My discussion today will cover the development and extension_ of humane activities at the state and local levels. This will include the work of a state federation, a comparison between federations and HSUS branches, and the cooperation in national programs by both-while extending such activities to the grassroots local societies. Whatever authority this speaker can muster on these subjects has been gained essentially, it must be remembered, during his tenure as President of the Indiana Federation of Humane Societies.
A state federation of humane societies is quite impressive in nomenclature. It implies united action, resulting in the exercise of power from the top down to the local individual societies. At least in Indiana, nothing could be further from the truth. Probably a more accurate term to use in describing our group would be a confederation of autonomous societies instead of a federation controlled solely by its own Directors and its own dictates. Our federation exercises no veto authority over any of its individual member humane societies. Funds are not solicited from constituents or donors of such local member societies. Our funds are obtained only through dues from member humane societies and individual members of the federation. Now, in spite of this ostensible, fragile structure, most of Indiana state humane legislation of the past ten years has actually been enacted through the leadership, or under some influence, of this particular federation.
Learner, M.B. (1969). Extension of community programs for animal protection. In C. Burke (Ed.), The Power of Positive Programs in the American Humane Movement: discussion papers of the National Leadership Conference of The Humane Society of the United States: October 3-5, 1969, Hershey, PA (pp. 68-74).