Human Resources: Basics

Personnel policies

Evaluating the performance of nonprofit employees

Evaluating the performance of the executive director

Reducing your nonprofit's risk during employee layoffs

Personnel Policies

An organization's personnel policies define what the agency can expect from its employees, and the employees can expect from the agency. The policies should be written within the first year of hiring staff, and will help the organization maintain positive employee relations because they can prevent conflicts arising from misunderstandings.

The board of directors, often through its personnel committee, is responsible for developing written personnel policies. The executive director and staff members can contribute to the development of satisfactory policies. The board of directors should formally accept the personnel policies, and review them on a regular basis to incorporate new legal requirements and organizational needs. Every employee should receive a copy of the policies.

Personnel policies often address the following topics:

• Employee definitions (full-time, part-time, etc.) and organizational structure
• Affirmative action and Equal Employment Opportunity
• Hiring and termination procedures
• Salaries and benefits
• Absences, vacations and holidays
• Sexual harassment
• Substance abuse and testing
• Employee evaluation
• Grievance procedures and employee appeals

A sample personnel policy is available on this web site by clicking here.

Top of the page

Evaluating the Performance of Nonprofit Employees

Employee evaluations help organizations accomplish four main goals:

• Allow staff and supervisor to communicate about performance expectations
• Identify training needs
• Direct and counsel staff about performance improvement
• Determine compensation and position changes

The general timing of performance evaluations should be spelled out in the personnel policies (within one month of the end of the calendar year, at the time of the annual meeting, semi-annually, etc.), although actual timing can be decided as needed.

While supervisors are generally not enthusiastic about delivering performance evaluations, they are important both because inadequate communication can result in negative consequences, and because they represent a valuable opportunity to exchange feedback.

There is no set of rules that determines what should or should not be included in an evaluation. The evaluation process can be formal or informal, it can reflect input from only the supervisor, or include information from staff members' peers or external (to the organization) colleagues. It can be based on staff job descriptions, annual workplans, or the organization's strategic plan. The executive director, possibly with the assistance of the personnel committee, should establish a format that will allow for an exchange of information and strengthen staff effectiveness. In general, employees sign the evaluation to indicate acknowledgment of review, but not agreement with the evaluation. A staff evaluation process may include an opportunity for the person being reviewed to respond in writing to any points of disagreement.

Staff evaluations should address the following questions:

• What was the employee expected to accomplish?
• Were they provided the tools necessary to accomplish these tasks?
• What did the employee actually accomplish?
• How did the employee achieve these accomplishments?
• What was expected of the employee that was not accomplished, and why?
• In what performance areas does potential for improvement exist?

A sample employee evaluation is available on this web site by clicking here.

Top of the page

Evaluating the Performance of the Executive Director

One responsibility of the Board of Directors is appraising the work of the organization's Executive Director (ED). An evaluation can help to improve the confidence, support, growth and working relationship between the Board and the ED. While this review is sometimes avoided or done poorly, it represents an opportunity to identify challenges in program or performance, reward the ED, and strengthen the organization's overall administration.

Because at least once a year the ED should expect to receive a coherent view of the Board's opinion of his or her work, the evaluation process will be more effective with advance planning. At a minimum, the appraisal can take the form of a pre-arranged discussion between the ED and the Board Chair, although the evaluation should have a written component.

The ED's performance should be measured in relation to his or her job description, and the evaluation may cover the following activity areas: staff relations; administration; planning; leadership; fiscal management; external public relations; effectiveness in working with the board to fulfill the annual plan; and effectiveness in helping the board achieve its own accountability and level of responsibility. The specifics of the evaluation process should be determined by the Personnel Committee or a task force of the Board, and the ED should be informed of the process in advance. An Executive Committee or the Board Chair can report the conclusions of the evaluation to the ED. The type of evaluation the organization uses can include any of several elements:

• input from all of the individual Board members;
• input from peer staff members;
• self-evaluation;
• intermittent observation;
• a formal rating system;
• an open-ended discussion of career goals and paths; and
• opportunity for the ED to respond.

One system that seems to work well for many nonprofit organizations is for the Board Chair to circulate a questionnaire to all of the board members asking specific questions about the ED's performance during the past year. The questionnaire can use a ranking system (i.e.1=outstanding, 2=expected, 3=below expectations, 4= not satisfactory) and include space for narrative comments. The Chair can then summarize these responses and communicate them to the ED, seeking his or her reaction. At that point, the Chair and the ED can set performance objectives for the coming year, and then a report can be made to the full board for review. After that, changes in compensation can also be discussed.

A sample executive director evaluation is available on this web site by clicking here.

Top of the page

Reducing Your Nonprofit's Risk During Employee Layoffs

Layoffs that are motivated by economic or administrative reasons — such as loss of funding or staff reorganization — are common in the nonprofit sector. The result is that employees, through no fault of their own, may find themselves unexpectedly without a job. When downsizing is necessary, the nonprofit can take steps to reduce its liability in the process of laying off one employee or several paid staff.

 Q: We can no longer support the current number of staff on our budget. What is the chance that laid-off employees will sue us if we let them go?

A: When economics dictate that a staff position be cut, it’s critical that the nonprofit have a well-supported business reason to select which employees are to be terminated. The risk is that you’ll be vulnerable to claims that discrimination played a part in deciding who was to be let go. Whenever a nonprofit is considering layoffs, alternatives should be also considered. Can the objectives of the reduction-in-force (RIF) be accomplished through a hiring freeze, a salary freeze, an hours reduction, or a status change from full-time to part-time? Document that you’ve considered alternatives to the RIF. Take the time to spell out in a written memorandum to the board, the business reasons for the necessary layoffs, as well as your justification for those employees selected for termination.

Q: Even if we have a legitimate business reason documented and we’ve considered alternatives to a RIF, are there other aspects of a RIF that could come back to haunt us?

A: Before implementing any lay-offs, consider how the workforce will be impacted. Is the downsizing going to affect one particular group of employees more than others? Is the reorganization going to eliminate the only minority in the agency? If your answer to either question is yes, even if there are solid business reasons for the selection of that particular employee, there are clear liability risks involved in the RIF.

Q: What’s the best way to select the employees/positions to be eliminated?

A: In selecting which employees/positions will be eliminated, it’s imperative to use an objective method. Possibilities include basing retention on:

• seniority,

• positions/job functions linked to essential parts of the mission or specific goals of the organization, determined by a needs assessment,

• a lottery, or

• strong past performance ratings.

Whatever the method, consider:

1. convening an oversight committee to provide objectivity for the process of implementing the reductions,

2. conducting a needs analysis to determine which positions are critical and which could be eliminated, and

3. reviewing the termination decisions for discriminatory bias.

Salary shouldn’t be a consideration in who goes and who stays, since typically older workers are those with longer tenure who are at the higher end of the salary scale. 

Q: What can our nonprofit do to reduce the risk of a lawsuit?

A: Your nonprofit can reduce the risks of facing a lawsuit in a number of ways. First, consider asking for voluntary resignations from employees. Also, take some time to identify ways you can support employees who will be let go. If your policies prohibit use of the nonprofit’s equipment for personal reasons, consider relaxing these rules and allowing employees who will be laid off the opportunity to use your equipment to prepare resumes or search job notice Web sites. Review your reference giving policy. If you don’t give references, consider changing your policy and using a reference form. A reference form is a document that serves as a written reference. You’ll be doing departing employees a great service by ensuring that they will be able to provide a reference to prospective employers. Even if you think you can’t afford a severance package, it might be worthwhile to negotiate a severance package in exchange for a signed release and waiver of claims against your organization. Although a release will cost you something, you’ll probably sleep better knowing you’ve taking an important step to reduce the possibility of a suit.

Q: Whom should we tell and what should we tell about the reasons for the downsizing?

A: It’s critical to communicate to the staff the reason for the downsizing. Management or the board should share the economic realities of the situation with the staff, and explain the business justification for the reorganization or downsizing. They might explain that the downsizing is being carried out reluctantly and only after efforts have been taken to avoid such as result. If possible, make an effort to network with other nonprofits in the community to identify alternative new positions for those being let go.

Q: Are there federal or state laws that affect downsizing?

A: In severe downsizing situations, such as a nonprofit closing its doors, the federal WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) or a similar state law may apply.

WARN only applies to those nonprofits with 100 or more full- or part-time employees, who, in aggregate, work at least 4,000 hours per week. WARN requires employers to give employees 60 days’ advance notice when 50 or more employees will be terminated, if that constitutes 1/3 of the workforce (or when 500 or more employees will be laid off).

Beware of state laws:

• Connecticut and Maine have their own state WARN Acts affecting workplaces with 100 employees;  

• in Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Wisconsin the trigger is 50 employees;

• the Michigan plant closing law affects workplaces with 25 or more employees; and  

• in Minnesota, a nonprofit must immediately notify employees in writing when a petition for bankruptcy is filed.  

Q: How can we soften the blow of a lay-off for employees being let go without jeopardizing the nonprofit?

A: Because lay-offs are often unexpected and not the employee’s fault, many nonprofit employers offer separation pay when termination is a result of economic necessity. There is a risk in having such a policy as a standard procedure because in cases where a severe shortfall necessitates layoffs, there may not be sufficient funding to cover all of the separation payments.

While softening the blow of a lay-off is a terrific idea, rather than codifying separation pay in personnel policies, it’s better to offer separation pay as funding allows. An alternative is to clearly state in policy language that separation pay will be offered, “at the discretion of the board, as funding permits.”

Q: Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about layoffs now, but are there things we should know or could do now that would help us if this ever became necessary?

A: Begin by reading your nonprofit’s handbook, noting any policies that might lessen your right to conduct a reduction-in-workforce or specify how RIFs are to occur. Also review all written policies given to employees.

Instruct management not to make promises that they can’t keep, such as there won’t be any layoffs or that everyone’s job is safe. Employees who feel that they’ve been misled or lied to are more likely to sue.

If you are considering hiring younger workers who have needed skills to replace older employees who don’t posses these skills, stop. First offer to retrain the to-be-fired older workers in new skills and document that offer.

Never use a lay-off process as a way around terminating poor performers. RIFs are not an alternative to terminating someone for poor performance or gross misconduct. A lay-off process should never be used for this purpose.

________________________________________________

This article was adapted from Taking the High Road: A Guide to Effective and Legal Employment Practices for Nonprofits, published by the Nonprofit Risk Management Center. For more information about this article or other risk management topics, contact the Nonprofit Risk Management Center at (202) 785-3891 or www.nonprofitrisk.org. The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits is a part of the Nonprofit Risk Management Center's Satellite Office Program.

Top of the page

Other HR Resources

NEW! 2007 Minnesota Nonprofit Salary and Benefits Survey

  More about the 2007 Minnesota Nonprofit Salary and Benefits Survey

Unemployment Taxes
Opt out of the state unemployment tax with Unemployment Services Trust.
More about cost-savings with UST.

Employee Benefits
MCN partner Stanton Group offers solutions to a variety of HR problems.
More about Stanton Group

Retirement Benefits
Mutual of America has partnered with MCN to offer full service plans with complete administrative and investment management services.
More about Mutual of America