Report on the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and its Role in Advancing Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyzes the function and impact of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) in the United States, with a specific focus on its alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It also examines the potential consequences of proposed budgetary eliminations on progress toward these goals.

Alignment with SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The HOME program is a critical instrument for achieving Target 11.1: ensuring access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing. Its contributions are particularly significant in underserved rural regions.

Key Contributions to Affordable and Inclusive Housing

• Over the past three decades, the program has facilitated the construction or repair of more than 1.3 million affordable homes.
• A substantial portion of this development, at least 540,000 homes, has been in rural or significantly rural congressional districts.
• The program provides a direct pathway to stable housing for low-income individuals, such as the case of a single mother in eastern Tennessee who, after years of housing instability due to high rents, was able to build a home with a $272,000 grant facilitated by the program.

Support for Vulnerable and Economically Depressed Regions

The program is uniquely effective in areas that fail to attract private investment, such as Appalachia, thereby promoting resilient and sustainable human settlements.

• It addresses market failures where construction costs exceed the sale price of a home, a common barrier in persistent poverty counties.
• Local nonprofit developers in regions like Owsley County, Kentucky, rely almost exclusively on HOME funding to construct new affordable single-family and rental housing.
• In communities recovering from climate-related disasters, such as floods in Hazard, Kentucky, HOME funding has enabled low-wage single parents to achieve homeownership, thereby preserving the social fabric of rural life.

Impact on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

By providing housing security, the HOME program directly addresses poverty alleviation and reduces systemic inequalities between urban and rural populations.

Poverty Reduction and Economic Stability

Access to stable, affordable housing is a foundational element for escaping the poverty cycle. The program targets individuals and families most at risk.

1. It provides financial assistance for homeownership and rental units to low-income earners.
2. It supports “workforce housing,” enabling essential workers such as nurses, first responders, and teachers to live within the communities they serve, fostering local economic stability (SDG 8).
3. By empowering local nonprofits, it builds community capacity and resilience in areas affected by economic downturns, such as the decline of the coal industry.

Addressing Systemic Inequality

• The program is a primary tool for developing housing in regions with limited government aid and investment, directly combating geographic inequality.
• An analysis indicates that 84% of the half-million homes built with HOME assistance in rural-majority districts were in areas that voted for the administration now proposing its elimination, highlighting its broad, bipartisan reach.

Analysis of Proposed Budgetary Changes and SDG Implications

Current federal budget negotiations pose a significant threat to the continuation of the HOME program and, by extension, progress on related SDGs.

The Threat of Defunding

• The Trump administration has proposed the complete elimination of the HOME grant program.
• The House Republicans’ budget proposal for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) did not include funding for the program.
• While Senate Republicans have included funding in their draft budget, the program’s future remains uncertain pending negotiations.

Projected Repercussions on SDG Advancement

The termination or significant reduction of HOME funding would have severe, long-term consequences for affordable housing development and SDG targets.

1. Immediate Reduction in Housing Supply: The effect would be a sharp decline in the creation of new affordable housing units, exacerbating the national housing crisis. Historical data from a temporary funding reduction in 2015 shows negative ramifications that are still being felt over a decade later.
2. Compromised Effectiveness of Other Programs: The HOME program is deeply integrated with other housing initiatives. For instance, it provides critical gap funding for 12% of all units developed under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the nation’s largest affordable rental housing program. Its elimination would render these tax credits less effective.
3. Setback for Rural Communities: The loss of the program would disproportionately harm rural and impoverished areas, which lack alternative funding sources. Local housing experts warn this would be a “nail in the coffin” for development in these regions, reversing progress on making communities inclusive and sustainable (SDG 11).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis identifies the following primary SDGs:

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article focuses on individuals and communities facing economic hardship, such as a single mother making $18.50 an hour and another making $14.30 an hour. It also describes Owsley County as “one of the nation’s poorest” and mentions “persistent poverty counties,” directly linking the housing crisis to poverty.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article emphasizes the disparity between rural and urban areas, noting that rural America “hasn’t been spared from soaring housing costs” and that investment is “scant” in these regions. The HOME program is presented as a tool to address this geographical inequality by providing funding specifically for rural and underserved communities.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This is the most central SDG addressed. The entire article revolves around the challenge of “affordable housing.” It details a federal program designed to build and repair homes for low-income families, directly tackling the need for adequate and safe housing.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article describes the operational model of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which relies on collaboration between the federal government (HUD), state housing agencies, and a network of non-profit organizations and local developers like “Partnership Housing” and “Fahe, a coalition of Appalachian nonprofits.” This multi-stakeholder approach is a core principle of SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion of affordable housing, poverty, and rural development, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property.
   • Explanation: The article provides case studies of Heather Colley and Tiffany Mullins, single mothers with low incomes who were able to achieve homeownership through the HOME program. This directly illustrates the program’s role in helping vulnerable populations gain control over a key form of property—a home.
2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.
   • Explanation: The program is described as essential for “deeply rural places and persistent poverty counties.” By channeling funds to these areas where “investors are few,” it promotes economic inclusion for residents who would otherwise be left behind by the private market. The article notes that of the homes built with HOME funds, “at least 540,000 were in congressional districts that are rural or significantly rural.”
3. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services.
   • Explanation: This target is the core theme of the article. The HOME program’s explicit purpose is to “build or repair… affordable homes.” The narrative centers on the struggle against “soaring housing costs” and the program’s success in providing affordable housing solutions, making this the most directly relevant target.
4. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.
   • Explanation: The article details how the HOME program functions as a partnership. Federal funds are administered through state agencies to local non-profits (“local housing developers are the only way homes… gets built”). This collaboration between government and civil society organizations like “Woodlands Development Group” and “Housing Development Alliance” is a clear example of the partnership model promoted by this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

• Number of affordable housing units created or preserved: This is a direct indicator for Target 11.1. The article explicitly states, “The program has helped build or repair more than 1.3 million affordable homes in the last three decades.” This metric directly quantifies the program’s output.
• Financial resources mobilized for affordable housing: This serves as an indicator for Target 17.17. The article mentions, “The program has spent more than $38 billion nationwide since it began.” It also cites a specific grant of “$272,000” for one home, illustrating the financial scale of the partnerships.
• Geographic distribution of aid: This is an indicator for Target 10.2, measuring efforts to reduce inequality. The article provides a specific statistic: “at least 540,000 [homes] were in congressional districts that are rural or significantly rural,” showing the program’s reach in underserved areas.
• Income levels of beneficiaries: This acts as an indicator for Target 1.4, showing that the program reaches the poor and vulnerable. The article provides specific examples of beneficiaries’ wages, such as a “manicurist making $18.50 an hour” and a Walmart employee making “$14.30 an hour,” confirming that the program serves low-income individuals.
• Number of people/families achieving homeownership: While not providing an aggregate number, the personal stories of Heather Colley and Tiffany Mullins serve as qualitative indicators for Target 1.4. They represent individuals from vulnerable groups (single mothers, low-wage workers) who were able to secure property ownership.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: abcnews.go.com