Key questions to explore are:

• Who will drive the effort?
• What resources do they bring, and what limits do they set?
• Who can be enlisted as a partner?
• What funding and leadership resources have been identified?

In the case of Technology Works, Jennifer Keller Jackson determined that more than enough technology assistance services existed; the problem was lack of widespread awareness of them. In Seattle, Joan Fanning determined that existing technical assistance providers, though providing excellent service, targeted particular sectors (environmental-advocacy organizations, for example). Additional services for the broader Puget Sound nonprofit community were needed.

The recommendations should be practical and possible. Because an action plan will likely call for funds to be directed to certain organizations and not others, the recommendations may have political consequences in the local technical assistance community. Be wise and prepare for possible fallout. Remember that your goal is to give nonprofits access to more effective help without attacking the existing organization. Build on what exists when possible, keeping intentions clear and up front to minimize damage.

Tactics for Groundwork

The ideal way to gain support for a new technology capacity-building effort is for nonprofits to advocate for technology to funders and agencies in the community that might help to provide services. If any leaders have emerged during the assessment process, encourage them to band together to ask for what is needed. What would this look like in practice? Several nonprofit directors might convene a lunchtime discussion and invite potential contributors as well as other nonprofits. A small group of nonprofit directors might become involved in lobbying efforts to make the case that broad-based technology resources would benefit all nonprofits in the community and help them to function more effectively. Dan McDougall of the United Way reported that some funders are actively seeking out information on technology funding. For example, the Council of Michigan Foundations requested that the United Way lead workshops on how technology can support nonprofit programs. The directors might start by approaching one or two foundations that seem most interested, to test the waters.

Oftentimes, funders must be educated about what is needed, based on the results of the assessment. Find ways to demonstrate the connection between effective use of technology and the mission of each nonprofit. Benton's Strategic Communications in the Digital Age (www.benton.org/Practice/Toolkit) and TechSoup (www.techsoup.org) both contain stories about how nonprofits are using technology effectively. Similarly, the Philanthropy Journal (www.pnnonline.org) and the Chronicle of Philanthropy (www.philanthropy.com) often publish articles about the intersection of technology and nonprofits. Compile and disseminate these stories; convene brown-bag sessions where successful nonprofit organizations share how technology has advanced their missions.

In some cases, funding may be secured in advance for a new technology capacity-building effort. In the case of Technology Works and NPower, funders supported the assessment in order to generate an action plan that they would then also support. In other cases, though, the end of the assessment may be the end of guaranteed funding. Part of the recommendation, in those cases, should be for strategies to secure new resources. Explore the possibilities for collaboration; for example, multiple funders may support one project.

Possible Solutions

It bears repeating that this Toolkit does not seek to make specific recommendations for any given community. No one solution can meet the technology needs of every community’s nonprofit sector. The solutions proposed below are simply examples of what some communities have selected.

• An Umbrella Networking Organization: In cases where many resources are available but not a central repository of resources, a coordinating agency is needed to make referrals and create opportunities for communication between nonprofits and technology assistance providers. This is the recommendation that came out of the DC Technology Works project. East Bay Management Assistance Partnership Project also resulted in an effort to coordinate existing resources by establishing referral agencies in different parts of the community.
• An Expansion of Existing Services: Where there is a strong existing service provider for nonprofits, you may simply recommend that the organization provide additional services that nonprofits need. In the case of the Michigan United Way, the outcome of the survey was more in-depth research and a recommended redesign of Comnet, a previously existing online technology resource.
• A New Technology Assistance Center: This solution can be a powerful but also an expensive and delicate choice. NPower was formed out of Joan Fanning’s needs assessment. The initial NPower Prospectus can be downloaded from www.npower.org/Cool_Tools/biz_plan.htm.
• A Volunteer Matching Service: If you are in a region with a technologically skilled population, a volunteer matching service may be the solution. CompuMentor’s Mentor Matching program is an example of a successful, long-lived matching program. CompuMentor offers a handbook on starting your own program; order it through Compumentor’s software program (www.compumentor.org/software/default.html). Another option is to work with existing volunteer centers to tailor their services to the technology needs of the community’s nonprofits. Help them screen technology volunteers and develop enough internal expertise to oversee a technology project. Still another possibility is to publicize online volunteer-matching resources, such as Impact Online’s VolunteerMatch (www.volunteermatch.org).
• Circuit Riding: Circuit riding is a good approach for working with organizations who are way behind in technology use. See the e-riders section of the Rockefeller Technology Project Web site (www.techrocks.org/action.lasso) for more details on circuit-riding programs and case studies.
• New Classes: Identify technology classes offered at a discount to nonprofits. Petition local colleges and universities to offer a specific class. Convince a local consultant to offer a workshop. Work with existing training centers or management-support organizations to extend their offerings.
• Service Learning Programs: Given that college and trade school students now must acquire a high level of technology expertise, the potential is great for technology service learning programs. Similar models that are already working include Netcorps in Eugene, Oregon (www.netcorps.org) and Americorps programs such as TeamTech. With direct advocacy from the nonprofit sector, trade schools and colleges can see the potential benefit to students as well.
• The Recruiting and Listing of Consultants: CompuMentor receives many requests for referrals to consultants. If you find that nonprofits feel isolated and uninformed when it comes to choosing someone to install a network or build a Web site, one option may be a public listing of consultants who work with nonprofits. Such a listing allows consultants to advertise reduced rates, if they offer them, and makes it easier to recruit consultants to offer reduced rates. One example of such a consultant listing in a specific community is CompassPoint Nonprofit Services’ Consultants OnTap (www.ontap.org).
• A Comprehensive Resource Map: After beginning the resource-mapping process, you may find enough resources but that nonprofits do not know how to find them. You may undertake a more comprehensive resource mapping and publicize the map you create. You could make a Web site with a searchable database of resources, for instance. Technology Works DC (www.technologyworks.org) is pursuing this approach.
• Leadership Development: Consider providing education (not technical training) for nonprofit leaders and funders, in a “safe” environment, as to what technology exists and how to integrate it into strategic planning. If these leaders—who often fear technology or at least think they don’t understand it—don’t “get it,” the barriers for nonprofits using technology to further their missions will remain high.

Your leadership team as well as the nonprofits you have interviewed and talked with in focus groups can be resources for the decision-making. Check with selected participants about the observations and recommendations that came out of the study. It is essential to run a possible decision by potential clients if funders are planning to invest a great deal of money into the project. Will nonprofits be interested and does the proposed solution make sense to them? Do they agree with your recommendation, given what you learned and given external factors that limit what you can do?

Your action plan may change as you begin implementation. The community-assessment process is a first step, but the continuing input of local nonprofits is the best means to ensure that a solution effectively addresses the needs of the community. In the ideal scenario, the nonprofits will organize and advocate superior technology assistance. In the nonprofit sector of the 21st century, this informed responsiveness to actual resources and gaps in each community will allow us to bridge the digital divide.

In the months following the initial research and writing of this Community Toolkit, Microsoft committed $10 million to bring the NPower model to 12 cities around the U.S. Technology Works for Good established itself as a nonprofit organization in the heart of Washington, DC. In both cases, community assessment and planning led to very real outcomes!

Next: Appendix I- Focus Group Protocol