Springfield Foundation
333 North Limestone Street, Suite 201
Springfield, Ohio 45503
United States
Mission
To raise, strengthen and distribute permanent charitable funds to benefit Clark County
Most Meaningful Change
We have worked hard to get organizations to collaborate on local issues. Because of our work, organizations are working together better and getting more done.
1948 Year Founded
5 Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalent)
$65,000,000 Endowment Value
$3,500,000 Total Annual Grantmaking
Organization | Springfield Foundation |
---|
Address 1 | 333 North Limestone Street, Suite 201 |
---|
Address 2 | Did not answer |
---|
City / Town | Springfield |
---|
State / Region | Ohio |
---|
ZIP / Postal Code | 45503 |
---|
Country | United States |
---|
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 | 937-324-8773 |
---|
Email | ted@springfieldfoundation.org |
---|
Website | www.springfieldfoundation.org |
---|
Organization Leader (Name, Title) | Ted Vander Roest, Executive Director |
---|
Primary Contact’s Name | Ted Roest |
---|
Primary Contact’s Position | Executive Director |
---|
Year Founded | 1948 |
---|
Mission Statement | To raise, strengthen and distribute permanent charitable funds to benefit Clark County |
---|
Organization Description | Community Foundation |
---|
Other Description | Did not answer |
---|
Approximate Size of the Population Serviced | 145,000 |
---|
Total Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 5 |
---|
Total Unpaid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | Did not answer |
---|
Total Board Members | 24 |
---|
Organization’s Total Income in Last Fiscal Year | $20,000 |
---|
Organization’s Gifts Income in Last Fiscal Year | $3,455,945 |
---|
Organization’s Total Expenditures in Last Fiscal Year | $550,000 |
---|
Organization’s Grantmaking Budget in Last Fiscal Year | $3,500,000 |
---|
Does Organization Have an Endowment | Yes |
---|
Value of Endowment (or Financial Reserves) as of the End of Last Fiscal Year | $65,000,000 |
---|
Change in Financial Status Over Last Three Years | Significant improvement |
---|
Factors that Played a Role in the Origins of Your Organization |
---|
Community leadership | Played an important role |
---|
Philanthropic gifts | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Grassroots activism | No role |
---|
Inadequate government services | No role |
---|
Changes in the political environment | No role |
---|
Changes in the economic environment | No role |
---|
Government initiative funding | No role |
---|
Foundation initiative funding | Played a slight role |
---|
Bilateral or multilateral initiative funding | No role |
---|
Favorable legal or fiscal policies | No role |
---|
|
Time Spent Working in Following Areas |
---|
Neighborhood | Very little time |
---|
Locally | Lots of time |
---|
Regionally | Very little time |
---|
Nationally | Very little time |
---|
Internationally | None |
---|
|
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 | Slightly 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 | Important but not central |
---|
Raising money for grantmaking annually | Slightly important |
---|
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 | Lot |
---|
Human and social services | Lot |
---|
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 | Not at all |
---|
Strengthening local or regional government | Not at all |
---|
Housing | Fair amount |
---|
Children | Lot |
---|
Water | Little |
---|
Alternative energy | Not at all |
---|
Disaster relief | Not at all |
---|
Advocacy with authorities | Not at all |
---|
Job training | Little |
---|
|
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 | Occasionally |
---|
Training/capacity-building for local organizations | Occasionally |
---|
Advocacy | Occasionally |
---|
Loaned staff | Rarely |
---|
Research | Rarely |
---|
Community needs assessment | Occasionally |
---|
Leadership development | Occasionally |
---|
Internships | Occasionally |
---|
Providing space for local organizations | Never |
---|
Access to information technology | Never |
---|
Publishing/knowledge sharing | Never |
---|
|
Main Trends Over the Past Year in Geographic Area Served |
---|
Poverty | No change |
---|
Crime | No change |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Getting better |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Getting better |
---|
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 | Getting worse |
---|
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 better |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | Getting better |
---|
Gender equity | Getting worse |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | Getting much better |
---|
Number of people and organizations involved in philanthropic giving | Getting much better |
---|
|
Extent to Which Organization Can Claim Tangible and Measurable Achievements in the Past Three Years |
---|
Poverty | A few small achievements |
---|
Crime | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Much achievement |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Value of community assets | A few small achievements |
---|
Quality of the environment | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
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 | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | Some important achievements |
---|
Number of people and organizations involved in philanthropic giving | Much 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 | Lot |
---|
Schools | Lot |
---|
Businesses | Little |
---|
|
Other Institutions Helpful to Our Work |
---|
National association of grantmakers | Helpful |
---|
Regional association of grantmakers | Very helpful |
---|
Global Fund for Community Foundations | N/A |
---|
Particular foundation | Very helpful |
---|
Other organization | N/A |
---|
|
Involvement of Local People |
---|
Regularly survey local people about our programs | Yes |
---|
Local people are engaged in the delivery of our work | No |
---|
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 | No |
---|
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 | Neither important nor unimportant |
---|
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 | We have worked hard to get organizations to collaborate on local issues. Because of our work, organizations are working together better and getting more done. |
---|