NON-PROFIT NETWORKS
Cluster Summary
by Stan Pokras


Quoting our cluster's founder David Lochhead: "This cluster exists for the purpose of discussing the use of electronic networking in non-profit organizations: Voluntary Agencies, Social Action Coalitions, Churches--organizations that do not quite fit the standard needs of Educational, Business or Governmental institutions."


The three main questions which have been given thought during the last few months are:

* Does the the cost of electronic communication
constitute the primary block to it's use by non-
profits?

* What routes have groups taken to get into CC?

* Who gets "left out" when some organizations begin to
use computerized communications?


Addressing the first question, Tom Sherman, who provides technical assistance in fund raising for non-profit organizations, mentioned that he found some foundations to be more aware of the potential of computer communications than many of the ORGANIZATIONS he has worked with.

David Lochhead, who is a leader among his associates in the United Church of Canada's use of conferencing, stated that

"...organizations which are frustrated with the need
to communicate by long distance telephone may be MORE
open to the promise of electronic networks than are
groups who can do most of their business by local
phone calls."

Early on in the discussion David summed up an important set of attitudes that organizations have towards the costs of electronic networking:

"...even the small non-profits, unless they are an
emerging ad hoc group, have [some] budget. Their
problem lies in perceiving their communications needs
in the light of available technology.

"Perhaps we need to distinguish small, medium and
large as far as relevant sizes go. For the small, the
problem is likely to be that, although they can see
possible advantages from conferencing, the price tag
is likely to be higher than they think they should
spend on communications. The large organization is
likely to use electronic mail while conferencing is
seen as a plaything, a way for enthusiasts to waste
their time. It is the mid-sized organization--large
enough to have a bit of budget for "experimenting" and
small enough to see the benefit of an ongoing exchange
of ideas--that I hunch is the best candidate for
computer conferencing."


It is clear that funding is a complex problem, in fact it was interlinked in our messages with the second issue: "What routes have non-profits taken to get into conferencing?" This topic has produced at least one interesting point of view. Tom and David both agreed that many non-profit organizations have not found their way into a useful relationship with the computer. David however, offered an example which shows that for some groups, the need for advanced communications might move them into conferencing BEFORE they begin buying equipment for other purposes.

"I know of some organizations that are MORE open to
electronic networking in particular than they are to
computers in general. I am thinking of one national
social action coalition I know who may be quite slow
in seeing the computer as an office machine but who
can see definite promise in computer communications.
The solution for this group, it seems to me, will be
the purchase of Model 100s for their regional officers
before they get around to the computerization of their
office systems.

"That, in fact, is what has happened in the national
office of our church. The internal politics of our
"vatican" has led to paralysis in the acquisition of
new computer hardware. Along with that, the telephone
system in the building will not support communicating
computers adequately. The result: the only national
officers who are communicating online are those with
access to the few Model 100s that are in the
building."

The third issue of who gets "left out" when non-profits begin to connect electronically was raised by an outsider to the conversation. I ported in a remark from one of the Apple Network Grant recipients who mentioned the fact that only five of thirteen organizations that had been closely working together were funded with computer equipment by Apple. The possibility that those left out of this grant would be left behind, seemed real enough. The author of this comment, Chris White from the Oregon Child and Youth Network, left the discussion wide open. Several of us have jumped into the gap beginning with George Por, who suggests that conferencing combined with printed materials can overcome potential feelings of exclusion by other members of a natural group.

In support for George's theme, I brought up the Action Linkage correspondence groups (which communicate via distribution of hard copy messages among members) that I've been working with for several years. These have effectively served as slow but sure conferencing systems... but the discussion is far from complete.

Computers seem so slick and all-powerful that it may take non-profit groups a while longer to discover appropriate uses for them. (And to discover our amazing and all-powerful medium... Oh, did I say that?)

Our cluster extends an open invitation to people with examples or ideas for creative uses of conferencing by non-profits. There is a lot yet to be discovered!