Sydney Community Foundation
Post Office Box R454
Royal Exchange, New South Wales 1225
Australia
Mission
To change and improve the quality of life across Sydney by connecting philanthropy to communities
Read Featured Story
Most Meaningful Change
Our most meaningful change has been our work in Warwick Farm, a small community in the Liverpool area with approximately 3,000 residents that is characterized by generational unemployment, drugs and crime, homelessness and food insecurity. Within 12 months of establishing a collective impact program, we have 11 educational and employment projects running in the neighborhood and at its technology high school, which are funded by a diverse group of individual and corporate donors and private foundations.
2003 Year Founded
3 Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalent)
$420,000 Total Annual Grantmaking
Organization | Sydney Community Foundation |
---|
Address 1 | Post Office Box R454 |
---|
Address 2 | Did not answer |
---|
City / Town | Royal Exchange |
---|
State / Region | New South Wales |
---|
ZIP / Postal Code | 1225 |
---|
Country | Australia |
---|
Continent | Oceania |
---|
Map Address (If Different) | |
---|
Map City / Town (If Different) | Sydney |
---|
Map State / Region (If Different) | Did not answer |
---|
Map Zip / Postal Code (If Different) | 2000 |
---|
Map Country (If Different) | Did not answer |
---|
Phone | +61 2 9251 1229 |
---|
Email | enquiries@sydneycommunityfoundation.org.au |
---|
Website | www.sydneycommunityfoundation.org.au |
---|
Organization Leader (Name, Title) | Rosalind Strong AM Chair |
---|
Primary Contact’s Name | Felicity Leitch |
---|
Primary Contact’s Position | Administration and Events |
---|
Year Founded | 2003 |
---|
Mission Statement | To change and improve the quality of life across Sydney by connecting philanthropy to communities |
---|
Organization Description | Community Foundation |
---|
Other Description | Did not answer |
---|
Approximate Size of the Population Serviced | Did not answer |
---|
Total Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 3 |
---|
Total Unpaid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 2 |
---|
Total Board Members | 11 |
---|
Organization’s Total Income in Last Fiscal Year | $750,000 |
---|
Organization’s Gifts Income in Last Fiscal Year | Did not answer |
---|
Organization’s Total Expenditures in Last Fiscal Year | $450,000 |
---|
Organization’s Grantmaking Budget in Last Fiscal Year | $420,000 |
---|
Does Organization Have an Endowment | Yes |
---|
Value of Endowment (or Financial Reserves) as of the End of Last Fiscal Year | Did not answer |
---|
Change in Financial Status Over Last Three Years | Significant improvement |
---|
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 | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Inadequate government services | Played a slight role |
---|
Changes in the political environment | Played a slight role |
---|
Changes in the economic environment | Did not answer |
---|
Government initiative funding | Played an important role |
---|
Foundation initiative funding | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Bilateral or multilateral initiative funding | No role |
---|
Favorable legal or fiscal policies | No role |
---|
|
Time Spent Working in Following Areas |
---|
Neighborhood | Lots of time |
---|
Locally | Lots of time |
---|
Regionally | Fair amount of time |
---|
Nationally | Very little time |
---|
Internationally | None |
---|
|
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 | Centrally important |
---|
Board reflective of community diversity | Centrally important |
---|
Building an endowment | Centrally important |
---|
Serving donor needs | Centrally important |
---|
Acting as a fiscal intermediary for the community | Centrally important |
---|
Building inclusion and trust in the community | Centrally important |
---|
Pursuing equity | Centrally important |
---|
Accountability to local people | Centrally important |
---|
Raising money for grantmaking annually | Centrally 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 | Fair amount |
---|
Education | Lot |
---|
Environment | Little |
---|
Health | Lot |
---|
Human and social services | Lot |
---|
Human rights | Lot |
---|
International relations | Not at all |
---|
Religion | Not at all |
---|
Economic development | Lot |
---|
Conflict resolution/bridging different parts of the community | Fair amount |
---|
Information technology | Lot |
---|
Strengthening local or regional government | Lot |
---|
Housing | Lot |
---|
Children | Lot |
---|
Water | Not at all |
---|
Alternative energy | Not at all |
---|
Disaster relief | Not at all |
---|
Advocacy with authorities | Fair amount |
---|
Job training | Lot |
---|
|
Nongrantmaking Services Offered to Community in Recent Years |
---|
Convening for issues of local concern | Occasionally |
---|
Promote collaboration between grantees | Often |
---|
Promote understanding of public policy | Often |
---|
Training/capacity-building for local organizations | Often |
---|
Advocacy | Occasionally |
---|
Loaned staff | Did not answer |
---|
Research | Rarely |
---|
Community needs assessment | Often |
---|
Leadership development | Occasionally |
---|
Internships | Rarely |
---|
Providing space for local organizations | Rarely |
---|
Access to information technology | Rarely |
---|
Publishing/knowledge sharing | Often |
---|
|
Main Trends Over the Past Year in Geographic Area Served |
---|
Poverty | Getting better |
---|
Crime | Getting better |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Getting better |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Getting better |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | Getting better |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | Getting better |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Getting better |
---|
Value of community assets | Getting better |
---|
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 | Getting better |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | Getting 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 | Some important achievements |
---|
Crime | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Some important achievements |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Some important achievements |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | Some important achievements |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | Some important achievements |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Some important achievements |
---|
Value of community assets | Some important achievements |
---|
Quality of the environment | Some important achievements |
---|
Number of people and organizations working to change and improve their community | Much achievement |
---|
Levels of innovation and risk taking in addressing community problems | Much achievement |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | Some important achievements |
---|
Gender equity | A few small achievements |
---|
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 | Lot |
---|
National government | Little |
---|
Universities | Little |
---|
Schools | Lot |
---|
Businesses | Lot |
---|
|
Other Institutions Helpful to Our Work |
---|
National association of grantmakers | N/A |
---|
Regional association of grantmakers | N/A |
---|
Global Fund for Community Foundations | N/A |
---|
Particular foundation | N/A |
---|
Other organization | N/A |
---|
|
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 | Very important |
---|
Better local culture of giving | Very important |
---|
Stronger civil society | Very important |
---|
More responsive authorities | Very important |
---|
|
Other | Did not answer |
---|
Most Meaningful Change that Organization Has Helped to Bring About in the Last Three Years | Our most meaningful change has been our work in Warwick Farm, a small community in the Liverpool area with approximately 3,000 residents that is characterized by generational unemployment, drugs and crime, homelessness and food insecurity. Within 12 months of establishing a collective impact program, we have 11 educational and employment projects running in the neighborhood and at its technology high school, which are funded by a diverse group of individual and corporate donors and private foundations. |
---|