2 survey respondents
Location: 254 W 31st St Fl 15, New York, 10001 NY
EIN: 13-3438528
0%
100%
4 hours
Median
0%
100%
50%
50%
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 before 2014
This application is unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Bureaucratic
Alabama
Applied and not funded
Before 2014
Bad
The application is one of the most time-consuming and difficult I've seen. Amphion makes applicants put their financial info into Amphion's categories. It's very time-consuming. They require years of repertoire info, and ask for a lot information that is very time-consuming to find like the length of every single work. They say they will NOT accept season brochures. After they ask for uploaded financials, they ask us to input that same information again, which is unnecessary. These hours spent could be better spent on things that advance contemporary music more than researching whether an overture performed two years ago was 4 minutes or 6 minutes long. All this effort is for $7500 of funding, at most. And getting funded one year doesn't mean there will be funding again in the future, they say. How are contemporary music organizations supposed to be financially stable without knowing where their funding comes from from year to year?
0
Reviewer 4107 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2022
Communicating with Amphion is very frustrating. We applied in two consecutive years, and at times waited 4-6 weeks for simple responses. This includes phone and email attemps. This year, decisions were communicated a month after their stated response deadline, and even then we had to initiate conversation via email. They offer notes back, but the content we received could've been written on the back of a cocktail napkin.
The headache of communication, tedious application requirements, and lack of due diligence in the review process makes this a questionable process.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2022
Bad
Good
Re-evaluate your application requirements, succinctly clarify rating criteria, and invest in capacity to properly communicate with potential applicants.
8
