DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: REORGANIZE THE DEPARTMENT

1-A – 1-E
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
REORGANIZE THE DEPARTMENT

 

Problem Identification:
The Department suffers from an organizational structure that promotes compartmentalization and works against movement towards a common mission or purpose. The current organizational structure is inefficient and interferes with effective communication. There appear to be numerous redundant and duplicative functions between HCD and HABC.

Recommended Action(s):
See organizational chart (link below).- Consolidate HCD/HABC support functions (Legal, Human Resources, Information Technology, Public Affairs, Quality Assurance/Inspector General, etc.) and departments of Inspections, Development, Housing Operations and Resident Services.- Consolidate HCD/HABC financial functions and accountability in centralized finance office. Create a new position of Chief Financial Officer to perform financial management and agency budgeting.- Create separate division for Section 8, with director reporting directly to the Commissioner.

Within HABC: (1) take Leased Housing out of Operations; (2) take Redevelopment out of Modernization; (3) combine Modernization with Housing Operations/Asset Management (include under Construction and Engineering).

In consolidating the legal functions, deputize more attorneys to meet the Department’s high volume of legal work.

Classification:
Cost Savings, Organizational, Service Improvement

Functional/Operational Area:
All Departmental Operations

Estimated Annual Impact:
The increase in efficiency, morale, and service cannot be quantified at this time. (Private sector organizations that have completed successful reorganizations see cost savings or efficiency increases of 10 – 20 percent.) There will be savings associated with fewer managers if the new organizational structure reduces the number of managers and eliminates duplicative functions. Baseline performance measures and goals must be set to determine cost savings and efficiency increases.

Estimated Implementation Costs:
None

Barriers to Implementation:
Change is always difficult. A second reorganization so soon after the agency’s leadership changed may be met with skepticism and resistance in some circles. It will likely take time for some managers to be helped to function more effectively in their roles and to look beyond their division and work toward the overall goals of the organization.

Projected Implementation:
The complete reorganization process will likely take at least a year, from identification of the new structure and implementation to the point at which employees feel comfortable and understand the direction in which the agency is headed.

Next Steps:
Involve managers and employees at all levels of the agency(ies) in establishing goals for the new organizational structure. Communicate the new structure throughout the organization. Ensure that the new organizational structure matches the goals identified for the agency (see Recommendation 2-A). Meet regularly and often with the management group to ensure more open communication and commitment to the goals within that group and to model the approach that should be taken throughout the agency.

Analysis:
Subcommittee members conducted approximately 40 interviews with all levels of staff. Most of the interviews concentrated on supervisory and management staff. These interviews impressed us with the level of professionalism in the agency. At the same time, there was a great deal of frustration and a sense of resignation that staff had to work around the organizational structure rather than within it if they wanted to get things done. We did not find common agreement about the role of the agency and its mission but there did seem to be consensus that communication is poor and that the organization could be more effective.

Organization Chart