25 survey respondents
Location: 1000 N Alameda St, Los Angeles, 90012 CA
EIN: 95-4523232
56%
44%
16 hours
Median
47%
53%
69%
31%
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 5695 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2021
The website is filled with marketing information, but there it has NO sustenance. I tried to contact the Foundation four times, to no avail. For point of contact numbers given on the website, the people (if they exist) behind these numbers do NOT return calls. How does one get the Foundation to answer general questions answered in this COVID-19 world?
Difficult to work with
California
Applied and not funded
2021
Bad
answer your phones or at least return calls
be prepared to be frustrated with this funder's non responsiveness. Stay encouraged
website contains great marketing information
0
Reviewer 8925 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2020
It's hard to trust the program staff because they are so easily overridden by people above them (legal council, CFO, executive staff?). It creates so much back and forth and nit-picky redoing of work.
Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
California
Current or former grantee
Other
2020
Bad
Bad
Make your external messaging match your internal practices. And give your program staff some authority to make commitments to grantees about what needs to be provided through the application process.
So much negotiation on amount!
TCE's top leader says all the right things in the field and challenges other funders to do better.
40
Reviewer 4715 - Did not apply
It is easy to get a meeting however, they are very specific about what they are funding. Their properties on their website did not match what they are currently funding
Bureaucratic
California
Did not apply
2018
Average
They did not RSVP to the tour until the night before and did not leave contact information when scheduling the meeting.
Good
Do research about the organization prior to the meeting. The program representative I met with admitted they did not know who we were or what our organization did at the meeting.
They have a strong idea of the issues in their funding areas and have identified well deserving organizations to support.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Request a meeting with a program officer. Come prepared with a brief letter summarizing your request. If you don't get a meeting right away, it is still worthwhile to at least submit a letter of introduction or request. I've found that their staff are very approachable, and the foundation makes many resources available to the nonprofit community.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, Openminded, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2016
Good
Good
Consider funding actual indirect rates if an organization can demonstrate the validity of the rate. Because we have an indirect rate that is higher than their 15% cap (a common occurrence for nonprofits with low wages, or that rely heavily on volunteers), we are in essence further subsidizing the project through additional fundraising/unrestricted funds. However, we acknowledge that this 15% rate cap is higher than many other funders.
Over the years, they have worked with us hand in hand to help us have positive outcomes. They seem genuinely interested in positive outcomes, not just checking off a list of deliverables. They are open to discussions about what is working well and what isn't, and problem solving adjustments to scope of work and approach. I'm not fearful that funding will be pulled if our first try didn't work out, but rather that they will help us pivot and assess to improve outcomes.
0
Reviewer 654 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Establish a relationship with a program officer and work together to find a fit. I've found that their program officers work closely to ensure successful applications if you get to the point of being asked to submit a proposal.
Positive leader in the field, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Friendly, Openminded, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Good
Good
You are everywhere and oftentimes funding an array of aligned and complementary organizations. But, you should use your leadership role in helping those organizations coordinate their work, serving as a convener and strategy partner. Too often, those funded aren't aware of others in their networks that are also being funded to do something complementary and that's a lost opportunity. You also have grantees in your network whose work cuts across your program priorities and you should think about multi-year core support for those organizations -- as core infrastructure for your programming.
Actively engage in public policy. They don't sit on the sidelines on important issues and they lead by example in a philanthropic community that is otherwise too unwilling to take on hard policy issues over time.
5
Grant Applicant - applied in 2014
We were funded for four years and had one or two outstanding relationships with Endowment Program Officers. That being said, overall the Endowment was the most difficult foundation we have ever worked with: micro-managing, too directive, little room for true innovation or creativity. They have a very closed concept of what community engagement and community change looks like. As much as they emphasize roots-up, community-based strategies, they are not particularly collaborative, unlike other foundations who we experience as true partners.
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2014
Bad
Average
Be open to innovative ideas. Vet your grantees well, and then let them do their work. Limit the additional reports, required meetings, and the like.
We had a great relationship with the Foundation and several of its Program Officers. We were grateful for the opportunity to do the work supported by the Foundation's grant. That being said, they are known "on the street" as one of the more difficult foundations to work with.
I admire their big vision of community and systems change, as well as their commitment to empowering grassroots organizations and activism.
20
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
Positive leader in the field, Culturally sensitive, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues
Illinois
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Good
Average
Always unclear what impact any foundation is making given the arms length relationship to actual change efforts
For grants under $250000, streamline the process
For the most part gets community engagement but it seems as if there is an internal process and bureaucracy that is part of the approval process and which is not terribly well-connected to the issues and is overly focused on compliance rather than impact
25
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.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2016
Average
Hard to get responses by email or phone but enough in person meetings that I could talk with the program officer if I needed.
Average
The push for visible wins doesn't always align with what the community wants / is best for the community. That said, there HAVE been community wide improvements that absolutely wouldn't have been possible without TCE.
Greater respect for everyone's time (community members AND grant partners).
Find out their current focus and hammer those buzz words to death. Be prepared to approach other funders to leverage this funding.
They are not afraid to take risks and back socially progressive issues (more so than any other funder I've worked with).
40
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.
Positive leader in the field, Culturally sensitive, Insightful
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2016
Bad
Quite slow to respond
Average
Large community investment strategy worthy but unclear if it is making real progress toward goals. Lack support for key nonprofits that continue to do work supportive of the organizations goals.
Understand that squeezing non profits is not in long term best interests of their goals. Time spent fundraising is time lost on work.
Communications campaigns like Health Happens Here.
25
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.
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2015
Bad
Initially, accessibility was typical of other foundations--slow to respond but they would eventually do so. Later on, they created new barriers to making contact and were not very responsive to our inquiries--even as a multi-year past grantee.
Average
Don't know enough about other things they are funding to answer this.
Improve communications and responsiveness to inquiries.
Initially, the relationship was good, but eventually they just seemed to lose interest in us and moved in a different direction without communicating their reasons why.
10 to 15 hours
