Exploring Organizational Form in the Affordable Rental Housing Sector

Abstract

The nature and benefits of different kinds of affordable rental housing providers, and particularly for-profit housing developers, have been contested by practitioners and scholars. We contribute to this debate by exploring whether the missions, the resources harnessed to build housing, the human resources, and the involvement of residents in decision-making differ based on organizational form. Using case study design, we examine two third sector organizations (a zero equity cooperative and a community-based non-profit) and a for-profit located in Canada. The two third sector organizations had less knowledge of housing construction and harnessed in-kind contributions compared to the for-profit. These organizations, and again in contrast with the for-profit, also pursued social missions, including supporting other organizations and sharing their experiences related to housing construction. The zero equity cooperative featured greater resident involvement in the development and the management of the housing compared to both the community-based non-profit and the for-profit.

Résumé

La nature et les avantages des différents types de fournisseurs de logements locatifs abordables, et en particulier des promoteurs d’organisations à but lucratif, ont été contestés par les professionnels et les chercheurs. Nous contribuons à ce débat en étudiant si les missions, les ressources exploitées pour construire des logements, les ressources humaines et l’implication des habitants dans la prise de décision diffèrent en fonction de la forme de l’organisation. En utilisant un modèle d’étude de cas, nous examinons deux organisations du tiers secteur (une coopérative n’ayant aucun fond propre et une organisation communautaires à but non lucratif) et une organisation à but lucratif située au Canada. Les deux organisations du tiers secteur avaient moins de connaissances en matière de construction de logements et d’apports en nature utilisés par rapport à l’organisation à but lucratif. Ces organisations, et encore une fois, contrairement à l’organisation à but lucratif, poursuivaient aussi des missions sociales, notamment le soutien à d’autres organisations et le partage de leurs expériences en matière de construction de logements. La coopérative sans fonds propre montrait une plus grande implication des résidents dans le développement et la gestion du logement par rapport à l’organisation communautaire à but non lucratif et l’organisation à but lucratif.

Zusammenfassung

Praktiker und Wissenschaftler debattieren über die Eigenschaft und Vorteile der verschiedenen Anbieter von finanziell tragbaren Mietwohnungen und insbesondere der gewinnorientierten Bauunternehmer. Wir tragen zu dieser Diskussion bei, indem wir untersuchen, ob sich die Missionen, die genutzten Ressourcen zum Bau von Wohnungsraum, die menschlichen Ressourcen und die Einbeziehung der Bewohner in die Entscheidungsfindung je nach Organisationsform unterscheiden. Unter Anwendung des Fallstudiendesigns erforschen wir zwei Organisationen des Dritten Sektors (eine Genossenschaft ohne Eigenkapital und eine gemeindebasierte gemeinnützige Organisation) und ein gewinnorientiertes Unternehmen in Kanada. Im Vergleich zu dem gewinnorientierten Unternehmen verfügten die beiden Organisationen des Dritten Sektors über weniger Kenntnisse im Wohnungsbaubereich und nutzten Sachleistungen. Wiederum im Gegensatz zum gewinnorientierten Unternehmen verfolgten diese Organisationen zudem soziale Missionen, wobei sie unter anderem andere Organisationen unterstützten und sich hinsichtlich ihrer Erfahrungen im Wohnungsbau mit anderen austauschten. Die Genossenschaft ohne Eigenkapital bezog die Bewohner mehr in die Entwicklung und Verwaltung des Wohnraums ein, als die gemeindebasierte gemeinnützige Organisation und das gewinnorientierte Unternehmen es taten.

Resumen

La naturaleza y los beneficios de diferentes tipos de proveedores de viviendas de alquiler asequibles, y en particular los promotores con ánimo de lucro han sido refutados por profesionales y eruditos. Contribuimos a este debate explorando si las misiones, los recursos empleados para construir viviendas, los recursos humanos y la implicación de los residentes en la toma de decisiones difieren en base a la forma organizativa. Utilizando el diseño de estudio de caso, examinamos dos organizaciones del sector terciario (una cooperativa con patrimonio cero y una organización sin ánimo de lucro con base en la comunidad) y una organización con ánimo de lucro situada en Canadá. Las dos organizaciones del sector terciario tenían menos conocimiento de la construcción de viviendas y de las contribuciones en especie empleadas en comparación a la organización con ánimo de lucro. Dichas organizaciones, y de nuevo en contraste con las organizaciones con ánimo de lucro, también perseguían misiones sociales, incluido apoyar a otras organizaciones y compartir sus experiencias relacionadas con la construcción de viviendas. La cooperativa con patrimonio cero presentaba una implicación mayor de los residentes en el desarrollo y la gestión de la vivienda en comparación tanto con las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro basadas en la comunidad como con las organizaciones con ánimo de lucro.

不同类别的廉租房供应商的性质和益处,尤其是盈利性开发商,已经受到了从业人员和学者的争论。 我们通过探讨组织机构形式是否会影响使命、建房资源、人力资源以及居民的决策参与程度加入了讨论。我们通过案例研究设计考察了加拿大第三部门中的两家机构(一家零股权合作社和一家以社区为基础的非盈利性机构)和一家盈利性机构。和盈利性机构相比,第三部门中的这两家机构的房屋建造知识较少而且采用实物投入,这两家机构也追求社会使命,包括对其他机构提供支持和分享住房建设经验,但居民在开发过程和住房管理方面的参与程度更高。.

طبيعة وفوائد أنواع مختلفة من مقدمي خدمة إستئجار المساكن بأسعار معقولة، بشكل خاص للربح من العقارات، تم التنازع عليها عن طريق الممارسين والباحثين. نسهم في هذا النقاش من خلال إكتشاف ما إذا كانت البعثات، والموارد تم إستخدامها لبناء المساكن، الموارد البشرية وإشراك السكان في عملية صنع القرار يختلف بناءا” على الشكل التنظيمي. بإستخدام تصميم دراسة الحالة، ندرس منظمتين من القطاع الثالث (صفر إسهام في الإسكان التعاوني وعلى أساس مجتمعي الغير هادف للربح)، والتي تسعى للربح الموجودة في كندا. كانت المنظمتين من القطاع الثالث لديهما معرفة أقل عن بناء المساكن وإستخدام المساهمات العينية بالمقارنة مع التي تسعى للربح. هذه المنظمات، ومرة ​​أخرى عكس التي تسعى للربح، وتابعت أيضا” البعثات الإجتماعية، بما في ذلك دعم المنظمات الأخرى وتبادل الخبرات المتعلقة ببناء المساكن. وتميز صفر إسهام في الإسكان التعاوني بتضمن مشاركة أكبر من السكان في تطوير وإدارة الإسكان مقارنة بكل من التي على أساس مجتمعي للربح و التي تسعى للربح.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is a rich literature on housing, neighborhood development, and externalities. However, this work is typically based on whether individuals own or rent their own homes, rather than type of affordable rental housing.

  2. 2.

    Although the communities in which case studies were conducted have different proportions of seniors living therein, we do not think this affects our findings. This is because a demand existed for this type of housing in all three communities and none of the organizations in this study relied on seniors to raise funds or in-kind contributions or to become members of their development teams.

  3. 3.

    This association withdrew from the project due to a disagreement with the CDC over cost and the involvement of the cooperative sector in the housing’s development; specifically, the representative from the cooperative association wanted the housing to be built with supplies purchased from a second-tier cooperative, while staff from the CDC felt that these inputs were too costly and would result in rents which were not acceptable for low-income seniors.

References

  1. Achtenberg, E. P. (2006). Federally-assisted housing in conflict: Privatization or preservation? In R. G. Bratt, M. E. Stone, & C. Hartman (Eds.), A right to housing: foundation for a new social agenda (pp. 163–170). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bayindir, E. E. (2012). Hospital ownership type and treatment choices. Journal of Health Economics, 31(2), 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bratt, R. G. (2008). Nonprofit and for-profit developers of subsidized rental housing: Comparative attributes and collaborative opportunities. Housing Policy Debate, 19(2), 323–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bratt, R. G. (2012). The quadruple bottom line and nonprofit housing organizations in the United States. Housing Studies, 27(4), 438–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, L., & Millar, N. (2012). The social economy in Atlantic Canada: A taste of its scope and diversity. In S. Novkovic & L. Brown (Eds.), Social economy: Communities, economies and solidarity in Atlantic Canada (pp. 39–59). Sydney: Cape Breton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. CECODHAS Housing Europe and ICA Housing. (2012). Profiles of a movement: Co-operative housing around the world. Retrieved October 18, 2013 from http://www.icahousing.coop/attachments/Profiles%20of%20a%20movement%20final%20web%20ISBN.pdf.

  7. Cole, L. (2008). Under construction: A history of co-operative housing in Canada. Ottawa: Borealis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Confédération québécoise des coopératives d’habitation (2013). Les coopératives de solidarité en habitation pour aînés au Québec Cahiers de l’ARUC. Développement territorial et coopération, Série « Recherches » (12), mars 2013.

  9. Davis, J. E. (1994). Beyond the market and the state: The diverse domain of social housing. In J. E. Davis (Ed.), The affordable city: Toward a third sector housing policy (pp. 75–106). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Deng, L. (2011). The external neighbourhood effects of low-income housing tax credit projects built by three sectors. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(2), 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ebaugh, H. R., Pipes, P. F., Chafetz, J. S., & Daniels, M. (2003). Where’s the Religion? distinguishing faith-based from secular social service agencies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(3), 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellen, I., & Voicu, I. (2006). Nonprofit housing and neighbourhood spillovers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gilmour, T., & Milligan, V. (2012). Let a hundred flowers bloom: Innovation and diversity in Australian not-for-profit housing associations. Housing Studies, 27(4), 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldblatt, M. (2004). The role of the co-operative housing sector in creating affordable housing. In J. D. Hulchanski & M. Shapcott (Eds.), Finding room: Policy options for a Canadian rental housing strategy (pp. 357–364). Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Government of Canada. (2011). Backgrounder: Investment in affordable housing 2011-2014 framework agreement. Retrieved October 1, 2013 from http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounder-investment-affordable-housing-2011-2014-framework-agreement.

  17. Grabowski, D. C., & Stevenson, D. G. (2008). Ownership conversions and nursing home performance. Health Services Research, 43(4), 1184–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gurstein, P., Patten, K. & Rao, P. (2015). The Future of Public Housing: Trends in Public Housing Internationally. Vancouver, BC: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. Retrieved August 27, 2015 from http://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/future-public-housing-trends-public-housing-internationally.

  19. Hansmann, H. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hansmann, H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Head, E. (2009). The ethics and implications of paying participants in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 335–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jacobs, K., Berry, M., & Dalton, T. (2012). ‘A dead and broken system?’: ‘Insider’ views of the future role of Australian public housing. International Journal of Housing Policy, 13(2), 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Leachman, M. (1997). Local government funding for housing development in Chicago: A comparison of funding for nonprofit and for-profit groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee, H., & Ronald, R. (2012). Expansion, diversification, and hybridization in Korean public housing. Housing Studies, 27(4), 495–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leviten-Reid, C. (2012). Organizational Form, Parental Involvement and Quality of Care in Child Day Care Centers”. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 36–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leviten-Reid, C., & Fairbairn, B. (2011). Multi-stakeholder governance in cooperative organizations: Toward a new framework for research? Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 2(2), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Marason Management Limited. (2004). Sustaining the Nonprofit Housing Sector in British Columbia. Retrieved November 22, 2013 from http://www.bcnpha.ca/media/documents/SustainNP.pdf.

  28. Meadows, L. M., & Morse, J. M. (2001). Constructing evidence within the qualitative project. In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The Nature of Qualitative Evidence (pp. 187–200). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Meléndez, E., Schwartz, A. F., & de Montrichard, A. (2008). Year 15 and preservation of tax-credit housing for low-income households: An assessment of risk. Housing Studies, 23(1), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Miller, S. M., & Moulton, S. (2013). Publicness in policy environments: A multilevel analysis of substance abuse treatment services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 553–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Morris, J. R., & Helburn, S. W. (2000). Child care center quality differences: The role of profit status, client preferences, and trust. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(3), 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mullins, D., & Pawson, H. (2010). Housing associations: Agents of policy or profits in disguise? In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy (pp. 197–218). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mullins, D., & Walker, B. (2009). The impact of direct public funding for private developers on non-profit housing networks in England: Exploring a research agenda. European Journal of Housing Policy, 9(2), 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Regan, K. M., & Quigley, J. M. (2000). Federal policy and the rise of nonprofit housing providers. Journal of Housing Research, 11(2), 297–317.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ontario Non-profit Housing Association. (2013). About Non-profit Housing. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from http://www.onpha.on.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2904.

  36. Peters, D. (2004). Affordable housing policy challenges in Ontario: The view from the non-profit sector. In J. D. Hulchanski & M. Shapcott (Eds.), Finding Room: Policy Options for a Canadian Rental Housing Strategy (pp. 365–380). Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pomeroy, S., & Falvo, N. (2013). Pragmatism and political expediency: Housing policy under the Harper regime. In C. Stoney & G. B. Doern (Eds.), How Ottawa Spends, 2013-2014. The Harper Government: Mid-term Blues and Long-term Plans (pp. 184–195). Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Quarter, J., Sousa, J., Richmond, B. J., & Carmichael, I. (2001). Comparing member-based organizations within a social economy framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(2), 351–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sacranie, H. (2012). Hybridity enacted in a large English housing association: A tale of strategy, culture and community investment. Housing Studies, 27(4), 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1998). Social capital and the revitalization of New York City’s distressed inner-city housing. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 17–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Saegert, S., Winkel, G., & Swartz, C. (2002). Social capital and crime in New York City’s low-income housing. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1), 189–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Skelton, I. (2000). Cooperative and nonprofit housing in Winnipeg: Towards a re-engagement of the provision infrastructure. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 9(2), 177–196.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sousa, J., & Quarter, J. (2003). The convergence of nonequity housing models in Canada: Changes to housing policy since 1990. Housing Policy Debate, 14(4), 591–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O’Connor, W. (2013). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 219–262). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Statistics Canada. (2006). Census of Population. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Statistics Canada. (2011). National Household Survey. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Steinberg, R. (1998). The theory of the nonprofit sector in housing. In C. T. Koebel (Ed.), Shelter and Society: Theory, Research, and Policy for Nonprofit Housing (pp. 21–38). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Thériault, L. (2012). The foundations of the social economy: Co-operatives, non-profits and other social enterprises. In S. Novkovic & L. Brown (Eds.), Social Economy: Communities, Economies and Solidarity in Atlantic Canada (pp. 22–38). Sydney: Cape Breton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Toronto Board of Trade. (2004). Affordable, Available, Achievable: Practical Solutions to Affordable Housing Challenges. In J. D. Hulchanski & M. Shapcott (Eds.), Finding room: Policy options for a Canadian rental housing strategy (pp. 323–341). Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Twombly, E. C. (2002). Religious versus secular human service organizations: Implications for public policy. Social Science Quarterly, 83(4), 947–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Walker, R. M. (2001). How to abolish public housing: Implications and lessons from public management reform. Housing Studies, 16(5), 675–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wiener, R. (2006). Privatizing rural rental housing. In R. G. Bratt, M. E. Stone, & C. Hartman (Eds.), A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda (pp. 171–176). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under Grant 833-2009-1004.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Leviten-Reid.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

The authors have no financial interest or benefit arising from the direct applications of this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leviten-Reid, C., Lake, A. & Campbell, R. Exploring Organizational Form in the Affordable Rental Housing Sector. Voluntas 27, 1809–1830 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9658-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cooperative
  • Non-profit
  • For-profit
  • Housing
  • Canada