Sudbury Community Foundation
300-96 Larch Street
Sudbury, Ontario P3E 1C1
Canada
Mission
To enhance the quality of life and sustainability of our community through fund development, grantmaking and leadership
Most Meaningful Change
Our annual “Vital Signs” indicator reports have brought meaningful change to our community in a number of areas: Findings have led to municipal policy changes. Local for-profit and nonprofit boards have used the report in their strategic planning activities. Local employers have used it in their recruitment drives. Schools have used class sets to teach students about the community and how to read statistical information. Emerging trends have been identified, and public meetings have been convened.
1996 Year Founded
5 Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalent)
$2,613,449 Endowment Value
$77,400 Total Annual Grantmaking
Organization | Sudbury Community Foundation |
---|
Address 1 | 300-96 Larch Street |
---|
Address 2 | Did not answer |
---|
City / Town | Sudbury |
---|
State / Region | Ontario |
---|
ZIP / Postal Code | P3E 1C1 |
---|
Country | Canada |
---|
Continent | North America |
---|
Map Address (If Different) | Did not answer |
---|
Map City / Town (If Different) | Did not answer |
---|
Map State / Region (If Different) | Did not answer |
---|
Map Zip / Postal Code (If Different) | Did not answer |
---|
Map Country (If Different) | Did not answer |
---|
Phone | 705 673-7770 |
---|
Email | carmen@sudburycf.ca |
---|
Website | www.sudburycf.ca |
---|
Organization Leader (Name, Title) | Manager, Core Services |
---|
Primary Contact’s Name | Carmen Simmons |
---|
Primary Contact’s Position | Executive Director |
---|
Year Founded | 1996 |
---|
Mission Statement | To enhance the quality of life and sustainability of our community through fund development, grantmaking and leadership |
---|
Organization Description | Community Foundation |
---|
Other Description | Did not answer |
---|
Approximate Size of the Population Serviced | 160,000 |
---|
Total Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 5 |
---|
Total Unpaid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | Did not answer |
---|
Total Board Members | 15 |
---|
Organization’s Total Income in Last Fiscal Year | $627,000 |
---|
Organization’s Gifts Income in Last Fiscal Year | Did not answer |
---|
Organization’s Total Expenditures in Last Fiscal Year | $460,000 |
---|
Organization’s Grantmaking Budget in Last Fiscal Year | $77,400 |
---|
Does Organization Have an Endowment | Yes |
---|
Value of Endowment (or Financial Reserves) as of the End of Last Fiscal Year | $2,613,449 |
---|
Change in Financial Status Over Last Three Years | Stayed about the same |
---|
Factors that Played a Role in the Origins of Your Organization |
---|
Community leadership | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Philanthropic gifts | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Grassroots activism | No role |
---|
Inadequate government services | Played a slight role |
---|
Changes in the political environment | Played a slight role |
---|
Changes in the economic environment | Played an important role |
---|
Government initiative funding | Played a slight role |
---|
Foundation initiative funding | Played an important role |
---|
Bilateral or multilateral initiative funding | Played a slight role |
---|
Favorable legal or fiscal policies | Played an important role |
---|
|
Time Spent Working in Following Areas |
---|
Neighborhood | Very little time |
---|
Locally | Lots of time |
---|
Regionally | Very little time |
---|
Nationally | Very little time |
---|
Internationally | Very little time |
---|
|
Rate Importance of the Following Functions |
---|
Grantmaking | Centrally important |
---|
Having local people as leaders in the organization | Centrally important |
---|
Seeking local donations | Centrally important |
---|
Having a gender balance in the organization | Important but not central |
---|
Board reflective of community diversity | Important but not central |
---|
Building an endowment | Centrally important |
---|
Serving donor needs | Centrally important |
---|
Acting as a fiscal intermediary for the community | Important but not central |
---|
Building inclusion and trust in the community | Centrally important |
---|
Pursuing equity | Slightly important |
---|
Accountability to local people | Centrally important |
---|
Raising money for grantmaking annually | Important but not central |
---|
Community development | Centrally important |
---|
|
In the Last Year, Extent to Which Programming and/or Grantmaking Involved Work in the Following Areas |
---|
Arts and culture | Lot |
---|
Education | Lot |
---|
Environment | Fair amount |
---|
Health | Fair amount |
---|
Human and social services | Fair amount |
---|
Human rights | Not at all |
---|
International relations | Not at all |
---|
Religion | Little |
---|
Economic development | Fair amount |
---|
Conflict resolution/bridging different parts of the community | Not at all |
---|
Information technology | Little |
---|
Strengthening local or regional government | Little |
---|
Housing | Little |
---|
Children | Lot |
---|
Water | Lot |
---|
Alternative energy | Not at all |
---|
Disaster relief | Not at all |
---|
Advocacy with authorities | Not at all |
---|
Job training | Not at all |
---|
|
Nongrantmaking Services Offered to Community in Recent Years |
---|
Convening for issues of local concern | Occasionally |
---|
Promote collaboration between grantees | Occasionally |
---|
Promote understanding of public policy | Occasionally |
---|
Training/capacity-building for local organizations | Occasionally |
---|
Advocacy | Never |
---|
Loaned staff | Rarely |
---|
Research | Rarely |
---|
Community needs assessment | Often |
---|
Leadership development | Often |
---|
Internships | Often |
---|
Providing space for local organizations | Often |
---|
Access to information technology | Rarely |
---|
Publishing/knowledge sharing | Often |
---|
|
Main Trends Over the Past Year in Geographic Area Served |
---|
Poverty | No change |
---|
Crime | Getting better |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | No change |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | No change |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | Getting worse |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | No change |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | No change |
---|
Value of community assets | No change |
---|
Quality of the environment | Getting better |
---|
Number of people and organizations working to change and improve their community | Getting much better |
---|
Levels of innovation and risk taking in addressing community problems | Getting much better |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | Getting better |
---|
Gender equity | No change |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | Getting better |
---|
Number of people and organizations involved in philanthropic giving | No change |
---|
|
Extent to Which Organization Can Claim Tangible and Measurable Achievements in the Past Three Years |
---|
Poverty | A few small achievements |
---|
Crime | A few small achievements |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Some important achievements |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | A few small achievements |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Value of community assets | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Quality of the environment | Some important achievements |
---|
Number of people and organizations working to change and improve their community | Some important achievements |
---|
Levels of innovation and risk taking in addressing community problems | A few small achievements |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | Much achievement |
---|
Gender equity | A few small achievements |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | Some important achievements |
---|
Number of people and organizations involved in philanthropic giving | Some important achievements |
---|
|
Active Partnerships |
---|
Formal community associations and groups | Lot |
---|
Informal associations of citizens | Lot |
---|
Non-governmental organizations | Little |
---|
Local government | Lot |
---|
National government | Not at all |
---|
Universities | Little |
---|
Schools | Little |
---|
Businesses | Lot |
---|
|
Other Institutions Helpful to Our Work |
---|
National association of grantmakers | Very helpful |
---|
Regional association of grantmakers | N/A |
---|
Global Fund for Community Foundations | N/A |
---|
Particular foundation | Very helpful |
---|
Other organization | Very helpful |
---|
|
Involvement of Local People |
---|
Regularly survey local people about our programs | Yes |
---|
Local people are engaged in the delivery of our work | Yes |
---|
Local people control what our organization does | No |
---|
Have local people represented on our board | Yes |
---|
Have regular sessions where local people advise us what our programs should do | Yes |
---|
Actively engage local people as volunteers | Yes |
---|
All of our board is composed of local people | Yes |
---|
Account to local people about our successes and failures each year | Yes |
---|
|
Assistance in Overcoming Main Difficulties Faced in Developing Organization Further |
---|
Increased funding | Very important |
---|
Better legal or fiscal environment | Important |
---|
More volunteers | Very important |
---|
Access to advice or technical assistance | Neither important nor unimportant |
---|
Better local culture of giving | Very important |
---|
Stronger civil society | Important |
---|
More responsive authorities | Important |
---|
|
Other | Did not answer |
---|
Most Meaningful Change that Organization Has Helped to Bring About in the Last Three Years | Our annual “Vital Signs” indicator reports have brought meaningful change to our community in a number of areas: Findings have led to municipal policy changes. Local for-profit and nonprofit boards have used the report in their strategic planning activities. Local employers have used it in their recruitment drives. Schools have used class sets to teach students about the community and how to read statistical information. Emerging trends have been identified, and public meetings have been convened. |
---|