Beyond the Transaction: A New Blueprint for Power-Sharing in Housing Philanthropy

As the American democratic landscape grows increasingly volatile and public funding for essential social services evaporates, the chasm between those who govern and those who suffer the consequences of policy failures has never been wider. Nowhere is this disconnect more acute than in the housing sector. For millions of Americans, the dream of a safe, stable home is being systematically dismantled by rising costs, predatory speculation, and a lack of political will.

Against this backdrop, six front-line housing justice advocates—who have spent the past year embedded in a unique collaborative experiment—are calling for a fundamental restructuring of how philanthropy interacts with the communities it aims to serve. They argue that the traditional model of "extractive" grantmaking is not only ineffective but is actively undermining the very movements required to solve the nation’s housing crisis.

The State of the Crisis: A Field at a Crossroads

The housing justice field is currently facing an existential threat. A growing number of Americans are being priced out of their own neighborhoods, while drastic cuts in public funding have decimated the institutions—large and small—that once served as the safety net.

Compounding this, many private funders have retreated from initiatives that seek to challenge systemic inequities. Fearful of political blowback or the risk to their own funding streams, these donors have opted for caution at the exact moment when bold, decisive action is most needed. The result is a demoralized movement where some organizations have been forced to abandon housing advocacy entirely to focus on mere survival.

"The bottom line is that the housing justice field is at a pivotal point," the authors note. "Those of us on the front lines are having to rebuild our capacities and regain momentum while trying to move forward."

The Chronology of a Collaborative Shift

Over the past twelve months, six housing leaders—Bebhinn Francis, Erika Gaines, Andreina Kniss, Jenay Manley, Randall Taylor, and Libby Viera-Bland—engaged in a pilot program with the Fund for Housing and Opportunity (FHO). This "Community Advisors Program" was designed to bridge the widening gap between the decision-makers in philanthropic boardrooms and the organizers on the ground.

A Timeline of Engagement:

• Phase 1: Deep Mapping. The advisors and FHO staff engaged in a series of intensive dialogues to map how philanthropic staff set priorities, evaluate "success," and structure their relationships with grantees.
• Phase 2: Power Analysis. The cohort examined the structural barriers to power-sharing. They identified the specific moments where traditional philanthropic habits—such as rigid reporting requirements or exclusionary decision-making—stifled community innovation.
• Phase 3: Codifying Recommendations. The final months were spent synthesizing their findings into a practical framework, moving beyond the critique of philanthropy toward a set of actionable, non-extractive practices.

Moving Beyond Extraction: The Call for Mutual Benefit

For too long, the relationship between donors and community leaders has been transactional. Funders often invite advocates to share their stories of hardship—an exercise that is frequently emotionally taxing and rarely leads to a seat at the decision-making table.

"These invitations can come with real curiosity and even urgency," the authors explain. "What the invitations don’t always come with is a say in what happens next. It’s not that philanthropy lacks interest in community voices; it’s just that, too often, that is where the exchange stops."

The core of their argument is that philanthropy must transition from a directive model to a collaborative one. This requires treating community leaders as colleagues rather than subjects.

Key Pillars for Transformative Engagement:

1. Prioritize "Deeply Embedded" Leaders: Funders must move beyond the "usual suspects" or self-proclaimed representatives. Instead, they should leverage existing grantee networks to identify leaders who are genuinely trusted within the community.
2. Reject the "Directive" Approach: When funding a project, donors should extend an invitation to collaborate rather than issuing a directive. When funders dictate the terms of engagement, they reinforce power imbalances that eventually undermine the authenticity of the work.
3. Institutionalize Knowledge Sharing: Philanthropy should create spaces for peer exchanges, cross-city workshops, and direct participation in grantmaking decisions. Removing the "conflict of interest" barriers that prevent community members from helping choose projects is a critical step toward genuine power-sharing.

Data and Disparity: The Financial Bottleneck

The urgency of these recommendations is backed by the economic realities of the current market. For instance, in the realm of cooperative and social housing, the impact of current funding gaps is quantifiable. These models, which treat housing as a community resource rather than a speculative asset, are often the most effective at providing permanent affordability. However, because they do not fit the mold of traditional real estate investment, they are frequently starved of the early-stage "patient capital" required to scale.

Advocates point out that funders often prioritize "quick wins" over the long-term, systemic shifts required to fix the housing market. "We need you to stay in it for the long haul," the authors urge. When philanthropy fails to support the slow, steady work of policy advocacy, they inadvertently maintain the status quo.

The Case for Relational Investment

The authors emphasize that the most important resource a community leader brings to the table is not just data, but "relational connections." A leader’s ability to mobilize a neighborhood or build a coalition is an asset that is rarely valued on a grant application.

Furthermore, the article highlights the importance of individual professional development for community organizers. By investing in the personal growth and reflection of those leading these movements, funders can help mitigate the rampant burnout that currently threatens the stability of the housing justice sector.

Implications for the Future of Philanthropy

The implications of this shift extend well beyond the housing sector. The authors argue that the "non-extractive" framework is a blueprint for addressing other systemic challenges, from criminal justice reform to climate change.

"It is more crucial than ever for funders to share power with community leaders," the report concludes. By creating spaces where funders and community advisors share knowledge on equal footing, the philanthropic sector can ensure that its grantmaking strategies are not merely theoretical, but grounded in the lived realities of those most affected by them.

Ultimately, the goal is to prove that housing justice is not just a policy concept—it is a human-centered imperative. When philanthropy shifts from being a distant benefactor to an active, respectful partner, the potential for meaningful, lasting change increases exponentially.

As the authors aptly state, "It may be the easiest way to underscore that housing justice is not just a concept. It’s about real people and real impact."

About the Authors

The recommendations in this article are informed by the collective experience of:

• Bebhinn Francis: Tenant organizer with United Tenants of Albany and co-chair of Legislative Advocacy and Co-Governance with Housing Justice for All.
• Erika Gaines: A community leader in the affordable housing sector in Charlottesville, VA, focused on bridging the gap between marginalized communities and stable housing.
• Andreina Kniss: Project manager at the Alliance for Housing Justice, specializing in eviction defense and mutual aid advocacy.
• Jenay Manley: Executive Director of KC Tenants, leading a citywide union of poor and working-class tenants in Kansas City.
• Randall Taylor: A lifelong resident of Pittsburgh and board member for the Pittsburgh Board of Education, focused on alternatives to for-profit housing.
• Libby Viera-Bland, AICP: An urban planner and advocate who applies intersectional, community-level insights to broader policy reform.