About OMB Watch

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
OMB Watch — May 1997
• 13