The below need to be critiqued:

The Southeast Planning Group (SPG) is an organization that was created in 2000 to facilitate the Office of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care planning process (Laufer, 2011).  The change that took place was Stakeholders were split in their views of the changes—some agreed that they were necessary in order to advance the goals of the organization, while others felt the new leadership was “taking over” with a hidden agenda to promote its own self-interest (Laufer, 2011).  It seemed at first the Southeast Planning group was effective at the beginning. What lacked was the lack of confidence in growing the organization. A strategy that might improve the organizational climate return the organization to optimal functioning is for the director to have more confidence in the program. In addition having a leadership style that is more open to change and be able to communicate without feeling afraid of what is to come next. A leader must also pay attention to recruiting and retaining employees (Northouse,2021).

Social Work Supervision, Leadership, and Administration: The Southeast
Planning Group

The Southeast Planning Group (SPG) is an organization that was created in 2000 to facilitate the Office of
Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care planning process. The key elements of the approach
were strategic planning, data collection systems, and an inclusive process that involved clients and service providers.
The fundamental components of the system are 1) outreach, intake, and assessment; 2) emergency shelter; 3)
transitional housing; and 4) permanent housing and permanent supportive housing. The outreach, intake, and
assessment component identifies an individual’s or family’s needs in order to connect them with the appropriate
resources. Emergency shelter provides a safe alternative to living on the streets. Transitional housing provides
supportive services such as recovery services and life skills training to help clients develop the skills necessary for
permanent housing. The final component, permanent housing, works with clients to obtain long-term affordable
housing.

SPG works with the local government; service providers; the faith, academic, and business communities;
homeless and formerly homeless individuals; and concerned citizens in the designated service area. During the first
5 years of its existence, SPG was staffed by one part-time and four full-time staff members and oversight was
provided by a 21-member board. SPG’s founding director was well respected and liked in the community. She was
noted for her ability to bring stakeholders across sectors together and focus on the single mission of ending
homelessness.

After serving 5 years, the executive director abruptly resigned amidst rumors that she was forced out by the
board. Although she had been effective in bringing people together, there were concerns that the goals and
objectives had not been met, and there was a lack of confidence in her ability to grow the organization.
Approximately one month after her resignation, a new executive director was hired.

One of the new director’s first priorities was to reconfigure the structure of the organization in order to increase
efficiency. As a result of the restructuring, two positions were eliminated. The people who were let go had been with
the organization from the beginning, and similar to the previous director, they had strong ties to the community.
Once the community and SPG’s partners learned about the changes, there was suspicion about the new leadership
and the direction they wanted to take SPG. Stakeholders were split in their views of the changes—some agreed that
they were necessary in order to advance the goals of the organization, while others felt the new leadership was
“taking over” with a hidden agenda to promote its own self-interest.

I worked with the group as an evaluation consultant to assess the SPG partnership during this period of
transition. In order to assess how these changes were perceived by the stakeholders, I conducted key informant
interviews with various stakeholders, both internal and external to the organization. The partners shared many
insights about how the month without consistent leadership contributed to the uncertainty about SPG’s purpose and
strategy, and it was generally agreed that the leadership transition was not handled well. The results from the
evaluation were used to help SPG identify strategies to improve communication with stakeholders and utilize the
director’s leadership role to build upon the organization’s past successes while preparing for future growth.