Local Development Institute
693 Bamroung Muang Road, Pomparb District
Pabprachai, Bangkok 10100
Thailand
Mission
Civil society strengthening, community business development, environmental rehabilitation, social development, and community foundation strengthening
Most Meaningful Change
The community foundation concept came to Thailand about seven years ago, and the country now has five such foundations. However, there was no strong organization to help with fundraising, and our budget was limited. We plan to apply to the Community Foundation Global Fund.
1991 Year Founded
11 Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalent)
$1,000,000 Endowment Value
Organization | Local Development Institute |
---|
Address 1 | 693 Bamroung Muang Road, Pomparb District |
---|
Address 2 | Did not answer |
---|
City / Town | Pabprachai |
---|
State / Region | Bangkok |
---|
ZIP / Postal Code | 10100 |
---|
Country | Thailand |
---|
Continent | Asia |
---|
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 | 662.621.6643 |
---|
Email | ldi@loxinfo.co.th |
---|
Website | www.ldinet.org |
---|
Organization Leader (Name, Title) | Dr. Poldej Pinprateep MD, Secretary General |
---|
Primary Contact’s Name | Benjamas Siripatra |
---|
Primary Contact’s Position | Deputy Secretary General |
---|
Year Founded | 1991 |
---|
Mission Statement | Civil society strengthening, community business development, environmental rehabilitation, social development, and community foundation strengthening |
---|
Organization Description | Other |
---|
Other Description | Community Foundation Strenthening |
---|
Approximate Size of the Population Serviced | Did not answer |
---|
Total Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 11 |
---|
Total Unpaid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 100 |
---|
Total Board Members | 10 |
---|
Organization’s Total Income in Last Fiscal Year | $4,000,000 |
---|
Organization’s Gifts Income in Last Fiscal Year | Did not answer |
---|
Organization’s Total Expenditures in Last Fiscal Year | $3,000,000 |
---|
Organization’s Grantmaking Budget in Last Fiscal Year | Did not answer |
---|
Does Organization Have an Endowment | |
---|
Value of Endowment (or Financial Reserves) as of the End of Last Fiscal Year | $1,000,000 |
---|
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 an important role |
---|
Philanthropic gifts | Played a slight role |
---|
Grassroots activism | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Inadequate government services | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Changes in the political environment | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Changes in the economic environment | Played an important role |
---|
Government initiative funding | Played a slight role |
---|
Foundation initiative funding | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Bilateral or multilateral initiative funding | Played an important role |
---|
Favorable legal or fiscal policies | Played an important role |
---|
|
Time Spent Working in Following Areas |
---|
Neighborhood | Lots of time |
---|
Locally | Lots of time |
---|
Regionally | Fair amount of time |
---|
Nationally | Lots of time |
---|
Internationally | Fair amount of time |
---|
|
Rate Importance of the Following Functions |
---|
Grantmaking | Slightly important |
---|
Having local people as leaders in the organization | Important but not central |
---|
Seeking local donations | Important but not central |
---|
Having a gender balance in the organization | Centrally important |
---|
Board reflective of community diversity | Important but not central |
---|
Building an endowment | Important but not central |
---|
Serving donor needs | Important but not central |
---|
Acting as a fiscal intermediary for the community | Important but not central |
---|
Building inclusion and trust in the community | Slightly 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 | Little |
---|
Education | Lot |
---|
Environment | Lot |
---|
Health | Lot |
---|
Human and social services | Lot |
---|
Human rights | Lot |
---|
International relations | Fair amount |
---|
Religion | Fair amount |
---|
Economic development | Fair amount |
---|
Conflict resolution/bridging different parts of the community | Lot |
---|
Information technology | Fair amount |
---|
Strengthening local or regional government | Fair amount |
---|
Housing | Little |
---|
Children | Fair amount |
---|
Water | Fair amount |
---|
Alternative energy | Fair amount |
---|
Disaster relief | Fair amount |
---|
Advocacy with authorities | Fair amount |
---|
Job training | Did not answer |
---|
|
Nongrantmaking Services Offered to Community in Recent Years |
---|
Convening for issues of local concern | Often |
---|
Promote collaboration between grantees | Often |
---|
Promote understanding of public policy | Often |
---|
Training/capacity-building for local organizations | Often |
---|
Advocacy | Often |
---|
Loaned staff | Rarely |
---|
Research | Occasionally |
---|
Community needs assessment | Occasionally |
---|
Leadership development | Often |
---|
Internships | Rarely |
---|
Providing space for local organizations | Often |
---|
Access to information technology | Occasionally |
---|
Publishing/knowledge sharing | Occasionally |
---|
|
Main Trends Over the Past Year in Geographic Area Served |
---|
Poverty | Getting better |
---|
Crime | Getting better |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | No change |
---|
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 worse |
---|
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 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 much better |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | No change |
---|
Number of people and organizations involved in philanthropic giving | Getting better |
---|
|
Extent to Which Organization Can Claim Tangible and Measurable Achievements in the Past Three Years |
---|
Poverty | Some important achievements |
---|
Crime | A few small achievements |
---|
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 | Much achievement |
---|
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 | Some important achievements |
---|
Levels of innovation and risk taking in addressing community problems | Some important achievements |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | Some important achievements |
---|
Gender equity | Some important 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 | Little |
---|
Informal associations of citizens | Little |
---|
Non-governmental organizations | Little |
---|
Local government | Little |
---|
National government | Little |
---|
Universities | Little |
---|
Schools | Little |
---|
Businesses | Little |
---|
|
Other Institutions Helpful to Our Work |
---|
National association of grantmakers | Helpful |
---|
Regional association of grantmakers | Neither helpful or unhelpful |
---|
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 | 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 | No |
---|
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 | No |
---|
Account to local people about our successes and failures each year | Yes |
---|
|
Assistance in Overcoming Main Difficulties Faced in Developing Organization Further |
---|
Increased funding | Important |
---|
Better legal or fiscal environment | Important |
---|
More volunteers | Very important |
---|
Access to advice or technical assistance | Important |
---|
Better local culture of giving | 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 | The community foundation concept came to Thailand about seven years ago, and the country now has five such foundations. However, there was no strong organization to help with fundraising, and our budget was limited. We plan to apply to the Community Foundation Global Fund. |
---|