice driven opportunities and experimental programs. Funding programs that can't demonstrate outcomes, and then claiming they do in fact have an impact, is a disservice to all great programs out there desperate for funding who are struggling to make a difference, and sets back the field of children and family services efforts to become more effective.
These comments are specific to one project, and their respective program officers and upper managers. I have no other experience with RWJF and am sure other programs demand much more rigor.
Cares for people and is open to creative ideas.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Be prepared to give credit to RWJF for all the work they fund you to do.
Friendly, Responsive
District Of Columbia
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2016
Average
They could be a lot more transparent about what their funding strategy and priorities are and how exactly they intend to achieve impact.
Average
They want to build a culture of health but it is unclear how they are investing in advocacy to protect and expand access to health care. Their healthy children, healthy weight portfolio now includes early childhood which is a muddle of investments without any discernible strategy. And they seem to fund many of the usual suspects in this area.
Stop taking credit for your grantees work. You fund the work and you make it possible but you don't DO the work.
The research that they fund is very valuable.
8
Reviewer 851 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
A personal introduction opened the door for us as a new grantee.
Culturally sensitive, Friendly, Builds relationships, Openminded, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2016
Good
Staff were extremely responsive.
Good
The foundation supports health equity, including programs addressing the intersections of oppression such as LGBTQ people of color.
It's helpful to be as transparent as possible about future funding opportunities for grantees receiving one time grants.
Don't be intimidated by this funders size. The staff are very friendly and responsive.
Fairly simple application process
