Housing Program Administrators Use a Variety of Strategies to Mitigate External Challenges

By Tori Bourret, NLIHC Manager, State and Local Innovation Outreach  

Research published in Housing Policy Debate, “It’s Like Trying to Put Out a Fire With a Dixie Cup: Understating Disconnects Between Local Level Administrator’s Challenges, Resources, and Needs in Implementing State Affordable Housing Programs,” found that local administrators of Florida’s State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP) used a variety of strategies to cope with the economic, political, and regulatory challenges affecting their ability to administer their housing programs. The research offers insight into how to support and retain local housing administrators in the face of external challenges. 

SHIP, a statewide program funded by Florida’s housing trust fund, distributes money for housing programs to local jurisdictions. The purpose of the study was to explore local SHIP administrators’ challenges in managing their housing programs and how they coped with them. In particular, the authors wanted to explore how administrators dealt with program funding and requirements not always meeting community needs. The authors conducted interviews with administrators across 21 SHIP jurisdictions between July and September of 2022, ensuring even participation across rural and urban areas. Participants were asked questions about SHIP program development, their perceptions of program effectiveness, challenges in program administration, available solutions, and advice they would give to other program administrators. 

SHIP administrators revealed several challenges in managing their programs. Administrators had difficulty implementing program mandates related to homeownership and new construction because of external factors, such as rising housing prices, escalating construction costs, and high housing demand coupled with funding constraints. Finding contractors was also difficult as high demand meant contractors could find higher value jobs on projects not funded through government programs like SHIP. In rural areas, program administrators struggled to stretch their minimum allocation to cover administrative tasks, meet program requirements, and also meet residents’ needs. Often, they could only afford to implement one or two strategies, such as rehabilitation or repair, instead of five or six which could serve broader swaths of the population. Additionally, funding variability from year to year led to frequent staff changes, which severely limited staff capacity. 

Administrators responded to administrative challenges by being flexible where possible. This flexibility looked different across jurisdictions. One jurisdiction had a temporary staff position ready to fill in case funds increased, another sought different ways to generate program income, and several changed their housing strategies when needs arose, such as switching from providing purchase assistance to funding housing rehabilitation in response to climate disasters. Many administrators partner with nonprofits and other community organizations to provide additional client services or matching funds for housing development, while some administrators build relationships with contractors to retain their services or encourage them to bid on SHIP projects.  Finally, administrators mentioned the receipt of visual and verbal feedback, such as client stories or seeing completed housing developments, that helped them find value in their work and was an important aspect of why they continued to serve others.  

The findings suggest local administrators were able to cope with external challenges through personal relationship building, flexibility, and passion for the work. These coping strategies can be bolstered through the maintenance of umbrella or state level membership organizations, the expansion of allowable program flexibilities, increased funding, and an increase to minimum allocation amounts.  

The study is available here.