Crappy Funding Practices

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

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

*OOPS. Thank you to our community for steering us right when we went off track! It looks like we did a crappy job of verifying the claim we received this time, and for this we apologize. We’ve updated our post below to remove what we got wrong and focus on the items that still concern us.* Today's #CrappyFundingPractices features marketing masquerading as philanthropy, courtesy of the Benefact Group/Movement for Good.  Benefact Group operates a multi-round process of selecting organizations to receive grants of £1,000-£5,000. While yes, as pointed out in the comments, winners are selected at random, it appears that they are selected raffle-style, so the more nominations you get, the better chance you have of winning. Any process where multiple nominations increase your chances of funding is a poor use of a charity’s time. It forces charities to spend time mobilizing their supporters - or at minimum they have to rely on their number of fans - in order to increase their nominations. This process also drives nonprofit supporters to Benefact Group's website. And we've verified that every nominator has to share personal and contact information, and that every nominated charity “may be contacted” about Benefact Group’s services. This looks like marketing-as-funding to us. Benefact Group, if you really want to serve the nonprofit sector without reviewing applications, you could just give out your grants at random and stop dragging the charities and their supporters into a popularity contest. Are there #CrappyFundingPractices that upset you and your Corgi? Tell us all about it at https://lnkd.in/epwEMUdb.

We need to have a #CrappyFundingPractices conversation about the P4G Partnerships' multi-step “Call for Partnerships” grant application process. While we salute bringing nonprofits and businesses together for sustainable climate solutions, the effort required to move forward after the initial Concept Note phase feels akin to planting an entire forest of trees. We've heard from a nonprofit applicant who reported spending hundreds of hours on multiple submissions that were not invited to the next stage. Each rejection must have felt like another tree getting chopped down. Some of the 7 pages of questions are “Indicate the specific expected (short, medium, and long-term) impacts in terms of climate adaptation and mitigation, the relevant food/energy/water sector, inclusive economic growth, poverty reduction, and gender equity…” and “summarize the partnership’s climate solution and main expected goals during the P4G partnership grant period….” And that’s just the initial stage. While detailed information *may* be crucial to request of those that advance, asking nonprofits for such extensive details at the Concept Note stage is unreasonable. Organizations should be able to focus on creating meaningful impact, not getting bogged down by an overcomplicated application process. P4G, it’s time to streamline the initial screening:  reduce the burden on nonprofit partners and allow them to spend more time on the climate impact work that truly matters. Are you equally exhausted? Let us know about other #CrappyFundingPractices here: https://lnkd.in/eMaXk6ZS

🚨 General operating support funds are critical, necessary, and non-negotiable! 🚨 Hey, Frances L. & Edwin L. Cummings Memorial Fund (cummingsfund.org), not funding general operations is one of the top #CrappyFundingPractices. It's like trying to run a marathon without shoes and water—uncomfortable and almost impossible! 👟🚫 Let's shift this and support organizations as if we actually want them to succeed and win. 🎉 How? By giving grants for general operating costs, which give nonprofits the flexibility to spend funds on the areas they identify as most in need. Organizations have been waving this flag for ages, and it's time for a change. If you’re not sure how to get this done, check out this video from almost a decade ago—it’s still relevant today: https://lnkd.in/eQRsEJ6X. We’re looking forward to a crap-free philanthropy future…. Until then, submit your #CrappyFundingPractices nominations here: https://lnkd.in/eMaXk6ZS Image description: Colorful background with a gold toilet trophy that says: No general operating support. The header of the image says: #CrappyFundingPractices Award.