From community to cash flow: Research explores why affordable housing’s social goals often take a back seat

Affordable housing promises more than just a roof over one’s head. But new research reveals a troubling pattern: While many providers of affordable housing pledge to uplift communities, financial pressures often sideline social priorities.

A new study led by Virginia Tech researchers reveals that “decoupling” — the disconnect between stated social goals and daily actions — is all too common.

Recently published in the Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, the study explores how these organizational gaps form and offers ways to keep the mission on track.

“Balancing financial returns with social impact isn’t just about good intentions, it’s about having concrete metrics and clear accountability,” said Dustin C. Read, department head for the Pamplin College of Business’s Blackwood Department of Real Estate. “We saw that when progress toward social goals isn’t explicitly measured or openly communicated across roles, it takes a back seat.”

Read co-authored the study with Donna Sedgwick, associate professor in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences’ Department of Sociology.

The mission drift problem

Affordable housing providers often compartmentalize social objectives, assigning them to resident service coordinators or property managers while developers and asset managers remain focused on finances and timelines. This creates what Read and Sedgwick call "mission drift," where the intention to support residents’ well-being falls short, sometimes leaving communities underserved.

But Read cautions that this isn’t necessarily intentional but rather stems from a lack of communication.

Developers, for example, often think that once the high-quality housing is built, the societal mission will take care of itself. But that approach leaves a lot out — like making sure residents feel supported, welcomed, and safe in their new homes. “We found that social goals often get boxed into the roles of individuals who work directly with residents rather than being shared across the organization,” said Read.

This compartmentalization forms a fragmented approach where social aims are treated as isolated tasks instead of a shared organizational mission. Without consistent communication and collaboration across roles, financial and social goals fall out of alignment.

“Affordable housing sits at a unique intersection, where it’s both a commodity and a public good. This creates a complex mental boundary for providers — they’re tasked with balancing social and financial goals, often without consensus across roles,” Sedgwick said. “Achieving that balance requires not just good intentions but a coordinated commitment from developers, asset managers, property managers, and resident service coordinators alike.”

Obstacles to a unified social mission

Read and Sedgwick identified five barriers — siloed responsibilities, conflicting success metrics, limited communication, profit-focused incentives, and misaligned projects — that prevent affordable housing providers from fully integrating social goals with financial objectives.

Often, social responsibilities are siloed within specific roles, such as resident service coordinators, while other departments remain solely focused on financial targets.

The disconnect deepens as different roles interpret success in isolation: Developers and asset managers may view it as delivering housing on budget, while property managers and resident service coordinators may focus on end-user satisfaction. Compounding this, limited communication across teams and incentives that prioritize profit over social impact reinforce these silos, leaving social objectives fragmented and undervalued.

Why it matters: Decoupling and public trust

The study highlights that when affordable housing providers fail to align their mission with their actions, they risk losing more than just internal cohesion — they jeopardize public trust. Without this trust, providers may struggle to gain support for future projects, missing critical opportunities to address housing needs in underserved areas.

“If affordable housing providers can’t clearly align their mission with their actions, they risk alienating the communities they want to serve,” Read said.

The road to a cohesive mission

The research outlines a few crucial steps that can help housing providers bring social and financial goals into harmony. Read and Sedgwick recommend practical steps for providers and policymakers to close the gap.

First, affordable housing organizations should involve all departments in advancing social objectives by giving socially oriented roles, like resident service coordinators, a stronger voice in decision-making.

“When everyone has a seat at the table, social goals become part of every department’s priorities, not just a single team’s responsibility,” Read said.

Establishing clear metrics for social impact — such as resident satisfaction, retention, and community involvement — can also help teams focus on the social value of their work alongside financial goals.

To foster a mission-focused culture, Read and Sedgwick also recommend strengthening communication across roles to build a unified understanding of these goals, with municipalities setting clear expectations and holding housing providers accountable. Finally, incentivizing alignment through meaningful support can make a lasting impact.

“For many in these roles, it’s not just about financial rewards. A lot of people are drawn to affordable housing work because of the mission,” Sedgwick said. “While financial incentives are helpful, equally impactful are professional development and showing genuine care for employees’ roles in fulfilling the mission. Those investments can build a more aligned, mission-focused culture.”