Advance the mission without compromising client dignity, community voice, donor trust, accessibility, or confidential information.
Mississippi communities do not have identical needs, infrastructure, histories, or access. Use the evidence and tools as a starting point, then let local people shape the purpose, examples, pace, safeguards, and measures of success.
How does this use advance the mission?
Whose stories, images, records, or decisions are involved?
What permission would the community reasonably expect?
Could the tool affect eligibility, support, or someone in crisis?
Who can correct an error or stop the use?
UNESCO centers dignity, community participation, privacy, accountability, and remedy. CISA adds practical safeguards for information and AI-enabled deception. Together they support a mission-first, people-first approach.
UNESCO
UNESCO centers human dignity, privacy, proportionality, community participation, accountability, traceability, human oversight, and access to remedy.
We use it to frame community data as a relationship of trust and to require participation, explanation, correction, and accountable human decisions.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
CISA advises people to keep sensitive and confidential information out of AI systems and warns that AI can make voice, image, and phishing deception more convincing.
We use it in the client-data safeguards, staff rules, incident preparation, and communication guidance.
Sources and requirements can change. Check the publication date, read the original material, and confirm the rules that apply locally before making a consequential decision.
Use these four areas to decide whether an AI use serves the community and respects the information people entrusted to your organization.
Case notes, identifying details, service histories, crisis information, and sensitive community records belong outside unapproved commercial systems.
AI may organize ideas or revise language, but staff must verify every statistic, citation, outcome, budget statement, and claim about the organization.
Obtain appropriate permission for images, stories, oral histories, and personal narratives. Generated stand-ins can still stereotype or misrepresent a community.
Review donor and public communications for truthfulness, accuracy, dignity, accessibility, and whether the people represented would recognize themselves fairly.
Keep people responsible for eligibility, resource allocation, crisis response, and other decisions that directly affect access to help.
✓ Organizing public program information
✓ Revising a grant draft after facts are verified
✓ Drafting accessible outreach options for human review
× Uploading case notes, donor records, or identifying client details
× Generating community stories or images without appropriate consent
× Automating service eligibility or crisis responses
Use these tools with staff, volunteers, board members, partners, and the people affected by the work.
Set boundaries that reflect mission and capacity.
Match controls to the sensitivity and expectations around the data.
Ask governance questions before approving adoption.
Treat permission as an ongoing relationship—not a one-time form.
Review a fictional project containing interviews, donor records, photographs, and outreach material.
Sort each item by sensitivity and who supplied it.
State what the person or community reasonably expected when sharing it.
Decide whether AI use is appropriate, requires permission, or should not occur.
Name data minimization, access, review, and deletion safeguards.
Explain the decision to the person represented in plain language.
Would this use still feel appropriate if the person who supplied the information were in the room?
Share the plan with the people responsible for the work and the people who may be affected. Confirm local rules, protect private information, and name the person who can answer questions or correct a problem.