DOCSLIB.ORG

Effective Altruism and Extreme Poverty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effective Altruism and Extreme Poverty A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/152659 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Effective Altruism and Extreme Poverty by Fırat Akova A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Warwick September 2020 Table of Contents Acknowledgments vi Declaration viii Abstract ix Introduction 1 What is effective altruism? 1 What are the premises of effective altruism? 4 The aims of this thesis and effective altruism as a field of philosophical study 11 Chapter 1 13 The Badness of Extreme Poverty and Hedonistic Utilitarianism 1.1 Introduction 13 1.2 Suffering caused by extreme poverty 15 1.3 The repugnant conclusions of hedonistic utilitarianism 17 1.3.1 Hedonistic utilitarianism can morally justify extreme poverty if it is without suffering 19 1.3.2 Hedonistic utilitarianism can morally justify the secret killing of the extremely poor 22 1.4 Agency and dignity: morally significant reasons other than suffering 29 1.5 Conclusion 35 ii Chapter 2 37 The Moral Obligation to Alleviate Extreme Poverty 2.1 Introduction 37 2.2 How should we interpret moral significance? 42 2.3 How can the Weaker Principle of Sacrifice be one of the premises of effective altruism? 51 2.4 The permissiveness objection 56 2.4.1 Lavish pursuits 56 2.4.2 Unjustifiable broadness and comparatively unjustifiable burden 62 2.5 The source of responsibility objection 72 2.6 The lack of rights objection 83 2.6.1 Absolute moral rights 85 2.6.2 Relational moral rights 87 2.7 What can effective altruists learn from these objections? 95 2.8 Conclusion 109 Chapter 3 111 Effectiveness 3.1 Introduction 111 3.2 Understanding effectiveness 113 3.3 Justifying effectiveness 119 3.3.1 Justifying effectiveness through an outcome-based principle 119 3.3.2 Justifying effectiveness through an obligation-based principle 126 iii 3.4 Effectiveness and fairness 133 3.4.1 Unjustly favouring the well-off 135 3.4.2 Unequal stakes and unrestricted aggregation 145 3.4.3 Perpetuating the unequal luck distribution across the worst-off 151 3.5 Conclusion 166 Chapter 4 168 The Systemic Change Objection: Low-Risk Actions versus High-Risk Actions 4.1 Introduction 168 4.2 The criteria for designating effective charities 171 4.2.1 Limitations of GiveWell 179 4.3 Empirical research on extreme poverty 182 4.3.1 Illicit financial flows 185 4.3.2 Foreign debt 188 4.3.3 War and military spending 190 4.3.4 Inheritance laws 193 4.3.5 Colonialism 198 4.3.6 Malaria 202 4.3.7 Neglected tropical diseases 204 4.3.8 Overview of the empirical research on extreme poverty 207 4.4 The systemic change objection 209 4.4.1 The systemic change objection and its three propositions 210 4.5 Low-risk actions versus high-risk actions 216 4.6 Conclusion 246 iv Chapter 5 248 The Systemic Change Objection: The Future Extremely Poor and the Non-Identity Problem 5.1 Introduction 248 5.2 Future people and the future extremely poor 252 5.2.1 The time-insensitivity of the moral value of a given amount of welfare 254 5.2.2 Rights continuing ad infinitum 256 5.2.3 The importance of decision-making design for the future extremely poor 258 5.2.4 Where does effective altruism stand? 266 5.3 Charity or systemic change? The case of the future extremely poor 269 5.3.1 Numbers and fairness 269 5.3.2 The distribution of utility 275 5.3.3 The non-identity problem: a challenge to the systemic change objection? 277 5.4 Conclusion 292 Conclusion 295 Bibliography 300 v Acknowledgements At the outset, I should acknowledge that I am one of the luckiest people in the world, although I did not deserve this luck more than anyone else. In a fragile world like ours, I have had the health, time, financial support, and freedom needed to undertake this sort of adventurous and rewarding work. I have promised myself to use this luck to improve the world to the best of my ability, and this work is just a drop in the ocean in that regard. I am indebted to my supervisors. I immensely benefited from Patrick Tomlin, who has always been sharp-witted and provided me with invaluable suggestions and insights. Felix Pinkert also massively helped me, with whom I felt like I was dwelling in an infinite horizon of intellectual roads. I also thank Fabienne Peter, for my initial transition to doctoral life. I feel a great urge to thank Kimberley Brownlee for being exceptionally open, caring, and empathetic. Beyond being my Graduate Progress Committee member and giving me constructive feedback, Kim is an inspiration. I also thank my other Graduate Progress Committee members, Mathew Coakley, David Bather Woods, Eileen John, Christoph Hoerl and David James for their feedback. I want to thank Kübra Arkalı who read, archived, and commented on my work with utter diligence. Our regular or spontaneous discussions triggered by curiosity demonstrated rigour, passion and humility. Kübra's dedication to pursuing an ethical life and preparedness to unboundedly serve the worst-off has always amazed me and corresponded to the raison d'être of this work. vi I thank my Poedat friends. Our never-ending intellectual exchanges are their signature. I owe a lot to effective altruists and the wider effective altruism community—this work would not have existed without them and their contributions. I am grateful to my family, Akgün Akova and Özlem Akova, for recognising my desires, believing in me and supporting me. I thank my sponsors who financially supported me. Finally, I thank anyone who was not mentioned here but contributed to this work, however infinitesimally. vii Declaration I declare that this work is my own. I have not previously published any part of this work. I confirm that this work has not been submitted for a degree at another university. viii Abstract Effective altruism is a movement which aims to maximise good. Effective altruists are concerned with extreme poverty and many of them think that individuals have an obligation to donate to effective charities to alleviate extreme poverty. Their reasoning, which I will scrutinise, is as follows: Premise 1. Extreme poverty is very bad. Premise 2. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. Premise 3. Individuals ought to choose the effective option in preventing very bad things. Premise 4. Donating to effective charities is one of the best ways to alleviate extreme poverty. Conclusion. Individuals ought to donate to effective charities working towards extreme poverty alleviation where doing so does not require them to give up anything of moral significance. I will scrutinise each of these premises in turn. ix For Premise 1, I focus on hedonistic utilitarianism and criticise its outlook on extreme poverty. I claim that hedonistic utilitarianism might be problematic for effective altruism. Premise 2 is Peter Singer's Weaker Principle of Sacrifice. I introduce several possible interpretations of it, and press several objections to it by stressing overpermissiveness, luck, and rights. I defend strengthening the Weaker Principle of Sacrifice without making it overdemanding. I claim that Premise 3 can be attractive to both consequentialists and non-consequentialists. Nevertheless, by showing that effectiveness sometimes violates fairness, I propose a method which avoids always helping the greater number and always giving everyone equal chances of being helped, which is compatible with effective altruism. Against Premise 4, I assess the systemic change objection, which states that effective altruism unjustifiably distracts individuals from systemic change. By considering risk and the moral standing of the future extremely poor, I claim that the systemic change objection is partially successful, but cannot undermine effective altruism. After analysing all of these, I argue that individuals have an obligation to donate to effective charities to alleviate extreme poverty where doing so does not require them to give up anything of moral significance. x Introduction What is effective altruism? Effective altruism is a philosophical approach which commits itself to find the effective ways to do the most good. It is also a social movement because many people promote and practice the tenets of effective altruism in their everyday lives. Effective altruism has two components: effectiveness and altruism. Effectiveness is mostly linked to cost-effectiveness in the context of effective altruism. It reflects the idea that the success of interventions not only comes from their ability to solve problems but also their ability to solve problems with as few resources as possible. Altruism stands for the practice of being concerned with others' lives and improving them, as opposed to egoism which mainly emphasises self-interest. Effective altruism merges effectiveness and altruism, which makes it a distinct philosophical approach. Effective altruism has different cause areas. One of its cause areas is the focus of this thesis, namely, extreme poverty. Effective altruists are concerned with the conditions that the hundreds of millions of extremely poor people across the globe are subject to, who have to live on just under US$1.90 per day.1 According to the most recent estimates, the number of extremely poor decreased from 1,895 billion in 1990 to 736 million by 2015.2 Effective altruism 1 World Bank Group, "Piecing Together: The Poverty Puzzle," Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2018, 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BMGF Malaria 2-10-14 (Public)
    A conversation with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation malaria team on December 9, 2013 Participants • Alan Magill — Director, Malaria program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • David Brandling-Bennett — Senior Advisor, Malaria program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • Bruno Moonen - Deputy Director, Malaria program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • Alexandra Farnum — Program Officer, Global Program Advocacy, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • Meg Halverson — Consultant, Global Program Advocacy, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • Adrienne DiCasparro — Associate Program Officer, Giving Partnerships, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • Cari Tuna — Co-Founder, Good Ventures • Holden Karnofsky — Co-Founder, GiveWell Note: This set of conversation notes was compiled by GiveWell and gives an overview of the major points made by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation malaria team. Summary GiveWell and Good Ventures spoke with members of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) malaria team about gaps in global malaria funding, BMGF’s strategy and projected timeline for malaria eradication, and other BMGF malaria activities. Gaps in global malaria funding GiveWell and Good Ventures asked the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) malaria team whether there is a need for funding of better data on bed net durability and bed net usage. There is not as much knowledge and data about bed net usage and bed net durability as there should be. A potential source of variability in bed net durability is that, currently, there are no globally established criteria for measuring the durability of bed nets, so it is possible that net durability standards differ between producers. The Results for Development Institute (R4D) is doing very good work on studying bed net durability.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism William Macaskill and Theron Pummer
    1 Effective Altruism William MacAskill and Theron Pummer Climate change is on course to cause millions of deaths and cost the world economy trillions of dollars. Nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, millions of them dying each year of easily preventable diseases. Just a small fraction of the thousands of nuclear weapons on hair‐trigger alert could easily bring about global catastrophe. New technologies like synthetic biology and artificial intelligence bring unprece­ dented risks. Meanwhile, year after year billions and billions of factory‐farmed ani­ mals live and die in misery. Given the number of severe problems facing the world today, and the resources required to solve them, we may feel at a loss as to where to even begin. The good news is that we can improve things with the right use of money, time, talent, and effort. These resources can bring about a great deal of improvement, or very little, depending on how they are allocated. The effective altruism movement consists of a growing global community of peo­ ple who use reason and evidence to assess how to do as much good as possible, and who take action on this basis. Launched in 2011, the movement now has thousands of members, as well as influence over billions of dollars. The movement has substan­ tially increased awareness of the fact that some altruistic activities are much more cost‐effective than others, in the sense that they do much more good than others per unit of resource expended. According to the nonprofit organization GiveWell, it costs around $3,500 to prevent someone from dying of malaria by distributing bed­ nets.
    [Show full text]
  • Givedirectly
    GiveDirectly GiveDirectly provides unconditional cash transfers using cell phone technology to some of the world’s poorest people, as well as refugees, urban youth, and disaster victims. They also are currently running a historic Universal Basic Income initiative, delivering a basic income to 20,000+ people in Kenya in a 12-year study. United States (USD) Donate to GiveDirectly Please select your country & currency. Donations are tax-deductible in the country selected. Founded in Moved Delivered cash to 88% of donations sent to families 2009 US$140M 130K in poverty families Other ways to donate We recommend that gifts up to $1,000 be made online by credit card. If you are giving more than $1,000, please consider one of these alternatives. Check Bank Transfer Donor Advised Fund Cryptocurrencies Stocks or Shares Bequests Corporate Matching Program The problem: traditional methods of international giving are complex — and often inefficient Often, donors give money to a charity, which then passes along the funds to partners at the local level. This makes it difficult for donors to determine how their money will be used and whether it will reach its intended recipients. Additionally, charities often provide interventions that may not be what the recipients actually need to improve their lives. Such an approach can treat recipients as passive beneficiaries rather than knowledgeable and empowered shapers of their own lives. The solution: unconditional cash transfers Most poverty relief initiatives require complicated infrastructure, and alleviate the symptoms of poverty rather than striking at the source. By contrast, unconditional cash transfers are straightforward, providing funds to some of the poorest people in the world so that they can buy the essentials they need to set themselves up for future success.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence-Based Policy Cause Area Report
    Evidence-Based Policy Cause Area Report AUTHOR: 11/18 MARINELLA CAPRIATI, DPHIL 1 — Founders Pledge Animal Welfare Executive Summary By supporting increased use of evidence in the governments of low- and middle-income countries, donors can dramatically increase their impact on the lives of people living in poverty. This report explores how focusing on evidence-based policy provides an opportunity for leverage, and presents the most promising organisation we identified in this area. A high-risk/high-return opportunity for leverage In the 2013 report ‘The State of the Poor’, the World Bank reported that, as of 2010, roughly 83% of people in extreme poverty lived in countries classified as ‘lower-middle income’ or below. By far the most resources spent on tackling poverty come from local governments. American think tank the Brookings Institution found that, in 2011, $2.3 trillion of the $2.8 trillion spent on financing development came from domestic government revenues in the countries affected. There are often large differences in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of social programs— the amount of good done per dollar spent can vary significantly across programs. Employing evidence allows us to identify the most cost-effective social programs. This is useful information for donors choosing which charity to support, but also for governments choosing which programs to implement, and how. This suggests that employing philanthropic funding to improve the effectiveness of policymaking in low- and middle-income countries is likely to constitute an exceptional opportunity for leverage: by supporting the production and use of evidence in low- and middle-income countries, donors can potentially enable policy makers to implement more effective policies, thereby reaching many more people than direct interventions.
    [Show full text]
  • 1% Initiative in the City of Zurich
    Effective Altruism Foundation Using evidence to fight poverty The 1% initiative by the Effective Altruism Foundation The initiative Theory of change Effective T $90M per year C altruism Evidence-based A for effective P movement policy making M I charities How can we fight global poverty on a political level? A unique growth opportunity is offered by Switzerland's direct democracy, wherein anyone can ask for a legally binding vote on any topic – simply by Counterpropos Media reports collecting signatures on a popular initiative. al passes Initiative passes on the initiative and effective E altruism The Effective Altruism Foundation has just launched one such M O initiative in the city of Zurich, asking for 1% of the city's budget to be C T U donated to highly effective global health charities. The city's budget O Parliament Significant amounts to about USD 9 billion, which means the city would makes sociopolitical potentially donate USD 90 million per year to highly effective counterproposal support charities. Support from We believe the initiative presents an extraordinary funding T U Collect 3,000 charities, P Media relations opportunity for donors interested in meta-charities, due to its T signatures U politicians and fundraising and movement-building potential. O parties S E I T Propose Fundraising Position paper, I V I legislation > EUR 90’000 FAQ, etc $9 billion x 1% = $90 million per year $30 million T Zurich’s budget Annual funding for Adjustments Total expected C A effective charities value of initiative More likely Less likely Fundraising benefits The base rate for popular initiatives passing is about 11%.
    [Show full text]
  • Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository 1 Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs) Theron Pummer University of St Andrews 1. The Ethics of Giving and Effective Altruism The ethics of giving has traditionally focused on whether, and how much, to give to charities helping people in extreme poverty.2 In more recent years, the discussion has increasingly focused on where to give, spurred by an appreciation of the substantial differences in cost- effectiveness between charities. According to a commonly cited example, $40,000 can be used either to help 1 blind person by training a seeing-eye dog in the United States or to help 2,000 blind people by providing surgeries reversing the effects of trachoma in Africa.3 Effective altruists recommend that we give large sums to charity, but by far their more central message is that we give effectively, i.e., to whatever charities would do the most good per dollar donated.4 In this paper, I’ll assume that it’s not wrong not to give bigger, but will explore to what extent it may well nonetheless be wrong not to give better. The main claim I’ll argue for here is that in many cases it would be wrong of you to give a sum of money to charities that do less good than others you could have given to instead, even if 1 I am extremely grateful to Derek Parfit, Roger Crisp, Jeff McMahan, and Peter Singer for extremely helpful feedback and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Paywalled
    Wringing the Most Good Out of a FACEBOOK FORTUNE SAN FRANCISCO itting behind a laptop affixed with a decal of a child reaching for an GIVING apple, an illustration from Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree, Cari Tuna quips about endowing a Tuna Room in the Bass Library at Yale Univer- sity, her alma mater. But it’s unlikely any of the fortune that she and her husband, Face- By MEGAN O’NEIL Sbook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, command — estimated by Forbes at more than $9 billion — will ever be used to name a building. Five years after they signed the Giving Pledge, the youngest on the list of billionaires promising to donate half of their wealth, the couple is embarking on what will start at double-digit millions of dollars in giving to an eclectic range of causes, from overhauling the criminal-justice system to minimizing the potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence. To figure out where to give, they created the Open Philanthropy Project, which uses academic research, among other things, to identify high-poten- tial, overlooked funding opportunities. Ms. Tuna, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, hopes the approach will influence other wealthy donors in Silicon The youngest Valley and beyond who, like her, seek the biggest possible returns for their philanthropic dollars. Already, a co-founder of Instagram and his spouse have made a $750,000 signers of the commitment to support the project. What’s more, Ms. Tuna and those working alongside her at the Open Philanthropy Project are documenting every step online — sometimes in Giving Pledge are eyebrow-raising detail — for the world to follow along.
    [Show full text]
  • EA Course: Overview and Future Plans
    EA Course: Overview and Future Plans Note: I encourage you to first read the One Page Summary at the bottom and then skip to the ​ ​ ​ sections you’re interested in. ❖ Background ❖ Goals ➢ For the class ➢ For the club ➢ Ideal student ❖ Class Structure ➢ Basics ➢ Giving games ➢ Final project ➢ Potential changes ❖ Course Content ❖ Advertising and Recruiting ❖ Speakers ❖ Financial Management ➢ Banking ➢ Sources of Money ➢ Financial management issues ■ Communication Issues ■ Payment Issues ■ Reimbursement Issues ➢ Potential changes ❖ Website ❖ Final Project ➢ Goals ➢ Winning project ➢ Potential changes ❖ Evidence of Impact ➢ Collection ➢ Outcomes ➢ Potential changes ❖ Future Plans ❖ Funding Goals ❖ One Page Summary Background ● Oliver Habryka and I taught a student­led class (“DeCal”) during the Spring 2015 semester at UC Berkeley called The Greater Good, on effective altruism ● The class was taught under the banner of Effective Altruists of Berkeley, a student organization we founded the previous semester ● Overall, I think it was a success and satisfied most of our initial goals (details below) Goals ● Goals for the class: ○ Primarily, we wanted to recruit people for our newly created Effective Altruists of Berkeley club ■ Having to engage with/debate EA for a semester beforehand would allow people to really understand if they wanted to become involved in it ■ It would also allow them to contribute to the club’s projects without having to be given a whole lot of background first ■ We also felt that going through a class together first would
    [Show full text]
  • GPI's Research Agenda
    A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR THE GLOBAL PRIORITIES INSTITUTE Hilary Greaves, William MacAskill, Rossa O’Keeffe-O’Donovan and Philip Trammell February 2019 (minor changes July 2019) We acknowledge Pablo Stafforini, Aron Vallinder, James Aung, the Global Priorities Institute Advisory Board, and numerous colleagues at the Future of Humanity Institute, the Centre for Effective Altruism, and elsewhere for their invaluable assistance in composing this agenda. 1 Table of Contents Introduction 3 GPI’s vision and mission 3 GPI’s research agenda 4 1. The longtermism paradigm 6 1.1 Articulation and evaluation of longtermism 6 1.2 Sign of the value of the continued existence of humanity 8 1.3 Mitigating catastrophic risk 10 1.4 Other ways of leveraging the size of the future 12 1.5 Intergenerational governance 14 1.6 Economic indices for longtermists 16 1.7 Moral uncertainty for longtermists 18 1.8 Longtermist status of interventions that score highly on short-term metrics 19 2. General issues in global prioritisation 21 2.1 Decision-theoretic issues 21 2.2 Epistemological issues 23 2.3 Discounting 24 2.4 Diversification and hedging 28 2.5 Distributions of cost-effectiveness 30 2.6 Modelling altruism 32 2.7 Altruistic coordination 33 2.8 Individual vs institutional actors 35 Bibliography 38 Appendix A. Research areas for future engagement 46 A.1 Animal welfare 46 A.2 The scope of welfare maximisation 48 Appendix B. Closely related areas of existing academic research 51 B.1 Methodology of cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis 51 B.2 Multidimensional economic indices 51 B.3 Infinite ethics and intergenerational equity 53 B.4 Epistemology of disagreement 53 B.5 Demandingness 54 B.6 Forecasting 54 B.7 Population ethics 55 B.8 Risk aversion and ambiguity aversion 55 B.9 Moral uncertainty 57 1 B.10 Value of information 58 B.11 Harnessing and combining evidence 59 B.12 The psychology of altruistic decision-making 60 Appendix C.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 - Results
    ASSESSING PERFORMANCE OF ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS TO IMPROVE PHILANTHROPIC DECISION-MAKING by Leanne Katherine McConnachie B.A., The University of Victoria, 1988 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Animal Science) The University of British Columbia April 2007 © Leanne Katherine McConnachie, 2007 Abstract In 2005-06, 24 Canadian and American animal welfare organizations (AWOs) and foundations participated in an in-depth qualitative study to establish which performance criteria best determine the effectiveness of AWOs. Participants’ comments resulted in the development of a framework that offers individual donors and foundations a consistent approach to evaluating organizational performance. Termed the PREP Framework, this approach categorizes performance into four key pillars, each with its own components and criteria: 1. Philosophy - the organization’s beliefs and values, as reflected in its mandate, position statements, policies and practices; 2. Red Flags - indicators of problems in the organization, such as excessive personnel turnover, disproportionate management salaries, high administration and fundraising costs, lack of peer collaboration, poor financial statements; 3. Efficiencies - financial and operational conduct of the organization, including long term strategic planning, financial credibility and sustainability; and 4. People - abilities of those involved with the organization, including management, volunteers, peers, donors and board members. The study also explored the pros and cons of standardizing performance evaluation and found that many participants felt the sector would benefit from the use of more quantitative and qualitative benchmarks and standards to establish sector norms and trends. In addition, the research examined the sector’s familiarity with outcome measurement and found most participants struggled to clearly define outcomes for the sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Charities Evaluation Service Jobs
    Charities Evaluation Service Jobs Raymond is datable: she rots obnoxiously and scoot her overtures. Cut and spumescent Craig often halving some unmaterialisedhammocks sniggeringly enough? or enskied contrariwise. Lindy never maze any Parsifal turfs trustily, is Gay Mormon and Set of the benefits counselor position within the charities evaluation decide which are good will work experience with covid such information To hot end Skillman program officers work closely with charities'. Application for Employment Catholic Charities. Position concerning my credit for such as how many colleges conduct asa condition allowing children. Catholic charities usa is essential functions, service work on our charity, prepare accurate information go about the grumpy cat charity. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. This is organizational culture is an organization does not be compassionate support equity, all duties of knowledge of crowdfunding continues that is. We protect your relevant information so it is provided. It is a public beneﬕt corporation transaction varies from asking yourself from participating nonprofit company profile should realize the. Charity assessment Wikipedia. Sally Cupitt Head of charities evaluation services sally cupitt Sally manages the NCVO CES team and oversees most from our larger impact evaluations She has. Goodwill Industries International Inc Goodwill Industries. Down to assess which you may support is designed to provide training. We evaluate qualified parties, job seekers is not solicit california charitable organization, including weekends when available at san francisco! These opinions often removed from receiving, they would have worked online services is not, know all preschools, their behavior in? Our services include career counseling job skills training job referrals financial.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Authority Monitoring Report Volume 2 2013
    Medway Monitoring Report 2013 Volume 2 - Tables December 2013 Medway Monitoring Report 2013 Volume 2 - Tables Contents 1) Employment Land Availability Tables and Data 1 Employment graphs 2 Previously developed land 4 Floorspace supply 4 Section 1: Development completed by 31 March 2013 5 Section 2: B1 - B8 planning consents not started at 31 March 2013 7 Section 3: B1 - B8 development under construction at 31 March 2013 10 Section 4: Planning consents which have resulted in a B1 - B8 floorspace loss due to reconstruction/redevelopment during the year to 31 March 2013 12 Section 5: Potential loss of B1 - B8 floorspace in planning consents not started at 31 March 2013 14 Section 6: B1 - B8 planning consents expired without development at 31 March 2013 17 Section 7: B1 - B8 planning consents excluded at 31 March 2013 20 Section 8: B1 - B8 summary statistics; Planning consents valid 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 26 Section 9 – Employment pipeline sites (B1 – B8) 27 Section 10: Industrial Estates and Business Parks 29 2) Retail Land Availability Tables and Data 32 Retail net completions 33 Section 1: Development completed by 31 March 2013 34 Section 2: A1 - A5 planning consents not started at 31 March 2013 36 Section 3: A1 - A5 development under construction at 31 March 2013 40 Section 4: Planning consents which have resulted in an A1 - A5 floorspace loss due to reconstruction/redevelopment during the year to 31 March 2013 42 Section 5: Potential loss of A1 - A5 floorspace in planning consents not started at 31 March 2013 45 Section 6: A1
    [Show full text]