Where does your organization stand with AI?

Five things, roughly in this order: what people understand and how they feel about it, what’s written down (a policy, who’s responsible for it, whether the board has even discussed it), what skills and time actually exist, where AI should and should not be used across eight specific tasks (writing grant drafts, screening job applicants, deciding who gets services), and what people are already doing. That last part is concrete: which kinds of tool someone has used in the past three months, and which kinds they’ve been explicitly told not to use, both from the same list.

Board members and staff answer identical wording, which is what makes the report’s lead finding possible: not a score, but the places their answers part company. A board that believes a policy exists while half its staff say there isn’t one is a finding no amount of guessing gets you to on your own.

Set it up, and it asks your board, your staff, or both. Each group gets one link that you share yourself. Nobody logs in. Nobody’s individual answers are traceable back to them, the same guarantee the board self-assessment makes: no name, no email, no login tied to a response.

The report leads with where the board and staff diverge, then the plain findings for each side on their own. It ends with a short, separate section of what to do next, kept apart from the findings. That section is just as likely to suggest writing down “we’re holding off for now” as it is to suggest something more active.

Comparison against similar organizations works the same way it does for the board assessment: it appears once enough of them have run this assessment, and until then the report says so plainly and shows the raw numbers instead.