The Sanaburi Foundation
1-2-23 Omachi, Sakura-Omachi Building, 3rd Floor
Aoba-ku
Sendai, Miyagi Prefecture 980-0804
Japan
Mission
To encourage and strengthen relief and reconstruction efforts that measurably improve the quality of life and the prosperity of the Tohoku region, which was severely affected by the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident
Read Featured Story
Most Meaningful Change
We joined an alliance of community foundations in Japan and established a multi-stakeholder dialogue.
2011 Year Founded
13 Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalent)
$30,000 Endowment Value
$4,500,000 Total Annual Grantmaking
Organization | The Sanaburi Foundation |
---|
Address 1 | 1-2-23 Omachi, Sakura-Omachi Building, 3rd Floor |
---|
Address 2 | Aoba-ku |
---|
City / Town | Sendai |
---|
State / Region | Miyagi Prefecture |
---|
ZIP / Postal Code | 980-0804 |
---|
Country | Japan |
---|
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 | 81-22-748-7283 |
---|
Email | info@sanaburifund.org |
---|
Website | www.sanaburifund.org |
---|
Organization Leader (Name, Title) | Mr. Seiichi Ohtaki, Chair |
---|
Primary Contact’s Name | Yuji Suzuki |
---|
Primary Contact’s Position | Senior Managing Director |
---|
Year Founded | 2011 |
---|
Mission Statement | To encourage and strengthen relief and reconstruction efforts that measurably improve the quality of life and the prosperity of the Tohoku region, which was severely affected by the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident |
---|
Organization Description | Community Foundation |
---|
Other Description | Did not answer |
---|
Approximate Size of the Population Serviced | 7,760,000 |
---|
Total Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 13 |
---|
Total Unpaid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | Did not answer |
---|
Total Board Members | 13 |
---|
Organization’s Total Income in Last Fiscal Year | $5,000,000 |
---|
Organization’s Gifts Income in Last Fiscal Year | Did not answer |
---|
Organization’s Total Expenditures in Last Fiscal Year | $5,000,000 |
---|
Organization’s Grantmaking Budget in Last Fiscal Year | $4,500,000 |
---|
Does Organization Have an Endowment | No but intend to build one |
---|
Value of Endowment (or Financial Reserves) as of the End of Last Fiscal Year | $30,000 |
---|
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 a slight role |
---|
Philanthropic gifts | Played an important role |
---|
Grassroots activism | Played an important role |
---|
Inadequate government services | Played an important role |
---|
Changes in the political environment | Played a slight role |
---|
Changes in the economic environment | Played an important role |
---|
Government initiative funding | Played an important role |
---|
Foundation initiative funding | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Bilateral or multilateral initiative funding | Played an important role |
---|
Favorable legal or fiscal policies | Played a slight role |
---|
|
Time Spent Working in Following Areas |
---|
Neighborhood | Very little time |
---|
Locally | Very little time |
---|
Regionally | Lots of time |
---|
Nationally | Very little time |
---|
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 | Centrally important |
---|
Building an endowment | Centrally important |
---|
Serving donor needs | Important but not central |
---|
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 | Little |
---|
Education | Lot |
---|
Environment | Not at all |
---|
Health | Little |
---|
Human and social services | Lot |
---|
Human rights | Fair amount |
---|
International relations | Not at all |
---|
Religion | Not at all |
---|
Economic development | Fair amount |
---|
Conflict resolution/bridging different parts of the community | Little |
---|
Information technology | Not at all |
---|
Strengthening local or regional government | Not at all |
---|
Housing | Not at all |
---|
Children | Lot |
---|
Water | Not at all |
---|
Alternative energy | Not at all |
---|
Disaster relief | Lot |
---|
Advocacy with authorities | Not at all |
---|
Job training | Little |
---|
|
Nongrantmaking Services Offered to Community in Recent Years |
---|
Convening for issues of local concern | Rarely |
---|
Promote collaboration between grantees | Often |
---|
Promote understanding of public policy | Rarely |
---|
Training/capacity-building for local organizations | Often |
---|
Advocacy | Rarely |
---|
Loaned staff | Never |
---|
Research | Occasionally |
---|
Community needs assessment | Occasionally |
---|
Leadership development | Occasionally |
---|
Internships | Never |
---|
Providing space for local organizations | Never |
---|
Access to information technology | Never |
---|
Publishing/knowledge sharing | Rarely |
---|
|
Main Trends Over the Past Year in Geographic Area Served |
---|
Poverty | Getting worse |
---|
Crime | Getting worse |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | No change |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | Getting worse |
---|
Social position of marginalized groups | Getting worse |
---|
Responsiveness of authorities | Getting worse |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Getting worse |
---|
Value of community assets | Getting much worse |
---|
Quality of the environment | Getting worse |
---|
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 better |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | No change |
---|
Gender equity | Getting better |
---|
Charitable giving through the community foundation | No change |
---|
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 | Work in the sphere but no measurable achievement |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Some important achievements |
---|
Equitable distribution of resources and services | A few small 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 | A few small 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 | 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 | Much achievement |
---|
Number of people and organizations involved in philanthropic giving | Much achievement |
---|
|
Active Partnerships |
---|
Formal community associations and groups | Not at all |
---|
Informal associations of citizens | Little |
---|
Non-governmental organizations | Little |
---|
Local government | N/A |
---|
National government | Little |
---|
Universities | Not at all |
---|
Schools | N/A |
---|
Businesses | Little |
---|
|
Other Institutions Helpful to Our Work |
---|
National association of grantmakers | Helpful |
---|
Regional association of grantmakers | Helpful |
---|
Global Fund for Community Foundations | N/A |
---|
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 | Yes |
---|
Have regular sessions where local people advise us what our programs should do | No |
---|
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 | 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 | We joined an alliance of community foundations in Japan and established a multi-stakeholder dialogue. |
---|