| Summary: | 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. This may suggest the
sector would also gain from consultation on how to establish objectives within an outcome
evaluation framework. Finally, the study investigated how funding strategies of foundations often
are at odds with AWO needs and priorities. Participants identified conflicts concerning funding of:
1. short-term vs. long-term projects; 2. innovative vs. proven projects; 3. many, small grants vs.
fewer, large grants; 4. new vs. established organizations; 5. emotional appeal vs. practical needs;
and 6. no-kill vs. open-admission shelters. Participants provided ideas on where funding could be
applied to make the most impact and achieve mutual goals for both AWOs and foundations. The
findings and recommendations of this study may enable AWOs to better identify and manage
their objectives while enabling donors and foundations to better assess AWO performance and
outcomes to improve philanthropic decision-making. === Land and Food Systems, Faculty of === Graduate
|
|---|
