5 survey respondents
Location: 1221 Sw Yamhill St Ste 100, Portland, 97205 OR
EIN: 23-7315673
75%
25%
10 hours
Median
60%
40%
70%
30%
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 8872 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Definitely contact ahead of time, but willing to communicate with new projects and at least give a clear answer if your project won't fit. The application is long, but doesn't require any out of the ordinary applications. Generally a good return on investment if your organization is mid-sized and has some good evaluation on active programs.
Positive leader in the field, Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2018
Good
Good
6
Reviewer 9646 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
OCF seems to like project grants over general operating support.
Positive leader in the field, Friendly, Likes site visits, Responsive
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2017
Good
Staff has been helpful.
Average
The foundation's priorities are admirable.
Award bigger grants and multi-year grants.
I've had great experiences with OCF's volunteer site visitors.
10
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Thoroughly read their guidelines and don't try to make your application fit; it either does or it doesn't. Follow the stated requirements.
It is worth it to apply for a community grant even if you don't receive the award. The staff take the basic information from your grant and create a list of fundable projects that they then share with their donors. It is a good way to start getting in front of donors you don't know but are interested in your area of work.
For the really large grants, it is about relationships with individuals connected to the OCF so if you work for a small or lesser known nonprofit, you have a steep challenge.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Bureaucratic
Array
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2018
Average
It is hit-or-miss with staff members as to whether or not they will reply/meet with you.
Good
They work throughout all of Oregon and fund many areas. They have sizable donor advised funds and, like all DAFs, there is a lot of money sitting there not being invested in solutions to our communities challenges.
The power dynamics associated with OCF are significant. Consider specific funding pools for lesser known nonprofits.
Their application is straight forward and all instructions are on line.
10
Reviewer 884 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Be prepared for a long process from grant submission to a decision so be sure your project is out that far.
Oregon
Grant currently pending
2017
Bad
I sent 2 separate email inquiries to the contact email as noted on the website and never got a response. We submitted the grant in early July and got a visit from a "volunteer evaluator" in Sept. While she was the most professional grant evaluator we have met, I don't feel that we have any continuation with OR Comm Foundation for the many different grant types they have. Especially as a funder focused on Oregon only
Average
You have so many grant programs and some are so large and diverse, you need to have some responsive staff in funding areas that can be contacted and do reach out either to the segment first or at least in pre-review of proposals.
As a community foundation, they have many funds that do not accept applications or are very distinct from the main programs. Meanwhile the large funds are dispensed in traditional means of applications. But, review their focus areas as they do change. They require a lot of work to prepare their application and have a very long review and approval cycle so be sure it is worth the time in amount requested and time spent.
10
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
I would definitely suggest a meeting/call with an OCF program officer before applying. OCF has many funding categories and it's not in anyone's interest to apply without vetting ideas/proposals to make sure there might be a match.
Positive leader in the field, Friendly
Oregon
Applied and not funded
2017
Average
OCF staff are kind and mostly available for questions; however, their grant making processes are not at all transparent. They have layers of volunteer advisory members who weigh in and guide proposals and it's unclear who actually makes decisions for them. They could stand to be a lot more transparent.
Average
OCF is a wide-ranging funder with many donor advised funds (that donors direct) + larger grant programs that focused on the environment, arts, education, social services, etc. They are a community foundation so they are beholden to donors and to pulling in more donor advised funds. As I understand it, they use their community advisory committees for the larger grant programs but do so as a way to cultivate donors (regular community members are also appointed/volunteer for their advisory committees but it's hard to know whose opinion carries the most weight). Ultimately, there is little transparency from OCF on how funding decisions are made. Is it the volunteer advisory committees? The program staff? Some combo? They do not provide feedback to grant applicants when applications are declined.
I'd like to suggest more transparency in the OCF grant making process. How are decisions arrived at? Who is making them? Always provide constructive, useful feedback to grant applicants who are not funded so there is an opportunity to learn and understand where there is room for improvement. The standard "we received many strong applications and are not able to fund them all" is not constructive feedback to an organization.
Wonderful, well-intentioned staff. State-wide reach and research on needs of Oregonians.
10
