15 survey respondents
Location: One Bush Street Suite 800, San Francisco, 94104 CA
EIN: 94-1236937
64%
36%
20 hours
Median
54%
46%
55%
45%
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 2015
Forget it unless you have a big in. They've stopped accepting unsolicited proposals.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Doesn't "get" nonprofits and issues, Culturally incompetent, Bureaucratic
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2015
Bad
Irvine used to be the "community foundation for California." Now it's a funder of think tanks and philanthropic infrastructure organizations. This is what happens when a stereotype of the MBA business consultant becomes the head of a foundation.
15
Thanks for the comment. You are correct: We do not currently accept unsolicited inquiries as we develop our new initiatives and honor our current grantmaking commitments. The process of shifting our grantmaking priorities has included extensive conversations with community members and potential grantees, and we will continue to listen to ensure diverse points of view in our work. You can learn more about our grantmaking, including any potential changes to our process, on our website (https://www.irvine.org/for-grantseekers) and our blog (https://www.irvine.org/blog).
Reviewer 754 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Work closely with your program officer. If they are willing to provide feedback on the outline or first draft before submission take them up on it. Use and illustrate data when articulating the need/problem you are attempting to solve. They are the midst of a large scale shift in funding priorities, so things may be shifting even as you are preparing your grant--it requires more flexibility from grantees.
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Friendly, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Average
To give more unrestricted funding--which is what high impact organizations desperately need to build real social value.
Thier philanthropic goals are shifting, so it's hard to know. They definitely commit significantly to their priorities and encourage additional funding in the spaces they care about.
The invest in, use and share meaningful data with the larger nonprofit community.
90
Thanks for your comment – and advice to others. Yes, we have been undergoing change since January 2016, and as part of that change we have been in dialogue with grantees about new areas of grantmaking we are exploring. We appreciate grantees engaging us in this process, and you can learn more about our grantmaking approach via our blog: www.irvine.org/blog.
Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
It's best if you can figure out some connection to one of their program officers, or can spend time talking to them, or can get them to attend one of your events. Beware though, they spent millions on consultants, but they don't know nearly as much as they think they do, especially about inequality. Irvine would do better if they actually listen to grantees that are smaller in size and do a better job of engaging diverse communities.
Gives more than money
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
Before 2014
Bad
Not accessible at all. Very insular and closed off. Not really willing to talk or involve more than who they have already deemed experts (do you see the big blind spot here?).
Bad
This foundation wants to address inequality, which is new for them. Their ideas are pretty much off base in terms of what organizations on the ground are doing. Also, they have a bias against small organizations/in favor of big organizations, so big organizations get paid for the reasearch & development that small organizations actually do (that is a quote from one of their program officers).
Start listening to people actually on the ground and not who you have designated as an expert. You really don't know nearly as much as you think you do. As a grantee, the process was infuriating and less than useful. Your program officers really don't understand certain things, and lack the humility to admit it, to the point that they insult grantees and grant seekers on a regular basis.
Not really. Though I do believe that they should pay our organizations for all of the technical support and instruction we provided.
Don't let them B.S. about their level of expertise. They really have no idea what they are doing. No foundation that really understands inequality pays two different organizations $1 million each to help them figure out how to create a strategy to address inequality, and then still gets it wrong. That hubris is dangerous for a funder this large. And it means that the sector isn't well served. However, they are REALLY good at sponsoring reports and reserach.
Once they give money, they give money. But their bias toward large organizations (floor of at least $1 million) for multi-year support means that they are inaccessible to the vast majority of nonprofits in California. Also, they have no idea how the arts might impact inequality because they've been funding the opera, ballet, and symphony.
We appreciate the feedback. For anyone curious about our staff, you can find listings and bios on our website (https://www.irvine.org/about/staff), and each month our blog notes events that our staff are participating in or attending (example: https://www.irvine.org/blog/where-will-irvine-be-in-july-2017). In terms of listening to communities and grantees, we agree and have found great value over the last year doing just that. This included listening sessions across the state with Californians who are working but struggling with poverty (learn more: https://www.cavoices.net/), as well as spending more than a year learning from grantees as we develop initiatives related to our new focus. You can read more about that here (https://www.irvine.org/blog/turning-our-new-goals-into-strategy), and stay tuned for more about what we’re learning and planning.
Reviewer 936 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Be clear on your specific outcomes as it relates to your mission. Seek guidance and feedback (and take it).
Positive leader in the field, Gives more than money, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Openminded, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for greater amount
2016
Good
Good
Continue to work with other grantmakers throughout California to share information and leverage funding
Tells a balanced story including impact and data. Makes information easily accessible through published reports.
Thanks for your input – and we agree! In 2016 we announced a new focus and approach to grantmaking that, we believe, increases clarity about what we fund, what outcomes we seek, and how our work is informed by others. Our grantmaking will now be through different initiatives, not program areas, and each initiative will have specific goals, outcomes, and timelines. To develop these initiatives, we are both listening to Californians and to nonprofits working on behalf of Californians. You can read more about that in this blog post by our Portfolio Directors (https://www.irvine.org/blog/turning-our-new-goals-into-strategy). Through 2016 and into 2017 we also have provided an online form to hear input about our new focus (https://www.irvine.org/focus/input). Thanks again for the feedback.
Grant Applicant - applied in 2010
In all honesty, they talk about wanting to fund low-income and communities of color but what they mean is, they want to fund big white well-funded organizations to engage low-income and communities of color. They don't really understand the communities they want their grantees to serve. And they will not listen to your expertise as an organization led, by, for and about low income and communities of color. In their eyes, your artistic product isn't good enough, unlike mainstream organizations that are struggling to engage people because they have spent the majority of their efforts on well-to-do white people. So basically, as once Irvine officer said, the small organizations like yours to the unpaid R&D, but the mainstream organizations get paid to implement your practices.
Invitation only, Burdensome reporting terms, Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field
Applied for funding
100
2010
No
Not so much
20
$25,001 - $100,000
Project support
Thanks for your comment. Our main focus for Arts funding in recent years has been the New California Arts Fund (NCAF), which supports transformational change in organization and business models that sets up large and small arts organizations to successfully and sustainably reach low-income and/or diverse Californians. This a central commitment by NCAF grantee-partners, and artistic product is only a small part of what they are focused on and what we considered as we reviewed proposals. We also previously made grants via the Exploring Engagement Fund to seed 100+ arts engagement projects. These EEF grants did not focus on artistic product but rather experimentation in engaging more and diverse Californians. For all of these efforts (and for the field change we hope to cultivate), the Foundation has a limited amount to give, making choices about which organizations to fund very difficult.
Please note that we announced in 2016 that our programs, including Arts, were ending as we shifted our approach and strategy (https://www.irvine.org/blog/navigating-the-journey). We are now fulfilling the Foundation’s commitments to NCAF grantees, and the arts engagement work will sunset over the next few years. Thanks again for sharing your perspective.
