7 survey respondents
Location: 711 Park Avenue West, Denver, 80205 CO
EIN: 84-0404235
50%
50%
12 hours
Median
50%
50%
43%
57%
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:
Grant Applicant - applied in 2025
MHUW has an unneccesarily time consuming and stressful grant process. I have worked with a huge range of funding partners for many years and they are by far one of the most difficult to work with, and that includes government funders. The application and award requirements are more intensive than they are for many much larger awards. Information availablility of funding and award sizes is not provided or inaccurate. Grantees are required to participate in multiple virtual meetings just to apply. If funding is awarded, they require two reports and a site visit each year for grants in the $10k range. For several years they required that part of your report be submitted in one portal, and part of your report be submitted in a completely different platform. Staff are condescending, and do not seem to grasp the challenges and workloads that service orgs and childcare facilities face, especially in the current political climate and in a city that is actively being targeted by the administration.
The past two grant cycles requried grantees to present to a panel of anonymous community reviewers. These are people on a Zoom with cameras off, no names provided. This was odd in 2023, but incredibly tone deaf and stress inducing in 2025. For organizations that still proudly offer DEI programs, serve migrants, support trans people, etc., this was deeply unsettling. Those of us actually working in communities right now are literally being threatened by the federal government, DOGE, and bigots in the community who feel emboldened to criticize nonprofits who still care about equity and inclusion. To have a funder require nonprofits to present organization details to completely anonymous people in the community puts nonprofits at risk, but if they don't want to participate they lose funding opportunities.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with
Colorado
Current or former grantee
Other
2025
Bad
I believe they started the presentation application requirement to make the process more equitable, but the implementation has completely failed to achieve that goal. Applicants are given a 20 minutes to verbally respond to at least 25 bullet points, in front of MHUW staff as well as anonymous volunteers. Points are docked if you don't address each question in 20 minutes, and I have heard from other orgs that staff critique portions of the presentation during this call with anonymous volunteers. Questions asked during the presentation were posed like test questions where there is only one right answer, as opposed to asking questions to further their understanding. After the presentations they suggested (didn't require) that all grantees sign up for a second virtual meeting so they can give you more extensive feedback on your presentation. If this were an equal relationship that could be helpful, but given the general tone their staff tend to take with grantees, the way they speak to nonprofit staff, and the power dynamics at play, this is actually just another opportunity for a funder with unreasonable expectations to belittle and tell nonprofit staff how they should do their jobs. I attempted to explain our perspective on an issue that they felt we were approaching incorrectly during one of these calls and was repeatedly told we were doing something wrong (we weren't), there was no willingness to hear where we were coming from.
I would like to give this feedback to MHUW but they do not offer this opportunity to grantees. Because of the power dynamics inherent in funder and grantee relations, we are concerned that voicing our concerns will lead to funding cuts. When I have attempted to express disagreement I was met with responses that made it clear my opinion was not solicited or respected, and frankly felt like I was asked to attend a meeting just so they could talk down to us.
Average
They give grants to a lot of organizations that align with their philanthropic goals. Their process is not equitable.
Start listening to community and grantees. Speak to grantees with the same respect you would want from a partner, and stop assuming you know more than they do. Provide an avenue for honest feedback. Don't make nonprofits give presentations to nameless faceless volunteers, especially when there is an authoritarian government in power.
Creating busy work for applicants and grantees.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2023
Mile High United Way cut funding to many agencies this year or funded much less than was anticipated based on what they said the award amounts would be. Now they are sending out solicitation emails asking for donations for Colorado Gives Day. Are they a funder or are they a direct service agency? Seems to be a conflict of interest and speaks to other reviewers comments about lack of transparency.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with
Colorado
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2023
Average
Bad
Decide what your purpose is and stick to it. Stop competing with the non-profits you were founded to support.
Create unnecessary processes.
10
Grant Applicant - applied in 2023
They made applicants participate in feedback sessions and jump through various hoops. The funding process does not seem transparent. Stated priority areas do not seem to match up with decision making. Strung out the decision making process much longer than necessary and instead of just sending an email or letter, made applicants sit through uncomfortable meetings online.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with
Colorado
Applied and not funded
2023
Average
Staff seem annoyed if you ask questions, even when there is a good reason for the question. There is a sense that they see themselves as above the non-profits that apply, although they claim to be interested in partnering.
Bad
Lack of transparency in their process and on their website makes it really difficult to discern if they are meeting any goals.
If you want to be a partner, really be a partner. Stop being performative.
Be prepared to invest a considerable amount of time in hopes of getting funded.
They are great at using platforms to schedule online meetings with non-profits.
14
Grant Applicant - applied in 2021
I really appreciated the pre application training. They took the time to explain their questions and what a good response looks like. It was helpful to get the rubric. We were not successful but they continue to help us with trainings and even review applications we have to other funders.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded, Responsive
Colorado
Applied and not funded
2021
Good
Good
They invited applicants to review grant applications. I loved seeing how other organizations applied and got a look at how applications are reviewed. It will make my next application stronger. This transparency is appreciated.
Get more nonprofits to review grants. It’s a wonderful experience.
Staff really take the time to help applicants.
9
Grant Applicant - applied in 2020
MHUW understands the power dynamic between funders and nonprofits and exploits it. Their staff are regularly condescending to grantees. Their grant requirements are paternalistic (quarterly trainings on unrelated topics, only certain staff allowed to interact, etc).
Colorado
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2020
Bad
They will make themselves available for calls, but are not open with guidance until awarded. Then, feedback or support will be provided, but often in a very condescending way.
Average
Treat grantees with common decency and respect (and ensure all your staff do the same). From there, start reducing the extensive and taxing grant requirements. They don’t improve your outcomes or your grantees’.
15
Reviewer 6547 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Get to know the people, and follow the guidelines carefully
Gives more than money, Insightful, "Gets" nonprofits and issues
Colorado
Current or former grantee
Funded for greater amount
2018
Average
The higher you are trying to get on the hierarchy, the less likely you are to have an actual conversation.
Average
I think that they are collecting data, and I expect that eventually they'll release it. But it's hard to say. They're a massive bureaucracy, so a lot of what I learn about them, I learn through rumor.
The requirements after being awarded funds are pretty burdensome. Our grant writer had to attend a workshop on grant writing?
Very bureaucratic, and some good people buried in there.
Great facility with outstanding meeting space - call early to get a reservation, though.
15
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
The process isn't too complicated, however, it's very clear that their funding scope can seem wide but actually be narrow in terms of what gets funded.
Friendly, Responsive
Colorado
Applied and not funded
Other
2016
Good
Average
I think that given the environment of Denver (which is very casual) their formality makes them seem somewhat unapproachable. They could also stand to be more progressive with their funding, especially for organizations led by people of color.
Very traditional application and approval processes. They tend towards safer and more established nonprofits, which often means large and mostly-white nonprofits.
They have great availability to the community.
12
