25 survey respondents
Location: 1000 N Alameda St, Los Angeles, 90012 CA
EIN: 95-4523232
56%
44%
16 hours
Median
47%
53%
69%
31%
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 before 2014
It's really difficult to know what they're interested in funding. While they have a set of goals that are articulated, they sometimes make whimsical funding decisions. Most times, however, it's very hard to get through. Be prepared for a very bureaucratic process and program officers who are not that knowledgeable about the overall goals. Innovation is not well supported and they prefer programmatic metrics regarding delivery of service.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic, Risk averse
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
Before 2014
Bad
Average
50
Reviewer 777 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2017
Be aware: if your organization is funded, this funder will likely push you to do a whole lot more work than they are paying you for and to adopt the strategies and tactics they want (rather than trusting you to make your own strategic decisions about how you do your work) .
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2017
Good
Average
Their micromanagement approach may backfire sometimes. If they spent fewer resources on developing and trying to implement their particular strategies and more on identifying and supporting great organizations and great work, I think they would actually have broader and deeper impact.
0
Reviewer 276 - Professional in the field
Read their guidelines and funding priorities carefully; do not think that they fund health care or medical research. Then try to find an "in" with someone who works there, and try to get a meeting. There is no direct route to applying for this giant pool of money.
Inadvertently exerts negative influence in the field, Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
California
Professional in the field
2016
Bad
Getting in to The California Endowment is like trying to get a date with a celebrity. They do not accept unsolicited proposals, so you have to be invited to apply, which means you need to be noticed by them, or introduced by someone who knows them well enough to make an enthusiastic introduction. It's like going to Urth Cafe or the Beverly Hills AA meeting to meet that actor you've always had a crush on!
Bad
This foundation's funds originally came from the premiums paid by California residents for health care, so you would think there would be some sense of responsibility for providing health care to people in need. Nope. They only fund systems change and social determinants advocacy. The things they fund are important, but totally inappropriate to the original source of funds.
Open your grant-making! Your exclusivity breeds contempt.
This foundation is not for those of us providing direct services. If you are invited to participate in their social change efforts, know going in that they will impose their ideas on your project, and it won't be the same when you finally get the funding. Be prepared to get "helpful" advice, like a date saying "I wish you were blonde."
The California Endowment is good at portraying the foundation sector as we'll-resourced and tied to the elite. They have beautiful collateral materials: reports, business cards, websites are all well-designed and produced, and I feel like a member of the 1% when I go to their offices and conference center.
0
Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
Must build some type of relationship with funders. The time and effort for a possible connection with someone takes away time and energy to do the work of the organization.
Positive leader in the field, Culturally sensitive, "Gets" nonprofits and issues
California
Applied and not funded
Other
Before 2014
Average
Good
My answer reflects others who seem to be successful in building relationship with this organization.
Consider organizations who are at the grass roots level who are organized, efficient and manage resources well to maximize service target populations. Secondly, create space at the table to hear and work with those who provide excellent community services using the same business acumen of any other organization. Size of an organization do not equate to ineffective in handling all aspects of running organization and deliverables.
Although gets nonprofits and issues more can be done to improve the support of those who are doing the heavy lifting. Changing behaviors is the beginning at the grass roots level.
Tried multiple times no funds.
They are consistent and I believe they are relevant in understanding the needs of the local communities.
30
Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
It is hard to know where you stand with this group. They tell you one thing and do another.
California
Applied and not funded
2016
Good
Good
They tell you what they want. They don't listen to needs on the ground. Not how it should be.
200
Reviewer 328 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2015
The program staff are very smart, strategic and committed to social change. There was a lot of discussion and revision before we were asked to submit via the online application process. Two challenges: they don't list much staff information on the website, so it's hard to see how they're structured and what people's roles are. Also, staff expressed interest in a project and then stopped responding after a few emails. Ghosting isn't cool in any context.
Positive leader in the field, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, Insightful
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
2015
Average
Good
Please list staff information and department structure on the website.
0
Reviewer 859 - Grant Applicant
This is where you do need a meeting before you submit anything. Organization has lots of staff changes and continually is changing strategic priorities.
Difficult to work with
Current or former grantee
More than 15
Reviewer 851 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Funder was responsive when emailed by staff and a board member with a relationship to the foundation. If you have a history with TCE, be prepared to share details to bring your program officer up to date.
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2016
Good
It was fairly easy to get an in-person meeting to discuss our project.
Good
The foundation has a clear plan for improving health equity across the state and funds local neighborhoods and communities.
n/a
The funder was flexible with a project when the outcomes needed to change due to emerging community needs.
Reviewer 936 - Grant Applicant - applied before 2014
We worked with TCE on the Agricultural Worker Health Initiative. Be clear on your interests/priorities so you can focus your attention on shared areas.
Positive leader in the field, Risk taker, Culturally sensitive, "Gets" nonprofits and issues, Responsive
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for amount requested
Before 2014
Good
Good
Continue with engaging the local community.
Funder is accessible with locally scheduled meetings.
Reviewer 417 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2016
Funder staff are really engaged and interested in your work. They tend to "suggest" changes or additions to the work that might change your strategy or add costs, but they truly mean them as suggestions so push back if you disagree or don't think you're able to do what they suggest.
Positive leader in the field, Culturally sensitive, Insightful, Friendly, Openminded
California
Current or former grantee
Funded for lesser amount
2016
Bad
I hope we had a "one-off" experience. We were handed off to three different program officers (one was promoted and one left), but only found out when we tried repeated to contact our program officer. We had to bring each person up to speed and it took a significant amount of time away from our work.
Good
Develop a succession plan for program staff
Lead and advocate on behalf of healthcare in California
