Fraudulent Charities, Fundraisers, Solicitations, Telemarketers and Scams

Oregon-based KTVZ.COM news reported on May 20, 2009 that Oregon Attorney General John Kroger joined the Federal Trade Commission and other states Wednesday in Operation False Charity, a nationwide crackdown on fraudulent fundraisers, non-profits and individual solicitors who claim to help firefighters, police and veterans.

The article goes on to say in part:

Kroger announced a settlement with Secure the Call, a Maryland-based company that claimed to be associated with local law enforcement and asked people to donate cell phones for domestic violence victims. Secure the Call can no longer operate in Oregon under the settlement reached with the Department of Justice.

Secure the Call allegedly misrepresented its non-profit status while soliciting cell phone donations by fax and drop boxes in supermarkets. An investigation by the Department of Justice found no evidence that Secure the Call was associated with any local law enforcement agencies or that the cell phones ever reached domestic violence victims.

Oregon is also one of at least 34 states to enter into a settlement with Community Support Inc. (CSI), a Wisconsin-based telemarketer that allegedly received no less than 83 percent of the donations it solicited on behalf of more than 35 charities nationwide.

CSI telemarketers allegedly falsely claimed to be police or veterans, misrepresented how much money went to charities and harassed potential contributors.

Under the settlement, CSI is enjoined from such unlawful activities and faces a minimum $10,000 penalty for each and every violation of state charitable solicitation laws.

(Snip)

Federal Trade Commission Announces "Operation False Charity" Law Enforcement Sweep - Agency Joined by 48 States in Bringing 76 Actions Against Fraudulent Solicitors Nationwide.

In a nationwide, federal-state crackdown on fraudulent telemarketers claiming to help police, firefighters, and veterans, the Federal Trade Commission, together with 61 Attorneys General, Secretaries of State, and other law enforcers of 48 states and the District of Columbia, today announced "Operation False Charity." Federal and state enforcers announced 76 law enforcement actions against 32 fundraising companies, 22 non-profits or purported non-profits on whose behalf funds were solicited, and 31 individuals. These include two FTC actions against alleged sham non-profits and the telemarketers who made deceptive claims about these so-called charities. The FTC and state agencies also released new education materials, in both English and Spanish, to help consumers recognize and avoid charitable solicitation fraud.

(Snip)

FTC Enforcement Actions

The two FTC cases announced today involve federal court complaints and proposed settlement orders against defendants who allegedly tricked consumers into giving by claiming that donations would support police or firefighters disabled in the line of duty, often in the donors' communities, or that the donations would assist military families in need, and by misleading consumers about how much of the money would go to those causes. According to the FTC, the defendants used legitimate-sounding names and described sympathetic causes to give their sham organizations a veneer of credibility. Their real goal, however, was to dupe consumers into contributing money that the defendants used overwhelmingly just to support themselves and their fundraisers.

In the first case, the FTC alleged that three sham non-profit organizations,

1. American Veterans Relief Foundation, Inc. (AVRF),
2. Coalition of Police and Sheriffs, Inc. (COPS), and
3. Disabled Firefighters Fund (DFF),

all based at the same address in Santa Ana, California, were created almost entirely to provide profits for the individual defendants and the for-profit fundraisers they hired. One defendant, Jeffrey Dean Duncan, ran COPS and DFF, while another defendant, William Rose, ran AVRF. Another defendant, Kathy Clinkenbeard, managed the telemarketers with which the entities contracted. The FTC contends that solicitors calling on behalf of AVRF falsely claimed that the money they were raising would support the families of soldiers fighting overseas through a program it called "Operation Home Front." In fact, AVRF spent virtually no money assisting military families. AVRF's bogus "Operation Home Front" is not connected to the genuine non-profit Operation Homefront, Inc., a national organization with 30 chapters across the country that provides real support to the families of troops and gets high ratings from watchdog groups. According to the FTC's complaint, the defendants misrepresented that donations would go to a legitimate charity, that the organizations have programs that do not actually exist, and that those programs benefit the donors' local communities. The complaint also alleges that COPS misrepresents its affiliation with police officers and sheriffs, and charges the defendants with assisting others to commit deceptive acts and practices.

The proposed order settles the FTC's complaint by barring the defendants from making false claims, or assisting anyone else in making false claims, in connection with charitable solicitations, or in connection with telemarketing. It also prohibits the defendants from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, requires that they make certain disclosures when fundraising, and it requires that they monitor any fundraisers that solicit on their behalf. Finally, the order imposes on defendants COPS, DFF, Duncan, and Clinkenbeard a judgment of $13.1 million and against defendants AVRF, Rose, and Clinkenbeard a judgment of $6 million. These judgments are suspended based on defendants' documented inability to pay.

In the second case, the FTC alleged that defendant David Scott Marleau ran several for-profit fundraisers that solicited money on behalf of sham police, fire, and veterans non-profit charitable organizations. The FTC charged that Marleau and his companies,

1. Jedi Investments, LLC,
2. Impact Fundraising, LLC,
3. Millenium Fundraising, LLC, and
4. PC Marl, Inc.,

misrepresented the programs for which funds were solicited, misrepresented that donations would benefit the donor's local community, mailed notices to consumers stating they had made a pledge when they had not even been called, and misrepresented their affiliation with sheriffs and police. Six additional counts in the complaint charged the defendants with multiple violations of the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, including ignoring company-specific do-not-call requests. The Commission also alleged that their operations often targeted seniors, sometimes debiting their accounts for donations without permission.

The proposed order settling the charges requires the defendants to stop misrepresenting facts, make certain disclosures when soliciting money from consumers, and stop violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The order also requires that the defendants substantiate any claims they make about a nonprofit or its programs prior to soliciting consumers, and requires that they train and monitor their telemarketers. Finally, the order imposes a monetary judgment of nearly $1.7 million against the corporate entities Jedi Investments, LLC, Impact Fundraising, LLC, Millenium Fundraising, LLC, and PC Marl, Inc. That judgment is suspended based on these defendants' documented inability to pay.

(Snip)

State Law Enforcement and Public Education

Law enforcement and public education efforts by the states are integral components of "Operation False Charity." The FTC would like to acknowledge the following state officials for their participation in Operation False Charity, either by taking enforcement action or initiating consumer education efforts: the Attorneys General of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; and other state agencies including the Secretaries of State of Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Washington, and the Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs, the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation, the Utah Division of Consumer Protection, and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Information about these agencies' participation is summarized on the FTC's Web site at

www.ftc.gov/os/2009/05/090520charitychart.pdf

Private sector partners included AARP, the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, the American Institute of Philanthropy, Guidestar, the National Association of State Charities Officials, and Charity Navigator.

Consumer Education

The FTC today issued a new consumer alert providing tips about charities that solicit donations on behalf of veterans and military families. According to the alert, which can be found on the agency's Web site at www.ftc.gov/charityfraud, while many legitimate charities are soliciting donations to support the nation's military veterans, not all "charities" are legitimate - some are operators whose only purpose is to make money for themselves. Others are paid fundraisers whose fees can use up most of your donation.

The new alert, "Supporting the Troops: When Charities Solicit Donations on Behalf of Vets and Military Families," offers the following tips to help consumers ensure that their donations go to a legitimate charity. Many of these tips apply to charitable giving to other types of organizations, as well.

• Recognize that the words "veterans" or "military families" in an organization's name don't necessarily mean that veterans or the families of active-duty personnel will benefit from your donation.
• Check out an organization before donating. Some phony charities use names, seals, and logos that look or sound like those of respected, legitimate organizations.
• Donate to charities with a track record and a history. Charities that spring up overnight may disappear just as quickly.
• If you have any doubt about whether you've made a pledge or a contribution, check your records. If you don't remember making the donation or pledge, resist the pressure to give.
• Call the office in your state that regulates charitable organizations to see whether the charity or fundraising organization has to be registered.
• Do not send or give cash donations. For security and tax-record purposes, it's best to pay with a check made payable to the charity.
• Ask for a receipt showing the amount of your contribution.Be wary of promises of guaranteed sweepstakes winnings in exchange for a contribution. You never have to give a donation to be eligible to win a sweepstakes.Some sites where consumers can check out a charity include:

* www.nasconet.org - National Association of State Charity Officials, where you can look up and contact your state's charities regulator for more information.

* www.guidestar.org - Guidestar

* www.bbb.org/charity - Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance

* www.charitynavigator.org - CharityNavigator

* www.charitywatch.org - American Institute of Philanthropy

The Commission vote approving each complaint and proposed court order was 4-0. The complaint and proposed order against David Scott Marleau, et al. were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 19, 2009. The complaint and proposed order against American Veterans Relief Foundation, Inc., et al. were filed in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California on May 18, 2009.

The proposed orders announced today settle the FTC's charges against the following defendants:

1. American Veterans Relief Foundation, Inc.; Coalition of Police and Sheriffs, Inc.; Disabled Firefighters Fund; Jeffrey Dean Duncan, individually and as an officer or director of Coalition of Police and Sheriffs, Inc., and Disabled Firefighters Fund; Kathy Clinkenbeard, individually; and William Rose, individually and as an officer or director of American Veterans Relief Foundation, Inc.; and

2. David Scott Marleau, individually and as an officer or director of Jedi Investments, LLC, Impact Fundraising, LLC, Millenium Fundraising, LLC, and PC Marl, Inc.; Jedi Investments, LLC; Impact Fundraising, LLC; Millenium Fundraising, LLC; and PC Marl, Inc.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of complaints when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaints are not a finding or ruling that the defendants actually have violated the law.

NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the complaints and proposed court orders are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/charityfraud.shtm and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

http://www.ktvz.com/Global/story.asp?S=10395492

Nonprofit Collaborative or Partnership Agreements:

It is no secret that for nonprofits (and the communities and constituents served) the major buzzwords are collaboration and partnership. For some nonprofits it may mean the difference between survival and dissolution. Is it clear what groups mean when these words are used? For instance, does the “collaboration” discussed in an application for funds mean a referral system, or does it mean a letter saying “we support” each other or is there something more in depth? How should a joint-project be addressed to commit resources together to resolve a community or a customer problem? What about a joint proposal for a grant; how will that be handled; how will the decision of who is lead applicant be made?

It is useful to consider developing good faith partnership agreements detailing who the partners are, what each will provide and to whom. The parties should perform due diligence in developing the relationship. There can be no secrets. The agreement should have a mutual hold-harmless clause, responsibilities for insurance, maintaining each other's independence and stating a beginning and ending date. A part of the agreement may include an authorization of release of information between the agencies for customers to sign. The issues of grievance and disputes between the parties and the process for handing them need to be spelled out, such as who has final say on paying bills, arbitration and so on.

In addition there should be solid discussion and written statements about most or all of the A-Z considerations below. These need to be put on the table, discussed and resolved.

A. Ethical issues – what are they for the partnership? Are there conflicting values or beliefs or corporate culture? Are there legally required ethical standards or professional standards? Is there a process for addressing these issues?

B. Conflict of Interest – What are they and how may they be perceived? Are the parties prepared to put them out front for discussion and resolution, how are they handled by each organization

C. Confidentiality- are there any issues of confidentiality; how will that be handled, will there be personnel and HIPAA issues?

D. How will referrals between the partners be made? Will they be different from current arrangements? Are there customer, legal or ethical barriers?

E. Are there new liability and insurance issues?

F. How will you plan and begin to balance the usual day-to-day activities and the new partnership work, will programmatic mission, vision, values, culture, spirituality, experience, competency and priorities affect the partnership?

G. How will leadership be determined? Will there be a plan for succession of leadership? How will leadership develop in the partnership? This can be an excellent opportunity to develop new leadership in both or all organizations.

H. Entrepreneurial spirit -- nothing is "free" – What budgetary needs are there for planning the partnership and for maintaining it? What will be the costs, what are the full (hidden) costs? How will administration and fiscal responsibilities be approached? Is there a business plan for this venture?

I. What are the goals, objectives and outcomes and how are they measured within the partnership? Is there a different view among the partners about measurement, goals and objectives? Look at monitoring results; customer and funder satisfaction; how will you publicize results?

J. Is there agreement about the use of written work plans, job descriptions and supervisory relationships for community work and developing/maintaining the partnership?

K. How do you organize and sell the partnership to other management personnel, staff, boards, current funders, other groups in the community? Have there been scans of the staffing for the day-to-day activities and the proposed new activities?

L. What if you propose the idea of a partnership with your management personnel and your office staff and they are not ready or willing to accept it? How will that be addressed? How will you handle the issues before they arise? How will rumors be handled? How will disagreements be handled?

M. How will the ambiguity in partnerships for staff who are management in the middle and not part of the negotiations creating the partnership be addressed? You will need top and middle management as leadership in the community, as follower in the community, handling failure and managing the partnership

N. What are the plans to handle the division of planning, tasks and fiscal aspects and other implications of the partnership - Communication, communication, communication

O. Is the technology between the partners sufficient to produce necessary reports and for communication?

P. How will the partners face diversity in the partnership, diversity of boards, staff and customers?

Q. How will you avoid stakeholders looking at the partnership as a threat to certain segments of the community; has there been a community scan of not only need but also the perceptions that exist now and can occur later? What are the potential economic, social and political repercussions for this partnership?

R. Has there been an assessment of the community’s readiness for the partnership, the value of local presence, co-location, job sharing and ubiquity -- how will the customers, their communities and nonprofit organizations roles evolve naturally and how will they change by the collaboration? How well do the leaders know the people and the demographics?

S. Is there agreement to viewing a continuum of services, involvement, tasks, roles, strategies, activities and feedback, feedback and feedback and evaluation

T. How will staffing issues in the partnership be developed – will there be an overriding concept about what is expected of staff; or expected of some staff; or a special unit; or no expectation at all for some staff – will there be joint staff meetings and planning sessions?

U. Will the partners seek grants and funding together and/or separately during the agreement, developing additional agreements and contracts between the parties on other issues?

V. How will training and orientation be developed for board and staff, management staff, fiscal personnel and support staff for partnering?

W. How and who will handle media and public relations during and the conclusion of the partnership; how will bad press be handled?

X. What steps will be taken to prepare the customers’ communities and partners as advocates supporting the partnership, shared customers and customer education

Y. What are the opportunities for partnering – employment, job training, housing, health issues,: Medicaid or food stamps outreach, homelessness, youth and children, technical assistance, domestic violence, self-sufficiency issues for customers, technology infrastructure and innovation for the customer communities, access to services, AIDS/HIV, lead-based paint, elderly, diversity, cultural and language-based activities, gay and lesbian initiatives, housing, poverty, disability-related issues, rural or urban activities, the arts, school/education/parent/community issues, drug and alcohol addiction, unsafe working conditions, migrant workers, the interface of employment and welfare, plant closing, community development, environment and many others

Z. What is the anticipated future? What will the partnership leave with the community for their own use in the future? What are the partners open to consider in the future? How will control and spin-off, future collaboration, partnering and cooperation, possibility for merger or alliance be viewed – how will you know when it is “over and done”? What are the benchmarks for the future?

The written agreement needs the assistance of an attorney to avoid pitfalls before they will happen -- and they will happen. Each partner should seek its own attorney for review or creation of documents. I hope the considerations above will assist in that preparation. It is an exciting movement and there should be every incentive for all to want to do it again.

RESOURCES

Community Partnership Toolkit - http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/CustomPubs/CPtoolkit/CPToolkit/

Why Is It Important to Develop a Community Partnership? - http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/cf_pages/partnerships.htm

Three community partnerships celebrated –
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/april29/community-partnership-awards-042909.html

Community Partnership Initiative - http://www.communitypartnership.us/

Building Effective Community Partnerships - http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/resources/files/toolkit1final.pdf

Watching The Fiscal Origins of Federal Funding

U.S. Federal grant announcements may be confusing if you are new searching for grants. Here are the hints to help you. Nonprofit organizations need to know the fiscal sources of grants for renewals, for accountability and transparency and to avoid commingling of funds. .

The Federal agencies and departments label grant opportunities by funding year (FY) to help applicants understand the responsibility and obligations.That funding year generally begins October 1 in that year.

There are a few grant opportunities that will feature "FY2008". This means that the grant opportunity is from the Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional budget, either recovered or unexpended funds. There are not many of these anymore.

The next group is labeled "FY2009" They are still common. This refers to funding that Congress approved in Fiscal Year 2009.This may be a continuing funding the government has made for a number of years such as homeless, drug addiction, HIV/AIDS, legal services, Head Start and many other. It may also be one-time or new grants funding that year.

The new piece is from the Recovery Act, ARRA. The Federal Government is labeling the source as such, "ARRA" or "Recovery Act" funding to distinguish it from the annual funding year that may seem similar in some instances..There are parallel grants, one labled FY2009 and the other ARRA.

There is much talk about new legislation in 2009 for volunteerism. That could be under its own title, under ARRA or FY 2009, if passed by Congress. Simply be aware of its designation if approved.

Congress is working on the FY 2010 budget set for October 1, 2009. That will be labled "FY 2010" to differentiate it from any new grants under ARRA and prior years.

So look for the source of funds before applying.

Here is language from a new grant opportunity in FY2009 from Homeland Security for fire and emergency departments round the U.S.

"The Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) remains largely unchanged from the previous year’s program based upon input from members of America’s fire services and other stakeholders. However, in FY 2009, they will shift the focus on the level of response provided in emergency medical services (EMS) from basic life support (BLS) to advanced life support (ALS). They will add “candidate physical agility assessments” as a high priority under the Wellness and Fitness Activities.

Through audits conducted by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and through the Assistance to Firefighters Program Office grant monitoring, it has become apparent that some Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) recipients have not adhered, or are not totally adhering, to the proper procurement requirements when spending grant funds. Anything less than full compliance with Federal procurement policies jeopardizes the integrity of the grant as well as the grant program. As such, in FY 2009 they will place a greater emphasis on oversight of grantees’ procurement actions.

All procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner that provides, to the maximum extent practical, open and free competition. Grantees are expected to promote competition and ensure advantageous pricing by soliciting bids from multiple vendors. Purchases shall be made from the vendor whose bid is responsive to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the grantee when price, quality, and other factors are considered. Grantees may use their own procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal laws and standards. Grantees who fail to adhere to their own procurement policy, or otherwise fail to fully “compete” any purchase involving Federal funds, may find that their expenditures will be questioned and subsequently disallowed.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided $210 million in funding to DHS to construct new fire stations or modify existing fire stations. That funding opportunity will be announced in the near future and will NOT be part of this offering. Under the funding opportunity presented in this guidance, the AFG will only fund projects that do not alter the footprint or the profile of an existing structure. Projects for modifications that involve altering the footprint or the profile of an existing structure or projects that involve construction of new facilities will fall under a different funding opportunity. Interested parties should monitor http://www.recovery.gov/ for updated information on this and other first responder funding opportunities."

Be aware of the funding time and the regulations and contract requirements that go along with them.

Federal Grant Application Reviewers Needed – W/Stipend

Agencies and departments of the Federal and possibly your state and local governments are in need of grant reviewers. Grant reviewers are professionals who are hired by agencies to review applications for possible funding. Under normal circumstances agencies are low key about the need but the ARRA Recovery Act grant making process is opening new opportunities. I have listed and linked RESOURCES for you as support in considering and applying as a grant reviewer.

Here is a short list of three agencies currently seeking reviewers. Read the first one, SAMSHSA, for a discussion about the general criteria needed and the tasks of the job. That will serve as an outline of what is expected. However, each agency has its own requirements and expectations.

• Many agencies are editing their process for grant reviews to meet the new requirements of the ARRA. If you are not too familiar with the ARRA impact on that agency, then take the time to review that material as well, linked at the agency web site and possibly elsewhere.
• This is a place for due diligence on your part.
• Compensation varies according to agencies and program proposals. The per diem may range from $200 a day and up plus travel and expenses
• Review the time commitment that may involve training time and final consensus meetings.
• Let me say now, this is no lark. You will work hard. There is a ton of reading. There are tight deadlines. There will be new expectations.
• There are also foundations that periodically seek reviewers, but that may be limited under current circumstances. The ARRA is stimulating a new need. I have listed a new request for reviewers by the AVON Foundation under RESOURCES below.
• The time commitment to complete the application to the agency to be considered for becoming a reviewer can be 1½ to three or more hours.
• First time applicants (“Newbies”) should study the agency’s entire web site about grants for indications of what will be sought and how to respond on the application to be a reviewer.

1. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

Grant Review Opportunities at the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) continuously seeks professionals to evaluate grant applications.

SAMHSA reviewers must have related program experience and education, be able to analyze grant applications effectively against specific criteria, be able to express their evaluation clearly in writing, and be interested in contributing to the advancement of knowledge. Specifically, the agency is interested in reviewers with the following specific program experience and knowledge:

• Individuals with background in mental health services and knowledge of community-based systems of care and services for adults with serious mental illnesses and children with serious emotional disturbances.
• Individuals with background and knowledge of substance abuse prevention, who have expertise or experience in working with activities that discourage substance abuse and behaviors increasing the risk of substance abuse.
• Individuals with expertise in evidence-based effective substance abuse treatment services, programs and activities.
• Grant reviewers gain many skills out of their experience such as:
• Understanding of the grant-making process
• Opportunity to network with colleagues
• Chance to exercise professional judgment and expertise
• Intellectual challenge

Reviewers are chosen for particular grant programs, based on their knowledge, education and experience.

Minimum Requirements for Grant Reviewers:

1. Prospective reviewer must be willing and able to provide written and oral evaluative comments based on professional knowledge measured against published criteria – not personal opinion;
2. able to listen attentively to the input of other panelists, engage in discussion, bridge differences, and work with other panelists to synthesize evaluative comments.
3. Prospective reviewer must be able to exercise his/her highest level of personal standards to ethically review proprietary information, maintain confidentiality, and avoid any conflict of interest.
4. Expertise in the subject area to be reviewed is a must.
5. Selected reviewers will be precluded from reviewing any application for which they may have a potential conflict of interest, including reviewing in priority areas to which they or their affiliated organizations have applied.
6. Time commitments vary based on grants being reviewed and type of review being conducted. Some grant reviews will require on-site meetings, generally in the Washington, DC area.
7. Reviewers selected will receive taxable compensation for their services.

Applicants who wish to serve as NEW SAMHSA grant reviewers are asked to submit the completed reviewer contact form and your resume electronically via e-mail to reviewer@samhsa.hhs.gov .

http://www.samhsa.gov/Grants/emailform/index.asp

2. Office of Head Start (OHS)

The Office of Head Start (OHS) is seeking peer grant reviewers for Head Start and Early Head Start grant competitions this summer. APPLY NOW!!

OHS is seeking peer grant reviewers who have direct Head Start or Early Head Start experience, academic expertise and knowledge of the following:

• Infant, toddler and child development;
• Services to pregnant women;
• Best practices;
• Fiscal management;
• Program development and design;
• Family outreach; professional development and;
• Head Start and Early Head Start Performance Standards

It is anticipated that all reviews will be held in the Washington, D.C. area and will last approximately six days during the summer months. Reviewers will receive an honorarium for their work upon satisfactory completion of the review. Travel costs, lodging, and per diem for food, will be covered for the period of the review.

A resume must be submitted for consideration. Please visit http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/grantreview to register.

3. Office of Community Services (OCS)

The Office of Community Services (OCS) is announcing several new funding opportunities and needs expert reviewers with a broad array of direct community development experience to review grant applications. If you or someone you know is interested, click here for information on how to register to be a grant reviewer.

Benefits of acting as a grant reviewer include:

• Working with Federal officials
• Building new relationships with professional peers
• Learning about preparing quality grant applications
• Gaining a full understanding of the review process

Please note: To avoid conflict of interest, individuals from organizations that are applying for OCS funding this year will not be accepted as reviewers for those funding opportunities.
https://rrm.grantsolutions.gov/ocs/index.htm

RESOURCES

Is Grant Application Reviewing Right for you? From the Administration on Youth, Children and Families.

• What are the expectations of grant application reviewers and panel chairpersons prior to the grant review?
• What are the expectations of grant application reviewers and panel chairpersons during onsite training?
• What are the expectations for panel chairpersons throughout the evaluation?
• What are the expectations of grant application reviewers throughout the evaluation?
• Review the Disabilities Statement.

Reviewer Confidentiality Statement

The content of grant applications is highly confidential. It is critical that no grant application reviewer participate in a review of any grant application where a conflict of interest exists or may exist. Therefore, before reviewing a grant application, each grant application reviewer will be given a Grant Application Reviewer Confidentiality Statement to read and affirm by signature.

The Center for Scientific Review has produced a video of a mock study section meeting to provide an inside look at how the National Institutes of Health grant applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit. The video shows how outside experts assess applications and how review meetings are conducted to ensure fairness. The video also includes information on what applicants can do to improve the chances their applications will receive a positive review.

To make the video both authentic and authoritative, real reviewers volunteered to review real but altered and disguised applications. NIH staff members also volunteered to participate in this video, which was developed in collaboration with the NIH Office of Extramural Research.

Find Out What Has Changed Since the Video Was Produced: Check out the list of new policies and changes that have been implemented since they released this video. This list also covers upcoming changes you should know about. They hope to update the video soon.
http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewProcessVideo.htm

A GUIDEBOOK FOR FEDERAL GRANT REVIEWERS by Karen A. Morison from 2002. This is from the Heritage Foundation. The pay rates listed are now low.

http://www.heritage.org/research/governmentreform/fedbook.cfm

The Institute of Museum and Library Services has excellent handbooks about the grant review process:

IMLS program offices prepare reviewer handbooks for each grant program, which provide reviewers with the background information and instruction they need to effectively review grant applications. The following handbooks are available in PDF format:

• 2008 National Leadership Grants (PDF, 184KB)
• 2006 Native American/Native Hawaiian Museum Services Program (PDF, 131KB)
• 2006 Museums for America Grants (PDF, 170KB)
• 2006 Conservation Project Support (PDF, 202KB)
• 2005 21st Century Museum Professionals (PDF, 147KB)
• Review OnlineReviewers can access the Online Reviewer System Login here (password-protected).

http://www.imls.gov/reviewers/reviewers.shtm

Common Questions Grant Reviewers Ask About Proposals

• http://www.urbanministry.org/wiki/common-questions-grant-reviewers-ask-about-proposals

The Avon Foundation Breast Care Fund (AFBCF) seeks qualified grant reviewers for its upcoming competitive grant application process which will be held during August and October 2009. AFBCF is looking for qualified candidates who possess one or more of the following:

1. A comprehensive knowledge of breast care, breast cancer and women’s healthcare.
2. Previous experience as a grant reviewer.
3. Proficiency in financial or program management for a community-based organization.
4. Experience in outreach/education to older, underserved women.
5. Personal commitment to breast cancer outreach, education and screening.

They are now accepting applications for the 2010 AFBCF RFA Grant Reviewers. The application is due August 1, 2009.

http://www.avonbreastcare.org/

For additional information about ARRA see the links under "Labels" on the right hand side of this blog.

My weekly e-newsletter about grant opportunities in partnership with CharityChannel will be issued again Tuesday April 21, 2009 and weekly thereafter. There was a hiatus because of health reasons.

http://www.charitychannel.com/special/don-griesmanns-grant-opportunities/last-7-days.aspx

My Article "How to Find a Lawyer for Your Nonprofit" Now On the Internet

One of my articles, How to Find a Lawyer for Your Nonprofit Organization, has just been published for use by Step By Step Fundraising.

The article covers the following:

Here are some thoughts on finding, hiring, working with and firing an attorney for a nonprofit organization. A lot will depend on the issue you are addressing. If you are at the beginning of incorporating an organization the talents you need from an attorney are different than one seeking legal help for a grievance by a current or former employee. This article will be general in nature to give you some guidance in selecting an attorney for your NPO.

The basic choice is to find an attorney or small law firm that features or includes representation of charities, nonprofit or philanthropic organizations. The second choice is to seek either an experienced and interested corporate lawyer or a tax lawyer. The third choice is a lawyer with interest in your mission and endeavor who will put in the necessary time to learn the law and to process the papers with all due haste and timeliness.

If you do not know any attorney to help you there are a number of steps you can take to find one locally. You can use all of these listed here or any variations. The sections covered by this article are -

1. Check the Yellow Pages
2. Attorney Referral Service
3. Martindale-Hubbell Directory and Other Sources
4. Ask Friends and Contacts in the Community and Google the Attorneys
5. Planning the First Meeting
6. Legal Wellness Check-ups
7. Finding a Pro Bono Lawyer
8. Working with an Attorney
9. Your Attorney on the Board
10. Concluding the Lawyer-Client Relationship
11. Firing a Lawyer

http://stepbystepfundraising.com/how-to-find-a-lawyer-nonprofit/

Step By Step Fundraising states at its web site:

There are many non profit organizations out there looking for fundraising ideas. Many of the fundraising ideas that are featured on this website will work for many groups — large or small — and for a variety of causes. The fundraising ideas presented on this site come from real fundraisers, just like you. You will get the real inside scoop about what works and what doesn’t, saving you lots of time and effort.

My thanks to Sandra Sims, Founder and CEO of Step By Step Fundraising, for making this article available at their web site for free use.

Other Resources:

Developing a Nonprofit Tax Exempt Organization - Outline of First Steps

Selecting and Reserving A Name for Your Organization

Agenda and Minutes of First Board Meetings

Minutes: The Ongoing Record of Your Nonprofit Organization

Your Nonprofit Library Third Shelf – Getting the U.S. IRS to Recognize Your Nonprofit as Tax Exempt

Your Nonprofit Library Third Shelf – See What the IRS Demands of Your Tax Exempt Organization After it is Recognized as Tax Exempt

Fiscal Sponsorship or Agent: A Yellow Light

24 Factors In Developing an Exit Strategy for Nonprofit and Nongovernmental Organization (A Business Plan in Reverse)