Posted by Jill Norcross on June 20, 2006 at 14:54:27:
Housing Association of Nonprofit Developers (HAND):
Prepared for:
Housing Association of Nonprofit Developers (HAND)
Prepared by:
Hilary Binder-Aviles
Emily Gantz McKay
Thanh Nguyen
Mosaica
1522 K Street, NW, Suite 1130
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 887-0620
January 2006
I. Context and Methodology
Background and Assignment: The Housing Association of Nonprofit Developers (HAND) is a 501(c)(3) organization formed in 1991; its mission is to “increase the capacity of nonprofit affordable housing developers and service providers through free technical training and networking opportunities.” With an Executive Director coming on board in January 2005, and HAND’s founder and President stepping down after 14 years, HAND is in a transition period. HAND is taking this opportunity to undergo a strategic planning process, which will provide the new leadership with a blueprint to guide the organization over the next five years. To assist with and facilitate the strategic planning process, HAND hired Mosaica: The Center for Nonprofit Development and Pluralism.
Methodology: To provide a basis for sound decision-making about future directions, Mosaica conducted a “situation analysis” by talking to a variety of stakeholders about HAND’s mission, focus, niche, current programs and services, areas for improvement, and potential areas for growth. In addition, Mosaica asked Board and staff about issues related to the organization’s current staffing structure and governance to identify what is working and what can be improved.
Mosaica used a combination of surveys, interviews, and focus groups for the situation analysis. A total of 126 people responded. The following is a breakdown of the respondents:
• 90 members (online surveys)
• 10 Board members (five completed online surveys and five were interviewed)
• 5 stakeholders (1 foundation, 2 financial institutions, and 2 advocacy organizations were interviewed)
• 2 focus groups with members (about 10 individuals participated in each)
• 1 staff (interview)
The findings include summaries of responses to key questions, as well as summaries of opinions and comments around key issues (e.g., HAND’s role in advocacy). While members, staff, Board, and stakeholders were generally asked about the same issues (with the exception of internal organizational and governance issues, asked only of staff and Board), they were not always asked the same questions. Thus in some places, we report on specific questions, while in others, we report the findings around a topic or issue. To protect the confidentiality of the one staff member who was interviewed, Mosaica combined responses from Board members and staff, except where they held very different views.
II. Mission, Niche, and Overall Strengths and Weaknesses
A. Organizational Mission and Purpose
Overview: HAND members, Board/staff, and stakeholders expressed a consistent understanding of HAND’s mission.
Members : When asked to describe the mission and purpose of HAND, members were fairly consistent in their understanding of the mission. Members most frequently described HAND’s mission as:
• Providing information and education about affordable housing,
• Providing training and technical assistance,
• Providing forums for networking and information sharing, and
• Promoting cooperation and facilitating relationships.
About 20% of the members specifically identified the “target” for the aforementioned activities as nonprofits, while the vast majority identified the target as the broader “affordable housing community” or listed the variety of stakeholders HAND serves.
Board/Staff: Nearly all Staff and Board members stated that HAND’s mission is to bring together diverse groups working on affordable housing to network, share information and ideas, learn from each other, and identify best practices in order to strengthen their ability to provide affordable housing. One respondent was very specific, i.e., “to increase the capacity of nonprofit housing developers to acquire, finance, construct, rehab, and manage affordable housing.” One noted that the organization’s mission is mainly educational in nature, while another questioned whether HAND has a clear purpose. Most respondents did not specify the target geographic region; however, three specific identified the “greater DC” area as HAND’s target, while three identified greater DC, Baltimore and Richmond.
Stakeholders: Stakeholders used terms similar to members in stating HAND’s mission, emphasizing strengthening housing development entities, providing training and networking opportunities, and promoting affordable housing. One described the mission as “to build a professional community of nonprofit housing providers.” Another described it as a “trade association” for nonprofit and for-profit housing organizations.
B. HAND’s Uniqueness
Overview: HAND members, Board/staff, and stakeholders most frequently identified HAND’s geographic scope (i.e., its region wide focus) as the primary characteristic that makes it unique. HAND members and Board/staff also identified the mix of groups it brings together (e.g., lenders, nonprofits, governments) and the range of opportunities HAND provides to network and learn from one another as what makes HAND unique.
Members: The survey asked members to identify aspects of HAND that make it different from other, similar organizations. Members responded as follows:
• Geographic scope (74% of respondents identified this aspect of HAND). Specific comments included:
“HAND is not only regional but involves three jurisdictions (DC, MD, and VA). While other housing organizations are regional, they usually do not cross state boundaries.”
“The regional nature of HAND is what makes it truly unique. There are MD, DC, and VA groups, but HAND is the only one that brings them all together.”
“Everything else is local or national in scope.”
• Mix of members/categories (66%). Specific comments included:
“Involves a large group of ‘the players’ in affordable housing in the area; that’s good for networking, good for political connections.”
“Most associations only have either non-profit or for-profit organizations, not both.”
“It's not just a narrow occupational slice; and it offers chances for all sorts to mix together (at luncheons, etc.).”
• Opportunities for professional networking (40%). Specific comments included:
“Networking is what sets HAND apart.”
“The three geographic areas have little professional contact so HAND helps break down this barrier…Professional networking also is crucial; we can learn more from our peers than from the experts many times.”
“We get face time with our peers, facilitating ongoing communications. The interaction fosters mutual respect and appreciation.”
• Focus on capacity building (35%). Several members noted that HAND is the only organization that provides free training.
• Specific programs and services (22%).
• Awards (22%).
Board/Staff: Staff and Board members identified similar aspects that make the organization unique, including: its multi-state, region-wide focus; the mix of groups it brings together (e.g., lenders, nonprofits, governments); and the range of opportunities HAND provides to network and learn from one another. In addition, several Board members stated that HAND is unique because it “helps other groups develop instead of promoting a ‘special interest’ ” and, for this reason, “all the groups feel comfortable getting on board.” The staff member also identified the free meetings/seminars.
Stakeholders: When asked what makes HAND special or different among affordable housing membership groups, the majority of stakeholders (3 out of 4) identified its geographic scope/regional focus. As one stakeholder said, “It has a metropolitan area focus, which is very useful. That allows for broadening the group, learning from each other.” One stakeholder stated that HAND is unique because it is not an advocacy organization and is thus a “non-threatening and neutral gathering place.”
C. Visibility of the Organization
Overview: A large majority of HAND members, Board/staff, and stakeholders stated that HAND is “moderately” to “very” well known in the field of affordable housing.
Members: The survey asked members how well known HAND is among people within the field of affordable housing. Of the 76 members who responded to this question, 40% said it is “very” well known, 38% said “moderately,” 10% said “a little,” and the remaining 12% did not know.
Board/Staff: Six of the 11 respondents stated that HAND is “very” well known among diverse groups working on affordable housing issues in the region, four said “moderately,” and one said “a little.” Several Board members credited the annual meeting/luncheon for increasing HAND’s visibility. As one noted, the luncheon “has become the major housing event in this region - is the event to attend in this field.” Another noted that HAND is well known because “all the key players in affordable in the area participate in some fashion.” The staff member pointed out that HAND has increased its efforts to reach out to the consulting community and financial institutions, thus helping to increase its visibility.
Several Board members offered suggestions for ways by which HAND could further enhance its visibility, including: increasing outreach to organizations and institutions in the District, increasing outreach to for-profit stakeholders, and “taking a stance on some issues.” One Board member would like to see HAND “become the one must-have membership for someone in the housing business.”
Stakeholders: All four stakeholders stated that HAND is “very” well known in the field, although one noted that it is “not well known outside” the affordable housing arena. One said HAND could increase its visibility by playing some role in advocacy, especially in raising the visibility of affordable housing issues in the region.
D. Overlap with other Organizations
Overview: HAND’s members generally stated that they do not perceive any overlap between HAND and other organizations, or are “not sure” if there is overlap. Staff and Board members and stakeholders identified “some” overlap between HAND and other organizations. The organization most frequently identified as having some similar programs and services was the Coalition for Nonprofit Housing & Economic Development (CNHED) in Washington, DC.
Members: Members varied in their perceptions about overlap or duplication of services between HAND and other organizations. Almost half of those who responded were not sure (45%), while 33% said “no” and 22% said “yes.” Those members who identified some overlap, most frequently mentioned the Coalition for Nonprofit Housing & Economic Development (CNHED) as having similar programs and services. However, these members also recognized that CNHED “just serves DC.” Members most frequently mentioned CNHED and the Enterprise Foundation as resources they use for capacity-building/training (See Appendix A for a full list of organizations mentioned.)
Board/Staff: Almost all these respondents stated that there is some duplication of services between HAND and other organizations. However, several pointed out that other networks are more “specialized” (e.g., focused on lenders only, or only on one region, or on specific advocacy issues). Respondents frequently identified CNHED as an organization with which there is some overlap. Several identified the now-defunct Maryland Center for Community Development as a "comparable group." One noted that several local jurisdictions have annual housing conferences similar to the HAND annual meeting or address topics similar as those addressed in HAND’s lunch meetings/seminars.
Stakeholders: Three out of four stakeholders stated that there is some duplication of services between HAND and other organizations. These stakeholders stated that HAND’s programs and services overlap with the Coalition for Nonprofit Housing & Economic Development, but added that CNHED “has an advocacy component.”
D. Overall Strengths and Weaknesses
Members, Board/staff, and stakeholders: All respondents generally agreed on HAND’s greatest strengths. At least 10 members and a majority of staff, Board and stakeholders identified each of the following as HAND’s greatest strengths:
• Networking opportunities
• Dedicated staff/Strong leadership
• Size and diversity of membership
• Quality of educational programs/seminars and annual meeting
• Region-wide focus
In addition, several Board members identified HAND’s “neutrality” (i.e., it does not take policy positions) and its ability to maintain its focus and mission over the years.
Members, Board/staff and stakeholders had some similar and some different perspectives on areas for improvement. The following weaknesses or areas for improvement were identified by at least five members (out of 40 respondents to this question):
• Meetings/seminars are too basic (they should be more “advanced,” “sophisticated,” and “cutting edge”).
• Lack of an advocacy component.
• Limited capacity/sustainability (given small staff and wide service area).
Staff, Board members and stakeholders also identified the areas for improvement listed above. In addition, staff and Board members identified a need to increase the organization’s visibility, and to have a clear vision, strategy, and priorities for the future. Stakeholders also noted a need to increase visibility of the organization and the issues, as well as a need for outreach to growing jurisdictions (e.g., Prince William County).
III. Programs and Services
A. Value and Usefulness of Programs and Services to Members
Overview: HAND members, Board/staff, and stakeholders consistently identified the lunch meetings/seminars, annual meeting, and weekly electronic newsletter as HAND’s most valuable services. Members and Board/staff also generally agreed that HAND’s programs and services are most useful in helping them and/or their organizations to network, to gain/share information, and to increase visibility for their organization.
Members: The survey asked members to rate the value of HAND’s programs and services to them and their organization using a 4-point scale, with 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = moderately, 4 = very valuable. Members gave the following average ratings.
Value of Program/Service to Members
Program/Service Average Rating
Networking opportunities 3.6
Lunch meetings/seminars 3.2
Weekly e-mail newsletter 3.2
Annual meeting/Awards 3.1
Half-day seminars 3.1
Website 3.1
Message board 3.0
Scholarships to housing events 2.2
The survey also asked members to rate how useful HAND's programs and services overall are in providing some specific benefits to members. Using the same 4-point scale as above, members gave the following average ratings:
Usefulness of Programs/Services to Members
Area Average Rating
Networking – get acquainted with others who work on affordable housing 3.4
Gain information/share information 3.2
Increase visibility for my organization 3.2
Obtain training for staff and Board 2.7
Find funding or business opportunities 2.4
Form partnerships 2.3
Recruitment – find a consultant/technical specialist 2.1
Find employment opportunities 1.9
The following comments illustrate the range of examples offered by members with regard to how HAND's programs and services have benefited them or their organizations:
• “The lunch meetings and seminars enhance my knowledge of the industry…The annual meeting and the networking opportunities provide a chance to meet lenders and finance persons who are willing to underwrite our deals. The person-to-person contact facilitates deal-making.”
• “Luncheon series helps us to get additional information and viewpoints from other developers on how to handle a particular situation. Awards luncheon meeting gives all members a chance to see each other and catch up on what's happening in affordable housing in the region.”
• “I learned of my job at HAND.”
• “We have used the lunch meetings and half-day seminars to help train our new staff.”
• “Weekly newsletter has referred us to valuable trainings and enabled us to advertise our events to the affordable housing community.”
• “Good sponsorship opportunity to get name of organization out into the community.”
• “HAND was particularly helpful to me 15 years ago when I was starting out in the industry as a director of a nonprofit development organization. The orientation and training was invaluable then. Now, as a seasoned professional in this area, HAND is more important for networking, relationships, etc.”
• “We have been fortunate to receive a HAND award; this has helped to raise our visibility/legitimacy with donors.”
• “The networking is great in that you can discover if another local group has experienced a similar housing problem or technical issue.”
• “Website is always updated and may be best source of meetings and events. Job listings are also valuable. Lunch meetings are better for networking than topics.”
• “Education is key for our small housing staff and HAND consistently delivers training/seminar topics that are current and relevant to our affordable housing development efforts.”
• “We've used Message Board to recruit staff, and I read the weekly newsletter religiously. Annual meeting is best networking event in the area, and we've won awards in the past which get good publicity thanks to HAND's media outreach.”
The scan found slight variations in responses to questions about the value and usefulness of HAND’s programs and services among different categories of members. In general, non-profits and government agencies were slightly more likely to value HAND’s communication’s tools (newsletter, website, and message board) than were for-profits. In addition, nonprofits were slightly more likely than for-profits to report that HAND has helped them gain information and get training, while for-profits were more likely to report that HAND has help them network and find business opportunities. (See Appendix B)
Board/Staff: The perceptions of staff and Board members of the value and usefulness of HAND’s programs and services generally agree with members’ own ratings. However, Board and staff tended to give slightly higher ratings than members to the meetings/seminars and the Annual Meeting/awards luncheon, and slightly lower ratings to the website and message board.
Staff and Board members were also asked how well they think HAND programs and services meet the needs and expectations of its different categories of members. Board members agreed that, while all members benefit from the networking opportunities that HAND provides, nonprofit members benefit fully from HAND’s programs and services, while other kinds of members (e.g., for-profit, government) benefit moderately. Several noted that HAND’s programs are especially effective in meeting the needs of small nonprofits and individuals. Several commented that the main incentives for for-profits to become members are the networking opportunities, the potential “to get business out of it,” and the opportunity to “look good” by supporting nonprofits. Several Board members commented that “it’s fine” for HAND to mainly benefit nonprofits and it should “not try to be all things to all people.” HAND’s Executive Director, on the other hand, stated that it is important for the organization to “balance’ the different needs of different members and have programs and services that “are attractive to all.”
Stakeholders: Stakeholders most often identified HAND’s lunch meetings and communications tools (e-mail newsletter and message board) as its most valuable services to members. Stakeholders did not have an opinion about which services are “least valuable.” As one stakeholder noted: “The annual meeting is certainly a wonderful and popular event that attracts tremendous attendance, but I am not sure how much members gain from it.”
B. Suggestions for Improving Current Services/Programs
Overview: HAND members and Board/staff offered a variety of suggestions for improving HAND’s current services/programs. These respondents generally agreed that HAND should hold more meetings/seminars in Maryland and DC and modify the electronic newsletter (specifically change the format and add content). Stakeholders did not have specific suggestions because they were not familiar enough with HAND’s services.
Members: Members offered a broad variety of suggestions for improving HAND’s current services/programs. Suggestions included:
• Change newsletter format and add content. Many members suggested that HAND change the newsletter format to make it more user friendly. Specific suggestions included making it easier to skim by adding more headings/sub-headings and adding “a list of web links to subjects that readers can scan quickly and open if of interest.” Suggestions for additional content included providing more information about available RFPs, seminars, and training sessions in the area.
• Compile resource/information lists: Members noted various kinds of lists that HAND could compile and post on its website to facilitate networking among members. (Some of these build on the kinds of information already shared in the newsletter.) Specific lists noted included:
Best sources of information (organization/institutions, websites) for specific topics and practices
Affordable housing projects are that are upcoming or in process
Pending local legislation affecting affordable housing issues
Consultants by area of expertise
Nonprofits that are looking for Board members and pro bono expertise in particular areas
• Offer more advanced-level meetings/seminars. Members would like to see HAND offer more advanced-level meetings/seminars that explore topics more in depth for those with more experience. In a separate question, about a third of the members indicated that they would like to see HAND should offer multiple levels of the same training. They would especially like to see more "moderate” and “advanced” level seminars/meetings, noting that most sessions to date have been “basic.”
• Add new training topics. Suggestions included: best residential services practices, accounting, affordable housing compliance issues, specific HUD programs, best practices with mixed-use projects, issues related to workforce housing (i.e., housing for people earning over 80% of median income), and best practices in other parts of the country.
• Vary training formats. Members suggested having more informal “roundtable” discussions that provide an opportunity for peer learning (rather than having speakers). Several also noted that they liked a recent “case study” approach and would like to see more of these.
• Improve meeting/seminar accessibility. Members from Maryland and DC would like to see more meetings held in these jurisdictions. In addition, some members noted that meeting/seminar locations should be accessible by public transportation, while others commented that meetings/seminars do not have to be held at lunch time.
• Expand outreach. Some members indicated that they are not aware of all of HAND’s programs and services, so they do not use them. For example, several noted that they were not aware of a message board.
Board/Staff: Staff and Board members made recommendations similar to those of members around changing the newsletter format, providing more advanced-level training, and holding more meetings/seminars in Maryland and DC. Other suggestions made by Board/staff for changing and enhancing HAND’s current programs and services included the following:
• Strengthen the educational component of the events and programs by (1) organizing tours of other organizations/affordable housing developers for members to “see” successful programs/efforts, and (2) holding forums to discuss funding options or funding mechanisms that will meet the needs of HAND’s financial members.
• Make the format of the web site more creative and user friendly and make better use of the message board.
• Play a more active role in promoting and facilitating collaborations between for- and non-profits.
• Develop a “master calendar” all training sessions related to affordable housing being held in the region.
• Do more to meet the needs of government members.
• Strengthen HAND’s role as a “clearinghouse” of information. HAND should be “the first organization that people go to when they have questions regarding affordable housing.”
Stakeholders: In general, stakeholders were not familiar enough with HAND’s specific programs and services to offer concrete suggestions for improvement. Several noted the need for more advanced training. One would like to see some of the meetings/seminars address organizational capacity issues such as fundraising, Board development, and public relations.
C. New Programs and Services
Overview: When presented with a specific list of new services/programs that HAND could provide, a majority of HAND members, Board/staff, and stakeholders identified several that they would be interested or very interested in seeing HAND provide. A majority of respondents would be very interested in seeing HAND convene meetings focused on regional solutions to affordable housing, and raising awareness of affordable housing issues in the region. However, overall, respondents expressed mixed views regarding the extent to which HAND should seek to grow and expand its services.
Members: Overall, 55% (37 out of 67 respondents) thought HAND should expand its services/programs, while 39% (26 of 67) were not sure. The survey asked members how interested they would be in a specific list of new programs/services “if HAND were to explore expanding.” The chart below shows the percentage of members who would be interested or very interested in each new program or service.
Percentage of Members Who Would Be Interested in New Program/Service
Convening meetings focused on regional solutions to barriers to affordable housing. 77%
Raising awareness of affordable housing issues in the region. 76%
Building advocacy capacity of members through training and the creation of advocacy tools and sharing of advocacy strategies. 61%
Coordinating a “pool of experts” who could serve as a resource to smaller organizations. 49%
Matching and “brokering” partnerships among members. 49%
Offering professional development/certification. 38%
Offering scholarships to other regional training programs. 24%
When asked for other ideas or suggestions, in addition to those listed above, about a quarter of the members responded. Most suggestions related to ways to enhance current services/programs and are reported in Section B above. Four members stated they would like to see HAND expand into advocacy. (Their comments are included in Section D below). Other new areas identified by members included:
• Certification: “Partner with a group that already has a professional certification program and arrange for classes locally.”
• Facilitating linkages: “Facilitate collaborations among smaller nonprofits with larger nonprofits with more capacity, and between larger nonprofits and for-profits.”
• Encourage and facilitate mentoring between larger and smaller nonprofits.
• Needs assessment: “[Do] a needs assessment & environmental scan been done in this three-state region to ascertain who's doing what, where, are there gaps, etc.”
• Tax credits: “Make opportunities to meet with tax credit agencies for discussion of mutual concerns on a regular basis.”
Board/Staff: Staff and Board members agreed that HAND should focus on enhancing its current services, and expand “judiciously.” Several cautioned: “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” and “Don’t try to be everything to everybody.” Several Board members suggested advocacy as a possible area for HAND expansion (See Section D below). One Board member suggested as a new service for members that HAND do a professional salary survey of positions in the affordable housing field, noting that “I find each of us are doing our own survey at considerable duplicative costs.”
With regard to geographic expansion, several Board and staff members would like to see HAND be more visible and active in Richmond and Baltimore. This would require finding sponsors and holding meetings in these locations, which would require more of the Executive Director’s time. One respondent asked how many members/attendees at meetings would HAND need to make it worthwhile? Several other Board members cautioned that if HAND extends too far geographically – to Richmond or Western Maryland – then “the interests of members will become too diverse, and HAND will lose its effectiveness in meeting the needs of its members.”
Stakeholders: With regard to new programs/services, nearly all stakeholders mentioned a possible role in advocacy (See Section D below). One stakeholder suggested that HAND explore a structured mentoring program between for-profits and nonprofits where “the nonprofit learns more about real estate development, and the for-profit learns how to build, manage, and finance affordable housing.” Another stakeholder identified a need for greater efforts to attract “more talent into the industry” and suggested that HAND play a role in this.
D. HAND’s Potential Role in Advocacy
Overview: HAND members, Board/staff, and stakeholders expressed a range of views regarding whether or not HAND should become involved in advocacy and, if so, what role it should play. Respondents generally identified several possible roles: a “leading” role in which HAND is “out front” on issues, and a “supporting” role in which HAND serves as a clearinghouse for information about policy issues and advocacy efforts in the region and/or provides training to build the advocacy capacity of its members. At a minimum, Board/staff pointed out, HAND must have a clear policy for taking positions on issues and signing on to coalition efforts.
Members: One question in the survey specifically asked members about advocacy. When asked about new services, 76% of members indicated they were interested or very interested in HAND starting efforts to “raising awareness of affordable housing issues in the region” while 61% indicated “build the advocacy capacity of members through training and the creation of advocacy tools and sharing of advocacy strategies.”
In their responses to other survey questions, a small number of members consistently raised issues related to advocacy – some expressing a desire for HAND to do more advocacy and some expressing concerns about advocacy. For example, in explaining what they would like to have an organization like HAND do if it were established today, 10 members stated that they would have it “do more advocacy.” These members talked about the need to raise awareness of affordable housing issues and to share information about advocacy efforts. Additional comments related to advocacy in response to other survey questions included:
• “It’s bad that HAND is not addressing the high prices of homes in the region.”
• “Advocacy awareness and even coordination seems like a useful role. There are other groups doing this, but I don't think any with this same regional jurisdiction. Some of our housing problems are regional, not state or local.”
• “HAND needs to take on an advocacy role, especially to help build resources for affordable housing in the region.”
Examples of comments made by those members who expressed concerns about HAND taking on an advocacy role included:
• “I don't know if HAND should get into advocacy…I think we need to talk about what that means.”
• “I don't think HAND can play a useful role in advocacy. Organizations already exist that are doing this and they cost little or nothing. HAND could help promote and support them with occasional informational meetings on policy developments in different jurisdictions.”
In one of the focus groups, members talked extensively about their desire to see HAND do more to raise awareness of the need for solutions to the affordable housing crisis in the region, but not to take positions on issues that might be controversial. These members also said they would like to see hand help build the capacity of its member to be effective advocates by providing tools and training. In the other focus group, members generally agreed that they would like to see HAND serve as a clearinghouse to help coordinate advocacy efforts, but not necessarily take positions on advocacy issues. For example, members noted that HAND could develop a list serve for members to share information about local advocacy efforts.
Board/Staff: There is no consensus among staff and Board members regarding the most appropriate role, if any, for HAND in the advocacy arena. They did agree that this is a key issue to address and that any role should be carefully considered and clearly defined. Most could not see HAND being a “leader” in advocacy given its resources, pointing out that:
• Engaging in policy advocacy would be a big leap for the organization and to do it well would require more staff.
• It would be hard to do it well since HAND serves such a broad geographic area and covers so many jurisdictions.
However, most could see HAND having a limited, “support” role in advocacy, to include:
• Doing sign-on letters and testifying.
• Notifying members about important policy issues and encouraging them to advocate.
• Building advocacy capacity among members.
Some expressed concern about any role in advocacy, noting that one of HAND’s strengths has been its ability to “serve as a big tent that welcomes everyone.” As one Board member noted, “There are other venues for advocacy and HAND's role as an ‘honest broker’ should be maintained.”
Stakeholders: Stakeholders would like to see HAND play a larger role in bringing visibility to the issue of affordable housing and building stronger public support for affordable housing (perhaps through more work with the media, as one suggested). However, they do not agree on the extent to which HAND should take positions on policy issues. One stakeholder stated that HAND is not and should not be an advocacy organization, noting that its strength is that it brings together people with different viewpoints and has no political agenda. One would like to see HAND, at a minimum, take steps to “convene people to coordinate advocacy efforts even if they don’t advocate themselves.” One stakeholder commented that HAND “would be able to do more” if it became involved in advocacy and suggested that HAND find a way to “exercise a collective voice to advance nonprofit housing.” This comment was made by a funder who noted that funders are beginning to recognize they will get greater impact by funding organizations that do advocacy.
E. Membership Issues
Overview: The member survey asked several question related to membership fees, while the Board survey and interviews asked about both membership fees and ways to attract new members. The large majority of HAND members stated that HAND’s membership fees are “reasonable” and were “not sure” how much more they would be willing to pay if HAND expanded its services. Board/Staff were “not sure” whether HAND should change its fees/membership structure. They did agree that there should be clear “value added” if HAND does raise its fees.
Members: A large majority of responding HAND members (91%) stated that HAND's fees for the services it currently provides are "reasonable." In response to the question, “How much more would you or your organization be willing to pay to continue being a member,” 15 respondents gave a specific figure, which ranged from $50 to $1,000. Most said they “don’t know” and/or it “depends on the value added as a result.” Several members noted that
HAND is most useful to smaller or younger nonprofits and “the fees should reflect this [by creating] a special category for smaller nonprofits and consultants.”
When asked how much more they would be willing to pay to continue being a member if HAND were to expand its services, the 47 members who responded to the question most often said “don’t know” and/or it “depends on what’s added.” A few said “not much more,” while 10 gave a specific dollar amount, typically between $250-$500/year. One member noted that s/he “may be willing to pay a la carte for specific programs.” Another commented that any expansion “should be relatively low cost and be provided as much as possible with volunteers.”
Board/Staff: Staff and Board members were “not sure” whether HAND should change its membership fees/structure. They recognize that the low dues make it feasible for small nonprofits to join, yet they also believe that most organizations – especially for-profits – would be willing to pay more. Like members, Board members want to know what HAND will do with the additional income if it raises fees – what will be the value added?
Board members generally agreed that HAND does not need to substantially expand its efforts to attract new members. As one noted, “Most of the people who should be members of HAND are.” Others added that the current membership size is “manageable,” while several questioned to what extent increasing membership should be a major organizational goal. At the same time, staff and Board members identified a number of categories where membership could be increased, specifically: industry representatives, professional services organizations and professionals such as architects and attorneys, government agencies, organizations that focus on homeownership, and students.
Suggestions for attracting new members included:
• Develop targeted outreach materials and strategies for different categories of membership (i.e., that clearly spell out benefits for that member).
• Expand visibility and outreach in the Northern Virginia and Maryland ex-urbs and suburbs by having lunch meetings in these areas and/or inviting speakers that address issues relevant to those jurisdictions and/or compare issues across Maryland, DC, and Virginia.
• Restructure the fees for individuals and add a student level.
• Ask Board members to more actively recruit members through their networks.
F. Regional Focus
Overview: About three quarters of responding members stated that is was “moderately” to “very” important for to have a regional a focus because “affordable housing is a regional issue.” At the same time, many members commented that there are also jurisdiction-specific issues and concerns and having a forum to address these would be quite useful.
Members: Forty-nine members responded to the question: “How important is it for HAND’s seminars/meetings to have a regional (i.e., DC, MD, and VA) focus?” The majority of respondents (55%) said it is “very important,” 25% said “moderately,” and 20% said “a little” or “not at all.” In explaining their response, a majority of respondents noted that affordable housing is a regional issue, and that no other organization is addressing it as such. Examples of comments include:
• “We live/work in a regional economy, and rely on each other for cooperation in economic, transportation, and housing matters.”
• “Affordable housing is a regional issue for Washington. How the various municipalities develop and manage affordable housing can help providers to look at different methods for solving their affordable housing shortage.”
• “Housing is a regional issue, so having regional meetings is ideal. It also provides greater opportunities to learn from each other.”
• “HAND's niche is its regional focus. It has little or no parochial axe to grind.”
• “Developers typically work in the three areas so it is good not to be tied to one.”
• “I believe that the more regionally we think about these issues, the better and more effective the solutions will be.”
At the same time, members stated that while some issues can be addressed through regional sessions, some also require jurisdiction-specific focus:
• “I think regional consideration is important, but actual decisions are usually made within any given jurisdiction.”
• “There are certain issues that can best be addressed at the regional level. However, some are unique to either DC, MD or VA.”
• “A balance of regional and state focus would be good as there are differences among the jurisdictions in terms of governance and legislation.”
• “The different states do affordable housing in very different ways, even in Virginia Alexandria is dramatically different from Arlington. Without focus, you cannot see anything.”
• “Each region is very different in terms of funding, process, etc. and the HAND programs don't always recognize this.”
• “To provide more advanced technical training, there may be a need to target specific portions of this market (i.e. doing business with Maryland CDA, etc.).”
• “Geographic dispersion makes attendance difficult and loses local jurisdictional focus and info-sharing possibilities for nonprofits in Northern Virginia.”
• “Northern Virginia governments have taken recent important actions to aid nonprofit developers and HAND needs to provide a way (e.g., coffee meetings, special server on web site) for Northern Virginia nonprofits to learn about these, share info and perhaps develop partnerships. Same may be true for MD.”
G. Overall Impact of HAND's Programs/Services
Overview: HAND members and stakeholders generally agreed that HAND has been “moderately” to “very” effective in building the capacity of nonprofit housing developers. Board/staff had mixed views regarding the extent to which HAND has made a difference.
Members: The survey asked members, “To what extent do you think HAND has made a difference in building the capacity of nonprofit housing developers?” A majority stated that HAND has been very to moderately effective. Of the 66 members who responded, answers are as follow:
• Moderately (39%)
• Very (17%)
• A little (14%)
• Don’t know (29%)
In explaining their responses, some members repeated the examples shared earlier as to how their organization has benefited though its participation in HAND. Other specific comments about the positive impact of HAND included:
• “HAND has made the provision of affordable housing a serious professional activity and an essential part the housing scene.”
• “I’ve met many people new or beginning work in housing development and they appreciate the foundation of basic information provided by HAND, with its local/regional applicability.”
• “It has certainly helped share knowledge among providers.”
• “Just existing as a consortium and bringing together the diversity of organizations makes it [affordable housing field] play a different tune.”
• “I think the effective nonprofits are resourceful enough that they would have an impact without HAND. However, with HAND I believe they have accomplished good sooner or easier.”
Specific comments about the limited impact of HAND included:
• “My sense is that HAND serves as a general booster, rather than as a focusing agent. I would like to see more strategic thinking and advocacy work expressed in all of HAND's programs.”
• “I don't think HAND has been the dominant force in shaping the capacity of nonprofit housing developers, but it has provided resources that have allowed them to grow.”
• “I don't think they are substantive enough to have made much of a difference for an organization. One tends to get a few bits of information from some of the trainings.”
• “Some new ideas and techniques have been explored but the major entities from each jurisdiction already have a lot of expertise and many of the smaller ones spend much of their time just trying to survive.”
• “The seminars are helpful, but our deals are not cookie-cutter, and we need to have exposure to what has worked in our specific situations (Dillon Rule, extreme high-cost area, etc.).”
Board/Staff: Staff and Board members had mixed views on the extent to which HAND has made a difference in building the capacity of nonprofit developers. A few commented that it has been most effective in building capacity of “smaller” nonprofits. One stated that HAND’s impact is limited because its own organizational capacity and resources are limited. However, several noted that members “really do learn and exchange information,” with one sharing an anecdote of how one jurisdiction decided to do something differently based on an exchange with another jurisdiction. Another noted that “people vote with their feet” and, based on the growth of the membership, “it is safe to say it has made a difference.”
Stakeholders: Stakeholders stated that HAND has “moderately” to “very” much made a difference in building the capacity of nonprofit housing developers. HAND has increased communication among its members and “elevated affordable housing as an issue” through its annual meeting and awards luncheon. One stakeholder commented that “HAND really brought the issue of affordable housing to the forefront in Northern Virginia and helped to build a strong coalition among various sectors and organizations to promote affordable housing and to encourage public officials to take a stance on what had been a very unpopular topic…HAND heightened awareness in the suburbs and offered solutions.”
IV. Organizational Structure
Overview: The surveys and interviews asked only staff and Board members about issues related to organizational structure. Their responses are combined below, unless staff had a very different view than Board members. Nearly all Staff and Board members stated that they are “very” satisfied with HAND’s overall structure, governance, staffing, and management. They are also “very” comfortable with the division of responsibilities between the Board and the Executive Director. However, they noted a need to clarify decision-making responsibilities in some areas and to have a clear plan for the future status of the Executive Director position (e.g., should it become full time).
A. Satisfaction With Current Structure
Nearly all staff/Board members are “very” satisfied with HAND’s overall structure, governance, staffing, and management, and are “moderately” satisfied with funding levels. With regard to staffing and management, staff and Board agree that hiring an Executive Director has helped strengthen the organization and made it less dependent on one person (i.e., former Chair, John Spencer). They also agree that the current structure (with the Executive Director being part-time, and using consultants for the web site and meeting planning) is very “lean, mean, and efficient,” but note that with limited staff and volunteer resources, HAND is limited in “how much farther it can go on from here.”
Staff and Board members agree that a key decision is whether or not the Executive Director position should become full-time, and that this decision must weigh the “value add” against the additional dues and fees it would require. Most could see the position becoming full time, “as long as we don’t fall into just spending all of our time fundraising to keep ourselves in business.”
B. Benefits and Challenges of New Leadership
Staff and Board members agree that having an Executive Director “takes a huge load off the Board,” relieving it of day-to-day responsibilities and allowing it to focus on more traditional Board activities (e.g., strategic planning, growing the organization, setting policy). It also makes HAND less dependent on “volunteers” to carry out ongoing activities and gives it a “more professional image.” Board members expressed a sense of optimism about HAND successfully making the transition from its founding leader to new leadership. Several noted that HAND has “the right person” for the job as Executive Director, noting that she both knows the housing business and is a good administrator. Board members agree that having new Board leadership brings “new ideas and new energy,” will “prevent burnout,” may open up access to new funders, and signals to the broader housing community that HAND is an organization, rather than one individual's initiative.
Overall, Board members feel very comfortable with the division of responsibilities between the Board and the Executive Director, noting that the new Executive Director is very “smart and savvy,” and knows when she should seek advice from the Board. However, one Board member feels the roles could be more clearly defined, specifically, “what the Executive Director can do independently and what she needs to come back to the Board about.” Another noted a need to clarify the Board's role in supervising and evaluating the Executive Director and setting personnel policies. The Executive Director also stated that she feels comfortable with the current division of responsibilities, but expressed concern about working with a new Board Chair every year. She would like to see a three-year commitment from the Chair.
Board members identified some specific challenges to having a new Executive Director and new Board leadership. These include:
• Clarifying decision-making responsibilities (i.e., what decisions the Executive Director can make, and what decisions should go through the Board).
• Not becoming too dependent on the current Executive Director. As one Board member stated, “Now our problem is, ‘What if [Jill] leaves?’ Can we find another person with her networks, skills, and knowledge of housing issues?”
• Maintaining ability to support staff. Having an Executive Director “ups the ante” and raises the expectations of members. The Board is now committed to raising the resources to pay a staff salary.
• Keeping the Board active. Now that the organization has staff, it needs to ensure that the Board does not become inactive, thinking “staff will do it.”
V. Governance
Overview: The surveys and interviews asked only staff and Board members about governance issues. Their responses are combined below. HAND Board/staff stated that the Board “moderately” knows and meets its overall governance responsibilities, and that its membership “largely” to “fully” includes the mix of skills and experience needed on the Board. However, HAND’s Board does not have clear policies to guide its work. Respondents stated that the Board’s committee structure “moderately” meets the needs of the organization, but that there is a need for additional committees and for committees to be more active.
A. Knowledge and Fulfillment of Board Responsibilities
Staff and Board members agreed that the Board moderately knows and meets its overall governance responsibilities. The table below provides a breakdown of specific Board responsibilities and the extent to which the Board knows and meets them:
Board Governance Assessment
Board Responsibility Know and Meet Responsibility
Financial review and oversight Moderately
Program authorization and oversight Moderately
Community/external relations Moderately
Fundraising/resource development Moderately
Setting personnel policies A little
Supervising and evaluating the Executive Director A little
Several Board members noted that the Board needs a training session to review a Board member’s duties and responsibilities. Comments included:
• “We act more as a group of volunteers getting together and not as a professional Board as it relates to policies and procedures.”
• “Board members should be asked to do more on fundraising and could also do more with community/external relations.”
• “Board roles, responsibilities, and expectations need to be communicated better to each Board member...this is the stage of growth where we are now and should be expected.”
B. Board Bylaws and Policies
Bylaws: HAND’s bylaws appear to be some years old and include some provisions that would benefit from review and possible revision. Several provisions seem outdated, do not seem to fit current practice, or do not reflect widely accepted “best practices” for nonprofit Boards. Specifically:
• Officers: The Bylaws indicate in Article IV Section 2 that the Board will elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman who are to preside at meetings. However, Article VI identifies the officers as a President, Secretary, Treasurer, and “such other officers as may from time to time be deemed advisable.” Article VI specifies duties for these three officers plus a Secretary but makes no mention of the Chair and Vice Chair. Article V Section 3 indicates that the President may “participate in meetings” but will not be entitled to vote, and Article VI describes the President as the “chief operating officer.” There is no mention of an Executive Director.
• Meetings: Article IV, Section 3 calls for two (not “at least two”) “regular” meetings a year and specifies that the last one constitutes its annual meeting. The Board appears to meet quarterly. It is not clear whether the other two meetings are considered “special” meetings, how the “annual meeting” is handled, or whether the annual Board meeting is held at the same time as the annual membership meeting.
• Notice of Meetings: The Bylaws make no provision for sending meeting notices by e-mail, requiring that notice be delivered personally or by mail or telegram (See Article IV, Section 3).
• Compensation: Article VI Section 2 indicates that officers may “receive such compensation as shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors.” Sound practice is not to compensate Board members for their governance duties (other than providing reimbursement for expenses).
• Quorum: Article IV Section 3 states that one-third of Directors constitutes a quorum. For a small Board of Directors like HAND’s, a majority of current members is the typical quorum, to avoid the possibility of a very small number of members changing organizational policies or direction.
Policies: Staff and Board members agreed that the Board does not have clear policies to guide its work. Specific policies are needed to address who speaks for the organization, conflict of interest, Board terms and expectations, and advocacy. In addition, staff and Board members noted that the organization needs to develop personnel policies and needs to purchase Directors and Officers insurance.
C. Board Committees
HAND’s Board currently has the following committees: Program/Annual Meeting, HAND Awards, Fundraising/Membership, and Finance/Nominating. Currently, the only active committee is the Awards Committee.
Most staff and Board members stated that current Board committees moderately meet the needs of the organization, but there is room for improvement. Several noted that current committees are meeting, active, and working. However, a few noted that the Board should decide what standing committees it wants, other than the Awards Committee and the Strategic Planning Committee, based on the strategic planning process. Several noted a need for committees in the following areas: Finance and Fundraising, Program, Nominating/Board Development, Public Relations, and an expanded Awards Committee that includes the Annual Meeting. Several also noted that committee roles, responsibilities, and expectations need to be more clearly defined and communicated.
D. Board Composition
Currently, HAND’s Board has 13 members. Six are located in Maryland, four in DC, and three in Virginia. Out of the 13 members, eight represent nonprofits, three represent financial institutions, one a for-profit housing company, and one local government agency.
Staff and Board members agreed that current Board membership largely to fully includes the needed mix of skills and experience. They noted that the current Board includes a diverse mix of individuals from different types of organizations (e.g., government, lenders, developers, etc.) and from different jurisdictions. One noted a need for individuals with skills and experience in fundraising and public relations, while another identified a need for greater geographic representation. Other categories in which to increase representation noted by least one Board member included: nonprofits, government, for-profit developers, professional service firms (e.g., an attorney), social service sector (e.g., social workers who work with low-income people, tenants), housing advocates, and financial institutions.
E. Board Strengths and Challenges
Board members identified the following as the Board’s greatest strengths:
• The mix and range of skills, knowledge, and experience (“bring brainpower and energy”).
• Board members’ commitment to the organization, interest in the issues, and willingness to work.
• The reputation of Board members (which “add to the strength, credibility, and reputation of the organization”).
• Relationships among Board members (Board members work well together, Board meetings are “productive and fun”).
Board members identified the following as the Board’s greatest challenges:
• Making sure the organization does not fix what isn’t broken.
• Addressing strategic questions, such as: In what direction should HAND go? Does HAND need a full-time Executive Director? Should HAND grow and/or expand? Is there something HAND should be doing?
• Managing growth/”growing smart,” if the organization chooses to grow.
• Continuing to work well together as a Board, despite changes and new members.
• Finding the time/effort/resources to dedicate to the organization [It’s a volunteer position and they have other jobs].
VI. Key Findings and Implications for Strategic Plan
Overview: HAND is a useful and valued organization, according to its members, Board/staff, and stakeholders. Its regional focus and diverse membership make it unique among affordable housing organizations in Maryland, DC, and Virginia. Through the opportunities it provides – via its communications tools, meetings/seminars, and Awards – for individuals, organizations, agencies, and institutions to share information, network, and gain visibility, it has made a name and a niche for itself in the field of affordable housing. HAND’s members, staff/Board, and stakeholders also value the fact that HAND has chosen to remain a small organization that uses its resources efficiently. They would not want to see HAND grow into a large organization with numerous staff. To the extent members and stakeholders want HAND to do anything differently, they would like to see HAND improve and refine its current array of services. The one exception to this is in the area of advocacy and public education/awareness: members, staff/Board, and stakeholders see a clear gap that HAND could fill by convening its members to explore regional solutions to affordable housing and engaging in efforts to raise awareness of critical affordable housing issues in the region.
The following are key findings and implications for the strategic plan:
• Organizational Growth/Expansion: A large majority of members, staff, Board, and stakeholders value HAND’s focused mission, small size, and reasonable fees. They would not like to see HAND become a large organization with numerous staff. However, it appears that members would provide the additional fee to support the expansion of the Executive Director position to full-time as long as there is a clear value added (i.e., the organization improves or expands key services.) Key Questions: Should HAND have a full time Executive Director? Does HAND have the resources and capacity to have a full time Executive Director? If so, how would it benefit members and the organization?
• Program Niche and Growth/Expansion: HAND has a clearly defined program “niche” through its communications tools, meetings, and training. HAND is known and valued for the opportunities for networking, information sharing, and increasing organizational visibility that these services and program provide. While there is room for improvement with the various programs and services (e.g., changing formats, content, locations, etc.), all respondent groups value them and want them to continue. Key Questions: How, if at all, should HAND change its current programs/services? What would it take to add more advanced training and additional meetings/seminars in multiple jurisdictions? Is it affordable/feasible?
• Advocacy: There is significant interest in HAND becoming involved in advocacy, but there is also significant concern. Results of the scan support the need for careful consideration of an advocacy role, probably focusing on building member advocacy capacity, supporting the advocacy work of others, and bringing attention to the need for affordable housing, but perhaps not including taking public policy positions on specific legislation. Key Questions: Should HAND become involved in advocacy? If so, how should it be involved? Should HAND build the capacity of its members to do advocacy? Should it take policy positions but not engage in legislative advocacy? How would HAND’s involvement in advocacy affect its “neutrality” and members in the housing field?
• Key Constituency: Results of the scan confirm that members and stakeholders understand HAND’s key constituency to be nonprofits (i.e., HAND’s mission is to build capacity of the nonprofit sector around affordable housing issues) and are comfortable with this focus. They also understand that to fulfill its mission, HAND must have the active participation of the for-profit and government sectors. The scan did not find that HAND should do more to address the needs of members who are not nonprofits; respondents believe the current balance is appropriate. Key Questions: How does HAND’s focus on nonprofits affect its relationship with for-profit and government members? How does it affect its image as a “neutral” organization?
• Geographic Focus and Expansion: HAND’s regional focus makes it stand out among other affordable housing organizations. Members want HAND to continue its regional focus. However, it should have sessions in multiple locations and some sessions should focus on a single jurisdiction – or have jurisdiction specific breakouts sessions. Results of the scan suggest that for HAND to have strong involvement of individuals, organizations, and institutions from a particular jurisdiction, HAND must have a presence in those jurisdictions. This suggests that HAND must consider the resource requirement for further regional expansion to Richmond or Baltimore. Key Questions: How is HAND meeting the needs of its members as a regional organization? How does it balance regional needs and jurisdictional needs of its members? Should there be jurisdictional sessions? What is affordable/feasible?
• Governance Issues: The results point to a need for Board development, including: training to ensure that Board members fully understand their legal responsibilities, as well as the development of policies and active committees to ensure that it is structured to fully carry out these responsibilities. In addition, there is a need to discuss roles and responsibilities of the staff vs. the Board – especially in light of the recent transition from an all volunteer managed organization to one with a paid Executive Director – and to clarify any areas of concern or confusion.