13 survey respondents
Location: 6889 Rowland Rd, Eden Prairie, 55344 MN
EIN: 20-5434405
14%
86%
0 hours
Median
19%
81%
25%
75%
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:
Professional in the field
A collective groan went up when this foundation was mentioned in a Dec. 2018 gathering of several hundred Twin Cities grantseekers. And given their lack of response to the overwhelmingly negative comments on this site, it's obvious the people running this foundation couldn't care less about their public persona.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
Minnesota
Professional in the field
2018
Bad
They could be a great asset to the people served by local nonprofits but instead, they operate in an ivory tower.
Bad
This foundation is a throwback to the philanthropy style of the extraordinarily wealthy people of the 1800s (Astor, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, et al.). They're self-absorbed, out of touch, and oblivious to the larger community.
Adopt 21st century grantmaking practices!
Built a monument to themselves in the form of a state-of-the-art facility in Eden Prairie, MN
0
Thank you for sharing, and we are sorry to hear about this reaction. While we are happy to call Minnesota home, and about 10% of our grantmaking goes to Minnesota nonprofits, our programs have a regional, national, and international focus.
We have programs with an explicit focus on the Upper Midwest, and several of our domains at Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies (MACP) fund organizations within Minnesota. We also support local organizations through donor advised funds at The Minneapolis Foundation and the Saint Paul and Minnesota Foundation. These community foundations support local work that is aligned with our mission but is often smaller in scale than our direct grantmaking.
Another way we work to make a difference close to home is through our employee matching gift program. We match all employee donations to qualifying charities 2-to-1, and we match gifts to Minnesota-based organizations or for work that takes place within Minnesota on a 3-to-1 basis.
If you have additional questions, you are welcome to contact me directly at [email protected].
Thank you again for your feedback.
Leeanne Huber
Communications Director
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies
Did not apply
Although the grant officer we worked with was personable and did a site visit, the application and reporting process as well as the amount of influence over programming and strategy the foundation expected in return was excessive. We elected to pursue more trusting partners.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Minnesota
Did not apply
2017
Good
The officer was always responsive to requests and open to dialogue.
Bad
Consider the level of trust in your partnerships and decide if the amount of reporting and influence is in alignment with your values. If a substantial level of reporting is necessary fund that as well.
Concentrate on 6 figure gifts and insist that documentation and reporting is included in the project budget.
Focuses on impact gifts.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
This is a potentially important funder that has alienated many worthy organizations with their relentlessly bureaucratic approach. The notion that we were working together to improve an issue was never carried out in practice. Instead, we filled out report after report -- with no feedback. Another person described their reporting process as "cruel" That was exactly our experience.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
South Dakota
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Bad
Bad
Be clear about what you are trying to accomplish and trust those who actually do the work to help you find a way to meet those goals.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2014
Not worth spending time on - it is a closed process that remains a mystery. We received funds out of the blue and were told not to reach out for more funds.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Illinois
Current or former grantee
Other
2014
Bad
Average
Provide more transparency around the grant making process.
Received an unsolicited grant
0
Thank you for sharing, this is very helpful feedback.
Each year our board and committee members have the chance to recommend funding to individual nonprofits, and we match employees’ donations to qualifying nonprofits as well as make awards in recognition of staff milestone anniversaries.
If you did not expect your gift, it is possible that your organization received funds through one of these programs. These gifts are sometimes separated from the accompanying letter, and we apologize for any confusion we may have caused. We have recently updated the letters that accompany each grant to better express how and why a grantee was given these types of funds.
If you have additional questions, you are welcome to contact me directly at [email protected].
Thank you again for your feedback.
Leeanne Huber
Communications Director
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies
Grant Applicant - applied in 2014
We received an out of the blue large gift from them, we think because of press coverage we received - no application. Not able to engage them at all for ongoing funding at all, though. We were delighted to receive it but their process is a mystery.
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Other
2014
Bad
Not able to access even after getting a grant?
Average
I think their goal might be to just have fun giving out money based on positive emotional impulse and personal connections? If yes they are rocking it. Hey man it's their money right?
Take a look at Richard M. Schulze Family Foundation's grant process and consider copying it, if you ever open up to new organizations in your areas of interest. I think they have the perfect balance of information-based decision making and a nonprofit-friendly grants and reporting process.
Wish I could help ya! A puzzle wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigma.
We received $$$ out of the blue, no application submitted
Have bucketloads of money. In our case, also had zero reporting expectations (vs. the very heavy burden others reported, maybe those were supersized grants?). That's nice for us but probably not great for them achieving philanthropic goals.
0
Reviewer 5016 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
I can't speak to the process of getting on MACP's radar, but as a staffer who inherited the burden of reporting - I can honestly say this is the most time-consuming, bureaucratic grantmaker I've encountered in the nation. I understand that they give big $ but it's almost cruel - the level of catering your non-profit staff must devote in order to report is breathtaking; we had to devote 3 FT people to monitoring JUST the MACP reports every - single - quarter. They want phone calls, online dashboards, narrative reports, attachments that crept close to 50.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Average
Once you're in, expect a lot of reports and at least an annual phone call.
Average
It seems like their website could use some help in clarifying their goals. What do they mean by "the arts"?
Please hire a consultant or join a grantmakers association for some guidance on best practices around grant applications and reporting, and maybe on how non-profits work. The demands you make on non-profits makes it feel like you don't understand our limited resources.
Give large, multi-year grants. Interested in supporting people of color and in my experience, willing to take risks to do so, so long as they have a relationship with your organization.
75
Thank you for sharing your experience, we really do appreciate it.
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies (MACP) has spent the last several years substantially expanding our grantmaking, implementing a new grants management platform, and making changes to integrate our strategies and unify our processes. With that work largely completed, we realize this is an area where there is significant work to be done.
We heard comments on this topic in our recently-completed grantee perception survey, where a key theme involved the intensive nature of MACP’s processes. While not all grantees felt our processes were overly burdensome, enough grantees shared your concern that it represents one of our most important areas of focus in the coming year.
Thank you again for sharing, and we hope that our grantees will notice positive changes in the future. If you have additional comments to share, you are welcome to contact me directly at [email protected].
Thank you again for your feedback.
Leeanne Huber
Communications Director
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies
Did not apply
This is a completely inaccessible foundation. There website says you can contact them but the bounce back says they don't accept unsolicited proposals. There seems to be no way to get in front of them, even if you fit their guidelines/interests.
Minnesota
Did not apply
2017
Bad
0
We appreciate your feedback, and I hope we can provide a little more context.
While we acknowledge and appreciate that many deserving nonprofits do important work within our priority domains, our programs have very specific strategies and geographic priorities, many of which are national and international in scope. Our invitation-only process focuses on organizations that our program teams have identified through extensive field work, site visits, and other research as those which have relevant expertise, infrastructure, and people in the field to address our program strategies.
As a sizable philanthropy that strives to have impact at a community level, we work most frequently with larger nonprofits that maintain relationships on the ground within communities our funding is intended to serve. In many cases, these partners serve as re-granters of our funds. This approach allows us to develop strong, long-term relationships with our grantee partners, but we realize it can make us a tougher match for smaller nonprofits seeking funding.
If you have additional questions, you are welcome to contact me directly at [email protected].
Thank you again for your feedback.
Leeanne Huber
Communications Director
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies
Did not apply
Best of luck trying to understand this foundations process or priorities.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Minnesota
Did not apply
2017
Bad
If you are fortunate enough to reach someone, they do not seem to understand best way to respond or to put you in touch with someone who can help.
With all of your administrative capacity, please invest in ways to communicate effectively with community. Many were excited when this huge funder came on the scene in Minnesota after Margaret's death, but they appear to make little effort to reach out.
Have no idea since they are such a mystery.
Building massive internal infrastructure. Their staff levels are off the charts.
0
Other
This funder does not have an application process.
Likes site visits
-1
Grant Applicant - applied in 2014
It was very confusing to approach them- they did not seem to know who I should talk to, or what their funding priorities were, or if we were even eligible.
Not worth the time to pitch
Applied for funding
6
2014
