Effectiveness of Community Housing Partners

Prepared for PAPA 5316 Governmental Administration MAY 14, 2013

Alex Baruch Tiffany Luu Matt Hanratty Katie Reaves Samantha Skeeter

Table of Contents
Case Description !
Overview of Services!.......................................................................................................................................2 Evaluation of Effectiveness: Systems Resource Approach!........................................................................3 Topics for Analysis!.............................................................................................................................................4

Structure! Technology! Environment! Strategic Decision Making! Integration! References !

Structure!.......................................................................................................................................................................4 Technology! ....................................................................................................................................................................4 Environment!.................................................................................................................................................................5 Strategic Decision Making! .........................................................................................................................................5

6 10 14 18 21 26

Page 1 of 27

Case Description
Community Housing Partners (CHP) is a non-profit organization dedicated to serving the needs of low-wealth and low-income individuals and families in Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Florida. Founded in 1975 as a volunteer group of Virginia Tech faculty and staff who provided home repairs to low-wealth families in southwest Virginia, CHP has grown over the past three decades to become a leading regional provider of affordable, green and sustainable housing opportunities and services. CHPs vision of building Communities of Choice focuses on working with internal and external stakeholders to build and maintain affordable housing. The organization also works to influence the development process so neighborhoods will be located in safe places where people choose to live with homes that are efficient, attractive, and affordable. CHP has been successful in sustaining the organization, reinventing itself, and acclimating to changing times and technologies (CPHC, About Us, 2010). Below are figures from a 2011 Community Impact Report. These charts reflect the large size of this regional non-profit. [Chart goes here. would not paste into doc.] CHP works in partnership with a vast number public and private organizations primarily seeking to serve senior citizens, formerly homeless people, single female heads-of-household, atrisk youth, disabled and special needs groups, and other families and individuals of lowincome and low-wealth. The services and departments that CHP have created to fulfill its mission of serving the needs of low-wealth and low-income individuals and families follow the related-diversification model, in a holistic effort to provide a continuum of services for their target demographics. This case description will provide an overview of the services and departments that CHP has created to meet its mission and a brief description of how we plan to evaluate CHPs effectiveness based on the Systems Resource Approach.

OVERVIEW OF SERVICES
In the mid 1980s CHP became a Class-A licensed General Contractor, thus creating their General Contracting department (CPHC, General Contracting, 2010). Around the same time, they began providing housing preservation and development services through their Housing Development division (CHPC, Housing Development, 2010). The organization has rehabilitated and constructed projects in all four of the states it serves. In an effort to maintain their dedication to environmental sustainability, the organization helps to conserve natural areas, uses green building materials, installs energy efficient appliances and reduces, reuses, and recycles construction wastes. Their rehabilitation projects have included the preservation of historic buildings restored into affordable housing. CHPs new constructions include single and multi-family homes, mixed income co-housing and commercial projects. CHP uses local, state, and federal assistance to maintain and pursue these projects. While a majority of this work is conducted within CHP, they also work with non-profits and public housing authorities in the communities they serve. The Community Design Studio (CDS) was established to serve as a development resource to promote sustainability in human and environmental health. CDS focuses on assisting community-based development organizations, seeks resident participation in the design process, advocates environmentally sound building practices, and tries to expand support of housing programs through public awareness (CPHC, Community Design Studio, 2010).
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 2 of 27

Since 1976 CHP has offered energy services free to low-income households that include weatherization, home repairs, emergency heating and cooling installation and repairs. The Energy Services team provides ENGERY STAR audits and ratings and consults construction activities. The New River Center for Energy Research and Training (NRCERT) offers heating and cooling service and installation training through annual conferences and at their training facility in Christiansburg, Virginia. These energy services are funded through the U.S. Department of Energys Weatherization Assistance Program and local social services departments (CHPC, Energy Services, 2010). In 1989 CHP began providing homeownership opportunities to low and moderate-income homebuyers. Their Homeownership Program follows the NeighborWorks full-cycle lending process. This helps CHP to better serve women, minorities, and low- to moderate-income individuals and families. In a holistic approach, the team of homeownership professionals provides an array of services to clients to assist in their home buying experience. Through their own real estate, counseling, financial and brokerage services, CHP provides homebuyer education, housing counseling, down payment and closing cost assistance, and below-market-rate financing. After a client has purchased a home, they still have access to CHP housing counseling services to receive cost-saving home management advice. For over two decades, CHP has managed properties for their low to moderate-income clients providing and maintaining quality, safe, and affordable housing. Their Housing Management division maintains buildings and grounds to keep their properties in the best conditions possible. CHP recognizes that frequent maintenance and up-keep is their most cost effective form of management. They seek to keep managed properties in low maintenance conditions for their residents and encourage sustainable living practices to promote self-sufficiency. CHP uses the NeighborWorks Success Measures outcomes measurement system to ensure that their managed properties meet their safe and appealing standards (CHPC, Homeownership Program, 2010). CHP is organized hierarchically, headed by a Board of Directors made up of community members, with a single Chief Executive Officer directly under the Board, and three Chief Officers under the CEO.

EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS: SYSTEMS RESOURCE APPROACH

To assess CHPs effectiveness as an organization, we have utilized the Systems Resource Approach. The Systems Resource Approach is applicable as an effectiveness model for CHP based on the effectiveness definition by Seashore and Yuchtman (2006), described as an organizations ability to exploit its environment in the acquisition of scarce and valued resources to sustain its functioning, (pg. 891-903). CHP appears to be operating in a rich resource environment and capitalizing on partnerships with other organizations to accomplish its goals. The Systems Resource Approach is preferable over the goal approach as the latter only partially measures effectiveness. According to Seashore and Yuchtman (1967), The survival of an organization is dependent upon having good relations with its constituencies... (pg. 891-903). CHP lends itself to be studied under this lens due to its strong ties to constituents and also to the external environment (Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967, pg. 891-903). We have conducted in-person interviews with four key individuals in the organization. We believe that this research method was be the most effective way to understand CHP as an organization. Based on the open-ended questions we developed, we believe we have gained a richer understanding of aspects of CHPs environment, technology, structure, and strategic decision-making. With this information will are able to assess CHPs effectiveness, or the or! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 3 of 27

ganizations ability to exploit its environment to acquire scarce and valued resources. We also will provide recommendations regarding organizational change. The first person we interviewed was CHP President and Chief Executive Officer, Janaka Casper. Casper has over 35 years of experience in the field and serves on the boards of the National NeighborWorks Association, the Housing and Assistance Council and the New River Valley HOME Consortium (CHPC, Janaka Casper., 2010). Our next interviewee was Susan Sisk, the Chief Administrative Officer of CHP. Sisk has been with the organization since 1993 and she is responsible for strategic planning, resource development, outcomes measurement, and oversight of the organizations information technology, corporate development, human resources, weatherization, energy efficiency training, and customer services (CHPC, Susan Sisk, 2010). Orlando Artze was our third interviewee. He is the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of CHP. Artze has been with the organization for seven years and has over 30 years of experience in affordable housing and community development. Artze is responsible for CHPs real estate development, homeownership, property management, construction, energy services and architecture (CHPC, Orlando Artze, 2010). Finally, our last interviewee was Jeffrey Reed, the Chief Financial Officer for CHP who is responsible for accounting, asset management, the homeownership center, and all financial administrative duties for CHP. Reed has been with CHP for ten years and has over 20 years of experience in financial management (CHPC, Jeffrey Reed, 2010).

TOPICS FOR ANALYSIS

STRUCTURE
CHPs structure will be evaluated through the Systems Resource Approach lens to ultimately determine their effectiveness (or ineffectiveness). While organizational structure in of itself can be difficult to define, particularly for large complex organizations, questions will be asked to CHPs top administrative officers to help define organizational structure utilizing four dimensions: 1) centralization, 2) formalization, 3) red tape, and 4) complexity. Common elements that influence organizational structure (size, environment, and technology and tasks) will also be assessed to help determine CHPs effectiveness. Finally, it will be determined which major design alternative (functional structures, product and hybrid structures, matrix designs, market and customer-focused designs, geographical designs, and process structures) CHP fits under and if this design alternative is effective or not for CHP in getting resources.

TECHNOLOGY
The use of technology in CHP will be looked at through the Systems Resource Approach lens to determine if they are using technology to enhance their effectiveness or if technology is getting in the way of CHPs effectiveness. Subjects that will be covered include organizational effectiveness/efficiency, programmatic efficiency, security/privacy, and social media. Technology is changing how organizations are communicating within the organization and with the public. A major reason for this
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 4 of 27

change is due to the improvement of tools on the Internet to be able to communicate and collaborate without having to be in the same location. With this new ability to collaborate so easily there are both benefits (work with someone else across the state) and downfalls (misinterpretation of information). To get a better idea of how the organization is adapting to the changing technological landscape we will be interviewing various members of CHPs staff as previously mentioned.

ENVIRONMENT
Environmental influences on CHP looked at through the Systems Resource Approach lens will evaluate effectiveness of CHP based on its ability to use networking opportunities to exploit resources in its environment. CHP certainly capitalizes upon and operates in a resource rich environment. The aspects of environment to be studied are: shifting responses to environmental changes, the potential for CHP to change its external environment, accuracy on the part of CHP when examining and adjusting to its environment, specific external stakeholders and groups influencing CHP, changes in mission and goals at CHP as a result of environmental changes, subunits of CHP that may change while others remain the same in response to environmental changes, and structural adaptation to the environment. CHP is an agency that relies heavily on partnerships with other agencies, making environmental interactions particularly suitable for analysis.

STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING "

CHP will be evaluated for effectiveness and effectualness by how the internal and external organizational systems make decisions. A number of factors influence strategic decision-making, but a main determinant of how CHP is effective or ineffective is how the organization takes their stance on decisions. For instance, they can approach decision making through a prospect, defender, reactor, or analyzer stance. CHPs success is also dependent upon their priorities to diversify. Diversification through either related or non-related methods will also reflect the effectiveness of the organization. Ultimately, interviews will help determine how strategic decisions are made in the organization.

Page 5 of 27

Structure
Structure can be loosely defined as organizing people and resources to carry out the goals and objectives of an organization, which are often technical in nature (e.g. Merton, 1940; Rainey, 2003). Structure can assist effective organizations implement and execute strategies to meet the organizations mission. Structure can also work in the reverse and interfere with an organization's desire to meet their mission. Community Housing Partners (CHP) is a large non-profit which employs 389 employees. CHP exhibits characteristics of a horizontal structure with functional and divisional design elements. They are also vertically integrated throughout their organizations 11 divisions, typically between four and six levels deep. CHPs functional elements revolve around three key areas: human resources, information technology, and corporate development. These three areas report to the Chief Administrative Officer, Susan Sisk, and serve the entire organization. CHP does not compartmentalize these functions in their individual divisions such as development, homeownership, construction, etc. but rather these divisions rely on these support services from a different part of the organization which they do not control. CHPs divisional elements revolve around their other business units such as development, homeownership, and construction, as have been previously mentioned. However it is interesting to note that while these activities appear autonomous it is readily apparent after interviewing CHP executives and observing the office functions that each divisions interacts with one another and one division cannot make decisions in a vacuum that affect other divisions. An example of this was discussed in our interview with the Chief Financial Officer, Jeff Reed. When CHP evaluates a potential property to acquire the development division does not make a decision without a strategic meeting with the finance, architecture, construction, and property management divisions. Vice presidents of each of these divisions meet collectively to review the subject property in a holistic manner. This structure has allowed CHP to more effectively evaluate properties and consider all factors to make an informed decision. As Reed pointed out, finance is looking to minimize risk, whereas development generally prefers to take more risks, and architecture and construction may not have the resources to design and rehabilitate a property depending upon what other activities are happening in their division, and property management will evaluate the property in terms of their ability to operate the property without a deficit. As CHP has grown these two design alternatives (Functional and divisional) have evolved into what Rainey (2003) would define as a hybrid structure (p. 200). As Reed discussed, this design alternative has evolved over time and the current structure has placed CHP in a position to compete directly with the private sector, which it must do effectively, in order to acquire the necessary resources to serve its mission, thus remaining effective. Through our groups interviews with CHP it was apparent that size, environment, information technology, and strategic choice have all influenced CHPs organizational structure. CHP has grown from one employee in the mid 1970s to currently employing 389 people. This growth has forced CHP to evaluate its structure several times throughout the life of the organization as they have become more complex both vertically and horizontally. This structure, which has been influenced by CHPs size, has allowed CHP to continually compete in the open market through the access of internal staff resources. While it may be debatable as to the true effect of size on organizational structure as Rainey (2003) discusses in relation to various
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 6 of 27

studies that have been conducted (e.g. Kimberly, 1976; Blau and Schoenherr, 1971; Beyer and Trice, 1979) it is clear after interviewing CHP staff members that size has influenced their structure (p. 189). At a minimum, size has forced CHP to become more complex as their divisions expanded over the years to continue to carry out its mission in an effective manner. The environment has been a significant influence to CHPs structure. The resources CHP obtains are from a multitude of funding sources (federal, state, local, private, foundation, nonprofit), which all have complex rules and regulations that must be effectively understood and applied to their developments and programs. This environment has led CHP to a structure that empowers lower level employees across all divisions to make the majority of the decisions. It was apparent after talking with CHPs top four executives that they make very few decisions. Their primary involvement is working with their staff to set realistic annual budgets. Their staffs, even at the lowest levels, have the authority and power to make decisions without asking for authorization. Mintzberg (1979) would refer to this as vertical decentralization through an intentional design of CHPs decision making system (as cited in Rainey, 2003). This empowering environment has enabled CHPs line staff to effectively respond to their clients needs. CHPs staff also has control over their budgets (resources) and can reallocate funds throughout their budgets to redirect services as client demands shift. Management only becomes actively involved in the decision making process if the total budget will not be met to work with their staff to develop creative solutions to bridge any gaps. This environment has allowed CHP to effectively manage their internal resources and value to employees at every level of the organization. The approach CHP has taken is echoed by various research as Rainey (2003) highlights (e.g. Daft, 2001; Gllbraith, Downey, and Kates, 2002; p. 190). As Rainey (2003) points out, it is important for organizations to assess technology and the influences it can have on structure (p. 194). In our interview with Orlando Artze, CHPs Chief Operating Officer it was apparent that technology has had a significant influence on CHPs structure. While CHPs headquarters is located in Christiansburg, Virginia, the development staff is located in Richmond, Virginia. Technology has allowed CHP to align their divisions under Artze from two different locations in Virginia while maintaining effectiveness. It is important for CHP to have a presence in Richmond because many of the state and federal resources CHP utilizes are located there and it is critical for CHP to maintain active, engaging relationships with these stakeholders to continue to remain effective in competing for these resources. CHP has accomplished this through extensive video conferencing and network sharing. Our group was able to experience this first hand as we interviewed Artze via two way video conferencing from CHPs Christiansburg office to their Richmond office. Rainey (2003) notes that managers strategic choices can have an impact on an organizations structure and CHP certainly falls into this characterization (p. 194). While interviewing CHPs Chief Executive Officer, Janaka Casper, he explained how CHP started to become more strategic about what they did instead of just producing things, such as new affordable housing units. This change in thinking also led to structural changes at CHP. CHP hired a Chief Operating Officer to allow Casper to focus more on strategic choices and less about operations which was the start of significant structural changes in the organization which can be seen in their current organizational chart. This structural change has also allowed Casper to focus more time on continuing to expand CHPs resources. Casper continues to take advantage of opportunities to exploit the environment to remain effective in meeting CHPs mission. An example of this was illustrated as CHP made a strategic choice to position itself ready to act with stimulus funds that would be allocated for weatherization of houses before
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 7 of 27

the funds were allocated. This choice enabled CHP to exploit the environment and they were able to weatherize over 40% of the homes weatherized in the state of Virginia. CHPs structure within their energy services division positioned themselves to make a strategic decision that they were able to execute once the stimulus funds were appropriated. Without having this organizational structure in place CHP would never have been able to execute this strategy effectively. CHP exhibits characteristics of an organization that has a low level of formalization and a low level of centralization. This is surprising if you look at CHP on the surface because they are fairly large for a non-profit (389 employees) and have a fairly complex structure. However, after talking with their four top executives and observing the organization it is clear that CHPs decision making authority is held throughout the organization as has previously been discussed. Rules, policies, and procedures are not in place to restrict creativity but more to ensure basic functions of the organization are stable, such as the treatment of employees as valuable resources for the organization. As Perrow (1986) states, rules are a means of preserving group autonomy and freedom and good effective rules are rarely noticed, (p. 24) . Perrows (1986) idea that rules are scapegoats for various organizational problems supports CHPs organizational structure and how they have been able to maintain effective rules that allow their employees to function at a high level (p. 25). These rules have allowed employees at all levels to pursue resources, most notably funding from various agencies, to remain effective and continue to carry out CHPs mission. CHP emphasizes communication, which was demonstrated in numerous examples throughout the interviews, and flexibility, which was also reflected numerous times throughout the interviews that were conducted. These characteristics are demonstrated through CHPs innovative practices such integrating green building techniques into their affordable housing projects which present many challenges when trying to retrofit older structures and coordinating with multiple funding agencies that have conflicting regulations. Mintzberg would label CHP as an adhocracy because of their innovative orientation and organic structure that has allowed them to operate with a low level of centralization and still remain effective (as cited in Rainey, 2003, p. 199). A parallel comparison can be found at NASA during their infancy as they were figuring out how to get a man on the moon. As Cross, Borgatti, and Parker (2002) observe, significant restructuring efforts have resulted in organizations with more permeable boundaries than in decades previous (p. 25). This phenomenon has lead to the occurrence of informal networks within organizations to accomplish tasks rather than the more traditional channels seen by top down organizations (Cross, Borgatti, and Parker, 2002). It was clear after talking with Casper, CHPs CEO that he and the organization understands the importance of these cross divisional relationships and is one of CHPs reasons for remaining effective for the past three decades. CHP integrates into each employees annual evaluations cross cutting goals which emphasizes the need for employees to work with other employees outside of their division to further CHPs mission. This structure has allowed CHP to, as Cross, Borgatti, and Parker (2002) state, [to] begin to develop an appreciation of each others unique skills and knowledge (p. 30). This structure is also important for CHP as it relates to the systems resource approach to organizational effectiveness. Being deliberate about these informal relationships and networks has placed CHP in a position of power when it competes for resources as their organization is more aware of their strengths and limitations.

Page 8 of 27

Mintzberg (1979) has synthesized that organizations establish structures to divide and then coordinate workthrough the design of four different structural categories: positions, superstructures, lateral linkages, and decision making systems, (as cited in Rainey, 2003, p. 196). All four of these structural categories can be implicitly seen in the examples discussed above. CHP has been able to establish these various structural components to remain effective in an increasingly competitive environment by continuing to obtain resources to carry out their mission. As Perrow (1986) summarizes bureaucratization and thus structure can and is actually a strength, particularly for organizations of modest size, such as CHP. The rules of bureaucracies and their structures can allow flexibility and efficiencies to occur that otherwise wouldnt (p. 47). This notion has allowed CHP to continue to obtain resources and grow over the past 30 years to effectively carry out their mission.

Page 9 of 27

Technology
Technology has become one of the most important aspects within an organization as it can impact all functions of effectiveness within different departments. However, technology is not an end in itself; the organization has to ensure it is using technology in the most effective manner. Orlikowski 2000 states: The distinction between technologies and technologies-in-practice thus reminds us that measures of technology investment or deployment are not sufficient indicators of organizational change or effectiveness. Such change or effectiveness depends not on technologies alone, but on whether, how, and what technologies-in-practice are enacted with them. (p. 425) Some examples of how technology can be used to make an organization effective are through communication, security/privacy, and social media. While technology can lead to organizational effectiveness if implemented correctly it can also lead to ineffectiveness if used improperly or by ignoring changes in the environment. The system-resource approach of evaluating effectiveness will be used to evaluate if CHP is using technology effectively or ineffectively. In our interviews with CHP it was apparent that CHP has had a long history of adaptability when it comes to technology; always looking at their mission to make sure the two pair together to build the most effective organization. Communication at CHP has been an item that they have addressed using technology in a few different ways. One example is when CHP put in a video conferencing system in their meeting rooms, not only in the headquarters but also in their other offices. Not only did they put a video conferencing system in they also switched to a new phone system which gives extensions to every desk in the company. Both of these additions to the company have fostered an environment where picking up a phone or setting up a videoconference is very easy and builds collaborative culture. Previously CHP had to meet in Lexington (halfway between Richmond and Christiansburg) to make major decisions on resource acquisitions, which took time and money that the organization did not have especially when the organization had to act quickly. By implementing the video conferencing and phone system technology CHP is able to ensure decisions can be made quickly so they do not lose out on essential resources. Using collaboration to ensure the mission and goals of CHP are attained is imperative in keeping CHP competitive and technology has been an integral part in doing so as Jeff Reed (CFO) described in our interview. Reed
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 10 of 27

said if we do not stay up with technology as budgets get squeezed at HUD and our rents start slowing down we would be less efficientwe try to use less people to do the same amount of work. The point Reed brought up was one that many nonprofit and government agencies are trying to work with in trying to find the most effective way to use technology to cut down on needing to hire more employees. Another example of this that Reed brought up was that they used to do most of their maintenance reporting with paper and pen where a person had to get sent out to the apartment write up the report and then file it where it was then transcribed. This method was indirect and could lead to information being transcribed incorrectly due to human error which could lead to resources being sent out to the apartment that were not necessary such as maintenance or custodial staff. CHP has since moved to using an iPad with software called Yardee Voyager, which allows the staff member to take a picture of the problem and describe the issue. The information is then sent directly to CHPs servers where the report is integrated into that residents file. This new system allows for resources to be sent out correctly and promptly to ensure a timely solution to the issue occurs. Landsbergen and Wolken (2001) discuss how using interoperable systems have the potential to reduce the paperwork burden on the public and private sectors (p. 208). This is exemplified by how these systems integrate to allow different employees to access the information; which fosters the same type of communication in the office environment. Technology in this sense, and according to CHP, is being used extremely effectively to cut down on the amount of extra work being done and reduces the need to hire extra staff so they can focus their resources more effectively. Another way Yardee Voyager is ensuring CHP effectiveness is through reporting to external stakeholders. During our interview with Reed he said that Yardee helps CHP organize a tremendous amount of documents every month on every person that rents from them. Through Yardee they are then able to compile the information and send it to their stakeholders when CHP needs to report said information for continued funding. These resources have helped CHP continue to grow throughout the years and continue to obtain resources through the effective implementation of the Yardee system. Using Lansbergen and Wolkens (2001) text to analyze if CHP is being effective in their use of technology they mention that one of the most important aspects technologies can play in an organization is the need for an infrastructure to support information sharing (p. 207). As described previously with the switch to the new software the ability to share information was one of their top priorities in picking the new system. Interoperability of the technology CHP uses allows CHP to remain effective in such a competitive environment. While having these new systems in place have been beneficial for CHP in able to communicate effectively, security and privacy are also extremely important to ensure stakeholders and clients are being protected. Lansbergen and Wolken (2001) say privacy is one of the barriers to interoperability as the need for privacy rights and their protection must be clarified [before] putting appropriate systems in place (p. 208). Privacy is a major concern for organizations especially in the nonprofit and government world because the public trusts them to keep their information safe which is why nonprofits (such as CHP) have to implement high security standards. Sisk (CAO) who manages the IT department at CHP described this need for security as a need to know policy. For example CHP partners with NeighborWorks to serve their clients and they have all of the client information protected by keeping it on later database systems, which are operated by NeighborWorks. Sisk went on to say that they have very sophisticated firewalls and protection and take security very seriously therefore everything is password protected. CHPs ability to adapt to this changing environment has kept them ahead
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 11 of 27

of the game when it comes to securing their clients information. CHP has also expanded their IT department from one person to seven people and have created their first strategic plan. This increase in staff is mostly due to the huge increase in lines of business that CHP has had over the past ten years which has helped keep up with privacy and security issues. These updates to CHPs privacy and security have kept them at the forefront of the affordable housing field, which allows them to obtain more properties and expand their market share. This shows that by being able to adapt to the environment CHP has used their resources effectively so they can obtain more resources and continue to be a leader in the affordable housing field. One way they are doing this can be seen in the HR department where CHP used to use excel spreadsheets and a human data entry payroll system. CHP now uses an electronic self-service system where they are allowing their employees to choose if they want their pay stubs printed bi-weekly or if they just want to monitor it online. Switching systems shows CHPs adaptability to different technology as they see it come available and even lines up with their mission to be a green organization. By using the online payroll system they are also increasing the amount of security/privacy over this sensitive information by taking manual inputting of the data out of the equation and allowing the employees to handle their own payroll. This frees up resources within the HR and Payroll departments to work on other issues. This change in how the HR department uses technology to be more effective relates more to the internal process approach as they are making the employees more highly integrated into the system. Just as CHP had to adapt and add staff to keep up with privacy and security concerns they are also adapting when it comes to networking and social media. Mergel (2010) discusses the concept of knowledge silos where ideas that might meet the knowledge needs of several similar stakeholders in government are prevented from spreading through the whole system (p. 177). While this may be an issue in ineffective organizations CHP has thought ahead and has positioned itself to allow an incredible amount of knowledge sharing between themselves and their stakeholders. One example of this is through their partnership with NeighborWorks where CHP gets approximately $800,000 per year which goes to fund their multi and single family housing and Housing Partnership network which is an association of some of the largest non-profit affordable housing developers in the country. The CFOs in these organizations meet multiple times a year and talk about what issues their organizations are being confronted with and how they are resolving them. Reed said that he would be going to the conference next month and he will be teaching classes because CHP is one of the larger groups in NeighborWorks and handle more than most of the other organizations. Perrow said that organizations doing the same work can define the nature of it differently which is why it is great for all of these organizations to come together to discuss new technologies and share best practices (Rainey, 2003, p. 193). This type of conference is an example of how using a network of similar organizations can help combat similar issues that organizations are being faced with and is also a way CHP stays on the cutting edge of technology. This shows that CHP is leveraging its network resources to tap into the national community of partners to better obtain resources that CHP needs to remain effective. The use of social media is also a very important aspect of how technology plays a key role in the effectiveness of an organization. CHP has accounts with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Linkedin but to date has not been an effective tool. However, CHP had just hired a consultant to work on the website, begin using Constant Contact, and start integrating the social media presence with the website in a more effective manner. Some examples of what CHP is
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 12 of 27

using social media for include posting jobs, sending out press releases, external newsletters and showcase videos. Mergel (2010) states Social media tools can help to serve as organizational anchors for a higher degree of integration and inclusion of alternative knowledge sources and information acquiring techniques (p. 180). Hiring a specialist demonstrates that CHP is not ignoring the changing impact social media is having on organizations and shows that they are using their resources where they can be most effectively used and integrated into the organization. One criticism of hiring a web designer and how CHP uses social media is if it is an effective way to actually reach potential stakeholders, current stakeholders, or clients. As Osimo (2012) states public organizations need to build trust in their communications with the public and therefore should not act like a brand (p. 88). Keeping this in mind will help CHP stay on the right track with how they use social media in relation to their effectiveness, as it may not be the most effective way to obtain resources. Technology has penetrated many aspects of the organization and changes have been made where technology had to be added to parts of the organization to make it more effective. For the most part the interoperability of CHP and the enhancements they are making with technological improvements throughout the organization demonstrates that they are using their resources effectively however the relationship between obtaining resources and technology was at times a hard connection to draw together. Using the system-resource approach to evaluate CHP, they are obtaining resources effectively and ensuring that when technology is not necessary they are not adapting new technologies; instead they are doing their research to make sure they are obtaining resources in the most effective manner.

Page 13 of 27

Environment
Measuring the effect of the environment on the performance of CHP using the systems resource approach is not only appropriate but also quite relevant. As discussed in Tolbert (2009), the very description and definition of Seashore and Yuchtmans Systems Resource Approach, as a measure of organizational effectiveness, references exploiting the environment in the acquisition of scarce and valued resources to sustain its functioning. (p.225). Because this approach measures effectiveness through utilization of resources, and because CHP has vast array of external environmental network resources upon which it is dependent (and also depend upon it) this is the ideal lens for environmental analysis. In keeping with CHPs environmentally friendly approach to business, the Systems Resource Approach definition also emphasizes the ability to utilize the environment rather than maximum utilization of the environment, since maximum utilization could lead to the total depletion of resources, (Tolbert, 2009, p. 225). For purposes of this analysis, the network is the resource, but because CHP has a strong environmental and sustainability focus to their mission, we can also interpret Tolberts quote quite literally as pertaining to the physical environment.

DIMENSIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCE

CHP is a non-profit organization having multiple subunits, with an overall mission of public good achieved in a sustainable way through affordable housing and energy solutions. As discussed by Rainey (2003), an organization can both affect, and be affected by the environment in which it operates (p. 80). The environmental conditions, discussed by Rainey (2003), having the most influence on CHP are: technological conditions, legal conditions, and political/ economic conditions (p.81). External stakeholders, and those affected by CHP, include citizens, local and regional communities, all levels of government, and partner agencies. Specific dimensions of environmental influence discussed here include measures of complexity, dynamism, and munificence.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
CHP has a diverse group of subunits including Energy Solutions and Administrative Operations, Real Estate Development and Housing Solutions. Technological environmental conditions are key factor for for the Housing Solutions subunit. Rainey (2003) defines technological conditions as the general level of knowledge and capacity in science, engineering, medicine and other substantive areas... (p. 81). The current technological environment, specifically IPADS, distance learning, and software innovations have increased the effectiveness of CHP by allowing employees in the field to communicate work-orders using technology instead of paper. Previously the organization relied upon paper and manual entry. Technological conditions are also important for the Energy Solutions subunit. Advances since even the early 2000s in sustainability and environmental stewardship have allowed CHP to fulfill the green portion of their mission, through Energy Solutions as well as their own internal operations and building, in ways inconceivable when the company began. CHP shapes its environment through distance learning by reaching people around the world instead of just local markets with its training. Rainey (2003) suggest this proactive nature of shaping, while also being shaped by the environment, is what makes environmental analysis so complex (p. 80). Legal conditions, especially the regulatory environment is a second area in which CHP is influenced by the environment. Sisk (CAO) is responsible for applying for grants for outside
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 14 of 27

funding. Federal funding often comes with strict compliance requirements. Outside foundation funding may have requirements, although usually not as strict. Additionally, the Real Estate Development subunit submits applications for tax credits which are administratively cumbersome to prepare, but allow the organization to remain competitive by cutting costs. The economic and political climate influence operations. Jeff Reed (CFO) indicated the organization did quite well during light recessions because its target market is affordable housing. During light recessions, people were moving from luxury apartments to affordable apartments. But, during the more recent, recessionalmost a depression-- people moved from luxury apartments back home with their parents often skipping the affordable housing market. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) brought funds into the Energy Solutions subunit for weatherization. This is an example of a political influence on the environment as a result of the Obama administration.

EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
The nature of CHPs business and multiple subunits and business lines mean that there are a large number of external stakeholders who both influence and are influenced by CHP. These include citizens, local and regional communities, all levels of government, and partner agencies. Neighborworks America is a government sponsored entity and an example of a partner agency. CHP is a member of NeighborWorks whose purpose is to improve the effectiveness of non-profit organizations focusing on affordable housing. They receive $800,000 in funding from this agency. CHP is able to influence its environment by being a member of the NeighborWorks Network Association which does advocacy work with Congress to ensure the funding continues for them and others. Housing Partnership Network (HAP), a network of large affordable housing developers, is another external stakeholder with whom CHP performs advocacy work and both learns and shares best practices. Federal and state governments can be political influencers of environmental conditions (Rainey, 2003, p. 81). HUD is a federal agency influencing CHPs work. The Department of Energy (DOE) funnels money through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) and also assists in non-entitlement areas. CHP carries out business in many non-entitlement communities, so this is a critical source of funding in one of their niche markets. The Virginia Housing Development Authority doles out tax credits and are yet another source of funding for CHPs multi-family housing projects. Federal funding cuts could potentially change CHPs market leading them to need to find funding from other sources. At the local level, communities and citizens are an external stakeholder. The work CHP does, by the nature of its mission, means it partners with communities in every locality in which it operates. The localities are responsible for regulating buildings, but CHP also believes in providing services to the residents in its affordable housing units. CHP partners with local agencies, including churches, to provide services such as tutoring, literacy training and more, because it does not provide these services itself. This is an example of exerting cultural influence on its environment by believing that residents need to feel integrated into their communities (Rainey, 2003, p.81). Finally, the local citizenry not composed of affordable housing residents is also an external stakeholder. As part of its business model, CHP employees provide fee for service even when they are not working on affordable housing in order to provide income and become less dependent upon grants and government initiatives.

Page 15 of 27

COMPLEXITY
CHP is a complex organization because it has funding from many sources, generates its own funding, and is subject to government regulations at differing levels, (Rainey, 2003, p.83). Acquiring funding from different sources means the funding must be stewarded in different ways that align with requirements of the funding agency, the mission of CHP, and regulatory bodies. These sources could be at odds with one another. For example, CHP may complete regulatory paperwork to receive tax credits for a property, but then discover that the cost of bringing the affordable housing property to CHP environmental sustainability standards, may make the property unprofitable. All parts of the equation must add up for CHP management to get behind the project. Multiple subunits, multiple regulatory agencies, partner agencies, stakeholders at all levels of government and community and, green initiatives at the company add up to an extremely complex environment. The different subunits of CHP have different focus and while one subunit may thrive in certain environmental conditions, another may have to make adjustments. While this is a good risk strategy, it contributes to complexity.

DYNAMISM
CHPs environment changes as the economic health of localities and the country changes. This is often driven by politics and elections as in the case of ARRA funding. It is possible to conclude that the affordable housing market will always be in demand, but CHP discovered that this part of its business is also subject to the economy, although not as much so during light recession. In times that are nearer to depression than recession, the affordable housing market can be skipped in favor of more drastic changes such as moving in with family, or homeless shelters. Almost all of the environmental factors affecting CHP are constantly shifting. Rainey (2003) notes shifting environment requires rapid decisions and changes... (p. 84). CHPs ability to quickly adapt to its environment and be proactive allow it to remain effective during rapidly shifting environmental conditions on multiple fronts.

MUNIFICENCE, DYNAMISM AND LEGITIMACY

Munificence includes topics concerning organizational growth, stagnation, or decline, and capacity (Lemaire, 2013). CHP is a healthy, growing organization which is able to shift its focus quickly in order to remain competitive in its markets. The availability of resources changes continually depending upon political, economic, technological and legal conditions. Relevant conditions include grant funding, tax credits, regulatory compliance, demand for affordable housing, and the increase in emphasis on sustainability in the last twenty years. CHP has shown remarkable and quick adaptability to these conditions. Aldrich (1979) discusses capacity of the environment to have a rich or lean supply of resources (as cited in Rainey, 2003, p.85). The resource network available to CHP includes assistance from network organizations in lobbying and advocacy, assistance and cooperation from local governments. The same organizations who participate in NeighborWorks and HAP are also competitors of CHP and in this way they are also a resource. Banded together, they advocate for and against legislation which as Lemaire mentions (2013), facilitates acquiring resources in the form of grants, or changing legislation on tax credits or other regulatory compliance issues. CHP has demonstrated remarkable adaptability to changes in funding as well as foresight into the future with its response to and anticipation of ARRA funding. The network of organizations including ties to the government allowed this proactive strategy. Remaining focused on the future as well as the present, will ensure CHPs competitiveness when ARRA is gone.

Page 16 of 27

Legitimacy deals with relationships with other organizations who serve as resources by way of establishing credibility (Wiewel, 1985, p.487). Without the benefit of NeighborWorks and HAP, affordable housing organizations would be more reliant upon themselves to develop best practices and share information. Strong ties both with the federal government during advocacy efforts, as well as state and local governments in communities where it has a presence, strengthen CHPs reputation. The result is that CHP can create functional niches such as it did when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed. It was able to establish itself quickly during this time as a result of both legitimacy and environmental conditions which then became a management strategy.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CONCLUSION

The Systems Resource Approach emphasizes the use of resources in organizational effectiveness and performance. CHP operates in a resource rich environment with its resources defined as partner agencies and networks at the local state and federal level. Without legitimacy and organizational networks, CHP would not be as successful in its mission to contribute in a sustainable way to the greater public good by providing affordable housing. As a result of multiple external resources and stakeholders, as well as multiple subunits, CHP operates in a complex environment subject to economic, legal, and political environmental conditions. Legitimacy with other agencies, a strong sense of mission and adaptability enable CHP to make challenging decisions and operate effectively.

Page 17 of 27

Strategic Decision Making

Strategic decision-making, or the lack thereof, is a crucial factor in the evaluation of effectiveness through the lens of the systems resource approach. For this analysis, CHP is assessed based upon their strategic stance, strategic actions, and diversification to exploit the environment to acquire scarce and valued resources. When combined, strategic stance, strategic actions, and diversification can set the platform for an organization to effectively acquire resources through the environment to fulfill its mission. The four types of strategic stances include prospectors, defenders, reactors, and analyzers. Prospectors are willing to take risks, make rapid organizational responses to impending circumstances, actively search for new market opportunities, regularly experiment with potential responses to emerging environmental trends, and are innovative leaders in their field (Andrews, Boyne, & Walker, 2006). Prospectors are associated with organizational success, and CHP is irrefutably described as this stance (Andrews et al., 2006). Based on the interview conducted with key decision makers at CHP, there are four examples of where CHP has played the role of the prospector to exploit the environment for valuable resources. The three types of valuable resources in which CHP has acquired through strategic actions are funding, social capital, and technological innovations. A main source of funding for CHP comes from Federal grants. When there were talks of a potentially substantial stimulus Federal housing grant, CHP acted quickly to set itself in a position to take advantage of the funds. CHP made risky decisions to hire staff and invest in a multimillion-dollar warehouse to store weatherization equipment before Congress officially authorized the funds. In this regard, CHP was proactive in their decisions and knew that these types of decisions could result in greater market opportunities. CHP took advantage of the opportunity, and was able to acquire over 45% of the market share in Virginia to help underserved or unserved housing establishments because they were the most prepared organization with staff and weatherization equipment. As a result, they were able to acquire the valued resource of work opportunities and funding for the duration of the stimulus opportunity. As the interviews developed further, it is evident that CHP prioritizes strong relationships with not just the external environment stakeholders, but also the internal environment stakeholders. The organization strives to gain social capital, which is defined as the resources available to an individual or organization because of the cooperation, collaboration, and strengths of relationships with other individuals. Moreover, social capital serves as a complement to human capital (an individuals knowledge and skills) because an individual can refine ones perspective of knowledge by using social capital to leverage additional ideas and knowledge (Godfrey, 2008). Thus, an individual has a more well-rounded knowledge base that would not have existed without social capital (Godfrey, 2008). There are two planned strategies that CHP uses to gain the valued resource of social capital while playing the prospector role to take advantage of the internal environment. CHP made rapid organizational decisions to restructure their internal organization when their board announced that they were dissatisfied with how CHP external stakeholders viewed their organization. In other words, the board had difficulties explaining to others what CHP actually did due to the various business components of the organization. CHP initially suffered when there were eleven smaller teams, because of the difficulties of communicating with each team, and each team aimed to achieve their own particular goal. Instead of keeping the existing organ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 18 of 27

izational hierarchy, CHP was proactive in immediately restructuring their organization to synergize the different business segments to create three larger teams that emphasized collaboration and accomplishing crosscutting goals. This strategic decision ultimately fostered a working environment that had less strife, more communication, and well-defined shared goals amongst employees. Employees do not feel threatened to lose their job if they suggest new or opposing ideas. For example, Reed and Casper engage in spirited arguments on a regular basis, but these arguments are productive and for the best interest of CHP. This type of environment fosters an environment to bring up issues and to communicate new ideas. As a result, CHPs internal organization benefited greatly since employees could more easily bounce off ideas from one another when everyone was striving for the same goal. In addition to strengthening the internal organization through restructuring, CHP has also acquired human and social capital by hiring and keeping talented and dedicated staff. CHP actively sought out employees to enhance their existing IT staff of one employee to seven employees currently. They hired specialists with diversified skills that CHP did not already have, and kept them. According to Sisk, it was not effective to have one person responsible for all technology related tasks. The IT director lacked technological and human resources. The decision makers of CHP realized the need to acquire hardware, software, and applications and staff who could utilize and expand upon these technological resources. A number of decisions that impacted the quality and effectiveness of CHPs services were because of the IT staffs breadth of knowledge and recommendations. As a notable example, the IT staff recommended budgeting for iPads for the architects, so that the architects could take notes in the field and have the notes immediately sent to the support staff in the office. This allowed the notes to be securely placed on the server and shared with everyone. According to Sisk, this type of decision is deemed as collaborative-decision making in which an expert, like the IT director, approaches Sisk with a proposal. Sisk and the IT director discuss what the proposal is, why the proposal is necessary, and if the idea is within the budget. Factors that help make a decision to approve a proposal is if the proposal is expected to reduce the workload or increase the efficiency of CHP like how the iPad was ultimately invested to increase efficiency. As the interview proceeded, Sisk announced that CHP had recently contracted out to a private website consultant to revamp the existing website. The strategic decision to contract out was because CHP had to be efficient with resources. Contracting is cheaper and offers flexibility in that the contractor does not necessarily have to follow procedures precisely like a typical staffed employee and is able to tailor their services to the needs of the organization (Smith & Lipsky, 1993). The decision to hire the consultant for the short term optimized resources like time and funding, while still achieving the goal to produce an adequate webpage. The decision to hire someone reputable to create the face of CHP in the eyes of the World Wide Web was critical for marketing. CHP reached a point where many IT strategic goals had to be met, because CHP strived to have a higher IT standard. Hiring a consultant was also more budget friendly when compared to bringing someone on as a full time employee with benefits. Depending on how well the consultant performs, Sisk did emphasize that the consultant could be hired full time after her work was evaluated and how she fit in at CHP. This is another way CHP is able to retain talented employees. Restructuring due to environmental pressures and hiring and maintaining suitable employees has lead to an organization with less strife, more communication, and greater human and social capital. Another type of strategic action that CHP uses to operationalize their prospector stance is to continuously provide better services through innovative technologies. CHP no longer relies on paper for field operators to report property issues in work orders. Instead, they have in! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 19 of 27

vested in iPads for field operators to report and record issues that will categorize the priority of issues based upon safety and level of risk. The iPad also enables field operators to clearly communicate the issue through printed text as opposed to illegible handwriting, and an image of the issue is also captured to further convey the level of needed attention. Thus, technology in itself is a valued resource, but it is also a means to acquire resources like time efficiency and cost reductions in workloads. While CHP has achieved success over the last several decades in acquiring valuable resources through its stance as a prospector, another element that has contributed to CHPs effectiveness is through its strategic actions to provide unique services locally and regionally. Offering unique services is an example of differentiation, which is one of two ways to utilize Michael Porters strategic actions (Sharp, 1991). There are numerous non-profits devoted to providing affordable housing to low-income individuals and families in underserved and unserved areas. However, CHP has not only committed to this same mission, but has also enhanced their services by differentiating themselves through their devotion to sustainable practices. Due to their adamant emphasis in including sustainable practices in their projects, they are perceived as more attractive to funders and prospective residents, which are both valued resources to continue their mission. Moreover, many organizations are deterred to build or retrofit sustainably because of the costly initial investment. CHP acknowledges that the initial price to invest sustainably may be exorbitant, but also understood that sustainable practices saves money in the long run. Jeff Reed, the Chief Financial Officer, was asked to choose between producing fewer properties that required less energy or more properties that required more energy. CHPs decision would be to aggressively build fewer properties that were efficient, and if the budget was insufficient to build efficiently, then CHP would not engage in the project according to Reed. Furthermore, Reed mentions that some organizations may decide to use cheap siding and roofs over quality products, but CHP is unwilling to sacrifice quality over price. Similarly to diversifying the type of service, CHP has limited the scope of work to unserved and underserved individuals and families, but has expanded the geographic market. Initially, CHPs area of work was primarily in southwest Virginia. However, the decision to expand the geographic scope of services was driven by changes in the environment. Areas that were dubbed as weak markets with low economic development, low income, and outward migration of populations have more of a demand for CHP. However, the natural economic cycles of boom and bust evolves over time, which alters where CHP is able to fulfill its mission. Eventually CHP expanded their geographic scope of services to not only the region of southwest Virginia, but also the entire state of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida. CHP recently took over a nonprofit in Florida, because the nonprofit planned day by day not strategically for the future. The decision to diversify the geographic scope of work enables CHP to help more communities and eligibility for more funding resources while still upholding their values and maintaining their mission. The board of directors and officers of CHP make a majority of the high-level decisions, but often encourage staff to bring forth comments and ideas to shape the decisions. For decisions that mainly impact certain divisions in the organization like technology or finances, then primarily the respective chief officer makes the decisions. However, a factor to come to a decision often involves determining if the effect of the decision will serve as a catalyst to garner resources like funding, social capital, and technological innovations to make CHP more effective. Because of the leadership and the environment at CHP, the types of decisions made to expand the areas of providing services is also reflective of the prospector approach.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 20 of 27

Integration
We found Community Housing Partners to be a highly effective organization because of their consistent growth, their ability to exploit resources in their environment, and their capacity for maximizing the effectiveness of structure, strategic decision-making, their environment and technology by interweaving these aspects of the organization. Utilizing examples from interviews and past CHP actions, we sought to explain how the systems resource approach was an appropriate lens for analyzing CHP. This final section of the paper will explore how the four areas previously discussed in this paper work together to promote CHPs effectiveness, apply Kim Camerons (1980) six critical questions for evaluating organizational effectiveness, and finally offer recommendations to CHP to maintain their organizational effectiveness. CHPs structure allows them to strategically make decisions that are in the best interest of the organization. An example of this was discussed in our interview with the CFO, Jeff Reed. When CHP evaluates a potential property to acquire the development division does not make a decision without a strategic meeting with the finance, architecture, construction, and property management divisions. Vice presidents of each of these divisions meet collectively to review the subject property in a holistic manner. This structure has allowed CHP to more effectively evaluate properties and consider all factors to make an informed decision. As Reed pointed out, finance is looking to minimize risk, whereas development generally prefers to take more risks, and architecture and construction may not have the resources to design and rehabilitate a property depending upon what other activities are happening in their division, and property management will evaluate the property in terms of their ability to operate the property without a deficit. Technology plays a significant role to bridge the relationship between structure and strategic decision making. The vice presidents can utilize the video conferencing system to meet from across the state, while simultaneously viewing a presentation to follow along with the discussion. This helps the conversation to flow from across the state, ensuring that all vice presidents have equal opportunity to contribute to important decisions. These meetings allow CHP to canvas the market, look ahead to make predictions, and prepare for organizational change (such as losing the HVAC business or preparing for ARRA funding). Similarly, after CHP received a grant in 1993 to hold a summit, they made the strategic decision to pursue methods of using state of the art technology to achieve sustainability. CHP invited all of the state housing officials, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA), and other state and local officials. They organized the summit to include guest speakers who were experts of environmentalism and green building, and had sixty people in attendance. CHP presented the case for green building and environmental responsibility in low-income housing rehabilitations and new construction. After the summit, VHDA added scoring criteria to the tax credit application for green building, which was formalized into their current EarthCraft system. Sisk explained, we thought the up cost of greening might make us less competitive. So that was a change in that which we think we helped push that envelope. We feel responsible for that. We take our corporate social responsibility pretty seriously. CHP was a prospector in this moment, as it effectively used new green technologies and helped change the way that decisions in the sector are made.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 21 of 27

Rainey (2003) notes that managers strategic choices can have an impact on an organizations structure and CHP certainly falls into this characterization (p. 194). While interviewing CHPs CEO, Casper, he explained how the organization started to become more strategic about what they did instead of just producing things, such as new affordable housing units. This change in thinking also led to structural changes at CHP. CHP hired a COO to allow Casper to focus more on strategic choices and less about operations, which was the start of significant structural changes in the organization, which can be seen in their current organizational chart. CHPs structure within their energy services division positioned themselves to make a strategic decision that they were able to execute once the stimulus funds were appropriated. This move by CHP to act swiftly fits into what Rainey (2003) was describing when he stated: More unstable environments create a need for greater decentralization of authority to these subunits and a less formal structure. The shifting environment requires rapid decisions and changes, and it takes too long for information and decisions to travel up and down a strict hierarchy. (p. 79) Without having this decentralized organizational structure in place CHP would never have been able to execute this strategy effectively. The results of this decision to position itself ready to act once stimulus funds for weatherization were authorized enabled CHP to weatherize over 40% of the homes that were weatherized in Virginia. This stimulus money was an external environmental condition impacting effectiveness. CHP was ready even before the act was signed and was able to hit the ground running when the funding arrived. This quick reaction to change allowed them to be the only organization able to operate immediately. The environment has been a significant influence to CHPs structure. The resources CHP obtains are from a multitude of funding sources (federal, state, local, private, foundation, nonprofit), which all have complex rules and regulations that must be effectively understood and applied to their developments and programs. This environment has led CHP to a structure that empowers lower level employees across all divisions to make the majority of the decisions. Mintzberg (1979) would refer to this as vertical decentralization through an intentional design of CHPs decision making system (as cited in Rainey, 2003). This empowering environment has enabled CHPs line staff to effectively respond to their clients needs. This environment has allowed CHP to effectively manage their internal resources and value to employees at every level of the organization. The approach CHP has taken is echoed by various research as Rainey (2003) highlights (e.g. Daft, 2001; Gllbraith, Downey, and Kates, 2002; p. 190). Similarly, as Rainey (2003) also explains, the most successful firms had structures with a degree of complexity matching that of the environment. Firms in more stable environments could manage with relatively traditional hierarchical structures. Firms in more unstable, uncertain environments could not, (p. 83). CHP has adapted to its environment by constantly assessing its business lines and organizational structure, and management to ensure that the right people have the authority to make the decisions they need to because their environment is complex and continuously evolving. Their structure has also enabled them to exploit the environment to stay on the cutting edge of nonprofits. Reed explained an example of this during the interview, through CHPs participation in both the Housing Partnership Network and Neighborworks America, two housing nonprofit networks. Reed described meetings between the CFOs of member organizations that take place multiple times a year, where they trade ideas about problems they are facing
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 22 of 27

and how they are working through them. Because CHP is such a large organization in these two groups, Reed is often asked to teach classes at these meetings. He stated, We are larger [than the other organizations in the networks] so we do more than most, and handle more than most- and that makes me have to teach the classes. Thats how we work with other groups. To continue to stay on cutting edge of technology. As a leader in these two networks, and as a prospector in the field, CHP has proven itself by effectively utilizing the top technologies available, collaborating with other similar organizations, and being a leader in sharing best practices techniques in their networks to contribute to the effectiveness of other organizations. As Rainey (2003) points out, it is important for organizations to assess technology and the influences it can have on structure (p. 194). In our interview with Artze, CHPs COO it was apparent that technology has had a significant influence on CHPs structure. While CHPs headquarters is located in Christiansburg, Virginia, the development staff is located in Richmond, Virginia. Technology has allowed CHP to align their divisions under Artze from two different locations in Virginia while maintaining effectiveness. It is important for CHP to have a presence in Richmond because many of the state and federal resources CHP utilizes are located there and it is critical for CHP to maintain active, engaging relationships with these stakeholders to continue to remain effective in competing for these resources. CHP has accomplished this through extensive video conferencing and network sharing. Our group was able to experience this first hand as we interviewed Artze via two way video conferencing from CHPs Christiansburg office to their Richmond office. The use of iPads in the field has also significantly changed the day to day operations of CHP, and has impacted their ability to stay committed to their green initiatives and to support their decentralized structure. Reed explained that iPads reduce paper waste, and get the managers on the field working in the same system that is used at headquarters, so information is shared instantaneously. For example, a manager or maintenance person at one of CHPs management properties can enter a work order on an iPad, go take pictures of the problem and upload it in to the work order system where it is prioritized according to safety hazards, and then on a first-come-first-served basis. Reed explained that by using technologies, like the iPad, they can use the workforce they have more effectively. He stated, Our opinion is if we dont stay up with that technology as budgets get squeezed at HUD and our rents start slowing down we will be less efficient. We have to try to use less people to do the same amount of work. This effective use of iPads was one the first of its kind in the nonprofit housing sector, thus furthering CHPs prospector approach. !--- This doesnt tie back to effectiveness as it relates to acquiring resources, just efficiency With all of their impressive success, it will be important for CHP to continually evaluate their effectiveness to ensure that they are maximizing their potential to achieve organizational goals. We suggest that they utilize Kim Camerons (1980) six questions for assessing organizational effectiveness. As we explore those six questions, we will offer advice on how CHP might address the question, based on what we have observed as outsiders of the organization. The first question asks, what domain of activity is being focused on, (Cameron, 1980, p. 73-74). As Cameron (1980) explains, an organizations domains of activity can evolve throughout its lifecycle, as the importance and relevance of particular domains shift (p. 74). Therefore, when trying to assess the organizations effectiveness, it is important to focus on whichever domain is important to CHP at that moment. For example, while CHP has a strong focus in activities centered on input acquisitions through grants currently, they also care about organization/environment relations and that might perhaps outweigh their in! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 23 of 27

terest in input acquisition in the future (Cameron, 1980, p. 74). !-- Not sure what this means/is supposed to highlight, it just confused me. The second question asks, Whose perspective, or which constituencys point of view, is being considered, (Cameron, 1980, p. 74-75). People being served by CHP (their target population) should be the focus of this evaluation question. How these low wealth and low income individuals regard CHPs effectiveness as an organization seeking to meet their needs will be an important measure to consider, and will keep CHP focused on their original goals. The next question asks, what level of analysis is being used, which refers to the individual level, group level, or the overall organization level (Cameron, 1980, p. 75-76). The effectiveness of the group level of CHP, in other words their different divisions, might be the best way to look at this question. That way, CHP can determine where they are doing well and where they need improvement at the subunit level, which will be easy to distinguish as opposed to looking at effectiveness from the organizational level. The fourth questions asks, what time frame is being employed, which means CHP should choose to analyze either their short term or long term effectiveness (Cameron, 1980, p. 76-77). This is important to consider because there are trade-offs inherent to the choice of timeframe analysis, so the effectiveness assessment needs to be sensitive to that. Question five asks, what type of data are to be used, meaning is effectiveness be measured based on objective data (hard numbers in records or official documents) or through subjective data (collected through interviews or questionnaires) (Cameron, 1980, p. 77-78). We suggest that CHP look at both types of data, to ensure they are effective based on both the hard numbers (which should not be difficult because CHP has a very detailed record keeping system) and also the subjective perspective (based both on employee and their target constituencys input, to receive advice for improvement). This will offer CHP a more holistic look at their effectiveness. Finally, Cameron asks organizations to consider, what referent is being employed, and offers a number of alternatives to compare current effectiveness to (Cameron, 1980, p. 78-79). We recommend that in the near future (particularly after Casper leaves) CHP conduct an improvement evaluation, and compare their performance to past years to assess that staff changes in the near future do not disrupt the success of the organization. Finally, while we commend CHP for their fantastic work, and we regard them as a highly effective organization, we would like to offer a few recommendations as they move forward. The first is their use of social media. While they are reinventing their website at the moment so that it links better to their social media, we believe they should proceed with caution. Social media is a great platform for some organizations that CHP should use carefully. We do not recommend they utilize it to obtain resources. Perhaps their best approach would be to use social media to enhance their relationship with constituents and other similar organizations. Social media would also be a great outlet to share accomplishments to even further improve their reputation. Social media can be a highly effective tool for CHP, if used properly. Lastly, we would like to remind CHP to proceed with caution into the future. During the interviews, not one was explicit on what would happen when Casper leaves in three years. As Casper prepares to leave the organization, big changes will likely follow. Casper has been a key part of organization for a very long time (he was the second employee) and his passion for their mission has fostered CHPs growth. Overall, his persona has been vital to the organization. As organizational leaders begin to consider who will fill that position, they need to choose very carefully, and find someone with the same drive, motivation, and passion for their goals. It will be imperative to the organization they that find another visionary to ensure that the organization does not face an identity crisis associated with founders dilemma.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 24 of 27

In conclusion, we believe CHP is a highly effective organization because they utilize the resources in their environment that are available to them in a prospecting fashion, setting the standard for many other housing nonprofits. Their effective structure, environment, strategic decision making, and use of technology in concert with one another help to further their success. We recommend that they continue to track their success and evaluate their effectiveness by asking themselves Camerons (1980) six questions that are outlined above. We also caution them to be wary in the next stage of their organizational life as Casper prepares to retire. We thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to research and meet individuals in this fascinating nonprofit, and we look forward to seeing them grow and prosper in the future.

Page 25 of 27

References
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2006). Strategy Content and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 52-63. doi: 10.2307/3542654 Cameron, K. 1980. Critical Questions in Assessing Organizational Effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn: 66-80. Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). About Us. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http:// www.communityhousingpartners.org/about/?PHPSESSID=8373ad544d0b0d4862480f8940cd50bb Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). About Us: Janaka Casper. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.communityhousingpartners.org/about/casper.shtml Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). About Us: Jeffrey Reed. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.communityhousingpartners.org/about/reed.shtml Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). About Us: Orlando Artze. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.communityhousingpartners.org/about/artze.shtml Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). About Us: Susan Sisk. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.communityhousingpartners.org/about/sisk.shtml Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). Community Design Studio. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.communityhousingpartners.org/development/architectural_design/ Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). Energy Services. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http:// www.communityhousingpartners.org/development/energy_services/ Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). General Contracting. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.communityhousingpartners.org/development/general_contracting/ Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). Homeownership Program. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.communityhousingpartners.org/development/homeownership_program/ Community Housing Partners Corporation. (2010). Housing Development. In Community Housing Partners. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.communityhousingpartners.org/development/single-familydevelopment.shtml Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P., & Parker, A. 2002. Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2): 25-46. Godfrey, P. C. (2008). Social Capital. ESR Review, 10(2), 2-3. Landsbergen, David, Jr &Wolken, George, Jr. (2001). Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation of Information Technology. PublicAdministration Review.Vol. 61(2): 206-220. Lemaire, R. 2013 Dimensions of Environment Powerpoint and Lecture. Mergel, Ines. (2010). The Use of Social Media to Dissolve Knowledge Silos in Government,in O'Leary, R., Kim, S. and Van Slyke, D. M. (editors): The Future of Public Administration, Public Management and Public Service Around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective, Georgetown University Press, pp. 177-187. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization science,11(4), 404-428. http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/content/11/4/404.full.pdf Osimo, David et all. (2012) Study on Collaborative Production in EGovernment Smart 2010-0075. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9141 4/24/2012.

Page 26 of 27

Perrow, C. 1986. Why Bureaucracy? In Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. chapter 1. New York: Random House Rainey, H. 2003. Analyzing the environment of public organizations. In Understanding & Managing Public Orgs., 3rd ed., 79-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rainey, H. 2003. Organizational Structure, Design, Technology, and Information Technology. In Understanding & Managing Public Orgs., 3rd ed., 180-202. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Sharp, B. (1991). Competitive Marketing Strategy: Porter Revisited. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 9(1), 4-10. Smith, S & Lipsky, M. 1993. Privatization in human services: A critique. Chapter 9 (pp. 188- 205) in Nonprots for Hire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tolbert, P.S. & Hall, R.H. 2009 (10th edition). Organizational Effectiveness. In Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes (chap. 10). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall. Wiewel, W. & Hunter, A. 1985. The interorganizational network as a resource: A comparative case study of organizational genesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 482-496. Yutchman, E., Seashore, S., 1967, A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness, American Sociological Review, 32 891-903.

Page 27 of 27