The Clipboard Never Left. It Just Got a New Name
When will non-profits let go of needs assessments?
This article builds on an article I wrote last year “ NGOS, Stop Doing Needs Assessments”.
I grew up on benefits in the UK. And from a young age, I learned something that took me years to name properly: the state has a very particular way of looking at people like us.
We were problems to be assessed. Gaps to be catalogued. Needs to be documented, scored, and filed. The language of welfare bureaucracy — and later, the language of charity — was built on the same foundation: you are defined by what you lack.
When I started my teacher training with Teach First, I walked into schools where that logic had already arrived. Low-income students were spoken about in terms of deficits — what they didn’t have, what their families didn’t value, what their communities couldn’t provide. The clipboard had just changed hands. It was now held by educators, not case workers. But the gaze was identical.
And I know this because of what Teach First showed us during induction week.
Dangerous Minds. The 1995 film. Michelle Pfeiffer in a leather jacket, striding into a classroom of Black and Latino teenagers, ready to save them from themselves. A room full of bright-eyed graduates — mostly from elite universities, mostly without a day’s teaching experience — sitting in a conference centre in London, being shown what our purpose looked like. We were meant to be inspired. Some of us were. That’s the insidious thing about saviour narratives. They are designed to feel like hope.
What Dangerous Minds actually is — and what I didn’t have the political language to say at 23 — is a needs assessment in cinematic form. It opens not with a student, but with the neighbourhood: broken streets, poverty, the school as a site of chaos. The students are introduced as “rebels from hell,” as “passionate and challenging” — which is how institutions describe Black and brown young people when they want to sound progressive while still communicating these children are a problem. Their histories, their languages, their survival intelligence, their cultural knowledge — everything that Tara Yosso would name as community cultural wealth — is invisible to the story being told. What is visible is what they lack. And what they lack, apparently, is someone like us.
There’s a detail that got scrubbed from the film that tells you everything. The real LouAnne Johnson used rap lyrics to teach poetry. Hollywood changed it to Bob Dylan and Dylan Thomas , because the film was never really about those students. It was about making audiences feel comfortable with the rescue.
Teach First didn’t screen Dangerous Minds by accident. The whole programme rested on a version of that logic: that the problem with educational inequality was a shortage of passionate, talented people willing to show up in difficult schools. Not a system of racialised underfunding. Not a curriculum designed without those children in mind. Not the experienced teachers already in those buildings who were underpaid, under-resourced, and unsupported. The problem — the story went — was a gap. And we were the solution.
And then I entered the non-profit and humanitarian sector. Reader, the clipboard was still there.
This Is Not About Bad Intentions. It’s About a System.
Here’s what I want to say clearly, because it often gets lost in these conversations: deficit thinking isn’t primarily a problem of individual practitioners making careless choices. It is a structural feature of how the social sector was built, and who it was built by, and for.
The needs assessment — that ubiquitous tool of non-profits, funders, INGOs, and local authorities alike, didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It emerged from a long tradition of colonial knowledge production, where communities in the Global South, working-class communities in the Global North, racialised communities everywhere, were positioned as sites of data extraction rather than sites of knowledge, wisdom, and power.
Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang’s work on “damage-centred research” names this precisely. When our primary research question is what is wrong here?, we reproduce a particular story about a community — a story that treats suffering as the most legible, most fundable, most “real” thing about a group of people. And once that story is told enough times, it becomes the only story.
This is not neutral. It serves a function. It keeps the power to define, diagnose, and intervene firmly in the hands of external actors — funders, INGOs, academics, consultants — while communities themselves become the backdrop against which our expertise performs itself.
I Was Part of the System. Let Me Say That Plainly.
During my years as an education in emergencies practitioner, I participated enthusiastically in education needs assessments. I wrote up findings. I presented recommendations. I genuinely believed I was helping.
What I was also doing , and I didn’t have the political clarity to see it at the time — was participating in an institutional ritual. In many humanitarian responses, especially in contexts considered “easy to reach,” communities might be assessed five or more times by different organisations within months, each time asked to catalogue their shortcomings. Their existing capacities, informal networks, and locally-developed solutions? Largely undocumented. Systematically unsupported.
The UN cluster system, donor reporting requirements, and implementing partners all participate in an ecosystem where documenting deficits is the primary currency for resource allocation. If you can’t prove a community is broken enough, you can’t make the case for funding. And so organisations — including community-based organisations that know better — learn to describe themselves in the language of need rather than strength. Because that is what gets funded.
This is not inefficiency. It is architecture. And it has been enormously effective at one thing: keeping power exactly where it already was.
The Needs Assessment Is Not Neutral. It Never Was.
Before I get to asset mapping, I want to spend more time with the needs assessment itself, because I think we move past it too quickly, as if naming the problem is enough.
And I want to start by holding a tension , because flattening it would be dishonest.
There are contexts where rapid documentation of need is not just useful but morally necessary. In acute crisis, a rapid needs assessment — how many people are displaced, how many children are out of school, how many are without water or food — can activate humanitarian response, unlock funding, and trigger legal or political accountability. We have seen this play out in Gaza, where the painstaking documentation of what is happening to children, schools, and educators has been central to naming the scholasticide underway. Counting the destroyed schools matters. Recording the numbers of teachers killed matters. Naming the scale of educational decimation is not deficit thinking — it is bearing witness. It is evidence in the service of justice.
I am not arguing against that. I want to be unambiguous.
What I am arguing is that documentation of need is not the same as understanding of community. And when the rapid assessment becomes the only lens — when the numbers replace the context, when the gaps replace the assets, when the crisis framing outlasts the crisis and migrates into the broader work — we end up building responses that are structurally disconnected from the communities they claim to serve.
Because needs assessments are not just used in humanitarian response. They are the default tool across community development, urban regeneration, youth programming, health initiatives, education reform, and philanthropic grantmaking. Wherever an institution wants to justify an intervention, the needs assessment arrives first. And outside of acute emergency, here is the thing that doesn’t get said enough: most needs assessments are not designed to discover what a community actually needs. They are designed to confirm what the organisation has already decided to do.
The questions are written after the programme logic has already been sketched. The indicators are shaped by what the funder has already agreed to measure. The consultation process is structured to produce a particular kind of answer — one that validates the initiative already planned, the theory of change already written, the budget already allocated. Community members are invited to participate in a process that has, in most meaningful senses, already concluded.
And even in the cases where the needs assessment is conducted with genuine openness — where practitioners genuinely want to understand before they act , the framing itself does damage. When you walk into a community asking what is missing, what is broken, what is not working, you are not just gathering data. You are teaching people how to present themselves to you. You are rehearsing a particular story. And that story strips away the historical, social, cultural, and political context that would actually explain why things are the way they are.
It makes me think about the town I grew up in rural Wales. If you went there and did a needs assessment in the 90s, you would document high unemployment in a post-industrial town, and that would tell you something. It would not tell you about the deliberate policy decisions that dismantled that industry, the decades of disinvestment that followed, the resilience networks that formed in response, or the political organising that community members had been doing long before your organisation arrived. It would not tell you about the rich tradition of informal education, mentorship, and inter-generational knowledge that has sustained that community precisely because the formal system failed it.
When you enter with a deficit lens rather than a historical, social, and cultural one, you are not just missing information. You are building your response on a fiction. And then you are using that fiction to design programmes, allocate resources, and claim legitimacy.
This is the deeper problem. Not that needs assessments are imperfect tools. But that they produce a story about communities that was never really about the community, it was about the institution’s need to justify its own existence.
Asset Mapping Is Not the Opposite of Need. It’s a Different Theory of Power.
I want to head off a misreading before it takes hold: I am not saying that we should never ask communities what they need. That would be its own kind of paternalism, deciding on behalf of people that their needs aren’t worth naming.
What I am saying is that how we frame that question, who gets to ask it, who controls the findings, and what happens to the resources that result — these are political questions that the language of “best practice” has obscured for far too long.
Asset-Based Community Development, as articulated by John McKnight and John Kretzmann, and deepened by organizers and practitioners across many decades, starts with a different premise: communities are not broken. They are complex systems with adaptive capacities, intergenerational knowledge, informal economies of care, and solutions that have been sustaining people long before any external actor arrived — and will continue long after they leave.
Tara Yosso’s theory of Community Cultural Wealth deepens this further — and it is essential reading for anyone working in this space. Yosso, writing from a Critical Race Theory framework, identifies at least six forms of capital that structurally marginalised communities carry and deploy every single day.
There is aspirational capital — the ability to maintain hopes and dreams in the face of systemic barriers. Linguistic capital — the intellectual and social skills developed through navigating more than one language or cultural register. Familial capital — the community histories, memories, and cultural intuition passed down across generations. And then social capital, the networks of mutual support; navigational capital, the hard-won skills for moving through institutions that were not designed for you; and resistant capital — the knowledges and practices developed specifically through the struggle against inequality.
None of these appear in a standard needs assessment. Not because they aren’t real. But because the needs assessment was never built to see them.
When you start from Yosso’s framework, or from any framework that treats community knowledge as real knowledge — the entire research and design process changes. You are no longer arriving as the expert who will diagnose and fix. You are arriving as someone who needs to understand a system that has been functioning, adapting, and resisting long before you got there.
When organisations I’ve worked with made this shift, genuinely made it, not just as a rebrand — something changed. Youth who had been described as “at-risk” revealed themselves as cultural workers, organisers, movement builders. Women-led collectives who had been framed as “underskilled” were already running mutual aid networks with no external recognition. Neighbourhoods written off as “underserved” turned out to be hubs of innovation and resilience. Refugee camps, so often framed purely as sites of displacement and crisis, were also places where communities had rebuilt economies, developed care systems, and created learning spaces — often entirely without international support.
This is why I really love this idea of including “wisdom funds” in funding bids— a dedicated funding stream designed to enhance what is already working rather than importing new solutions. That is the imagination I’m talking about. That is what it looks like when you centre asset logic all the way down to the funding architecture.
But Let’s Be Clear: This Requires a Shift in Power, Not Just a Shift in Language.
The risk with asset mapping, and I say this as someone who teaches it and believes in it, is that it can be co-opted into exactly the extractive framework it was meant to disrupt.
When I wrote about needs assessments a year ago, my post generated a lot of comments, and some great pushback.
“This post raises an important critique of needs assessments as a tool for documenting deficiencies, but replacing deficit thinking with “strengths-based” or “asset-driven” approaches doesn’t disrupt the underlying ideology—it just rebrands it. Both frames still judge communities in relation to external ideas of success rather than recognising their full autonomy.” Curtis Worrell, Director of Class 13
I get this. If communities are still being “assessed” by outsiders, even with an asset-based lens, even with the best of intentions, we are still operating within a model where external actors determine what is legible, what is valuable, and what gets resourced. We have swapped the question on the clipboard. We have not put down the clipboard.
True community-driven development happens when people define their own priorities, control the narrative, and have decision-making power over resources. That cannot happen within a funder-grantee relationship that requires communities to perform their assets for external approval any more than it can happen when they’re required to perform their deficits.
This is why, Design for Social Impact Lab, our equity design principles go beyond methodology. Asset mapping without intersectionality ignores the layered experiences of structurally marginalised communities. Without pedagogies of care and solidarity, it becomes another bureaucratic exercise. Without systems thinking, it isolates community issues from the structural forces that produce them. Without a commitment to economic and environmental justice, it remains disconnected from the material conditions that shape people’s lives.
And without a genuine transfer of power — in grantmaking, in governance, in who sets the research agenda , it is, at best, a more dignified extraction.
So What Does This Ask of Us?
“Hope is a Discipline” An Illustration of Mariame Kaba. Image taken from Common Futurist
Mariame Kaba tells us that hope is a discipline, not a feeling, but a practice, a commitment, a daily choice to act as if transformation is possible. The practitioners and organisations who have embraced asset-based approaches haven’t done so because it’s easier or more comfortable. It requires a particular kind of courage: the willingness to relinquish the expert role, to follow rather than lead, to resource what already exists rather than build something new that carries your name.
If you’re a funder: stop requiring organisations to frame themselves in deficits to access your resources. Trust-based philanthropy isn’t perfect, philanthropy itself is a deeply compromised institution — but it offers some tools for beginning to shift who decides what matters. Participatory grantmaking, multi-year unrestricted funding, and community-led accountability structures are not radical innovations. They are the minimum conditions for something approaching genuine partnership.
If you’re a practitioner or a non-profit leader: before you design your next programme, before you commission your next needs assessment, ask what is already here. Who are the connectors and knowledge-keepers? What informal systems are already meeting needs without recognition or resourcing? What would it look like to amplify that, rather than replace it?
And if you’re newer to these ideas: your political education is part of your professional practice. The methodological shift matters. But it will not hold without an analysis of why deficit thinking became so dominant, whose interests it serves, and what it will cost you — institutionally, professionally, relationally — to work differently.
Deficit thinking is not a mistake that better training will fix. It is the logical expression of a sector that was built on the idea that some communities need to be saved, and others do the saving. Changing that requires more than new tools. It requires us to ask, honestly and repeatedly, whose knowledge counts, who gets to define the problem, and who controls what happens next.
That is not a comfortable question. It was not comfortable for me when I first started sitting with it. It still isn’t.
But as Mariame Kaba reminds us, hope requires the discipline of asking it anyway.
Design for Social Impact Lab is a social enterprise, where we support practitioners, activists, and organisations in building equity-centred, anti-oppressive approaches to programme design, research, and evaluation.
We were set up in 2021 to support organisations and practitioners radically reimagine social impact work through curating online, global learning experiences, coaching and strategic advisory services. All our courses are co-facilitated with systems'-impacted people as we believe it is important for people with lived experience of injustices to be re-positioned as experts in social justice design.
Our next Design for Social Impact Accelerator begins June 5th 2026 , an 8-week cohort for people who design programmes and write proposals — and are ready to reckon with the power they hold.
Your point about changing practices without changing the underlying logic behind them is an important one. Organizations inherit operating assumptions they rarely question, so they redesign programs while leaving the underlying system untouched. That’s one reason so many change efforts end up reinforcing the systems they’re trying to change.