Trade Association Settles FTC Charges of Misleading Advertising

Associations are as responsible for the advertising claims they make about services and products as for profit industry.  While many association "products" are training, peer professional networking, legislative advocacy, etc., some nonprofits also have services or products they sell to the general public.  Once they cross that line, they need to make sure they can support any statements about those products or risk the Federal Trade Commission stepping in.  See below.  Bunnie

Trade Association Settles FTC Charges of Misleading Advertising


by Jonathan L. Pompan, Esq., Venable LLP, Washington, D.C.

On January 26, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced it had entered into a voluntary settlement, subject to final approval, with the Indoor Tanning Association (the “ITA”) over allegations that the ITA made misleading representations in its advertising and marketing for indoor tanning. Under the consent order, the ITA is restricted in the claims it may make in its future advertising, must send a notice to its members and recipients of its advertising materials, and must adopt a record keeping program.

The proposed order is significant in several respects. First, it makes clear an association’s obligation to adhere to advertising and marketing law. Second, the order illustrates how an association’s own advertising claims can result in obligations to disclose material risks. The FTC accused the ITA of failing to disclose facts related to health and safety risks that would be material to consumers in their purchase or use of the advertised product in light of the representations made. Third, the order focuses on point-of-sale and other consumer-facing advertising by the association that falls squarely in the commercial realm. The order does not cover representations made in non-commercial settings or contexts, such as communications to legislative or executive bodies.

Many associations advertise and market to develop and defend markets important to their membership. To help minimize legal risk, trade association staff should be well-educated in advertising and marketing law to ensure that their advertising claims are truthful and not misleading. In addition, claims must be substantiated, particularly when they concern health, safety or performance.

Association staff and legal counsel should consider the following pointers:

• Sellers are responsible for claims they make about their products and services. Third parties – such as advertising agencies or website designers – also may be liable for making or disseminating deceptive representations if they participate in the preparation or distribution of the advertising, or know about the deceptive claims.

• Stick to claims that can be supported. The type of evidence needed will depend on the product, the claims, and what experts believe necessary.

• Avoid disclaimers and disclosures that are difficult to notice, read or hear. However, a disclaimer cannot remedy a false or deceptive claim.

• Product and service demonstrations should show how the product will perform under normal use.

• FTC guidance suggests that association endorsements “must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that the endorsement fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization.”

• Certain regulated products and services trigger specific laws (e.g., Textile and Wool Acts, various consumer financial products and services) and regulations. Moreover, certain forms of advertising are subject to specific guidance (e.g., FTC Guide on Environmental Advertising, FTC Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising).

• Competitors may challenge advertising claims under self-regulatory programs, such as the Council of Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division, as well as under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

• Obtain appropriate insurance for advertising and marketing activity.

* * * * * *
Jonathan L. Pompan, an attorney in the Washington, DC office of Venable LLP, represents nonprofit organizations and others in regulated industries in a wide variety of areas, including advertising and marketing law compliance, as well as in connection with Federal Trade Commission and state investigations and law enforcement actions. Prior to joining Venable, Mr. Pompan was an in-house counsel at a trade association where he reviewed advertising and marketing in advance of publication. For more information, please contact Mr. Pompan at 202.344.4383 or jlpompan@venable.com.

For more information about this and related industry topics, see www.venable.com/associations/publications.




This article is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be relied on as such. Legal advice can only be provided in response to a specific fact situation.

Micromanagement: Board Style

One of the biggest complaints I hear from executive directors and board members alike is about board “micromanagement.” Executive directors are driven crazy by it and fellow board members feel their time is being wasted, in board meetings or retreats, when boards engage in the minute details of organizational operations.

Recently an executive director of a million dollar a year nonprofit revealed that he had a $500 limit on his signing authority. $500 doesn’t get you a lot and if you have to go to the executive committee or full board for every expense over $500 you’ll be spending a lot of your time asking for permission. A basic brochure print job can easily run over that limit. A copier contract will certainly top that limit. Heck, coast to coast airfare could force you to seek board permission.

Some boards want to approve every press release the executive issues, resulting in several edits, rewrites, etc. Other boards involve themselves in what kind of paper the organization uses, issuing edicts on “green” content percentages or which manufacturer the organization will purchase paper from.

The craziest thing I ever saw was a frustrated executive who had been asked by the board to account for every minute of his time and his plan for every minute of his time for the coming year. What should have been a broad work plan with achievable goals resulted in a day by day projection (for 365 days) of what projects he and his staff was going to work on. When I flipped through it all I could think of was how toxic the executive/board relationship had become.

One executive I knew could never take a real vacation; he was expected to be on committee and board conference calls even though he was supposed to be on vacation with his family. In another instance, a treasurer wanted to re-open an audited financial statement because he found a $10 discrepancy. Thank goodness the accountants convinced the treasurer that in order to remedy the $10 discrepancy it would cost the organization about $1,500 in accounting fees.

Then there are the boards who insist upon approving every hiring decision down to the receptionist at the front desk. Or the boards that want a presence at every meeting the executive has with other organizations. And the boards that want the executive to “clock in” and “clock out.”

Micromanagement is never good, whether it’s a board micromanaging an executive or the executive micromanaging staff. Micromanagement is literally saying “we don’t trust you to do the job right.”

I firmly believe that when an organization hires an executive they should hire the best talent they can find and once done, trust that person to be professional, competent and capable. And if that person proves to be none of those things, then it is the board’s prerogative to fire them. But to hire an executive and then treat them like an errant child who needs constant oversight is demoralizing to the executive and to the organization.

What is the job of the board? Two things: setting policy and fundraising. Unfortunately in the nonprofit sector most boards do both of those things badly.

Setting policy means determining goals for the organization and then leaving it up the executive how he or she will reach those goals. For example, a board may say that they want a 15% growth in membership over a twenty-four month period. Now it is up to the executive to figure out how to achieve that membership goal. Or a board may say it wants the organization to offer new services such as specific types of membership training, then it is up to the executive to determine how that training will be delivered.

On the second topic of board fundraising, this is probably the area I hear the most complaints about from executives, because most boards don’t do any fundraising. They talk about fundraising, they promise to raise money, they come up with grandiose schemes for bringing money through the door, but rarely to never do they actually execute the plan or deliver on their promises. Recently an executive told me of a special fundraising event in which only one of his board members actually bothered to show up, even though the event was the board’s idea.

If you are a board member I want you to take a long hard look at how the board manages the executive. Has the board hired the best and the brightest and is the board allowing that person to do his or her job? Or is the board way too involved in the day to day operations of the organization? Ask yourself at the next board meeting which things the board is micromanaging. If the board makes a decision, is that a policy decision or is it telling the executive how to do his or her job?

There is no doubt that when boards stop micromanaging, executives can shine and relationships can improve all the way around.

Firing High Maintenance Volunteers

I love coming across material that has resounding implications for nonprofit management.  Thomas McKee writes an article about a subject that preplexes us all...how do you "fire" a volunteer?  In terms of management discomfort, firing a volunteer has to rank at the top.  But the truth is, from time to time, you have to do it.  As I was discussing this article with a friend he told me of an instance in which a volunteer made outrageous promises on behalf of the organization, and he had to spend an extraordinary amount of time cleaning up the mess as well as the embarassment.  I hope you enjoy and take to heart Thomas' article.  Bunnie

How to Fire Volunteers and Move On
by Thomas W. McKee

In every workshop on volunteer management I am asked the question, "How do you fire a volunteer?" Volunteers don't get paid. Why would I want to fire them? Couldn't we just let them continue doing what they want to do when they want to?

Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Volunteer roles are very important to the mission of the organization, and if the job isn't getting done or if the volunteer is lowering the morale of the other volunteers, we have a responsibility to correct the situation. It could be that the reason we want to get rid of a high maintenance volunteer is because they are not fulfilling their responsibilities, or it could be that they are just impossible to work with. However, before we make that decision, we need to make sure that we have taken every performance-coaching step to correct the situation. Performance coaching, the one-on-one meetings that happen between the manager and the volunteer, may provide an opportunity to resolve our concerns. Some organizations, like the California State Railroad Museum, have formal performance reviews for all volunteers and regular performance management meetings.

If the volunteer manager has developed very specific job descriptions and expectations, the manager can talk to the volunteer when those expectations are not being met. All of these alternatives are both easier to implement and managerially smarter than making a decision to terminate a volunteer. They recognize that there are many reasons why a person may be behaving inappropriately, and that some of these reasons have answers other than separating that person from the program. We strongly urge that you to consider each of these alternatives before deciding to fire any volunteer. The goals of performance-coaching are to get the project back on target. If the volunteer does not do the job, it is time to find a replacement.

Before you have the firing meeting, be sure to check out the legal ramifications of such a decision.

Legal Issues

It is not outside the realm of possibility that a terminated volunteer could sue you and your organization. Even if no one sues, carefully following a clearly defined process will assure everyone in the organization that people were treated fairly. Emotional and unexpected dismissals could cause upheaval in your organization. Legal issues are never simple, and every nonprofit agency is unique. Always check with your organization's lawyer before making any legal decisions. Many liability concerns can be avoided by carefully screening volunteers before they get involved.

In addition to job descriptions you would be well advised to develop a volunteer manual that clearly outlines the duties and responsibilities of your volunteers. This is especially important if you do face the need to terminate someone. The more documentation you have, with conditions and policies for termination, the safer you will be. To be doubly safe, be sure to distribute the policies to new volunteers. Some organizations even have the volunteers sign a letter of agreement outlining the expectations on the part of the organization and the volunteer. Board members are handled a different way since their service (and termination of such) is covered by the bylaws of the organization. Terminating a board member is a matter for the board as a whole to act according to the bylaws.

Legal Justification

There are two legal justifications for firing a volunteer. The first is simply that the goal of an organization is to deliver quality service to the members and/or clients. The organization must have policies and practices, which call for the volunteer to be accountable for the highest levels of performance. If the volunteer is a barrier to that delivery, then the agency has a legal obligation to take some sort of action. But these expectations of quality service and the service required by both paid and volunteer staff need to be spelled out in a policy manual.

A second legal justification has to do with giving significance (value) to volunteer service. By allowing just any quality of service for the volunteer, the organization conveys the impression that the volunteer work done is irrelevant and insignificant. An organization that does not care enough to enforce quality of volunteer work communicates to other volunteers that their volunteer work is insignificant.

Developing a System for Making Firing Decisions

If you do, however, encounter a situation in which none of the performance coaching alternatives work, it is helpful to have in place a system for dealing with problems. Some agencies have been sued by terminated volunteers, and many agencies have encountered political and community relations problems. The system that follows is designed to help the volunteer manager both in making and in justifying the decision to terminate a volunteer. Essentially, it has three parts:

Part I: Communication of Clear Expectations

The first stage of the system is development and clear communication of position expectations. The organization needs a set of official policies regarding volunteer personnel issues. It is especially important to have policies on probation, suspension, and termination. The organization sets in place a planned orientation program with very specific examples of the requirements and unacceptable behavior. The specific position charter must outline the objective of the position (i.e. - attend 8 of the 10 board meetings).

Part II: Investigation

The assumption behind part II is that the volunteer manager has tried all of the suggestions in performance coaching (listening, coaching, training, etc.) and nothing seems to be working. Those volunteers whose performance is unsatisfactory are told of their deficiency, counseled on improving their work, and then re-evaluated. Failure to conform to the quality standard over time becomes grounds for termination. The investigation is the collection of the data to make sure that the volunteer is truly not fulfilling the job requirements. Part of the investigation is to make sure that the volunteer manager has done a fair job of enforcing the system to all volunteers. This is not only to be fair to the person being fired, but also to make sure that you are not putting yourself in the position for litigation. In cases where the wrongful performance is not incremental but is substantial in nature such as inappropriate relations with a client or breach of confidentiality then what is needed is some "proof" that the volunteer did in fact commit the wrong-doing. This might be testimony of other volunteers, staff, or the client.

During the coaching and investigation period, it is very important to document, document, document. The manager should keep a personnel file on the volunteer and keep write up a brief summary page on each meeting. A summary page would be:

Performance Coaching Meeting:

Manager: Jon Jackson


Volunteer: Lucky Smith


Discussion: I talked with Lucky about not showing up for his volunteer shift at the information desk on June 5, July 6, and August 14th. He said he had a family emergency in June, was on vacation in July, and just forgot in August. He was sorry and would try to do better. We talked about him getting a replacement when he could not make it. He said he would.

Sounds great, except in September Lucky didn't show up again. You called him the next day to set up a meeting with Lucky to terminate his position.

The documentation also demonstrates that the volunteer manager do a fair job of enforcing the system. It requires equal and fair application of the rules (no playing favorites), appropriate penalties (graduated to the severity of the offense) and, if possible, a review process, so that the decision does not look like a personal one.

You will note that the above processes mirror the common personnel practices for paid staff. They are, in fact the same, and they should be, since evaluating either paid or unpaid staff should follow the same rules.

The advantages of this system are two-fold. First, they assist the volunteer manager in making the right decision, and in feeling comfortable about making that decision. The system is fair to both the volunteer and the agency if properly followed and tends to produce 'correct' answers. It also allows the volunteer manager to divert to a less drastic solution as appropriate.

Second, the system helps develop a case for firing that can be utilized to explain the decision to others, whether internally or externally. In practice, in fact, an odd side effect of this systematic approach is that many problem volunteers decide to voluntarily resign rather than face the inevitable and seemingly inexorable conclusion of the process.

Part III: The Firing Meeting

Regardless of the system utilized to reach the decision to terminate, someone has to actually convey that decision to the volunteer. This will never be a pleasant experience, but here are some tips that may help:

Conduct the meeting in a private setting. This will preserve the dignity of the volunteer and perhaps of yourself.

Be specific. Some managers are so vague that the volunteer walks out of the meeting wondering if he or she was fired or offered a job. The volunteer manager may tell Steve that his work with kids was fantastic. The inner city young people loved him and they would love to put him on full-time staff. Then the manager says that the staff were concerned because Steve tended to be late, and he often didn't show up.

Words like "tended" and "often" are vague, especially when couched between phrases such as "fantastic" and "love to have him on full-time staff." What the manager needed to say was, "Steve, in spite of your rapport with our inner-city young people, we just cannot depend on you. On September 10th, 17th and 24th, you did not show up and we were counting on you. I talked to you about this and you said you agreed that if you could not make the commitment to be there each week, we would need to replace you. We have found someone to replace you and are taking you off of our volunteer team."

Don't negotiate—just state your decision. The purpose of the meeting is simply, and only, to communicate to the volunteer that they have not met the specifics of the performance expectations and they are no longer going to be needed. You are going to find a replacement. If they have a uniform or keys, you need to collect them immediately. If the volunteer wants to vent, let them vent, but just listen—don't become defensive and try to defend. Since many non-profit organizations have a social mission, and we truly care about people, we are tempted to counsel this person. That is not the purpose of this meeting. Any attempt to counsel can send a mixed message.

Follow-up. Send a follow-up letter (sample below) to the volunteer stating your appreciation and anything positive that you can say; however, state the decision to terminate the volunteer letter of agreement. Inform the staff and other volunteers on the team of the decision. Be sure to keep the details confidential. The volunteer will usually tell the details.

Sample Letter:


Dear Lucky Smith,


Thank you for your interest and involvement in CCC and the time you spent volunteering as a receptionist at our information booth. This is such an important position as we make many public contacts. Your outgoing personality and winsome way with people was a real asset to us.


We are so disappointed that your schedule did not allow you to keep the requirements of the position charter, as outlined in our volunteer personnel manual. As mentioned in our meeting on September 26, 2002, we need to seek a replacement for your position and terminate our letter of agreement.


I trust that when your schedule changes, and you feel that you can meet the requirements of this position, we can once again have you be a part of our volunteer team.


Sincerely,


Jon Jackson
Volunteer Manager

Firing a volunteer is difficult. Let me emphasize again that firing is only the last result, and I only consider it when the continued involvement of the volunteer is having a negative impact with the members of the organization, our clients, or our public.

Have I ever had to fire a volunteer? Yes, but not a highly involved volunteer. I did all I could to salvage the dignity and resources of the highly involved volunteer, who was a high maintenance volunteer. Sometimes I went home and complained a lot to my wife about this person, but we made it work. However, I have fired high maintenance volunteers who did nothing and did not fulfill their commitments, and I really didn't lose any sleep over it. Don't waste your time with Lucky Smiths who don't show up. Move on.

Tom McKee is a leading volunteer management speaker, trainer and consultant. You can reach Tom at (916) 987-0359 or e-mail Tom@VolunteerPower.com. Other articles and free resources are available at http://www.volunteerpower.com/

©2010 Volunteerpower.com

Social Media IS Effective for Nonprofits and Small Business

I always enjoy the insights of Debra Askanese of Community Organizer 2.0.  And this article is a great one to give the naysayers in your membership or on your board of directors who may not be using social media tools and may not understand why you should be using Twitter or Facebook to market your nonprofit.  One thing Debra points out, which I have heard elsewhere, is that fundraising using social media is not that successful.  However, that being said, I think social media helps you identify potential donors or members and also helps you keep in touch with those potential donors or members.  It's also a great way to educate people about what it is you do. Bunnie

Social Media IS Effective for Nonprofits and Small Business
by Debra Askanese, Community Organizer 2.0

Two new data sets about the value of social media came across my laptop recently: Idealware’s “ Using Social Media to Meet Nonprofit Goals” survey of nonprofit staffers using social media, and the State of Small Business report from Network Solutions and the Center for Excellence in Service.


The results are so similar to the nonprofit survey results that the conclusion is hard to ignore: social media actually is an effective tool for customer retention and attraction.

Social media is actually perceived by those doing it to work! In particular, the top benefits are seen as reaching new audiences and enhancing existing customer/audience relationships.

Here are some highlights from the Idealware survey of 459 nonprofit staffers using social media:

1. Nonprofits believe that social media is helping them to enhance relations with their existing audience and reach new audiences through the top platforms.

Most organizations feel that most social media channels are effective for enhancing existing relationships and reaching new supporters. The least effective platforms are MySpace and Linkedin. Blogs, video-sharing, Twitter, and Facebook are felt to be the most effective tools. The surprise to me is that video-sharing is perceived as highly effective for enhancing relationships.

2. Most nonprofits are using a combination of Facebook, Twitter, video-sharing and blogs to reach out and enrich relationships online. The data shows that there isn’t a relationship between the size of the organization and the number of channels it is using. The responses show that, in general, nonprofits are using and regularly updating one to three social media channels.

I’m not surprised that Facebook is the most popular channel used, but I am surprised that 56% of nonprofits are using Twitter and 80% of them update Twitter regularly. Two other points to consider: the blog is not dead (45% of nonprofits have one) and video sharing sites once again prove to be popular (49% have them).

Conclusions: Nonprofits are finding value in Twitter, Facebook is widely adopted and “known to work.” These platforms must be seen as engagement tools to be taken seriously at this point. The blog, though time consuming, is the long form to express your message and enhance relationships with existing supporters. Video-sharing is the crouching tiger. Regularly maintaining one to three platforms is an industry standard.

3. Nonprofits are not yet satisfied with the results of social network fundraising. I don’t think this is any big surprise, as both social network donors and donation strategies are still in their infancy. The survey reveals that, of all the social networks, 41% of respondants believe that Facebook is most effective for raising money. (And that is the highest percentage of approval of any network channel.) I suspect respondents mention Facebook because it has an affiliated fundraising platform, Causes, that is simple to use and easily accessible. Let’s see what next year’s survey results bring: I’m guessing that they will bring higher satisfaction and a stronger sense of nonprofit social network fundraising effectiveness.

This is also the only platform where Linkedin is rated on par with Twitter, video-sharing, and blogging, at 30% effeciveness. The Idealware study remarks that this is surprising, but I don’t find it surprising at all: Linkedin is an incredibly effective channel for targeted donor research and deeper interaction with potential donors and foundations within Linkedin Groups.

Here’s one more set of similar survey results: the performance of social media tactics for US small businesses in December 2009.

According to “The State of Small Business” report, small businesses are also using social media to successfully attract new customers, increase awareness, and stay engaged with existing customers.

Two data sets, two different user groups, same results: social media is effective for reaching new customers and strengthening existing relationships. Irrefutable evidence of the power of engagement.

Read more of Debra's thoughts on all things marketing at http://www.communityorganizer20.com/

Want a New Nonprofit Job in an International Setting?

Every so often I get a few minutes to go exploring nonprofit websites.  I love seeing what kinds of things people are doing in the nonprofit sector.  This weekend, I had the opportunity to stumble across some interesting international websites.  One, called DevNetJobs.org, lists nonprofit or nongovernmental organizational jobs across the globe.  I was fascinated.  Want to live in Japan?  Here's an interesting job: 

Researcher

UN Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
Location: Kobe, Japan
Last Date: April 6, 2010
http://216.197.119.113/jobman/publish/article_64771.shtml

Want to make a difference in the developing world?  Look at this job:

Project Manager - The Trans-boundary Water Dialogue (TWD) Project

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh
Last Date: April 16. 2010
http://216.197.119.113/jobman/publish/article_64866.shtml

Perhaps you're an academic, here's a position:

Research Fellow

University of Birmingham
Location: Birmingham, UK
Last Date: April 7, 2010
http://216.197.119.113/jobman/publish/article_64700.shtml

As I went through the different jobs, I imagined what great opportunities they were for people in the nonprofit sector.  It's free to look at the postings on their site and you can sign up for jobs to be emailed to you for only $48 for a three-month subscription.  I wrote to DevNetJobs.Org and asked them to contribute a piece to Nonprofit Conversation.  This is a good link to send to your friends in the nonprofit sector, who knows maybe you will find your next job here.  Bunnie

DevNetJobs.Org is a global network which brings together international development jobseekers and recruiters at one place.


Over 11,000 international development recruiters from Non-Profits, NGOs, Governments, UN and Aid agencies, Multilaterals, Bilaterals and Consulting firms advertise jobs, consulting opportunities and internships arising within their organisation on this platform. These include organisations such as Save the Children, Oxfam, ActionAid, UNDP, Christian Aid, Handicap International, UNICEF, World Resources Institutie, IDEA International, Care International, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Amnesty International, World Bank, DAI, ARD Inc, Management Systems International, IUCN, Clinton Foundation, WWF and more. Consequently, several thousand new jobs get posted on the website each month.

Furthermore, over 227,000 jobseekers working in the international development sector are registered with the platform to receive the free weekly job updates. These jobseekers come from all countries around the globe. The website receives over 45,000 page views each day, making it the largest and the most popular specialised website on international development jobs.

To make it easier for organisations to search for qualified candidates, it is free for non-profits to post their jobs on DevNetJobs.org and there is no charge for jobseekers to search and apply for jobs posted on it. This is one reason that thousands of jobs have been getting filled each year via the DevNetJobs.org network.

DevNetJobs.org started in 1999 from India and now has several specialised networks including www.DevNetJobsIndia.org and www.GenevaJobs.org , and many more are in the pipeline. The platform is managed by remote teams located in several countries including Ghana, India, UK, Switzerland, Canada and Bangladesh.

For more information, please visit the website http://www.devnetjobs.org/

If you are a Jobseeker, you may subscribe to free job updates by going to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/developmentjobs

If you are a non-profit Recruiter, you may submit your job for free posting to: jobs@devnetjobs.org

Work After Work: Our new Age of Life and the Moral Necessity for Returnment

With so much difficulty in fundraising for nonprofits given the economy right now, there's a lot to be gained by cultivating "retirees" as volunteers.  First, as Jay Bloom, of Bloom Anew, points out, people are living longer and living healthier and have many more years of productivity available even after they have ceased "formal" work.  Second, these volunteers can help your nonprofit sustain itself even after you've had to cut staff and layoff critical talent.  I know for myself when I look ahead at what "retirement" will mean to me one day, I can't imagine not having anything to do.  The old image of the rocking chair is completely unappealing.  There is a wealth of talent and resources out there in the post-retirement community, the "returnment" community as Jay puts it.  What are y9ou doing to tap into these resources? Something to think about.  Bunnie

Work after Work:  Our new age of life and the moral necessity for “Returnment”

By Jay C. Bloom, President of Bloom Anew

“This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Many times a day I realize how much my own inter and outer life is built on the labors of other men, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give and return as much as I have received."  -Albert Einstein

Returnment – n.

1) The act of giving back or returning in some small way what the world has given you.


2) Especially as an alternative to retirement.

At the turn of the last century, the average life expectancy was only 47. Today it is rapidly approaching 80, and our fastest growing age groups demographically are those individuals over the age of 85 with someone in this country turning 50 every eight seconds. More significantly, the average health of individuals over the age of 50 has dramatically increased. This can be attributed to better nutrition, exercise, improvement in our health care technology and generally less physical labor in our formal work.

This increased health has created a new, unprecedented age in our human life cycle. A average 60 year old person today is closer to a 40 or 50 year old health-wise compared to a 60 year old twenty or thirty years ago.

Carl Van Horn, director of the Rutgers Center, was quoted as saying, “Retiring Boomers will have the same sweeping impact as the entrance of women into the workforce in the 70s.”

Our old model of retirement suggested that people essentially worked until the ages of 60-65, and then a person felt fortunate if there were a few years of leisure before their physical health deteriorated and/or death ensued. Now people can retire at age 60 and expect to live twenty or more vibrant years, especially if they have taken care of themselves physically.

The boomers have been described as a much more independent, “live for today” group. They are already showing signs that they will not approach retirement in a traditional fashion. Boomers are going to have great difficulty relating to the terms senior, elderly, old, and mature. In fact, most of them will resist, I believe, the term “retirement” in general.

In the August 25, 2000 edition of the Portland, OR Business Journal, Serge D. Rovencourt, retired general manager of Portland Hilton Hotel said, “I have retired from the Hilton, but I am not retired. I tell you I am going to find another word that is different from the word retirement. Retirement lends itself for people to say, ‘Well, he is tired, that’s the end of it.’ There has to be another word other than retirement.”

As every eight seconds someone turns 50 in this country, I believe there is a great spiritual need and moral necessity for redefining “retirement” with “returnment.” I define “returnment” as “the act of giving back or returning in some small way what the world has given to you.” Other words could be used such as stewardship, trusteeship or husbandry. I like this new word because it captures not only our new age of life but the psychological and spiritual needs of this time of life as well.

The pursuit of the traditional retirement life of primarily leisure and consumption will lead to not only a tremendous loss of talent, experience and resources, but intensified inter-generational economic and resource conflicts and ultimately for most individuals, regret and despair. Hillel challenges us with these words: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I?”

Many people will need a meaning and reason to continue to live. Medical research is also learning that those who have a reason to live generally live longer. My belief is that a large number of boomers with their new age of life and longer life spans will want to be involved in some type of “work.” More importantly, I believe they will want work that allows for more meaning and purpose than their earlier work provided. As Goethe said, “Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” To live the rest of our lives uninvolved and unengaged I believe will be unrewarding and unacceptable. In fact unless you are engaged in your later years you are just dying longer not living longer.

Where is the time, talent, and financial resources most needed? There has been a great shrinkage of nurturance and care available in our society and a growing isolation between the generations and between each other. This is due to a number of factors, including the increased number of working women with children, the total amount of hours worked by both men and women, cutbacks in public funding and the overall frenetic pace of life.

All around us we are seeing the evidence of a shortage of available teachers, nurses and other community caregivers. . The average loan balance of college graduates continues to increase significantly juxtaposed against wages for those in non profit organizations likely remaining flat. Therefore, it is likely that fewer and fewer young people are and will be entering the care giving professions such as teaching, nursing and human services.

We can also expect the increased cutbacks by government in supporting traditional human services to continue. President Obama has called for a new commitment to volunteerism by all age groups. We need to challenge the 80 million strong boomers to step up, get involved and set the example. This growing age group will have more time than any other age group.

This emerging social change is a new and excellent opportunity for nonprofit organizations (NPOs) to fulfill two critical needs at the same time. By offering meaningful employment and volunteer opportunities, nonprofits can meet their own current and growing labor shortage while at the same time tapping into a significant social need of experienced individuals looking for purposeful involvement, engagement, and work. This new human capital can be transformed into new social capital that fosters greater intergenerational interdependence and equity.

As a former NPO executive with over 35 years in the field, I know it will not be easy for NPOs to use this new resource. Too often we see costs and liabilities with this new workforce rather than as an abundant growing resource. We must also transcend the vulnerability of limiting this new energy into mundane or traditional employment or volunteer vehicles. Fortunately, many NPOs have a culture of innovation and thinking outside the box and our funding environment and labor challenges will demand even more creative adaptation. Most of this change will involve new organization development and human resource management approaches in such into areas as job and project design, orientation and training programs for the new workforce, existing employees and managers, and different compensation, recognition and benefit plans. Clearly there will be both the need for technical change as well as adaptive change within the sector.

The good news is that surveys indicate that up to 80% of all boomers expect to work or volunteer part time in their later years and 70% said that they would work even if they had enough money to live comfortably, according to a survey by the Rutgers Community Center for Workforce Development. The care giving professions of teaching, child care, nursing and human services are in great need of replenishment and expansion.

With the emerging need for meaning and purpose being one of the potential primary drivers of the people over age 50, community service through NPOs offers a real opportunity for a win/win engagement and/or employment. We cannot afford for boomers in their aging lives to be perceived as socially useless and only living a life of consumerism. There is a great need, opportunity and moral necessity for tapping into their wisdom, experience, and wealth, finances and time.

Just imagine if only a portion of the 3 million people retiring or changing their work each year now were to pursue a life of “returnment.” What problems could be addressed? How many children’s lives would be different? What new kind of energy would be created? What level of hope?

“Every man’s obligation is to put into the world at least what he takes out of it.”  -Albert Einstein

Since 1983 Jay C. Bloom through Bloom Anew has been providing executive and personal coaching to leaders, managers, and individuals in the private, philanthropic, and government sectors who are experiencing a transition in their lives or desiring to strengthen their professional skills and capabilities. Jay's organizational consulting is also highly sought-after. He provides leadership and management consultation to nonprofit and private organizations, with a special expertise in helping organizations develop effective partnerships. His web site is www.BloomAnew.com.

Major Gift Prospecting and Prioritizing

Why is it so hard for us to ask for money for our good cause?  I am reminded of growing up in church where we "passed the plate" at every service and congregants put their money in it.  We did this because we valued the institution and knew we had to contribute to it for it to survive.  The same holds true with nonprofits.  If they are to survive they must be supported by money.  Norman Olshansky of NFP Consulting Resources lays out a roadmap for cultivating major donors.  I like the focus group idea, everybody knows somebody who is capable of making a major donation.  Take this one to your next fundraising meeting!  Bunnie

Major Gift Prospecting and Prioritizing
by Norman Olshanky, President of NFP Consulting Resources, Inc.

One of the most important activities a nonprofit needs to undertake prior to initiating a major gifts campaign is the identification and prioritization of prospects. Some organizations spend a lot of money, time and human resources on prospect mining and research. Others try to identify pockets of wealth in their community and then determine what is the best way to contact and solicit those individuals.

For many organizations, I recommend the following simple and inexpensive technique to identify and prioritize major gift prospects.

The Task Group

The first step is to put together a group of individuals who are already committed to the organization and who have good relationships in the community. When recruited they are told that they are being asked to attend a single meeting to identify names of individuals in the community who could be helpful to the nonprofit. The group can be composed of the organization’s board, donors, volunteers, members, or a combination of individuals from all of these groups. In addition, if a fundraising committee or major gifts committee has already been established, they should also be encouraged to participate. I prefer to have no less than 8 people or more than 30 participate in the focus group meeting, which typically takes about one to one in a half hours. It is helpful to have a diverse group from the various geographic areas served by the nonprofit. You should also try to include individuals who have good connections to high net worth individuals through their volunteer, business and/or social relationships.

Brainstorming

At the meeting, participants are asked to identify any individual they know who is charitable and is capable of making a major gift of $25,000 (or whatever level is established by the organization as a major gift) The goal of brainstorming is to identify major donors so the larger the threshold the better. If too low, you will end up with so many names that it will be hard to prioritize. The emphasis of this exercise is to identify individuals (not corporations) who have major gift potential and will be cultivated and solicited face to face. This includes individuals who utilize private foundations or donor advised funds for their charitable giving. This exercise should not be used for identification of prospects to be solicited by direct mail or for targeting donors who can be solicited by phone or contribute by attending events

The facilitator then encourages people to call out names which are written on flip charts or on a large white board that can easily be read by all.

Once everyone has shared names that came to mind during the brainstorming (hopefully, at least 50 names), the facilitator hands out paper and pencils to all participants.

The Nominal Group Technique

Next the facilitator gives the following instructions. “Take a few minutes to look at all of the names on the brainstorming list and write down on your paper the three to five names which best meet the following criteria.

A. They have a history of being philanthropic

B. They have a history of making gifts at our major gifts level

C. They are likely to have an interest in our mission

D. They are accessible. You or others you know in our organization can get a meeting with them or invite them to visit with us.

After adequate time is given for participants to write down their three names, the facilitator goes around the room and asks each person to say aloud the three names. The facilitator puts a hash mark next to those names on the master brainstorming list. When a name is mentioned by more than one participant, additional hash marks are made each time that name is mentioned. Once everyone has announced their three names, the facilitator counts the cumulative hash marks for each name on the master list and circles the top 10 names that were mentioned the most. If it is difficult to narrow it down to 10 names, circle more than ten and initiate another round where participants now write down two of the circled names which they feel best meet the priority characteristics. Then continue the process of narrowing down the names based upon number of times mentioned. Ultimately, the facilitator’s goal is to narrow it down to no more than ten names.

(The nominal group technique can also be used to help with prioritization of any other type of brainstorming activity. The beauty of the process is that it involves all of the participants and provides a way to quickly measure and prioritize responses.)

Fact Finding

The last stage of the process is to ask for input from participants on each of the top ten prospects identified. The facilitator or someone else should take copious notes from the comments shared by the group on each of the ten prospects in response to the following questions.

A. Who in our organization knows this person and could be our key contact to invite them to learn more about what we do?

B. What other organizations are they involved with and what are their major philanthropic interests?

C. Do you know how much they have given to other charities?

D. Do they make their philanthropic gifts directly, through a foundation, donor advised fund, etc.

E. Is there anything you know about them that could help our staff or fundraising committee to engage them with us?

F. Do you personally know, have a relationship with, and have access to anyone who knows the individual and has a close relationship to him/her?

G. Is there anything you know that might lower the priority level of this prospect?

Follow up

In addition to thanking participants, the information learned should be conveyed in detail to staff and volunteers involved in major gift fundraising. Hopefully, your fundraising leadership and staff participate as well and use the session to identify additional volunteers, who attended the session, who can assist the committee going forward with prospect research, cultivation, and solicitation. The top ten names should be among the first prospects targeted as part of the major gifts initiative. After the initial priority names have been assigned and solicited, other names on the brainstorming list should also be approached in the order of the priority established, taking into consideration your ability to access and engage each prospect.

A similar process can be used to identify and prioritize corporate prospects. However, the type of individuals you will want in the Task Group may be different from those you select to focus on individual donor prospects.