About OMB Watch

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 32 • Building Blocks for the Future
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 OMB Watch — May 1997 • 33
Page 2: About OMB Watch OMB Watch is a nonp
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents Chapter I: OMB Wa
Page 7 and 8: Chapter I OMB Watch’s Vision of C
Page 9 and 10: engaging in relevant public policy
Page 11 and 12: r r quiring a new organization, doe
Page 13 and 14: database of names or about a recrui
Page 15 and 16: We also recommend that OMB Watch co
Page 17 and 18: ❐ ❐ Use of “circuit riders”
Page 19 and 20: information technologies can help t
Page 21 and 22: All three types of pilots — appli
Page 23 and 24: were not to be trusted because we w
Page 25 and 26: OMB Watch — May 1997 • 25
Page 31: Chapter II NPA Research Findings OM
Page 35 and 36: Interviews and Discussions From Aug
Page 37 and 38: Survey Respondents by Staff Size Pe
Page 39 and 40: Building Linkages Between and Among
Page 41 and 42: In addition to the general support,
Page 43 and 44: "It’s like an excited board membe
Page 45 and 46: The communications matrix was chose
Page 47 and 48: Mechanisms to Facilitate Nonprofit
Page 49 and 50: "Don’t get caught up in not leavi
Page 51 and 52: "About the only issues we share, is
Page 53 and 54: "Test as you go. Show in 3 or 4 are
Page 55 and 56: Perception of Slant and Issues of "
Page 57 and 58: Chapter III Technology Advisory Com
Page 59 and 60: semination, by John Chelen and Mars
Page 61 and 62: Facilitating Information Flow Marsh
Page 63 and 64: Other Outreach Objectives: ❐ To i
Page 65 and 66: and coordinating the training and w
Page 67 and 68: ❐ Preemption and displacement of
Page 69 and 70: System Design — John Chelen, Unis
Page 71 and 72: 3. The database should be developed
Page 73 and 74: 5. Hosting the Trainings. Important
Page 75 and 76: Information Hubs — Chris Sullivan
Page 77 and 78: Chapter IV Other Planning Activitie
Page 79 and 80: The nonprofit users. We chose to in
Page 81 and 82: r Reach out to the nonprofit sector
Page 83 and 84:
OMB Watch — May 1997 • 83
Page 85 and 86:
OMB Watch — May 1997 • 85
Page 87 and 88:
Planning Phase OANO convened a plan
Page 89 and 90:
B. Is there a need for uniform gran
Page 91 and 92:
Implementation Phase Nonprofit orga
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix OMB Watch’s Involvement
Page 95 and 96:
few organizations. Included in the
show all

About OMB Watch

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?