What was the overall relationship with the funder?
How many hours did the grant application process take?
20 hours
Median
78%
22%
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
56%
44%
How successfully do you think the funder is accomplishing its current philanthropic goals?
Important Information
2017 Deadlines:
Types of Grants Awarded:
Geographic Focus:
Interests/Priorities
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
8Worth the time to pitch7Culturally sensitive7Positive leader in the field6Openminded5Risk taker4Builds relationships4Friendly4Responsive4Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field3Bureaucratic3Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues3"Gets" nonprofits and issues
Bush is a notoriously fickle funder, with constantly changing priorities. They seem prone to staff in-fighting and lack a clear direction. If you get lucky with them, great, but they can like what you're doing one year and then couldn't care less the next.
Pros
Reasonable reporting terms
Cons
Unclear objectives, Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field
In your most recent experience with this funder, what was your relationship?
Applied for funding
How many hours did you spend on the application itself?
12
What year was your most recent experience? (Your best guess is ok!)
2013
Would you recommend this funder?
Not so much
Would you say the funder's guidelines were helpful?
Not so much
How many hours do you spend on annual reporting?
12
How much money did the funder provide?
$100,001 - $250,000
What types of grants does this funder provide?
Project support
Jun 15, 2016
Grant Applicant - applied in 2014
There are a lot of applicants because the guidelines can be broad and vague. The staff is responsive and offers feedback, but working with them can be frustrating since they have so much going on.
very few organizations get grants from this funder. It will be extremely competitive and you are likely to spend time preparing an application that won't get funded. BUT...if you get it, you'll get a lot of money.
Pros
Program officer was helpful, Funding equaled requested amount
Their vision, goals and intentions are very commendable. However, their grantmaking process over the past few years seems extravagant and pulls many organizations (that are already strapped for time/resources) into the trap of spending a ton of energy applying for something they'll never get. The funder's RFPs usually allow little turnaround time and call for projects that are transformational in nature, making it difficult to corral the resources and staff needed to conceive of a huge innovation that could actually be executed if funded. The mobilization of lots of resources and staff, usually for no return, results in staff members falling behind on the real work they need to do to achieve their organization's mission.
Pros
Worth the time to pitch, Multiyear funding, Positive leader in the field
They mean well, but they don't really fund nonprofits for their work or mission they fund their own status and you need to align with them in a way that will raise their stature. However, their work with Native communities has much to be applauded for.
Cons
Narrow guidelines, Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field
