32 survey respondents
Location: 101 Fifth Street East, St Paul, 55101 MN
EIN: 41-6017815
63%
37%
20 hours
Median
78%
22%
56%
44%
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 8571 - Did not apply
My perception about how Bush is approaching the community innovation grants is that they only want to fund innovation work AFTER you've done the exploration the possibilities with community, design, piloting, testing... They only want you to come in AFTER you've done all that work... which ironically- is expensive to do and no one pays for it. A key part of innovation is the journey to get there through design and engagement, some testing, some failure.
In an effort to be more "accountable" to community for "their" outcomes- it seems a consequence is that they can come in after you've done all of the "unprofitable" work to then fund implementation... perhaps take credit for the systems change work when you are ready to implement with community.
I think an unintended (or maybe intended) consequence is that they are less interested in funding the community organizing/community building aspects of innovation.
Which, ok... but that is NOT in alignment with what their website is saying about this grant fund. So make sure you have a conversation with a couple of program officers to get clarity. I sense they aren't QUITE sure themselves about this shift.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues
Minnesota
Did not apply
2021
Average
No idea...
Average
I used to say that Bush seemed open minded about exploring possibilities, putting money into innovation and community building, taking risks (things most other foundations don't seem to invest heavily in... with big dollars)- I can't say that just because our work wasn't a fit they aren't doing that. When I look at the list of innovation grantees- the portfolio is a bit more traditional looking than it used to be? Again- I think refining the messaging here about this program is probably important. I'm used to being able to come to Bush with things that need building, not things that are already built. Again- that shift is fine, but be clear about it in the messaging. There's this general shrug out there in community when folks talk about Bush- like we're never sure where they are headed or what they are doing and they seem to invest in some "pet projects" over and over again- which on the one hand is great to invest that deeply, But it closes the door to much of the rest of the community.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Only apply if you can demonstrate (within tight application character limits) that the process by which you've identified a community issue has actively and equitably involved the community members affected by it.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2018
Good
Lower level staff members are very accessible to help give template guidance and feedback.
Average
Appreciate that funding areas of interests are broad and that staff and community members are able to identify the issues they think should be addressed.
Grant application questions are long, multi-pronged, and impossible to answer adequately within the strict character limits. It's a bit of a paradox to ask questions that are almost longer than the allowable response length, and then provide feedback that applicants don't provide "detailed" enough responses.
Lower level staff are very accessible, technical aspects of the application process are very clear. However, the questions in the grant applications are practically longer than the allowed response lengths, and proposal feedback is often ironically that responses aren't "detailed" enough to fully understand the applicant's request. In addition, it's hard to believe that the Foundation really understands how much of a drain it is on nonprofits' limited capacity and resources to prepare a Bush grant proposal. We have applied for community innovation funding, and it is an ENORMOUS undertaking (staff time, money, etc.) to truly engage the community in the process of identifying local issues, as Bush requires in order to be eligible for funding. We spent months meeting with partners and community members to ensure that our issue was one that the community had helped to identify and care about. When our application was denied, it essentially meant that we had diverted months of staff time and salaries to something that received no funding. Of course, we understand that the nature of grant applications is that they're competitive and that funding is never guaranteed. But if we had to spend that much time on every grant proposal we wrote, with a 10% chance of funding, our nonprofit would not exist.
Very responsive, staff are very friendly.
30
Reviewer 6601 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Hard to understand what they want to fund, while they say something new, not sure how they define new and initiative.
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2016
Bad
Bad
20
We're sorry you feel this way. Our staff are always available over email, on the phone or in person to answer questions. In fact,w e strongly encourage everyone to reach out to us before applying for a grant so we can save you time.
Did not apply
Please see other comment. If you are in a marginalized population you might want to know MN culture. MN nice is often exclusive and not nice. And passive aggressive. Equity conversations don't alway go well in MN culture.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
(Unknown)
Did not apply
2016
Average
Average
Please change your "rules" re positivity I am Caucasian and in a large, marginalized group that is often left out of equity efforts, people with disabilities. I chose not to apply to the Bush Fellowship or engage you re other matters after many attempts because... I feel that many are doing lots of good work and are not being recognized because "being positive" is being interpreted in a way that is excluding many. MN Culture often doesn't understand struggle of others. If you are in a marginalized population and have not been heard, some may interpret your words as negative because of lack of understanding, even though I and others are getting lots of very positive results are making a very positive impact. I chose not to apply for the Fellowship. Please seriously consider taking interactive disability sensitivity training (ABILITY is a good example.) MN cultural values can often be very exclusive if not being heard. Please, re your equity conversations, proactively people with disabilities, the largest equity group by far. We have not been the flavor of the day and it's time that people with disabilities are equally included.
0
I'm not sure which "rule" you're referring to, but I'm sorry you had an experience that made you feel this way. Please reach out to any staff member if you would like to discuss this further. Thank you for sharing.
Reviewer 9181 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Take advantage of the opportunities to gain insight on the grantmaking process as well as feedback if you don't get the grant. The webinars and opportunities to talk with individuals at the foundation are very helpful.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2016
Good
Good
Tries new things
24
We're glad you found it useful! Thanks for sharing your positive feedback!
Reviewer 649 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Even though the guidelines state that they will fund a potential project at any stage of development - if you are past the planning stage, don't bother applying.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues
North Dakota
Applied and not funded
2017
Good
Staff is always friendly and willing to have a conversation.
Bad
They say they want to solve big problems, yet all they seem to want to fund is groups of people sitting around a table and talking about it. I think their Theory of Change needs some serious review.
Revisit, Rethink, Reevaluate where and how you are awarding funds! If you want to fund projects/ideas in the planning stages - fine. However, there are organizations with good projects/ideas that are ready to actually do something! Offer more or other opportunities to the organizations who have done their homework and want to try something out because their teams are out in the field providing services everyday and therefore are the best positioned to know what has the potential to really make a difference.
They are transparent about funding results.
24
Sorry to hear you feel this way. We strongly encourage organizations to reach out to staff and set up time to talk before going through all the work it takes to fill out an application.
Reviewer 730 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Have applied via the Community Innovation process , as well as the smaller Community Innovation via Headwaters. Appreciate the larger amounts available, and the goals of this program. Feel like the communication around racial equity and inclusion work could be emphasized more than just the "define your project" language. A warning here that very few projects at this scale can be funded, and that even at the Headwaters level not many projects are funded compared to the number of applications.
Friendly, Responsive
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2016
Good
Easy to reach staff - not always able to get the "here is what will really move you forward" answers - or perhaps the "you should stop wasting your time" answer that maybe would be better for everyone.
Average
Some funded projects don't seem to generate much in actual results.
More clarity around who should not spend time applying.
Rolling deadlines and access to the ability to apply is very helpful.
10
Thank you for your feedback – we’re always working to improve how we give feedback to applicants.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
We found their guidelines less than clear and despite multiple conversations with Bush personnel, we don't feel that they were interested in learning about us, the context of our proposed project, or recognizing the importance of our intended impacts. I'm sorry, but we felt under appreciated by the personnel that we talked with.
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2016
Average
I'd like to see them make the effort to do more relationship building and not just focus on the transactional grants process.
Average
I'm not sure. We never received a report of the impacts of the grant projects that they fund.
Maybe think more about inspiring and helping to transform through long-term relationships.
Their focus on equity and inclusion in many ways is awesome!
100
We're sorry you feel underappreciated. We try to be clear and open with grant-seekers about what is a fit within our funding. Sometimes we aren't clear enough that the project isn't a fit. We don't want people to waste time applying if they aren't a fit.
Thank you for leaving feedback. We'll keep working on getting better and being more clear. Feel free to contact staff at any time to get feedback on why your project wasn't a fit.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Bush has long and good history, but in past several years they are hard to figure out. Seem to be interested in long processes to identify problems, but less so in funding programs that can solve issues.
Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Minnesota
Applied and not funded
2017
Average
They are happy to talk with you it seems.
Average
Not sure what outcomes they are looking for. Some are clear, like their Bush Fellowships, but others, especially their innovation grants, are difficult to understand.
Return more to roots of paying for services that directly impact poor and vulnerable people. Used to be considered cutting edge, but now reputation is more aloof. Seems like an insiders game to get funding.
They give out a lot of money to bring awareness and to bring communities together to identify problems.
20
We understand that people find our program language difficult to understand. We’re rewriting our descriptions to simplify our language and to make our messages clear. Thanks for your feedback! We want to be as accessible and inclusive as possible.
Reviewer 198 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2014
Always best to have a conversation with a staff person from the program you are applying in, have a list of specific questions you have in advance of this conversation. Staff very friendly and helpful.
Positive leader in the field, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded, Responsive
Minnesota
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2014
Good
Good
You are an innovative organization. Select one or two organizations per year that reflect the best values of innovation, thinking bigger and differently.One urban. One rural. Don't have them apply, seek them out.
Process. Clarity of vision for programs funded
50
Thank you for the feedback and the suggestion. We do appreciate it when people talk to us before applying. Contact info for our program staff is available on our website, and some programs use a scheduling service where grant-seekers select the time they want staff to call them.
