The Social Impact Organizations That Come Next

We have already discussed how important it is to consider not just what work social impact organizations do but also how they do the work they perform. By involving all staff in strategic conversations about technology, social impact organizations can adopt and increase an organizational culture that keeps the focus on the mission and community instead of on the technical tools, allowing for investments in technology to be more successful. The implemented technology should help with repetitive, straightforward tasks that people shouldn't have to spend their time on, thereby freeing them to work on the many activities that require a human's attention, empathy, and judgment. While changing individual mindsets about technology is important, the impact can be magnified if organizations move away from a scarcity mindset and act on the value of collaboration within the sector; leveraging shared infrastructure can allow organizations to more quickly launch and sunset programs, as well as test and learn from the work they do.

The Technologists That Come Next

Technologists in the social impact sector serve a broad variety of functions. Whether a technical designer, developer, or implementer of a tool or program, technologists must have deep subject matter expertise. They must understand when to implement complex algorithms and structures and when to mitigate harms—as well as when to acknowledge that the solution needed is not a technical one. Furthermore, social impact technologists must invest the time to connect with organizations and communities in the space to understand true needs. To strengthen the ties to the community, technologists must be able to include non‐technologists in decision making and plainly explain how the data and tech are used. For technologists to develop technology differently, they must build upon a foundation of security, privacy, and ethical use as they bring nontechnologists along in the development process.

The Funders That Come Next

How money is injected, managed, and used in the social impact sector matters. Funders—whether philanthropists, venture capitalists, or business owners—can fund thoughtful, inclusive development and implementation of technology. Structures can be put in place to give the organizations themselves the space to innovate, the freedom to learn from activities that didn't work the first time, and the flexibility to create based on what the organizations, as the on‐the‐ground actors, know to be true based on their experiences. Formal communication loops can be built to allow community members to have some agency over decisions directly affecting their lives. Funders must seek ways to ensure proximity to impact. By funding social impact organizations to hire or work closely with developers, the technology solutions are situated in direct relationship to the issues and regions being addressed. This also creates a foundation for iteration and evolution of the technologies in context, where development staff can make changes and improvements as real‐world use cases present new opportunities.

The Policymakers That Come Next

Policymakers, we have learned, have the ability to restructure policymaking to involve more people in the process and to incorporate technical expertise into the process. Although there will likely never be policymakers who have expertise in the policy, technology, and other issues facing all social impact organizations, we can expand pathways for technologists and the organizations to articulate their policy needs and influence the policymaking process. It will continue to be important for social impact organizations to build coalitions to engage in policymaking. And because it would be untenable to leave key policy decisions to individual technologists who don't have a holistic view across applications and implications, a subset of technologists must be willing to work alongside policymakers to bring needed oversight to the technical development process.

The Community That Comes Next

Solutions that benefit the community can only do so if the community is an active participant in the development, testing, and deployment of these solutions. We must create structures and systems to allow communities to use their own power. This means ensuring communities are resourced holistically—that is, to consider what funding and technical support communities need to support their dreams. Shifting the perception that technology is only accessible by a handful of experts can also be beneficial to communities. Remember that expertise can be learned through traditional educational institutions, but it can also come from apprenticeships or other hands‐on experiences. The organizations that support communities can take many different forms, and as we build for what comes next we should focus first on what we accomplish then create the structure—a 501(c)(3), a Public Benefit Corporation, or some yet to be defined construct—that will work best to deliver for the community.

Resistance Is Part of the Process

There are many, many inspirational quotes available on mugs, posters, and memes about being the change you want to see in the world, or how change is inevitable, or how change is necessary for growth. Maybe those encouragements are out there because change is difficult for many people. Change is even more difficult for organizations, let alone entire sectors. Therefore, as you begin, it's important to recognize some of the barriers that might present themselves. By holding to the values laid out in chapter 2—especially honoring lived experiences and being accountable to communities—you can begin to push back against any resistance you encounter. You might even recognize that the individuals expressing resistance may not be the ideal partners for your work.

• Speed of impact. One common criticism you may get concerns how quickly changes occur. Technologists may be used to building fast and breaking things, and funders may want a quick return on investment so as to claim success. As we've discussed, however, building the process for inclusive design takes time; it's essential that everyone involved or affected feel they've had the opportunity to express their views. Of course, it would be impossible for everyone's vision to be specifically designed around, but many will appreciate that at least their preference was taken into consideration.
• Sharing information. Dara Byrne, of the John Jay College example in chapter 4, indicated that after the partnership with DataKind they “stopped using the ‘sage on a stage’ model for sharing information” internally and externally. Traditional ways of working incentivize policymakers, technologists, and social impact organizations to hold and control knowledge and, therefore, power. In contrast, to build the tech that comes next, it's wise to reinforce that sharing information is a way to bring individuals and organizations along on the change journey, as well as a way to increase the likelihood that the developed and implemented technology will be relevant.
• Apathy. Individuals in all roles might argue that they can't be expected to know everything, or that the current ways of operating are fine. Policymakers may feel the number of touchpoints that technology requires is so vast that it's hard to know where to start. Social impact organizations may have already invested in creating the level at which they currently function; they might resist spending time thinking about how things could be done differently, or they might doubt that different practices could yield better outcomes. However, Brandon Forester, National Organizer for Internet Rights and Platform Accountability at MediaJustice, warns against this sort of complacency: “People have to take the time to step back and think: ‘Are the policies we are advocating for getting us closer to the liberated future we want, or are they half measures that in the long run will set us back?’”¹ Reinforcing the benefits of the ultimate impact you want to have, contrasted with the frustrations of the current state, may help in combating this type of resistance.
• Stages of progress. Technologists, and occasionally funders, may suggest that building tech is a single‐phase process—that once a new tool has been developed it won't need additional development. But as Robert Lee of Rescuing Leftover Cuisine (chapter 5) learned, “We know our website will never be ‘finished.’ We're constantly making improvements and building new functionality with a focus on creating a smooth, streamlined, and engaging experience for our rescuers.” One way to counter the single‐phase argument would be to point to examples of similar social impact organizations that built multiple versions of technology tools.
• Bigger is better. Another type of resistance that funders and especially technologists may present is to push large solutions that worked in one environment into other environments, without analyzing the appropriateness or evaluating whether the needs—not only the technical systems—match. This often happens by assuming that large business solutions for tech and funding structures will work for any organization, regardless of size, or by assuming success is defined only by scale. “We have more experience with big technology decisions and investments than you do,” may be something you hear. Push back on the temptation to act as though bigger is always better by highlighting your specific requirements and community.

As the suggestions following the types of resistance outlined here indicate, it is possible to build productive relationships to develop technology that serves and empowers communities, even with those who at first express dissent or reluctance. But we still consider it a red flag if a potential partner voices concerns like these. When individuals hold to their sentiments, or seem unwilling to be swayed, their reluctance can prevent collaboration. Ideally, all parties will be willing to engage in honest, open discussion, and any concerns will be worked through, proving that productive collaboration is possible.

Structuring People and Communities

The world we envision, as shown in the illustration of systemic inclusion in chapter 2, centers on the communities in which we live. It centers on people, with all their strengths and idiosyncrasies. Working with communities calls for helping community members feel valued so that they can make meaningful contributions to the mission. As many of us know, working with people can be, at various times, invigorating, disappointing, and challenging. Fortunately, organizing community members well is a skill that can be learned.

Dr. Michelle Montgomery Thompson, the Coordinator of WhoData.org, a New Orleans–based community‐municipal‐university partnership that uses an applied public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) model, teaches students to embed themselves into communities to help elicit critical data about the wealth communities truly have—as opposed to what traditional indicators show.² The projects ranged from property condition surveys to economic impact analyses of first‐time homebuyer projects, using HUD‐funded homes on formerly blighted parcels.

Students would observe how to engage with community partners through a meeting in which the partner, such as Associate Neighborhood Development (AND), wanted to document the conditions of Hoffman Triangle. The residents wanted to have a way to document and summarize illegal dumping, blighted properties, and city‐owned lots that needed maintenance. AND wanted to identify potential first‐time homebuyer development sites using Housing & Urban Development (HUD) soft‐second mortgage programs. The City of New Orleans was interested in learning if and/or how neighborhood data could be used to complement information that was collected through the building department, planning commission, and other disparate offices.

By using the WhoData standardized field survey training guide, students and residents conducted “paper and pen” surveys to evaluate over 3,000 parcels in Hoffman Triangle. A student data team converted the paper surveys into Excel spreadsheets which were coded and translated into a spatial data format. The data was transformed into summary tables and maps, which were presented back to the community and shared with the City of New Orleans and local funders. Students were able to understand the complexity of working first‐hand with community partners and how to go beyond what was initially expected for a community‐university project within eight weeks.

Use of the GIS technology was crucial for transforming the data. The ability to have local knowledge and compare that with the public data (e.g. property ownership) increased the capacity of the project. Students were able to conduct data quality testing during the project, which increased its utility and validity. The work the students completed supported community participants in how to make more informed decisions with their money for themselves and their families.³

First, it is important to understand who composes the community. To build the technology that will serve communities and create an interconnected, inclusive world, we need to have better collaboration between social impact leaders, funders, technologists, and policymakers. It's important to note that, although we have identified these four categories, other professions either fit into these categories or complement the work being done. Artists and storytellers, doctors and researchers—these are all necessary to create the community.

Second, social impact leaders should confidently name the community they serve. An inclusive world requires us to recognize unique differences and intentionally create solutions that serve historically overlooked communities. The work of what comes next is about justice and empowerment, and this can only be achieved if it is clear what is being remedied and what is being supported. The #BlackTechFutures Research Institute, for example, explicitly states that they are building “a national network of city‐based researchers and practitioners conducting research on sustainable local black tech ecosystems.”⁴ Dr. Fallon Wilson, founder of #BlackTechFutures, sums up the need for this focus by saying, “So, often when we do this work of public interest technology we do it from the lens of how can ‘I’ make sure systematically discriminated communities are not once again violated by my work, instead of taking the time to build relationships with black and brown people to help co‐design the work that we purport will be done for ‘their’ communities.”⁵ We must focus on relationship building and centering the community, rather than on how an external changemaker may make a difference. Clearly naming the situation allows all roles to orient themselves around the specific problems that need to be addressed.

Shift the Ways Employees Use Tech Internally

As we've said, a social sector organization can greatly advance their mission by using technology differently. This can begin by changing employees' relationship with technology. Different individuals can vary widely in their enthusiasm for new tech, or even their enthusiasm for any tech. As social impact organizations begin to adopt new technology—a new communication system, a new tool that tracks donors and volunteers, a new dashboard that analyzes operations—we can help shift the culture by formalizing the adoption of and engagement with technology. This could mean adding to employees' job descriptions that certain positions require interacting with the technology needed for the role. In addition, organizations can consider how best to document and communicate the need for employees to contribute to the development of new processes—and, when relevant, new technology for the organization.

Similarly, the use of technology should be seen as a strategic necessity. As organizations create strategic plans, write grant proposals, or communicate how they work, they should ensure that thoughtful use of technology is always articulated. Discussing technology alongside strategy, mission, and impact will also support the culture change that helps dissenters realize that technology adoption and mission execution are not in opposition, but that they actually work together to propel stronger organizations.

Hire to Support Community‐driven Technology Solutions

Many social impact organizations may want to hire a full technical team but lack the budget for it. How, then, can organizations advance their strategic vision—including technology to advance the mission—with limited finances?

For organizations that do not have the funding for even one technical position, employing volunteer technologists is an option. Dr. Quincy Brown, a cofounder of blackcomputeHER.org, an influential think tank for Black women and girls in computing and tech, points out: “There are many technologists who can and will support social impact organizations as volunteers. Not just from the user side, but also from the design and implementation and research side.”⁶ It is important to note, however, that the criteria for partnering with volunteer technical talent are the same as hiring for staff technical talent: seek out individuals who have demonstrated technical expertise, as well as the ability and willingness to learn from and share with organizations and communities—who themselves have the systems to deliver on a schedule. In addition, the time to onboard a volunteer into an organization is often not trivial; when possible, it's wise to seek financial support to cover the time investment required for managing volunteer technical support.

Once funding has been secured to support in‐house technical talent, the next question is which technologist position should be an organization's first hire. The key attributes of a social impact technologist are a deep understanding of the variety and limitations of technology, the humility to learn from the community, and the ability to execute. And so we recommend that the first hire be a director of technology. Essentially, this individual will need to

• make decisions on when to buy versus build versus collaborate with other entities on software;
• have a demonstrated ability to connect with the community and explain the hard tech in easy‐to‐understand ways;
• write and test code, as they will be the first line of defense of the organization's tech systems; and
• make decisions on when to seek support for user research, user design, and software engineering, as well as how to assess candidates for this support.

The decision of a second technical hire will depend on the specific needs of the organization and the relevant strategic goals. For larger organizations that already enjoy a large technical team, periodic reviews of the social impact organization's strategy, how it makes an impact in its mission area, and any policy or funding goals should be performed to make sure technology continues to advance the organization's mission, not compete with it. Regardless of the organization's size, remember that your organization is not the first to have to navigate tough choices about technology staffing. It is possible to figure it out, and you can build the support you need in your organization.