Download
1 / 30
300 likes | 406 Views
This report details the progress and analysis of the Self-Assessment Project for nonprofit housing corporations in Ohio. It includes data collection processes, respondent overviews, and analysis results after the first year. The report also outlines goals, tool format, potential respondents, and key findings on organizational capacity based on size and staffing. Conclusions and next steps are discussed, along with grant reporting and future plans for the project.
E N D
Self-Assessment ProjectYear 1 Report Disability Housing Network March 2012
Goals for Today • Provide overview of Self-Assessment Project and Data Collection Process • Give overview of respondents • Share analysis of data collected as of the end of the first year • Discuss next steps
Self-Assessment Project • Master checklist of 102 legal requirements and recommended best practices for nonprofit housing corporations. • Developed and approved by DHN Board of Directors in 2010. • Implemented via grant from Ohio Developmental Disabilities Council 10/1/10 through 9/30/12.
Goals of the Project • To provide housing corporations across the state of Ohio a comprehensive checklist of the field’s best practices. • To link housing corporations to the corresponding policy templates through the DHN website. • To share information with housing corporations about others’ successes with these items. • To provide in-depth, one-on-one assistance to housing corporations as they implement these policies and procedures within their own organizations
Self Assessment Tool Format • Section 1 – Board Governance – 62 questions • Section 2 – Financial Management – 12 questions • Section 3 – Property Management – 26 questions • Section 4 – Inspections – 1 question • Section 5 – Future Planning – 1 question
Potential Respondents • 65 Housing Corporations • 30 staffed by the nonprofit (privatized) • 35 staffed by the county board (not privatized) • 7 Metropolitan Housing Authorities • Athens, Fayette, Meigs, Perry, Pike, Sandusky, Wayne • (Unknown) Others: ICFDDs or residential services programs who have developed community-based housing as well.
Respondents (N=51) • 46 Housing Corporations • 2 Metropolitan Housing Authorities • 3 others (One MHA and one housing corporation have submitted self-assessments since we did the analysis and report to ODDC.)
What are we learning? Organizational Capacity of Nonprofit Housing Corporations in Ohio
Analysis – Two ways • By size of organization (properties owned) • By staffing of organization
Respondents Categorized by Size • “Large” - owns and manages more than 75 properties. 6 responses • “Medium” - owns and manages 16-75 properties. 14 responses • “Small” - owns and manages 15 or fewer properties. 31 responses
Respondents Categorized by Staffing • “Nonprofit Staffed Housing Corporation” – nonprofit organization that employ staff to administer the organization. 22 responses. • “County Board-Staffed Housing Corporation” – nonprofit organization, where county board staff perform administrative functions of the organization – 24 responses. • “Other” – 2 MHAs, 2 ICFDDs and one CAC
Inspections by Size • Large 6/6 = 100% • Medium 12/14 = 86% • Small 23/31 = 74% Note: many who checked “no” or “partial” note they conduct inspections but not according to one of the standardized tools listed.
Inspections by Staffing Nonprofit-staffed housing corporations are 15% more likely to report they annually inspect each entire property using a standardized tool.
Future Planning By Size Of the 51 respondents, plans have been received from: • Large 6/6 = 100% • Medium 11/14 = 79% • Small 19/31 = 61% Note this does not mean that a plan has been received for every county in a multi-county housing corporation’s jurisdiction.
Future Planning by Staffing • County board-staffed housing corporations are only slightly more likely to have completed a county plan, 79% compared to 77%. Note than none of the metropolitan housing authorities or other entities had completed a county plan.
Conclusions • Organizations vary widely by size, structure and scope of purpose. These variations are reflected in their organizational capacity as measured by the Self-Assessment Tool. • Large organizations are more likely to have more highly-developed organizational capacity. • “Privatized” Housing corporations are more likely to have highly-developed organizational capacity. • Many organizations, especially smaller ones, regard many items on the tool as “not applicable.” This perception is probably a barrier to full participation.
Grant Reporting • Even without a systematic review of actions taken by housing corporations since completing the tool, we were able to achieve the goals established for Year Two of the grant in the first quarter. • 41/30 Internal processes improved or policies created. • 45/40 people trained in system advocacy about quality assurance.
Next Steps • Continue collecting self-assessments as possible; refresh report at end of the project year. • Conduct systematic review of actions taken since participating in the self-assessment project. • Increase emphasis on one-on-one technical assistance and collaborative peer review. • Continue building the website resources page so that it is as comprehensive and as fresh as possible.
