W K Kellogg Foundation

8 survey respondents

Location: 1 Michigan Ave, Battle Creek, 49017 MI

EIN: 38-1359264

Write a Review



What was the overall relationship with the funder?

How many hours did the grant application process take?

5 hours




How would you rate this funder's accessibility?



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

Important Information

2017 Deadlines:

Types of Grants Awarded:

Geographic Focus:


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

5Bureaucratic4Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues3Difficult to work with3Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field2Risk averse1Culturally incompetent

Advice from a Friend

W K Kellogg Foundation

Nov 11, 2022

Reviewer 6489 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019

Kellogg Foundation claims that it will fund only sustainable projects; not true. In fact, it will fund projects that are not sustainable and unproven as long as the organization/applicant can satisfy its tax requirements and has a good relationship with the project officers, many of whom have not real understanding or background in public health.


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

More Feedback

Jan 31, 2020 3

Reviewer 4265 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2020

The online application is a nightmare. Various prompts appear as you move through 17 pages; prompts are not always clear or specific to what you just entered into a field. What is the point of a prompt that informs you your board exceeds 10% of staff, or some such information you can't alter? It's hit and miss until you get the "right" response to move forward. Be sure to read, even print out, the many pages of pre-application instructions before even starting.

More Feedback

Nov 05, 2019 1

Grant Applicant - applied in 2017

Constant change and turnover. We started with one program officer and ended up with another. The racial equity, civic engagement, and tangential areas become confusing when you receive different messages. In our approach process, we found ourselves speaking to different program officers or directors. Truly Frustrating!


Bureaucratic, Risk averse

More Feedback

Oct 17, 2019

Reviewer 9994 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017

We had to do a lot of education with our program officer -- on our issue area, on the racial equity lens (we are a racial justice organization), etc. They were ultimately supportive, but we had to go through the whole process again with a new program officer this year. When we needed an extension on the grant and additional funding, they were willing to work with us. This grant is a lot of work, but it was a large, multi-year one, so that helped take out some of the burden it otherwise created.

More Feedback

Aug 19, 2019

Grant Applicant - applied in 2016

Make sure to write everything down that is communicated to you by the program officer. They have not followed through on what they say nor promise. Also, ask a lot of questions of their overall funding for your area - it seems to shift with no communication to grantees. Ask for their intent and process in writing.


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

More Feedback

Apr 01, 2019

Reviewer 6808 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2015

Well intended but poorly executed race equity lens. Very off-putting to have one of the many white program officers lecture us about equity in hiring. Commitment to issues seems to be personnel-driven, rather than institutional.


Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Bureaucratic

More Feedback

Oct 05, 2018 1

Reviewer 8616 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017

We were only involved in one specific program at a very large foundation, but for our program area, the funder was super-disorganized. They asked for an extra, unplanned report mid-year. There were three different reports for a one-year project grant. The elements asked for in the reports didn't align with the proposal. We were given multiple conflicting report dates. And on and on.


Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic

More Feedback

Sep 22, 2017

Grant Applicant - applied in 2017

This funder seems to be having serious internal conflict and upheaval. They spent almost two years encouraging a "dream big" multiple organization collaborative project only to seriously undermine the community built by severely underfunding the proposal. It's very confusing, disruptive, and antagonizing to lead multiple organizations on for several months to then pull the rug out after so much time, energy, travel, money, staff investment.


Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field

More Feedback

Would you like to share your experiences about this funder?

funder logo

W K Kellogg Foundation