8 survey respondents
Location: 1 Michigan Ave, Battle Creek, 49017 MI
EIN: 38-1359264
0%
100%
5 hours
Median
25%
75%
31%
69%
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 6489 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
Kellogg Foundation claims that it will fund only sustainable projects; not true. In fact, it will fund projects that are not sustainable and unproven as long as the organization/applicant can satisfy its tax requirements and has a good relationship with the project officers, many of whom have not real understanding or background in public health.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
Mississippi
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2019
Bad
The Foundation has a small army of program officers assigned to certain states. The officers typically do not reside in the state and have superficial relationships with the public or CBOs they claim to serve.,
Bad
I once believed its goal was to improve public health, but after having experienced it up close and personal, I have concluded that the primary purpose is to identify good tax write offs.
Hire program officers who are objective, understand public health and who are committed to improving public health.
Again, if your organization is small and cannot meet Kellogg's tax criteria, you will likely not get funded. You will be required to identify a fiscal agent to receive funds on your behalf, again to satisfy their tax criteria. It's simply not designed to assist community based organizations that don't look good on paper.
I don't think it does anything really well. It gives away millions to organizations without any strategic planning or program evaluation and often to organizations that are large, well-funded, and with no track record of doing the work.
2
Reviewer 4265 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2020
The online application is a nightmare. Various prompts appear as you move through 17 pages; prompts are not always clear or specific to what you just entered into a field. What is the point of a prompt that informs you your board exceeds 10% of staff, or some such information you can't alter? It's hit and miss until you get the "right" response to move forward. Be sure to read, even print out, the many pages of pre-application instructions before even starting.
Illinois
Grant currently pending
2020
Bad
Average
Permit some flexibility on the online application. Program narrative fields are the smooth areas, once applicant moves on to budget, demographics and rank of staff and board, it starts to get very time consuming. If Kellogg required an LOI first, that would be great.
Asks for deep budget and staff details that require a NFP to really think and consider. This is a good thing, even if it takes many hours to gather the information.
8
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Constant change and turnover. We started with one program officer and ended up with another. The racial equity, civic engagement, and tangential areas become confusing when you receive different messages. In our approach process, we found ourselves speaking to different program officers or directors. Truly Frustrating!
Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Michigan
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2017
Bad
Program officers need directors. Directors go to their VPs and then there are bottlenecks. Hard to figure out who is making decisions about the grant.
Bad
- The foundation wants to address racial equity but the strategy is ambiguous. They convene grantees but the follow up is weak.
Constant change and lack of clarity at the staff level and within program areas.
- High level of bureaucracy.
Many ideas, but one: respect applicants and address the power differential before you endeavor to address racial equity.
-Establish relationship with program officers. - If invited to a convening, attend. - Track your emails and notes to ensure you are clear. - Give yourself time to develop a relationship, massage the request (if you are asked to submit) and plan on a waiting period that may stretch into months.
Again, they are good at convening to think about an issue.
0
Reviewer 9994 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
We had to do a lot of education with our program officer -- on our issue area, on the racial equity lens (we are a racial justice organization), etc. They were ultimately supportive, but we had to go through the whole process again with a new program officer this year. When we needed an extension on the grant and additional funding, they were willing to work with us. This grant is a lot of work, but it was a large, multi-year one, so that helped take out some of the burden it otherwise created.
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2017
Average
It's always been difficult to reach our program officers and administrative staff when we were looking to provide updates or to access reporting forms/questions.
Average
I'm not really sure. I don't feel in a position to judge.
Give your program officers more time to connect with grantees or applicants. They seem really stretched too thin to be able to be as responsive as they want to be or should be.
That they have a racial equity lens at all is a big deal, plus they've had it for a much longer time (seems in vogue now).
30
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Make sure to write everything down that is communicated to you by the program officer. They have not followed through on what they say nor promise. Also, ask a lot of questions of their overall funding for your area - it seems to shift with no communication to grantees. Ask for their intent and process in writing.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Maryland
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2016
Bad
You have to send multiple emails to receive a response.
Bad
Do your internal work on operationalizing racial equity in your grantmaking, be accountable to your grantees and listen, track who you are giving grants to - along with comparing the amount of time from call to grant and check your patterns. Update your grant application.
They are making major investments.
8
Reviewer 6808 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2015
Well intended but poorly executed race equity lens. Very off-putting to have one of the many white program officers lecture us about equity in hiring. Commitment to issues seems to be personnel-driven, rather than institutional.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Bureaucratic
Vermont
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2015
Average
Average
While trying to implement a major change in oral health care access through the introduction of a new provider, the foundation did not have a realistic timeline, and made a very disruptive shift in strategy that set the movement back substantially.
See earlier comments
At least initially, values the inclusion of the voices of impacted people. Recognizes the benefits of coalition work. Values the role of communications in policy change.
0
Reviewer 8616 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
We were only involved in one specific program at a very large foundation, but for our program area, the funder was super-disorganized. They asked for an extra, unplanned report mid-year. There were three different reports for a one-year project grant. The elements asked for in the reports didn't align with the proposal. We were given multiple conflicting report dates. And on and on.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
Pennsylvania
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Average
Average
Again, in our small program area, there seems to be a lot of smoke and disorganized activity. For the next round of funding, a number of organizations were dropped because the guidelines changed - but we had already jumped through a lot of hoops before they admitted that the guidelines changed.
Put yourself in your grantees' shoes.
The people are all very warm, open, and friendly.
45
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
This funder seems to be having serious internal conflict and upheaval. They spent almost two years encouraging a "dream big" multiple organization collaborative project only to seriously undermine the community built by severely underfunding the proposal. It's very confusing, disruptive, and antagonizing to lead multiple organizations on for several months to then pull the rug out after so much time, energy, travel, money, staff investment.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field
Maryland
Grant currently pending
Funded for lesser amount
2017
Average
Average
This funder wants to promote racial healing and equity but limits investment in Latino, AAPI, and Native American communities.
The internal power struggle drama happening is doing real harm by leading groups on about funding potential and then disinvesting. Get it together.
Their racial justice work is staffed by a significant number of white women. It's not clear that they fully understand systemic racism.
0
