Streekfonds West-Vlaanderen
Stasegemsesteenweg 110
Kortrijk, West-Vlaanderen 8500
Belgium
Mission
To connect local donors with local organizations to strengthen social engagement and to promote local philanthropy
Most Meaningful Change
We have managed to differentiate ourselves from other charitable organizations as a noncompeting, independent and convening body. Local donors and community organizations now understand that we are there to work with them.
2001 Year Founded
1 Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalent)
$550,000 Endowment Value
$120,000 Total Annual Grantmaking
Organization | Streekfonds West-Vlaanderen |
---|
Address 1 | Stasegemsesteenweg 110 |
---|
Address 2 | Did not answer |
---|
City / Town | Kortrijk |
---|
State / Region | West-Vlaanderen |
---|
ZIP / Postal Code | 8500 |
---|
Country | Belgium |
---|
Continent | Europe |
---|
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 | 32473701518 |
---|
Email | despiegelaere.j@streekfonds.be |
---|
Website | www.streekfonds.be |
---|
Organization Leader (Name, Title) | Jan Despiegelaere |
---|
Primary Contact’s Name | Jan Despiegelaere |
---|
Primary Contact’s Position | General Coördinator |
---|
Year Founded | 2001 |
---|
Mission Statement | To connect local donors with local organizations to strengthen social engagement and to promote local philanthropy |
---|
Organization Description | Community philanthropy organisation |
---|
Other Description | Did not answer |
---|
Approximate Size of the Population Serviced | 1,100,000 |
---|
Total Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 1 |
---|
Total Unpaid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 2 |
---|
Total Board Members | 14 |
---|
Organization’s Total Income in Last Fiscal Year | $400,000 |
---|
Organization’s Gifts Income in Last Fiscal Year | Did not answer |
---|
Organization’s Total Expenditures in Last Fiscal Year | $250,000 |
---|
Organization’s Grantmaking Budget in Last Fiscal Year | $120,000 |
---|
Does Organization Have an Endowment | Yes |
---|
Value of Endowment (or Financial Reserves) as of the End of Last Fiscal Year | $550,000 |
---|
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 | 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 centrally important role |
---|
Bilateral or multilateral initiative funding | No role |
---|
Favorable legal or fiscal policies | Played a slight role |
---|
|
Time Spent Working in Following Areas |
---|
Neighborhood | Very little time |
---|
Locally | Fair amount of time |
---|
Regionally | Lots of time |
---|
Nationally | None |
---|
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 | 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 | Important but not central |
---|
Pursuing equity | Important but not central |
---|
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 | Fair amount |
---|
Environment | Not at all |
---|
Health | Little |
---|
Human and social services | Fair amount |
---|
Human rights | Little |
---|
International relations | Little |
---|
Religion | Not at all |
---|
Economic development | Little |
---|
Conflict resolution/bridging different parts of the community | Not at all |
---|
Information technology | Little |
---|
Strengthening local or regional government | Little |
---|
Housing | Not at all |
---|
Children | Fair amount |
---|
Water | Not at all |
---|
Alternative energy | Little |
---|
Disaster relief | Not at all |
---|
Advocacy with authorities | Little |
---|
Job training | Little |
---|
|
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 | Occasionally |
---|
Training/capacity-building for local organizations | Occasionally |
---|
Advocacy | Occasionally |
---|
Loaned staff | Rarely |
---|
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 | 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 better |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Getting worse |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | Getting worse |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | Getting better |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | No change |
---|
Value of community assets | No change |
---|
Quality of the environment | Getting worse |
---|
Number of people and organizations working to change and improve their community | No change |
---|
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 better |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | Getting better |
---|
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 | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | A few small achievements |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Value of community assets | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Quality of the environment | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Number of people and organizations working to change and improve their community | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
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 | Some important achievements |
---|
|
Active Partnerships |
---|
Formal community associations and groups | Little |
---|
Informal associations of citizens | Not at all |
---|
Non-governmental organizations | Little |
---|
Local government | Little |
---|
National government | Not at all |
---|
Universities | Not at all |
---|
Schools | Little |
---|
Businesses | Little |
---|
|
Other Institutions Helpful to Our Work |
---|
National association of grantmakers | N/A |
---|
Regional association of grantmakers | Helpful |
---|
Global Fund for Community Foundations | Very helpful |
---|
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 | 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 | No |
---|
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 | Important |
---|
Access to advice or technical assistance | Neither important nor unimportant |
---|
Better local culture of giving | Very important |
---|
Stronger civil society | Neither important nor unimportant |
---|
More responsive authorities | Neither important nor unimportant |
---|
|
Other | Did not answer |
---|
Most Meaningful Change that Organization Has Helped to Bring About in the Last Three Years | We have managed to differentiate ourselves from other charitable organizations as a noncompeting, independent and convening body. Local donors and community organizations now understand that we are there to work with them. |
---|