12 survey respondents
Location: 404 S 8th St, Minneapolis, 55404 MN
EIN: 41-1973442
55%
45%
18 hours
Median
83%
17%
54%
46%
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 in 2017
they have simplified grant processes and are very responsive during application.
Gives more than money, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded, Responsive
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Good
Good
engaging and acting to support minority-led organizations.
20
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Review RFP and ask questions if needed.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2018
Good
Average
Questions were very redundant on the last application round. Took a long time to complete. Timing was not ideal when it was due right after the new year. I was shocked we had to login online just to set up a time slot to talk to find our our grant award results. Too-much jumping through hoops for time-crunched non-profits for a minimum of $50K per year.
Well-known name in the Twin Cities.
0
Reviewer 8647 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
The 2019 RFP was incredibly time-consuming. Many questions were redundant and the RFP guidelines did not mention the additional open fields that would be needed with the demographics, outcomes, and attachments. The financial attachments required four years' worth of manual input, plus the attachments stating the exact same information. The RFP did not have a section to explain the funding amount requested; they had one text field per portfolio where you could state the "amount of money this portfolio needs to accomplish its work." We included attachments that explained the breakdowns of our needs, as there was nowhere else to do this.
However, the site visit went well, and the representatives were very approachable and validated the work we do.
Friendly, Likes site visits
Minnesota
Grant currently pending
2019
Good
Average
More user-friendly application processes. And the attachments and final sections of the RFP took very, very long to complete.
Great site visit questions. Good focus on equity.
30
Reviewer 4158 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
If you have a solid history of operations, four years of financials and access to tracking expansive demographics, I’d apply. A three year grant deserves rigorous planning and submitting to more than one portfolio because of our large outreach took more time.
Array
Grant currently pending
Funded for amount requested
2016
Good
We had NO trouble getting our questions answered and staff at Office Hour events and on the phone were accessible and helpful.
Average
Orgs of our size have worked out key needs and we’re working hard through program design, staffing, input from clients and tracking to measure results. While we may be satisfied because of very difficult (and intractable) work, we’re not sure GTCUW would measure success as we do.
While thorough, the application is overwhelming in the amt of material requested - particularly 4 years of financials. We wish there was a sort of LOI process that then became an invitation to apply knowing there was actually potential for funding.
Site visits - if you get that far - really are an opportunity to explain your program needs within a larger context.
It’s obvious that their documentation and explanations of expectations for each portfolio and outcomes were extensively thought out. They want to donate based on their donor base as well as the nonprofits served.
55
Reviewer 5977 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
They are not easy to deal with. Good luck finding staff with experience in dealing with organizations that are new to them.
Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Array
Applied and not funded
2018
Bad
Took a long time to return a phone call.
Bad
Staff seems inexperienced and often comes off as rather smug. Not as helpful as they think they are. I spoke with one staff member handling questions about a grant program they were administering who became irritated when I asked for more clarification about the indirect answers I was being given.
5
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Be prepared for lots of tedium; RFP questions ask for the same information in different ways, and you'll need to collect and input extensive demographic and financial info, including copying and pasting 4 years worth of financial information (yes, really).
Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Array
Grant currently pending
2018
Good
GTCUW staff were accessible throughout the process, and answered a range of questions from technical issues with the online portal to inquiries about the portfolio areas and RFP requirements. However, the guidance from staff about the RFP was at odds with the guidelines in the RFP, and it was difficult to get a direct answer about whether a program or organization was not a fit for a portfolio area.
Average
It feels like GTCUW is paying lip service to equity and diversity without really understanding what that means for the organizations they seek to support. For example, the guidelines given for the required Equity Statement were so broad that the statement itself was practically meaningless. GTCUW absolutely support organizations run by diverse leadership and boards, but they should also take a step back and ask what equity, diversity, and inclusivity means to each organization.
Continue to engage in dialogue with stakeholders in the areas you seek to fund, both about funding priorities and the grant application process itself.
The financial questions were more tedious than even Otto Bremer's application, which is saying something.
Picks deadlines that fall over holidays so that grant writers don't have to spend time with their families.
15
Grant Applicant - applied in 2015
Huge changes at GTCUW, it's been a roller coaster ride and they don't have the funds they used to have, but still a good partner and one of the larger funders out there.
Friendly
Array
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2015
Good
Good accessibility via face to face RFP workshops with the grant managers and lots of interactivity / small groups.
Good
I wish they had the $$ they used to, but they have well defined portfolios and specific interest areas within those goals. Guidelines are clear so you don't waste your time.
Appreciate the return to gen ops funding. The new application process was pretty smooth. The hand-entered financial inputs were a last-minute stress-fest as they were not apparent in the RFP materials and honestly these hand inputs are always a time-consuming pain. Happy to do if you need it that way; helpful if everything needed for the online app is in the RFP packet.
Support multiservice orgs. That's the best way to get significant $$ from UW in the current environment -- apply under multiple portfolios. It's not as great as it was before being a "United Way Agency" which was very much about holisitic services, but multiservice is still what they do best.
27
Reviewer 2911 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
The 2019 RFP was extremely repetitive, requiring the same information to be repeated in multiple ways, making it hard to put together an engaging application. The online portal is a huge burden on applicants - the latest application required manually inputting data from the 990 for instance, while still requiring the 990 PDF to be uploaded.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Array
Grant currently pending
Other
2018
Average
Average
United Way still seems to be deciding what it wants its role in the Twin Cities philanthropic community to be.
Streamline the online portal process, particularly for financial documents.
Funding pending
15
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
I would make sure that they communicate in advance with the grant manager at the agency to make sure you are a good fit for the grant. No sense in wasting time writing and submitting an application when you do not align with the priorities of the funder.
Gives more than money, Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
Array
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2018
Good
Great communication
Average
I would give them a B-, primarily due to their current portfolio of available funds.
Keep streamlining the process. A long drawn out application process isn't always the best way to go!
Express their appreciation for the work of the grantee
20
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Read the RFP early and go through the entire online application first. Some of what was in the online application was alluded to re a 'financial dashboard' in the handout but not shown in full. So that was a bit of a surprise if you are going thru the online application in order since financial dashboard was at the very end. However, the folks were wonderful in responding to questions. The narrative questions in the RFP were a bit redundant and as a grant writer that makes you wonder if you are missing something in 'intent' of funding.
Positive leader in the field, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Friendly, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
Array
Grant currently pending
2018
Good
The questions I posed two to three weeks before the due date were answered within a day. Closer to the due date were a bit slower but still timely. The holidays were in the middle of the rfp process.
Good
The fact that they are giving general operating funds clearly shows they understand what the nonprofit sector is facing. They weren't asking an org to be 'innovative'. There was a clear focus on diversity, equity, inclusion, as well a program outcomes.
A due date in the first week of January with both current and projected fiscal year finances needed for the dashboard was extremely challenging for those with a fiscal year that coincide with calendar year. Also being so close to the holidays and an applicant's staff having days off (whether personal or the organization itself closing on days), it was hard to get the team to together to get all the pieces needed (e.g. program outcomes, finances, etc)
Considering how many nonprofits must have applied to their last community impact grant, the team's responsiveness to questions and willingness to walk you thru if you didn't understand their response was off the charts positive.
Clearly they want to be 'disruptive' with the DEI emphasis.
15
