The intake queue is up again. A partner referral fell through because the handoff email went to the wrong list. A funder report is due Friday, and the numbers don’t reconcile across three spreadsheets and two systems.
Then someone asks a fair question in the board meeting: “What are we spending on technology, and what are we getting for it?”
A board ready tech budget template isn’t about impressing anyone. It’s about making the work legible, so you can protect trust, reduce rework, and increase capacity in the places that matter to the justice experience: intake, eligibility friction, court forms, language access, privacy risk, and reliable reporting.
Key takeaways (board-ready and practical)
- Split Run vs Change so everyone can see what keeps services stable, and what improves capacity.
- Put decision rights on the page, change dies when ownership is fuzzy.
- Tie Change spend to one chokepoint outcome (less rework, fewer missed deadlines, faster referrals).
- Include one explicit “stop doing this” to create real capacity for change work.
Start with their scoreboard, not yours
For justice-focused organizations, the “scoreboard” isn’t tickets closed or servers uptime. It’s what happens to a person trying to solve a problem under stress.
When technology is fragile, people feel it as:
- repeated questions and duplicated forms,
- missed deadlines and confusion about next steps,
- longer waits, failed referrals, and dropped cases,
- fear about confidentiality, especially in immigration, youth, or incarceration contexts.
That framing matters because it keeps your tech budget grounded in the work, not in tools. If a line item can’t be explained as reducing confusion, repeats, missed deadlines, or harmful outcomes, it doesn’t belong in the Change column.
If you want a plain-language map of the most common failure patterns behind those moments, start with common technology challenges faced by legal nonprofits.
Run vs Change: the split your board can actually understand
Most boards can’t parse a long list of subscriptions and vendor invoices. They can parse a simple story.
Think of your organization like a house:
- Run costs are the monthly bills and basic maintenance, heat, insurance, fixes that prevent the pipes from freezing.
- Change work is the remodel, the part you do on purpose to make the house function better.
When you mix them together, Change work looks “expensive” and Run work looks “bloated.” When you separate them, you can have an honest conversation about stability, risk, and capacity.
This is also where full-cost thinking helps. If “technology” only includes software, your budget is lying to you. Staff time, support, training, security controls, and vendor management are part of the cost of operating. The Nonprofit Finance Fund full cost workbook is a useful reference for getting the allocations right without making it a math contest.
The one-page tech budget template your board can scan in 60 seconds
Below is a simple format that fits on one page. Finance can map it to your chart of accounts later. The point is shared understanding first.
| Line item (plain language) | Run (annual, keep services stable) | Change (time-bound, improve capacity) |
|---|---|---|
| Core systems (case, CRM, email, docs) | $ | $ |
| Licenses and renewals (must-have) | $ | |
| Cloud hosting, backups, connectivity | $ | |
| Devices and replacement cycle | $ | |
| Support (vendor support, help desk, admin time) | $ | |
| Security and privacy controls (MFA, monitoring, training) | $ | $ |
| Data and reporting (baseline reporting) | $ | $ |
| Contingency (small, controlled) | $ | $ |
| Totals | $ | $ |
What goes in Run (and what the board should expect)
Run is not “nothing changes.” Run is the minimum you pay to avoid chaos:
- stable access to core tools,
- routine support and training,
- backups and account controls,
- basic reporting that doesn’t collapse every quarter.
Run should come with a clear standard: “Services stay on, sensitive data stays protected, and reporting is repeatable.”
What goes in Change (and what makes it defensible)
Change is work with a beginning and an end, tied to a chokepoint:
- intake and triage redesign (fewer dead ends, faster routing),
- referral handoffs (fewer drops, clearer partner loops),
- eligibility and document capture (less back-and-forth),
- court forms and compliance workflows (fewer missed steps),
- data definitions and report automation (less manual reconciliation),
- privacy-by-design improvements for high-risk populations.
Change is also where courts and administrative partners belong in the story. If your process depends on court rules, form packets, filing steps, or local practice, say so. It builds credibility and keeps expectations realistic.
For budgeting the program side of that work, the True Program Costs template can help you keep allocations honest across departments.
Build the page in 90 minutes (without a budget miracle)
Keep it short, and keep it real.
- List the systems people actually use, including the “shadow” spreadsheets.
- Tag each cost as Run or Change, no debate yet, just a first pass.
- Name the top one to two chokepoints that create the most rework or risk.
- Move only those chokepoint initiatives into Change, everything else waits.
- Add owners and a 30-day proof point (what will be measurably better).
- Sanity check the totals with a scenario view, the Propel scenario budget planning template is a helpful way to show tradeoffs without panic.
Decision rights: put “who decides” on the same page
A board-ready budget is also a governance tool. Add one line under the table (or in a margin note) answering:
- Who approves Run changes (CFO, COO, ED)?
- Who approves Change scope (ED plus a small steering group)?
- Who owns outcomes (named leader, not “IT”)?
If you need a calmer way to set this up across a year, a technology roadmap for legal nonprofit organizations is often the missing bridge between board intent and staff reality.
The “stop doing this” that frees capacity for Change
Capacity is the binding constraint, so you need one explicit stop.
A common, high-impact stop is this: stop treating staff workarounds as free.
When people export, reformat, and reconcile by hand, you’re paying in hidden labor, errors, and burnout. Name one workaround you’ll retire this quarter, and put a small slice of time and budget behind making that possible. That’s not a nice-to-have, it’s how Change work becomes real.
FAQs (because boards will ask)
What if we can’t separate Run vs Change cleanly?
Do it anyway. Use a simple rule: if the cost exists even when no projects happen, it’s Run. If it ends when the initiative ends, it’s Change.
Where does cybersecurity go?
Both. Your baseline controls are Run. A time-bound initiative (identity overhaul, incident response exercise, vendor risk review) is Change.
Should we show overhead allocations on the page?
Not in detail. Keep the page readable. Make sure your totals include real people time and support costs, even if finance tracks them elsewhere.
How do we avoid funding “projects” that never finish?
Time-box Change work, name an owner, and set a measure. If the numbers don’t move, you stop, re-scope, or replace the approach.
How CTO Input helps (and a next step you can take this week)
CTO Input helps justice-focused teams turn a confusing tech spend story into a board-ready plan with clear decision rights, light guardrails, and measures that reduce chaos and risk. That usually starts by mapping how work really happens, then building a Run vs Change budget that leadership, staff, and funders can all understand.
If you want support, start at https://www.ctoinput.com and use the blog at https://blog.ctoinput.com to share language and examples with your team. When you’re ready to put your one-page budget in front of the board, https://ctoinput.com/schedule-a-call is the fastest next step.
One honest question to close the loop: Which single chokepoint, if fixed in the next quarter, would unlock the most capacity and trust for the people you serve?