Community Foundation of Mississauga
1100 Central Parkway West, Unit 15 Lower Level
Mississauga, Ontario L5C 4E5
Canada
Mission
To create sustainable support for community needs in Mississauga by building partnerships with donors and stakeholders who establish endowed and other related funds, to maximize our community impact by ensuring that we identify and understand community needs, and to invest in solutions
Most Meaningful Change
Our grantmaking has increased in the past three years after the global equity markets suffered a significant downturn. This has provided home-grown granting to local organizations that can’t or don’t have the capacity to seek larger national grants. It’s a “made in the community, for the community” opportunity.
2001 Year Founded
3 Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalent)
$16,500,000 Endowment Value
$466,000 Total Annual Grantmaking
Organization | Community Foundation of Mississauga |
---|
Address 1 | 1100 Central Parkway West, Unit 15 Lower Level |
---|
Address 2 | Did not answer |
---|
City / Town | Mississauga |
---|
State / Region | Ontario |
---|
ZIP / Postal Code | L5C 4E5 |
---|
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 | 905-897-8880 |
---|
Email | emackenzie@CFofm.org |
---|
Website | www.CFofM.org |
---|
Organization Leader (Name, Title) | Eileen MacKenzie, Executive Director |
---|
Primary Contact’s Name | Eileen MacKenzie |
---|
Primary Contact’s Position | Executive Director |
---|
Year Founded | 2001 |
---|
Mission Statement | To create sustainable support for community needs in Mississauga by building partnerships with donors and stakeholders who establish endowed and other related funds, to maximize our community impact by ensuring that we identify and understand community needs, and to invest in solutions |
---|
Organization Description | Community Foundation |
---|
Other Description | Did not answer |
---|
Approximate Size of the Population Serviced | 730,000 |
---|
Total Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 3 |
---|
Total Unpaid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | Did not answer |
---|
Total Board Members | 9 |
---|
Organization’s Total Income in Last Fiscal Year | $388,000 |
---|
Organization’s Gifts Income in Last Fiscal Year | Did not answer |
---|
Organization’s Total Expenditures in Last Fiscal Year | $368,000 |
---|
Organization’s Grantmaking Budget in Last Fiscal Year | $466,000 |
---|
Does Organization Have an Endowment | Yes |
---|
Value of Endowment (or Financial Reserves) as of the End of Last Fiscal Year | $16,500,000 |
---|
Change in Financial Status Over Last Three Years | A little improvement |
---|
Factors that Played a Role in the Origins of Your Organization |
---|
Community leadership | Played an important role |
---|
Philanthropic gifts | No role |
---|
Grassroots activism | Played an important 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 | No role |
---|
Foundation initiative funding | No role |
---|
Bilateral or multilateral initiative funding | No role |
---|
Favorable legal or fiscal policies | Played a slight role |
---|
|
Time Spent Working in Following Areas |
---|
Neighborhood | Did not answer |
---|
Locally | Lots of time |
---|
Regionally | Did not answer |
---|
Nationally | Very little time |
---|
Internationally | Did not answer |
---|
|
Rate Importance of the Following Functions |
---|
Grantmaking | Centrally important |
---|
Having local people as leaders in the organization | Important but not central |
---|
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 | Slightly important |
---|
Building inclusion and trust in the community | Slightly 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 | Fair amount |
---|
Education | Little |
---|
Environment | Little |
---|
Health | Fair amount |
---|
Human and social services | Fair amount |
---|
Human rights | Little |
---|
International relations | Not at all |
---|
Religion | Not at all |
---|
Economic development | Not at all |
---|
Conflict resolution/bridging different parts of the community | Little |
---|
Information technology | Little |
---|
Strengthening local or regional government | Not at all |
---|
Housing | Fair amount |
---|
Children | Lot |
---|
Water | Little |
---|
Alternative energy | Little |
---|
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 | Often |
---|
Promote collaboration between grantees | Occasionally |
---|
Promote understanding of public policy | Rarely |
---|
Training/capacity-building for local organizations | Rarely |
---|
Advocacy | Never |
---|
Loaned staff | Never |
---|
Research | Rarely |
---|
Community needs assessment | Occasionally |
---|
Leadership development | Occasionally |
---|
Internships | Never |
---|
Providing space for local organizations | Never |
---|
Access to information technology | Never |
---|
Publishing/knowledge sharing | Occasionally |
---|
|
Main Trends Over the Past Year in Geographic Area Served |
---|
Poverty | Getting worse |
---|
Crime | No change |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Getting worse |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Getting worse |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | Getting worse |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | No change |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | No change |
---|
Value of community assets | Getting better |
---|
Quality of the environment | No change |
---|
Number of people and organizations working to change and improve their community | Getting better |
---|
Levels of innovation and risk taking in addressing community problems | Getting worse |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | No change |
---|
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 | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | A few small achievements |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | A few small achievements |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Value of community assets | A few small achievements |
---|
Quality of the environment | A few small achievements |
---|
Number of people and organizations working to change and improve their community | A few small achievements |
---|
Levels of innovation and risk taking in addressing community problems | A few small achievements |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | A few small achievements |
---|
Gender equity | A few small achievements |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | A few small achievements |
---|
Number of people and organizations involved in philanthropic giving | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
|
Active Partnerships |
---|
Formal community associations and groups | Lot |
---|
Informal associations of citizens | Little |
---|
Non-governmental organizations | Lot |
---|
Local government | Little |
---|
National government | Not at all |
---|
Universities | Little |
---|
Schools | Not at all |
---|
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 | Neither helpful or unhelpful |
---|
Particular foundation | Helpful |
---|
Other organization | Helpful |
---|
|
Involvement of Local People |
---|
Regularly survey local people about our programs | No |
---|
Local people are engaged in the delivery of our work | Yes |
---|
Local people control what our organization does | Yes |
---|
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 | Very important |
---|
More volunteers | Important |
---|
Access to advice or technical assistance | Important |
---|
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 grantmaking has increased in the past three years after the global equity markets suffered a significant downturn. This has provided home-grown granting to local organizations that can’t or don’t have the capacity to seek larger national grants. It’s a “made in the community, for the community” opportunity. |
---|