90 survey respondents
Location: 703 Broadway St Ste 710, Vancouver, 98660 WA
EIN: 23-7456468
89%
11%
40 hours
Median
89%
11%
90%
10%
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 4745 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Be prepared for a fairly quick turn around on the LOI, but be planned to wait for nine months for a visit and decision to be made regarding the grant application.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits
Alaska
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Average
Depending on which program officer is assigned to you, the length of time for any email or phone call response is greatly varied. There have been times with one officer that calls were not returned and another officer was a 24 hour quick return in communicating with me.
Good
The Trust greatly meets its goals as I have witnessed them for 18 years funding critical projects in my state.
Be prompt on returning communications AND shorten the length of time for a decision about the grant request to three months please.
The Trust serves the institutions very well with their encouragement and expertise in assisting us to get the grant. They are "on our team" from the beginning and wants success in our institutions/programs.
10
We appreciate this feedback regarding our process. We always strive to provide prompt responses to inquiries from applicants. This is part of the reason why we invest in ensuring that each applicant has the opportunity to build a personal partnership with a single program director so there is a specific resource for questions and feedback throughout the process. While no organization or individual is perfect, we strive to ensure every inquiry via phone or email receives a response within 1-2 business days.
Reviewer 6540 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Have a very clear definition of who you are, your work history, mission, accomplishments, goals and plans to accomplish the goals. Be sure to integrate your Christian and your organizations values as part of the research.
Positive leader in the field, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded, Responsive
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2018
Good
The Murdoch Trust Foundation is a very seasoned organization. From the senior experienced leadership and staff, they are a no-nonsense foundation. They lead and promote a very serious commitment to assist in the development and preserve the promise made to help those who are less fortunate. They accomplish this goal by working through agencies and organizations whose mission is to do the work of reducing social and economic challenges. The Christian based organization makes me fell better knowing that they stand as a beacon of light guiding the way to glorify God and social stewardship.
Good
Show others how to do this and train young non-profit leaders on the how and what for's.
Their leaders are committed to excellence and spare little time, energy, and focus doing anything else.
Murdoch brings thousands of individuals together through conferences, leadership, and board trainings, cohort experiences and community exchanges that provoke higher level thought and insight into festering and complex community problems and issues. They can tackle a major challenge through their contacts and processes. This makes them distinct from many other foundations.
20
We appreciate your thoughtful feedback and we are grateful to hear that our process was helpful to your organization. While the Trust is not a faith-based organization itself, about 25-30% of our grants are made to faith-based organizations (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc) while 70-75% of our grants are made to secular organizations.
Reviewer 9949 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
While the Trust may seem a bit bureaucratic at first, once you are familiar with their process, it becomes easier. Reading the guidelines carefully is essential. Program officers and staff are helpful.
Gives more than money, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, Responsive
Washington
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2018
Good
The Trust is very focused on their programs and very specific in what they want to accomplish. They are looking for strong non-profits that have good track records.
Good
The Trust reviews their programs and listens to stakeholders. They will bring in a group of grantees to discuss programs and float ideas for new programs.
The reporting questions do not always apply to the particular grant, especially in the sciences and it makes reporting difficult.
They are bureaucratic and somewhat set in their ways, but if your project meets their goals they are great to work with. They also provide a lot of support for non-profits in other ways such as leadership development.
They have developed a new online system for grants and once you are used to it, it is awesome. They are also very quick to respond to issues with the system.
0
Thank you for sharing your experience with the nonprofit community and potential future applicants. We appreciate your constructive notes regarding our reporting questions and will look into ways we can evolve this as we seek to continuously tweak and improve our process based on feedback.
Reviewer 7523 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
Fund some very specific things and only those things. Have a very well documented and thorough application process.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Risk averse
Washington
Applied and not funded
2019
Bad
Struggled to get a call back from our assigned point person. She retired part way through our application but stayed on our specific grant (not sure about others) and became even harder to reach.
Average
I'm sure they don't make many bad bets. But I bet they miss a lot of good opportunities too.
Your approach seems to indicate that you're more afraid of making a single bad investment than of making a thousand sub-optimal ones. I wonder if that's actually true or if your structure creates a risk adverseness that you do not intent.
We applied in the summertime. On purpose. Because our fiscal year is Jan-Dec. But the application was so drawn out, we didn't receive a decision until February. And you wanted us to update financial statements within five business days of the close of the fiscal year. That's just not enough time for us to close the fiscal year, so I sent you accurate but un-reconciled financial statements that made our year look worse than it really was. Then you declined based on what appeared to be a bad year. I think that's really a shame. You declined based on facts that your process distorted.
Their documentation (instructions) is very thorough.
15
Reviewer 4750 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Make sure you are fully grant ready before submission. This foundation is very thorough in their pre-award vetting process and wants to see clear alignment with your mission, strong leadership, and board buy-in. Their website includes a thorough toolkit to help you prepare.
Positive leader in the field, Insightful, Likes site visits, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
Washington
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2018
Good
Good
Trusting the grantee to carry out the project well once the grant has been awarded.
60
Thank you for sharing your experience partnering with us. We are grateful for this feedback!
Reviewer 5016 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Before all else, consider whether you have at least a four-year organizational history that will build the case for growth. I feel like Murdock looks at and weighs history in the application, which can be frustrating for less established organizations, but very validating for orgs who have good track records. Pitch a few project ideas and let them give feedback on what may or may not align with their priorities!
Culturally sensitive, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, "Gets" nonprofits and issues
Oregon
Applied and not funded
2016
Good
I find that if you politely stay on their case, you can usually arrange a phone call or meeting with a program officer - which makes a critical difference towards knowing whether or not you should take the time to apply! I would almost recommend you do NOT apply UNLESS you have personally talked to a Murdock rep.
Good
Murdock gets a lot of flack for the gross behavior of some past grantees, which is too bad. Coming from an org that represents POC, I would say that Murdock officers are genuinely empathetic and want to help orgs do good work. I guess you can call it risk-averse, but I see them as a funder who stays true to wanting to fund excellence over half-baked ideas / untested waters.
Update your website to match the LOI & proposal portal! Murdock requires a lengthy proposal which really pivots around budget and history. There are some discrepancies which cause time-consuming surprises.
Yes, the proposal will require a lot of work and a huge team effort. Yes, you will wait around for most of the year awaiting their decision, and pretty much have to freeze the project you proposed until they respond. I have been both funded and not funded by Murdock, and all I can say is I can see why every time. They aren't big risk takers, and will sniff out any BS.
Communicate their areas of funding and priorities.
50
Reviewer 7713 - Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
They like being told well in advance about potential projects and will not fund anything long-term. They want grantees to become self-sufficient
Insightful, Builds relationships, Likes site visits
Alaska
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
Before 2014
Good
I have always received a response to my emails
Good
They have a very structured and planned giving program, and have spent time on their process.
Do homework in advance, especially for capital related projects
Availability of funds for the areas they serve, and follow ups with current/past funders.
25
Professional in the field
Please note - directly from a board member who has a personal relationship with this funder - They have a cold, old fashioned, risk averse process. Their trustees and other involved also fund anti-LGBT groups/actions.
Washington
Professional in the field
Funded for amount requested
2014
Average
Average
0
We do our very best to build an open, welcoming process to every individual, nonprofit and partner we work with based on 43 years of experience in the funding space and informed by extensive feedback from our applicants and grantees. We gather this feedback through many channels, including a regularly conducted survey of applicants and grantees through the Center for Effective Philanthropy (which reflects a positive experience overall by both applicants and grantees https://murdocktrust.org/evaluating-our-efforts/)
That said, we are always trying to improve our process as we know that we are not perfect. We are disheartened to hear that any applicant or partner left with this impression of our organization and we welcome the opportunity to meet personally to hear specific feedback related to your experience so we can improve.
We are aware that there have been misrepresentations made about our work in regards to LGBTQ issues. We have previously clarified that The Murdock Trust does not support projects that discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Our organization has remained committed to human flourishing and human rights throughout our history. We collaborate with very diverse leaders, including many members of the LGBTQ community, as we have worked on projects and supported the work of diverse nonprofits in the Pacific Northwest. The organizations to which we have provided grants serve very diverse populations, including the LGBTQ community. You can read more here: https://murdocktrust.org/answering-questions/
Reviewer 1422 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
The LOI process is deceptively simple and the response time is short. On the other hand, the application is much more arduous than any other Foundation in the local area. Program Officer was abrupt, impersonal, and difficult to work with, repeatedly asking for information that was already given. They are not culturally sensitive. Review guidelines thoroughly before applying- if they state they "do not generally fund" something, they don't fund it. Period. Make sure your financials are solid before approaching this funder.
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2018
Average
Program officer was somewhat responsive but often responded to a different person than the one who was reaching out (ie responded to CEO about grant staff's question).
Good
The Trust is a general purpose funder and contribute a significant amount of money to the areas they serve.
Make sure your ducks are all in a row before you begin. If you make it to the site visit stage, be prepared to respond quickly (within 1 day) to program officer requests.
Grants are larger than most funders in the area.
25
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
I wish we hadn't wasted our time pursuing a Murdock grant. It was a long and arduous process and to invest so much time and not get funded is painful. If you do direct service and are a large(r) mainstream organization maybe you'll do better than we did. They are the epitome of a white-savior-funder. Their own agenda built on hierarchies of white privilege.
Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Risk averse
Washington
Applied and not funded
2018
Bad
Horrible. They swoop in for a site visit and that is it.
Bad
If their goals are to serve historically white-led organizations they are right on track.
Get some racial equity training.
60
