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:
Reviewer 986 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
The BMGF is very large, and peopled with all manner of professionals (across the spectrum from young field ex-pats to very experienced subject matter experts). Each program portfolio is "siloed," and getting in front of the right person - one who can authorize a grant proposal - can be a challenge. Several program areas seem to be in an ongoing state of "re-prioritizing" or re-structure, which delays the application process and decision-making.
Maryland
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Average
Hit or miss. It would be most helpful if all program portfolio staff include an email address in their employee profiles. (If you wish to work on the giving side of philanthropy, get used to being asked for money.)
Bad
While signs of improvement are evident, the Foundation would serve more people around the world in a more meaningful and sustainable manner by backing away from its "one disease at a time" approach. Across issue areas - education, health, food/ag, WASH - only solutions that address the systemic nature of poverty, illiteracy, hunger, economic inequity, violence, etc., will truly make the world more peaceful, just and secure. (The recent Ebola epidemic did not happen in a vacuum; the crisis was born from a grossly inadequate healthcare infrastructure.) Solving the problem of the singular disease may provide a short term win that you can point to, but it's also an end-use "solution" unworthy of your intelligence and resources. The world's most intractable problems are complex, layered and multi-pronged in terms of cause and effect. Please adjust your grant-making priorities accordingly.
Last but not least, an IDC rate of 15% is ridiculously low. Practically the entire foundation sector follows your lead, so ... please lead. The research, arguments and justifications for higher IDC rates are well-articulated and understood. Here is one more: most of your programs are about transferring knowledge in some form, and the infrastructure supporting grantees' intellectual property and knowledge transfer/management is more valuable than 15%.
Please stop making grantees utilize your Results Framework/Tracker. The Foundation's roots may lie in tech, but this overly-linear approach to M&E is pointless. You can do better.
Do not let its bureaucracy, money or global reach intimidate you. The Foundation may make its own weather in philanthropy which can lead to some arrogance but most of the people who work there are smart, and dedicated to making the world a better place. Bill and Melinda put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else. Utilize LinkedIn to learn more about specific program officers.
That Microsoft and BMGF have stayed put in the PWN is laudable. Their economic contribution to the region extends to practically countless beneficiaries.
72
Reviewer 513 - Professional in the field
Find a person you know working for the foundation - at any level - but the most influential will be program officer and above. Also, sign up to be notified of Grand Challenge/Exploration quarterly RFP - these are short (2-5pg), specific challenges focused on innovative approaches undertaken all over the world. Otherwise, partner first with UN Agencies, USAID, DFID, GIZ and specific ministries of Nigeria, India, etc. The foundation appreciates referrals from these key partners internationally and domestically.
Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Washington
Professional in the field
Other
Before 2014
Bad
Good
This foundation is huge, long-sighted and very strategic - this is good and bad. Good for the big bets they are making on complex, lofty goals - bad for grantee accessibility and staying nimble.
Spend more time learning from grantees than studying them - it is a subtle difference, but major shift in approach: from critique to empowerment.
If I could check anything positive - it would be "positive leader in the field". Gates does well with the big picture, but poorly on the 1:1 relationship level with grantees.
FareStart operated an employee cafe at one of the foundation's office locations.
Research! And they are getting better at sharing that research.
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
I think it is very difficult to get funded by Gates Fdn. Requires strong alignment of what you're doing with their specific goals & interests.
Positive leader in the field, Risk taker
Washington
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Bad
I find it difficult to get in contact.
Good
They have a lot of money to put towards whatever they want to put it towards.
Continue to move past the intellectual understanding of problems and challenges and figure out how to get a more emotional understanding and connection.
They're very large and somewhat challenging to navigate politically.
Putting a lot of money toward a set of goals.
10 to 15 hours
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
To apply for a different grant unless you have the time, organizational capacity, and knowledge of how to really leverage this grant opportunity.
Worth the time to pitch, Repeat funding, Positive leader in the field
Applied for funding
180
2016
Not so much
Not so much
40
$250,001 - $1 million
Grant Applicant - applied in 2010
Take their $. Be careful not to let them co-op you!
Worth the time to pitch, Multiyear funding
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field
Applied for funding
12
2010
Yes
Not so much
2
$100,001 - $250,000
Partner or work closely with this funder
know which team at the foundation you need to apply to (spend time on the website), know the industry/space of the team you're applying to, ask for an introduction through that space, you will likely get a meeting or call to determine alignment. you need to be targeted in your ask and know the space.
Repeat funding, Gives more than money
Uses their language
Partner or work closely with this funder
Yes
Introductions
General operating
Other
They have been very responsive to our needs.
Positive leader in the field
Yes
Project support
