Devon Community Foundation
The Factory
Leat Street
Tiverton, Devon EX16 5LL
United Kingdom
Mission
Connecting the voluntary sector, donors and partners in a way that supports them to identify and tackle local issues together
Most Meaningful Change
One of our donors who has a particular interest in young people from the most deprived districts wanted to do something very strategic. So we invented an “accelerator” program which trained a number of the best organizations we had funded in this area of work in how to replicate or scale up. The result has been electric. The groups have transformed, becoming far more sustainable and enterprising and attracting significant further funding from other sources.
1996 Year Founded
6 Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalent)
$8,317,400 Endowment Value
$1,140,021 Total Annual Grantmaking
Organization | Devon Community Foundation |
---|
Address 1 | The Factory |
---|
Address 2 | Leat Street |
---|
City / Town | Tiverton |
---|
State / Region | Devon |
---|
ZIP / Postal Code | EX16 5LL |
---|
Country | United Kingdom |
---|
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 | 188.423.5887 |
---|
Email | Martha@devoncf.com |
---|
Website | www.devoncf.com |
---|
Organization Leader (Name, Title) | Martha Wilkinson, Chief Executive |
---|
Primary Contact’s Name | Martha Wilkinson |
---|
Primary Contact’s Position | Chief Executive |
---|
Year Founded | 1996 |
---|
Mission Statement | Connecting the voluntary sector, donors and partners in a way that supports them to identify and tackle local issues together |
---|
Organization Description | Community Foundation |
---|
Other Description | Did not answer |
---|
Approximate Size of the Population Serviced | 1,100,000 |
---|
Total Paid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 6 |
---|
Total Unpaid Staff (Full-Time Equivalents) | 12 |
---|
Total Board Members | 12 |
---|
Organization’s Total Income in Last Fiscal Year | $2,215,977 |
---|
Organization’s Gifts Income in Last Fiscal Year | $696,505 |
---|
Organization’s Total Expenditures in Last Fiscal Year | $1,509,125 |
---|
Organization’s Grantmaking Budget in Last Fiscal Year | $1,140,021 |
---|
Does Organization Have an Endowment | Yes |
---|
Value of Endowment (or Financial Reserves) as of the End of Last Fiscal Year | $8,317,400 |
---|
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 an important role |
---|
Grassroots activism | Played a slight role |
---|
Inadequate government services | Played a slight role |
---|
Changes in the political environment | Played a centrally important role |
---|
Changes in the economic environment | No role |
---|
Government initiative funding | Played a centrally important 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 | Lots of time |
---|
Nationally | None |
---|
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 | Slightly important |
---|
Board reflective of community diversity | Slightly 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 | Slightly important |
---|
Accountability to local people | Important but not central |
---|
Raising money for grantmaking annually | Important but not central |
---|
Community development | Important but not central |
---|
|
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 | |
---|
Human rights | Fair amount |
---|
International relations | Little |
---|
Religion | Little |
---|
Economic development | Fair amount |
---|
Conflict resolution/bridging different parts of the community | Lot |
---|
Information technology | Little |
---|
Strengthening local or regional government | Little |
---|
Housing | Little |
---|
Children | |
---|
Water | Little |
---|
Alternative energy | Little |
---|
Disaster relief | Lot |
---|
Advocacy with authorities | Fair amount |
---|
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 | Rarely |
---|
Advocacy | Never |
---|
Loaned staff | Never |
---|
Research | Rarely |
---|
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 better |
---|
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 much worse |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Getting much worse |
---|
Value of community assets | Getting worse |
---|
Quality of the environment | No change |
---|
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 worse |
---|
Networks and links between different parts of the community | No change |
---|
Gender equity | No change |
---|
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 | A few small achievements |
---|
Trust among different sections of the community | Some important achievements |
---|
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 | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Appropriateness of public policies | Some important achievements |
---|
Value of community assets | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
Quality of the environment | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
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 | Do not work in this sphere |
---|
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 | Lot |
---|
Informal associations of citizens | Little |
---|
Non-governmental organizations | Lot |
---|
Local government | Lot |
---|
National government | Little |
---|
Universities | Little |
---|
Schools | Not at all |
---|
Businesses | Little |
---|
|
Other Institutions Helpful to Our Work |
---|
National association of grantmakers | Neither helpful or unhelpful |
---|
Regional association of grantmakers | Very helpful |
---|
Global Fund for Community Foundations | Neither helpful or unhelpful |
---|
Particular foundation | Very 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 | Yes |
---|
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 | Neither important nor unimportant |
---|
More volunteers | Important |
---|
Access to advice or technical assistance | Neither important nor unimportant |
---|
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 | One of our donors who has a particular interest in young people from the most deprived districts wanted to do something very strategic. So we invented an “accelerator” program which trained a number of the best organizations we had funded in this area of work in how to replicate or scale up. The result has been electric. The groups have transformed, becoming far more sustainable and enterprising and attracting significant further funding from other sources. |
---|