Suchergebnisse

Introduction By any measure, John Carver has had a substantial impact on thinking about governance in nonprofits. He has authored three books, 14 monographs and over 160 separate articles, as well as a regular newsletter, audiotapes and a videotape (Carver 2002, pp. xli-xlii). His first book Boards that make a difference was reprinted 10 times before going into its second edition. He has consulted in over 19 countries. He has trained over 150 consultants (including the author) and other nonprofit leaders in his advanced Academy workshop, some of whom went on to form the International Policy Governance Association. His influence in Canada in particular has been profound, with one report noting that many Canadian organisations had debated whether 'to Carver, or not' (Panel on accountability and governance in the voluntary sector 1998, p. 15). His work has inspired books by other authors (Oliver 1999; Walters & Richardson 1997). Probably no other writer on governance has attracted so much publicity, or such controversy, as Carver. As Fletcher (1999, p. 437) notes, Carver's approach has been 'both lauded and demonized'. After explaining the basic principles and structure of Policy Governance, this paper briefly summarises the advantages of the model. It then examines how poorly the model is understood by some of its critics. The paper then explores in detail the negative critiques of Carver's writing on governance and of his Policy Governance model. Most of the critics are explicit in their comment on Carver's work, although one or two critiques have been implied from the general management literature. It should be noted that some of the negative critiques contradict others. Conclusions in relation to practice and research are then drawn.

This open access book critically engages with the social, political and ethical implications of support for people with disability to be fully included in society. The authors examine contemporary issues of quality and safeguarding in disability services, translating research and practice wisdom into foundational knowledge. Written by leading researchers, the book provides a comprehensive overview of knowledge and practice necessary to prepare readers to deliver enabling support.

AbstractThe Australian Royal Commissions on aged care quality and safety, and on violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability, have raised important questions about the degree to which boards of directors of aged care and disability support providers are assuring that the organisations they govern are providing quality and safe services. This article addresses the question of to what extent changes in legislation and regulatory standards in aged care and disability create new expectations of these boards and directors. Although directors have long been held to have a duty of care and diligence, and to have responsibility for determining and monitoring an organisation's services, these expectations have been elevated to a new level in relation to quality and safety.

This paper explores the relevant data regarding director recruitment and engagement. It argues that there are two trends which might result in organisations experiencing such difficulties. First, there is a trend of increasing expectations of nonprofit boards. Legal and social expectations of boards and individual directors have substantially increased, which may make potential directors wary of taking on the responsibility of board service. Second, it is possible that social trends are reducing the supply of potential directors. For the US, Putnam (2000) has argued that declining civic engagement is due to: pressures of time and money, and in particular the special pressures of two-career families; urban sprawl and increased time spent commuting; increased time spent watching television and related entertainment; and the gradual passing of the World War II-generation, a generation which proved to be exceptionally civically-minded. This paper will explore the available Australian data – limited though it is - relevant to Putnam's argument. We argue that the combination of these trends may result in adverse implications for individual organisations and for civil society as a whole. The paper explores some possible approaches to resolving these difficulties.