13 survey respondents
Location: 425 Nw 10th Ave Ste 400, Portland, 97209 OR
EIN: 93-0806316
50%
50%
12 hours
Median
46%
54%
35%
65%
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 2024
Meyer has completely changed its staff and priorities. They are now very proscriptive about the areas and kind of projects they will fund. It's not clear exactly what they are trying to accomplish and why.
Difficult to work with
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Other
2024
Bad
When we tried to schedule a post-application feedback session with staff, the appointments filled up within a day and they are providing no feedback on our proposal.
Bad
Unclear - information about the foundation's impact is limited.
"The idea that funders or donors should be “strategic” in their philanthropy should die. Foundations need to stop asking on grant applications how nonprofits can “align” with their priorities. The vast majority of funders and donors should not be setting any strategies or priorities at all. It makes no sense that the people with the most money and privilege but the LEAST knowledge and proximity to the issues should be setting priorities or advancing strategies that nonprofits should follow." - Vu, Nonprofit AF, 2021 - "How “strategic philanthropy” has harmed our sector, and why it refuses to die"
Our recent experience was disappointing, Meyer had previously been an exemplary funder.
Have been both funded and not funded
Focus on racial equity.
16
Reviewer 8061 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2024
So, the Meyer Memorial Trust has over $1billion in assets, but over the past year and a half this second largest funder in the State of Oregon has not enabled people to submit grant proposals. Instead, it has been by invitation only, funding mostly DEI related stuff. So, even if you are doing great work, showing a tangible difference, it doesn't matter to this entity. Instead, they are arguing internally about basing their funding on either justice or equity. This is for real.
Difficult to work with
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Other
2024
Bad
The goals of this funder are not based on community need. They are failing on this issue.
Bad
This entity has blathered on in its various communications about how it is "investing" in a new strategy, and at some point we will all be made aware of it.
While DEI is important, the way you are implementing it is very heavy handed, and leaves many organizations doing great work out of your funding consideration. That is truly not right. You need to take a step back, and fund good work, not only organizations that wrap themselves in knots to appease your idea of what organizations should "look" like.
This used to be a very good foundation that funded a wide range of issues, and with one that is the second largest in Oregon they have a key role. Now they have restricted their view of the world to only fund certain kinds of organizations that meet only specific criteria. Sorry, but this entity could do much more in the State. Then they pay their top execs huge salaries, while they preach to everyone. Give me a break.
After having been funded for multiple projects, we suddenly didn't meet their new DEI requirements in a state that is 74% white. While DEI is important, how an entity implements change is important as well. MMT has failed massively on this front and has had a very draconian approach.
They pay their top executives fromm $300k to $500k for real. Then they and their board preach about equity. Sheesh.
20
Professional in the field
Meyer takes grant requirements extremely seriously. If your project does not align exactly with their terms it’s not likely to be funded. It does help to have an existing relationship with them tho, and they will fund things others won’t - like capital campaigns and new hires.
Friendly, Responsive
Washington
Professional in the field
Funded for lesser amount
2020
Average
Average
Character limits on grant applications are barriers for organizations led by BIPOC leaders, as are the rigid budget requirements. This results in inequitable funding choices, despite being a foundation that strives for equity.
Providing substantial sums that can really change an organization and their capacity, and embracing the importance of equity.
0
Reviewer 3880 - Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
I was surprised at the changes that had occured since I was grant writing several years ago. At that time, you could define your need, the program officer conferred with you, if you were not awarded you were given feedback that helped you improve the next cycle.
The last few years the funding categories have discouraged our agency from submitting a grant because we didn't meet the criteria. In the last couple of years it seems the highest priority is placed on meeting equity requirements over funding need.
Oregon is a predominantly 'white' state, so for many areas being able to meet the equity requirements is difficult. I'm not complaining about trying to right past wrongs concerning diversity, but it makes getting a grant nearly impossible for many agencies.
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
Before 2014
Bad
Average
I suspect they are meeting their philanthropic goals of of equity..
If the goal of Equity is the highest requirement, just tell grant seekers that that will be what is most highly ranked and there won't be so much disappointmenr.
I
Their name is still recognized as a gold-standard funder.
5
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Be sure to get everything their program officers assert down in writing. They are struggling to align their new staff with their new direction. You may get multiple different answers to the same question.
Friendly, Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2016
Good
Very open
Average
I get this sense that they're feeling themselves out as to what this new direction means. Meyer is having a hard time articulating their priorities beyond colorful platitudes.
We've said this to their face, so it is not news: their sudden shift to a Diversity and Inclusion agenda was not well thought out. They had some outstanding staff they let go in order to bring in more "diverse" faces. Unfortunately, the newer program officers are often confused about the strategic priorities. The level of professionalism has slipped.
Similar to many other foundations, Meyer loves jargon. However, they need to put more "meat on the bone", so to speak. Honestly, I still cannot figure out if "marginalized" populations include the underclasses of rural Oregon....because they cannot articulate whether these people matter at all. At times, it feels as if their shift in focus was merely fadish in order to appeal to the Portland crowd. Maddening because they have huge resources.
They are attentive. no phone call goes unreturned, no email unanswered.
20
Reviewer 2011 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
It is very difficult to get any personal feedback from this funder. Their program officers are generally not available and when they do talk with you about your proposal, they are more critical than supportive. I never get the impression they actually want to fund us; they just want to challenge the information presented in the application. Additionally, while this funder has prioritized equity in their funding, they can be extremely biased in their decision-making; both consciously and unconsciously. The general word on the street about this funder is if you are not a culturally-specific organization, you need not apply.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Other
2017
Bad
Bad
This funder has prioritized equity and in doing so, they have (perhaps unconsciously) ruled out lots of credible organizations doing valuable work. Their emphasis on funding culturally-specific organizations is important, but they seem to ignore culturally-relevant organizations if they are deemed to be "too white."
Listen to what the nonprofit community, in general, is saying about how you are perceived; it is hard to think of MMT as a real community partner anymore.
Have not been funded in the past three years.
They have done a good job of articulating their high priority funding areas.
0
Reviewer 9646 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Meyer is the gold standard for Oregon foundations. They have clear funding priorities. The staff is great.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Builds relationships, Likes site visits, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2018
Good
Program staff are open to conversations about whether your proposal is a good fit.
Good
Meyer understands that the state of Oregon is in a housing crisis and that housing is fundamental for low-income people and disinvested communities.
Meyer is committed to racial equity. Simple grant application and reporting process.
12
Reviewer 6283 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Good luck trying to figure out what they want to fund. Even after talking to staff, their priorities are so vague, wordy, undefined and jargon-filled that I still didn't have a clue what they're looking for.
Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
Oregon
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2017
Bad
Meyer redid their funding priorities a couple of years ago, and from what I can read and what I've heard by taking to staff, they grabbed every single jargon word they could find and mashed them all together and that's it. There is no clarity, no guidance. I can't for the life of me figure out what they will fund or what they want to see, and the staff seems unable or unwilling to tell me.
Bad
Again, they dont' tell you what they're actually interested in. It's basically "we want to make stuff better. Somehow. Some way. around these areas, but mostly here's the list of stuff we won't fund . . . . and that list is loooonnnggg.
Your new "priorities" are useless and unfathomable. It seems that main priority was to stop people from getting grants.
14
Reviewer 5402 - Professional in the field
I applaud Meyer for talking the talk and walking the walk when it comes to their work around equity and inclusion. They’ve hired a diverse staff and have placed women and people of color in leadership positions. Their outgoing ED has documented his own journey as a white cisgender man trying to be an ally to the many communities that make up our region. They support disruptors, innovators, and community-embedded organizations with substantial grants including the rare capacity building and general operating.
Meyer also embodies everything that drives grant writers crazy about foundations. Read “Progressive funders, you may be part of the problem” published on Nonprofit AF and you’ll know what I mean. Their 2-stage application is excessively exhaustive, repetitive, and at times unclear. Somewhere along the line I wondered if their process itself was equitable. I have years of practice with the heavy lifting some grants require and years of experience working with Meyer. What about smaller grassroots organizations Meyer purports to fund, where program staff or even the executive director are often the ones writing the grant? With all that Meyer demands, is it an equitable process for those with fewer resources?
What frustrates me most about working with Meyer is their lack of understanding or unwillingness to understand our organization’s own equity journey. As their ED wrote on his blog, he and Meyer have made mistakes in this work and hope to learn from them. Yet, that courtesy hasn’t been extended to us, in our transparency, without rebuke (declined funding), even after they expressed deep interest in our program; some even called it important. I can’t help but feel they are more worried about the optics of funding an organization that doesn’t meet their subjective definition of equity and inclusion, even though the program itself is the very embodiment of it.
Is Meyer worth pursuing? I think so. But consider the following statement from a report cited in the Nonprofit AF article: “While conservative funders usually treat their grantees like peers, whose work deserves long-term support, respect, and trust, too many progressive funders treat their grantees like disobedient children who need to be constantly watched and disciplined.”
As grant writers, we’re all aware of this dynamic and the inherently unfair power imbalance that exists between nonprofits and foundations. It certainly plays out that way with Meyer. Paternalistic and capricious is the way I would describe them. I just expected more from Meyer given the good work they have done to be a forward thinking grant maker.
Oregon
Professional in the field
2017
Average
Average
0
Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
They are committed to addressing equity and inclusion issues across the nonprofit sector.
Positive leader in the field, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive
Oregon
Applied and not funded
2017
Good
Good
The application expectations are laid out explicitly and are easy to find. It's a slightly-more-detailed-than-others application, but the expectations are clearly communicated. We had no confusion while working on the grant.
16
