IT Department Reporting Structures in Associations and Nonprofits

Michael (Misha) Getter
Jun 11
11 min read

Introduction

Many associations and nonprofits struggle with the question of who the IT department should report to. Unlike for-profit companies where a CIO often reports to the CEO or a top executive, smaller associations and nonprofit organizations show a wide variability in IT reporting lines. Common reporting structures include IT reporting to the CEO/Executive Director, COO (operations), CFO (finance), or less commonly to departments like HR or even marketing. Each arrangement has its advantages and disadvantages in terms of strategic alignment, operational efficiency, and organizational priority for technology.

Recent surveys highlight these trends: In a 2011 ASAE study of 1,000 associations, 41% of associations’ top IT staff reported directly to the CEO, 27% reported to the COO, and 23% to the CFO[1]. By contrast, a smaller survey of nonprofits found only 13% had IT report to the CEO, while the majority (38%) reported through the CFO or COO[1]. The remaining cases in nonprofits often had IT under other administrative roles (such as HR or other directors). Placing the IT department under a marketing or communications department is exceedingly rare, as marketing leaders typically are not responsible for core technology infrastructure.

Below, we explore the more and less common reporting scenarios, including whether any organizations put IT under marketing, and the pros and cons of each structure.

Common Reporting Lines for IT Departments

Reporting to CEO/Executive Director: Often seen in associations and increasingly in forward-thinking nonprofits. This gives IT a seat at the leadership table. Example: ~41% of associations surveyed had IT report to the CEO[1] (versus only ~13% in general nonprofits[1]).
Reporting to COO/Operations: Aligns IT with day-to-day operations. About 27% of associations had IT under the COO[1]. Common when IT is viewed as an operational support function.
Reporting to CFO/Finance: A traditional model, especially in nonprofits. ~23% of associations and a large portion of nonprofits have IT under the finance umbrella[1]. This reflects viewing IT as a cost center to be controlled.
Reporting to HR/Administration: Less common. In some cases, IT is grouped with HR or administration, focusing on internal user support. This is an unusual setup but does exist in certain organizations (e.g., one software company moved IT under the HR “People” department to improve employee experience synergy[2]).
Reporting to Marketing/Communications: Very rare. It is not typical for the entire IT department to report to marketing. However, some organizations have created hybrid roles (like a Chief Marketing Information Officer (CMIO)) embedded in the marketing team to bridge marketing and IT needs[3]. Generally, core IT reporting to marketing is uncommon due to the vastly different focus and skill sets of marketing versus IT.

IT Reporting to the CEO/Executive Director

Placing IT under the CEO (or Executive Director) gives technology a strategic voice at the highest level of the organization. This scenario is relatively common in associations and has been growing in prevalence across industries as technology becomes more central to strategy[4].

Advantages:

Strategic Alignment: When the head of IT (CIO or IT Director) reports directly to the CEO/ED, technology initiatives are more likely to align with the organization’s core strategy and mission. IT leadership has direct input into strategic planning and innovation. This trend is growing: globally about 46% of enterprise CIOs now report to the top executive, reflecting IT’s importance in driving strategy[4]. Associations mirror this – 41% have IT reporting to the CEO[1], indicating a recognition that IT enables member engagement, digital services, and innovation at the strategic level.
Executive Support for IT: Direct reporting ensures the CEO’s awareness and support for major IT investments and projects. IT issues and opportunities get visibility in leadership discussions, helping secure resources and swift decisions. Especially when organizations undergo digital transformation, over half of CIOs leading such initiatives report to the CEO, which facilitates “unwavering support at all levels”[4].

Disadvantages:

Competing Priorities: CEOs (or nonprofit Executive Directors) are often pulled toward external relations, fundraising, and overall vision. They may not have the bandwidth to give day-to-day IT management adequate attention[5]. As one industry expert noted, a CEO tends to “live in the future” focusing on vision and growth, whereas IT needs a balance of strategic foresight and immediate operational oversight[5]. If the CEO is not particularly tech-savvy or is preoccupied, the IT department might lack guidance in daily operational decisions.
Dependency on CIO Expertise: This structure relies on a strong, capable IT leader who can operate autonomously and communicate effectively at the executive level. If the CIO/IT lead is not empowered or skilled enough, important technical details might be overlooked by top leadership. (In many nonprofits, there may not even be a dedicated CIO role; the “IT director” might be mid-level, which can make direct CEO reporting less practical.)
Potential Underutilization of Other Execs: Bypassing COOs or CFOs can mean missing input from those who handle operations or budget details. For example, IT projects often need tight coordination with operations or financing; a direct CEO report must still find ways to collaborate closely with COO/CFO to succeed.

Summary: Reporting to the CEO is often seen as an ideal for elevating IT’s role. It is common in associations and increasingly in other sectors because it underscores that technology is a strategic asset, not just a support service[1]. The trade-off is ensuring the CEO and IT leader have the capacity and expertise to manage both the strategic and operational aspects of IT.

IT Reporting to the COO/Head of Operations

Having IT report to the COO aligns technology with operations, emphasizing reliable systems and process efficiency. This is another common scenario (about 27% of associations put IT under a COO or equivalent[1], and many nonprofits without a CEO/CIO link choose this route).

Advantages:

Operational Integration: IT and Operations often work hand-in-hand. Both focus on maintaining seamless workflows, business continuity, and day-to-day efficiency[6]. Reporting to the COO can ensure that technology initiatives directly support operational needs and that tech projects are executed with an eye to improving organizational processes. For nonprofits delivering services, or associations managing events and member services, this tight coordination can be very practical – the IT team quickly addresses operational pain points and keeps systems running smoothly.
Process and Policy Enforcement: COOs typically excel at implementing policies and standard procedures. Under operations, the IT department may be better integrated into company-wide processes (for example, ensuring data governance, security policies, and standard operating procedures are followed consistently). The COO’s oversight can instill discipline in IT project management and resource utilization.

Disadvantages:

Limited Strategic Visibility: A key drawback is the risk of reduced strategic visibility for IT. When IT is viewed purely through an operational lens, it may be deprived of a voice in high-level strategy[6]. As one analysis noted, placing IT solely under operations can diminish its role as a strategic driver and may lead executives to see it only as a back-office utility[6]. This could result in underinvestment in innovation (e.g., new member engagement platforms or data analytics might not get attention if the focus is only on keeping current systems running).
Resource Competition: The operations head usually has a broad remit (covering programs, facilities, etc.). IT needs might compete with other operational needs for time and budget. If the COO is heavily focused on core program delivery or administrative tasks, strategic IT proposals might be sidelined in favor of more immediate operational demands.
Dependent on COO’s Tech Understanding: If the COO has limited technology understanding, there could be misalignment. The COO might prioritize operational stability over technology innovation. For instance, a COO might delay adopting a new association management software if it threatens short-term operations, even if it promises long-term benefits. Without direct CEO visibility, such innovation could be postponed.

Summary: COO reporting is operations-centric, suiting organizations that view IT primarily as an operational support function. It fosters close coordination with daily activities[6], but can sideline longer-term technology innovation if not managed carefully[6]. Many organizations choose this when reliable service delivery is the top priority, and they count on the COO to integrate IT into that mission.

IT Reporting to the CFO/Head of Finance

It is very common for IT departments – especially in nonprofits – to report to the CFO or head of finance. In fact, historically this has been the default in many organizations, treating IT as part of the financial or administrative wing. Roughly a quarter of associations had IT under the CFO[1], and surveys indicate that many nonprofits place IT under finance or combined CFO/COO roles[1]. This reflects a perception of IT as a cost center requiring financial oversight.

Advantages:

Budgetary Control and ROI Focus: The finance department’s oversight can enforce discipline in IT spending. IT often involves significant expenditure (hardware, systems, vendors), so having the CFO in charge ensures careful budget monitoring and cost-benefit analysis. CFOs are skilled at evaluating ROI (return on investment), which can help in prioritizing IT projects with clear financial justification[5]. In the words of one CFO, finance is “pretty good at managing” major expenditures with an ROI framework[5]. This can prevent waste and keep IT initiatives aligned with the organization’s financial capacity.
Corporate Service Alignment: Both IT and finance are often seen as internal service providers to the mission. They share a certain “corporate service” DNA – supporting the rest of the organization rather than directly driving revenue or program output[5]. Because of this similarity, a CFO may inherently understand the internal support role of IT. A seasoned CFO can balance future strategic needs with present operational concerns[5], which suits IT’s dual nature (strategic but also day-to-day critical). In smaller organizations without a dedicated COO, the CFO might be the executive most attuned to internal infrastructure like IT.
Accountability and Governance: Finance departments tend to have strong controls and governance practices. Locating IT under the CFO can improve risk management – e.g., ensuring audits of IT, compliance with financial controls for systems (like data security for donor databases, proper licensing, etc.). The CFO’s analytical approach can bring rigor to IT project management and vendor selection.

Disadvantages:

Perception of IT as a Cost Center: Placing IT under finance can inadvertently signal that technology is merely an expense to control rather than an enabler of mission. Thad Lurie, a nonprofit technology expert, observed that putting IT under the finance department sends a message that “technology is purely an operational concern, and the main focus of technology is cost cutting”[1]. This mindset can stifle innovation. The IT team might find it hard to pursue transformative projects (like a new member engagement app or analytics initiative) if the CFO’s primary mandate is to contain costs.
Limited Strategic Innovation: CFOs are typically not hired to be technology visionaries[1]. Their training is in accounting and finance, so they may not naturally champion cutting-edge tech ideas. As Lurie noted, finance executives usually aren’t thought leaders in innovation or product development[1]. Thus, IT initiatives that don’t show immediate financial returns might get less support. For instance, investing in a modern IT infrastructure or experimental technology could be hard to justify to a bottom-line-focused CFO.
Competing Financial Priorities: The IT department will be one of many budget line items the CFO manages. In nonprofits especially, the CFO often must prioritize spending for programs, fundraising, and compliance. There’s a risk that IT needs (which can be complex and technical to explain) might be deferred in favor of more straightforward financial obligations. Without a strong CIO advocating, IT could be underfunded if the CFO doesn’t fully appreciate the long-term value of certain tech investments.
Possible Slower Decision Making: Finance-driven organizations might require extensive justification and approval processes for IT changes. While fiscal prudence is good, it can slow down tech deployment. For example, a needed software upgrade might be delayed because the CFO requests multiple rounds of cost analysis. This could hinder the IT department’s agility.

Summary: The CFO reporting structure for IT is traditional and still prevalent, especially in nonprofits that view IT primarily as an operational expense to manage. It brings financial rigor and accountability to IT decisions[5], but may undervalue the innovative potential of technology[1]. Many experts argue this model is shortsighted in the long run, as it can keep IT in a strictly supporting role rather than a strategic one[1].

IT Reporting to the HR/People Department

Some organizations experiment with IT reporting into Human Resources or Administration. This is not very common in the association/nonprofit world, but it does occur, typically in organizations that emphasize internal culture and employee experience. In smaller nonprofits, the “HR & Admin” director might sometimes oversee IT simply due to grouping of internal services. A recent example is a tech company, Workleap, which moved its IT team under the Director of People (HR) to improve alignment of IT with employee needs[2].

Advantages:

Focus on Employee Experience: Both HR and IT provide essential services to employees – HR through policies and people programs, and IT through tools and tech support. Merging these under one leadership can create a unified approach to improving staff productivity and satisfaction. In Workleap’s case, the HR director noticed “parallels between HR and IT in how they support the experience of the user (employee)”[2]. HR is attuned to employee feedback and needs, and with IT under HR, technological solutions may be developed with a people-centric mindset. For instance, onboarding a new employee involves HR processes and IT setup; under one department, this can be smoother and more cohesive.
Policy Alignment: HR typically defines internal policies and procedures. With IT in the same chain, things like IT usage policies, remote work tech guidelines, and security protocols can be more closely aligned with HR policies. There’s less siloing between “people policies” and “technology policies”. Everyone is on the same team, potentially reducing friction when implementing changes that affect staff behavior (e.g., adopting a new collaboration tool might be easier if HR and IT coordinate training and communication together).
Empathy and Cross-Team Collaboration: Integrating IT staff into a traditionally people-focused department can foster greater empathy. At Workleap, after the change, the IT and HR teams developed “more empathy towards what the other is experiencing” and actively helped each other’s goals[2]. This can break down the typical barrier between tech staff and non-tech staff, improving internal customer service. IT becomes seen as a partner in improving workplace culture (for example, by introducing tools that make work-life easier, or by quickly addressing employee tech pain points).
Administrative Convenience in Small Orgs: In very small nonprofits without a dedicated IT executive, having IT report to the HR or Admin director might simply be a practical solution. The HR/Admin lead often handles various operational duties (facilities, internal comms, etc.), so IT falls in their lap. This can work if the IT needs are relatively basic or if the HR lead is capable of managing tech vendors on behalf of the org.

Disadvantages:

Lack of Technical Leadership: The HR department is not typically versed in technology strategy. An HR director may not be equipped to guide complex IT decisions like architecture, cybersecurity, or digital transformation planning. This structure could leave the IT team without proper technical mentorship or vision from its boss. In the long run, IT might stagnate or make suboptimal choices because the leadership isn’t knowledgeable in that domain. Even the proponent of the HR-IT merge at Workleap acknowledged, “Does IT need to be directly under HR or anything? I don’t know,” indicating that it might not be a universal solution[2]. It worked for them due to specific mindset and conditions. Other organizations could struggle unless HR leadership is unusually tech-savvy.
Potential Misalignment of Priorities: HR’s primary focus is on workforce issues – recruitment, training, benefits, compliance, etc. There is a risk that IT projects get deprioritized if they’re not seen as immediately tied to employee well-being. For example, upgrading network infrastructure (a technical need) might not get much attention from an HR-led perspective compared to, say, implementing a new HRIS (HR Information System) which has obvious HR value. The IT department could end up focusing only on employee-facing IT (like helpdesk and onboarding) and neglect broader organizational tech initiatives (like member-facing systems or data analytics) that fall outside HR’s scope.
Cultural Adjustment: IT teams might resist reporting to HR initially, as it’s unconventional. In the case study, the IT team was “apprehensive” at first about reporting to HR[2]. There can be cultural differences: IT problem-solving versus HR’s people-oriented approach. Merging them requires strong change management. If not handled well, it could lead to confusion in roles or even morale issues (IT staff might worry their career path is less clear under an HR leader, for instance).
Limited External Focus: For associations especially, technology is crucial not just for employees but for serving members, managing events, and other outward-facing functions. An HR-led IT might focus inwardly on staff needs and inadvertently under-serve the member or program side of technology (like the association’s member database, website, or event tech). Without an executive at the table for those areas, some opportunities could be missed.