About OMB Watch

About OMB Watch 

OMB Watch is a nonprofit organization concerned about the federal government’s institutional 

responsiveness to public needs, including those of charities. Most of our energy is devoted to encouraging 

greater citizen participation in the decision-making activities of our federal government, thereby assuring 

increased accountability. 

Since the Office of Management and Budget oversees budget, regulation, information collection and 

dissemination, proposed legislation, testimony from agencies, and much more, it is the main focus of our 

work. However, we monitor the work of other federal agencies and engage in specific issues areas that 

further our concerns for greater government access and accountability. In particular, we work in five main 

issue areas: federal budget, federal regulation, access to government information, protection of the 

advocacy voice of the nonprofit sector, use of technology in the nonprofit sector. 

At the national level, we work closely with many organizations through coalitions and other approaches to 

jointly tackle public policy concerns. At the state and local level, we work to educate community groups 

about federal issues, hoping they will get more involved in the activities of our government. We work with 

and through community groups in order to get our message to the public. 

We invite you to join OMB Watch: 

Class 1: Individuals, Community Groups & Public Libraries 

Basic: $ 35 

Sustaining: $100 

Class 2: National Organizations & Businesses 

Basic: $100 

Sustaining: $250 

Basic members receive the OMB Watcher and selected short analyses. 

Sustaining members receive all OMB Watch periodicals and special reports. 

OMB Watch also accepts contributions, which are tax deductible. 

Send your contribution or membership dues to: 

OMB Watch 

1742 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20009

Preface 

NonProfit America (NPA) began with an ambitious concept paper laying out a comprehensive 

vision to improve communications linkages within the nonprofit sector to strengthen public policy 

participation. The organizations engaged in planning for NPA have concluded, on the basis of 

the results of our various research and planning efforts, that NPA as this grand concept should be 

retired. We are agreed, however, that specific components should be pursued by an assortment 

of nonprofits. 

The first chapter of this report provides our vision of what should be pursued. The ideas are 

based on OMB Watch research findings during the NonProfit America (NPA) planning phase. At 

the heart of our recommendations are three elements: (a) Develop “coordination” tools to improve 

communications linkages; (b) Strengthen technology skills-building activities; and (c) Initiate 

a series of pilots to test different applications of newer technologies in the context of public 

policy matters. Each are described in the chapter. 

The second chapter provides an analysis of comments from nonprofits about NonProfit America 

and their capacity to use newer information technologies. The third chapter provides a summary 

of the work of the Technology Advisory Committee, which was convened by OMB Watch to 

provide ideas about shaping NPA. 

The final chapter describes the planning for the US NonProfit Gateway, which is a one-stop 

Web site operated by the federal government to give nonprofits access to government information. 

The chapter also describes a pilot in Ohio to create an online conference on the impact of 

devolution on nonprofits. The Ohio pilot was led by the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations. 

This report and all research activity on NonProfit America would not have been possible without 

support from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. We would like to thank Bill White, Suzanne 

Feurt, and Gavin Clabaugh of the Mott Foundation for their active engagement in this project. We 

also want to thank our partners that were involved in NPA planning: the Forum of Regional Association 

of Grantmakers, Independent Sector, National Council of Nonprofit Associations, and The 

Union Institute. The Technology Advisory Committee (TAC), described in this report, played an 

important role in our deliberations and an invaluable role in the NPA process. The TAC members 

are listed at the end of chapter three. In addition, we want to thank the many nonprofit organizations 

that helped us during this project. And, finally, we want to thank Patricia Bauman for her 

thoughtful reading of this report in draft, and all the other readers (many of whom are acknowledged 

above) who gave us their thoughtful comments and careful proofreadings. 

The OMB Watch staff who worked on this project included Gary Bass, Patrice McDermott, Tom 

Freebairn, Shannon Harry (who now works for the National Council of Nonprofit Associations), 

and Ari Schwartz. Heather Hamilton, Jennifer Grayson, Barbara Western, and Jennifer LaPointe 

also provided help at various points. Terry Grunwald of NCexChange also helped with conducting 

interviews. David Maywhoor of the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations deserves a 

pat on the back for his willingness to lead a pilot on use of the Internet even as he was learning 

to use it himself. And, finally, we want to thank Doris Matsui of the White House Office of Public 

Liaison and all agency staff participating in the development of the US NonProfit Gateway. Without 

your work, the prototype of the Gateway would not have been developed. 

Further information about this project can be found on OMB Watch’s web site. 

May 1997

Table of Contents 

Chapter I: 

OMB Watch’s Vision of Communications 

and Collaboration 7 

This chapter describes a plan for coordinating communications 

linkages within the nonprofit sector in order to improve public 

policy participation. The key building blocks include: (a) tools 

for coordinating communications linkages; (b) building the skills 

of nonprofits to use information technologies; and (c) creating 

a series of pilots. 

Chapter II: 

OMB Watch NonProfit America Survey Research 

and Interviews 31 

This chapter summarizes the findings from: (a) a survey of 

roughly 600 nonprofits from around the country; and (b) interviews 

and discussions with roughly 100 nonprofits, most of which 

were national organizations. The research focused on the need 

for NonProfit America, how it should be shaped if it moved forward, 

the capacity of nonprofits to use newer information technologies, 

and how nonprofits perceived the value of newer technologies 

in encouraging greater public policy participation. 

Chapter III: Technology Advisory Committee 57 

This chapter summarizes the work of the TAC, an advisory group 

convened by OMB Watch to suggest communications strategies 

for implementing NonProfit America. Four commissioned 

papers are summarized and the votes on TAC recommendations 

presented. 

Chapter IV: Other Planning Activities (US NonProfit Gateway 

& Ohio Pilot Project) 77 

This chapter describes two projects undertaken during the NPA 

planning period. The US NonProfit Gateway, is a federal government 

Web site for nonprofit organizations to get easy access 

to agency information about grants, regulations, and other 

materials. The Web prototype is available for testing at: . The Ohio pilot was an online discussion 

about the impact of devolution on nonprofit organizations. Led 

by the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations, roughly 100 

groups participated, including congressional and White House 

staff. 

Appendix: OMB Watch’s Involvement with NonProfit America 93 

A discussion of why OMB Watch was involved with NPA and 

what our C.S. Mott Foundation grant required. 

OMB Watch — May 1997 

• 5

6 • Building Blocks for the Future

Chapter I 

OMB Watch’s Vision of 

Communications and Collaboration 

This chapter provides background on OMB Watch’s involvement in a planning, research, 

and demonstration project, originally called NonProfit America (NPA), and its vision for 

coordinating communications linkages within the nonprofit sector in order to improve public 

policy participation. The chapter includes a description of the key principles and building 

blocks that should be put in place, along with a summary in graphical form of our main 

points. 

NPA generated an extraordinary amount of productive thought, effort, and enthusiasm 

among nonprofit organizations across the country — and centered discussions on how 

newer information technologies can be used by the sector to improve public policy participation. 

Unfortunately, it has been used to describe so many different (and occasionally 

conflicting) concepts, expectations, and structures that it has been impossible to get a 

handle on what the “it” really is. Accordingly, OMB Watch believes that the name “NonProfit 

America” should be retired, but that certain components should move forward. 

Improving the ability of the nonprofit community to engage in public policy matters is at 

the heart of building a healthy and robust civil society, a concept our nation mightily depends 

upon. The nonprofit community has always played a significant role in the formulation, 

implementation, and assessment of public policies, and has enjoyed a rich history of 

interaction with all levels of government. The challenge today is to strengthen the nonprofit 

sector’s ability to engage in public policy matters, building on the sector’s diversity and its 

ability to give voice to millions of Americans across this country. 

Newer information technologies may offer opportunities that previously never existed for 

strengthening public policy participation. The Internet, for example, makes interactive multidirectional 

communications possible — and at relatively low cost. For the nonprofit sector, 

this means that communications within the sector (or within subsets of the sector) can be 

made more affordable, more coordinated, and, with proper tools, more manageable. If 

information is the lifeblood of democracy, then newer information technologies can 

strengthen the body politic. 

From OMB Watch’s perspective, seizing the opportunities of newer information technologies 

in a strategic manner rests on the sector’s ability to improve coordinative and 

collaborative activities. We believe there are three key building blocks that need to be put 

in place now: 

❐ 

❐ 

Tools for coordinating communications linkages within the sector; 

Skills-building of nonprofits to use information technologies 1 ; and 

❐ A series of pilots and information hubs. 

Each of these efforts requires coordination among existing entities and services and 

1 

Other research during the NPA planning process demonstrated that some nonprofit organizations and 

grantmakers need help in understanding why they should focus on policy public matters and how to do so. 

OMB Watch research did not focus on improving the capacity of nonprofits to engage in public policy 

initiatives, so we are not qualified in making explicit recommendations in this area. Our research efforts 

were focused on how communications technologies can be used by the sector to improve public policy 

participation. 


• 7

collaboration on specific tasks, which are are described below. 

I. Setting the Context 

OMB Watch believes that the timing is right to reap the advantages of newer information 

technologies. The cost of computers and software has been declining dramatically, while 

computing power and capability have increased. Use of the Internet has grown exponentially 

over the past decade, making it possible, at minimal cost, to communicate with larger 

numbers of people, and in ways that previously could never have happened. This growth 

pattern has not totally bypassed the nonprofit sector. Increasingly, although not universally, 

nonprofit organizations either already have Internet access or plan to in the near 

future. In all likelihood, the “teching up” of the nonprofit sector will continue to occur naturally. 

Despite this, there will always be questions about how to accelerate the natural pace of 

teching-up and about the best ways to teach the sector to use these technologies. The 

fact that newer technologies are popping up every day makes the teching up of the sector 

seem daunting, if not impossible. Only a short time ago, for example, the World Wide Web 

and browser software did not exist. Yet, even as we purchase and learn to use the latest 

browser software, we are told by the technology gurus that the browser will become a 

thing of the past; that someday soon we will be able to create a profile of the type of 

information we want and it will be delivered to any type of device we choose, such as a 

telephone or a personal digital assistant. 

OMB Watch’s vision is not to create an initiative that keeps pace with the latest cutting 

edge technology. That would be like shooting at a randomly moving target — ultimately 

futile. Instead, our objective is to lay the foundation for seizing the newer technologies, to 

put in place the building blocks that can capitalize on these technologies. 

But why do so? Is this an initiative for nonprofits to have more “toys” — to play with 

newer technologies? From OMB Watch’s experience, quite the opposite is true. For some 

in the nonprofit sector, newer information technologies have become an essential day-today 

tools for advancing their organizational mission. Various policy initiatives — regulatory 

campaigns, legislative fights, public education efforts, debates about policy directions — 

have literally depended on use of such technologies as the Internet. 

For example, the Cook Inlet Keeper and the Trustees for Alaska, two nonprofit organizations 

in Alaska, recently sent out an action alert to stop the sale of submerged federal 

lands for oil and gas drilling. The Keeper and the Trustees encouraged those with access 

to the World Wide Web to fill out a 

short form on EcoNet which would be faxed directly to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt 

and Alaska Governor Tony Knowles at no cost to the user. As of April 15, almost 300 faxes 

had been received from across the country and the lease sale was postponed. Organizers 

credit much of the success of this campaign to citizen participation made possible by the 

Internet. 

Some people have drawn an analogy between the introduction of the Gutenberg printing 

press and today’s Internet, arguing that, just as the printing press vastly changed 

relationships of authority and power, so too has the Internet. The opportunity for the nonprofit 

sector is to capitalize on these changes and create ways for local, state, and national 

nonprofits to share information and work interactively with each other — to change 

the relationships of power and authority. By building greater inclusivity within the sector, 

with assurances of protection from information overload, there will be more options for 


engaging in relevant public policy matters — and, ultimately, for being more effective in 

shaping public policies to meet public needs. 

OMB Watch recognizes that many nonprofit organizations and grantmakers do not currently 

engage in public policy matters, and that working on daily tasks, such as program 

services, takes precedence over such matters, and leaves little time to engage in them. 

Many other nonprofit organizations understand the importance of public policy, but do not 

have the necessary resources (e.g., adequate staffing, capital) to engage. Even for those 

already engaging in public policy matters, additional skills-building is necessary (e.g., 

what are lobbying rules, how to be an effective advocate, how to improve policy analytic 

skills, etc.) These issues need to be addressed, but should not cause a delay in building 

improved communications linkages within the sector. 

As a sector, we must move today to put in place the building blocks that will help us 

better use information technologies as tools to more effectively participate in public policy 

matters. This chapter describes the key principles and components that should undergird 

an endeavor to construct these building blocks. At the heart of the endeavor is the belief 

that greater coordination and collaboration of existing resources is essential for moving 

forward. 

OMB Watch and NonProfit America 

Over the years, OMB Watch has had direct experience with how the information superhighway 

can be used as a powerful advocacy tool. For example, in 1989, along with 

Unison Institute, we developed RTK NET (the Right-to-Know Network), an online service 

intended to empower community groups by providing key databases, analytic tools, and 

discussion groups on information about toxic chemical releases, bank loans for home 

mortgages, census data, and much more. Today, more than 5,000 groups around the 

country use RTK NET. 

Although we believe that newer information technologies can be powerful tools in engaging 

in public policy matters, we know that the nonprofit community has barely tapped 

the potential of this new tool. That is why in May 1996, OMB Watch wrote a concept paper 

that called for strengthening communications linkages within the nonprofit sector. 

Along with the Council of Foundations, the Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers 

(Forum of RAGs), Independent Sector, the National Council of Nonprofit Associations 

(NCNA), and The Union Institute, we modified the OMB Watch concept paper and launched 

the idea of NonProfit America (NPA). The C.S. Mott Foundation provided planning grants 

to the Forum of RAGs, NCNA, OMB Watch, and The Union Institute to research various 

aspects of NPA. The Mott grantees, along with Independent Sector, which participated in 

planning as an advisor, became known as the NPA Planning Partners. 

The tasks required by the OMB Watch grant included assessing how nonprofit organizations 

felt about the need for NPA, and describing what NPA would look like if it were to 

move forward. The Planning Partners, however, had differing opinions about what should 

2 

Since nonprofits are at different levels of proficiency with regard to engaging in policy matters, there will 

be a desire to use these types of initiatives to provide various types of trainings (e.g., advocacy trainings). 

These activities should be undertaken, but not under the auspices of improving communications linkages. 

3 

While members/contributors of nonprofit organizations can be served, that should not be the focus. The 

objective should be to serve the people working for or volunteering with a nonprofit organization, allowing 

the organization to redistribute information on an as-needed basis. 


• 9

e subsumed under NPA, the priorities of what should be emphasized, and how it should 

be implemented. The shortness of the planning period —- roughly six months — made it 

even more difficult to resolve these differences. 

The conclusion of the Planning Partners was to retire NPA as a comprehensive partnership 

but to encourage: (a) each of the Partners to meet the needs of their memberships 

and constituencies; (b) collaborations involving combinations of the Partners and other 

nonprofits; and (c) implementation of activities that will lead to greater public policy participation 

and to new or strengthened communications linkages within the sector to improve 

participation in policy matters. The Forum and NCNA have each prepared a public 

report on their NPA research findings. 

This report is a summary of OMB Watch’s research and planning activities, and describes 

initiatives to improve communications linkages within the sector in order to 

strengthen public policy participation. Our description recognizes and incorporates the 

cluster of activities already underway. 

II. Key Principles 

Through the NPA planning process, OMB Watch has come to believe that a nonprofit 

communications initiative can be accomplished, and that it must incorporate the following 

principles: 

r The main purpose of the initiative should be to improve communications linkages 

throughout the sector in order to strengthen the ability of nonprofit 

organizations — as a whole and as subsectors — to engage in public policy 

matters. The strength of our nonprofit sector comes from the grassroots and its 

diversity. Thus, one starting point for coordinating communications linkages within 

the sector is with the grassroots, to empower state and local nonprofits to communicate 

with one another. A successful communications initiative, however, is not 

solely about providing tools to state and local nonprofits, but also about providing 

tools to help grassroots and national organizations work together on critical policy 

concerns. Thus, the communications linkages must be “bottom-up,” “top-down,” 

and “peer-to-peer,” creating opportunities to meet in the middle. Once again, from 

our perspective, there are many ways of improving and increasing policy participation, 

but the main focus of this initiative should be on one aspect — improving 

communications linkages within the sector. 2 

r The primary target audience should be staff, volunteers, and board members 

of nonprofit organizations, including grantmakers and donors to nonprofit 

organizations. The communications linkages should be available to anyone in 

the nonprofit sector, 3 although specific communications may be targeted to selected 

audiences. In all likelihood, this type of initiative would best serve those 

already interested and engaged in public policy issues at the local, state, or national 

levels. For those not yet engaged in public policy issues, this type of initiative 

might help educate them about issues and even result in their getting more 

involved. 

r A communications initiative need not and should not entail establishing a 

newly incorporated organization. Instead, it should rely on linking existing 

resources and organizations. Setting up a communications link, while not re- 


r 

r 

quiring a new organization, does require establishing new types of collaborations 

and improved coordination. 

The initiative should be focused on strengthening communications mechanisms, 

not on developing policy positions for or about the sector. This type of 

initiative should not be confused with organizations or coalitions that take policy 

positions. Rather, the communications mechanisms would facilitate the ability of 

any and all participating groups to share their positions and organize policy actions. 

The initiative should support a continuum from low-technology communications 

tools (e.g., telephone, fax) to high-end tools (e.g., Internet). The Internet 

provides opportunities for low-cost, speedy, multi-directional, interactive communications 

that previously never existed. These opportunities should be seized. But, to 

the extent that it is economically feasible, low-technology approaches should also 

be employed. 

The initiative should encourage activities that build the capacity of the sector 

to use the Internet and newer information technologies in the context of public 

policy issues. The objective is to not leave people behind by strengthening 

communications linkages that only a small part of the nonprofit sector can use. 

Because the Internet affords so many new opportunities, the first effort should be 

to bring nonprofits into the Internet world. This can be done by relying on existing 

training organizations, “circuit riders,” and other educational activities, assuming 

that financial resources are available. 

III. Key Building Blocks 

Based on our NPA research, there are several important components to building an initiative 

that has the objective of improving communications linkages within the sector in order 

to strengthen the ability of nonprofit organizations to engage in public policy matters. These 

include: 

❏ Tools for coordinating existing communications linkages so that nonprofits 

can disseminate and obtain information that is of concern to the sector. This 

coordination does not require establishing a new communications infrastructure 

(the Internet already exists) or promoting a single nonprofit source for Internet 

access (there are already many low-cost and free Internet Service Providers). 

Rather, it requires action on three critical fronts — a coordinated registration 

system, tools to allow people to identify the type of information that they want to 

receive (and to easily change this profile if desired) so that they do not get 

overloaded with information, and tools to help people insure that they are getting 

the type of information that they want. 

❏ Skills-building of nonprofits to use information technologies (e.g., the Internet), 

4 

Information overload was not created by the Internet or e-mail, but has the potential to exacerbate the 

problem. This communications initiative, if approached properly, could use newer information technologies 

to help reduce information overload. 


• 11

particularly in the context of public policy matters; and 

❏ A series of pilots, including the development of several state information hubs, 

whereby the full value of the Internet and other information technologies can be 

tested by addressing substantive nonprofit policy agendas. 

A. Coordinating Communications Linkages 

Our research showed that nonprofit organizations, especially smaller nonprofits, 

strongly support efforts that will improve communications within the sector. Many want 

to make better use of the Internet and claim they either have Internet access or plan to 

have such access in the near future, but remain concerned that building a communications 

link around the Internet will leave some nonprofits behind. 

These findings suggest that a communications structure should go beyond the use of 

the Internet to include low-tech approaches (e.g., fax and telephone), but such a broad 

approach would significantly raise the cost of the initiative. OMB Watch strongly supports 

the principle of incorporating low-tech communications approaches, contingent on availability 

of resources. 

Our research findings also show that nonprofits strongly support a means for dealing 

with current and potential information overload. 4 The findings suggest that, in building a 

communications linkage, it is important to give individuals the power to select the type of 

information they want and to be able to modify their own selections easily. This type of 

“local” control in establishing individual profiles is essential to building a successful communications 

initiative. 

To achieve this objective, three types of coordination tools need to be developed: 

r A coordinated registration structure; 

r A “coordination matrix” that allows people to establish filters according to subject 

and type of information and mechanism for receipt, and for tailoring distribution 

— and to modify the filters easily; and 

r A classification scheme, incorporating a taxonomy and thesaurus, to help 

implement the coordination matrix. 

First, a registration structure needs to be developed that involves two components: a 

database of interested participants, often called the contact database; and an outreach/ 

recruitment effort to encourage people to register. The registration structure is something 

like an electronic yellow pages so that people can find each other (both as individuals and 

nonprofit organizations). 5 

During the planning phase, some organizations expressed concern about creating a 

5 

Yahoo, an online search engine on the Web, already allows you to get the home address and phone 

number for anyone in the U.S. who has a listed telephone. You can also search for e-mail addresses. You 

cannot, however, find people or nonprofit organizations working on specific issues (e.g., poverty, children’s 

issues, arts, etc.). Some services are moving in this direction. For example, the Nonprofit Locator — the 

url is — and Guidestar — the url is — each allow you to search for the name of a nonprofit by keyword (Guidestar allows 

searches by agency mission) and state. Under each you get substantial financial information, but not 

information about the staff or even a phone number. 


database of names or about a recruitment effort, fearing that: (a) it was a power-play by 

national organizations to develop a centralized database of nonprofit organizations, bypassing 

state-based organizations; (b) recruitment would be competitive with membership 

organizations or existing online services; (c) the names might be used for inappropriate 

solicitations (such as fundraising); (d) they might lose control over the names, which, 

in turn, translates into power; and (e) maintenance of a centralized national database of 

names would be very difficult. 

The issues associated with the contact database and with outreach/recruitment are 

very sensitive ones, yet are central to improved communications within the sector. While 

technical solutions can be found to these issues, the real key is whether there is enough 

trust among key groups to build the cooperation, collaboration, and coordination that is 

necessary to make this initiative successful. We believe a “working group” needs to be 

established to discuss these issues and develop recommendations. Discussion of this 

working group is found under the “Implementation” section below. 

While OMB Watch did not receive enough input on the subject of how to create a 

coordinated registration structure to recommend a specific approach, we believe that 

these issues can be resolved. In today’s Internet world, the contact database can be 

constructed so that state-based and membership organizations or online services can 

still retain the database of names or be given control over the use of the names. They 

must, however, work cooperatively to develop standardized information collection and 

database formats (although they may individually want to collect additional information 

beyond the common standard). One approach would be to have each of these organizations 

maintain their respective databases on their own computers, but have them linked 

in a distributed manner. Alternatively, a common World Wide Web registration form could 

be made available through each organization or service which automatically stores the 

information in a centrally located computer, but is regionally (or state or locally) maintained 

and updated. In each example, the control over the contact database can be local, 

while the location of the computer may or may not be local. 

Once a registration structure is agreed upon, it will be necessary to recruit organizations 

to participate. This might be done through existing online services, such as HandsNet, 

and through national and state conferences. The recruitment can also be done through 

state nonprofit associations and other key state organizations, which, if agreements are 

reached, could help to strengthen the state organizations themselves. These groups 

could expand their nonprofit membership base, while simultaneously helping to build a 

bigger base of nonprofit organizations potentially ready to engage in policy matters. 

Even recruitment need not result in any organization “giving up” its database of contacts. 

As described above, one approach would be to emphasize self-registration, asking 

key organizations and services to “advertise” the availability of the communications mechanisms. 

It is likely, however, that new outreach efforts will need to be developed to reach 

nonprofit organizations not now affiliated with existing organizations (e.g., state associations, 

national organizations). 

Second, “coordination matrix” software needs to be developed that permits registrants 

to identify the type of information they want to receive. Registrants should be able 

to select: topics they are interested in; whom they want to receive information from (e.g., 

names of organizations); types of documents they want (e.g., alerts, research findings); 

length of documents (e.g., nothing longer than 10 pages); the media for receiving the 

documents (e.g., fax, e-mail); and other items. Registrants should be able to change the 

filters easily to fit their needs so that they have control over what they receive. We have 


• 13

called these filters a “coordination matrix.” 

The coordination matrix is needed for two-way (and multiple-way) communications with 

individuals in nonprofit organizations. An individual wishing to send information would 

need to identify the subject matter and other criteria for the communication to reach the 

targeted audience. An individual finding that s/he is receiving unwanted communications 

can simply change the description of type of information wanted (i.e., change the profile 

filter). 

Third, in order to make the coordination matrix work, a classification scheme needs to 

be created so that users can obtain appropriate choices (e.g., subject matter) for selecting 

items when using the coordination matrix. The classification scheme can also be used 

for getting better precision when searching for information through the Internet. 

The Internet has produced a glut of information because there are inadequate tools for 

refining searches and narrowing the type of information individuals receive. A taxonomy 

needs to be developed that, among other things, provides a list of subjects and issues 

that users can choose through the coordination matrix. A thesaurus needs to be developed 

to complement the taxonomy since many people will use terms they are familiar with 

in selecting or searching for information. Thus, the taxonomy and thesaurus become 

essential tools in making the coordination matrix work. 

These three tools — registry, coordination matrix, and classification scheme (including 

the taxonomy/thesaurus) — are needed to build improved communications coordination 

within the sector. 

Implementation of Coordination Tools 

We recommend that a nonprofit infrastructure organization, such as Independent Sector, 

take the lead in improving communications linkages within the nonprofit sector. Based 

on initial discussions, Independent Sector is willing to play a leadership role, but would 

want to undertake these efforts in an incremental fashion. For example, Independent 

Sector has taken steps to build a database framework that can be shared by the cochairs 

of the Let America Speak coalition, the coalition that was established to oppose 

efforts to silence the advocacy voice of nonprofit organizations. Under its Public Policy 

Initiative, Independent Sector is exploring ways to create an alert system that allows targeted 

e-mail and faxes to be distributed to the more than 3,000 state and local nonprofit 

organizations concerned about nonprofit advocacy issues. Ultimately, Independent Sector 

will consider whether to expand the base of 3,000 groups and permit all participants to 

post and receive information, and, if so, how best to do it. 

The Union Institute, through its research during the NPA planning process, identified 

some key elements that must be considered when developing the taxonomy and the 

thesaurus. A key element is building off existing classification schemes so that the result 

of this effort is used more widely, and in a variety of contexts (such as the U.S. NonProfit 

Gateway — see Chapter IV of this report). We believe it is important for The Union Institute 

to continue its work on developing the taxonomy and thesaurus, and to coordinate its 

efforts with the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities developed by Independent Sector. 

6 

We are familiar with a recent meeting to discuss “circuit riders.” To the extent that this group or others 

continue to meet, those efforts should be linked in some way to the Working Group. 


We also recommend that OMB Watch convene a Technology Working Group that builds 

upon the work of the Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) organized by OMB Watch 

during the NPA planning process (see Chapter III for more information). Several TAC 

members have stated that they would want to continue meeting to discuss collaborative 

projects and new ideas. We believe it very important that the TAC continue, but in an 

expanded form to include local, state, and national nonprofits actively involved in nonprofit 

policy issues. The primary mission of the new Working Group should be focused on 

collaborations to build the demand, skills, and applications for use of newer information 

technologies with regard to public policy issues. Specifically, the Working Group should: 

❏ Discuss case examples of innovative uses and applications of information 

technologies in pursuing public policy matters; 

❏ Recommend possible pilots that should be established to test the application of 

technology tools in policy matters (see discussion about pilots below); 

❏ Discuss the types of skills needed by nonprofits to use information technology 

tools to engage in public policy matters; 

❏ Review any steps being undertaken to develop communications linkages within 

the sector (such as those being undertaken by Independent Sector), including 

the development of a classification scheme, and recommend further actions, if 

necessary; and 

❏ Discuss opportunities for collaboration in using information technologies in 

engaging in public policy matters. 

The name of the Working Group and how it should be governed (e.g., chairing the 

meetings) should be left to the participants to determine. 6 

B. Skills-Building 

The three organizations involved in doing NonProfit America survey research and focus 

groups — Forum of RAGs, NCNA, and OMB Watch — found a major need for building the 

capacity of nonprofit organizations to use information technologies and to engage in public 

policy activities. 7 As it relates to technology capacity building, there are many organizations 

— nonprofit and for-profit — already providing training and technical assistance to 

nonprofits. We concur with the Technology Advisory Committee’s recommendation (see 

Chapter III of this report for more information) that any capacity-building initiatives involve 

existing organizations in their design and execution. A critical concern is that existing 

services, such as the Technology Resource Consortium members, “circuit riders,” community 

computer centers, and CompuMentor, are already severely underfunded, operating 

with limited resources to address a significant need. Thus, resources are needed to 

strengthen effective services. 

7 

OMB Watch research did not focus on improving skills of nonprofits to engage in public policy initiatives, 

so we are not qualified to make explicit recommendations in this area. 

8 

The Center for Strategic Communications estimated in an NPA-commissioned paper that a comprehensive 

training and technical assistance program reaching 35,000 nonprofit organizations would cost more 

than $120 million over a three year period. While training costs may decline as technology becomes more 

ubiquitous, technical assistance would likely be on-going and create large per-unit costs. 


• 15

Capacity-building initiatives can become very expensive and may appear to create only 

a small ripple in the ocean of nonprofit needs. 8 For this reason, many foundations may be 

less inclined to support a major initiative, letting technology market forces move in ways 

that ultimately will include the nonprofit sector. Unfortunately, these market forces will 

leave behind smaller, less affluent nonprofits. This has begun already to result in information 

haves and have-nots within the nonprofit sector. 

While we do not propose that there be a new broad-based, comprehensive capacitybuilding 

initiative, we do strongly support other organizations undertaking a new technology 

capacity-building initiative that would be narrowly focused, targeted to nonprofit organizations 

interested in using newer technologies to engage in public policy matters. Such 

an effort would have four components: 9 

❐ 

Mapping of existing resources for technology assistance for nonprofits. The 

Center for Strategic Communications has been working on an inventory of nonprofit 

groups involved in communications and/or technical assistance. Additionally, 

the Morino Institute has had an ongoing project to develop a list of low-cost and 

free Internet Service Providers around the country. Other efforts, including work 

being undertaken by the Applied Research and Development Institute, may involve 

mapping activities that provide additional information about resources for 

technology assistance. 

As a first step in doing the mapping exercise, decisions need to be made about 

what is to be mapped in order to keep the exercise manageable. Second, current 

mapping activities need to be identified and coordinated, and gaps need to be 

filled, to develop a comprehensive map of existing resources. 

The results of the mapping exercise need to be made publicly available through 

online and print media. The online version should be housed in a database 10 that 

allows users to search by different fields (e.g., state, type of technical assistance 

needed). Furthermore, resources need to be provided to maintain the database so 

that it is regularly updated and useful to the nonprofit sector. 

❐ 

Strengthening training programs focused on teaching online skills, with particular 

emphasis on using the Internet. Members of the Technology Resource 

Consortium and others have begun developing training curricula on use of the 

Internet. Some of these organizations, as well as such organizations as HandsNet 

and EcoNet, have also developed training sites; other entities, such as university 

extension services, may have facilities that could be used. These activities and 

agencies need to be built upon with the implementation of a pilot training program 

focused on use of the Internet for public policy purposes. In a commissioned paper 

for the Technology Advisory Committee, the Information Technology Resource 

Center of Chicago developed the outlines of a pilot training program and estimated 

the cost of the pilot to be around $300,000. 

9 

The organizations identified below are not intended to be an exhaustive list of groups undertaking such 

work, but rather illustrative of ongoing activities. 

10 

The discussion above about centralized vs. distributed databases applies here as well. It may be more 

appropriate to house the mapping results in “local” databases rather than in one centralized database. 


❐ 

❐ 

Use of “circuit riders” to supplement the pilot training program. The Rockefeller 

Family Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, Surdna Foundation and the W. 

Alton Jones Foundation have joined together to initiate circuit rider programs that 

provide technical support to nonprofit organizations and coalitions. Feedback from 

organizations receiving the services from circuit riders has been very positive. It 

would be helpful for circuit riders to provide follow-up assistance both to key state 

and local nonprofit organizations interested in engaging in public policy issues that 

participated in the pilot training program described above, as well as to selected 

nonprofits outside the pilot locations. 

Coordination among key state nonprofit organizations and organizations involved 

in provision of computers, hardware and software. There are national 

organizations, such as Gifts in Kind International, and local groups, such as the 

National Trust for the Development of African American Men, involved in coordinating 

the donation of used computers. There is little coordination among the different 

recycling programs. Furthermore, there is little coordination between the 

state nonprofit associations or other key state-based nonprofit organizations and 

these computer recyclers. Accordingly, an effort should be made to improve such 

coordination in order to get hardware and software donations to nonprofit organizations. 

This is not a recommendation to create a new national computer recycling 

program, but rather a recommendation to improve coordination of what already 

exists. The level of expenditures in this area should be balanced by the cost of 

providing new hardware and software; at some point, the costs of coordination 

may actually be greater than the cost of new equipment. Efforts should also be 

made to identify and coordinate sources for new equipment. 

With the rapid growth of technology tools, many organizations — for-profit and 

nonprofit — are providing training services to potential customers. This increase in 

training efforts is helping many nonprofit organizations to increase their capacity to 

use these newer tools. This natural market trend is good for the sector, but will 

never satisfy the needs of the sector, particularly for smaller nonprofit groups. Accordingly, 

we believe it is important to establish an ongoing assessment of the 

sector to incorporate and use newer information technologies. This assessment, 

combined with the mapping activities, will help to strategically channel resources 

for trainings and circuit riders into specific locations. 

Implementation of Skills-Building 

Foundation funds need to be available for implementing the above activities, including 

the mapping exercise and a plan for maintaining the database of existing resources, 

establishing a pilot training program as described above and strengthening the circuit 

rider program, and coordinating computer recycling programs with key nonprofit organizations 

and state associations. Unfortunately, most foundations do not have a program 

category for technology skills-building or do not know which organizations or programs to 

fund. Furthermore, single foundation grants may not be enough, unless combined or 

leveraged to raise additional funds. 

Accordingly, it may be helpful for a consortium of foundations to establish a Nonprofit 

Technology Training Fund. This Fund may be used to leverage additional resources from 

community foundations for specific projects or to match local, state, or federal government 

funding. OMB Watch did not receive, and does not offer, specific suggestions on 


• 17

how to implement or administer this Fund. We do, however, believe that the Fund’s skillsbuilding 

efforts should be targeted to nonprofit organizations interested in using technologies 

to engage in public policy matters. 

We believe organizations that have been part of the Technology Advisory Committee, 

as well as selected others, could provide the leadership to carry out these skills-building 

activities. Some organizations, such as the Center for Strategic Communications, 

CompuMentor, HandsNet, Technology Resource Consortium (which is having merger discussions 

with the National Management Association), and the Telecommunications Cooperative 

Network have contacted OMB Watch during the NPA planning process about 

wanting to provide such leadership. 11 Since these organizations would be invited to be 

part of the Technology Working Group, these types of issues could be discussed, hopefully 

building upon the strengths of the various participants to develop coordinated, economical 

approaches to the task of building technology skills within the sector. 

OMB Watch also believes that a plan that has been informally advanced by the Telecommunications 

Cooperative Network (TCN) for conducting an ongoing assessment of 

communications capacity of organizations within the sector would be very helpful. To the 

extent possible, the skills building efforts described above should be coordinated with the 

TCN idea of conducting a comprehensive assessment of communications capacity within 

the sector. The advantage of the TCN plan is twofold: (a) it will result in a better understanding 

of the needs in the nonprofit sector so that resources can be appropriately channeled; 

and (b) it can result in greater opportunities for group purchasing power, thereby 

lowering costs for such things as hardware, software, and Internet connectivity within the 

sector. 

C. Pilots 

In the course of the OMB Watch research efforts, some nonprofit organizations expressed 

uncertainty about how newer information technologies can help the sector engage 

in public policy matters. Some were confused by the array of different information 

technologies mentioned in the original NPA concept paper; others expressed concern 

about the magnitude of the NPA concept, suggesting smaller, more discrete steps; still 

others had concerns about the content that would be conveyed through the newer technologies. 

Because of these findings, we have concluded that there is a need to implement 

a series of pilots, demonstrating the use of information technologies in the context 

of the policy arena. 

We recommend three types of pilots: applications of technology, information hubs, and 

demonstrations of coordination tools. The pilots dealing with applications of technology 

would be short-term, done in the context of public policy issues, and without regard to 

whether the technology is “cutting edge” or not. The purpose would be to help nonprofits 

build an understanding of and comfort level with use of technologies — to suggest ways 

11 

These conversations were not in the context of being part of an OMB Watch project, but rather as part of 

what is needed under NonProfit America. These groups are already actively involved in the delivery of 

skills-building services. While OMB Watch is involved in training and technical assistance as it relates to 

RTK NET, it is not our primary mission. 


information technologies can help them more effectively engage in public policy matters. 

Information hubs are more comprehensive pilots that are intended to be incubators for 

ongoing activities. The final pilot activity would provide demonstrations of coordination 

tools described in this report. 

Applications of Technology 

During the NPA planning process, OMB Watch launched one pilot, in collaboration with 

the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations and the Donors Forum of Ohio, that 

deals with devolution issues (see Chapter IV for a description of the pilot). At the beginning 

of March 1997, three community briefings — kicking off an online conference — 

were convened in different parts of Ohio to discuss the impact of devolution on nonprofits. 

Ohio nonprofits developed a series of eight broad policy questions to debate, one question 

per week for eight weeks. Staff from the White House, House of Representatives, 

and the Senate participated, along with some national organizations. Since policymakers 

have indicated that they want to introduce legislation dealing with “local flexibility,” it is 

possible that the online conference will help them better understand the needs of nonprofits 

and the challenges confronting such organizations. This online pilot will be informally 

evaluated at the end of the conference, but as of this writing has not concluded. 

The technology used was a listserv that allowed distribution of e-mail. All e-mail was 

archived at a web site so that participants could review responses to specific policy questions 

that had been discussed. The pilot was perceived by the participants as a new 

application and quite innovative, while the technology was not necessarily cutting edge. 

As one person said, “I am fascinated with the process.” Another commented: “I can click 

onto e-mail after cleaning dishes, tucking children away, and sit down to catch up on 

ideas. The Internet has replaced my casual TV viewing, and I feel I’m more productive. I 

also appreciate that the dialogue is a developed project and monitored by a couple of 

organizations.” 

We believe additional experiments of technology applications, like the Ohio one, need 

to be undertaken. It is likely that other pilots will follow steps similar to the Ohio experience 

— planning, implementing, and evaluating. The differences from the Ohio pilot will hinge 

on the technologies tested, the level of sophistication of the participants, and the context 

for the pilot. In fact, there should be an assurance that pilots address different types of 

nonprofit issues (e.g., devolution, tax issues, and competition) and incorporate different 

types of technologies (e.g., e-mail, video conferencing) to tackle the issue. 

Interest in these policy application pilots is widespread. Upon hearing of NPA or the 

Ohio pilot, nonprofit organizations in Colorado, District of Columbia, Michigan, North Carolina, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin approached OMB Watch with interest in pursuing some type of 

pilot project. These organizations represent nonprofit technical assistance organizations, 

nonprofit state associations, grantmakers, and universities. 

We imagine that these types of pilots will be relatively short-term. From planning through 

evaluation, the Ohio pilot was done in roughly seven months. Depending on the proposed 

pilot, the project could last from several months to a year. We also recommend a second 

type of pilot that is a little longer-term, hopefully one that will incubate an ongoing activity, 

that has been called “information hubs.” 


• 19

Information Hubs 

During the NPA planning process, the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits prepared a paper 

that proposed the creation of “information hubs” to “increase capacity to address state 

and local issues, and increase training in organizing, lobbying and advocacy.” It is our 

expectation that information hubs will help to encourage use of newer technologies by 

nonprofit organizations and build the momentum for a nationally coordinated initiative. 

From our perspective an information hub should incorporate at least four elements: 

❐ Provide opportunities for using newer information technologies, such as Internet 

services (web site, FTP site, listservs) and fax services (fax-on-demand, fax 

broadcasts). This may require the purchase of hardware, software, and/or 

groupware to ensure organizational capacity to implement new technology services. 

These activities should be coordinated with other information hubs and with 

national communications links that may be developed (see above). 

❐ Use the newer information technologies to engage in policy issues of concern 

to the nonprofit sector. Information hubs should be given flexibility in selecting 

the types of national, state, and local policy issues on which to engage, but 

must demonstrate a plan for using the information technologies. The range of 

policy issues could be very broad: developing discussion and debate on broader 

policy issues (e.g., tax issues); creating or strengthening state databases on nonprofit 

organizations and their activities in order to better tackle policy concerns 

such as devolution impacts or nonprofit accountability; or implementing an action 

alert system on local, state, or national regulatory and legislative issues. 

❐ Coordinate or implement training efforts to encourage nonprofits to use the 

information hub’s services. To the extent possible, these training efforts should 

be coordinated with the activities discussed above under the section on “Skills 

Building.” 

❐ Share the lessons learned with other state nonprofit associations and key 

organizations. At a minimum, the information hub should prepare case examples 

of what has worked and what has not worked and share such information with 

other nonprofit organizations, particularly those in other states. 

Demonstrations of Coordination Tools 

In addition to the above pilots, demonstrations of the coordination tools described in this 

chapter need to be undertaken. There are several ways of implementing the registry, 

coordination matrix, and taxonomy/thesaurus. We believe it is important to try some of 

these approaches to determine what works and what does not. The results of the demonstrations, 

including any software development, can be provided to an organization, such 

as Independent Sector, already engaged in providing improved communications linkages 

with the nonprofit sector. 

The demonstrations might be geographically-based, issue-based, or a combination of 

the two. The objectives would be to: (a) develop appropriate software, if necessary; (b) 

test different implementation approaches (e.g., centralized system vs. decentralized system; 

push-pull technologies; etc.); (c) test the applicability and cost-effectiveness of the 

system; and (d) evaluate different approaches from a user’s perspective. 


All three types of pilots — applications of technologies, information hubs, and demonstrations 

of coordination tools — as well as existing case examples of uses of technologies 

in the public policy context, should be summarized and widely distributed within the 

sector. Such reports will help nonprofits better understand some applications of newer 

technologies. 

Implementation of Pilots 

OMB Watch, among others, will seek resources from foundations to implement a series 

of pilots. OMB Watch will focus on applications of technologies pilots and demonstrations 

of the coordination tools. Three points should be understood about the applications of 

technologies pilots that OMB Watch will undertake: 

❐ OMB Watch will implement the agenda for the pilots — in terms of content, format, 

or context — that is set by the state and local nonprofits. OMB Watch primarily will 

facilitate and coordinate, as appropriate. Part of the facilitation that we will provide 

will be through the Technology Working Group (discussed above); 

❐ While testing the technologies is important, the process of building collaborations 

within the sector, of learning appropriate uses of technologies in public policy matters, 

and of learning the interrelation of physical communities and online (or virtual) 

communities is as important, if not more so; and 

❐ Resources will be provided to the lead organization(s) to help implement the pilots. 

With pilot projects focused on application of the technology, OMB Watch expects a 

negotiation phase to identify leadership roles (who will take the lead and negotiation of 

contractual relationships with OMB Watch), a planning phase involving a variety of nonprofit 

organizations (to promote coordination and collaboration), an implementation phase, 

and an evaluation phase. Discussion of the pilots, possibly even selection of them, will be 

done in concert with the Technology Working Group, which is described above. 

The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (MCN) will play a leadership role in proposing and 

implementing the information hubs. To the extent that OMB Watch can help in coordinating 

activities or providing technical assistance, it will. At this time, MCN is focused on 

coordinating and sharing databases about nonprofit organizations. 

OMB Watch will also seek resources to test different approaches to implementing the 

coordination tools described in this chapter. As with the above pilots, OMB Watch will work 

closely with the Working Group in developing these demonstrations. 

IV. Moving Towards Next Steps 

The NPA planning experience was very enlightening for OMB Watch. The interest, rapid 

widespread dissemination of the NPA concept, and intensity of response are indications 

that NPA hit a nerve. Yet despite the overwhelming desire for improving communications 

linkages within the sector it was very difficult to define the initiative and move forward in its 

totality. 

Large initiatives that attempt to change existing ways of working, like NPA, raise both 

hopes and fears. The fears can create what seem to be insurmountable barriers. Four that 

arose during the NPA planning process include: 


• 21

❐ Tensions between national organizations and state/local groups make it difficult 

to move forward. Many state and local organizations do not trust national 

groups, and vice versa. State and local groups argue that there are critical issues 

pending within their respective states and that they cannot regularly take the time 

to focus on federal policy matters. National groups tend to have a single focus — 

get state and local groups to work on “their” issue. Despite what may be said or 

written, these viewpoints color virtually all discussions. Complicating the picture is 

the fact that there are limited amounts of money, particularly from foundations, 

causing significant competition — with community groups often getting the short 

end of the stick. 

❐ Creating interactive, multi-directional communications structures threaten existing 

power relationships. In light of the tensions between national and state/ 

local groups, it is short-sighted and inappropriate to create additional top-down 

communications mechanisms (e.g., more and better fax alerts from national organizations 

to state and local groups or from state groups to community groups). 

Today’s Internet world allows for bottom-up, top-down, and peer-to-peer interactive 

communications. This structure can truly empower state and local groups. 

However, there is a reluctance to do so for many reasons, not the least is the 

perception that the organizations at the “top” will lose power. When OMB Watch 

began the devolution online conference in Ohio as a pilot, several national organizations 

protested, claiming that community groups do not understand these federal 

issues and would inappropriately (possibly inadvertently) shape the viewpoint 

of federal policymakers. Yet these same national organizations, not more than five 

months ago, sent alerts to community groups urging them to contact Congress 

and express a specific viewpoint on legislation dealing with devolution. 

❐ Turf issues are difficult to overcome. NPA discussions raised a number of “turf” 

issues. For example, discussions about contact databases led to concerns about 

sharing of names that are used for individual organizational purposes; organizations 

often view names as something they “own.” Some organizations focused on 

content concerns: Who would be providing information? Would it be competitive 

with their organization? Some state and national membership organizations feared 

that an NPA structure might bypass them, making them less useful, possibly even 

undermining their membership revenues. One national membership organization 

jested, “NPA could put the national organizations out of business.” While only 

joking, this person captured an attitude of some membership organizations: this 

endeavor was seen as potential competition rather than as an opportunity to expand 

their base or work more effectively on their mission. 

❐ Behavioral change within the sector does not happen overnight. Many nonprofits 

are unfamiliar with newer information technologies, making it difficult for 

them to grasp why they are needed in a public policy context. Someone said that 

nonprofits are like the tribe that never crossed a body of water to get to an island 

until a bridge was built. Once they crossed the bridge, the island became an important 

source of food. A bridge needs to be built to get people comfortable enough 

to use newer technologies (e.g., the Internet). This will take time, patience, and 

money. 

These same four issues emerged in 1989 when OMB Watch created RTK NET. Community 

groups felt that OMB Watch was “empire building,” that we would “suck” all the 

money being used for grassroots activities out of foundations, and that, in general, we 


were not to be trusted because we were a national organization. In 1989, the behavioral 

change that was needed was even greater: Most people had never heard of e-mail, 

modems, or online services; the Internet had not yet been popularized. To complicate 

things even more, some organizations felt RTK NET was a threat. Many of these groups 

provide technical assistance and thought RTK NET would undercut them; others simply 

felt that they would be by-passed. 

Given those conditions, one would think that RTK NET could not have survive — yet, it 

not only survived, it flourished. Today, roughly 5,000 groups use RTK NET. In fact, many 

of the most vocal critics in 1989 are now its most vocal supporters. 

The point is that, over time, these thorny issues do get resolved if the initiative has 

merit. Over time: 

❏ Trust builds among the potential participants, dispelling the worst nightmares that 

were imagined; 

❏ People become more familiar with technologies and fears about technologies 

dissipate, as well as concerns about their “turf” being invaded; and 

❏ The services become more responsive to the needs of the participants, improving 

utility. 

Next Steps 

The key to success is to commit to an endeavor with the necessary resources for a 

period of time. For our part, OMB Watch will: 

❐ Convene a working group of technology experts and nonprofit groups engaged in 

public policy to discuss improved coordination and collaboration that can occur; 

❐ Identify existing case examples of using newer information technologies to engage 

in public policy issues, launch several pilots that give nonprofit organizations 

opportunities to apply technologies to public issues in ways that they have 

not done before, and develop demonstrations of how a “coordination matrix” could 

be implemented; 

❐ Disseminate information about applications of information technologies in the context 

of public policy matters; 

❐ Promote the need for additional foundation funds for building nonprofit technology 

skills, particularly for engaging in public policy matters; and 

❐ Work with other organizations interested in launching their own pilots or in strengthening 

communications linkages within the nonprofit sector. 

In addition, OMB Watch will continue its work on improving access to government information 

for the nonprofit sector. One project, planned during the NPA effort, which was 

called the U.S. Nonprofit Gateway, is a “one-stop” web site for nonprofit organizations to 

get easy access to agency information about grants, regulations, and other materials. 

Over the next two years, we will work with the government to implement the Gateway. (A 

description of the Gateway and what OMB Watch plans over the next two years is found 

in Chapter IV.) 


• 23

OMB Watch is committed to moving forward. We are sanguine about the prospects of 

improving coordination on these communications issues and strengthening public policy 

participation within the nonprofit sector. 

V. Graphical Summary of This Section 

Pages 25 - 29 provide a summary of the key elements of this section of the OMB 

Watch report. 



• 25



• 27



• 29

30 • Building Blocks for the Future 

Ü

Chapter II 

NPA Research Findings 

OMB Watch surveyed 600 nonprofit organizations across the country on: the need for 

NonProfit America; their capacity to use newer information technologies; and how they 

presently perceive the value of newer information technologies in encouraging greater 

public policy participation and improved communications within the sector. OMB Watch 

also interviewed or held discussions with nonprofit organizations on: the need for NPA; if 

needed, how it should be shaped; and concerns they had regarding the concept. These 

interviews were done mostly with national organizations, although some state and local 

nonprofits were interviewed. In total, we surveyed roughly 600 nonprofits and interviewed 

approximately 70 organizations, and held discussions about the concept with approximately 

another 50 nonprofits. 

Highlights 

p More than 90% of respondents supported NonProfit America's two goals: (a) 

building greater linkages between and among nonprofit organizations; and 

(b) encouraging greater public policy participation. Support was stronger 

among organizations that list advocacy as a primary mission, and slightly stronger 

among organizations with a staff of 10 or less, and among those outside the 

District of Columbia. 

p People like the concept of NPA, because it is: (a) an appropriate next step in 

the aftermath of the fight over the Istook amendment; (b) a great opportunity for 

improving information dissemination; and (c) a great idea for improving communications 

at the state and local levels, as well as with national organizations. They 

believe that it is time that the sector (a) makes better use of technology; and (b) 

works more collaboratively. 

p While the NPA concept was supported, many questions were raised about 

how it would be implemented. Among the questions asked were: What would 

be the issues that are covered by NPA — would they be federal, state, or local 

issues? How would the content be produced — would it be developed by only a 

select number of organization? Would the focus of materials be advocacy? Some 

assumed that a new organization would be created and wondered if that was 

necessary. Others wondered what new communications “infrastructure” needed 

to be created given the availability of the Internet and other services. Finally, 

some questioned how such a large enterprise would be governed. Most of these 

questions were raised in a supportive manner, hoping that NPA could resolve 

them and move forward — although few respondents offered ideas on how to do 

so. 

p The scope and scale of the initiative raised anxieties, apprehensions, and 

some opposition. A strong concern expressed by many of the organizations 

interviewed was with the scope of the NPA concept — all the diverse (and some 

said disparate) things it encompassed in its vision. Respondents did not see how 


• 31

these could be accomplished simultaneously. An equally strong apprehension 

surfaced repeatedly about the scale of the initiative — that it was trying to be all 

things to all organizations, and that it would become a "sucking machine" that 

would absorb all potential resources for the sector on a range of issues and endeavors. 

p Although few in number, there were vocal opponents to NPA. The opposition to 

NPA was mainly grounded in the belief that NPA reflected wrong priorities. The 

opponents believed that NPA would drain resources from state and local groups 

and, thus, hurt advocacy efforts rather than helping. They also had doubts about 

the value of technology as a tool for improving public policy participation. 

p There was strong support for engaging in advocacy activities and for improved 

information dissemination. Most nonprofits that responded saw advocacy 

as a part of their agency’s mission. In fact, 95% of respondents felt it very 

important to engage in public policy issues. Respondents felt that national, state, 

and local “alerts” were the most important tool for engaging in policy matters, followed 

by improving access to government information. Many indicated that the 

distribution of alerts and government information could be greatly improved — and 

hoped that would be an outcome of NPA. 

p Concerns about power differences among national, state, and local groups 

were highlighted. The new possibilities presented by the newer communications 

technologies — and the effect of the NPA planning process creating an opportunity 

to think through how they might be used (by whom, for what purposes, with 

what controls/filters) — served to surface tensions across the sector and at every 

level about relationships of authority/power and of the control of information and 

its flow. Concerns surfaced quickly that this initiative would go around national 

organizations to their members, and, instead of expanding the base of these organizations, 

would lead to their decline. A similar concern was raised early on in 

presentations of the concept that state-based organizations (particularly statewide 

nonprofit organizations) might be undermined by this initiative. The difference between 

national initiatives and grassroots mobilization and the need for the local 

and the personal at the grassroots level was stressed by a number of organizations. 

Several respondents echoed the idea that “you can’t build a grassroots movement 

with national issues” for a variety of reasons such as loss of personal contact 

and difficulty building critical mass. 

p There was strong interest in talking about issues related to the sector —including 

, but not limited to, "sectorwide" or "sector identity" issues. A very 

large majority thought that there was a need for the sector to look at and discuss 

"cross-cutting issues that affect the sector as a whole," issues that divide nonprofits 

into "subsectors," and other common nonprofit concerns (such as fundraising 

and grant writing). Many comments were submitted about the kinds of subject 

discussions in which respondents would like to engage. 

p Many feared that the Internet would increase information overload and thought 

the “coordination matrix” described in the NPA concept paper would be especially 

important if it would reduce the overload. Most respondents liked the 

idea of being able to control the flow of information coming to them and hoped 

some filter — what we called a “coordination matrix” — could be implemented to 

assist in dealing with information overload. Nearly three-quarters of respondents 


indicated that the coordination matrix was either very important or the most important 

service that could be provided. 

p E-mail is increasingly used by nonprofits, but Web use is not at comparable 

levels. Three quarters of the survey respondents reported having access to e- 

mail, and roughly half of survey respondents use e-mail daily. Only one-quarter 

indicated that they do not have access to e-mail. It is important to note that access 

to e-mail may mean one account on one computer in an organization. As several 

interviewees indicated, the real issue is not whether they have access to e-mail, 

but how they are putting the technology to use. Use of the World Wide Web is 

much lower. Almost half of survey respondents have no access to the Web; less 

than one-quarter indicate that they use the Web on a daily basis. Use of the Web 

requires more sophisticated hardware and software — and often more time — 

than e-mail. 

p Many organizations fear that they (or their affiliates) will be left behind if too 

rapid a move is made to — and too strong a focus put on — technologies 

such as the Web. Many respondents appeared troubled by the unfamiliarity and 

perceived complexity — and by the range —of the technologies raised in the concept 

paper. There was a widespread perception that this initiative was primarily 

about using the most "cutting-edge" technologies. Many felt that they would not be 

able to get up to speed with the technologies they knew already about and that, 

with the technologies described in the concept paper, the bar to participation was 

about to be raised even higher. 

p There was a strong need and desire for training on use of technologies. All 

nonprofits indicated that lack of money is the greatest barrier to using technologies. 

For those who do not currently use e-mail regularly, training and technical 

support were the next two greatest barriers. Many people indicated that they want 

to improve their technology skills and would want to participate in trainings. 

p There was widespread interest in testing the NPA concepts through pilots 

and in developing proposed services and mechanisms incrementally. Many 

respondents indicated that the NPA concepts should be tested before widespread 

application is recommended. The scope of the NPA agenda led many to urge 

incremental implementation. The was support for strengthening the capacity of 

state and local groups to participate, and interest in the idea of establishing state 

liaisons and information hubs. 

This chapter provides the results of the OMB Watch NPA survey and interviews. The 

chapter has the following sections 

I. Methodology 

II. Who Responded 

III. Reaction to the Goals of NPA 

IV. Reaction to NPA Services and Mechanism 

V. Capacity to Use Technology 

VI. Are There Sector Issues to Talk About? 

VII. Other Issues 


• 33

I. Methodology 

Surveys 

OMB Watch took a sample of its internal database of individuals working within nonprofit 

organizations — about 1,200 at national organizations, 3,500 at state or local groups, 

and the remaining 300 at foundations — to create the mailing list for our survey. More 

than one person from an organization may have received the survey; in all, there were 

roughly 4,700 separate organizations that received the survey. 

All of the nonprofit organizations were in our database because OMB Watch has had 

some sort of relationship with them in the past. As a result, the pool of responders, admittedly, 

was likely to be somewhat biased in being predisposed to engaging in public policy 

matters. 

The survey questions were developed in coordination with the NPA Planning Partners 

(the Forum of RAGs, Independent Sector, the National Council of Nonprofit Associations, 

and The Union Institute). The survey instrument was pretested on twenty people. 

A 1% sample, roughly 50 individuals, received a “long” form of the survey, which was 16 

pages and quite exhaustive (and exhausting, we were told). The same “long” form was 

placed on the OMB Watch World Wide Web site, asking any nonprofit organization to 

complete it. Most of the recipients, though, received the “short” form — a 10-page survey 

covering background information about the respondent, viewpoints about the goals of 

NonProfit America, steps that could be helpful in using technology to advance participation 

in public policy or communications within the sector, and issues about their technological 

proficiencies and needs. 

Interviews and Discussions 

In early August, 1996, OMB Watch circulated the overview of the NPA concept paper to 

potential interviewees, about 150 groups, and then set up as many interviews as possible 

in the following three months. These groups were selected as representative of different 

constituencies or issue areas. Nearly all were national organizations or foundations. As a 

supplement to these, NCexChange, a nonprofit group in North Carolina, conducted interviews 

with groups in that state. OMB Watch also participated in discussions and group 

interviews, usually convened by other organizations, with nonprofits throughout the research 

period. 

The interviews and discussions conducted by the staff of OMB Watch were largely 

unstructured and allowed the respondent to ruminate upon the aspects of NPA they found 

most valuable, interesting, and/or troublesome. In most instances, the interviews were 

driven by the initial concerns of the respondent. These findings are incorporated in the 

following report. NCexChange used a standard set of questions. 

II. Who Responded 

There was significant interest in NPA — as indicated by the strong curiousity expressed 

during the interviews and discussions, and the high response rate (10%) on the survey. 

Five hundred seventy-seven nonprofit organizations responded to the survey — all of 

them charities, 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations or grantmakers — from across the 

continental USA and Puerto Rico. 


Interviews and Discussions 

From August through December 1996, four people from OMB Watch conducted over 

50 interviews on the various aspects of NPA, mostly with national groups. Interviewees 

were either senior staff or executive directors. Each interview generally lasted at least 

one hour. All interviewees had reviewed the NPA concept paper and were given a summary, 

if needed. OMB Watch staff also had a number of both structured and unstructured 

discussions with groups of nonprofits in various settings. Through these, we received 

comments and ideas from an additional 50 or so organizations 

The 15 organizations interviewed by NCexChange were all North Carolina groups; some 

were statewide, others local. They, too, were wide-ranging in their missions. 

Surveys 

We received 96 responses from the “long” form on the Web site, 23 from the mailed 

“long” form, and 458 from the mailed “short” form. Thus, we received a more than 10% 

return rate — much higher than expected. In no case did we receive more than one 

response from any single organization. A total of 577 surveys were returned: 481 were 

completed off line and 96 were entered through the World Wide Web. Responses were 

received from 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. No responses were 

received from Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, or Washington. 

Survey Respondent Locations 


• 35

Mission 

Most survey respondents listed multiple Primary Mission(s). Over one-third checked "Advocacy/Public 

Interest/Coalition" and more than a quarter checked "Children, Youth, and 

Families." All listed categories were chosen at least twice. 

Primary Mission and Number of Survey Responses 

Primary Mission* 

# of 

Resp. 

# of 

Resp. 

Advocacy/Public Interest/Coalition 187 Nonprofit Sector 42 

Children, Youth, & Families 128 Women’s Issues 37 

Human Needs/Service 105 Civil Rights 35 

Homelessness/Housing 96 Legal Services 31 

Education 91 Philanthropy/Grant Making 25 

Environment 72 Arts/Culture/Humanities 24 

Community Organizing 66 Communications 20 

Health/Mental Health 64 Religious 17 

Nutrition/Hunger 56 Consumer Issues 15 

Employment/Job-related 52 International/Foreign Affairs 15 

Elderly 49 Research/Polling 11 

Disability 43 Labor 2 

* This only includes short survey data. 

Staff Size 

More than half of survey respondents had staff sizes under 10 persons; less than 20% 

had staff of 50 or more. A few respondents had as many as 1,800 employees — and we 

even received a response several weeks after the survey deadline from an organization 

with 2400 staff members. The most frequent respondent, however, had a staff of only 3. 

The average staff size of 44 is not, therefore, a good indication of the typical respondent. 

Staff Size 

# of Staff # of Respondents Mean (Average) 44 

0* to 10 299** Range 0* to 1800 

11 to 50 159** Median (Middle) 10 

51 to 1800 103** Mode (Most Frequent) 3 

*All Volunteer 

** Numbers do not include 15 long-form surveys received by mail. 


Survey Respondents by Staff Size 

Percentage 

18% 

28% 

0 to 10 

11 to 50 

51 to 1800 

54% 

III. Reactions to the Goals of NPA* 

Overall, there was strong support for the idea of NonProfit America and for the two 

goals: (a) building better linkages between and among nonprofit organizations; and (b) 

Support for the goals was stronger among organizations selecting "Advocacy/Public 

Interest/Coalition" as a primary mission, and slightly stronger among organizations with a 

staff of 10 or fewer and among those outside the District of Columbia. 

Organizations with smaller staffs tended to be more supportive of all facets of NPA, 

although the correlation was stronger on questions focused on strengthening public policy 

participation. 

Staff size less than or equal to 10 

Importance of Nonprofit Linkages 

(N = 274) 

Strengthening Policy Participation 

(N = 225) 

Staff size between 11 and 49 


(N = 148) 


(N = 126) 

Staff size greater than or equal to 50 


(N = 92) 


(N = 76) 

The Size Factor 

Differences Among Groups based on Size 

Greatly 

Needed 

Needed 

Frequently 

Needed 

Infrequently 

Not 

Needed 

41% 50% 7% 1% 

60% 35% 4% 0% 

39% 51% 8% 1% 

60% 33% 6% 2% 

34% 61% 4% 1% 

49% 46% 4% 1% 

*The percentages in the tables below and in Reactions to NPA Services and Mechanisms are rounded to 

the nearest whole percentage. Therefore, some do not add up to 100%. 


• 37

Inside or Outside "The Beltway" 

Organizations outside of "the Beltway" were more supportive of the two goals of NPA 

than were those "inside the Beltway." 

Organizations outside of DC 


(N = 453) 


(N = 378) 

Organizations in DC 


(N = 67) 


(N = 54) 

The Beltway Factor 

Differences Between Groups Inside and Outside of DC 

Greatly 

Needed 

Needed 

Frequently 

Needed 

Infrequently 

Not 

Needed 

40% 52% 7% 1% 

60% 35% 5% 1% 

31% 61% 7% 0% 

46% 50% 4% 0% 

Many of the smaller nonprofits around the nation commented on the lack of cohesion as 

a sector. Some DC-based groups were quick to point out the current national organizations 

already working on these issues. Many nonprofits from elsewhere, however, asked 

for a structure that would permit them to communicate with other nonprofits without the 

need of a top-down infrastructure. 

Online Survey Response 

Respondents completing the survey on-line were generally less supportive of NPA. This 

is most apparent in a comparison of online vs. paper responses to the first goal of NPA — 

building better linkages between and among nonprofit organizations. 

The Online Factor* 

Differences Based on How Groups Filled Out The Survey 

Greatly Needed Needed 

Needed Frequently Infrequently 

Completed on paper 


(N=432) 

Completed on the World Wide Web 


(N=88) 

* The question regarding strengthening policy participation was not asked on-line. 

Not 

Needed 

42% 52% 6% 1% 

28% 58% 13% 1% 


Building Linkages Between and Among Nonprofits 

Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that NPA's first goal, building 

better linkages between and among nonprofit organizations, was greatly 

or frequently needed. Over half of all respondents indicated that such linkages 

were needed frequently. 

"Right now, 

we are only 

able to communicate 

with 

the national 

organizations, 

but it would 

be nice to be 

able to communicate 

directly with 

local groups. 

Our members 

would be in a 

better position 

to take 

advantage of 

it, but they 

could be a 

middleman. 

The most 

useful thing 

would be 

electronic 

communications." 

Building Linkages Among Nonprofits 

“How needed is the first goal of NonProfit America-- to build better linkages 

between and among nonprofit organizations, including nonprofit funders?” 

Greatly 

Needed 

Needed 

Frequently 

Needed 

Infrequently 

Not 

Needed 

All Responses 

39% 53% 7% 1% 

(N = 520) 

Responses from “Advocacy/Public 

Interest/Coalition” groups 

(N=176) 49% 47% 4% 0% 

53% 

Building Linkages 

Percentage 

7% 

1% 

39% 

Greatly Needed 

Needed Frequently 

Needed Infrequently 

Not Ne e ded 

Mission 

Support was notably strong among groups identifying themselves as "Advocacy/public 

interest/coalition groups," with 96% of these indicating that 

such linkages are greatly or frequently needed — with 49% of these indicating 

"greatly needed." 


• 39

Strengthening Public Policy Participation 

Support for NPA's second goal, encouraging public policy participation, was even stronger 

than for the first goal. Ninety-five percent indicated that this goal was greatly or frequently 

needed. 


“How needed is the second goal of NonProfit America-- strengthening the sector 

and encouraging greater participation in public policy matters?” * 

All Responses 

(N=432) 

Responses from “Advocacy/Public 

Interest/Coalition” groups 

(N=176) 

* Question only asked on short survey. 

Greatly 

Needed 

Needed 

Frequently 

Needed 

Infrequently 

Not 

Needed 

58% 37% 5% 1% 

66% 32% 2% 0% 

Almost 60% of all respondents indicated that such encouragement was greatly needed. 


Percentage 

37% 

5% 

1% 

Greatly Needed 

Needed Frequently 

Needed Infrequently 

Not Ne eded 

57% 

Mission 

Advocacy/public interest/coalition groups were markedly enthusiastic about this goal — 

with 98% indicating great or frequent need, and two out of every three of these selecting 

"greatly needed." 


In addition to the general support, the need to share “information with other 

nonprofits...share more, be less turfish” was emphasized, and some sentiment was expressed 

that there should be feedback requirements — that organizations should be 

expected to state what they did with the information they received, so the loop was completed. 

Respondents recognized the need to use technology emphasizing that “cross-sector, 

cross-regional communications are going to be very difficult unless done electronically.” 

Along these lines, a very strong interest emerged in nonprofits being able to communicate 

with and among state and local groups, in the ability to find and communicate with other 

“like-minded” nonprofits with “similar interests,” and in NPA as "a good coalition-building 

tool for a variety of issues.” 

A number of respondents saw NPA as “a primary information source for media outlets,” 

in finding “nonprofit funding sources,” and general “information for the nonprofit sector 

(calendars of events, conferences, etc.).” 

Even stronger support was expressed in all our research for the goal of greater public 

policy participation. Many organizations commented that the focus should be solely on 

public policy and most gave this second goal a generally higher approval rating. 

Many organizations expressed a strong affirmation of the key role of information in 

advocacy. 

A handful of organizations conveyed general support while raising specific concerns 

about the fragmentation of the sector. They raised questions as to the readiness of the 

sector to engage in an NPA effort because some interviewees were asked to identify 

specific benefits to having a network like NPA on which to communicate on specific categories. 

A large majority thought it would be useful for ongoing information sharing with 

other nonprofits and with funders, and for ongoing information sharing with public officials. 

Most thought it would be of benefit for receiving or sending policy alerts on sectorwide 

issues, although significantly fewer agreed for other issues. Half would find it of use 

for participating in local or regional training on public policy; somewhat fewer for local or 

regional training on technology, and fewer still on media relations. More than half thought 

it would be of benefit for getting their own information into hands of policy makers; and a 

large majority thought it would be of benefit for having access to local/state/regional/ 

federal data or trends analysis. Well over half thought they would benefit by being a 

distribution mechanism for related national-level projects of the diversity of the sector and 

the lack of technological sophistication. 

Some were quite concerned that NPA activities might cause nonprofits to lobby. They 

stressed that they “would not engage in any activity which would or would appear to 

violate these restrictions.” The need to be clear about whether the intent is to do advocacy 

and what the permissible limits of lobbying are was stressed. 

Not surprisingly — as most nonprofits and most of those with which we conducted our 

research do their primary work at the local level — a need to “concentrate more with 

specific local problems than broader public policy issues” was identified. 

Only two organizations expressed explicit concerns about the potential effectiveness of 

NPA as a public policy initiative. One commented that “this sounds like another coalition. 

Generally this stuff helps but could NPA add to existing efforts?” 


• 41

Is NonProfit America Needed? 

"There 

was evidence 

in the 

104th 

Congress 

that nearly 

instantaneous 

communications 

improves 

not 

the response 

rate 

so much as 

the accuracy 

of the 

letters and 

faxes from 

local groups 

to Congress. 

The 

grassroots 

groups 

could 

readily see 

the documents 

from 

which the 

national 

organizations 

were 

working." 

Many respondents indicated a belief in a strong need for such an initiative. 

The organizations supporting NPA ranged in size from very large national 

groups to very small local groups. 

Many organizations concurred that the fight over the anti-advocacy legislation 

of the 104th Congress showed that NPA “is a realistic project. LAS 

and the Istook fight demonstrated how you can work an issue at the national 

level and on down.” The Istook fight was not the only factor driving 

support: a need for contact and discussion across the sector was also frequently 

noted. 

Some interviewees were asked to identify specific benefits to having a 

network like NPA on which to communicate on specific categories. A large 

majority thought it would be useful for ongoing information sharing with other 

nonprofits and with funders, and for ongoing information sharing with public 

officials. Most thought it would be of benefit for receiving or sending policy 

alerts on sectorwide issues, although significantly fewer agreed for sending 

alerts on sub-sector issues. Half of these interviewees would find it of use 

for participating in local or regional training on public policy; somewhat fewer 

for local or regional training on technology, and fewer still on media relations. 

More than half thought it would be of benefit for getting their own 

information into hands of policy makers; and a large majority thought it would 

be of benefit for having access to local/state/regional/federal data or trends 

analysis. Well over half thought they would benefit by being a distribution 

mechanism for related national-level projects. 

Other respondents were generally optimistic but noncommittal about their 

future use of NPA. Among survey respondents, 50% indicated that they 

would use such a system, 48% percent selected “Maybe” and 2% chose 

“No.” The majority of organizations were interested and excited about the 

possibilities that might become available, and offered specific examples of 

how they might use the mechanisms, including: advocacy campaigns; legislative 

information; information clearinghouses; sharing training/technical 

assistance information; and reaching and sharing information with others. 

A number of organizations took a wait-and-see attitude. For some, NPA 

would need to be tied to their organizational mission and/or their geographic 

area, and must not put greater time demands on them. Others would want 

to see first what issues were raised and addressed, and/or what NPA had to 

offer. 

A few organizations commented on the difficulty of getting nonprofits to 

communicate with one another. Others commented on problems communicating 

with sources outside the sector. A small number expressed their doubts 

about the utility of this endeavor, stating that they “already have their own 

networks and advocacy systems which work fine” and/or that linking nonprofits 

is not relevant to their organization’s mission. 

Some organizations that had reservations about the larger initiative were 

strongly supportive of the capacity-building components, especially among 

local nonprofits with “networks and advocacy systems” already in place. 


"It’s like 

an excited 

board 

member 

with another 

idea 

of what we 

should do." 

"You can’t 

build a grassroots 

movement 

with 

national 

issues" 

Even among those organizations that were unsure about the concept or 

generally not favorable to the broader concept paper, there was often support 

for greater use of technology. An important recurring theme was the 

need for training in and support for the use of technology. Only one of the 

organizations interviewed expressed the opinion that the mechanisms laid 

out in the concept paper were inappropriate for achieving the goals of NPA. 

Only a few of the interviews were generally critical of the initiative as 

pursuing an unproven need. These organizations asked interviewers questions 

such as: “What’s the real intent? Is this being driven by a frenzy over 

the new technologies or the battles faced by nonprofits in the 104th Congress? 

Who are we trying to reach and what are the best ways to reach 

them? Do people need this or do you just think they need it?" 

Is It the Right Priority? 

In the discussions of NPA, a clear set of arguments developed about 

staying tuned to the needs and perspectives of the grassroots and of activists. 

Concerns expressed stressed: 

r That initiatives to serve the needs of the sector must build from the 

ground up and must keep in mind the constraints that exist for grassroots 

organizations (time and other resources); 

r A need for a focus on the work of activists and their needs; 

r A need for a clear understanding of who NPA would be serving and 

of the limitations that nonprofits have, financially and staffing; and 

r The need to “build trust” by visiting “communities in person and to 

develop relationships before people begin to interact effectively” 

online or otherwise. 

Concerns about the capacity of the nonprofit sector to use NPA centered 

on time, financial resources (to participate), and technology capacity and 

barriers. 

Among individuals with whom we discussed the concept (and among 

some survey respondents) there were also negative responses. While most 

of these were concerns about specific aspects, in a few cases there were 

early expressions of outright and adamant opposition to the concept in 

toto. Of all the organizations surveyed and interviewed, fewer than five 

expressed doubts about the utility of the initiative in concept or were in 

general opposition to the initiative as an inappropriate use of resources. 

These reservations centered around the belief “that foundation money 

should (not) go to projects such as NPA but to the local activists.” 

Much more comment was generated about the ability of nonprofits to 


• 43

IV. Reactions to NPA Services and Mechanisms 

Encouraging Public Policy Participation 

The survey identified a number of services and mechanisms intended to facilitate nonprofits' 

public policy participation. State and national alerts ranked as the best services to 

facilitate public policy participation; over half of all respondents indicated these were most 

important on a scale of importance from 1 (most) to 5 (least). Federal government information 

and community briefings on legislative issues were rated as the next most important 

service. 

Encouraging Public Policy Participation 

“How do you rate the importance of the following services in facilitating public policy 

participation?” (For these responses the average N = 497) 

1 

most 

important 

2 3 4 5 

least 

important 

Mean 

Action alerts on: 

state issues 55% 24% 11% 5% 5% 1.81 

national issues 50% 26% 17% 4% 3% 1.86 

local issues 49% 23% 13% 8% 8% 2.02 

Federal government information 43% 29% 20% 5% 3% 1.95 

Community briefings legislative 

42% 29% 18% 6% 4% 2.01 

issues 

Public relations/Media training 37% 30% 20% 8% 5% 2.15 

Advocacy Training 36% 26% 19% 11% 8% 2.31 

Nonprofit success stories 22% 26% 25% 15% 12% 2.68 

Nonprofit tax data 17% 13% 25% 24% 21% 3.19 

While local alerts received generally the same number of positive responses as state/ 

national alerts, this service also attracted higher negative ratings. Public relations/media 

training and advocacy training also ranked as important services. Nonprofit success stories 

and tax data were not as well received. 

Services to Encourage Public Policy Participation 

State alerts 

National alerts 

Service 

Federal governm ent 

inform ation 

Com m unity briefings on 

le gis lative is s ue s 

Local alerts 

Public Re lations /M e dia 

training 

Advocacy training 

Nonprofit success stories 

1 2 3 4 5 

Nonprofit tax data 

1 = Most Important; 5 = Least Important 


The communications matrix was chosen as the most important mechanism to help public 

policy engagement. The matrix was defined as a tool to help reduce information overload. 

After the matrix, use of a nonprofit World Wide Web site was most important, followed 

by community briefings, information for the nonprofit sector (e.g., calendars, events) 

and the use of e-mail discussion groups. Telephone news banks ranked as important, 

although below the above items. The use of audio/video conferencing and community 

media both ranked as less important tools. 

Not surprisingly, those who completed the survey on-line gave the World Wide Web a 

significantly higher ranking as a mechanism to facilitate public policy participation. 

Mechanisms to Facilitate Public Policy Participation 

“How do you rate the importance of the following services in facilitating (public policy) 


1 

most 

important 

2 3 4 5 

least 

important 

Mechanisms to Encourage Public Policy Participation 

Mean 

Coordination Matrix 44% 28% 16% 6% 7% 2.04 

Nonprofit World Wide Web site 30% 31% 19% 11% 8% 2.35 

Community Briefings 26% 29% 27% 10% 8% 2.44 

Information for the nonprofit sector 23% 29% 28% 11% 9% 2.54 

E-mail discussion groups 26% 27% 21% 15% 11% 2.56 

Telephone news banks 24% 26% 26% 12% 12% 2.61 

Community radio and cable TV 15% 18% 27% 20% 19% 3.09 

access 

Audio and video conferencing 12% 21% 28% 22% 18% 3.13 

Coordinations Matrix 

Nonprofit World Wide Web 

Site 

Com m unity briefings 

Mechanism 

Inform ation for the 

nonprofit sector 

E-mail discussion groups 

Telephone new s banks 

1 2 3 4 5 

Com m unity radio and cable 

TV access 

Audio and video 

conferencing 


Linking Nonprofits 

The survey identified a number of services and mechanisms intended to facilitate the 

linkage of nonprofits. The services all ranked nearly the same; none of the tools were 

considered of greater meaningful signifcance in aiding nonprofit linkages. Information on 

resources for training on communications technology had the highest average ranking; 


• 45

information on resources for training on use of communications equipment 

ranked second. Opinions on information resources for obtaining equipment 

were more polarized: this service received both the highest percentage 

of Most Important and the highest percentage of Least Important. 

Facilititating Nonprofit Linkages 

“How do you rate the importance of the following services in facilitating your ability to link 

with nonprofits?” (For these responses the average N = 497) 

"We need 

help in getting 

access to 

coordinated 

national 

advertising 

strategies — 

we don’t know 

how to get the 

nonprofit 

sector into 

this. Instead of 

just communicating 

with the 

choir (nonprofits), 

how can 

we gain 

legitimacy with 

corporate and 

religious and 

media sectors?" 

Information on resources for 

training on communications 

technology (e.g., using the 

Internet) 


training in use of 

communications equipment 

(e.g., communications software) 


obtaining equipment 

Service 

1 

most 

important 

2 3 4 5 

least 

important 

Mean 

27% 29% 20% 14% 10% 2.52 

22% 28% 25% 15% 9% 2.62 

28% 19% 24% 15% 14% 2.69 

Services for Facilitating Nonprofit Linkges 

Inform ation on resources 

for training on 

com m unications 

technology 

Inform ation on resources 

for training in use of 

com m unications 

equipm ent 

Inform ation on resorces for 

obtaining equipm ent 

1 2 3 4 5 


The communications matrix ranked as the most important mechanism to 

help link with other nonprofits. After the matrix, the following were rated 

nearly equal in importance: use of the World Wide Web, community briefings, 

and information for the nonprofit sector (e.g., calendars, events); and 

the use of e-mail discussion groups was also ranked as a more important 

tool. Telephone news banks ranked as important, although below the above 

items. The use of audio/video conferencing and community media both 

ranked as essentially unimportant tools (many organizations have no access 

to these or had never had a reason/opportunity to use them). 

A few organizations were supportive of the goal of linking nonprofits but 

not of some of the mechanisms. Telephone news banks and community 

briefings, in particular, were considered “too time intensive” by some. 


Mechanisms to Facilitate Nonprofit Linkages 

“How do you rate the importance of the following mechanisms in facilitating (public policy) 


1 

most 

important 

2 3 4 5 

least 

important 

Mean 

Coordination Matrix 44% 28% 17% 5% 5% 1.99 

Community Briefings 24% 31% 27% 11% 6% 2.44 

Information for the nonprofit sector 24% 32% 27% 12% 6% 2.45 

Nonprofit World Wide Web site 25% 33% 22% 12% 8% 2.46 

E-mail discussion groups 23% 30% 24% 13% 10% 2.57 

Telephone news banks 16% 23% 31% 18% 11% 2.85 

Audio and video conferencing 12% 21% 28% 25% 15% 3.10 

Community radio and cable TV 

access 

12% 19% 28% 26% 17% 3.18 

Mechanisms for Faciliatating Nonprofit Linkages 

Coordinations Matrix 

Com m unity briefings 

Mechanism 

Inform ation for the 

nonprofit sector 

Nonprofit World Wide Web 

Site 

E-m ail discussion groups 

Telephone new s banks 

1 2 3 4 5 

Audio and video 

conferencing 

Com m unity radio and cable 

TV acce s s 


participate in an initiative such as NPA. The tension between moving the nonprofit sector 

toward the new communications technology and the need to encourage the engagement 

of all those nonprofits that want to participate in public policy matters was reflected in the 

interviews. 

Three quarters of the survey respondents reported having access to e-mail, and roughly 

half of survey respondents use e-mail daily. Only one-quarter indicated that they do not 

have access to e-mail. It is important to note that access to e-mail may mean one account 

on one computer in an organization. As several interviewees indicated, the real issue is 

not whether they have access to e-mail, but how they are putting the technology to use. 

(The survey did not ask how e-mail was being used.) Use of the World Wide Web is much 

lower. Almost half of survey respondent have no access to the Web; less than one-fifth 

indicate that they use the Web on a daily basis. Use of the Web requires more sophisticated 

hardware and software — and often more time — than e-mail. 

The overall ratio of staff to computers was 2.5 to 1, and the ratio of computers to 

modems was 3 to 1. When the respondents are broken up by size, however, it is evident 

that smaller organizations have a greater number of computers per staff and those computers 

are more likely to have modems. This relationship is most evident among organiza- 


• 47

tions with a staff of 10 or fewer. These organizations averaged more computers than fulltime 

staff, and half of these computers were equipped with a modem. 

Technology Capacity 

(For these responses, the average N = 529 unless otherwise noted) 

Overall 

Ratio of Staff to Computers 2.5 to 1 

Ratio of Computers to Modems 3.0 to 1 

Staff Size Less Than or Equal to 10 

Ratio of Staff to Computers .95 to 1 


Staff Size Between 11 and 49 



Staff Size 50 or Greater 



Organization uses email: 

“Daily” 49% 

“Weekly” or “Periodically” 25% 

“Never” uses or has “No Access” 26% 

Organization “uses World Wide Web site”: 

“Daily” 17% 

“Weekly” or “Periodically” 42% 

“Never” uses or has “No Access” 41% 

Percentage of respondents completing survey online 

whose organization “use World Wide Web 

site daily”: (N=97) 

41% 

The research responses reflect the limits of both technology access and comfort with its 

use among even relatively large national organizations. More than any other items, the 

following five things (ranked in order) were cited in survey responses as barriers preventing 

use of newer information communications: Money (316); Time (236); Training (232); 

Inadequate/Outmoded Equipment (228); and Technical Support (199). 

Barriers to Technology 

“W hat are the current barriers (if any) that prevent you from using the above 

communications for which you sometimes or never use?” 

Respondents could choose m ore than one. 

Barrier 

# of 

Responses 

Lack of m oney 316 

Lack of time 236 

Lack of training 232 

Inadequate outm oded equipm ent 228 

Lack of technical support 199 

Technophobia 68 

Lack of organizational com m itm ent 65 

Lack of interest 61 

Lack of success finding useful information 60 

Perception that it would be too burdensom e to change or add systems of 

com munication 

Staff turnover 25 

55 


"Don’t get 

caught up 

in not 

leaving 

people 

behind 

[technologically] 

to the 

point that 

you don’t 

develop the 

technology 

and, then, 

everyone is 

left out." 

These concerns were reflected in the interviews and comments. Questions 

asking for other barriers to technology use elicited an outpouring of 

responses. Several organizations raised issues of “accessibility to everyone 

including people with varying disabilities” and “activists who don’t speak 

much English.” 

Most comments on this topic (beyond those items mentioned in the survey) 

fell into several categories, listed below in order of frequency: 

❐ Lack of added utility, need, and perceived value of technology 

❐ Lack of staff 

❐ Lack of technology among members and constitu ency 

❐ Information Overload 

❐ Other Concerns (lack of space, system incompatibility, varying skill 

of staff) 

When the barriers to technology were separated by frequency of e-mail 

use, a different dynamic became apparent. Training, education, and technical 

suport emerged as the overall most important factors to engage both 

those who use e-mail regularly and those who do not use e-mail. Money 

and access to new equipment play a more significant role in engaging 

those who do not use e-mail at all. Time seems to be a more significant 

concern of those who have e-mail access but do not use it daily. 

"We eventually 

hope to use e- 

mail, but 

currently don’t 

because of 

system problems 

and 

incompetent 

systems 

personnel. 

There are also 

issues with 

money and a 

general fear of 

change within 

the organization. 

... A lot of 

(our) affiliates 

barely have 

money for 

phones." 

Barriers to Technology by E-Mail Usage 

Percentage of respondents indicating each barrier based on frequency of email use. 

Barrier 

Percentage 

of Daily 

Email Use 

(N = 265) 

Percentage 

of Weekly 

or Periodic 

Email Use 

(N = 136) 

Percentage 

of Never 

Use/ 

No Access 

to Email 

(N = 139) 

Difference 

between 

Irreg. & 

Daily Use 

Difference 

between 

No & Daily 

Use 

Lack of training 33% 51% 50% +18 +17 

Technophobia 8% 18% 32% +10 +24 

Lack of technical support 29% 42% 43% +13 +14 

Lack of money 51% 55% 72% +4 +21 

Inadequate outmoded 38% 43% 50% +5 +12 

equipment 

Lack of organizational 8% 18% 14% +10 +6 

commitment 

Perception that it would 

be too burdensome to 8% 18% 14% +10 +6 

change or add systems of 

communication 

Lack of time 40% 53% 40% +13 0 

Staff turnover 3% 3% 9% 0 +6 

Lack of success finding 10% 15% 8% +5 -2 

useful information 

Lack of interest 13% 14% 6% +1 -7 


• 49

Groups around the country were significantly more concerned about 

issues of training and lack of time than were those in the DC area. Money 

was also a much greater concern of those outside the DC area. Groups 

"inside the Beltway" were generally less likely to select barriers. 

Barriers to Technology by Location 

Percentage of respondents indicating each barrier based on “inside/outside D.C.” 

Barrier 

Percentage 

out of DC 

Selecting 

Barrier 

(N=484) 

Percentage in 

DC Selecting 

Barrier 

(N=80) 

Difference 

between out 

of DC and DC 

Lack of training 43% 29% +14 

Lack of time 44% 31% +13 

Lack of money 57% 48% +9 

Lack of success finding useful 

11% 5% +6 

information 

Inadequate outmoded equipment 40% 39% +1 

Staff turnover 4% 5% -1 

Lack of organizational commitment 11% 13% -2 

Technophobia 12% 15% -3 

Lack of technical support 32% 36% -4 

VI. AreThere Sector IssuesTo Talk About? 

A concern that arose early in discussions of NPA was whether there 

were any (or enough) issues that were sectorwide — in the way that “Istook” 

was — that could serve as the basis for public policy engagement 

through NPA. Related concerns have to do with what other sorts of issues 

would lead nonprofits to become engaged, and whether there are 

issues that cut across a substantial segment of the sector as a whole, 

issues that divide nonprofits into “subsectors,” and other common nonprofit 

concerns (such as fundraising and grant writing). Some thought 

that discussions should focus the sector’s attention on specific types of 

issues such as community education about and response to block grants. 

Several organizations, however, did not think that nonprofits could sufficiently 

overcome their specific issue orientation to work together effectively. 

These respondents stressed a lack of “uniting issues” and the growing 

differences between “the nonprofits who have and those who have 

not.” 

There was also great interest in creating online forums and focus groups 

to discuss a range of issues and general interest in such groups to address 

nonprofit sector identity, definition, and vision. Roughly three-quarters 

of survey respondents expressed interest in participating in online 

discussions about sector identity issues. Of the subjects listed in the survey, 

returns indicated interest as follows: what is civil society (61%); 


"About the 

only issues 

we share, 

issues that 

would be 

interesting 

to everyone, 

are tax 

issues, 

Istook 

issues and 

things like 

protecting 

nonprofit 

mailing 

rates, labor/ 

employment 

issues, etc. 

It has to be 

something 

that is 

needed - 

you’ll never 

make an 

alliance you 

don’t need." 

privatization issues (59%); and what is charity today (53%). A large number 

of other subjects were also suggested. These are roughly categorized below: 

Funding, Networking and Capacity Building Issues — Included 

fundraising, technical assistance, governance, citizen mobilization, program 

evaluation, workplace giving, economic contributions and impact of nonprofits 

as an industry segment, networking with other nonprofits, integrating/effecting 

for-profit/nonprofit partnerships, membership campaigns, and 

grant-writing workshops. 

Advocacy/Lobbying/Organizing — Included advocacy, public policy 

state issues, limitation on “lobbying,” “lobbying” definitions, public relations/ 

media — how to improve use of this for advocacy purposes, understanding 

the role of states in the local/national matrix of public policy, marketing, 

grassroots building, organizing, transforming public perception, volunteer 

recruitment, and coalition building. 

Ethics and Accountability — Included conflicts of interest, accountability, 

ethics, phony solicitation schemes, and action and willingness to promote 

women into positions of authority. 

Tax Issues — Included tax free ownership of property, charitable deduction 

and charity issues, nonprofit regulatory requirements, nonprofits and 

the IRS, and judicial issues and justification for special treatment, exemptions, 

deductions, etc. 

Policy issue discussions — Included health, insurance (medical), managed 

care, education, race, democracy, gender, the environmental movement, 

legal services for the poor, labor market/economic development/access, 

making information available and affordable to all in the information 

age, freedom of expression, population, child and family health matters, 

welfare reform, daycare need, affordable housing, child welfare, progressive 

public policy agenda, food security, access to information, helping 

people in poverty, deregulation, environmental justice, and generation of 

public values. 

Other— Included nonprofit management issues, efficiency and effectiveness 

and how they are measured, stabilization issues when new realities in 

public funding and corporate downsizing create work groups, maintaining 

profitability/stability, program/service development, trends in community 

needs, collaboration, brainstorming, inter-sector relations, unfair competition 

between for-profit and nonprofit, nonprofit status and government contracts, 

balancing the civic, political and economic arenas, program initiatives 

contemplated by federal government agencies, and inaccurate information 

being disseminated by politicians and others. 

A few of interviewees were skeptical that nonprofits would participate 

(and therefore did not support the idea). These comments focused on issues 

of time and the lack of “practical implications.” As one CBO noted, "we 

don't have time for chat groups." Even those who were supportive wondered 

if there were enough "common ground among nonprofits" to support 

such discussions. 


• 51


Information Issues 

"We need 

a default, 

ASCII-type 

language, 

to ensure 

we mean 

the same 

thing by 

the terms 

we use." 

"35,000/ 

40,000 goal 

is too ambitious” 

"There are 

a million 

NPOs in 

America; 

75,000 is 

only 7.5%!" 

Information Duplication and Overload. Organizations urged that this 

initiative not supplant or duplicate already existing networks that are issue-specific 

and not provide duplicative information. Many organizations 

said that “there’s already a clearinghouse for most issue areas” and that 

NPA should focus specifically on “broad sector issues.” Others said that 

they receive “enough information” from current nonprofit networks. Several 

organizations also mentioned the need to keep in mind information 

overload when planning with other networks. 

Indeed, a major concern of virtually all respondents was information 

overload. Most expressed concerns about NPA increasing an already overwhelming 

load of information that is poorly organized and thus of little 

value. Many stressed the need for “more pre-qualified, quality information... 

to cut through the clutter.” Most hoped some filtering mechanism — 

the communications matrix and/or a Web page, for example — could be 

implemented to assist in dealing with information overload. Comments 

such as “I really like the communications matrix and the idea that the user 

would choose what they want” were common. 

The Quality and Security of Information. A number of respondents 

expressed concerns about who could post, who could receive, how security 

and privacy would be protected. Some of these comments were aimed 

at security on “a network open to both the right and the left,” but some 

others were more concerned about the “credibility and validity of information.” 

Some interviewees were specifically asked whether there should be any 

limits on who gets to communicate with whom. The respondents were two 

to one in favor of controls. 

The Scope and Scale of the Initiative 

Organizations across the spectrum of size and location commented on 

the need to clarify and specify what would be offered and on the need to 

prove the initiative’s value. The results of the interviews (the question was 

not asked in the survey) can be summarized as indicating that the initiative 

— as laid out in the original concept paper — is too much to take on at 

one time, that there are no parts of the concept that are deemed irrelevant, 

and that, if the initiative proceeds, it should evolve incrementally. 

There was considerable variation, however, in what was recommended to 

come first. 

The suggested first focuses included: 

Technology. Many organizations — national organizations and statebased 

— considered the technology components key. A few offered 

ideas as to how to tackle the problem, focusing on a “bottom-up” process 

— “Start in communities & make sure at least one organization has Internet 

access” — while others suggested limiting the technologies used to 


"Test as 

you go. 

Show in 3 

or 4 areas 

how/that it 

can be 

done [what 

worked, 

why, what 

didn’t, why 

— how 

technology 

could be 

used in 

advocacy]." 

"NPA 

could put 

the national 

organizations 

out of 

business." 

“cheaper, more responsive” means such as “e-mail, fax, and regular mail.” 

Pilots. Many organizations (both national and state-based) suggested a 

series of pilots. Some commented that these should be done in states or 

regions in the country. Others felt that NPA should be implemented nationwide 

but issues should be limited at first and then NPA could “build on 

established success.” 

National Issues. Some state-based organizations took this idea further, 

urging that the initiative focus on issues at the national level in order to 

“help nonprofits know what is going on in DC.” These organizations felt 

that the “first priority should be public policy advocacy at a national level 

on issues of common interest to nonprofits structurally.” 

State/Local Structures. Other state-based organizations stressed statebased 

structures. These organizations commented that the “priority should 

be state liaisons and information hubs, and resource information and information-about-issues 

exchange.” One interviewee also stressed training 

as a key element to state-based success. The groups suggesting a 

state-based approach often felt that national issues interfered their priorities, 

creating tensions for these groups. 

Roles and Functions of Membership Organizations 

Three levels of concern were expressed in the interviews and comments 

about the NPA initiative specifically as it relates to membership organizations. 

One had to do with bypassing the national organizations to get directly 

to their members. A second had to do with the impact this initiative 

might have on state-based organizations (particularly statewide nonprofit 

organizations). The third had to do with the relation of this initiative to 

grassroots campaigns. 

Bypassing National Organizations. Some organizations expressed 

concern about this initiative going around them to their members. These 

interviewees worried that, instead of expanding the base of national organizations, 

“NPA could put the national organizations out of business.” This 

concern was also strongly raised in other settings that were not formal 

interview sessions but more general presentations of the concept. At one 

meeting of national organizations, this issue was discussed. Some groups 

evinced a proprietary relationship with their members — arguing that all 

information should go through them to their members. Others, however, 

argued that "we cannot continue acting like fortresses" in the Internet world 

of today — members will get information from many sources of their own 

choosing; it would, therefore, be best if national groups were part of the 

process and knew what their members were receiving. 

The Role of and Impact on State-Based Organizations. A concern 

was raised early on that state-based organizations (particularly statewide 

nonprofit organizations) might be undermined by this initiative. While this 

was not an issue of concern to most interviewees, there was some concern 

expressed that the nonprofit infrastructure that exists be strengthened, 

not weakened, and a concern with coordination with ongoing efforts 

in the states. 


• 53

A few organizations indicated that there is no statewide nonprofit organization in their 

respective states. One other organization commented that, whether or not there is one 

strong organization in the state, many nonprofits will be communicating. Other organizations 

commented on problems with state-based organizations. One expressed frustration 

that “state affiliates don’t necessarily pass information along to local affiliates.” Turf issues 

also were remarked on — "We are engaged in a similar process of holding public 

hearings, engaging in analyses of information, finding common themes throughout communities. 

Our state nonprofit office is rankled by the fact that we are doing this." 

Relation to Grassroots. The difference between national initiatives and grassroots 

mobilization and the need for the local and the personal at the grassroots level was 

stressed by a number of organizations — for a variety of reasons such as loss of personal 

contact and difficulty building critical mass. 

Redundancy or Competition with Existing Services/Initiatives. 

The concern that the NPA initiative would reinvent the wheel was expressed by a number 

of organizations. The types of potential duplication, redundancy, or competition raised 

varied and are detailed below. 

Independent Sector. Many organizations during the interviews expressed the opinion 

that this was an initiative that should be under the auspices of Independent Sector (IS) in 

order not to be duplicative of work already being done. But there was also concern expressed 

that IS has a limited membership and covers a limited set of issues. (The question 

of who should undertake this initiative was not addressed in the survey.) 

Several others felt that NPA could be used for coordination but IS should remain a 

sectorwide “policy setting body.” They viewed NPA as the equivalent of a communications 

mechanism and did not think it necessary that IS control it. 

HandsNet and Other Communications-Oriented Organizations. There were 

many specific comments about duplication and overlap with HandsNet. The question of 

how the NPA initiative would work with organizations other than HandsNet and whether it 

would simply duplicate the services they provide arose many times during the interviews. 

Most organizations were supportive of the work of existing providers such as HandsNet 

as well as regional and issue related services and asked NPA to cooperate with them to 

the fullest extent possible. 

One organization, however, raised pointed questions about this initiative and existing 

services — "What is the ‘it’ and how do you plan to fit it in with other organizations that 

provide similar services, such as HandsNet, TCN, etc.? Perhaps these groups aren’t 

accomplishing what they could be. Why, after 10 years, does HandsNet only reach 3,000- 

4,000 organizations? But we can’t say that to one another because nonprofits are nice." 

Other Types of Organizations. Other kinds of services or groups whose work should 

be taken into account and/or coordinated with were identified such as ARNOVA, Urban 

Institute, management support groups, NonProfit Times, the Chronicle of Philanthropy, 

Access Point, Council on Foundations, Common Cause, People for the American Way, 

National Network of Management Services Organizations and Nonprofit Management 

Associations, NACAA , State Community Action Agencies, State Associations of Non- 

Profit Organizations, IGC, EcoNet, Clean Water Network, Advocacy Institute, National 

Center for Nonprofit Boards, NCCED and state advocacy organizations. 


Perception of Slant and Issues of "Neutrality" 

A majority of those who commented on this expressed concern about potential political/ 

ideological slants (both left and right) — two large national nonprofits said that “the right 

should be recruited purposefully,” while others felt that “linking nonprofits is a good idea 

only if their ideologies are the same.” Another was “concerned that it will be driven by 

these nonprofit alignments that have formed the most recent coalitions.” 

Slightly fewer than half of the rest of those commenting on this issue, however, expressed 

strong concern that the initiative would not be just nonpartisan, but “neutral.” 

These interviewees felt that being “proactive on sectorwide issues, on non-ideological, 

practical issues” could galvanize the entire sector regardless of ideological slant. 

Structure and Governance 

State Liaisons & Information Hubs. The original NPA concept paper proposed development 

of state liaisons, which would be given resources to help identify/create, prepare 

and disseminate information. The paper also proposed the creation of information 

hubs — centers for piloting uses of technology in the context of public policy issues. Most 

of the organizations commenting on the state liaisons and/or on model information hubs 

supported the concept. A number of these respondents offered specific suggestions or 

ideas such as “legislative hub(s) with different issues,” “regional liaisons,” and “Subsector 

liaisons... (i.e., environment, kids, med, regs...)” in order to make the concept easier to 

implement. 

Many of these organizations (both national and state-based) raised questions — about 

the process and about the impact on local organizations such as staffing concerns in 

working with liaisons, the role of traditional funding mechanisms, and the general selection 

process and funding of liaisons. 

One organization wondered whether these structures would “eventually become activists” 

and where the accountability of such structures would lie. 

Separate Organization? Several organizations commented on the question of whether 

NPA should be a separate organization or not. Most of these respondents thought that it 

should not be a separate organization but each had a different idea of how the structure 

should be organized. One felt “an organization should be in charge (any of the Planning 

Partners would be fine) and given the decision-making power.” Another suggested “a 

public policy board.” Another thought “an alliance or collaboration” could be workable 

without becoming “a separate organization.” 

Only one organization expressed a strong opinion in favor of a separate organization 

because “having a loose group of organizations (especially if mostly national) — all with 

slightly different goals and takes on what goals and missions of NPA are” would be “a 

nightmare.” 

And one organization said it would come to act like a separate organization anyway 

and would “take on a life of its own.” — but then forwarded the idea that “there would be 

a fund-raising advantage to being a separate org — a (c)(3) or a (c)(4).” 

Separately, one organization raised an issue of administration (if NPA were not a separate 

organization) particularly over who would control “contract/database management.” 

Advisory Committee. The original NPA concept paper described the initial governance 

of the NPA initiative by a "loose alliance of the originating organizations," and 


• 55

proposed a broadening of the membership in the development and implementation stages 

to bring in as much expertise and "ownership" as possible. Many organizations commented 

on the Advisory Committee — its make-up and/or its responsibilities. Almost all of these 

offered ideas or suggestions on the make-up of the Committee. One organization, however, 

was only concerned about this question if NPA were to take policy positions but not 

if NPA was simply “a conduit to information, then they would have little interest in who 

administrates that and how.” 

Among those who commented on this issue, regional and issue area diversity was a key 

concern. Many of these organizations also urged that state and/or local groups be included 

because “it seems too Washington/too top down right now. Very esoteric.” 

One organization urged that corporate organizations and representatives from governments 

be included. Several raised questions about the inclusion/exclusion of specific nonprofits 

or types of nonprofits. Most of these comments focused on “broadening the Advisory 

Committee to include organizations that are right of center such as the Cato Institute.” 

Because “they would have interesting input and would ease people’s minds that 

think that NPA is nothing more than group of liberals (... ‘the Anti-Borkers’).” 

Many of these organizations also commented on more general considerations in the 

construction of the Advisory Committee such as “a strong knowledge of the sector and 

democracy” and inclusion of smaller groups “with less money and clout.” 

Several had suggestions about the structure of the Advisory Committee, although there 

was no overwhelming theme. Comments ranged from a de-emphasis of the bureaucracy 

to specific arrangements of “security council” models “with permanent and rotating members.” 

Finally, one organization suggested topics “be well-known in the community in advance, 

so wide discussion can occur before decisions are taken” thus keeping the Advisory Committee 

accountable to the sector. 


Many people commented on the need for evaluation of NPA and on how such an evaluations 

should be conducted and implemented. Discussions included techniques that assess 

both costs and benefits, techniques to assess whether learning about the use of 

technology is of any value, and the monitoring of results. 

There were also many comments surrounding NPA’s involvement in policy. Many 

interviewees suggested that policy be left to Independent Sector (see the “Redundancy or 

Competition with Existing Services” of this chapter for more information.) Many others 

responded that they would be “completely supportive of everything in NPA except having 

specific messages and the other problems that would follow from that” and called the idea 

of NPA taking policy positions “impractical.” One organization suggested separate coalitions 

for separate issues, “like Let America Speak!” but did not preclude NPA taking policy 

positions. Another suggested that “the only policy position should be to advocate the 

good work of the nonprofit community.” One organization suggested that NPA should 

actively engage in getting policy information to “both sides of the aisle.” 

Ü 


Chapter III 

Technology Advisory Committee 

A Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) was convened twice during the NonProfit 

America (NPA) planning process to discuss technical issues and training approaches for 

NPA. Committee members were chosen because of their expertise in technology and their 

knowledge of the nonprofit sector. Several members of the Committee work with populations 

that are underserved by technology and were chosen to represent those interests, 

as well as for their own knowledge and expertise. Many also run their own nonprofit networks 

and are aware of the potential pitfalls of design and implementation. The entire 

Committee was chosed so that they would be a substantial representation of nonprofit 

constituents, a vast knowledge of technology, and experience in developing and running 

networks. A list of TAC members is found at the end of this Chapter. 

On September 6, 1996 the Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) convened for the first 

time. The meeting began with a description and discussion of the NPA concept. Many TAC 

members felt that the ambiguities of the concept would make it difficult for them to recommend 

specific technical designs. They were willing, however, to assist in the process as 

the NPA concept became more defined — a task they saw as largely the responsibility of 

the NPA Planning Partners. 

The bulk of the first meeting centered on initial presentations by selected TAC members 

on six topics: NPA system design; capacity building; mechanisms to increase information 

flow; outreach and training; community media; and sustainability. Other selected TAC 

members responded, leading into a group discussion of the issues identified in the process. 

The discussions were both quite broad-ranging and, at various points, quite detailed. 

Several key issue areas emerged: 

r Is NPA intended to be a campaign to improve advocacy? The TAC considered this 

a core issue for the Planning Partners to resolve. From the TAC's perspective, if 

NPA's primary mission is activism, then activists should be involved in setting the 

policy directions, which would then structure the TAC's technical and training recommendations. 

Several TAC members argued that NPA should not be solely about 

advocacy as that would turn off many potential participant. Others, however, argued 

that it should be sharply defined as an advocacy initiative and, thus, given 

greater definition. 

r Will NPA rely primarily on the Internet? A strong discussion focused on the argument 

that NPA should not exclude those with limited or no access to the Internet 

(and to other newer technologies). It was generally acknowledged that the Internet 

provides the most economical approach to widely-spread communications, but there 

was great concern about raising the barrier to participation and about cost-shifting 

to organizations that would be primarily recipients rather than producers of information. 

The TAC set as principles that: NPA should be designed to the high end of 

technology users but deliver to low-end technology users as well; and that system 

design must prioritize ease-of-use in order to minimize training costs. 

r Does anything new need to be developed? The linking and/or utilization of existing 

resources and services was seen by many TAC members as a strength of the NPA 


• 57

concept. Some argued for a mapping of existent resources and services — before 

any new initiatives were undertaken. Others argued that for the development 

of a framework, based on "rapid prototyping" principles; this framework would include 

development of tools and databases that could be shared. Everyone concurred 

that more coordination is needed to prevent "reinventing the wheel." 

The consensus was that concept of NPA is good and is needed. Concerns existed, 

however, over how to implement such a broad initiative and how to translate the concepts 

of NPA into system-design specifications. The TAC concluded the first meeting with a 

wish, before developing specific recommendations, for more feedback from the NPA Planning 

Partners and from the planning surveys being conducted by several of the Partners. 

Between the first and the second meeting (November 22-23, 1996) of the TAC, OMB 

Watch commissioned four papers for discussion at the second meeting. Each paper included 

a series of recommendations that were to be discussed and voted on by the TAC. 

The four commissioned papers were : 

❐ System design issues that should be considered in implementing NPA, by John 

Chelen of Unison Institute; 

❐ Mechanisms for facilitating the flow of information, by Marshall Mayer of Desktop 

Assistance; 

❐ An overview of outreach, training, and technical assistance issues that need to be 

considered by NPA, by Janel Radtke of the Center for Strategic Communications; 

and 

❐ A specific plan for training on technology issues by Deborah Strauss of the Information 

Technology Resource Center in Chicago. 

These four papers were circulated to TAC members and the NPA partners prior to the 

second meeting. They were then discussed at that meeting, along with two other papers: 

one prepared by The Union Institute on development of a nonprofit taxonomy and thesaurus, 

and a second prepared by Jon Pratt and Chris Sullivan of the Minnesota Council 

of Nonprofits in response to the Marshall Mayer paper. 

At the second TAC meeting, the NPA Planning Partners provided more clarity as to why 

they each were involved with NPA and their specific organizational objectives. An overview 

of initial research findings from NPA Planning Partner surveys and discussion groups 

was also provided. For its part, the TAC — while acknowledging that significant progress 

had been made by the Partners in the intervening two months — still sought greater 

definition of the initiative's technical needs, so that their expertise could be effectively 

tapped. 

Despite the lack of definition from the Planning Partners, commissioned authors made 

certain assumptions in order to complete their papers. These assumptions, along with 

each author's recimmendations, were discussed at the second meeting. Each paper created 

significant about what could and should be done. To structure the discussion, TAC 

members were instructed that, after discussion of each paper, they would be asked to 

vote on each specific recommendation put forward by the author. The votes were taken in 

order to see the general view of the TAC on each key point, not to lock in the TAC, OMB 

Watch, or the other Planning Partners with binding requirements. 

A first set of papers relating to systems specifications and improving information dis- 


semination, by John Chelen and Marshall Mayer, were grouped together because of their 

similarities. Most of the debate over these papers focused on the idea of a centrallylocated 

database of participants. Many believed that a contact database was essential, 

but that it should be locally controlled. John Pratt and Chris Sullivan's paper recommended 

local "information hubs" as a way to implement NPA through exising decentralized databases. 

A few members argued that there was no need for any contact database. 

Ultimately, the TAC concluded that these are significant policy choices that should be 

left to the Planning Partners, but that no technology barriers exist to either approach. The 

TAC concluded that some type of contact database would be essential to operationalize 

NPA. The TAC also concurred that some type of central management authority — although 

not necessarily a new organization — would be needed. 

In light of the discussion on system tools that would need to be developed to make NPA 

work, Kaye Gapen's paper on a taxonomy and thesaurus was discussed and unanimously 

recommended. The taxonomy and thesaurus would assist users at several points 

in the NPA process, including: permitting the appropriate classification of people and organizations 

in the contact database; and improving information searching and the relevancy 

of both information dissemination and retrieval. 

The second set of papers focused on capacity building and outreach. Janel Radtke's 

recommendations on training and technical assistance showed that technology capacitybuilding 

for the sector, in the broadest sense, would not be possible under NPA because 

of the overwhelming costs (with an estimated total of over $120 million dollars for both 

undertakings). Yet, all TAC members were agreed that greater training and technical assistance 

were critically important for the nonprofit sector. Therefore, when voting on the 

recommendations, the TAC made the decision to delineate which parts such an initiative 

would be important to make NPA work, as opposed to those needed by the sector at large. 

Radtke's recommendations on outreach were not voted on; TAC members concurred that 

such issues needed to be decided by the NPA Planning Partners or a designated policy 

setting group. Deborah Strauss' recommendations that training should occur on the local 

level utilizing existing groups were well received. 

Several members of the TAC pointed out that the meetings were very important and 

useful because there is often no opportunity for these experts to meet and discuss issues. 

Some voluntarily indicated that they would like to continue meeting to discuss ways of 

coordinating activities and developing new collaborations. 

This chapter provides summaries — prepared by each author — of the commissioned 

papers, the votes of the TAC, and the names and organizational affiliations of the TAC 

members. For complete copies of the six papers, contact OMB Watch at (202) 234-8494 

or via e-mail: . 

I. Summaries of Commissioned Papers 

II. 

III. 

TAC Votes on Recommendations for NonProfit America 

The Technology Advisory Committee 


• 59

I. Summaries of Commissioned Papers 

NonProfit America: System Design Features 

John Chelen, Unison Institute 

The system design for NonProfit America must be derived from its mission, a means to 

communicate on policy and political issues across boundaries of size of the organization(s), 

geographic area, and issue areas. As such, NPA system functions must accentuate the 

individual abilities of all participants and not subjugate any participant to another. All participants 

must stand on equal footing. Although the ability to communicate across these 

boundaries is essential, the contact must adhere to the following criteria: the receiver must 

assent to the contact and the communication costs must be agreed upon in advance. The 

system functions must reflect this “issue and audience” driven model and be flexible enough 

to accommodate a broad range of types of communication as well as a broad range of 

issues on which the users will communicate. Finally, the system must be flexible enough to 

allow ongoing change and development as the issues and the technology change. 

To design this flexible system and to prepare for the unknown circumstances in which 

NPA may be used, NPA will need a “toolkit” of services and service providers, a hybrid of 

communications systems across varied media. In addition, NPA will need: a “Participation 

Database,” a centralized roster of participating individuals and organizations; a “Dissemination 

Matrix,” that would allow the user to choose the issue area(s) of interest and the 

level of their interest; and Dissemination Targeting Software, software that would combine 

the Participation Database and the Dissemination Matrix and would allow the user to steer 

the information flow process. 

No single organization should centrally control all of NPA. However, there must be a 

central coordinating mechanism, the Management Core, that assists with broker sharing, 

supports key shared services, and helps NPA members work together. The Management 

Core must also have the ability to make legal commitments, expend and account for resources, 

and be content neutral. It could be staffed by an NPA partner organization with 

the establishment of clear boundaries between the functions of the partner organization 

and those of NPA. It would also provide the legal framework so that key services could be 

obtained rapidly and effectively at the most reasonable cost. It would provide evaluation of 

service, assessments of effectiveness, ongoing dissemination preparation for pending 

issues, and help broker the use of and payment for services. Finally, it would help NPA 

members resolve key questions of information ownership, dissemination, and limits of 

communications. 

Since the goal of NPA is the rapid delivery of “policy” speech and many of the participants 

in NPA will not have substantial resources, NPA system decisions must be made 

with the least amount of bureaucratic, resource-wasting planning and administrative overhead. 

NPA systems should, therefore, be based upon a concept of “rapid-prototyping,” 

the fast provision of lightly structured services with a minimal amount of prior study and 

design, coupled with careful evaluation and feedback in preparation for the next round of 

services. By carefully improving services through several cycles of implementation and 

evaluation, better services are provided at a lower cost, and typically much faster. National 

communications networks have used rapid prototyping with success and, in many of these 

instances, the networks supported users with vastly varying capabilities, ranging from 

computer novices to advanced statistical analysts with mainframe experience. Examples 

are CompuServe and America Online, networks that develop and implement services 

while operations continue. NPA should use this model in order to be able to change as 

quickly as the technology changes. 


Facilitating Information Flow 

Marshall Mayer, Desktop Assistance 

The central recommendation is that NPA should be the entity that establishes essential 

nonprofit sector capacity which facilitates communications and information flow through 

an Internet-based database application. The database application will be the primary interface 

of a system that allows end users to register for NPA services, indicate or update 

communications and information exchange preferences, and receive targeted NPA content. 

It is also the primary interface for NPA users, as content providers, to publish their 

content to small working groups of colleagues or to large national networks of nonprofit 

advocates. 

During a public policy advocacy campaign, organizations in the nonprofit sector must 

have the capability to quickly and inexpensively reach a constituency that can advocate 

on their behalf. Most organizations already have databases of their members or constituents. 

NPA should develop a contacts database that combines these, as well as generating 

new contacts through contractual agreements with the organizations that own the separate 

databases with stipulations in such areas as how the names can and cannot be used, 

security, etc. The structure of the database should be designed to include a wide range of 

criteria such as up-to-date addresses, phone and fax numbers, e-mail addresses, issues 

of interest, etc. 

Once the scope and scale of the NPA database is determined, a single database program 

should be selected to standardize NPA participants, according to very specific criteria 

(described in the full paper). The most important functionality of the contact database 

application is the ability to work with other communications applications such as e-mail, 

fax, and phone call generation programs. Beyond this standardized core database of NPA 

“members,” NPA could use the program capabilities to recruit participants that are not 

affiliated with the nonprofit sector but are interested in acting on its behalf. In this case, the 

NPA database could also track demographic information, electoral contribution history, 

and voter information history. In addition, the database should be deployed as a national 

database at a central site with local, regional, and national access. It should also be a 

template for the information hubs. 

The use of the database will primarily be narrowcast content to precisely defined subsets 

of the contact database. Each participating organization would assign a primary database 

contact who would have authority to access only their portion of the database for 

purposes of analysis and output of records. Access to the database by organizational 

gatekeepers, for purposes of analysis and output, should be password protected. The 

gatekeeper would also be the primary authority for granting permission to other participating 

organizations for the use of their records. Usage requests would be granted based on 

a standard procedure, which would outline the proposed purpose of the contact, timeline 

for decision, and scope of the records requested. To avoid information overload, access to 

the database should be monitored. A mechanism needs to be established to “meter the 

use of the database by information publishers according to the preferences of the end 

users.” The responsibility for maintaining the database will be divided between NPA for 

records that are generated by NPA (or cooperative national initiatives) and Information 

Hubs, which will be the primary editors of the records. 

NPA should develop a World Wide Web site to lead the sector into fully embracing this 

technology. The primary function of the website would be to promote NPA and the consensus 

public policy interests of the nonprofit sector. The website should contain: a way to join 

NPA online, a means for end users to also supply content for the NPA website, online 


• 61

conferences, access to newsgroups and listservs, archives of these discussions, access 

to nonprofit directories, calendars, archives of alerts, and a search engine. Links should 

be established to other nonprofit databases and websites. Finally, the site should also be 

the location of some cutting-edge groupware, software that enables groups of people to 

more effectively work together using computer-mediated processes. 

The total maximum cost over three years of establishing the NPA database and deploying 

it in 30 information hubs is probably between $600,000 and $1,200,000, content 

development costs not included. The NPA website could be established for $50,000 to 

$100,000 and maintained, including a full time webmaster, and bandwidth and maintenance 

costs, for $50,000 to $100,000 per year. The three year cost of the site could be 

$150,000 to $300,000. 

The contacts database and its attendant communications applications should be developed 

as soon as possible and should be finished within 6 months. Once functioning, 

the database should be scaled to operate effectively in each of the 10 information hubs 

within a year. Additional information hubs should be added as systems are refined. The 

NPA website could be developed and deployed within 6 months. The groupware applications 

should be developed and deployed after the website is fully functioning. 

NonProfit America: Outreach, Training, and Technical Assistance 

Janel M. Radtke, Center for Strategic Communication 

Part One: Outreach 

The proposed outreach plan relies in large part on a tiered approach. Fifty host organizations 

— such as associations, cooperatives, etc.— will be identified to recruit 100 member 

organizations, and 100 national organizations will be persuaded to sign up their local 

affiliates. In the first year, the primary focus will be on getting national groups to participate. 

The second year will focus on state, regional and local groups, while, in the third 

year, the recruitment effort will center on having each NPA member recruit one additional 

organization. At the end of the third year, 35,000 organizations will have joined the initiative 

with an additional 40,000 organizations aware of it through the press. 

For purposes of planning the outreach, joining the NPA initiative means that an organization 

will: 

❐ Appoint one representative to be the actively involved with the NPA initiative; 

❐ Commit to reaching a specific technology level throughout the organization; 

❐ Agree to a financial contribution to support NPA through communications infrastructure 

commitment; 

❐ Commit to a level of advocate-action when NPA activates a mobilization alert; 

❐ Commit to recruiting one other organization to the NPA initiative; 

❐ Be able to articulate the role of nonprofits in developing public policy and use NPA 

boilerplate language in organizational communications concerning this role; and 

❐ Commit to ongoing information-sharing and deliberation within the sector. 


Other Outreach Objectives: 

❐ To inventory, catalogue, and keep up-to-date all available information and ongoing 

sources of information on communications for nonprofits, especially if it relates 

directly to the practical application of different communications networking and 

information-sharing strategies. 

A set of criteria is proposed to define the set of individuals within organizations that would 

serve as NPA’s primary audience, the most critical being “the authority to commit the organization 

as well as to keep others within the organization abreast of issues and fairly 

represent the organization when needed.” The individual executives targeted may differ 

depending upon the type of organization — service or advocacy, national, state or local, 

affiliated or non-affiliated. 

The mix of organizations targeted by the initiative will comprise approximately 34% advocacy 

and 27% direct service groups, 6% foundations, 3% technical assistance/management 

service organizations with the remainder being the members of host organizations 

and, thus, undefined at this point. The majority (80%) are likely to be either state, local or 

local affiliates so that the initiative has strong grassroots support which is ever more necessary 

to successfully advocate for informed public policy. 

Highlights of the Outreach Plan (37 specific action items are featured in the paper): 

❐ To build an Action Team who will be responsible for outreach. 

❐ Recruit a host committee who can also serve on an NPA speakers bureau. 

❐ Identify, sign up and survey the 150 Host Organizations. 

❐ Create an identity for the NPA initiative as well as recruitment materials. 

❐ Build an NPA contact database (includes many steps gathering information). 

❐ Outreach activities — Hold a press briefing, a launch party, information distribution, 

etc. 

❐ Create buy-in with foundations and connections through them to grantees 

❐ Create momentum over time (includes a variety of strategies to do this). 

Human Resource Commitment: Approximately 500-700 days per year plus a full-time coordinator. 

This is the minimum commitment needed to attract the 35,000 organizations 

within three years. 

Part Two: Training 

Two areas for training: 

1. Creating a conceptual or philosophical framework for the NPA initiative: 

❐ The nonprofit/philanthropic sector in the 21st Century; 

❐ The "Role of Advocacy in the 21st Century"; and 

❐ Creating human connections that nurture collaborative efforts. 

2. Practical training modules focus on what the individual must know to feel comfortable 

using various communications systems on a routine basis: 


• 63

❐ Today’s communications environment and how it can help nonprofits; 

❐ How to access information through different delivery options; 

❐ How to package and deliver information; 

❐ How to “kit” NPA into current job responsibilities; and 

❐ Basic set-up and maintenance of on-site technology. 

In order to get 35,000 organizations up-to-speed within a three year period, the plan is 

to develop a training program — curricula, resource materials, teaching tools — then 

conduct a Train-the-Trainers program. Ideally, all educational sessions would have an 

organizational host to help promote and/or house the training session. Each session would 

be held in conjunction with the NPA initiative and in cooperation with the organization 

responsible for the module and the certified trainer. 

Once people have gone through the various training modules, the initiative must keep 

them involved and motivated. Suggested ways to do this include ongoing interaction — 

round table discussions, moderated listservs, audio-conferences — advanced training 

opportunities, and continued features in existing publications that serve the sector. In 

order to implement this type of large-scale training effort, an inventory of all existing educational 

resources and of technology-equipped training facilities needs to be done. 

Human Resource Commitment: If each trainer could present at least one session each 

month somewhere in their assigned region, the initiative will need to train approximately 

three to five trainers per region. The cost, over 3 years, is $3.6-$4.3 million. Fees would 

pay for on-site costs. 

Part Three: Technical Assistance 

The underlying premise is that nonprofits and foundations should have the help they 

need at an affordable price to: 

❐ Set up and maintain their communications systems in the most cost-effective way; 

❐ Upgrade the systems when necessary or when a dramatic shift in technology occurs; 

and 

❐ Get answers to routine questions when problems occur. 

Several issues need to be discussed before a plan can be put into place for the technical 

assistance aspect of the NPA initiative because different perspectives will design different 

plans. Most importantly, an inventory of existing technical assistance providers 

working in these areas across the country must be done in order to assess how these 

resources could best be organized and deployed to support a national initiative — e.g., 

who is currently providing which types of technical assistance and what is their capacity? 

Once that is complete, the following four issues must be thoroughly discussed and definitive 

positions taken: 

1. What’s the most cost-effective way to provide different types of technical assistance 

— system set-up vs. maintenance vs. routine questions? 

2. How can NPA assure high-quality technical assistance? What if the country were 

divided into regions with one national provider taking responsibility for each region 


and coordinating the training and work of local assistance providers? Is it feasible 

to create a certification program — like a Train-the-Trainers program? 

3. What role could volunteers and interns play? 

4. What type of relationships can be created to develop a network of NPA-affiliated 

providers who provide technical assistance but also advocate for NPA issues? 

Will different approaches create buy-in more effectively than others with state and 

local groups? 

No matter what structure is agreed upon, the human resources needed to insure quality 

technical assistance for 35,000 organizations are astronomical. The number of full-time 

technical assistance providers needed during the first year would be approximately 450; 

during year two, approximately 600, and during year three, over 700 full-time technical 

assistance providers. 

Total cost for such an undertaking could be as much as $118 million over 3 years, not 

including equipment. All of the work is being done by paid employees. 

NonProfit America Training Plan 

Deborah Strauss, Information Technology Resource Center 

Although several technologies may have a role in NPA, it is apparent that online technology 

will be the workhorse of the communications system. In the nonprofit sector, many 

organizations have yet to adopt the new communications mechanisms for varied reasons, 

among them: the lack of perceived value of the new systems and lack of information, 

equipment, and motivation. However, rather than envisioning this as an extra burden 

for NPA, it should be seen as an opportunity. NPA could become the primary source of 

desirable tools for nonprofits, and the coordination and outreach alone will establish many 

of the linkages needed for programmatic aspects of NPA. In addition, the technology 

training curriculum can incorporate and deliver core NPA content; NPA curriculum would 

be intrinsic to the training. 

For each technology that is contemplated for NPA, curriculum and materials must be 

adapted or developed such as sample costs, minimum hardware and software, and training 

manuals. There must also be close coordination between the technology training and 

the core NPA activity to recruit and maintain participants. 

Individual organizational cultures differ and, therefore, their learning styles differ. NPA 

should adopt typical nonprofit training traditions as they apply to the particular nonprofits. 

There are a variety of tools and options: embedding training in conferences, manuals, 

video training, and distance learning. 

NPA should begin with a pilot project with a 6 to 9 month time frame to test curriculum 

and methodology with the goal of reaching a dozen localities including 1,000 organizations, 

three months of planning, and six months to complete the pilot round of training. 

The methodology should be planned to gradually expand in a tiered approach. Tiers may 

be geographic or affiliated in some other way. NPA should allow for self-selection of location 

and method of training. The pilot will likely take three months per tier of 500 to 1,000 

organizations. NPA should then launch a new tier every month and within 15 months, 

12,000 organizations should have completed NPA training. 

There are a number of organizations already established to handle at least some portion 

of technology training around the country. NPA should coordinate these efforts in 


• 65

each locality and develop a plan to “seed” such resources in areas with no appropriate 

resources. Follow-up and support will also need to be provided via similar mechanisms. 

Monetary resources should also be mapped to manage the pilot phase as well as the 

development of guides to locate necessary equipment. Where larger nonprofits already 

have a budget for technology training, they should be encouraged to support the NPA 

efforts. NPA should also rely on existing organizations, such as Gifts in Kind, whose mission 

includes the procurement of computer equipment for nonprofits. Strategies to overcome 

barriers in rural areas, such as few Internet service providers, also need to be 

developed. 

Training for on-line usage of computers will reveal gaps in organizational capability and 

generate a demand for other types of technology training; support questions will arise on 

all computer topics. A set of responses and resources for these issues will help to avoid 

frustration and mistrust. A set of core competencies for overall organizational computerization 

will need to be developed and publicized. 

The cost for such a pilot project is approximately $300,000. 

NonProfit America Taxonomy/Thesaurus Project 

Kaye Gapen/The Union Institute 

Finding what is highly relevant to a search request is more difficult as a database grows. 

To avoid retrieval glut, the development of a taxonomy/thesaurus for standardizing and 

classifying information is necessary for NPA’s success. This taxonomy/thesaurus will result 

in a significantly improved performance from the users’ perspective. Also necessary 

is a free-text search engine to work with the taxonomy/thesaurus to enhance not only 

recall, but precision. The taxonomy/thesaurus supports activity areas such as self-registration, 

content, organization, search and retrieval, and dissemination. 

The taxonomy/thesaurus includes a classification scheme, an underlying core information 

organizing component, and descriptors (a set of preferred terms). Taxonomies may 

be implemented in simple or complex ways and they need not be visible to the users. If 

NPA is going to continue to add value as the volume of content and discussion increases, 

there will have to be human intermediation. A skilled individual must continually adjust the 

derived views and uses of the taxonomy/thesaurus in light of the data gathered about 

how users interact with the site. 

The primary recommendations for NPA are to include a taxonomy/thesaurus in the design 

of NPA in combination with a free-text search engine and to use the taxonomy/ 

thesaurus to map information from related nonprofit information and communications systems. 

Finally, the design of the taxonomy/thesaurus must be interrelated with the technical 

design. 

NonProfit America and Information Hubs 

Jon Pratt & Chris Sullivan, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits 

New information technologies can be useful tools for the nonprofit sector’s public policy 

and organizing work, but overemphasizing a centralized network with expensive content 

creation, without accounting for the more important task of local organizing and increasing 

the capacity of individual organizations to act on alerts and government relations 

organization, risks creating: 


❐ Preemption and displacement of local organizing issues; 

❐ A glut of alerts; 

❐ A passive top-down network, distributing what many could regard as junk mail; 

and 

❐ Insufficient local content of interest to nonprofits. 

List building and message broadcasting should not be equated with organizing. The 

principal goals of NonProfit America can be achieved with existing web sites and listservs 

on the Internet with: 

❐ Support for local content creation and network building of state and local level 

“hubs,” including transitional technology such as broadcast fax and fax on demand; 

and 

❐ Local level training and promotion of public policy skills within the nonprofit sector. 

Barriers to increasing the nonprofit sector’s advocacy capacity 

The task of building the muscle of the nonprofit sector to be an effective actor on public 

policy requires: 

❐ An educated constituency; 

❐ A level of trust; 

❐ A means to develop and communicate positions on issues; 

❐ A commitment of time by the constituency; and 

❐ A means to coordinate timing of actions. 

Alternate Solution 

Continue the national advocacy strategies as they are now, but broaden awareness and 

voluntary use of listservs and web sites that address nonprofit advocacy issues. Create 

local hubs to increase capacity to address state and local issues, and increase training in 

organizing, lobbying and advocacy. 

Information Hubs are an important way to address the need for local content, legislative 

monitoring, balancing local and national alerts, promoting listservs, and strengthening 

coalition efforts, organizing and lobbying capacity. The key elements of a local hub could 

include: 

1. Web Site — broadly dealing with all issues, a central repository for information, 

links for follow-on information. Since the content is user-directed, there can be 

more information here than anywhere else. 

2. E-mail Listservs — topic specific. Better for broad issue discussion due to the time 

it takes to establish the list and recruit discussants. 

3. E-mail broadcasts — immediate alerts and short term discussions for those with e- 

mail; online directions for more information. 

4. Fax broadcasts — immediate alerts for those without e-mail. Include offline 

pointers to more/further information. 

5. FTP site — for retrieving documents in their native format online. 


• 67

6. Fax-on-demand — as above, but via a fax machine. 

7. Scanner — for converting documents into digital format for distribution. 

8. Database — for maintaining contact information, including pairing of information 

or subject with the delivery method. 

Conclusion: What is Needed 

❐ Outreach effort to promote awareness and use of existing or new nonprofit listservs 

and websites; 

❐ Modest expansion of existing national content creation for national web sites; 

❐ Local level training and promotion of public policy skills within the nonprofit sector; 

❐ Support for local content creation and network building of state and local level 

“hubs,” including transitional technology; and 

❐ Centralized database of links, instead of a centralized database of individuals, 

with the coordination matrix existing at the hubs/nodes. 

II. Technology Advisory Committee Votes on 

Recommendations for NonProfit America 

Following are the specific votes about specific issues raised in the preceding papers. 

These votes serve as the recommendations of the TAC. 

Yes — agreement with recommendation as stated. 

Restate — clarification is needed or the discussion in the meetings altered how the recommendation 

should be presented. 

Combine — an overlap with another recommendation was perceived and the advice is to 

join them. 

Further discussion — the issue was not resolved in the two meetings. 

Questions — the NPA Planning Partners need to clarify their intents in order for the TAC 

to make a decision. 

No — disagreement with the specific recommendation. 

TAC members were not required to make only one vote on a recommendation — they 

could vote both "Yes" and "Questions," for example — so vote totals may not add up 

consistently. 


System Design — John Chelen, Unison Institute 

1. A central management authority shall be established to implement and operate 

NPA; this authority shall have the ability to accept, disburse, and account for funds, 

and enter into agreements with service providers and participants. 

Yes Restate Combine Further Discussion Questions No 

8 3 11 

Questions were raised about the idea of a “central” authority. TAC members felt 

that these were questions that needed to be answered by the NPA partners. 

2. NPA shall be designed and developed through a “rapid-prototyping” process that 

accentuates immediate services to key constituents; services shall be continuously 

improved and expanded based upon analysis and feedback of participants’ needs. 


All 

3. NPA shall obtain or contract for certain key services, including telephone, FAX, E- 

mail, WWW, U.S. Postal services, and database management. Additional automation 

of these functions shall proceed as quickly as possible. 


All 

4. NPA shall develop a special database of participants, including individuals and 

organizations; this database shall be made accessible to participants through 

telecommunications and other means. 


10 7 6 

Questions and call for further discussion focused on how this database would be 

controlled. Would it be centrally located? Would local and state groups control the 

names? Even for those voting,”yes,” there were questions about implementation. 

5. Information for NPA’s participant database shall be collected directly from participants 

through a nationwide grass-roots outreach effort; NPA participant organizations 

shall endorse and support this effort. 


12 1 5 4 

Questions and call for further discussion focused on the need to cooperate with 

existing services and questions of how the self-registered names would be used. 


• 69

6. Explicit criteria shall be established to provide different modes of access to NPA 

data by different kinds of participants. 


11 4 3 

7. NPA shall develop participant profiles that describe interests, affiliation, level of 

commitment, and mode and extent of preferred communications. 


11 1 4 2 

8. Software shall be developed to support extensive analysis and retrieval of participants' 

files and profiles. 


9 5 

9. Software and hardware mechanisms shall be developed and implemented to link 

NPA databases to communications services; this software will be used to support 

rapid dissemination of information among and between NPA participants. 


10 1 2 1 

Information Flow — Marshall Mayer, Desktop Assistance 

1. The central recommendation of this concept paper is that NPA be the entity that 

establishes essential nonprofit sector capacity which facilitates communications and 

information flow through an Internet-based database application. This database 

application will be the primary interface of a system that allows end users to register 

for NPA services, indicate or update communications and information exchange 

preferences, and receive targeted NPA content. It is also the primary interface for 

NPA users — as content providers — to publish their content to small working 

groups of colleagues or to large national networks of nonprofit advocates. 


with Chelen # 4 

2. The database should be developed cooperatively by the NPA partners and be as 

comprehensive a database as possible to manage all kinds of communications. 


with Chelen #5 2 4 


3. The database should be developed as a centralized database, with the simultaneous 

deployment of “clones” of the database in “information hubs” as local, state 

and regional organizations take responsibility for the flow of NPA information. 


6 1 1 5 

Concerns focused on the “centralized” nature of this database. Similar to questions 

on Chelen #6. 

4. The database, because it is based on standards and is thus malleable in many 

different communications and information exchange scenarios, should enable new 

audiences in new ways to interact with each other on issues of their choice. 


All 

5. NPA should facilitate the development of the key applications that link the database 

to communications systems (e-mail, fax, phone, and mail). 


with Chelen #9 

6. Full use of the database — both as an “end user” and as a content publisher — 

requires Internet access. NPA should encourage nonprofit sector embracement of 

the Internet as the primary medium for interacting with the system. 


10 2 1 1 1 

There was significant discussion about why the Internet should be the primary 

(although not the only) means of access. Two key points were raised: the Internet 

enables types of communications not possible through other media; and the economics 

of the Internet make it far more practical than other media. 

7. NPA should establish a World Wide Web site as a major public interface for the 

database as well as other content that NPA participants provide. 


10 2 1 1 1 

Many wanted this to be restated so that WWW was not the “exclusive” means to 

obtain information. 

8. NPA should explore the establishment of an Internet-based groupware application 

which can be used by its participants to work together using new tools to advocate 

for the interests of the nonprofit sector. 


11 1 


• 71

9. The system is not the solution. Technology is only as good as the ways in which 

people use it. 


All 

Outreach — Janel Radtke, Center for Strategic Communications 

The TAC decided that Outreach should not be a concern of a Technical Advisory 

Committee but that the NPA Planning Partners should look into such issues. 

1. A need for pro-active commitments by organizations aligning with NPA. 

2. Identify key contacts within each allied organization. 

3. Ensure diversity within the alliance. 

4. Build an Outreach Action Team. 

5. Incentives for Organizations and NPA 

6. Create a brand identity for NPA 

7. Host Organization Outreach. 

8. Outreach Materials 

9. Recruitment Objectives 

10. Identify and Inventory Information Resources and Providers. 

Training — Janel Radtke 

A category was added to address the concept that an issue may be important to the 

sector but was too overreaching for a practical vision of NonProfit America. Participants 

could vote that it was important to take the idea as a part of NPA or that it should be 

undertaken — but as a sectorwide project and not part of NPA. 

1. Philosophical Framework (three modules). 

Important 

Yes Restate Combine to NPA/Sector Further Discuss’n Questions No 

9 2 7 

2. Practical Training (five modules). 

Important 


7 with 4/4 

Strauss 1b 

3. Ownership and licensing of information. 

Important 


4 1 3/1 1 

4. Training the Trainers. 

Important 


6 4/2 1 


5. Hosting the Trainings. 

Important 


7 2/0 

6. Ongoing interaction. 

Important 


7 1 1/0 

7. Inventory educational resources/technology equipped facilities. 

Important 


5 

TAC felt that more discussion and clarification was needed as to scope and timing. 

Technical Assistance — Janel Radtke 

1. Technical Assistance Services to be Considered. 

Important 


6 

2. Technical Assistance Provider Inventory 

Important 


0/All 

3. Cost-effective Choices. 

Important 


7 1 

4. Teach, certify, and support TA providers. 

Important 

Yes Restate Combine to NPA/Sector Further Discuss’n` Questions No 

1 6 

5. The role and recruitment of volunteers. 

Important 


3 2 

Training — Deborah Strauss, Information Technology Resource Center 

1. End user training for telecommunications including formal training, follow on 

support, equipment recommendations and specialized-support TA providers. 

A. The training should be seen as an opportunity for NonProfit America to provide a 


• 73

clear benefit to users, to demonstrate NonProfit America capability and power, to 

show that communication flows from the bottom up as well as from the top down, 

and to model the “distributed” and partnership activities in NonProfit America. 

B. Training curriculum should be standardized but delivery can vary to use local opportunities. 

Partnerships with many nonprofit resources should be engaged in delivery 

services. 

C. Resources for “extended technology” services must be identified although not 

necessarily provided by NonProfit America. 

Important 


6 2 

(not NPA) 

2. The Technology Resource Consortium would be an appropriate lead resource for 

NonProfit America trainings in partnership with other technical assistance providers. 

Important 


7 

3. Local funders (via RAGs), higher education entities, and United Ways should be 

involved in sponsoring training in their localities to strengthen local ownership. 

Important 


6 NPA has no say 

Taxonomy and Thesaurus — Kaye Gapen/The Union Institute 

1. Including a placeholder for the Taxonomy/Thesaurus in NPA’s technical design as 

part of self-registration, information organization and retrieval. 


All 

2. Including a Taxonomy/Thesaurus in combination with a free-text search engine in 

order to improve precision (retrieving the most relevant information possible). 


All 

3. Taking advantage of the Taxonomy/Thesaurus for mapping information from related 

nonprofit information and communications systems. 


All 


Information Hubs — Chris Sullivan & Jon Pratt, MN Council of Nonprofits 

1. Outreach effort to promote awareness and use of existing or new nonprofit listservs 

and websites. 

2. Modest expansion of existing national content for national web sites. 

3. Local level training and promotion of public policy skills within the nonprofit sector. 

4. Support for local content creation and network creation and network building of 

state and local “hubs,” including transitional technology such as broadcast fax and 

fax-on-demand. 

Vote was on the concept of the recommendations exclusive of John Chelen and 

Marshall Mayer’s recommendations to test the strength of the concept. 


3 3 5 6 4 4 

5. A database of links among decentralized hubs (nodes) should be developed using 

the information matrix as a content filter. 


3 1 7 2 4 

Further discussion and questions reflect consensus on a need for a common database 

of names but concern about bypassing existing networks and infrastructures. 


• 75

III. The Technology Advisory Committee 

Katie Burnham 

Society for Nonprofit Organizations 

Ken Chapman 

The National Trust for the Development 

of African American Men 

John Chelen 

Unison Institute 

Richard Civille 

Center for Civic Networking 

Gavin Clabaugh 

The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation 

Dee Davis 

Appalshop, Inc. 

Barry Forbes 

Alliance for Community Media 

Kaye Gapen 

Northern Lights, Inc. 

Terry Gibson 

University of Wisconsin-Extension 

David Goldsmith 

HandsNet 

Carl Hage 

Hage Consultants, Inc. 

Marshall Mayer 

Desktop Assistance, Inc. 

Alair MacLean 

Institute for Global Communication 

(IGC) 

Ceasar McDowell 

Civil Rights Project 

Karen Menichelli 

Benton Foundation 

Peter Miller 

Community Technology Centers 

Network 

Janel Radtke 

Center for Strategic Communication 

Randy Ross 

Tribal Information Infrastructure 

Planning Project 

Deborah Strauss 

Information Technology Resource 

Center 

Rob Stuart 

Rockefeller Family Fund 

Chris Sullivan 

Minnesota Council of Nonprofits 

Robert Loeb 

Telecommunications Cooperative 

Network 

Ü 


Chapter IV 

Other Planning Activities 

U.S. NonProfit Gateway and the Ohio Pilot Project 

This chapter provides information about OMB Watch’s two other NonProfit America planning 

activities: U.S. NonProfit Gateway and a pilot project in Ohio. The Gateway is a partnership 

with the federal government to develop a web site for nonprofit organizations to 

get easy access to agency information about grants, regulations, and other materials. 

Over the last year, OMB Watch provided assistance to the federal government to conceptualize 

the project and prepare prototypes of the Web page. The Web prototype is available 

for testing at: . 

The Ohio pilot involved an online discussion about the impact of devolution on nonprofit 

organizations. Roughly 100 nonprofit organizations participated, along with policymakers 

from the Senate, House of Representatives, and the White House. The purpose was to 

test the applicability of the Internet for a broad policy discussion about devolution. While 

the pilot is still ongoing as this report is being written, initial feedback has been extremely 

positive. Most participants found the discussion lively and stated that the Internet provided 

an opportunity to have their voices heard. Many appreciated the fact that it was an opportunity 

for community groups across the state to hold a sophisticated policy discussion and 

share their views directly with policymakers (without intermediaries). 

U.S. Nonprofit Gateway 

Early in the first term of the Clinton Administration, OMB Watch and The Union Institute 

began discussing the idea of a government-based nonprofit network that would provide: 

(a) a low-cost means for nonprofit organizations to obtain government information; and (b) 

new opportunities for nonprofit organizations to engage public policy officials and other 

nonprofits around substantive issues that they face. While the Clinton Administration did 

not totally embrace the idea for a nonprofit network, it did acknowledge that it could do 

more to improve the dissemination of information to nonprofits. 

Building on the interest expressed by the White House Office of Public Liaison (OPL), 

Communications Catalyst, a project of OMB Watch, developed a conceptual framework to 

improve dissemination of government information to nonprofits. The challenge to the Administration 

was to develop a “one-stop” online Internet service so that nonprofits could 

access relevant information much the same as businesses have been able to do via the 

U.S. Business Advisor online service. The result of the initiative has been the creation of a 

central U.S. Nonprofit Gateway Web site and an additional fifteen local Gateway sites in 

individual federal departments and agencies. 

Background 

The objective of the Gateway was to improve, through the Internet (specifically, the World 

Wide Web), nonprofits’ access to federal information that is crucial to their central missions, 

whether service delivery, training, research, or policy development. In terms of dayto-day 

operations, nonprofits rely on federal information about grants, non-financial sup- 


• 77

port (e.g., donative services), tax code issues, regulations, and finding other nonprofit 

partners doing complementary work. 

Currently, this information is scattered throughout the federal agencies and, even within 

agencies, is rarely indexed or aggregated for easy access by nonprofits. 

According to the OMB Watch NPA survey, better access to federal information was the 

second most important service (behind distribution of action alerts) for helping nonprofits 

better engage in public policy matters. In fact, 72% of respondents indicated that better 

access to federal information is either very important or the most important (nearly twothirds 

of the 72% said it was the most important service). 

The challenge of the Gateway idea was to encourage the government to improve access 

to information needed by nonprofits. This required improvements in basic information 

handling throughout the federal government for identifying, collecting, and posting 

information. It also necessitated the creation of a central directory site for nonprofits so 

that they could navigate the entire federal government as well as local nonprofit sites in 

each of the major agencies. 

Unlike other work done on NPA by OMB Watch, which focused on communications 

mechanisms, the focus of the Gateway was to provide content to nonprofits. In 1993, 

OMB Watch began housing the NII (National Information Infrastructure) Clearinghouse, 

which was funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to collect information 

on federal grants for communications projects, distribute it nationally, and create 

coalitions of nonprofits to apply for the grants. 

The primary lesson learned from the Clearinghouse was that it is possible to find relevant 

information, but that it would be more efficient if the agencies themselves posted 

the information in convenient formats that could be searched electronically. It was also 

evident that if a system could be implemented to track one function (grants) within one 

topic area (communications), then it should be possible to scale it up to handle many other 

functions and topics as well. 

Our efforts coincided with the dramatic growth of the World Wide Web and with the 

rapid acceptance of it by federal agencies as a major vehicle for posting crucial information. 

This sudden shift of interest by the agencies made it even more important for nonprofits 

to articulate their needs so that they were not left behind in this new information 

environment. 

Gateway theme: “Outreach, in-reach, and cross-reach” 

The Gateway needed to reach out in three directions if it were to succeed fully. This 

meant outreach to nonprofit users to determine their needs; in-reach within each agency 

to find the relevant information; and cross-reach among agencies so that users could 

scan Web sites governmentwide. The first two approaches have begun as part of OMB 

Watch’s NPA planning activities; the third approach has yet to be developed. 

Once the three-part theme had been developed, it was decided that the Gateway must 

tie together the following major elements: 

r The users of the system (nonprofits); 

r 

r 

r 

The information itself (grants, regulations, etc); 

The technology for handling the information (computers, online networks, etc); 

and 

The management of the overall project (staff, Task Force, local teams, etc). 


The nonprofit users. We chose to include all nonprofits that potentially want federal 

information. This meant all types of organizations — such as those for service delivery, 

education, research, and membership. We included all interest areas — such as environment, 

communities, housing, arts, and children. As part of our initial testing of the concept, 

the White House Office of Public Liaison invited more than 200 nonprofits representing 

a cross-section of types and interests to comment on the original Gateway goals 

and the prototype service. 

The Information. When asked, “What information do you want?”, nonprofits responded 

simply and directly, “We want everything.” However, two basic categories emerged, one 

for practical, day-to-day information such as for grants and tax issues; and another for 

broader policy issues, such as for tracking the changes in agency budgets and regulations. 

Each of these categories cut across all nonprofit types (e.g., service delivery, policy 

research, etc.) and all interest areas (e.g., environment, human needs, etc.). 

The communications technologies. With significant and continuing pressure from 

the White House, all federal agencies are moving rapidly toward electronic delivery of 

their information — particularly using the Web — and are routinely posting all types of 

new information on the Web as their first choice for dissemination. 

It appears that the Web, because it is such a highly interlinked technology, is the most 

likely vehicle for linking together all forms of federal information so that it can be easily 

accessed and then combined by users into packages that are most valuable to them. It is 

therefore the area in which we believe we can achieve the most dramatic increases in 

access on behalf of nonprofits. It is also the place to begin for building links to other key 

federal information maintained elsewhere. 

A significant challenge, however, and one only partly addressed in this initiative, is the 

relatively low current level of access to the Web by nonprofits. This is due to a lack of both 

equipment and training, and is discussed elsewhere in this report. 

In partial response, the Gateway site is designed with a minimum of graphics (which 

require substantial computing power to receive and process) so that users with only modest 

computer equipment can access the information it contains (which is almost all straight 

text). In addition, we will encourage intermediary organizations such as libraries, schools, 

and community centers to link to the Gateway service and to make its information available 

to nonprofits that do not yet have Internet connections themselves. 

Management. As the project concept spans all federal agencies, it therefore requires a 

management solution that stimulates interagency cooperation. Unlike the business community, 

which is represented by the Small Business Administration and the Commerce 

Department, nonprofit organizations are not represented by a single agency or department. 

This made management decisions more difficult. 

During the planning phase, coordination was handled by the White House Office of 

Public Liaison (OPL). OPL was already overseeing a working group of “Nonprofit Liaison 

Officers,” each of whom was located in one of the fourteen Cabinet Departments or in 

one of the major federal agencies, such as EPA. These Nonprofit Liaison Officers were 

designated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to the needs of individual organizations 

and to the national nonprofit community as a whole. As the planning phase ends, 

the General Services Administration (GSA) will assume responsibility for maintaining and 

developing the central Gateway site. Individual Departments/agencies will be responsible 

for their respective local sites. 


• 79

Planning Activities 

During the NPA planning period, the following activities were initiated: 

r 

r 

r 

r 

r 

r 

Convene the Nonprofit Liaisons from all the Departments and agencies. The 

first task was to assemble all the Nonprofit Liaisons that were appointed by President 

Clinton to serve nonprofits and convince them to participate actively in the 

project or to send a representative that would be able to devote the necessary 

time to it. OMB Watch worked with OPL to convene this first meeting. 

Form an interagency Task Force and then meet weekly (for 11 months). The 

next step was to build a Task Force from the participating agencies that would 

develop the skills and confidence to actually create the information systems that 

were needed. This required an initial three months of training and another three 

months for examining alternative technical and management approaches. These 

meetings included federal departments and agencies, nonprofit groups, and outside 

technical experts. 

Build a central Web site: “US NonProfit Advisor.” OMB Watch then built a prototype 

Web site, at first named the “NonProfit Advisor,” to respond to ideas generated 

by the Task Force. The prototype was circulated within the federal departments 

and agencies for feedback. That feedback served as the main input for 

initial revisions. 

Obtain nonprofit feedback. The OPL and Nonprofit Liaisons — with assistance 

from OMB Watch and Independent Sector — invited nearly 200 national nonprofit 

organizations to review the initial prototype. Additionally, federal agencies sought 

input from nonprofit groups with which they regularly work. After reviewing and 

incorporating comments from these nonprofits groups, a second prototype was 

built, now called the U.S. Nonprofit Gateway. 

Assemble multi-function teams in all Departments/agencies. In order to 

strengthen the individual Nonprofit Liaisons within each of their respective agencies, 

we requested them to assemble an agency-based team that would complement 

their own skills and responsibilities. As noted above, most teams now include 

members with technical, policy, program, and administrative authority. This type of 

planning within agencies is unprecedented. 

Create nonprofit sites in 15 Departments/agencies. As the central Gateway site 

began to take shape, the local teams in each Dept/agency were asked to create 

their own local site especially for nonprofits and to post it on the “home page” of 

their main Department/agency Web site. So far (as of this writing), there are fifteen 

local nonprofit sites. 

What Next for the Gateway? 

The Administration will need help over the next two years to move the Gateway forward. 

OMB Watch will assist the federal government in the following ways: 

r Provide technical assistance to federal agencies on implementation of the Gateway; 

r Convene a conference to better identify content and data needs of nonprofit organizations 

in order to make the Gateway more responsive to nonprofit needs; 

r Expand the Gateway or link it with other Internet services to make it more interactive 

and responsive to the needs of nonprofit organizations; 


r 

Reach out to the nonprofit sector to inform them of the availability of the Gateway; 

and 

Explore the possibility of creating state-based Gateway projects that link state and 

federal information. 

Four sample pages from the U.S. NonProfit Gateway 

The following four pages contain sample pages from the Gateway — the central Gateway 

home page; a matrix of services from all Cabinet Departments in the Executive Branch; 

and the nonprofit sites from HUD (Department of the Housing and Urban Development) 

and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 


• 81



• 83



• 85

Ohio Pilot Project 

OMB Watch worked with Ohio organizations to develop a technology application pilot in 

that state. The pilot project involved a negotiation phase to identify leadership roles, a 

planning phase, an implementation phase, and an evaluation phase. This section describes 

each phase. 

Negotiation Phase 

On December 4, 1996, the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations (OANO) and 

the Lorain County Association of Nonprofit Organizations invited OMB Watch to a meeting 

they hosted in Lorain County, Ohio on devolution. The meeting involved about 75 

nonprofit organizations to discuss the impact devolution would have on Lorain county 

nonprofits. Many nonprofits expressed frustration that decisions were being made in 

Washington without input from state and local nonprofit organizations. At the end of the 

meeting, OMB Watch suggested that Ohio nonprofits begin a debate about devolution 

through the Internet. 

OANO followed up on the suggestion by proposing a pilot project. After negotiating the 

extent of the pilot, OMB Watch entered into a contractual relationship with OANO to 

provide leadership on the project. OMB Watch assured OANO that it would assist in the 

planning, implementation, and evaluation phases, as well as absorb the costs for establishing 

any of the technology tasks that needed to be done. The pilot would build off 

existing plans OANO had for devolution briefings throughout the state. Bank One NA — 

Columbus and the Toledo Community Foundation also provided support to OANO for the 

project. 

The OANO plan involved three community briefings — on March 3, 4, and 5, 1997 in 

Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo — to discuss devolution and its impact on the nonprofit 

sector. These sessions were to be a kick-off to an online conference commencing March 

17, 1997, to discuss broad policy questions related to devolution. In addition to nonprofit 

organizations in Ohio, staff from the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, 

along with some national organizations and nonprofits from other states, were to be 

invited to participate. 

OANO and OMB Watch undertook the pilot project for two purposes. First, it was assumed 

there would be federal devolution legislation introduced in Congress at some 

future time that would affect the federal grant process and, therefore, nonprofit organizations. 

It was hoped that the online conference would help policymakers better understand 

the needs of nonprofit organizations as they consider policy directions. At the same 

time, it would provide nonprofit groups that seldom have time to discuss and debate 

broad policy issues an opportunity to reflect on the issues and share their opinions with 

their colleagues. 

Second, the online conference represented an experiment in using newer information 

technologies to help nonprofit organizations engage in public policy matters. The lessons 

learned from this experience would help provide ideas on how the Internet could be used 

as a meeting ground to discuss broad policy matters; in this case, on an issue that nonprofit 

organizations usually do not get a chance to engage in. 


Planning Phase 

OANO convened a planning committee comprised of the Beech Acres, Donors Forum 

of Ohio, Ohio Citizens for the Arts, Ohio Hunger Task Force, Ohio Jewish Communities 

Government Affairs, Ohio United Way, OMB Watch, Rivers Unlimited, Toledo Sister Cities 

International, and United Way of Greater Toledo. This committee met weekly by conference 

call for nearly three months to plan the community briefings and the online conference. 

Community Briefings 

The three community briefings were held in different parts of the states to reflect the 

diversity of viewpoint in the state. OANO organized the briefings with assistance from 

local nonprofit organizations. The briefings were organized as half-day events with lunch 

provided; a small fee was assessed to recover costs. 

Each event had the following format: Introduction by OANO of the issue and the state 

association; OMB Watch overview of devolution initiatives occurring in Washington; Viewpoints 

from state/local policymaker and grantmaker; A perspective of what could happen 

in Congress this year by Senator Glenn’s staff person; General discussion of the issues; 

and an OMB Watch presentation of the online conference and how nonprofits can participate. 

Prior to the community briefings, OMB Watch had researched the availability of free or 

low-cost Internet Service Providers in the community briefings locations. Background information 

about the Internet and the use of listservs (the mechanism that was to be used 

for the online discussion) was also assembled and distributed at the meeting. 

Structure of the Online Conference 

The planning committee wrestled with several ways of approaching the online conference. 

Everyone agreed that the Internet should be used, but the committee emphasized 

that the simplest, most understandable, and most widely available technology should be 

employed. Because many nonprofits do not have access to the Web, the committee ruled 

out sole reliance on the World Wide Web. They wanted to rely heavily on the use of e-mail 

as the main form of communication. 

The committee also debated four approaches to structuring the online conference: 

r Discussion of specific questions. The online conference could be structured 

around a series of questions, taking one or two questions during a period of time 

(e.g., a week) to discuss. A forum moderator could be asked to keep the discussion 

on target and to encourage participation. The development of the questions 

could be done by the planning committee and shared with some potential participants 

to obtain their input. 

r Create a formal conference. There could be a “virtual” conference; that is, the 

group could invite speakers to address devolution and potential legislation. Their 

“speech” would be in writing, allowing participants to respond in writing as well. 

The conference could have topics (in the same way that the Ohio community briefings 

that were being planned had topics) and time limits on discussions (e.g., a 

week per session). There would still be a need for a moderator to insure that the 

discussions stay on topic. 


• 87

Discussion of a potential congressional bill. A bill, called the Local Flexibility 

and Empowerment Act, sponsored by former Senator Mark Hatfield, had nearly 

passed at the end of the 104th Congress in 1996. Upon retiring, Hatfield asked 

Senator John Glenn of Ohio to pick up the leadership on local flexibility. The committee 

considered the possibilty of whether Senator Glenn would be willing to 

share an outline of his legislative ideas for discussion and debate. 

r An open listserv. This would be an opportunity for anyone to say anything as long 

as it was about devolution or local flexibility. This was the most unstructured method 

and follows the form of many Internet listservs. 

The planning committee chose the first option, but wanted to involve Senator Glenn as 

well as other key federal policymakers interested in the devolution issues. 

Development of Policy Questions 

The next step was developing a series of questions that would be addressed during the 

online conference. The planning committee developed eight broad policy questions; one 

question to be debated and discussed each week. Many of the weekly questions had 

quite detailed and complex follow-up questions, which were also to be addressed during 

the week. The policy questions that were finally agreed to are as follows: 

1. What’s the definition of “devolution”? What is local flexibility? 

There has been much discussion about the federal government shifting responsibilities 

to states and localities, and giving greater flexibility under federal grants. Sometimes the 

terms devolution or local flexibility have been used to capture this recent trend. What 

does devolution/local flexibility mean to you, how might your organization be affected, 

and what are your views about it? How might communities that do not deal with human 

services, such as the arts and the environment, be affected? 

2. What are the specific problems you face in administering your federally funded program? 

A. What are the major problems you face in carrying out the responsibilities under your 

federal grant or contract? Are these problems a result of federal, state, or local requirements? 

Are you able to distinguish the difference between federal, state, and local requirements? 

Give specific examples. 

B. To what extent do you feel federal programs should be consolidated at the local 

level? How should such consolidations be done? Should specific funding streams be 

combined? Give specific program examples. 

C. To what extent should federal eligibility standards be allowed to be changed by 

localities? Give specific examples. 

3. What are your specific grant-related problems? 

A. There are a number of grant rules (e.g., OMB Circular A-122, FASB 116 & 117) with 

which you must comply. What federal, state, and local rules create barriers or problems 

for you in carrying out your grant responsibilities? (If many, please prioritize.) Are these 

problems created by federal, state, and local rules? Or are problems created by conflicts 

between them? To what extent should these rules be modified and what solution(s) do 

you have? How does the solution ensure a high degree of program integrity and financial 

management? 


B. Is there a need for uniform grant applications and reporting? What does that mean 

and how would it be done? Are there suggestions for coordination between the federal 

and state government that also contain a mechanism for accountability? Are there suggestions 

for streamlining federal agencies and maintaining accountability? 

4. How can we improve program performance? 

A. Some have complained that individuals qualify for multiple programs but that information 

about the individual is not shared across such programs, thereby creating inefficiencies. 

Is there a need for improved client tracking? How would that be done? Are there 

jurisdictional boundaries that make this hard — for example, a federal vs. a state program, 

or an education vs. a service delivery program? Are there privacy concerns that 

should be considered, and if so, how can they be addressed? 

B. There is increasing debate about whether the federal, state, or local government 

should be developing standards for programs and initiatives — as well as who should 

enforce these standards. For example, President Clinton has recently announced an 

initiative to ensure that children are reading by age 8. The President’s position creates a 

national standard for program performance, although he has not articulated how this 

might be developed or enforced. 

From your perspective, is it best to establish program standards at the national, state, 

or local level? Does this differ by program area (e.g., education vs. environment)? If there 

is a move away from federal standards, what implications does this have for geographic 

differences? If standards are set by states, should the federal government be involved in 

enforcement of such standards? If not, how should enforcement be handled? 

C. To how many public funders are you accountable? What percentage of your funding 

is public money? Being accountable for public dollars is an important part of the nonprofit’s 

contract with its funding source. Are there either fiscal or programmatic reporting requirements 

which duplicate or conflict with each other? How would you simplify this? 

D. What federal flexibility currently exists but is not being used adequately? Have you 

received any federal waivers? Have they been useful or not? Why? 

E. What are the comparative advantages of waivers vs. legislative changes? 

F. The original intent of the federal Single Point of Contact (under the authority of OMB 

Circular A-95) was to avoid duplication of services at the local level. In Ohio, this process 

has been regionalized. Is it useful? If not, what would you change? 

5. For those who receive Federal funding from two or more related programs (two housing 

programs for example) or from two or more programs with different purposes but who 

serve the same population, do you face conflicting or duplicative requirements in these 

programs that impede their implementation? Please give examples. 

A. Would eliminating or making uniform these conflicting/duplicative requirements improve 

the performance of the underlying programs? How? 

6. What is the impact devolution will have on information? 

A. Currently, there are two types of national data collection: 1) Through departments 

such as the data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau; and 

2) Through specific programs such as Medicaid or housing programs. Do you believe 

there is an need for these national data sets? If you do, how can data comparability be 

ensured at the national, state, and local levels if devolution is occurring? 


• 89

B. What government information is important for you to improve the quality of services 

you provide? Are you able to get such information now? 

7. Where do we go from here? 

A. To the extent the federal government moves in the direction of providing greater 

local flexibility, how should it be structured? What role should the federal, state, and local 

governments play? The nonprofit sector? The for-profit sector? The unions? The program 

beneficiaries? The public? 

B. What are the greatest strengths and the worst weaknesses about devolution/local 

flexibility? (The moderator of the online conference will summarize the answers to previous 

questions in this last question.) 

8. Was this online conference useful? 

Why or why not? Does the discussion of devolution or local flexibility need to take place 

across state boundaries? 

Rules for the Online Conference 

The planning committee, in concert with the policymaking staff from the White House 

and Congress that agreed to participate, developed several rules to guide the online 

conference. The rules were as follows: 

1. Statements made during the online conference were not to be construed as public 

positions of the authors or their employers. (In specific, the Congressional staff were not 

speaking for their bosses and the White House staff was not speaking for the White 

House.) The intent of the online conference was to encourage discussion on important 

public policy issues, not to develop a public record of an organization’s/agency’s position. 

2. Statements made during the online conference were not to be reposted or 

redisseminated without the express permission of the author. 

3. Statements made during the online conference were to respond to the questions that 

were being posed. Examples of inappropriate posting would include messages to Congressional 

or White House staff asking them for constituent services (e.g., a problem with 

a family member’s social security checks, or a tax problem an individual might be having). 

Inappropriate postings were also described as personal attacks on other participants, and 

irrelevant (off-topic) messages. 

4. The Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations served as the moderator of the 

online conference. OANO worked to keep the discussion focused on the questions that 

were being posed, handled questions participants had, and helped to summarize outcomes. 

All participants understood OANO’s role and agreed to respond to their phone 

calls and e-mail messages. 

5. For those violating the above rules, OANO had the authority to: (a) restrict the posting 

of messages; and/or (b) remove the person from the online conference. 

6. Information was posted periodically during the conference about procedural issues, 

such as how to obtain or view responses to previous questions. 

These rules, then, guided the entire online conference. Potential participants were given 

this information at the three community briefings. Additionally, mailings were sent by OANO, 

OMB Watch, and many of the planning committee members about the availability of the 

community briefings and the online conference. 


Implementation Phase 

Nonprofit organizations attending the three community briefings were invited to participate 

in the online conference and were asked to inform other nonprofits in Ohio of the 

event. Additionally, OANO, OMB Watch, and selected planning committee members sent 

out notices about the online conference to their mailing lists of Ohio nonprofits. Nonprofits 

not in Ohio also heard, through other networks, about the pilot and asked if they could 

participate. The planning committee agreed to allow outside participation, but not to advertise 

the online conference. 

In the end there were roughly 100 people involved in the online conference. Most were 

from Ohio, 14 were national organizations or federal policymakers, and 7 were from other 

states. No one quit ("unsubscribed") the online conference before its official end. 

The online conference was established as a listserv with OANO and OMB Watch granting 

permission to participate. As a listserv, when someone sent an e-mail message to 

“flex@rtk.net” (which was the list name), all conference participants received the message 

in their e-mailboxes. Thus, any response to the policy question of the week, if addressed 

to “flex@rtk.net,” went to all conference participants simultaneously and instantaneously 

(more or less, depending on their Internet access provider). 

Additionally, a web site was created for archival purposes. All e-mail messages were 

stored on the web site and made publicly available for inspection. 

Every Monday morning, OMB Watch would post the question for the week. The first 

week was a more open discussion about how people define devolution and local flexibility. 

Much of the discussion was dominated by concerns that devolution would result in greater 

privatization of human services and hurt the most vulnerable populations. Although most 

conference participants were involved in human services, there was also discussion about 

the impact of devolution on the arts and environment. 

Weeks two through six were primarily fact finding. Organizations that responded to the 

questions clearly gave considered responses. Many had circulated the question to their 

staff or organizations they work with before responding in order to be sure that they were 

giving an accurate response. During these weeks, there was very little “interaction” between 

the conference participants; instead, most participants simply provided their viewpoints 

and few responded to the commentary. 

Starting in Week 7, the focus was to obtain viewpoints on what had happened during the 

previous weeks. Participants were told that, regardless of their (sense of) expertise on the 

specific issues from the previous weeks, they could provide commentary. To move things 

along, the planning committee identified common themes that had occurred during the 

first six weeks and sent a survey to participants about their viewpoints on specific issues 

about devolution. The survey was summarized during Week 7 to help create an atmosphere 

for debate. 

The final week gave participants an opportunity to react to the online conference and 

give any remaining input they wanted. 

Evaluation Phase 

There were three steps to the evaluation of the pilot. The first step was surveying participants 

to establish a baseline measure. Questions included whether they had ever participated 

in an Internet conference, and whether they felt they had the ability to communicate 

their concerns to policymakers about devolution issues. 


• 91

The second step was the survey, described above, distributed during Week 6. The 

focus of this survey was to better assess substantive viewpoints about devolution. The 

final step was a post-conference survey to evaluate their views of the online conference 

and their assessment of whether the Internet is a helpful tool to improve public policy 

participation. A separate survey was sent to the federal policymakers to determine whether 

the online conference helped them in their efforts to develop policy. 

In-process evaluation also took place. The planners convened by conference call numerous 

times throughout the process to assess the quantity and quality of participation. 

One change made as a result of these assessments after Week 3 was a significant reduction 

in the number and complexity of the follow-up questions, especially for Week 4. The 

planners felt that the online conferees were possibly daunted by the difficulty of following 

questions by scrolling through numerous screens, and that the sheer number of these 

questions might well discourage participation. 

This evaluation design was developed by Doug Zelinsky of the Metropolitan Human 

Services Commission in Columbus. This report is being written as the final weeks of the 

online conference are occurring. Preliminary findings indicate that the online conference 

was a major success. For specific details, contact the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations 

at (voice) 614-224-1336 or (e-mail) . 

What Next for the Ohio Pilot? 

In Chapter I of this report, we recommended a series of pilots be undertaken. The experiences 

in Ohio demonstrated the need to help nonprofits experiment with applications of 

existing technologies. As a result of the Ohio online conference, OANO is discussing the 

possibility of undertaking a second type of pilot that links training on technology with 

addressing a policy issue. To the extent that resources are available, OMB Watch would 

entertain the idea of moving the Ohio pilot into a second, broader phase. 

Ü 


Appendix 

OMB Watch’s Involvement with 

NonProfit America 

For a number of years, OMB Watch has been encouraging greater use of newer information 

technologies as a vehicle for improved advocacy. In 1989, along with Unison Institute, 

we started a free-standing, dial-up online service, called RTK NET, to provide government 

data to community groups. Initially started with the Toxics Release Inventory, it now 

includes many EPA databases, housing data, bank data on home mortgages, census, 

and much more. More than 4,000 community groups use RTK NET today, many of whom 

had never used telecommunications or the Internet before. Over the last nine years, we 

have learned the educational potential of communications and the information superhighway, 

as well as the necessity of training and technical assistance. 

In 1994, we began experimenting with the use of the Internet to address federal legislative 

issues. Our first attempt was on behalf of a coalition we chair, Citizens for Sensible 

Safeguards, to make use of e-mail to oppose regulatory reform measures in the “Contract 

with America.” These efforts were modestly successful, but many nonprofits, including 

national organizations, did not have e-mail. 

When Representatives Ernest Istook, David McIntosh, and Robert Ehrlich launched an 

attack on the advocacy voice of the nonprofit sector in 1995, we built upon our previous 

experience dealing with regulatory reform. We established an e-mail distribution list that 

went to national, state, and local nonprofits, many of whom redistributed the information. 

This system proved to be very successful and well-liked by nonprofits throughout the 

country. Never before did the nonprofit sector have the ability to distribute information as 

cheaply, as quickly, and as interactively. We would post information about the latest efforts 

to move the Istook amendment through Congress, alerting community groups as to key 

congressional targets to call. State and local nonprofit organizations would make these 

calls and report on the results. The Let America Speak coalition, chaired by the Alliance 

for Justice, Independent Sector, and OMB Watch, would combine this information with 

that obtained through other means, particularly by national organizations. When information 

was inconsistent about the position of a member of Congress, another e-mail alert 

went out to verify the information. 

The e-mail alerts were very powerful. For the first time, people not in the nation’s capital 

felt they were more a part of the strategy and action to defeat the Istook amendment than 

they had in other federal campaigns. This sense of involvement was critical to the success 

of the campaign. 

The e-mail also was an efficient advocacy tool. One night around 7:00 p.m. we received 

confirmation that a version of the Istook amendment would be attached to a bill that was 

going to the floor of the House of Representatives by the next day. That evening an alert 

was sent via e-mail providing an analysis of this version of the Istook amendment and 

suggesting legislative targets. One target was the chair of an appropriations subcommittee. 

According to that office, by 11:00 a.m. the next morning they were so deluged with 

faxes and telephone calls regarding opposition to the Istook amendment that they turned 

off the fax machine and put the answering machine on to handle telephone calls. Never 

before had the sector organized as quickly. 


• 93

Use of the Internet also insured rapid widespread dissemination of the information that 

was posted. OMB Watch received the following response to another emergency alert 

that we posted: 

“Email proves itself once again. Nice job. 

Small vignette: I was at my desk on Wednesday eve. when your message 

popped up on my screen. [Rep. Jim] McDermott’s [D-WA] office was already 

closed, and I was headed for Olympia [the capital of the state of 

Washington] early Thursday a.m., but I took the basic information, and 

headed off. Early Thursday, just after arriving in Olympia, I ran into people 

who’d worked with us on the original Istook stuff, briefly told them what 

was up, and they went off to pay phones — as did I [to make calls to 

Washington, D.C.]. McD’s staff here hadn’t heard of it yet but said they’d 

check right away and talk with D.C. In the back of a hearing room, a 

lobbyist pulled me aside to ask whether I’d done anything yet about the 

latest Istook alert from you all. More chatter. A few others also received 

your alert. More people went to pay phones. Back here last evening, I saw 

the message from Sandy Gill [who runs a regional association for nonprofit 

organizations that is based in Spokane, Washington] that had spread 

the word around the state, and I also had a few other messages from 

people about it. Awesome.” 

Most recently, when the Balanced Budget Amendment became a major federal issue, 

OMB Watch once again built upon our experience, this time replicating the Istook e-mail 

structure and adding improved use of the World Wide Web. We provided a Web site for 

members of the Coalition on Budget Integrity, the coalition opposing the BBA, to put their 

information (op eds, position statements, etc.) on the site, and to provide factual information 

such as past voting records of members of Congress. The Web site was advertised 

to reporters, who regularly used the site. 

Development of NPA Planning 

These examples, plus other experiences OMB Watch has had with use of the information 

superhighway, have convinced us that the Internet is a powerful advocacy tool. But 

the nonprofit community has barely tapped the potential of this new tool. This is why in 

May, 1996, OMB Watch wrote a concept paper for creating an improved communications 

link within the nonprofit sector. Our belief was that the top-down structures that OMB 

Watch created were inappropriate for such a communications link; that such a communications 

link must allow local, state, and national nonprofits to share information 

interactively with each other. 

OMB Watch began working with key nonprofit infrastructure organizations — including 

the Council of Foundations, the Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers (the Forum), 

Independent Sector, and the National Council of Nonprofit Associations (NCNA) — 

and The Union Institute, which had been working with OMB Watch on similar ideas for a 

number of years, to refine the concept paper and see whether it would be helpful to these 

organizations. This dialogue launched the idea of NonProfit America. 

Each of the participating organizations met three times in May, 1996 to discuss the 

initial draft of the NPA concept paper and then proceeded to draft individual proposals for 

implementing their respective responsibilities. These draft proposals were criticized by a 


few organizations. Included in the criticism was that the partners were proceeding too 

rapidly on a significant initiative and should seek input from the sector. Such outreach had 

been planned, but the participating organizations revised their timeliness and proceeded 

with just the planning phase and research agenda. 

Given that the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation was very interested in the possibilities 

of implementing an improved communications link within the sector, the Foundation supported 

grants to the Forum, NCNA, OMB Watch, and The Union Institute to research 

various aspects of NPA. OMB Watch received a grant to focus on how newer information 

technologies could be used to enhance nonprofit public policy participation. In particular, 

we had several tasks: 

r Assess how nonprofit organizations felt about the need for NonProfit America; 

r Describe how NPA would look like if it were to go forward; 

r Help the federal government develop a means for using the Internet to provide 

access for nonprofit organizations to government information; and 

r Initiate a demonstration of how the Internet can be used in a public policy context. 

To achieve these tasks, OMB Watch: 

r Surveyed nonprofit organizations on the need for NPA, their capacity to use newer 

information technologies, and how they presently perceive the value of newer 

information technologies in encouraging greater public policy participation and 

improved communications within the sector. OMB Watch also interviewed nonprofit 

organizations on the need for NPA, and if it is needed, how it should be 

shaped. These interviews were done mostly with national organizations, although 

some state and local nonprofits were interviewed. OMB Watch received nearly 

600 survey responses and conducted roughly 70 interviews. 

r Created a Technology Advisory Committee, comprised of technology providers, 

technical assistance providers, and experts in communications strategies, to help 

shape the direction of NPA and provide recommendations on possible specifications 

and designs of NPA; 

r Assisted the federal government in the development of a World Wide Web site to 

provide government information to the nonprofit community. This Web site has 

been called the U.S. NonProfit Gateway; and 

r Developed a demonstration of how the Internet can facilitate public policy discussions. 

In March through April 1997, the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations, 

with assistance from the Ohio Donors Forum, will be leading an effort in 

Ohio to generate a series of statewide briefings on devolution, which will serve as 

a kick-off to an online forum on the subject. Legislative and White House staff will 

participate in the online discussion, which they hope will help them shape future 

actions they take. 

While the Mott Foundation grantees proceeded individually in their planning tasks, they, 

along with Independent Sector, also met together to share what each organization was 

doing during the planning and research phase, results of the research findings, and steps 

for moving NPA forward. Although OMB Watch chaired these meetings, there was no 

official coordinator for the initiative. From July through November there were four meetings 

of these organizations, each roughly one-half day focused primarily on research 

methodologies and discussion of planning activities. These organizations met again December 

5-6, December 18, January 16, 1997, and February 25, 1997, to discuss re- 


• 95

search results, better define NPA, and identify next steps. At the January 16 meeting, two 

of the organizations indicated they no longer wanted to continue participating in NPA planning 

as partners, but wanted to proceed in a less comprehensive collaboration with various 

ideas that derived from the NPA planning process. 

Over the next several months, these organizations shared written materials for a joint 

report summarizing the findings and outcomes. The groups concluded that the “NonProfit 

America planning experience has been extremely positive, resulting in new relationships, 

better coordination of existing activities, better understanding of activities and needs of the 

nonprofit sector, and the possibilities of new collaborations... Although NonProfit America 

itself will not go forward, many components of NPA will.” The joint report provides a background 

on the work of each of the participating organizations, common research findings, 

and next steps for each of the Planning Partners. It is available from any of the NPA 

Planning Partners. 

Ü

About OMB Watch

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?