Despite overwhelming evidence that coordinated approaches work, fewer than 12% of tracked U.S. cities have developed integrated housing recovery frameworks.
Published by the National City Rebuild Network Research Desk in alignment with The Public Lyceum.
The evidence is clear: cities with coordinated recovery frameworks achieve significantly better outcomes. So why do fewer than 12% of tracked U.S. cities have them?
Creating a coordinated framework requires bringing together stakeholders who typically operate in silos: housing authorities, economic development agencies, nonprofit service providers, healthcare systems with community benefit obligations, financial institutions with CRA requirements, and local foundations with distinct priorities.
Each entity has its own funding streams, accountability structures, and success metrics. The coordination work—building shared language, aligning data systems, establishing trust—isn't funded by any single source. It falls through the cracks.
Political cycles run 2-4 years. Grant cycles run 1-3 years. Housing market cycles run 5-10 years. Recovery frameworks require sustained commitment over a decade or more. No elected official or funder has strong incentives to invest in coordination whose payoffs extend beyond their accountability horizon.
Even when political will exists, implementation capacity often doesn't. The organizations best positioned to lead coordination—usually community development intermediaries or purpose-built collaboratives—operate with minimal resources and high staff turnover.
Our framework provides cities with a pre-built coordination structure, reducing the startup cost of establishing integrated recovery systems. Cities can adopt the framework rather than build from scratch.