15 survey respondents
Location: One Bush Street Suite 800, San Francisco, 94104 CA
EIN: 94-1236937
64%
36%
20 hours
Median
54%
46%
55%
45%
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 3485 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2023
I highly recommend this funder! Irvine is very responsive, asks if their deadlines will impact nonprofit employees' PTO and provides flexibility if so, and makes an effort to see things from the grantee's perspective.
Positive leader in the field, Friendly, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2023
Good
Irvine is very accessible when you are working on a proposal with them.
Good
If you are invited to apply, there will usually be an iterative process where you submit a draft and they respond with comments so you can revise.
20
Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
They may say that they're working towards racial, social, economic equity but in reality--that's not reflected in their funding (it's a one-way prescribed funding machine that perpetuates the HAVEs and HAVE-NOTs of the nonprofit sector). They don't engage small nonprofits and want to only work with the big wigs that are often hand-picked because they have a higher chance of succeeding. Unlike other funders (The California Endowment) JIF doesn't take risks and their board is quite conservative.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
California
Current or former grantee
Other
Before 2014
Bad
Bad
Take risks, stand up and be bold about equity especially if you're trying to help shift change in marginalized communities. Take risks and support small nonprofits and help build the pipeline of POC leaders. Add more board members of POC and from the Central Valley. Perhaps hire staff who are from the Valley and contract with POCs who are from the Valley.
Reflecting on previous efforts in which a group of young nonprofit professionals were "recruited" to engage with JIF in the design of a leadership network program for the Central Valley, a group of us asked the JIF leaders whether they considered having an office in the CV and the response we received was that they didn't see a point in having a presence here when they could just drive down a few hours from San Francisco whenever they felt like it. The leadership program design involved a group of consultants who were not from Fresno (although one of them claimed to be, she was white). They knew nothing about the needs of young nonprofit professionals, particularly people of color, and seemed to have a prescribed model program. It kicked off and was as conventional as most leadership models were in which the usual folks applied and took part. Some of us POCs decided to boycott it because we felt tokenized in the design process and because there was lack of inclusion and equity. The program did not take into consideration our input for a design that met our needs to stay in the nonprofit field (intersectional racial equity in leadership and all of the challenges POC leaders face). Right after the launch, many of the young nonprofit leaders left the field. It's too bad. The staff involved then have now moved on, JIF still does not have an office in the CV, and frankly, their funding is still narrowly focused (hence they channel funds through the community foundation that has done away with a lot of progressive programming to only fund large-scale initiatives that are often only lead by large institutions with few leaders of color and mostly white leaders). They claim to know the CV issues but try having a conversation with their staff and board (many board members are not from the CV and know nothing about the region).
Regard to leadership program design in the Central Valley
There are some really great staff who've been there a long time and really get the work of the Central Valley but others who are newer really have no clue.
0
We truly appreciate your feedback and take it seriously. In the five-plus years since your experience, we have increased our commitment to listening to and learning, in person, from people and organizations on the ground in the San Joaquin Valley (and throughout California) so that we can be better partners. These efforts are improving our understanding of communities, the nonprofits that serve them, and how our grantmaking can change. Thank you again for your input.
Reviewer 9324 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
I think this is a great foundation to work with if you fit within their priorities. Be prepared to make your case and understand their objectives.
Builds relationships
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2019
Good
Once our idea for support was developed and presented to staff, they were very helpful. They tried to ensure that our application was successful by making recommendations on how to improve the narrative. This was one of the best experiences with a foundation I have ever had.
Good
I think the process went smoothly, though it took a while. No complaints.
It has to be a good match. Once you have determined you are within their priorities, it's up to you to make the case.
Once we demonstrated that our approach fit within their priorities, they did their best to make this work. Lots of care from the staff, once it looked like we were a good prospect.
10
Thank you for your feedback. We’re very glad to hear the process was smooth and you had a positive experience.
Reviewer 1269 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
As far as I know, the Irvine Foundation seeks out potential grantees and does not invite folks to approach them on their own. If you review their website, their current priorities and campaigns are clearly stated. If your work falls solidly within one of those areas, I suppose you could email a program office with an inquiry. But don't be surprised if you don't hear back from them.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2019
Good
Good
They clearly state their priority funding areas and current campaigns and if you look over the list of their grantees it's quite obvious that they align closely with the Foundation's goals.
I really can't think of anything to say. I love this foundation and I'm truly grateful for their support and backing.
My experience was EXCELLENT! The program officers talked me through every step of the process, guided me in terms of constructing the proposal and weighing various options, always responded quickly to my emails and questions, treated me with respect and demonstrated great enthusiasm for the work I'm doing. I could not have asked for a better experience nor a better outcome! I feel extraordinarily lucky to be working with them.
30
Thank you for taking the time to comment, we appreciate your input. You are correct, we do not currently accept unsolicited grant inquiries. We do strive to be clear about our grantmaking strategy and funding priorities, and are happy to hear you found this to be the case.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Though the foundation is working on inequality, staff are not versed in equity practices, their consistent micro-agressions reveal deep-seated racism, sexism, homo-antagonism, classism, and ableism. They prefer a charity model of "experts" helping the less fortunate.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Culturally incompetent
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2018
Bad
Not at all accessible nor transparent about their process.
Bad
They want to address inequality but they fund Go Public Schools, a charter that is funded by the right-wing push to privatize schools which disproportionately and negatively impact children of color.
Stop giving pat answers that obscure what is really happening. Do the actual work. Stop condescending to your grantees - they know more than you do.
They have a real problem with racism, white supremacy, and white privilege. Beware!
45
Thank you for sharing your perspective, and we are truly sorry to hear any such perceptions of our staff. Treating people with respect, empathy, and open-mindedness is something we take seriously, and we have been actively committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at Irvine. Cleary this was not your experience, so we would like to talk with you to learn more. If you are open to that, please reach out through: https://www.irvine.org/contact-us/input (and note this exchange). Regardless, thanks again for your time and expressing your concern. We take it seriously.
Reviewer 637 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
We were invited to apply in 2016 and 2017, and I still don't have a clue why. Spent a lot of time on the application both years, for zero feedback (other than that we were not chosen). We are not in the Foundation's chosen field, so unless there is a change in the invitation, we will probably focus our limited resources on other applications in coming years.
Bureaucratic
California
Applied and not funded
2017
Average
If you invite a nonprofit to apply, indicate why, so there is some clue as to how the application might be tailored.
Don't really know.
Don't really know.
8
Thank you for your feedback, and for taking the time to apply for the grants. We do invite organizations whose work is closely aligned with our strategy to submit grant applications from time to time. We try to be transparent as possible about the process, and apologize if our communications about the invitation and final decision were not clear.
Reviewer 293 - Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
We were one of the last grantees in the Creative Connections Fund-Cultural Participation Category, and the two-year grant helped us establish an important program that we continue to operate today. However, we are profoundly disappointed with the Foundation's decision to abandon its long history as one of the major arts and culture funders in our state. Few remain to sustain our arts community at a time when it's needed most. Laudable as is their goal to focus on the issue of poverty, it should not be pursued at the expense of continuing to help to solve other needs in our state. And, yes, they are continuing to fund some arts organizations through the end of their pre-determined grant periods, but they will no longer fund the arts with the possible rare exception of programs that are primarily focused on alleviating poverty through the arts.
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
Before 2014
Average
Average
Re-consider the historic role of The James Irvine Foundation as an arts funder and find a way to provide that support again.
Relationship with the funder was productive until they decided to opt out of funding the arts.
15
Thanks for your feedback. We’re glad the CCF grant has had lasting impact, and we understand your disappointment around our strategy shift. (You can read more about why we made that shift on irvine.org/focus.)
Reviewer 338 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
We were invited to apply and felt that the Program Officers were very intentional and transparent about the process and what it would take to get the proposal passed the finish line. They went so far to provide a writing consultant to support our proposal writing, which totally helped!
Even before being invited, it was clear that they were making a concerted effort to understand the field of "worker voice". I could tell they were doing a deep scan of the landscape. They were being very mindful and thoughtful about the process and did not make any promises. If you are an ED and have time and capacity to cultivate new/current relationships and believe you all fit into their new priorities, it is definitely worth exploring.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Good
I think they are still in the process of exploring and deepening their understanding of the new framework. I believe that their pilot grants show how serious they are about building the voice and power of low wage workers.
Good
In this moment, we need more and more bold investments in the field for experimentation, long term infrastructure and grassroots and staff leadership development. Many of the strongest organizations have been built over time (ie from the 90s to now) and can play a critical role for these challenging times. Thank you for your new direction and hope that it continues as a long term investment.
Make time to talk to the POs!
They are upfront with you and will share as much as they can so you don't waste your time. Also, their POs are pretty knowledgeable about the field because many have come from the field.
35
We appreciate the feedback. Understanding the field is integral to our grantmaking. We also strive for transparency in our communications, and are glad that it was a clear and helpful process for you.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2014
Seriously, if you review the foundation's responses to the reviews, that will tell you all that you need to know about their strategies. They say that they are listening to grantees and the community - ask them which. They say that they are funding specific strategies - review who is funded as a result of those strategies and which communities they serve.
They are NOT CULTURALLY SENSITIVE. That is a lie.
Truly, this foundation thinks that they know what they are doing, but it is a top-down model of consultants that are not members of the communities that they are researching, and not a bottom-up grassroots mode of listening.
They haven't spoken with my organization about our strategies, in fact most of the staff that knew us have since bailed on the organization.
One staff member said, in a rare moment of honesty, they didn't want to have to lie about what the foundation was doing.
They really have no idea what they are doing, and their new strategies do not promise to create any change at all.
For example, all of the NCAF grantees are organizations with a floor budget of $700,000, not small grassroots organizations with actual expertise in engagement.
It's just new words for the same old, same old.
We should remember that the foundation did not want to be transparent about its processes or board members. That there are not transparent now. That they will tell you things that are only half-true. That they have NOT listened to the people most affected, only the "representatives" of those people.
Their new income inequality strategy is a disaster, and this is from our organization as a former grantee (multiple grants) that had decent relationships with our program officers.
The foundation's answers to all of the reviews should tell you everything that you need to know.
If you are a mainstream organization that talks a good game, then they will love you.
If you are a grassroots organization actually making an impact, and doing something concrete led by the communities affected by inequality, then don't even both to approach this foundation. They will feed you a line of BS, and think that they are being honest.
Gives more than money
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2014
Bad
Really, with their staff and strategy changes, they are less accessible.
Bad
They talk about inequality, but have nothing about how they staff the foundation. Only one person on staff has the relevant experience or expertise to speak to low income and communities of color.
Stay away if you are based in grassroots communities - you will find out very quickly that they support the status quo, their lack of cultural competence will mean that you have to explain the very basics to them.
If you are a white-led organization serving communities of color, and have a savior mentality to boot, you'll do just fine with this lot.
Talk BS but not do anything.
30
We appreciate hearing your perspective on our transparency, ability to listen, and support for grassroots organizations. Our shift in strategy announced last year (to expand political and economic opportunity for low-wage workers in California) is a change in what we support and how we engage organizations and communities to inform our grantmaking. Listening and sharing is a priority as we navigate this shift in strategy. (Our grantmaking before this shift, including the Arts Engagement work mentioned, will culminate in coming years.) For our new focus, we have deepened the way we listen to communities we support. This includes 14 community listening sessions across the state [see irvine.org/CAvoices] and engaging grantseekers, including grassroots organizations, in meaningful new ways (more to come on that process and its outcomes). With that said, we unfortunately cannot speak to or fund everyone, but we do value listening and transparency – and feedback. Thanks for yours.
Reviewer 654 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
We were invited to apply and the process was smooth. I would definitely focus on relationship building first.
Friendly, Builds relationships, Openminded, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Good
Always very responsive to inquiries in my experience, based on a fairly long relationship that has transcended leadership regimes.
Average
The foundation recently made a major pivot to focusing on issues of economic opportunity. I think that the field of nonprofits with legitimacy and credibility in that space already are confused by how they are proceeding. At one end they seem to be focusing on very micro-level approaches, without clear pathways to scalability. At another end, they are funding a few organizations who have policy agendas that actually work against policies that advance opportunity in many cases. Since the changes at the federal level, and what those mean for economic security in California if proposals advance, we not have seen a sense of urgency yet to their responsive grantmaking.
If the foundation is going to make a difference on economic opportunity issues it is going to need to make another pivot (within its current focus) to public policy, as the threats there simply outweigh any investment the foundation might otherwise make.
I was initially skeptical of the amount of funding they were putting into their awards program, but have since realized it isn't one of their huge value adds in California and I am a big fan.
8
We are glad the process was smooth, and thank you for the input.
