This page is offers some of my experiences with
the No Thanks campaign.
Case Study
Policy for nonprofits to refuse charitable donations
from the Tobacco Industry
Tobacco Free Tompkins “No Thanks” campaign
Summary
Tobacco Free Tompkins (TFT) partners agreed that the community would
be supportive of an initiative calling for nonprofits to adopt a policy
to refuse tobacco industry sponsorships. It was determined that
• executives and board members of Tompkins County based nonprofits
would demand extensive background documentation before they would be
open to considering the issue.
• the best approach would be to individually solicit a “charter”
group of well respected organizations to establish a base of support
for a subsequent broader direct mail and media appeal.
Organizations were solicited for the charter group by email and phone
calls beginning in December 2005. As of the end of February 2006, the
background documentation had gone through 2 important revisions based
on feedback from the field. One organization had signed the proposed
policy; 3 had declined, and 6 were outstanding.
Introduction
While “community action” might typically be thought of as
acting on an issue for the benefit of the community, at times community
action may trend more toward acting in the community for the benefit
of an issue. With this in mind, the coordinator was uncertain as to
whether or not the local nonprofit sector would be receptive to considering
the sponsorship issue. However, since other Community Partnerships in
the South Central area were showing success with this strategy the idea
was presented to and endorsed by TFT partners at their September 2005
meeting.
The multi-faceted nature of the sponsorship issue had to be tightly
packaged for the local nonprofits. The package was given a name —
the No Thanks campaign — and presented individually to the executive
director or board president at a handful of organizations. This provided
a road test for the package and a chance to establish credibility through
a “charter” group of organizations. More broad based solicitation
of nonprofits using direct mail, newspaper ads and press releases promoting
— and standing on the shoulders of — the charter organizations
would follow.
Objectives
• Increase the number of nonprofit human service and cultural
organizations in the community that have a written policy prohibiting
acceptance of tobacco company sponsorship.
• Establish that the social acceptability of tobacco use is an
important variable in reducing tobacco use.
• Establish awareness of those factors that contribute to the
social acceptability of tobacco use.
Strategies
• The primary objective was introduced to TFT partners for discussion
and recommendations.
• A list was obtained of local nonprofit organizations, including
human services, arts, religious and recreational. From this, a list
of primary prospects was developed and the respective executive directors
and board officers were researched.
• Background materials were researched using as references the
ASP tool kit, documents from other NYTCP partners, and Internet searches.
• The initiative, known among NYTCP partners as “ASP Sponsorship,”
was given a consumer-friendly name in order to establish a product identity.
• The presentation package was developed to include a cover letter,
a Q & A (FAQ) document, and a draft
(sample) policy. An extensive web site was created to display and
support the package using web pages and pdf downloads, and with additional
background pages and links to other sites.
• Ten agencies were selected as good candidates for a “charter”
group based on: their stature in the community; a level connection between
the agency’s work and the anti-tobacco message; an acquaintance
with the agency executive or a board member. Initial contact was made
by phone and email in early December; follow-ups were made through mid
February. TFT partners also volunteered to approach nonprofits where
they had contacts.
Results and Recommendations
• Responses to the initial contact varied from none, to muted
interest, to enthusiasm with repeated failure to follow through, to
an aggressive challenge of the premise and the program. In all except
two cases the issue was not expected to get onto a board agenda until
January at the earliest.
• Feedback received as of mid January was incorporated into revisions
of both the Q&A and the draft policy. The primary issue addressed
was confusion and uncertainty about exactly who is “the
tobacco industry.” One agency was reluctant to sign on out
of a fear they would unknowingly violate their own policy at some future
time. The policy was reportedly defeated at the executive committee
stage of another organization on the assumption that Kraft Foods and
an uncertain number of other unnamed companies were included in the
ban. And the executive director of an agency for individuals with physical
impairments stated, “If Kraft develops a new packaging specifically
designed for people with physical impairments and they donate these
packaged foods for distribution through our agency, are we supposed
to refuse them?”
• Revisions to the draft policy included: changing the definition
of the tobacco industry from an open-ended, “all… which
are also subsidiaries,” to a specific list of company names covered
by the policy; softening the anti-tobacco rhetoric in the “Intent”
section of the text; and simplifying the objective and fact-based statements.
Revisions to the Q&A included related topics such as, Does this
policy include Kraft? and, Is this policy linked to being a TFT partner?
• Using the web site as an information resource worked well for
the solicitations. Email text could be limited to a few key points with
a link to the extensive Q&A, and calls could be followed-up by emailing
a link. The Q&A, which filled 5 printed pages, could be easily scanned
on the web site just by clicking on specific questions from the list
at the top of the page. Links within the Q&A text also provided
references and additional information. One executive director used the
web site as a briefing source for board members, as well as distributing
pdf files electronically with a pre-meeting packet.
• A lot of effort went into getting decisions from the “charter”
group candidates in order to make good on the recognition they were
promised, and to assure a strong base from which to solicit others.
It may be fair to conclude that the solicitation field should have been
broadened from the charter core beginning in February, however there
is no sense that a mass solicitation sweep using print ads and direct
mail would have yielded a more satisfying or productive long-term outcome.
Postlude
• The timeframe for this case study is September 2005 through
February 2006. However, as the text was being drafted (March 15, 2006)
the board of one of the original “charter” organizations
approved without dissent the No Thanks policy as worded in the revised
TFT draft. Since January there had been active communication between
the organization’s executive director and the TFT coordinator
leading first to action by the executive committee, and continuing through
action by the full board, including, at the invitation of the director,
the TFT coordinator attending the full board meeting at which the vote
was taken. Looking forward, the sphere of this organization’s
influence has the potential to open a wide door by which others will
join the movement.
After passing the policy cited in the postlude (above), the agency’s
executive director offered to post a “testimonial” on a
local listserve subscribed to by over 600 individuals working or volunteering
in the nonprofit sector. The “Second Wave”
email solicitations shown below followed that posting.
1st mailing
• Early April 2006
• Sent to 30 nonprofits
Dear Executive Director or Board Chair;
You may have seen the recent posting to the Human Services Coalition
Listserv about the Health Planning Council’s new policy against
accepting funding from the tobacco industry. The policy was adopted
as a public statement of the impact that tobacco use has on this community.
I have included the text of the posting, below. It also appeared in
the April 12 issue of the Ithaca Community News.
As coordinator of the Tobacco Free Tompkins “No Thanks”
campaign, I am writing now to personally invite you to, in [the author’s]
words, “take a stand” by adopting a policy that [your nonprofit]
will not accept funding from the tobacco industry.
For years the tobacco industry has donated to nonprofits as a way to
(1) gain visibility for their products and (2) build social acceptance
as a corporate “good citizen” in an effort to overcome their
negative public image.
However, the social and financial toll of tobacco use in Tompkins County
far outweighs any potential funding from the industry: we pay millions
in tobacco-caused health care and Medicaid costs, year after year. Nationwide,
thousands of kids get hooked on cigarettes everyday, largely as a result
of tobacco industry marketing and promotion efforts.
Accepting tobacco funds in effect perpetuates tacit acceptance of the
industry, its past and ongoing marketing tactics, and the impact of
its products. The “No Thanks” campaign upholds an organization's
commitment and dedication to the health and well-being of the community.
Beginning next month, a statewide initiative --- modeled in large part
on our own No Thanks campaign --- will roll out. We have an opportunity
to set the pace for the state. Your participation is equally valuable
even if you neither have, nor intend to accept tobacco funding.
Please take a few minutes to read through the posting and discuss this
issue with [your] board members. Our web site has an extensive Q&A
and a variety of sample policies to help facilitate your discussion.
Go to http://www.tompkins-co.org/wellness/tobaccofree/asp/ntc.htm.
I would welcome an opportunity to answer any questions you and/or your
board members might have either by phone, email or in person.
Thank you very much for your interest and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ted Schiele
** ** ** ** ** **
Ted Schiele, M.S.
Coordinator, Tobacco Free Tompkins
Tompkins County Health Department
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 274-6712
http://www.tompkins-co.org/wellness/
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:09:23 -0500
To: TC-HSC-L
Subject: "No Thanks" tobacco funding policy
Are you interested in taking a stand against
accepting donations from the tobacco industry?
The Advisory Board of the Health Planning Council
(HPC) has done just that. At our meeting on March 15, 2006, we adopted
a policy stating that we will not accept any funding or donations
from the tobacco industry, including for example, Marlboro maker,
Altria and Skoal maker, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco.
Cost of Tobacco Use
Tobacco use is responsible for one fifth of all deaths nationally,
25,000 deaths a year in NYS, and $2.7 million in annual Medicaid costs
to Tompkins County. Total health care and lost productivity costs
in Tompkins County resulting from smoking is estimated to exceed $36
million a year. At a time when counties are struggling with rising
Medicaid costs, and the ability to pay for health care is uncertain
for an ever widening segment of the population, the economic and social
costs of tobacco use are substantial.
Teen Use
Almost 90 percent of adult smokers began at or before age 18. As much
as one third of underage experimentation with smoking is attributable
to tobacco company marketing efforts. Every day an estimated 4,400
young people try cigarettes for the first time; more than one third
of all youth who ever try cigarettes become regular, daily smokers
before leaving high school.
Why say “No Thanks”?
Any philanthropic activities undertaken by the tobacco industry are
dependent on the sale and use of tobacco products; this is contrary
both to the mission of the Health Planning Council and to the social
and economic health of our community. In adopting this policy the
HPC Board is recognizing the burden of tobacco use on public health,
and that every step taken to diminish the presence of tobacco in the
social environment will contribute to long term public health benefits.
The policy to decline tobacco industry charity
adopted by the HPC board was introduced through an initiative of Tobacco
Free Tompkins (TFT), a partnership of community organizations and
individuals of which HPC is a member. The TFT initiative is the “No
Thanks” campaign, by which nonprofits say “no thanks”
to tobacco industry involvement in the community. Family & Children’s
Services of Ithaca adopted a No Thanks policy in December 2005.
Want to find out more?
The HPC invites all Tompkins County nonprofits involved in human services,
health care, or activities for children to learn about and become
involved in the No Thanks campaign. For more information contact Ted
Schiele at tschiele@tompkins-co.org, or visit the No Thanks campaign
web site at http://www.tompkins-co.org/wellness/tobaccofree/asp/ntc.htm
************************************
2nd mailing
• May 9
• Sent to 24 recipients of 1st mailing
Dear –—;
A few weeks ago I invited [you] and other Tompkins County nonprofits
to participate in Tobacco Free Tompkins’ No Thanks campaign. Based
on feedback from that appeal, please allow me to clarify the context
of this campaign.
In an effort to win new users and stall those who want to quit, the
tobacco industry spends well over $15 billion a year to promote their
products as appealing, affordable and as commonplace as coffee. We are
asking the members of our community to act together to counter the industry’s
mammoth effort, one small step at a time.
The No Thanks campaign is one such step. Through a policy to decline
direct funding from tobacco, organizations confirm that the goals of
the tobacco industry are so inconsistent with their own that the most
appropriate course is to remain free of any relationship directly with
the big tobacco companies.
The message is not intended for the tobacco industry; they will not
be listening. Your message is for our community, where people are listening.
Tobacco use costs Tompkins County over $36 million a year in health
care and lost productivity and $2.7 million in property taxes paid to
Medicaid, not to mention countless lives and lost opportunities. Together,
we can begin to abate this erosion of lives and resources and dispel
the notion that tobacco use is either appealing or affordable.
I hope that you will respond with your questions and comments on considering
the No Thanks campaign at [your organization.]
For additional information and sample policies visit our web site:
http://www.tompkins-co.org/wellness/tobaccofree/asp/ntc.htm.
Best wishes,
/Ted
** ** ** ** ** **
Ted Schiele, M.S.
Coordinator, Tobacco Free Tompkins
How they responded
A sampling of concerns about the campaign or adopting
a policy...
Our board met today and when I introduced the idea, there was a lot
of discussion. In short, the board felt that 1) we never have received
direct tobacco money so we're not making any kind of real statement;
2) we can't control bequest funds, especially those that may include
corporations with multiple businesses; 3) they didn't feel that this
was an effective way to communicate smoking concerns. In addition, one
person sits on another board that was given tobacco stocks which had
been purchased many years ago; the donor said "Here, sell these
and at least the money will go to do some good in the community."
One reservation that I have about this is that is primarily a ----------
organization and we try to stay focused on that as our mission. Over
the years, we have been asked to lend our good name to many causes ranging
from public education intitatives to the endorsement of individual candidates
running for office. The board has become increasingly wary about where
to draw the line on these endorsements.
The [agency] has not solicited funds from big tobacco, and we do not
see that happening. Where this gets complicated is that money does not
always leave visible tracks. For example, we have received funding from
a Foundation to support our program. Do I know whether the Foundation
received money from Philip Morris? No.
I'm not the expert on services funding across the board (to all of
our agencies as well as ourselves), but I would be very surprised
if any of them get direct funding from tobacco organizations. I'll
send this on to others to inquire about this. The idea seems a good
one, but I'm guessing it's not relevant to us.
A human services agency that adopts a no tobacco funding policy is
establishing or claiming a position of privilage; they can afford to
reject the money, where other agencies could not.
