Root Solutions For Housing And Land Justice Affordable Housing Funding Practices

Introductions

In the ongoing conversation about where and how people live, few topics are as deeply layered and as deeply unequal as housing. The document Root Solutions for Housing and Land Justice: Affordable Housing Funding Practices offers a powerful, practical look at how local governments are rethinking the way they fund affordable housing. But this isn’t just about budgets or bond measures. It’s about race, history, power, and the long-overdue work of repairing a system built on exclusion.

The core argument is simple yet radical: affordable housing funding practices can either reinforce racial injustice or become a tool for racial equity. For decades, public money has been used to segregate, displace, and disinvest in communities of color. Now, a growing number of racial equity practitioners inside government housing agencies are using a racial equity lens to rewrite the rules. They are changing who gets funded, where housing gets built, who gets to live there, and how communities are involved in decisions.

This summary walks through the document’s key insights: the historical roots of housing injustice, the new funding reforms taking hold across the U.S., a deep dive into Oregon’s Portland region as a case study, and actionable advice from practitioners on the ground.

Naming the Problem: Why Racial Equity in Housing Funding Matters

You cannot solve a problem you refuse to name. The document begins by calling out two root causes of housing and land injustice that are often glossed over in polite policy conversations.

First, there is the lack of public and private investment benefiting communities of color. This isn’t an accident. From the early days of public housing, government deliberately engineered society along racial lines. Public housing was first used to separate low-income white households from Black households. After the Fair Housing Act passed, many local governments resisted desegregation by blocking low-income housing or shoving it into already-segregated, high-poverty neighborhoods of color. The result? A racialized housing system where communities of color are disproportionately poor, and the private market refuses to build for them.

Second, there is the power imbalance between government and the real estate industry. Most local governments have long-standing relationships with large, predominantly white developers, landowners, and civic associations. These relationships skew public investment toward well-connected institutions, leaving behind renters, low-income residents, and smaller developers especially those led by or serving communities of color. This dynamic drives racial disparities in asset ownership, development experience, and access to capital.

Naming these disparities is the first step. The second step is normalizing a racial equity lens when deploying affordable housing funds. That means asking, at every stage: Who benefits? Who is harmed? Who is at the table? And who is missing?

Key Terms That Shape the Work

Before diving into reforms, the document clarifies two terms that are essential to understanding modern affordable housing funding practices.

Racial equity practitioners are government employees with the drive, skills, and relationships to lead system changes that eliminate racial disparities. They are not just diversity trainers. They are inside organizers who motivate colleagues, work across differences, and build bridges inside and outside government.

Housing preference policies give priority for rental or homeownership resources to individuals or descendants who have been directly harmed by past government housing actions often with racially disparate impact, whether intentional or not. These policies are one of the most direct ways to target funding toward those most injured by historical injustice.

Six Reforms: Applying a Racial Equity Lens to Funding

The heart of the document lies in six concrete reforms observed in housing agencies that are serious about racial equity. These are not theoretical. They are being used today.

1. Multi-agency commitment to racial equity. Government bodies with overlapping boundaries—regional governments, counties, cities—are coming together to adopt shared racial equity frameworks. This alignment prevents one jurisdiction’s progress from being undermined by another’s inaction.

2. Prioritized populations. Instead of pretending to be colorblind, jurisdictions are setting explicit goals to serve populations directly impacted by past harms. They use preference policies and funding criteria to target who benefits from investments.

3. Housing site selection. This is where the rubber meets the road. Agencies are prioritizing locations that actively address racial disparities like segregation, disinvestment, and displacement. In other words, they are using site selection as a tool for justice, not just convenience.

4. Inclusive community engagement. Funding criteria now require project sponsors to engage communities of color early—not after decisions are made. This includes planning, lease-up, and ongoing property management. No more fake community meetings at 2 p.m. on a Tuesday.

5. Inclusive housing development and service delivery. This means setting goals for increasing housing funds going to developers, contractors, and service organizations led by people of color. It also means providing capacity-building funding to help smaller, culturally specific organizations apply for and manage public money.

6. Equitable access to and management of housing. Low-barrier and non-discriminatory leasing practices are critical. That includes affirmative marketing to communities facing discrimination, and not screening out applicants based on citizenship status, credit score, rental history, or source of income. Equitable management also means resident advisory boards that give tenants real say over their homes.

These six reforms are not checkboxes. They are interconnected practices that, when done together, begin to shift the entire affordable housing funding ecosystem.

Case Study: Aligning a Region Toward Racially Equitable Housing

The document’s most detailed section focuses on Oregon’s Portland region, where racial equity practitioners at Oregon Metro (a regional government), Multnomah County, and the City of Portland have aligned their affordable housing funding practices around shared racial equity goals. This case study is valuable because it shows not just what to do, but how to do it internally.

It starts with Metro’s 2016 Strategic Plan to Advance Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. That plan set the stage for two voter-approved measures in 2018 and 2020: the Affordable Housing Bond Program and the Supportive Housing Services (SHS) Program.

The Affordable Housing Bond Program $652.8 million was built on a policy framework with four principles, including racial equity. That principle guided geographic distribution, directing investments to communities that historically lacked affordable housing options and those at risk of displacement. Community engagement directly shaped production goals: 41% of units with deeper affordability (1,600 homes at below 30% of Area Median Income) and 50% family-sized units. The framework also set a 20% goal for construction contract dollars paid to state-certified minority and women-owned businesses.

Metro then created a Housing Division to implement this framework as a regional standard across three counties and four cities. Local plans committed to the same goals for geographic distribution, workforce contracting, and deep affordability. Metro also facilitated conversations to include language requiring developers to affirmatively market to communities of color, develop culturally relevant services, and use inclusive community engagement early in planning.

Notably, community engagement processes for new developments birthed local advisory groups made up of residents who had experienced displacement and housing insecurity. These groups now help select developers, shape architectural design, and decide on ground-floor community spaces and amenities.

The Supportive Housing Services Program was initiated and designed by a community coalition led by communities of color. Its racial equity framework re-emphasized culturally relevant services and meaningful engagement. A regional SHS Advisory Board ensures accountability.

Multnomah County’s Joint Office of Homeless Services used a racial equity decision-making tool to design its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). The result? In 2023, 80% of households receiving SHS-funded services were people of color up from 73% the previous year and well above the regional 44%. The County achieved this by lowering barriers for culturally specific service providers, offering capacity-building funds, and contracting third-party technical writing support for smaller organizations.

The City of Portland Housing Bureau (PHB) took things further. PHB adopted the nation’s first N/NE Preference Policy, prioritizing affordable housing resources for residents displaced by urban renewal in the mid-20th century and their descendants. Two dedicated staff market this policy and help households access rental and homeownership resources.

PHB’s Racial Equity Roadmap led to asking nonprofit developers to have their own racial equity plans. A 2019 request for proposals for Metro bond dollars prioritized development teams with culturally specific organization leads. Applicants had to detail their anti-racist mission, staff and board diversification, DEI training plans, strategies for engaging priority populations, culturally responsive services, and contract opportunities for minority-owned firms.

The alignment of racial equity criteria across multiple funding sources gave nonprofit developers consistency and drove sector-wide change.

Advice from Practitioners: How to Get Started

The document ends with grounded, hard-won advice from the very people doing this work.

Start with racial equity values. Emily Lieb, Metro’s Housing Policy Director, emphasizes that a values-driven, community-led process creates accountability. She says the racial equity principle in the bond’s policy framework put Metro “in a more accountable relationship with the communities experiencing the worst racial disparities.”

Get in right relationship with community. Communities closest to the problem have unique expertise. Dyvisha Gordon of PHB notes that people at community forums heavily mentioned the harm done by eminent domain. That feedback directly shaped a priority point system for housing resources.

Implement with clear guidance and specificity when necessary. Funding awards are long-term commitments. Break down implementation steps to identify where racial equity can be incorporated. Tanya Wolfersperger of PHB explains that applicants must speak about real partnerships with culturally specific organizations not paper partnerships including how those partnerships are compensated.

But flexibility matters too. Not all racial equity strategies have agreed-upon best practices. Practitioners recommend revisiting equity goals regularly to see if they are too strict or not specific enough. Continuous learning is the only path forward.

Final Thoughts: Funding as a Moral Act

What makes this document so compelling is its refusal to treat affordable housing funding practices as neutral technical exercises. Every dollar spent is a moral choice. Every NOFA, every RFP, every site selection decision either deepens racial hierarchy or begins to dismantle it.

The Portland region shows that change is possible. It requires political will, community leadership, skilled racial equity practitioners, and a willingness to follow the data and the people most harmed. It requires aligning multiple jurisdictions around shared values. And it requires patience because repairing decades of racist policy takes time.

But the root solutions are here. They are being tested, adapted, and scaled. And for anyone who believes that housing is a human right and racial equity is not optional, this document offers both a roadmap and a reason to hope.

Also Read: “Suburban Shift: Where Affordable Housing Is Taking Shape around Colombo”