The California Endowment

Location: 1000 N Alameda St, Los Angeles, 90012 CA

EIN: 95-4523232

Write a Review

62%

38%

What was the overall relationship with the funder?

How many hours did the grant application process take?

20 hours

Median

50%

50%

How would you rate this funder's accessibility?

69%

31%

How successfully do you think the funder is accomplishing its current philanthropic goals?

Important Information

2017 Deadlines:

Types of Grants Awarded:

Geographic Focus:

Interests/Priorities

Key Personnel

Financial Summary

For Fiscal Year

Total Assets:

Total Grants:

Change in Assets FY :

Amount of Grants to Minnesota Nonprofits:

Sample Grants to Minnesota Nonprofits in

Largest Grant:

Smallest Grant:

Average Grant:

Top descriptors for this funder

7Culturally sensitive6Positive leader in the field4Difficult to work with4Worth the time to pitch3Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field3"Gets" nonprofits and issues3Insightful3Bureaucratic2Risk taker2Builds relationships1Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues1Risk averse

Advice from a Friend

The California Endowment

Oct 31, 2017

Grant Applicant - applied in 2017

Need to have a relationship with the Foundation. Be prepared to do A LOT of tweaking and wordsmithing of the proposal and specifically tie it to health outcomes in CA

Pros

Positive leader in the field, Culturally sensitive, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues

More Feedback

Oct 23, 2017

Grant Applicant - applied in 2016

Funding amounts are dwindling in comparison to work expected. It isn't that I don't want to do the work - I just don't want to be obligated to keep a mostly out of touch program officer up to date on it if they aren't "paying" for my time to do so and relinquishing control to them as well. The meeting requirements are extremely time consuming and the juggernaut of "collaboration" eclipses respectful use of people's (very limited) time. A LOT of favoritism among grantees, which is unfortunate, because often the people who are most successful at charming the program officer are not the people who are doing the best work. Hint: if you are spending most of your time actually fighting for your cause, you have less time to stay in constant communication with your program officer.

Cons

Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with

More Feedback

Oct 11, 2017

Grant Applicant - applied in 2016

Without a relationship with program officers or staff unlikely to get funded. Also strong focus on getting new Minority led organizations more engaged.

Pros

Positive leader in the field, Culturally sensitive, Insightful

More Feedback

Sep 14, 2017

Reviewer 293 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2015

CalEndow targets only specific geographic areas that are underserved in an effort to building wellness. Our arts program, because it was an outdoor event in one of their designated areas, was considered eligible. We received a few years of small grants to support the program until they adjusted their giving priorities away from our kind of activity.

More Feedback

Sep 09, 2017

Grant Applicant - applied before 2014

It's really difficult to know what they're interested in funding. While they have a set of goals that are articulated, they sometimes make whimsical funding decisions. Most times, however, it's very hard to get through. Be prepared for a very bureaucratic process and program officers who are not that knowledgeable about the overall goals. Innovation is not well supported and they prefer programmatic metrics regarding delivery of service.

Cons

Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic, Risk averse

More Feedback

Aug 31, 2017

Reviewer 777 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017

Be aware: if your organization is funded, this funder will likely push you to do a whole lot more work than they are paying you for and to adopt the strategies and tactics they want (rather than trusting you to make your own strategic decisions about how you do your work) .

More Feedback

Aug 28, 2017

Reviewer 276 - Professional in the field

Read their guidelines and funding priorities carefully; do not think that they fund health care or medical research. Then try to find an "in" with someone who works there, and try to get a meeting. There is no direct route to applying for this giant pool of money.

Cons

Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic

More Feedback

Aug 17, 2017

Grant Applicant - applied before 2014

Must build some type of relationship with funders. The time and effort for a possible connection with someone takes away time and energy to do the work of the organization.

Pros

Positive leader in the field, Culturally sensitive, "Gets" nonprofits and issues

More Feedback

Aug 16, 2017 1

Grant Applicant - applied in 2016

It is hard to know where you stand with this group. They tell you one thing and do another.

More Feedback

Aug 16, 2017 1

Reviewer 328 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2015

The program staff are very smart, strategic and committed to social change. There was a lot of discussion and revision before we were asked to submit via the online application process. Two challenges: they don't list much staff information on the website, so it's hard to see how they're structured and what people's roles are. Also, staff expressed interest in a project and then stopped responding after a few emails. Ghosting isn't cool in any context.

Pros

Positive leader in the field, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Insightful

More Feedback

Would you like to share your experiences about this funder?

funder logo

The California Endowment