When I look around right now, artificial intelligence (AI) in the nonprofit sector feels like a shared experiment being conducted with no guidelines for evaluation or transparent governance (and yet moderate awareness that we need them).

Most nonprofits are reacting to AI developments with urgency but little strategy. A few have created internal "AI steering committees," usually composed of IT staff, prospect researchers, fundraisers and anyone with a passing relationship to data. I don't question the intention: to guide the organization's adoption of AI responsibly and informally. However, I am not a fan of this approach because these committees are often stretched too thin, under-resourced and ultimately unempowered.

One underlying reason is that these "AI committees" are structured like short-term working groups, not long-term strategy teams, which is what technology like AI needs.

If you haven't realized this, perhaps this is the moment: AI is not a temporary initiative. It is not a campaign. It is not a pilot program. It is a systemic shift that can impact or change how every function in our world operates. That shift requires dedicated, accountable leadership if we want the AI impact on nonprofits to be human-centered and positive.

This is why, in this piece, I am “askouraging” (asking + encouraging) nonprofits to create a new, standing role: the resident AI advisor.

Let's Start With What Is Happening Now Before We Define This Role:

The current approach — asking staff to "figure out AI" in addition to their real jobs — inevitably leads to an ad hoc approach. Fundraisers are trying to close campaigns and fight funding cuts, data teams are already knee-deep in grant reporting cycles and researchers are pulled across multiple priorities. In the middle of it, AI ends up being a "when we have time" or "the conference I am going to" topic.

Meanwhile, generative AI is increasingly embedded in tools nonprofits already use — from customer relationship management tools (CRMs), prospect research tools, and communication platforms. Without collective and clear guidance, teams either avoid the technology altogether or use it in haphazard, unaccountable ways.

This is a risky path. All of it.

The harm that can come from poor AI use — exacerbating bias, eroding trust, exposing sensitive data — is not theoretical. Nonprofits deserve a better approach. We need someone whose job is to pay attention every day to the intersection of AI and mission.

Enter The Resident AI Advisor

The resident AI advisor is not a technical coder or a product manager. They are not meant to implement AI tools everywhere. Their role is more strategic, ethical and connective. Let’s put some language around who they can be.

This person would:

• Hold a long-term view of AI adoption. Instead of reacting to tech trends, they would help the organization proactively set principles, priorities and policies for how AI is used — or not used.
• Be the ethical anchor. The advisor would center equity, privacy, transparency and consent in all AI-related decisions, ensuring that new tools don't unintentionally harm the communities nonprofits aim to serve.
• Train and translate. They would help staff understand what AI can and can't do, facilitate trainings on prompt writing and tool selection, and translate technical possibilities into mission-aligned applications.
• Audit and adapt. As AI tools evolve, the advisor would monitor their use, assess their outcomes and iterate strategy accordingly. They would also track vendor ethics and potential bias in third-party tools.
• Bridge departments. AI often cuts across silos. This role would bridge development, programs, communications, operations and IT, ensuring a cohesive, organization-wide approach.

This person should be:

• Someone who understands nonprofit values as well as community-centered approaches.
• Able to translate complex ideas into plain language and vice versa.
• Staying current with AI fundamentals as well as present trends, without getting swept up in hype.
• Able to understand and explain how technologies can reinforce or reduce inequity.
• Someone who thrives in cross-functional conversations and knows how to bring diverse voices into AI decision-making.
• Someone who can encourage experimentation with innovation and community safety

Once again, this is not a committee responsibility. It's a leadership function.

This role can be part-time or full-time, depending on the organization's size. It could start as an advisory function of eight to 10 hours a month and grow from there.

Moving Forward, Advocate for an Intentional Approach

Prospect researchers, IT teams or anyone close to data in organizations are often called to hold the torch for AI experimentation. This group already deals with automation, predictive modeling, robust research and evolving data privacy expectations. And then, because of their proximity to data, they are asked to "weigh in on AI."

Without a check on their workload (or interest, for that matter), this ask is not sustainable, and it is not fair. Let’s stop asking our overburdened staff to volunteer their way through a tech revolution and give this work the time, attention and care it deserves.

By naming and advocating for a resident AI advisor, we are protecting our time and helping our organization take a more mature, intentional approach to a tool that will likely reshape many parts of our operations.