Poor Governance at Safety Central - Case Study Analysis

Examples of Bad Governance at Safety Central

Case study – Part A. A not-for-profit community service called Safety Central was established “to provide a single point of entry and integrated service for women and children who have experienced family violence” (the Mission). When women contact the service, they can access a range of professional services at the same site. This team of professionals can assist them to stay safe, find alternative housing, access counselling services for themselves and their children, and obtain legal advice. The service constitution defines the roles and functions of the board. The constitution specifies that the board is to be concerned with securing funding for the integrated service. The board actively oversees philanthropic and government grants awarded to Safety Central.  There is no mention in the constitution of the board having to focus on the core activities of the service, such as providing an integrated professional service that keeps women and children safe from future violence and abuse. Board membership is comprised almost entirely of the representatives of the government and philanthropic funders who contribute financially to the service. The practice of the board is to provide little or no information about decision making to the staff of the service. The board has appointed the current Chief Executive Officer, who was formerly a CEO of a philanthropic agency represented on the board.  Over time, the interests of the stakeholders have become privileged over and above core activities and the service mission. Client intake has increased significantly at the direction of the board, and programs that were effective in keeping women and children safe have been replaced with ‘pet’ programs that directly reflect the stakeholder interests and are much cheaper to run. The service staff have become overwhelmed with their caseload and burdened by the constant change in the programs they are being asked to implement. Staff burn out rates are high. The Australian Charities and Not-for Profits Commission (ACNC) has notified the board and CEO that an independent governance review of the service will take place. The service has been put on notice to address any concerns arising from the current governance arrangements. Question 1.  Provide two examples of bad governance at Safety Central and explain why each example is a failure in governance. Question 2.  Describe what action can be taken to address each example of poor governance identified above in Question 1. Question 3. Discuss how new board members could be selected to address the governance issues for Safety Central. Case study – Part B.   The Australian Charities and Not-for Profits Commission (ACNC) has completed its review and audit of the service Safety Central. The board is to be replaced and a new CEO appointed. The Report produced by the ACNC highlights a range of service issues and includes recommendations that must be implemented by Safety Central. The issues identified in the Report and recommendations made by the ACNC are presented below:   Issues to be addressed by Safety Central: Staff are overworked and unmotivated. Absenteeism and staff turnover is high. There are elevated levels of client dissatisfaction with the services provided and poor client outcomes.   Recommendations to be actioned by Safety Central: Evaluation of all programs is to be conducted by an independent evaluator. Based on the evaluation findings, changes are to be made to improve the effectiveness of service provision. For the service to be sustainable, organizational transformation is needed. This includes managing the transition to a new model of service provision.Q4. Identify and describe the characteristics of two leadership theories (or styles) that would help the new CEO to respond to recommendations identified by the ACNC. Q5. Describe in detail how a transformational leadership style could be applied to address Issue 1 and Issue 2 as identified by the ACNC.  Case study – Part C. A consultant was appointed by the ACNC to speak with the service staff and identify areas of concern for staff. The consultant observed and spoke with staff in order to develop a strategy to re-engage and motivate staff in their work. The consultant observed the following: The performance expectations placed upon the staff are unachievable given the resources available. The rewards used by management don’t reflect staff values. The work undertaken by staff is complicated. The work requires delegation and trust between team members. Staff members from four different professions work together in teams to keep clients safe. Managers have been paying different professionals on the team at different rates based on the type of profession they belong to. Training opportunities have been offered to staff from some professional groups but not to others. Q 6. Identify two different theories that could be used by management to respond to the consultant’s observations and to motivate staff.  Q 7. Describe in detail the key characteristics of each theory of motivation identified above.  Q 8. Apply expectancy theory to motivate the Safety Central staff by explaining what you would do as a manager to respond to the consultant’s observations above.  Case study – Part D. As a first step in developing the Strategic Plan for Safety Central, the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer has called a face-to-face meeting with the service staff. The people who will be attending the meeting include: 2 client case managers administration and client intake officer five team leaders – a child counsellor, emergency housing officer, family violence advocate, social worker, lawyer Chief Executive Officer ACNC appointed program evaluator External expert on client service Q9. Identify one advantage of group-based decision making for the purpose of developing the new strategic plan for Safety Central.  Q 10. Identify one disadvantage of group-based decision-making for the purpose of developing the new goals for Safety Central. Q 11. The CEO wants to ensure that groupthink doesn’t occur and compromise the quality of group decision-making. Identify three different things that the CEO can do to ensure that well-quality decisions are made.