AnnuAl NONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY STAFFING AND INVESTMENTS REPORT€¦ · nonprofit technology staffing and investments report · august 2015 9 While we don’t want to make too much of

The 9TH AnnuAl NONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY STAFFING AND INVESTMENTS REPORTwww.nten.org | 1020 SW Taylor Street | Suite 800 | Portland, Oregon 97205 | p: 415.397.9000 | f: 415.814.4056 An NTEN Report

ContentsAbout the Survey ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Survey Distribution Partners ............................................................................................................................................ 3

How to Read the Report .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Executive Summary and Key Findings ......................................................................................................................... 5

Part One: Investment Benchmarks ................................................................................................................................. 8

Technology Staffing ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

Technology Budgets .................................................................................................................................................. 13

Part Two: Nonprofit Technology Practice and Organizational Culture ....................................................... 20

Technology Adoption Level .................................................................................................................................... 21

Tech Effectiveness Score ......................................................................................................................................... 23

Strategic Planning ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

Evaluating ROI ............................................................................................................................................................. 26

Technology Leadership ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Technology Training .................................................................................................................................................. 28

Technology Budget Planning ................................................................................................................................. 29

Organizational Structure and Oversight ........................................................................................................... 30

Technology Staff Credentials ................................................................................................................................. 32

Part Three: Respondent Demographics .................................................................................................................... 33

About NTEN .......................................................................................................................................................................... 38

NONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY STAFFING AND INVESTMENTS REPORT · AUGUST 2015 1

About the Survey

About the SurveyAbout the SurveyIn our ninth year of conducting theannual survey on technology staffingand investments among the NTEN andgrowing nonprofit technologycommunity, we are pleased to have anupdated set of data to consider aboutthe kinds of investments our surveyrespondents are making in theirorganizations when it comes totechnology.

To gather the data for this report, werely on the generosity and participationof respondents who completed thesurvey, as well as the collaboration ofsector partners who helped distributethe survey: Thank You!

MethodologyDuring the spring of 2015, we distributedan invitation via direct email toparticipate in the online survey toNTEN’s Community. We also promotedthe survey across a wide range of NTENchannels, including our monthly Connectand Member Newsletters, blog, andsocial media.

In addition, survey distribution partners(see page 3) also distributed links to theonline survey via email and/or via socialchannels. As a result, 701 responses werecollected.

Note that data collected was voluntaryand not verified by a third party orexternal sources. As part of the dataanalysis process, we have applied somebasic data validation rules to excludeobviously erroneous or impossible data.However, please consider thedemographic representation (pages 33-37), how your organization mightcompare to our respondent make-up,and the voluntary nature of this datawhen you are comparing your ownorganization’s practices and investmentsto this data.

Because our year-over-year respondentpool varies significantly, we refrain frommaking direct year-to-year analysis ofdollar figures, and we recommend youdo the same. However, when significantchanges emerge, we will make a note.Otherwise, we tend to generalize about

organizational technology practices interms of trends, and let the current yearinvestment numbers stand on their own.

To see more about the demographics ofrespondents, please see pages 33-37.

To compare your organization’s dataagainst the research data, drill down intothis year’s and last year’s data, and evendownload custom benchmark reports,go to benchmarks.nten.org.


http://benchmarks.nten.org/

Partners

Survey Distribution Partners


Introduction

Some notes on how to Read this ReportThe following terms and categorieswill be used throughout:

Tech Adoption level:We askrespondents to rate theirorganization’s approach totechnology (see the detailed sectionon Tech Adoption in this report onpage 20), which we use to categorizerespondents into one of four TechAdoption levels. These categories areused when comparing responses tosurvey questions throughout thisreport. When referring to TechnologyAdoption in this report, we’re usingthese descriptions:

Struggling: “We are struggling; wehave a failing infrastructure, and ourtechnology time and budgetgenerally go towards creatingworkarounds, repairing oldequipment, and duplicating tasks.”

Functioning: “We keep the lights on;we have basic systems in place tomeet immediate needs. Leadershipmakes technology decisions based onefficiencies, with little-to-no inputfrom staff/consultant.”

Operating: “We keep up; we havestable infrastructure and a set oftechnology policies and practices.

Leadership makes technologydecisions based on standard levelsaccording to industry/sectorinformation and gathers input fromtechnology staff/consultant beforemaking a final decision.”

Leading: “We’re innovators; werecognize that technology is aninvestment in our mission, andleadership integrates technologydecisions with organizational strategy.Technology-responsible staff areinvolved in overall strategic planning.”

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0Medium

2

1

0.5

Large

3

1.5

1

Very Large

6.75

3.375

2

75th percentile

• Median

25th percentile

==

=

=

Organization Size: We asked respondents their overallorganizational operating budgets, which we’ve used throughoutthe report to categorize and compare responses:

Organization Size Organization BudgetCategory Range

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

< $1M

$1M < > $5M

$5M < > $10M

> $10M

How to read theCharts:The vertical line indicates the

range of normal values for the

segment; the top of the line is

the 75th percentile and the

bottom of the line is the 25th

percentile.

The green circle indicates the

median.

You can also read the datapoints in the table along thebottom of the chart.

=

Small

1

.58

.25


Summary

executive Summary and Key FindingsNow in our ninth year of collectingand reporting on these nonprofittechnology spending and practicesdata, this research provides not onlythe benchmarks you and yourorganization can use for assessingand planning your technologybudgets and strategies, but alsoprovides valuable benchmarks for thenonprofit sector as a whole ingauging the maturity andeffectiveness of technology strategiesand use.

With NTEN’s theory of change inmind, this report examines:technology staffing levels, technologybudgets, and overall organizationalapproaches to technology decisions,as well as technology oversight andmanagement practices.

Key findings from this year’s survey:

• On average, this year’s respondentshave 4.6 technology-responsiblestaff.

• On average, each technology-responsible staff supports about 28organizational staff members.

• “Leading” organizations have nearly

3x more total technology staff than“Struggling” organizations, thoughwe don’t see a direct correlationbetween number of technology staffand Technology Adoption levels thisyear.

• While we are unable to see a directcorrelation between the number oftech staff and Technology Adoptionlevel, we do note that “Leading”organizations report, on average,more total tech staff than those atthe lower levels on the adoptionspectrum, and also more tech staff,on average, than “Very Large”organizations.

• Because technology budgets canvary widely, even when comparingorganizations of a similar operatingbudget size category, using the Per-Staff budget metric can be amore useful benchmark for planningand assessment.

• As we’ve seen in previous years,“Very Large” organizations may bespending the same – or less – than“Small” organizations per staff.

• The median technology budget as apercentage of the organization’s


This year, we seethe least ‘size gap’

among ‘leading’organizations that

we’ve ever seen, with organizations

of all sizes seemingalmost equally aslikely to consider

themselves at the‘leading’ end

of the TechnologySpectrum.

Executive Summary and Key Findings


total operating budget, across allorganization sizes in our survey,ranges from 1.0% to 2.2%.

• As we’ve seen previously, the size ofthe total technology budget doesnot directly correlate to higherTechnology Adoption Level –smarter spending, like per-staff,correlates more positively thansimply spending more.

• About half of all respondents (50%)indicated they were at the“Operating” level of the TechAdoption spectrum.

• Technology budget allocations tocategories such as hardware,software, consulting, etc., has seenlittle change from last year, with theexception that Software spendinghas decreased compared toreporting from last year, whileNetworking has increased.

• This year, we see the least “size gap”among “Leading” organizations thatwe’ve ever seen, with organizationsof all sizes seeming almost equallyas likely to consider themselves atAdoption Spectrum.

• “Leading” organizations have a TechEffectiveness Score almost 2x thatof “Struggling” organizations.

• Like previous years, responses to the Tech Effectiveness questionsindicate that nonprofits feelrelatively confident that they havethe tools to do their every-day work,but are less confident about havingenough skilled staff or training toeffectively use their technology fortheir work.

• “Leading” organizations are nearly2x more likely to include technologyin their strategic plans than“Struggling” organizations.

• We continue to see a positive trendin terms of including technology,formally, in strategic plans with 66%of all respondents indicating thispractice.

• We have seen some positive changeregarding respondents conductingReturn on Investment (ROI)evaluation for technologyinvestments: while we’ve seen noincrease in firm Yes’s here, we seethe following: last year only 36%reported conducting informal or

‘leading’organizations are

nearly 2x morelikely to include

technology in theirstrategic plans than

‘Struggling’organizations.

Executive Summary and Key Findings


infrequent ROI, compared to 42%this year. This has moved the “No”responses from 48% last year to 41%this year.

• New:We asked respondents toindicate the number of technology-responsible staff with technologycredentials (such as a degree orcertificate in IT, computing, orprogramming). We found a strongcorrelation between TechnologyAdoption and number oftechnology-responsible staff withcredentials.

• New:We asked respondents toindicate additional demographicdata about their technology-responsible staff, including age, race,and gender identities, which you canfind on page 37.

• There are more “Small”organizations represented amongsurvey respondents this year (40%compared to 36% last year), as wellas less “Large” (9% vs 11%), and less“Very Large” (19% compared to 21%)organizations in this year’s survey;“Medium” organizations have

remained equally representedcompared to last year, at 32%. Thereis also change in make up of staffsize within budget categoriescompared to last year, with“Medium” organizations reportingan average staff size of nearly 72this year, compared to 26.5 reportedaverage last year; reported staffsizes of “Large” organizations,meanwhile, has decreasedcompared to last year, with 69compared to 102.

Size of thetechnology budget

does not directlycorrelate to higher

Technology Adoptionlevel – smarter

spending, like per-staff, correlates

more positively than simply

spending more.

Part One:Investment

Benchmarks

8

Investment Benchmarks

Technology Staffing

4.6 OrganizationSize

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

All

Average # of Total Tech Staff

1.4

2.8

4.1

8.0

4.6

Average # of Org Staff Supported by Each Tech Staff

8.6

25.1

21.9

73.4

28.1

OrganizationSize

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

All

Total OrgStaff Size

9.9

71.7

68.6

601.0

148.2

ITStaff

0.4

1.3

1.7

4.2

1.6

“Data” Staff

0.3

0.5

0.9

1.4

0.6

“Web”Staff

0.4

0.5

0.6

1.2

0.6

“Online/Digital”Staff

0.3

0.4

0.9

1.2

0.6

OtherTechStaff

0.4

0.5

0.5

1.5

0.7

Average Total Technology Staff by Org Size

Average Technology Staff by Role and Org SizeTechnology Roles BreakdownWe asked about the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff by technologyresponsibility, and then totaledthat to find their totaltechnology-responsible staffnumber.

This table provides a morenuanced look at technologystaffing levels among ourrespondents.

Average number oftechnology-responsiblestaff among our respondent organizations.


While we don’t want to make too much of year-over-year comparisons, we do want topoint out significant jumps or drops that we see in the “pattern.” Here, we note that “VeryLarge” organizations report 1.4 FTE “Data” staff, which is a drop from the 3.8 FTE reported

for this role last year.


Looking at the ranges of technology staffing:Note that even within a single organization size category, there is still variation in staffing levels, as thesecharts indicate.

You’ll want to look at the entire range here (25th to 75th percentile levels of responses) for your organizationsize category to see where your organization falls.

The green dot marks the median value – so, for example, if your organization operating budget is less than $1M, then the median number of Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) technology staff in your size category is0.8. Do you have more or less than that on your team?

Technology Responsible Staff - Ranges

9.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0

Small

2.0

0.8

0.0

Medium

3.0

1.3

0.8

Large

6.0

3.5

2.0

Very Large

9.0

5.0

3.0

75th percentile

= Median

25th percentile

==

=

=


90.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.00.0


Why is the Org Staff – Per – Tech Staff a useful metric?We include this metric because we feel that it is useful for benchmarking and for determining your owntechnology staffing needs.

What is your total organization staff size? How many technology staff do you have? Divide the first numberby the second to determine your own metric, and then compare to our charts.

This is often a more exact comparison than just looking for the average number of tech staff per budgetcategory, since your staff size can be a better indicator of your “size” and actual technology needs.

Org Staff Supported by Each Technology Staff

Small

10.0

4.0

1.7

Medium

24.3

12.3

5.9

Large

22.6

15.0

10.4

Very Large

87.1

33.4

14.7

75th percentile

= Median

25th percentile

== =

=



Technology Staffingby TechnologyAdoption levels

Tech AdoptionLevel

Struggling

Functioning

Operating

Leading

All

Average # of Total Tech Staff

4.0

2.5

4.4

11.1

4.7

Average # of OrgStaff Supported byEach Tech Staff

27.8

27.2

28.8

28.5

28.3

Tech AdoptionLevel

Struggling

Functioning

Operating

Leading

All

Averageof IT Staff

2.0

0.8

2.2

4.6

2.1

Averageof Web Staff

0.8

0.5

0.7

2.8

0.9

Average of Data Staff

0.6

0.6

0.9

3.0

1.0

Averageof OnlineStaff

0.5

0.5

0.7

1.7

0.8

Averageof OtherStaff

0.8

0.7

1.0

1.4

1.0

“Leading” organizations have about3x more total technology staff than“Struggling” organizations.

We should also note, however, that there may be morecorrelation between organization size and tech staffing levelhere. For example, the ratio of organization staff to technologystaff is lowest at the struggling level, which suggests that thereisn’t necessarily a correlation between Tech Adoption and techstaff ratio. On the other hand, the spread between “Struggling”and “Leading” organizations in terms of organizational staffsupported by each FTE tech staff isn’t as significant as thespread in terms of total tech staff. We can say in general, then,that those at the Leading edge of the Tech Adoption spectrumwill tend to have more total technology staff.

Total Technology Staff

Technology Staff by Role

3x


Again, we note the changein the pattern this year with“struggling” organizations

reporting more FTE “IT” staff thanin previous years, and against thecorrelation of tech staff toTechnology Adoption we’ve seen inthe past. On the other hand, the dipin “Data” staff we saw for “VeryLarge” organizations in the previoustable is not evident here, with“Leading” organizations reporting asignificantly larger number of“Data” staff than others.


Technology Budgets: By Organization Size

Total Non-Salary TechnologyBudgets:We asked respondents who had access toor knowledge of their organization’sbudget to provide information about theirtechnology expenses in seven categories(see page 17 for the detailed breakdown),excluding staff salaries. These charts referto the total spending reported.

The budgets extend as one might expect,with a rising curve as total operatingbudget grows.

OrganizationSize

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

All

Average of TotalTechnology Budget

$11,111.27

$94,931.13

$259,900.00

$498,828.57

$116,908.00

Technology Budget* – Ranges

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$0

75th percentile

25th percentile

==

= =

Small

$12,884

$6,485

$2,700

Medium

$92,250

$40,050

$19,413

Large

$299,625

$143,500

$114,300

Very Large

$350,000

$180,900

$97,000

* Note that we are referring to the total non-salary technology budget here

= Median



Technology Budgets: Per Organization Staff

Technology Spending Per Staff – Another UsefulPlanning MetricAs we discussed with the Org Staff – Per –Tech Staff metric, looking more closely atthe “per staff” value of investment is oftenmore useful than looking at the averageper organization size category. In the caseof technology budgets, we see that theper-staff budget amount tightens up acrossall the size categories, providing moreuseful benchmarks for your comparison.

We also note, as we've seen in previousyears, that Very Large Organizations maybe spending the same – or less – thanSmall Organizations per staff.

A change we’d like to note this year isincrease in spending reporting among“Large” organizations. Last year, we sawthe per-staff spending peak at the“Medium” size, and decrease asorganization size increases from there.However, we see the peak in per-staff techspending in the “Large” organization sizecategory this year.

OrganizationSize

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

All

Average of TechBudget per Org Staff

$2,588.37

$3,087.25

$6,848.04

$1,836.12

$2,952.09 Technology Budget* Per Org Staff – Ranges

$7,000.00

$6,000.00

$5,000.00

$4,000.00

$3,000.00

$2,000.00

$1,000.00

$0

75th percentile

25th percentile

==

=

=

Small

$3,069

$1,544

$659

Medium

$4,351

$1,985

$886

Large

$6,050

$3,940

$1,420

Very Large

$2,952

$1,340

$600

* Note that we are still referring to the total non-salary technology budget here

= Median



Technology Budget: % of Operating Budget

OrganizationSize

Small 4.4%

Medium 3.1%

Large 2.7%

Very Large 1.4%

All 3.5%

The median technology budgetas percentage of theorganization’s total operatingbudget across all organizationsizes ranges from

1.0%TO

2.2%

Average Tech Budgetas % of TotalOperating Budget

Technology Budget* as % of Total Operating Budget – Ranges

4.5%

4.0%

3.5%

3.0%

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

75th percentile

25th percentile

==

=

=

Small

3.8%

2.2%

1.2%

Medium

3.1%

1.9%

1.1%

Large

3.0%

1.7%

1.2%

Very Large

2.0%

1.0%

0.5%

* Note that we are still referring to the total non-salary technology budget here

= Median



Technology Budgets: By Technology Adoption levels

As we’ve seen previously, theoverall size of technology budgetdoes not directly correlate tohigher Technology Adoption Level

– smarter spending, like per-staff, as thesecond graph here indicates, correlatesmore positively than simply spending more.

Tech Adoption

Struggling

Functioning

Operating

Leading

All

Average Tech Budget*as % of Operating Budget

5%

3%

3%

5%

4%

Tech Adoption

Struggling

Functioning

Operating

Leading

All

Average Tech Budget* Per Org Staff

$2,672.97

$3,111.28

$2,692.89

$4,133.43

$3,049.29

Struggling

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

Functioning Operating Leading All

Average Tech Budget* as % of Operating Budget by Tech Adoption Level

Struggling

$5,000.00

$4,000.00

$3,000.00

$2,000.00

$1,000.00

$0

Functioning Operating Leading All

Average Tech Budget* per Org Staff by Tech Adoption Level

*Note that we are still referring to the totalnon-salary technology budget here



Technology Budget Allocations: By Organization Size

Excluding salaries, organizations are spending most on hardware, as we’ve seenpreviously. We do note a decrease in reported Software spending, and an increase inreported Networking spending.

Interestingly, except for the changes noted above, the per-category expenses show verylittle change from last year, suggesting that these are steady budget allocation figures,despite the large variance in our survey sample from year to year.

Organization

Size

Small (203)

Medium (69)

Large (136)

Very Large (225)

AverageOverall

Hardware

$2,231.54

$15,402.50

$39,200.00

$154,285.71

$29,401.23

Software

$2,285.70

$19,367.65

$57,975.00

$78,821.43

$22,562.99

Hosting

$771.97

$9,443.07

$18,045.00

$76,547.62

$13,100.40

Networking

$3,092.42

$30,591.22

$44,578.95

$96,555.56

$25,914.18

ProjectConsulting

$2,196.19

$17,772.92

$34,805.56

$52,418.18

$16,892.19

Out-sourcedServices

$1,532.54

$12,884.11

$34,505.26

$31,915.00

$11,978.45

OtherTech

$1,175.75

$14,971.77

$50,966.67

$95,613.33

$20,077.81


OrganizationSize

Small $19,168.62

Medium $112,610.67

Large $216,657.73

Very Large $383,284.48

Average $124,986.14 Overall

Average of TotalTech Salaries


Technology Budget Allocations: By Tech Adoption levels

While the spending acrossthe Technology Spectrumindicates what you mightexpect—that spending

increases, generally, as adoption levelrises—we note a few exceptions:

“Leading” organizations seem to bespending less than “Operating”organizations on Networking andSoftware budgets.

“Leading” organizations are alsospending less on these twocategories as compared to last year,when they reported over $122K forSoftware and $41K on Networking.

These changes further suggest thatthe correlation between “Very Large”and “Leading” organizations is lessthis year.

Tech

Adoption

Struggling

Functioning

Operating

Leading

AverageOverall

Hardware

$4,406.50

$5,327.42

$27,275.48

$86,893.70

$29,001.20

Software

$6,032.22

$10,250.00

$31,752.64

$29,011.65

$24,335.99

Hosting

$360.56

$3,448.56

$18,024.72

$24,554.83

$13,939.86

Networking

$4,781.18

$5,670.02

$40,969.27

$25,125.28

$26,266.37

ProjectConsulting

$2,000.00

$4,382.98

$22,323.37

$25,854.84

$17,317.73

Out-sourcedServices

$642.86

$3,633.80

$16,531.42

$15,885.00

$12,369.05

OtherTech

$1,471.43

$988.89

$29,367.76

$28,560.00

$19,214.58

Hardware

$90,000

$80,000

$70,000

$60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0Software Hosting Networking Project

ConsultingOutsourcedServices

Other Tech

g Struggling

g Functioning

g Operating

g Leading



expense Changes Compared to Previous Year

As in previous years, respondents report that most of their expenses have stayed the same compared to theirprevious fiscal year budgets.

Hosted Software (also known as “Cloud Software”) is the expense category most likely to have seen an increase overthe previous year (44% reported increase), followed by Staff (36% reported increase).

Like last year, Hardware is the category most indicated as a decreased expense area (14% reported decrease),followed by Installed Software (with 11% reporting decrease).

Hardware

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Software -installed

Software -hosted

Hosting Networking Projectconsulting

OutsourcedServices

Staff Training Other

g I don’t know

g Increased

g Stayed the same

g Decreased


Part Two:nonprofit Technology

Practice and Organizational Culture

20

Nonprofit Technology Practice and Organizational Culture

Technology Adoption levels

Despite the large variance in surveyaudience we’ve seen over the last fewyears, we see a very similar distribution ofresponses across the TechnologyAdoption Spectrum, with about half ofrespondents indicating their organizationis at the “Operating” level.

We should note that the adoption levellabels are not used in the survey (we useType 1, 2, etc.) to avoid some bias inselection.

As we’ve noted in previous reports, whilewe do see these levels as a step laddertowards becoming an organization thatuses technology skillfully and confidentlyto achieve their mission and serve theircommunity, we want to note that“Operating” is a level that anyorganization should feel confident andskillful in.

Leading, however, represents anorganizational approach that, we believe,allows an organization to perform not onlyskillfully and confidently, but also nimblyand proactively – such an organization is aLeader when it comes to technology andinnovation, anticipating and even drivingsector trends.

ResponsePercent

8.3%

28.9%

50.0%

12.8%

Response Count

52

181

313

80

Which of the following descriptions most closely reflects your organization’s current overall approach totechnology and technology decisions:

Answer Options

Struggling - we are struggling; we have a failing infrastructure, and our technology time and budgetgenerally go towards creating work-arounds, repairing old equipment, and duplicating tasks.

Functioning - we keep the lights on; we have basic systems in place to meet immediate needs. Leadershipmakes technology decisions based on efficiencies, with little-to-no input from staff/consultant.

Operating - we keep up; we have stable infrastructure and a set of technology policies and practices.Leadership makes technology decisions based on standard levels according to industry/sector informationand gathers input from technology staff/consultant before making final decision.

Leading - we’re innovators; we recognize that technology is an investment in our mission, and leadershipintegrates technology decisions with organizational strategy. Technology-responsible staff are involved inoverall strategic planning.



Technology Adoption levels:By Organization Size

Leading

10%

10%

11%

12%

g Small

g Medium

g Large

g Very Large

While organizationaloperating budget size doesplay a role in TechnologyAdoption Level, as we seein this chart, we shouldnote that there isn’t a directcorrelation. While smallerorganizations aresignificantly more likely toconsider themselves“Struggling” or“Functioning,” the spreadbetween “Small” and “VeryLarge” organizationssignificantly decreases at the upper end of theadoption spectrum.

In fact, this year, we see theleast “size gap”

among “Leading”organizations that we’veever seen.

While in general we see asteady progressiontowards, and peak at, theOperating level for eachsize category, we note thatSmall organizations hoverbetween Functioning andOperating, with slightlymore indicating they’re atthe Functioning Level. Thisis a pattern we have seenpreviously.

Struggling

13%

6%

3%

4%

Functioning

38%

21%

14%

14%

Operating

34%

48%

44%

42%


50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


Tech effectiveness (Te) ScoreWe asked respondents to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5, theiragreement with statements about technology resources andapplication of that technology at their organizations.

We totaled their responses to find their score, with the highestpossible total score for each respondent being 30.

The higher the number, the more effective their organization is in terms of providing the technology, staff, and training they needto carry out their work, and in applying those tools across thevarious departments of the organization – from programs tofundraising to communications.

You can see the breakdown of the scores across the variousresource and application areas on the next page.

We see a drop in the reported score from “Very Large”organizations, from 19.99 last year to this year’s 18.3. We also note that there is no correlation between organization size andTechnology Effectiveness score here: a “Small” organization can feel as “Effective” as a “Very Large” organization.

Tech Effectiveness (TE) Score by TechnologyAdoption (TA) Level:As you might assume, the TE scores and TA levels correlate,showing a stark slope of improvement in TE scores as we move up the TA levels.

Leading organizations have a Tech Effectiveness score nearly

that of Strugglingorganizations.

OrganizationSize

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

Overall

Average of TE Score

17.2

18.3

19.0

18.3

17.9

Average of TE Normalized Score (scale of 1 to 5)

2.9

3.2

3.3

3.1

3.0

TechAdoption

Struggling

Functioning

Operating

Leading

Overall

Average of TE Score

12.3

15.5

19.4

23.0

18.2

Average of TE Normalized Score (scale of 1 to 5)

1.9

2.5

3.4

4.2

3.1

2x NONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY STAFFING AND INVESTMENTS REPORT · AUGUST 2015 23


As in previous years, respondents felt most confident about having the tools to do their every-daywork, while they were least confident about having enough skilled technology staff or training for allstaff to effectively use their technology for their every-day work.

We note that, even though the general order of effectiveness across these categories is the same as previously, the actual numbers reflect a decrease in confidence regarding Hardware, Programs,and Marketing/Communications; but a slight increase in confidence regarding fundraising, staff, andtraining.

Tech Effectiveness Statements rated on a scale of 1 (less true) to 5 (more true)

We have the technology (hardware and software) we need to do our day-to-day work effectively

We make effective use of technology to support our programmatic work/our services

We make effective use of technology to support our marketing/communications work

We make effective use of technology to support our fundraising/development work

We have enough skilled staff to support technology functions/needs for the organization

We have enough training for all staff to use technology effectively for their day-to-day work

Average Rating

3.31

3.13

3.14

2.95

2.93

2.89



Technology Included in OrganizationalStrategic Plans?

Struggling

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%Functioning Operating Leading

Yes Not Sure No

No23%

Yes66%

No

20

19

18

17

16

15NotSure

Yes

By Technology Effectiveness Score

By Technology Adoption Level

We asked organizations whether technology was included in theirorganization’s strategic plan, and we continue to see positivecorrelation between Tech Adoption levels, Tech Effectivenessscores, and this organizational practice.

Leading organizations are nearly more likely to include technology in their strategic plans than Struggling organizations.

2x


Not Sure12%


evaluating Return on Investment (ROI)of Technology Investments?

We asked organizations : “Does your organization conductan ROI (Return on Investment) analysis or study as part ofits technology investment process? For example, in

determining a software, hardware, or service purchase, is anevaluation of costs and impact on the organization conducted?” andcontinue to see positive correlation between Tech Adoption levels,Tech Effectiveness scores, and this organizational practice.

While we’ve seen no increase in firm Yes’s here, we have see somepositive change here: last year only 36% reported conducting informalor infrequent ROI, compared to 42% this year. This has moved the“No” responses from 48% last year to 41% this year.

Struggling

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%


No

25

20

15

10

5

0Somewhat(informallyor rarely)

Yes(rigorouslyor regularly)



Yes (rigorously or regularly) Somewhat (informally or rarely) No

Yes (rigorously or regularly)

9%

I don’t know 8%

No 41%

Somewhat(informally or rarely) 42%



Do Technology Staff have Voice in Strategic Direction?

This question is based on NTEN’s theory of change,which includes the notion that organizations will bemore effective overall if their technology staff have aseat at the table when organizational strategy and

vision are being discussed. We also see a positive correlationbetween this practice and both Technology Adoption levels andTech Effectiveness scores.

Struggling

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%


No

20

19

18

17

16

15Yes



Not Sure12%

No23%

Yes65%


Yes No


have Budget for Technology Training?

With such a strong correlation between this practice(designating organizational training budget fortechnology-related skills and knowledge) and both TAlevels and TE scores, we are pleased to see a slight

increase respondents indicating “Yes” and decrease in indicating“No” compared with last year. Perhaps more exciting, the Yes’sout-number the No’s for the first time this year.

Struggling

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%



I don’t Know12%

No42%

Yes46%


No

20

19

18

17

16

15Yes


Yes No


Technology Itemized in Budget?

This is also a question based on NTEN’s theory of change – we assume that more deliberate(proactive) planning for technology will result inoverall effectiveness, which is borne out by the

strong positive correlations we see between this practiceand both TA levels and TE scores.

Struggling

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%


Miscellaneous

20

18

16

14

12

10Some TechSeparated

Out

Separate ITBudget or GLAccount

Managed by IT



Separate IT Budget or GL Account Managed by IT

Some Tech Separated Out

Miscellaneous/Other Supplies

Some TechSeparated Out

43%

I don’t Know10%

Miscellaneous/Other Supplies

22%

Separate ITBudget or GL

Account Managedby IT 25%



Organizational Structure forTechnology Oversight

For the first time in our surveying, “part of general operation or administration” is not the most frequently reported answer here.Respondents this year were slightly more likely to report that a “designated staff member” has oversight over technology decisions andimplementation in the organization.

Other (please specify

Within Development/Fundraising department

Within Marketing or Communications departments

Within Finance department

We have no one with official technology responsibility

Separate IT department within organization

Part of general operations or administration

We have a designated staff member to manage technology,

but not a separate department

Where is Technology Oversight Within the Organization?

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Number of respondents


We should note that there is correlation between an organization’s size and their technology structure/oversight, with “Very Large” organizations most likely to report that they have separate departments to manage technology, and “Small”organizations most likely to indicate that they have no one with official technology responsibility. Therefore, the shift in

responses here compared to previous years could also be the result of shifting demographics responding to the survey.


Organizational Structure: By Technology Adoption levels

Struggling organizations were most likely to indicate that “Marketing or Communications departments” had official technology oversight,followed by “no one” – which is a slight change from responses last year, when “Struggling” organizations were most likely to report that“no one” had official technology oversight. Like last year, “Leading” organizations were most likely to report that they have a separatedepartment within the organization to oversee technology.

We should note, that responses may also correlate to organization size here, though, as we’ve noted elsewhere, we saw less “size gap”among “Leading” organizations this year, suggesting that separate IT departments may be a “Leading” organizational practice rather thana coincidence of organizational size.

Separate IT department within organization

We have a designated staff member to manage technology,

but not a separate department

Part of general operations or administration

Within Marketing or Communications departments

Within Finance department

Within Development/Fundraising department

We have no one with official technology responsibility

Other (please specify

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

g Struggling g Functioning

g Operating g Leading



Technology Staff Credentials

Struggling

2.0

1.75

1.5

1.25

1.0

.75

.5

.25

0

Functioning Operating Leading


1.3Average number oftechnology-responsible staff with

technology credentials.This is the first year we’ve asked thisquestion, and we asked respondents toindicate the number of technology-responsible staff with, for example, adegree or certificate in fields such ascomputer science or IT.

We note here, as the chart demonstrates,that there is a strong correlation betweenTechnology Adoption and number oftechnology-responsible staff withcredentials.


Average Number of Staff by Tech Adoption

Struggling

Functioning

Operating

Leading

0.59

0.85

1.31

1.72

Part Three:Respondent

Demographics

33

0 50 100 150 200 250

Respondent Demographics

Respondent DemographicsSub Sectors*

V. Human Services

VII. Public, Societal Benefit

II. Education

IV. Health

III. Environmental and Animals

I. Arts, Culture, and Humanities

VIII. Religion-Related

X. Unknown, Unclassified

IX. Mutual/Membership Benefit

VI. International, Foreign Affairs


*IRS NTEE Codes were used as options for respondents


Respondent DemographicsBudget and Staff Sizes

Organization Operating Budg et

Organization Budget Size

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

Average TotalStaff Size

9.91

71.67

68.61

601.01

VeryLarge(>10M$) 19%

Large (5M->10M$)

9%

Small (<1M$)40%

Medium(1M-5M$)32%



Number of Respondents by Region

Mid-Atlantic US 14%

Midwestern US 19%

Northeastern US 23%

Northwestern US 8%

Outside US 7%

Southern US 10%

Southwestern US 4%

Western US 14%


7%

Respondent Demographics: Geographic locationWhere the Surveys Came From

Outside US

8%

4%

14%

19%

10%

14%

23%


Respondent Demographics: Gender, Age, and Race


4.6Average number of technology-responsiblestaff reported by respondent organizations tothis year’s survey.

For the first time, we asked respondents to report how many of their technology-responsible staff fell into these additional demographic categories. Please notethat these numbers are selectively self-reported by a single member of eachorganization.

We consider these numbers as incomplete (responses here were low), but animportant start for tracking demographic data about nonprofit staffing practices.

*Note that the numbers to the left don’t directly correlate to this overall tech-staffaverage number. We’ve included the overall average number here to provide ahelpful point of reference.

Men 3.08

Women 2.90

Latino or Hispanic 1.27

Asian 0.90

American Indian or Alaska Native 0.36

Black or African American 0.95

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.21

White 3.77

More than one race 0.69

Other 0.63

Traditionalist (Born 1925–1945) 0.89

Baby Boomers (Born 1946–1964) 1.66

Generation X (Born 1965–1980) 2.39

Millennial (Born 1981 and after) 2.12

Average number oftechnology-responsible staffthat fall into these additionaldemographic categories:

About NTEN

A Community TransformingTechnology Into Social Change

Who We AreA community of nonprofit professionals,we aspire to a world where nonprofitgroups of all types and sizes usetechnology strategically and confidentlyto fulfill their missions. Together, theNTEN Community helps Members puttechnology to work so they can bringabout the change they want to see inthe world.

What We DoNTEN connects Members with oneanother and offers many opportunitiesfor learning and professionaldevelopment—all so you can focus onachieving your goals and meeting yourmission.

How We Do ItNTEN helps Members, with their diversejob functions and levels of tech comfortand expertise, share best practices, andglean insights from one another bothonline and off: training, research andindustry analysis, regional meet-ups, and our signature Nonprofit TechnologyConference. As a member, you gain

instant access to a supportiveCommunity that shares your passionsand challenges, as well as to valuableresources for professional development.

ConnectOnline Networkingwww.nten.org Whether you’re a webmaster, marketer,executive director, fundraiser, blogger,program manager, or play another rolein the nonprofit sector, connect withyour peers online. Join our Communitiesof Practice and social networks to askquestions, make connections, and shareyour ideas.

Events www.nten.org/eventsNTEN's Nonprofit TechnologyConference, Leading Change Summit,and local meet-ups bring nonprofitprofessionals together to share ideasand best practices. Get to knowcolleagues. Develop a support network.Talk shop. Vent. Congratulate.Collaborate. The possibilities are endless.

LearnNTEN Webinarswww.nten.org/webinarsChanging the world isn’t easy. NTEN

Members are always looking to learnmore about how to use technology tofurther their missions. Gain a wealth ofknowledge without ever leaving yourdesk through NTEN’s extensive scheduleof live webinars and archived events.

NTEN Researchwww.nten.org/researchNTEN collaborates with renownedindustry, academic, and nonprofitpartners to conduct research on keysubjects related to nonprofit technologylike IT staffing and spending, salaries,social networking, and data ecosystems.Our reports and benchmarks studiesoffer actionable data and invaluableinsider information.

ChangeNTEN Connect Monthlywww.nten.org/signupRead how NTEN Members are fulfillingtheir missions and changing the world—and how you can too. The free monthlyNTEN Connect e-publication brings yousolid advice, success stories, and bestpractices related to technology and thenonprofit sector.

About nTen


www.nten.org/signup

www.nten.org/research

www.nten.org/webinars

www.nten.org/events

www.nten.org/networking

Documents

AnnuAl NONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY STAFFING AND INVESTMENTS REPORT€¦ · nonprofit technology staffing and investments report · august 2015 9 While we don’t want to make too much of