5 survey respondents
Location: 711 Park Avenue West, Denver, 80205 CO
EIN: 84-0404235
75%
25%
14 hours
Median
60%
40%
50%
50%
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 2023
They made applicants participate in feedback sessions and jump through various hoops. The funding process does not seem transparent. Stated priority areas do not seem to match up with decision making. Strung out the decision making process much longer than necessary and instead of just sending an email or letter, made applicants sit through uncomfortable meetings online.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Difficult to work with
Colorado
Applied and not funded
2023
Average
Staff seem annoyed if you ask questions, even when there is a good reason for the question. There is a sense that they see themselves as above the non-profits that apply, although they claim to be interested in partnering.
Bad
Lack of transparency in their process and on their website makes it really difficult to discern if they are meeting any goals.
If you want to be a partner, really be a partner. Stop being performative.
Be prepared to invest a considerable amount of time in hopes of getting funded.
They are great at using platforms to schedule online meetings with non-profits.
14
Grant Applicant - applied in 2021
I really appreciated the pre application training. They took the time to explain their questions and what a good response looks like. It was helpful to get the rubric. We were not successful but they continue to help us with trainings and even review applications we have to other funders.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Friendly, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded, Responsive
Colorado
Applied and not funded
2021
Good
Good
They invited applicants to review grant applications. I loved seeing how other organizations applied and got a look at how applications are reviewed. It will make my next application stronger. This transparency is appreciated.
Get more nonprofits to review grants. It’s a wonderful experience.
Staff really take the time to help applicants.
9
Grant Applicant - applied in 2020
MHUW understands the power dynamic between funders and nonprofits and exploits it. Their staff are regularly condescending to grantees. Their grant requirements are paternalistic (quarterly trainings on unrelated topics, only certain staff allowed to interact, etc).
Colorado
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2020
Bad
They will make themselves available for calls, but are not open with guidance until awarded. Then, feedback or support will be provided, but often in a very condescending way.
Average
Treat grantees with common decency and respect (and ensure all your staff do the same). From there, start reducing the extensive and taxing grant requirements. They don’t improve your outcomes or your grantees’.
15
Reviewer 6547 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Get to know the people, and follow the guidelines carefully
Gives more than money, Insightful, "Gets" nonprofits and issues
Colorado
Current or former grantee
Funded for greater amount
2018
Average
The higher you are trying to get on the hierarchy, the less likely you are to have an actual conversation.
Average
I think that they are collecting data, and I expect that eventually they'll release it. But it's hard to say. They're a massive bureaucracy, so a lot of what I learn about them, I learn through rumor.
The requirements after being awarded funds are pretty burdensome. Our grant writer had to attend a workshop on grant writing?
Very bureaucratic, and some good people buried in there.
Great facility with outstanding meeting space - call early to get a reservation, though.
15
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
The process isn't too complicated, however, it's very clear that their funding scope can seem wide but actually be narrow in terms of what gets funded.
Friendly, Responsive
Colorado
Applied and not funded
Other
2016
Good
Average
I think that given the environment of Denver (which is very casual) their formality makes them seem somewhat unapproachable. They could also stand to be more progressive with their funding, especially for organizations led by people of color.
Very traditional application and approval processes. They tend towards safer and more established nonprofits, which often means large and mostly-white nonprofits.
They have great availability to the community.
12
