17 survey respondents
Location: Po Box 23350, Seattle, 98102 WA
EIN: 56-2618866
44%
56%
20 hours
Median
31%
69%
46%
54%
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 2019
My biggest criticism of this funder is that their grantmaking is opaque. They have a list of grantees they work with and if your organization is outside of that circle then it will be very difficult for you to have a way to engage with this donor. What this funder needs to understand is that there is value in going outside your traditional circle of grantees. That there is value in engaging with practitioners in the field, not just for the purpose of giving grants, but also to have a broader dialogue so that you can hear and receive input from both grantees and non-grantees. Otherwise, you are operating in an insular self selected closed off space where the agenda is driven by you as opposed to the broader field.
Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
Connecticut
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2019
Bad
Given the amount of resources, this funder could have a much larger impact if they would be more transparent and inclusive.
Bad
Be more transparent, inclusive and approachable
Does have an interest in alleviating human suffering.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
In ten years of grant writing and over 1,000 proposals and reports written, I have never seen a more absurdly complex and bureaucratic reporting process. This foundation is absolutely tone deaf and not consistent with any other funder out there. The financial spreadsheet looked like it was created by a room full of people with Ph.ds in mathematics. Even our CFO was baffled by it. We had to have a conference call with them just to figure out what they wanted us to do. They tried to get us to use some conference call software that we do not have access to. They don't seem to have any understanding of how non-profits operate. Our grant was over many years and by the time the final report was due, no one from the time the grant was applied for even worked at our organization anymore.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
Washington
Current or former grantee
Other
2017
Bad
Average
Look at what other foundations and funders are doing with their grant processes and learn what the best practices are. Get a clue as to how under-funded and under-staffed non-profits operate that do not have a whole team of people to spend 160 hours to work on reporting spreadsheets.
We received a multi-year grant related to human services.
0
Reviewer 3496 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
I would warn people to take the sheer level of unnecessary bureacracy into account. Depending on your organization, it may not be a good use of time. We decided it was worth trying for on balance, but definitely take the time to consider that decision.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Missouri
Grant currently pending
2019
Bad
Bad
The foundation wants to address poverty, but isn't giving enough or in long enough intervals to make a real impact. Don't know about all of the grants they offer, but the one we applied for enough rules, restrictions, and explanations to make the process much more cumbersome than it needed to be.
Wasn't quite the most bureacratic grant we've applied for, but it's up there -- and with no clear way for that added bureacracy to effectively help in selection or their goals. One page of rules is necessary; 20+ pages implies that they haven't thought them through very well.
Make your grants less time consuming to apply for or offer more; while I can't speak for all grants offered by the foundation, we actually did the math on the one we applied for. Given the time spent on the application and the amount offered, if 300 organizations apply the grant has lost the non profit sector money, rather than adding to it. To make their grant application process easier, I would suggest carefully considering all of the application materials and rules they offer, and streamlining them as much as they can. There were 25+ pages I had to read through to make sure our application fit within this grant's guidelines; how many of those pages were necessary? If they take the time to thoughtfully assess their grant applications and improve them from there, they'll be a lot better at accomplishing their philanthropic goals.
20
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Be very informed, know just what you want and how your project aligns with the goals of the foundation. Having a connection will help.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Insightful, Friendly, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
New York
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2018
Good
This foundation is massive so I can only speak to our work with the Philanthropic Partnerships Team. They are very accessible and responsive.
Good
Again, I can only speak to this one team but they are leaders in the field, in my opinion. Open to experimentation and taking risks, which is the opposite of my experience with nearly every other foundation. Willing to fund systems change efforts--again, unlike anyone else I've worked with.
My advice for any funder is to always, always be aware of the power dynamic involved in these types of relationships. It's inherently toxic and quite psychologically damaging to those of us begging for money. But our team at Gates is the most aware of this of any foundation I've worked with.
They partner. They have been a massive value add for the project we work on together, providing advice, suggestions, connections. They're smart. They want us to succeed.
40
Reviewer 4436 - Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
To be honest, of all the grants we won which were 6, Gates was the easiest. We applied the year before and didn't get the grant but the next year we did. It took only 6 months to get the money from application to cash in the bank which is very fast for grants in our field.
Risk taker
Pennsylvania
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
Before 2014
Good
Good
You don't have to apply through the RFP. You can get an introduction and if you already have a well established reputation in the field you could be more successful that way.
40
Professional in the field
first research, then call.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
(Unknown)
Professional in the field
2017
Bad
Bad
Stop being so arrogant and listen to the people on the field doing the real work
This founder has a lot of money and power to do good, but rather than listen to the field it tends to push down North American values and work culture and so;unions which are not always right.
0
Reviewer 7956 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
I just don't think it is right to exploit nonprofits leaders that plan to help their homes countries.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
New Jersey
Applied and not funded
Other
2017
Bad
Not worthy
Meet with us.
It might be successful in vaccine development or other innovations, but not in pertinent community health issues women face in villages.
We sent a proposal to eradicate infant and maternal mortality in Samaya, Mali by building adequate, sanitary health facility. Instead our idea is being used for their own project.
Vaccines development
2017
Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
Consider yourself fortunate to get funding from Gates. One of the great things about them is they give multi-year support. If you were able to successfully complete the budget templates, you should be able to complete all of the subsequent reports. Too bad there are so many reports. And I hope you did a better job than we did and it won't take 30+ hours to complete each report.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money
Kansas
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
Before 2014
Average
Average
Simplify.
The reporting requirements are daunting.
Multi-year grants
80
Reviewer 299 - Professional in the field
My comments are focused on their work in GLOBAL HEALTH.
Don't bother applying unless you are an academic, and one in their already vetted community. Despite their RFPs, they are not innovative or risking-taking in terms of implementation or funding new initiatives.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
California
Professional in the field
2017
Bad
Aside a few exceptions, they are *very* difficult to access. In one case, I was talking to a BMGF program officer at a conference who told me he deliberately did not put on his name tag at conferences because he didn't want people coming to talk (pitch) to him.
Bad
Having watched the BMGF in global health for many years (10+), they fund very much based on their and aligned academic interests - which seems to be supporting academic work rather than having the outsized impact on global health which they are definitely capable of. When they think about implementation, they fund PATH which executes on BMGF's academic perspectives.
I'd like to see the BMGF have great humility, be more in the field (in hospitals, in clinics in rural regions) talking with people, listen to local experts and doers on the ground, and fund promising initiatives that are organically growing in social sector. Of all the most promising effective young (and not so young) social sector organizations in global health, none are funded by BMGF.
I have two. (1) Have greater humility; fund the promising seeds of innovation that are sprouting up outside of academia. With your shear resources, you have shaped and are shaping the global health field and your lack of support to innovative and effective programs is hindering the field. (2) PLEASE get rid of your "grand challenge" competitions - they have incredibly damaged the field: they favor academics (and you), not doers; reviewers rarely appeared to be qualified (if the goal is social impact rather than research); you do not provide feedback; they are a huge waste of time for most highly-effective organizations (there is no visibility on the probability of success, or your numbers); other funders have followed your lead in starting them, repeating your errors, and further damaging the field; and worse the GC approach is lazy - the BMGF has the resources to hire great people who should go out and find the great/risky/innovative organizations and fund them.
Time and time again, to be funded by BMGF, you need to be part of their community of academics. If you are not, I would recommend trying to get into one of their academic communities or not bother with them altogether until they have significant changes in leadership and how their funding is directed.
Advertise itself on NPR.
12
Grant Applicant - applied in 2015
It is critical to have an inside view of their strategy. Everything flows from their own internal program goals. Recognize that when you are BMGF grantee, they own a little piece of your soul.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Maryland
Current or former grantee
Funded for greater amount
2015
Good
Average
The Foundation has ambitious advocacy goals but is very risk-averse and as a result, hinders creative and new approaches. Since the election, they are scaling back on advocacy--the opposite of what many leading philanthropies are doing and very short-sighted.
Think long-term. Invest in your grantees and build their capacity and stop relying on so many consultants and so-called experts that dont really know the issues or the politics.
Like many funders, they like to get their way and want to have a big hand in how things happen. They will deny this of course but it is the reality. They are conscious of this "exerts a negative influence" issue but they throw their weight around anyway. They do not like conflict and as result communications with them can be quite passive-aggressive.
When the foundation decides to use its "voice", it can have a big impact.
25
