DOCSLIB.ORG

TCT FAW FAWF Final V11 12Th June 09

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TCT FAW FAWF Final V11 12Th June 09 Encouraging philanthropic support to improve the welfare of farmed animals EcoS Consultancy This report was produced by EcoS Consultancy Ltd for The Tubney Charitable Trust. September 2008 – May 2009 Authors: Christopher Stopes, Martin Cottingham, Simon Llewellyn, Tom MacMillan © The Tubney Charitable Trust 15th May 2009 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd Acknowledgements 2 Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 6 1.1 Farmed animal welfare – why it matters 6 1.2 A lasting legacy – the vision of the Tubney Charitable Trust 8 1.3 Feasibility study and prospect research – methodology used 9 2. The donor landscape 10 2.1 Current charitable support for farmed animal welfare – review 10 2.2 Online survey findings 20 2.3 Interview findings 25 2.4 The ethical case for action, and wider issues linked to the way animals are farmed 31 2.5 Obstacles and opportunities for funding farmed animal welfare 38 3. Catalysing change – making Tubney’s legacy count 44 3.1 Foundations for success 44 3.2 Increasing support from existing donors 47 3.3 Expanding the donor community 55 3.4 Priorities for action 59 4. Conclusions and recommendations 63 Annex 1 On-line survey 67 2 Interview questions 75 References 76 1 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL Acknowledgements We are grateful for all the help and encouragement we received from so many people whilst we were conducting this research. Without their numerous comments, suggestions and ideas this report would not have been possible. Members of the Farm Animal Welfare Forum were particularly helpful in providing data, references, contact details and introductions to key individuals and organisations whose views we wanted to canvas. We would also like to thank everyone who gave up their time to be interviewed or to complete our on-line survey. We have drawn detailed information from a great many reports, books, articles, journals and government publications, and where cited these sources are referenced at the end of this report. Lastly, we would like to thank Sarah Ridley, Anil Patil and René Olivieri of the Tubney Charitable Trust. They have guided us through this project and the preparation of our report with wisdom, patience and good humour. ABBREVIATIONS used in this report BERR Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform DfID Department for International Development DCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations FAWF Farm Animal Welfare Forum NGO Non Governmental Organisation BBSRC Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council AHWS Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (Defra) Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs TCT The Tubney Charitable Trust RSPCA Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals CIWF Compassion in World Farming WSPA World Society for the Protection of Animals PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals WTO World Trade Organisation 2 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd Executive summary The Tubney Charitable Trust is the leading UK foundation supporting charitable initiatives to improve the welfare of farmed animals. In allocating its remaining funds, it wants to leave a lasting legacy in the field of farmed animal welfare. It is hoped that a significant part of this legacy will be the implementation of Farming Tomorrow, a ten-year coordinated strategy developed in partnership between the Tubney Charitable Trust and members of a newly established coalition of organisations called the Farm Animal Welfare Forum (FAWF). If FAWF members secure sufficient funding to implement the Farming Tomorrow strategy and achieve progress against its objectives, this will represent a major milestone in strengthening the capacity of the farmed animal welfare sector. A much broader coalition of support will be needed, however, if the Tubney Charitable Trust, FAWF members and other organisations are to move towards a shared vision of a thriving food and farming system in which all farmed animals are reared with compassion, to higher levels of welfare and in ways that respect the environment. The purpose of this research has been to gauge the potential to secure wider support for farmed animal welfare, and to propose an action plan for securing that support. EcoS Consultancy Ltd compiled this report using three methods: • Desk research to assess levels of charitable spending and statutory funding for farmed animal welfare • A web-based attitudes survey circulated to charitable trusts and foundations, philanthropists, animal welfare charities, policy makers and others • In-depth interviews with a cross-section of the kind of individuals and organisations upon whose support increased giving for farmed animal welfare is likely to depend. Key desk research findings • Animal welfare accounts for only 0.5% of the £33 billion spent each year by the UK’s 3,000 leading charities and only a small fraction of this goes to farmed animal welfare • Defra spends only 6.2% of its £3.9 billion budget on animal health and welfare, and is planning to cut spending by 22% over three years • The economic downturn is likely to put further pressure on Defra budgets and to reduce the support that charities receive from companies, public donations and legacies and some charitable trusts. The main fundraising focus, in the short to medium term, should be on high net worth individuals, alternative sources of government funds such as the BBSRC, DFID and BERR; and charitable trusts. 3 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL • In the longer term, funding from individuals could be increased significantly with sustained public awareness and fundraising campaigns. Key online survey findings Responses were received from 56 of 175 people to whom the survey was sent. Respondents included representatives of 19 charitable trusts and five animal welfare NGOs. • 82% of respondents believed that farmed animals have the capacity to suffer and should be treated humanely. This indicates a strong base of moral support for farm animal welfare as a cause • 79% believed that treating farmed animals well has positive links with wider societal benefits. This acknowledgement of such links suggests that organisations and charities with an interest in farmed animal welfare should be able to attract new funds from trusts whose primary interests lie in other issues. Of the 22 trusts we surveyed or interviewed, ten appear to offer scope for securing new funding • There were encouraging levels of support for the strategic priorities for improving farm animal welfare put forward in the FAWF report “Farming Tomorrow”, although some respondents would like to see more emphasis on tackling transport and slaughter issues. Key interview findings Interviews were conducted with 27 individuals representing a broad range of interests, including FAWF members, animal welfare organisations, NGOs, grant makers, high net worth individuals, donor intermediaries, celebrities, regulators and the food industry. • Interviewees were not surprised by the relatively low level of funding received by farm animal welfare charities, but most were optimistic about the prospects for increasing funding given a clear and well argued case for support • There was broad support for key elements of Farming Tomorrow: its strategic alliance between FAWF members; its adoption of a three-pronged approach targeting production, consumers and regulation; its species-specific priorities; its proposal for a farm animal welfare charter • Some favoured the incremental approach to securing change espoused by FAWF but others called for a more radical push for systemic change to bring factory farming to an end. Donor recruitment for FAWF members and other organisations and charities with an interest in farmed animal welfare will depend on finding ways to appeal both to the ‘incrementalists’ and to the ‘radicals’ through a coordinated, well communicated and differentiated strategy • Interviewees were introduced to five human and environmental issues connected to how animals are farmed: the impact of meat and dairy products on physical health; the part played by livestock production in food security; the environmental pollution caused by agriculture; the extent to which climate change is affected by emissions from farming; and the impact of changes in agriculture on rural livelihoods. All agreed to some extent that these issues provide an opportunity to make the case for farmed animal welfare initiatives stronger. 4 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd Our consultations with the donor community and with regulatory, production and retail interests have identified broad acceptance that farmed animal welfare matters; and that efforts to improve it are worthy of charitable and public support. We encountered a variety of views on where farmed animal welfare sits within the hierarchy of philanthropic need, how better farmed animal welfare should be achieved and who is responsible for funding and effecting change. But the good news for the Tubney Charitable Trust legacy is that there is a compelling and realistic case to be made to satisfy these differing views. To ensure the effective implementation of Farming Tomorrow and optimise support for farmed animal welfare, this report concludes by recommending 12 actions to the Tubney Charitable Trust. It identifies the following as highest priority: i Create a Farmed Animal Welfare Funders’ Network to act as ambassadors for the cause and draw in support from key foundations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Lesswrong.Com Sequences
    LessWrong.com Sequences Elizier Yudkowsky Generated by lesswrong_book.py on 2013-04-28. Pseudo-random version string: 8c37c10f-8178-4d00-8a06-16a9ed81a6be. Part I Map and Territory A collection of posts dealing with the fundamentals of rationality: the difference between the map and the territory, Bayes’s Theorem and the nature of evidence, why anyone should care about truth, and minds as reflective cognitive engines. 1. The Simple Truth↗ “I remember this paper I wrote on existentialism. My teacher gave it back with an F. She’d underlined true and truth wherever it appeared in the essay, probably about twenty times, with a question mark beside each. She wanted to know what I meant by truth.” — Danielle Egan (journalist) Author’s Foreword: This essay is meant to restore a naive view of truth. Someone says to you: “My miracle snake oil can rid you of lung cancer in just three weeks.” You reply: “Didn’t a clinical study show this claim to be untrue?” The one returns: “This notion of ‘truth’ is quite naive; what do you mean by ‘true’?” Many people, so questioned, don’t know how to answer in exquisitely rigorous detail. Nonetheless they would not be wise to abandon the concept of ‘truth’. There was a time when no one knew the equations of gravity in exquisitely rigorous detail, yet if you walked off a cliff, you would fall. Often I have seen – especially on Internet mailing lists – that amidst other conversation, someone says “X is true”, and then an argument breaks out over the use of the word ‘true’.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Value Creation in Social Enterprises: a Cluster Analysis Of
    NVSXXX10.1177/0899764014555986Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyGrieco et al. 555986research-article2014 Article Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 1 –21 Measuring Value Creation in © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: Social Enterprises: A Cluster sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0899764014555986 Analysis of Social Impact nvsq.sagepub.com Assessment Models Cecilia Grieco1, Laura Michelini1, and Gennaro Iasevoli1 Abstract The relationship between business and community is becoming increasingly important, especially with the current blurring of the boundaries between profit and not-for-profit sectors, and the growing number of hybrid organizations such as social enterprises. For these organizations, the assessment of social impact plays a strategic role in helping them understand to what extent their social mission has been accomplished. As a result of increasing interest in the practice of Social Impact Assessment (SIA), many models have been developed, but a system to classify them is still lacking, and so the overall picture remains rather fragmentary if not confusing. In this research, a hierarchical cluster analysis was developed based on a sample of 76 SIA models to group them in macro-categories and help social entrepreneurs choose the model that is best suited to the needs of their organization. Keywords social entrepreneurship, social impact, measurement models, value creation, cluster analysis Introduction In recent years, the third sector has begun to acquire the know-how, tools, and models that have traditionally characterized the business world. This has led to the establish- ment of new enterprises defined as “integrated” or “hybrid” that blur the boundaries between the profit and not-for-profit models (Harris, 2012).
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Evaluation of Performance Measurement Models in Saudi Arabian Charities
    A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT MODELS IN SAUDI ARABIAN CHARITIES A thesis submitted to the University of Gloucestershire in accordance with the requirements of the fulfilment degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Business School By Entisar Hassan Amasha April 2018 ABSTRACT Performance measurement has a pivotal role in developing and improving a performance of an organization, a great deal of previous research into performance measurement has focused on initiating and developing models and frameworks to successfully carry on this task. However, there remains a paucity of evidence on the adequate models that could apply to the non-profit sector. This thesis enriches the existing literature in a distinctive respect, as it provides a holistic view of performance measurement models in various sectors and the critical success factors that influence them. In addition, this study specifically investigates the approaches that Saudi charity organizations conduct their performance evaluation and examines the alternative means that could be appropriate to measure the performance. The result of the thesis theoretical base: Governance Theory highlight the interchange and connection between non-profit governance theory that presents standards and best practices and the performance measurement as a key role of the charity board of directors. The empirical part of this study thoroughly describes the performance measurement practices in Saudi charities, by utilizing a quantitative approach and a questionnaire, the discussion of results provides the researcher with important insights not only to the Saudi charities practices of the evaluation performance but also to the different management aspects of their organizations. The findings of the quantitative and statistical analysis highlight significant features of this kind of organizations, as well their critical factors, challenges and the current attempts to encounter these difficulties, and the advanced plans to develop and improve the charities.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Social Performance
    B&T29596_Erim Omslag Maas_19okt09 CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE 182 KAREN MAAS FROM OUTPUT MEASUREMENT TO IMPACT MEASUREMENT All organisations have social, environmental and economic impacts on people, their communities and the natural environment. These impacts include both intended and unintended, negative and positive, effects. Current practice in performance measurement Corporate Social Performance tends to focus on measuring only a part of the total impact that organisations have on KAREN MAAS - Corporate Social Performance society. The research about the impact, as distinct from output and outcomes, organi - From Output Measurement to Impact Measurement sational activities have upon the society, is underdeveloped in existing management and business & society research. Therefore, the objectives of this dissertation are to contribute to the understanding of the social impact of organisations, and to propose a framework and methodology that facilitates social impact measurement. The social impacts of different organizations, both for profit and non-profit, and different organisational activities, are studied throughout this dissertation. Where the first study focuses on the social impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the second study focuses on Strategic Philanthropy. The third study focuses on the social impact of an individual foundation. Studying this variety of organisations and organizational activities allows for a rigorous analysis of ERIM social impact, while illustrating that social impact measurement is relevant for both the profit and the non-profit sector, and is applicable to all kinds of organisational activities. Moreover, in a fourth study, different existing social impact measurement methods are collected, analysed and classified. This dissertation comple ments the existing body of Design & layout: B&T Ontwerp en advies (www.b-en-t.nl) Print: Haveka (www.haveka.nl) Design & layout: B&T Ontwerp en advies (www.b-en-t.nl) research that focuses on Corporate Social Performance and social impact measurement.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Animal Advocacy
    Effective Animal Advocacy Jeff Sebo New York University 1. Introduction Imagine that you are a doctor, volunteering your time to save people in the aftermath of a natural disaster. There are many more people who need help than you have ability to help. How should you approach your work? Many people find it natural to say that you should triage. That is, you should try to do the most good possible with your limited resources. If you have to choose between treating two people, one of whom has a major injury and the other of whom has a minor injury, then you should prioritize the person with the major injury, all else being equal. Similarly, if you have to choose between treating two people, one of whom requires relatively few scarce resources and the other of whom requires relatively many scarce resources, then you should prioritize the person who requires relatively few scarce resources, all else being equal. Granted, it might seem callous to prioritize lives this way. But in a state of emergency, we naturally understand that triage is an expression of compassion, not callousness. If we want to save the most lives possible or relieve the most suffering possible, then we need to think carefully about how best to use our limited resources so that we can achieve this aim. However, as MacAskill (2015), Singer (2015), and many others have noted, many people seem to forget this point when it comes to addressing other, more chronic problems.1 For example, when we make choices about advocacy and philanthropy, many of us do what feels personally meaningful rather than think carefully about how to save the most lives possible or relieve the most suffering possible.
    [Show full text]
  • SPEA Capstone Group Charity Navigator 3.0 Indiana University, Spring 2012 SPEA V600 CAPSTONE GROUP
    SPEA Capstone Group Charity Navigator 3.0 indiana University, Spring 2012 SPEA V600 CAPSTONE GROUP SPRING 2012 Executive Group Laurie Burns Lindsi Lara Molly McPherson May Nguyen Jason Simons Sarah Townsend Logic, Results, and Measures Jennifer Bellville Adrianne DiTommaso Ran Duan Frances Duberstein Rachel James Bekir Keles Lindsi Lara Independent Evaluations and Standards & Certification Mechanisms Laurie Burns Amy Countryman Kristen Dmytryk Emrullah Durmus Sarah Greenberg May Nguyen Constituent Voice Seongje Cho Jungkyun Kim Bethany Lister Molly McPherson Huy Nguyen Elizabeth Walker Whitney Williamson Information Intermediary Research Kristen Dmytryk Rachel James Kathryn Meier Huy Nguyen Sarah Townsend Donor Survey Adrianne DiTommaso Sarah Greenberg Jason Simons Elizabeth Walker Americorps Jennifer Bellville Laurie Burns Bethany Lister Kathryn Meier Faculty Leslie Lenkowsky Joseph Palus ii Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Chapter One: Problem Statement 5 Chapter Two: Methodology 9 Chapter Three: Intermediaries 19 Chapter Four: Element One 39 Chapter Five: Element Two 75 Chapter Six: Element Three 95 Chapter Seven: Element Four 127 Chapter Eight: Assessment of the Charity 161 Navigator Research Tool Chapter Nine: Utility Survey 178 Chapter Ten: AmeriCorps Case Study 192 Chapter Eleven: Conclusions 206 Works Cited Appendices iii Executive Summary Charity Navigator, a highly regarded information intermediary, is testing its next iteration of its ratings tool. The new ratings system, called CN 3.0, assesses charities on four elements
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC WELFARE the Welfare Experiments Politics and Policy
    The Welfare Experiments: Politics and Policy Evaluation ROBIN H. ROGERS-DILLON STANFORD LAW AND POLITICS the welfare experiments The Welfare Experiments Politics and Policy Evaluation ROBIN H. ROGERS-DILLON Stanford Law and Politics an imprint of stanford university press stanford, california 2004 Stanford University Press Stanford, California www.sup.org © 2004 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rogers-Dillon, Robin. The welfare experiments : politics and policy evaluation / Robin H. Rogers- Dillon. cip:Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8047-4730-X (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-8047-4746-6 (pbk : alk. paper) 1. Public welfare—United States. 2. United States—Social policy—1993– 3. United States—Politics and government—1993–2001.I.Title. HV95.R58 2004 361.6'0973'09049—dc22 2004001027 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, archival-quality paper. Original Printing 2004 Last figure below indicates year of this printing: 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 Designed and typeset at Stanford University Press in 10/12.5 Palatino. Special discounts for bulk quantities of Stanford Law and Politics books are available to corporations, professional associations, and other organizations. For details and discount information, contact the special sales department of Stan- ford University Press. Tel: (650) 736-1783, Fax: (650) 736-1784 For Christopher Contents List of Figures ix Acknowledgments xi 1. The Politics of Pilot Programs 1 2.Hope and an Experimental Design 23 3. The History of AFDC 51 4. Florida’s Family Transition Program 73 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading the CEO and Chair to Effective Governance 0 1.Pdf
    Combining updated versions of previous ACEVO publications • Appraising the Chief Executive • Leading the Organisation • Your Chair and Board –a survival guide and toolkit for CEOs Updated to comply with the Charities Act 2006 and the Companies Act 2006 Published by ACEVO First published 2008 Updated 2012 Copyright © 2012 ACEVO All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, or transmitted, or translated into a machine language without prior permission in writing from the publisher. ISBN 1-900685-47-7 Contents 3 Acknowledgements 4 Foreword 6 Part One Introduction to the Guide and Leadership 8 1. Purpose of the guide 8 2. How to use the guide 9 3. About ACEVO 9 4. Leadership and governance 11 Guidance: Charity Commission CC60 – The Hallmarks of an Effective Charity 12 Guidance: Overview of key leadership theories 15 Case studies: Perspectives on leadership 16 Part Two Third Sector Governance and Board Structures 18 1. Context developments in the sector’s approach to governance 22 2. Defining governance and management 25 3. Board performance: creating a learning culture 28 4. Board structures 30 5. Board and CEO 32 Tools: Sample board review questions for third sector organisations, based on the Code of Good Governance 34 Tools: Sample self-assessment questions for board members 35 Case study: Matters reserved to the board 36 Case study: An example of a completely unitary board (St Andrew’s Healthcare) 37 Case study: An example of an organisation paying all of their trustees (Anchor Trust ) 38 Part Three The Chair and the CEO 40 1.
    [Show full text]