4 survey respondents
Location: Po Box 5626, Minneapolis, 55440 MN
EIN: 41-6020221
75%
25%
9 hours
Median
63%
38%
63%
38%
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 2341 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
It took a long time to get an introductory meeting with them, but the meeting was great and really focused on their priority areas, our priority areas, and potential areas of overlap. We didn't expect to be invited to apply, but I think volunteer engagement from Cargill staff was key for the invite.
Risk taker, Insightful, Builds relationships
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for greater amount
2019
Average
Took a long time to get a meeting due to staff changes, but they've been good about accessibility since the initial meeting.
Good
Really focused on their priority areas - we almost didn't apply because it felt like we were just enough out of the funding priority. I appreciate the clarity in what they want to fund.
Good relationship with the program staff and do work within their funding priorities (but don't stretch it - they know when you're making it up)
They give large grant amounts to a small number of nonprofits. Gotta respect the strategy, even when we weren't a grantee.
Long-term vision and alignment with their work - they gave us two years of funding instead of one because of strong alignment.
15
Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
Make sure you match their giving interests well. Pay attention to diversity. Have statistics to back-up your case for support. Takes time to build relationship.
Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2019
Good
Average
Re-think what today's community needs are.
Great site visit. Listens and asks great questions. Approachable staff.
10
Reviewer 827 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
I experienced the foundation's staff to be responsive, curious, and engaged. There's been some change in leadership in the past year or so, which sometimes means the future trajectory of the grantmaking is a bit unknown. It seems like the foundation is spending time in the community, genuinely listening to the experiences of nonprofits, and co-discovering possible ways the foundation can be a resource. If your work aligns with their funding priorities (child nutrition ages 2-12; increasing access to STEM education), I recommend reaching out to staff and having a conversation.
Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, Responsive
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2018
Average
It's so great that the foundation publishes a webpage that lists all of the foundation staff and board members. That's surprisingly rare in corporate philanthropy. For even better accessibility, I'd recommend also publishing e-mail addresses and phone numbers for all foundation staff.
Good
It's bitter-sweet to see "invitation only" on most major grantmaking categories. That probably means great things for some awesome organizations, but it also means that other organizations who align with the foundation's giving priorities and have the potential to make a great impact are left out.
5
Reviewer 741 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
This funder is incredibly difficult to work with and approaches nonprofit work like a business investment, where numbers and ROI matter much more than people. I would avoid working with them, as they require twisting your mission to match increasingly-difficult criteria.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2016
Average
They will respond to e-mails, but hardly ever calls. Even as a grantee it was difficult to get useful information.
Bad
Their focus on nutrition is carefully crafted to not avoid conflict with their business investments in incredibly unhealthy, modified foods. As a result their grantmaking feels stilted and disingenuous at best, and duplicitous at worst.
Their approach doesn't make any sense for nonprofits, particularly given their goals. They need to think hard about the role of the board and the direction they're pushing the foundation, as it is actively damaging nonprofits' ability to do their work effectively and propagating harmful myths about nonprofit capacity and investment.
Sets clear expectations that repeat funding is not likely.
5 to 10 hours
