6 survey respondents
Location: C/o Redpath And Company 4810 White Bear Parkway, White Bear Lake, 55110 MN
EIN: 32-6267131
33%
67%
11 hours
Median
58%
42%
58%
42%
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 9271 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2024
We applied two years ago and they said to only ask for one thing rather than two. I did and they still denied me because the grant was "too perfect." That was exactly what they said in the review. They told us to just buy the product anyway. We can't because you didn't give us the money to do so... Really disappointing and unprofessional.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2024
Average
They aren't that easy to get ahold of. They were also late in their submission of review and were very unprofessional.
Bad
Not very.
They don't.
6
We really appreciate the feedback and will discuss with our board your experience. We always consider constructive feedback on how our process can be changed to better serve the nonprofit community. We are sorry if our feedback seemed trite and did not give you a sense of why we might have chosen to say no. We are a smaller foundation with a high volume of requests, and we strive to make the best all-around decision we can. Each grant cycle is unique to the proposals we have in front of us at that moment and one factor our team will consider is the risks an organizations is taking in bringing on a new technology and how long before the cost will be offset by the benefit. This can be a gage of impact a grant will have for an organization. When the risk is much lower than the benefit, we often do encourage the organization to follow through with the project, even if our decision in that particular grant cycle is no, because we see a path for the organization to get the project done. However, we are not perfect, and our analysis is based on what we have in front of us at that time. We are also always open to hearing from you directly so we can improve our communication and processes and revisit how we read the information we are given, if you're interested and would like to discuss further (we have a contact page on our website, or you could reach out directly to our grants manager at: [email protected]). Again, thanks for this feedback.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Read and believe the guidelines. These folks are tech people and they are quite clear what they like and don't like. Using tech to drive institutional change and goals with clear ROI, yes. "Help we didn't invest in our computers for the last 20 years and we need an upgrade" and "We want to create custom software to . . . " are big nopes. Just because they fund tech doesn't mean they fund any and all tech needs.
Insightful, Responsive
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Good
Very accessible via email and provides detailed, thoughtful and frank feedback on proposal concepts. Respect their preferred communication style.
Good
Skilled at picking high-impact projects that move orgs in new directions.
Maybe provide links to opportunities for nonprofits to do standard tech upgrades at lower costs? (e.g., TechSoup). Might reduce number of unresponsive proposals you get because this IS a need.
Be responsive to their guidelines and make an analytical argument for your proposal. It's all laid out for you what they appreciate. They're tech people and they like logic, efficiency, common sense, and people who can read and respect the guidelines.
Communicating likes and dislikes --excellent website info to help target proposals.
More than 15
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
They are very specific about what they support, which is fantastic. However their application process is pretty unwieldy. They request information about return on investment (ROI), which is almost impossible to actually figure out as a small nonprofit that is just looking to upgrade technology. We knew it would save us significant time to have better equipment, but it would take us so much time to figure out how much we would save that this question was silly and impossible to accurately answer.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Risk averse
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2016
Average
Average
The question on ROI needs to go. This is not an investment, it is a grant. It doesn't help anyone to micromanage nonprofits and try to force them to produce information that is actually very difficult for them to produce.
This funder focuses in one area and is clear about what it is looking to support.
5
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Your technology-related funding request must carefully analyze return on Investment and demonstrate how your organization will fund this project on an ongoing basis (after Shavlik's one-time grant is awarded, if it is)
Risk averse
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2017
Average
Average
Please give your grant applicants specific suggestions on how you'd like to see Return on Investment calculated. There are many ways to do that and it would help to know how you evaluate grant request ROI calculations.
Shavlik has limited funds available; a request in the range of $5-15,000 is more likely to be funded
We like the emphasis on funding technology needs and respect the requirement for an ROI analysis.
15
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Their website is very clear on their giving priorities/criteria. Yes, it is one of those rare birds that fund capital but its not for normal business operations--how does it directly impact the individuals you serve. They are clear about that so don't think let your starvation for capital grants make you think you can define it broadly.
Positive leader in the field, Risk taker, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2016
Good
Responses both before and after submission were timely. They aren't chit chatty but that is fine.
Good
They want to use equipment/technology in a way that impacts the problem/deficit in the community you serve. Its not about how efficient your organization could function with a computer, etc.
As a family foundation, they don't staff so they don't have the resources to do site visits, etc. Be respectful of their time.
They stick to their deadlines/decision making time frames, including grant performance reports that are clearly defined (good questions, deadline, etc).
5
Reviewer 568 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
This is a highly detailed and complex grant application in a very competitive process. Read the guidelines (which are excellent) thoroughly and note a technology implementation plan is required. Grantor has good intent, yet is not necessarily applicant friendly. There are no site visits and no opportunity to respond to questions grant reviewers may have. Our declination included items/questions that could have been answered/responded to through a visit or a phone call. Once you apply, that's it. No opportunity for engagement.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Bureaucratic
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2016
Bad
Average
They seem to be accomplishing their goals.
Expand the panel of grant reviewers to allow for more interaction with grant applicants. Or expand the timeframe for internal reviews to add site visits or phone calls. The reasons for declination were items we could not have identified at all without that interaction. Questions that arose were questions not asked on the application.
With the right application, this could be a solid source of one-time funding for organizations.
This small, family foundation offers dollars for a specific area that other funders don't cover.
30
