Previous: Introduction

Ensure Funding for the Community Assessment

The community assessments we reviewed cost between $5,000 and $20,000 to conduct. The higher-end figure included the creation of a detailed business plan.

The community-assessment process can be paid for several ways. The funder might be a community foundation, a large corporate or private foundation, or a group of funders who have decided to collaborate.

It is important to understand that nonprofits’ perceptions of the funder(s) will affect the assessment process. If the funder is a known and trusted local leader or a high-profile, well-endowed foundation or corporation, nonprofits are more likely to give credibility to the consultant. “People knew I was being backed by funders,” observes Joan Fanning. “This made all the difference in the world in terms of getting return phone calls and encouraging attendance at focus groups.” At the same time, nonprofits must see the assessment as impartial and genuinely concerned with local needs. “The funders didn’t want to be seen as driving it,” Jennifer Keller Jackson says. “They were even careful about making sure that leadership group meetings and other events were hosted at rotating locations. They didn’t want to discourage an open and expansive network of support.”

Another key factor is whether the funder(s) plan to also fund the implementation of any resulting action plan. In many of the examples here, the funders’ goal was to put new technology capacity-building resources in place. It’s crucial for the lead consultant and the foundation to have a very clear and honest conversation about financial support for the solution. The funder may have a specific outcome in mind or may be open to whatever recommendations result from the assessment.

In Seattle, Microsoft, the Seattle Community Foundation, and Boeing Foundation funded Joan Fanning’s assessment in order to generate a business plan for a new resource. In Washington, DC, the Meyer Foundation took the lead in funding a preplanning process and brought in four other foundations for additional support of the main assessment. In Michigan, the United Way hoped to use the results of a study to expand the training and technical assistance it offered. In the case of the East Bay Management Assistance Partnership Project, the East Bay Community Foundation made use of an initial planning grant from the Packard Foundation. Some but not all of these funders continued their involvement by supporting the recommended solution.

It is possible to carry out an assessment process and design an action plan without a preidentified funder to support the plan’s implementation. For example, a small community foundation may want to spearhead a new technology capacity-building effort and choose to start by funding an assessment. In such cases, it is crucial to build a search for implementation funders into the assessment process so that the assessment lives beyond someone’s filing cabinet.

Choose a Lead Consultant

Everyone interviewed about the assessment process agreed that the lead consultant’s nonprofit-management and hands-on technology expertise is crucial to the success of the assessment. In fact, Joan Fanning says, “The lead consultant better have some grounding in technology and, more importantly, in the nonprofit world. Otherwise they shouldn’t be listened to.”

Fanning’s own previous experience included starting four community computer centers, working with the city’s public-access centers, and serving as IT director for a local charity. Her local connections and familiarity with existing resources helped her to talk with the right people, ask the right questions, and shortcut some of the work involved in mapping resources.

In the Washington, DC effort, lead consultant Jennifer Keller Jackson had experience working with nonprofits and technology as the director of consulting at the Telecommunications Cooperative Network (TCN). She relied on her local network of colleagues and her leadership team to build bridges to new communities within DC.

Set Up an Advisory Group

A community of support provides information, connections, and guidance for the assessment process. Whether designed as a leadership team or an advisory group, it can mobilize ongoing support and bring together community leaders for brainstorming, advice, contacts, and resources.

The key is to invite people well respected in the community who can mobilize other leaders. Look for people who have a stake in any future technology capacity-building effort. Members might include community leaders, nonprofit executives, community foundation officers, potential funders, and local technical assistance (TA) providers. It is also important to include people with and without technology expertise. You not only need people who will understand the technical implications of possible solutions but also people who understand the politics of the nonprofit community. To encourage participants from less-well-funded organizations to attend, consider offering an honorarium.

The size of the group can vary. The Technology Works leadership team had 25 members, and Jennifer Keller Jackson considered that to be very large. Her larger group meetings met one objective (such as brainstorming or keeping the field informed of her progress), and she used one-on-one consultations with individual members to accomplish other tasks. For example, one member helped develop a concept paper on one of the three strategies for the action plan. In between meetings, she used e-mail updates and requested comments on written documents from leadership team members.

Before the group meets for the first time, define its objectives. Is the group’s function to generate ideas for the consultant? Or is the group’s goal to come up with the action plan? Is it an advisory team that reacts or a more participatory group that parcels out the work? Make clear to the members what the group’s role will be. Roles can range from decision-making to providing advice and opening doors.

Next: Defining the Target Assessment Community

Last updated: 1 August 2001 mff
www.benton.org/Practice/TA/commkitpage2.html