1 survey respondents
Location: 900 Broadway Ste 1001 , New York, 10003-1215 NY
Types of Grants Awarded:
For Fiscal Year
Change in Assets FY :
Amount of Grants to Minnesota Nonprofits:
Reviewer 8047 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
I would not apply unless you have had a phone call with program staff and an invitation to apply. The application is lengthy and there is a third-party now managing the process that requires an additional test called the "Gap Analysis" which is really problematic. There is no clear way to contact a program officer.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Bureaucratic
Current or former grantee
The stated philanthropic goal is to help "animals in need." Which is generic. It does not state how they intend to accomplish that, as in which types of animal welfare organizations they seek to fund, which initiatives, etc.
The Gap Analysis grantees are required to perform and submit results as part of the application process is highly problematic. This is run by a third-party which is a big "player" in the animal welfare field. This analysis seems to have a coding issue in its algorithm as it issues results that are not congruent with the answers we gave to our questions. For example, it made recommendations that our shelter engage in open adoptions, which we already do and have done for more than twenty years. It also encouraged us to implement trap-neuter-return programs in relation to our care for feral cats, which again, we already do. We were issued a score of "Beta" from this analysis and given recommendations like the above. This is highly concerning considering the care we took to answer the questions. If a grant reviewer were simply reading our test score, he or she may think our shelter is engaging in sub-standard practices in care for community cats or adoption procedures that unnecessarily restrict families from taking home new pets. Without reading our answers, the results of the Gap Analysis were highly insulting and discouraging. It felt like we were wasting our time. We even had multiple staff members take the test to see if we'd get different results. This makes the grantee feel as if we are not valued or being listened to by the potential funder. It also treats the grantee as if we don't know what we are doing, particularly when you make recommendations to implement practices already in place.
Invited to apply after wait-out, then denied.
It appears to understand and advocate for community cats.