Crappy Funding Practices

Submit your Crappy Funding Practice here! 📢 https://lnkd.in/gStX7dBd #crappyfundingpractices

The #CrappyFundingPractices community is dreaming of a future where only awesome funders exist, and #CrappyFundingPractices are a thing of the past. Imagine a world with an equitable spread of resources—where we might not even need foundations anymore. One day! 🤩 Until then, nonprofits and fundraisers, we invite you to: 👎Call out #CrappyFundingPractices - Submit here: https://lnkd.in/epwEMUdb.  👍Celebrate awesome funding practices-  Submit here: https://lnkd.in/eTuEbfeu 💡 Funders: We invite you to improve your practices in response to our posts and the many constructive suggestions that can be found in the comments. We are interested in transparency and change, so we won’t be having private conversations with you. We do look forward to raising awareness when you develop better practices, though! 📢

Amelia Peabody Charitable Fund (www.apcfund.org), it’s time for an urgent update to your grantmaking and application processes—and while you’re at it, a power analysis might be in order. Not supporting general operations or administrative overhead, excluding publicly funded organizations, and requiring applicants to submit online and ALSO print seven (7!) copies for delivery? That’s not just unrealistic, it’s wasteful and outdated. 🖨 And let’s not even start on the power dynamics at play here. We know you may have legal requirements, but continuing the Foundation “in perpetuity” raises serious questions about why it’s more important for the foundation to continue than for the issue it’s addressing to be eliminated. Philanthropy should never be about self-preservation but about moving funding to the communities that need it most. Join us in the 21st century…. It’s nice here. Why do funded programs need to wait three (3!) years to reapply? And those rejected need to wait until “the second calendar year following a denial.” Further, general operating costs and overhead are fundamental and should be supported by all funders; refusing to do so isn’t just poor practice, it’s downright harmful. And for crying out loud, enough with the printing! Why the extra work? Do you hate trees? 😞🌳😞 You already required an online submission. Read it online, or, if you must, print it yourself. Are you not at all fine with #CrappyFundingPractices? We’re listening! 📢 https://lnkd.in/eMaXk6ZS

Giving Joy Grants, we’re really not feeling it.  In fact, we call #CrappyFundingPractices! Your grant maximum is $500, and it’s internationally competitive, attracting over 4,000 applications to award only 6 grants. If each organization spent $100 in staff time to apply – we assume it’s more – that’s a $400,000 loss to the sector. Where’s the joy in that? 😢 We’re told organizations who are awarded a grant will receive funds “in installments”! And that’s after a 6-question application and a budget that requires an itemized list of expenses. We had two submitters draw our attention to you, Giving Joy, one in the U.S. and one in India. So we’re getting the message that folks on both sides of the globe are rolling their eyes at these 6 teeny grants. We’re seeing serious irony in your tagline: "If your dreams do not scare you, they are not big enough." Our dreams are fine – they include grants that are large enough to warrant the cost of applying. And it’s your awards that aren't big enough. Do better. Do you dream of an end to #CrappyFundingPractices? Tell us which funding practices you find to be nightmarish: https://lnkd.in/gStX7dBd.

Good morning, Friends! We hate to interrupt a quiet week with a practice we find loathsome, but here we are. We are calling out the Harnish Foundation (www.harnishfoundation.org), but tbh, way too many funders seem to be in this philanthropy business for the fame and glory. Yeah, we don’t get it, either. What do y’all make of a 3-question application with one entire question titled “Promotion of donation”? “Describe if and how you plan to promote the proposed donation in your community.  Is there an opportunity for “naming rights” with this donation?”  That “IF” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The overwhelming implication is that to receive funding you must publicize their award. Well, we hope this post qualifies as public recognition! 🥁🥳 Harnish isn’t done being difficult, though. Their application is a pdf that must be downloaded and filled in - so you must either reproduce their form (with the logo on top) or… use a typewriter? (DM us if you need to know what a typewriter is.) And finally, our submitter had their proposal declined with a message that indicated the funding would be going to organizations with “lesser reliance on public funds.” Because, of course, nonprofits should be penalized for accepting government funds when that’s often the only funding available. Seems like a circular problem to us. 😵💫 We’d be “lion” if we said we don't hate #CrappyFundingPractices. Let us know about the ones you’ve hunted down! 📢 https://lnkd.in/eMaXk6ZS

Bank of America Charitable Foundation, can we talk? We very much appreciate that your eligibility quiz asks us to confirm that we don’t discriminate based on gender identity or national origin/ancestry, etc. That’s great! Clearly you’re aware of the importance of including everybody in your programs. So why do you require the full LEGAL names - in first, middle, last format - of all of our board members and executive staff❓ We assume you understand that many, MANY people use professional names that are different from their legal names, and that this is especially true of trans and gender nonconforming people. 📛 We also assume that you know many, MANY people have names that don’t conform to the first, middle, last format, a format that is most common in European traditions. If you are committed to only funding organizations that don’t discriminate, why are you so restrictive about the names of people at those organizations? Perhaps there is another way to confirm the legitimacy of an organization before providing funding. 🤔 And if there is a solid, nondiscriminatory reason that you need legal names in a specific format, at minimum you owe it to applicants to make clear what that reason is. P.S. Can’t you just look at an org’s website or 990 for this information? Got #CrappyFundingPractices? We’re listening! 📢 https://lnkd.in/eMaXk6ZS

What an awesome surprise! Recognition of Brooklyn Org and our commitment to do philanthropy differently. 🎉🎉

It’s the dog days of summer, and what better time to celebrate #AwesomeFundingPractices? We’d like to throw an entire beach party for Brooklyn Org! 🌞🏖️ 🎉 The foundation provides "multi-year, general operating support" and accepts a "universal application that welcomes the full scope of racial justice work beyond any one priority issue or focus area." The initial application is under 1,000 words and no budget is requested beyond very general info. Reporting is minimal with most responses accepted via check-boxes and an accounting of expenses incurred. 😃 That’s what we’re talking about: A quick and easy request, which centers equity, coupled with a grant that nonprofits can use at their discretion. To the rest of you funders: watch and learn! Have you seen an Awesome Funding Practice that makes you want to romp in the waves? Let us know:  https://lnkd.in/eFiN4Jjj

#CrappyFundingPractices alert! Idaho Women's Charitable Foundation, your application process needs some urgent revisions. Requiring organizations to endure numerous rounds of consideration that include written submissions, in-person meetings, follow-up requests, and videotaped interviews without compensating for time, knowledge, and labor are prime examples of #CrappyFundingPractices. Adding a surprise $5 fee to apply is adding insult to injury. Let's be real – nonprofits have enough on their plates without having to jump through these unnecessary hoops. It’s time to shift these outdated practices for a fairer, more equitable process. 🛠️ Are you not at all fine with #CrappyFundingPractices? We’re listening! 📢 https://lnkd.in/eMaXk6ZS

Challenge: Can you solve housing insecurity in 500 characters?  🏘️🤔🏡🤔🏠 In their most recent cycle, The Citi Foundation asked nonprofits to describe their strategy to address homelessness in 500 characters. Do you know how short 500 characters is? Let’s put it this way: 500 characters can create about 100 words. It takes less than one minute to say 100 words out loud. 🫥🤷♀️🤷🏽🤷🏻♂️ Say it with us: #CrappyFundingPractices! The Citi Foundation’s request for proposals to address homelessness contains 670 words and 4,500 characters. 🤨 They think we need 11% of the characters to describe our strategy as they need to ask us to submit one? So far, you’ve read more than 500 characters in this post. 😒 C’mon Citi Foundation - you want innovative solutions? Give us a little more room to describe ours. No more miniscule character counts, please! 🤓 Are you a sad city mouse just trying to apply for funding without needless barriers? Tell us all about it:  📢 https://lnkd.in/eMaXk6ZS