12 survey respondents
Location: 2100 24th Ave S Ste 330, Seattle, 98144 WA
EIN: 91-1754933
100%
0%
7 hours
Median
63%
38%
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 6064 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2023
I'm not sure if they are open for change or improvement. It is their money, and they seem to believe they are free to do whatever they like. Maybe they need to make their reviewers public if they did not do that already.
Washington
Applied and not funded
Other
2023
Average
Average
How was your relationship overall with the funder? This is not about specific relationship with specific agencies. we are all related if we need to serve the community. No access to build relationship at this point. They need to tell us this is the way, and we need to build relationship with you (Agencies). If they want.
It is hard to understand their use of sense of direction. Not sure if the organization understand the importance of community connection and seems uninformed.
Not sure
5
Professional in the field
Their staff is friendly and easy to communicate with, but it is not easy to get on-going funding and the grants are highly competitive.
Friendly, Likes site visits
Washington
Professional in the field
Other
2022
Average
Average
I'm not sure what their philanthropic goals are exactly, but I appreciate the focus areas being shared more recently.
They have been open to change and making great improvement in their grantmaking processes.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2020
Try to cap the number of hours you'd spend on writing this proposal.
Washington
Applied and not funded
2020
Average
To send a generic email with the subject header: regrets from Washington Women's foundation and then say that we did not get funded without any further explanation is simply not acceptable. Nonprofits spend hours writing applications and the least a funder can do is take a few minutes to respond with some feedback that will give the applicant insights into how their proposal was received. Perhaps scoring on different criteria would be helpful. In summary, increased transparency on the funder's side would be appreciated.
Average
I wish there was a way to connect with someone there to see if we have a good chance of getting funded--we're a small nonprofit and writing this proposal took considerable amount of staff time. Otherwise, at least let us know what was the exclusion criteria for which our proposal was rejected. We spent over 15 hours working on this--at least the Program Officers there could take a few minutes to write us back.
15
Thank you for sharing your feedback, we appreciate it! If you'd like to connect please email me ([email protected]) and we can set up a phone call. I'm always happy to have a general conversation about fit, even if our capacity limits our ability to give specific feedback at the LOI stage. I'd also encourage you to attend an info session for future grantmaking, we try to share more specifics about what we're looking for in those sessions as well as in blog posts. Again, thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to write your review.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2020
Consider spending more time on the application. It appears to be fairly simple for the LOI, and that was confusing to our org.
Washington
Applied and not funded
2020
Good
Good
Maybe more specifics on the LOI form so that orgs know who or what you are seeking.
Less than 5
Thank you for your feedback! We can definitely work to be more specific on the LOI form and will try to do that for the future.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
It would be so helpful if the Foundation could provide any insight into the priorities guiding the panels reviewing the Pool Grant LOIs. If an overwhelming number of applicants means that panel review comments are not available (which is what I've heard from them in the past), perhaps they could share their scoring rubric or more detailed review criteria?
Washington
Applied and not funded
2019
Bad
The Foundation's accessibility decreased further in their most recent round of Pool Grant funding. At least last year I received an e-mail that our LOI had not been selected for a full proposal; this year all I received was a newsletter profiling the 25 applicants selected to move on to the next round.
Average
If you are receiving so many LOIs that you can't respond to them individually, then posting clearer guidelines/priorities could help reduce your number of applicants and position you to provide feedback that would actually help those who continue to apply.
6
Thank you for sharing this feedback, we appreciate it. We will try to provide more details on our grant criteria in the future. We do host several info sessions in the beginning of the grant process, and recommend joining one for guidance and a chance to ask questions.
We're sorry that you didn't get the notification on the status of your LOI! We do still send out emails as we've done in years past and are open to connecting even though we don't have LOI-specific feedback.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
It is extremely competitive, and unfortunately, because the grant decisions are made by voting by the members, some causes (kids, for example) are more popular than others (advocacy, community organizing)
Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, Responsive
Washington
Applied and not funded
2018
Good
Everyone is very friendly and approachable
Average
Due to the voting process, where thousands of members vote on which grants are awarded, not the site visit team making the decision, certain causes that pull at the heart-strings will have an advantage. But that may leave out other equally worthy causes.
Reconsider having the general membership vote. If people didn't get a chance to go on a site visit, then their information is based on a short description of organizations written by people who did spend a significant amount of time with orgs. A condensed set of notes does not give members enough info to vote on projects. So then they are more likely to choose projects and concepts that they are familiar with, not necessarily projects that may most be needed.
Staff and site visit teams are always very friendly, approachable. They are willing to provide feedback.
25
Thank you so much for sharing your review! We appreciate your feedback, and have been talking about our voting process and how we can do a better job of sharing information about applicants with our members recently, so your perspective is really helpful.
Reviewer 554 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
The LOI is not too difficult, and they have been working to make it easier. The application is extremely detailed and time-consuming. Since their grants are paid over 2-3 years, you will need to provide budget information for future years.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues
Washington
Applied and not funded
2016
Good
Good
Make the application shorter and less time-consuming.
Only 25 LOI applicants are invited to submit full applications, and 5 of those will receive full grants. I've worked on full applications for different organizations 3-4 times and unfortunately none have been funded. Organizations need to be aware of the time commitment if they are invited to submit a full application.
They involve their members/donors in the grant process and provide educational workshops. That gives them opportunities to become individual donors to organizations and causes they learn about, even if the organization is not successful at securing a Pooled Fund grant.
30
Thank you for taking the time to share your review! We greatly appreciate it and will work to make the application less time-consuming.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
To read the instructions thoroughly, to research past funded projects and see how your project aligns, to ask questions if needed for clarification.
Positive leader in the field, Friendly, Responsive
Washington
Applied and not funded
2018
Good
Good
It is challenging to feel it is worth applying/sending in an LOI because of the significant amount of applications that are received. Our project was not accepted, and I feel disheartened, so wondering if there are other ways to engage with applicants?
They are great about funding large projects that need significant funding.
5
Thank you for sharing your feedback! We appreciate your perspective on our LOI process and will work to improve it.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2015
This is a long-shot funder, as they fund few organizations, but you get your organization in front of their members, so that can be positive. The LOI is simple, so it's probably worth it to throw your hat in the ring. Once you make it past the initial LOI, the process is incredibly time-consuming and you only have a 20% chance of being funded, but again you are put in front of members. This didn't seem to help our organization much, but I know there are some orgs where grants committee members have joined the Board or gotten more involved after an organization applied.
Builds relationships, Likes site visits, Responsive
Washington
Applied and not funded
2015
Average
Their staff is accessible, but not really helpful unless you make it past the LOI stage. Because it is member-driven, staff really aren't able to help organizations know how to best position themselves. They don't offer specific feedback on why organizations don't advance past the LOI, because of the volume of requests they receive, but this makes it difficult to know whether it is worth it to reapply.
Average
I think that one of their goals is to engage their members in philanthropy - I do think that they are accomplishing that goal. I think they have shifted towards funding more community-based organizations in the past few years, and going more to where the need is, so that is positive too. I
Diversify your membership.
The process is driven by members, so you really never know what will resonate with them.
Their LOI process is very simple, so it's not that much effort to through your hat in the ring.
30
Thank you for taking the time to share your review! We appreciate your advice and perspective on our member-driven process.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
The experience was great and although we were not selected I appreciated the transparency and knowledge to do a better ROI next time.
Culturally sensitive, Insightful
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
2018
Good
Good
More than 15
Thank you for sharing this review! We're glad you had a good experience and always welcome further feedback.
