Racial Equity & Inclusion Strategic Plan
In 2023, Pioneer Habitat for Humanity worked with Human in Common, to create our REI Strategic Plan. This plan outlines our three-year strategy aimed at fostering a more diverse and inclusive environment within the organization and its operations. Grounded in the principles of social justice and equality, the plan outlines specific goals and initiatives to address systemic barriers, promote diversity in leadership and decision-making roles, and ensure equitable access to opportunities for all stakeholders, including staff, volunteers, partner families, and communities served.
DEI Updates
-
DEI Update: DEI Committee’s Statement of Purpose
The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee seeks to foster a culture of belonging by promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in both our organization and community. The DEI committee defines diversity as composition, equity as fair opportunity and outcomes, and inclusion as everyone being valued. We believe diversity, equity, and inclusion creates a sense of…
-
DEI Update: Commitment to Values
Dear Habitat Community,The core value of Habitat for Humanity is that Everyone deserves a decent place to live. I’m writing today to affirm Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity’s commitment to this value – that our work includes a belief that housing is a human right and we will do our part on that path towards justice.…
History & Resources
Often when people hear Habitat for Humanity mentioned, the first association they have is Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter. While the former president and first lady together are certainly the most familiar face of the organization and walk the walk of building community one home at a time (still! as octogenarians!), there is a lot of history to Habitat that is less well known, foundational to Habitat’s deep ongoing commitment to social justice through affordable homeownership.
Habitat evolved out of Koinonia Farm, an intentional integrated community in Georgia founded in the late 1940s on the principles of racial equality and radical inclusivity. This was highly unusual for its time and place and threatening to some who sought to separate black and white, rich and poor. In 1976, Habitat for Humanity was founded by Koinonia supporters Millard and Linda Fuller, who had been a part of Koinonia’s transition to a more outwardly focused Fund for Humanity, and because they felt compelled to focus on a housing ministry. The Fullers’ vision was simple: to create a world where everyone has a decent place to live. The first Habitat homes were built alongside former slaves and their descendants who had not been approved for mortgages or bank loans. Since those early days of seeking equity housing, the organization has worked with future homeowners and the community to build homes for more than seven million people worldwide. The Fullers’ vision still guides the organization today: Habitat for Humanity is a global leader in building opportunity through life-changing housing solutions.
Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity, started in 1989, is an independent local affiliate of Habitat for Humanity International and was at first completely volunteer-run. Now our small and committed staff of five works with hundreds of volunteers and future homeowners each year from all faiths, ages, abilities and backgrounds. To date, we have built and sold 46 houses in Hampshire and Franklin Counties; we are currently building #47 in Northampton and #48 in Shutesbury. Our homes are simple, durable, energy efficient and, where possible, built with zero net energy potential, helping to mitigate homeownership expenses by lowering or eliminating energy costs and keeping homes affordable over time. And for every house we sell, Pioneer Valley Habitat donates money through Habitat for Humanity International to support homebuilding abroad; in Haiti through 2024, and in Côte d’Ivoire as of 2025.
Having a decent, affordable place to call home is a matter of equity and opportunity and is the birthright of every human being. It can be transformative, and the lack of it is an injustice. It is the commitment to these ideals that always has been and will continue to be the very heart of Habitat’s work.
“What the poor need is not charity but capital, not case-workers, but co-workers. And what the rich need is a wise, honorable and just way of divesting themselves of their over-abundance. The Fund for Humanity will meet both of these needs.”
– Clarence Jordan, Koinonia’s founder, recognizing the need to expand the Farm’s principles in 1968 into a wider reaching funding mechanism
In 1933, faced with a housing shortage, the federal government began a program explicitly designed to increase — and segregate — America’s housing stock. Author Richard Rothstein says the housing programs begun under the New Deal were tantamount to a “state-sponsored system of segregation.”
The government’s efforts were “primarily designed to provide housing to white, middle-class, lower-middle-class families,” he says. African-Americans and other people of color were left out of the new suburban communities — and pushed instead into urban housing projects.
Rothstein’s new book, The Color of Law, examines the local, state and federal housing policies that mandated segregation. He notes that the Federal Housing Administration, which was established in 1934, furthered the segregation efforts by refusing to insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods — a policy known as “redlining.” At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans.
Rothstein says these decades-old housing policies have had a lasting effect on American society. “The segregation of our metropolitan areas today leads … to stagnant inequality, because families are much less able to be upwardly mobile when they’re living in segregated neighborhoods where opportunity is absent,” he says. “If we want greater equality in this society, if we want a lowering of the hostility between police and young African-American men, we need to take steps to desegregate.”
On how the Federal Housing Administration justified discrimination
The Federal Housing Administration’s justification was that if African-Americans bought homes in these suburbs, or even if they bought homes near these suburbs, the property values of the homes they were insuring, the white homes they were insuring, would decline. And therefore their loans would be at risk.
There was no basis for this claim on the part of the Federal Housing Administration. In fact, when African-Americans tried to buy homes in all-white neighborhoods or in mostly white neighborhoods, property values rose because African-Americans were more willing to pay more for properties than whites were, simply because their housing supply was so restricted and they had so many fewer choices. So the rationale that the Federal Housing Administration used was never based on any kind of study. It was never based on any reality.
On how federal agencies used redlining to segregate African-Americans
The term “redlining” … comes from the development by the New Deal, by the federal government of maps of every metropolitan area in the country. And those maps were color-coded by first the Home Owners Loan Corp. and then the Federal Housing Administration and then adopted by the Veterans Administration, and these color codes were designed to indicate where it was safe to insure mortgages. And anywhere where African-Americans lived, anywhere where African-Americans lived nearby were colored red to indicate to appraisers that these neighborhoods were too risky to insure mortgages.
On the FHA manual that explicitly laid out segregationist policies
It was in something called the Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration, which said that “incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities.” Meaning that loans to African-Americans could not be insured.
In one development … in Detroit … the FHA would not go ahead, during World War II, with this development unless the developer built a 6-foot-high wall, cement wall, separating his development from a nearby African-American neighborhood to make sure that no African-Americans could even walk into that neighborhood.
The Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration recommended that highways be a good way to separate African-American from white neighborhoods. So this was not a matter of law, it was a matter of government regulation, but it also wasn’t hidden, so it can’t be claimed that this was some kind of “de facto” situation. Regulations that are written in law and published … in the Underwriting Manual are as much a de jure unconstitutional expression of government policy as something written in law.
On the long-term effects of African-Americans being prohibited from buying homes in suburbs and building equity
Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.
African-American families that were prohibited from buying homes in the suburbs in the 1940s and ’50s and even into the ’60s, by the Federal Housing Administration, gained none of the equity appreciation that whites gained. So … the Daly City development south of San Francisco or Levittown or any of the others in between across the country, those homes in the late 1940s and 1950s sold for about twice national median income. They were affordable to working-class families with an FHA or VA mortgage. African-Americans were equally able to afford those homes as whites but were prohibited from buying them. Today those homes sell for $300,000 [or] $400,000 at the minimum, six, eight times national median income. …
So in 1968 we passed the Fair Housing Act that said, in effect, “OK, African-Americans, you’re now free to buy homes in Daly City or Levittown” … but it’s an empty promise because those homes are no longer affordable to the families that could’ve afforded them when whites were buying into those suburbs and gaining the equity and the wealth that followed from that.
The white families sent their children to college with their home equities; they were able to take care of their parents in old age and not depend on their children. They’re able to bequeath wealth to their children. None of those advantages accrued to African-Americans, who for the most part were prohibited from buying homes in those suburbs.
On how housing projects went from being for white middle- and lower-middle-class families to being predominantly black and poor
Public housing began in this country for civilians during the New Deal and it was an attempt to address a housing shortage; it wasn’t a welfare program for poor people. During the Depression, no housing construction was going on. Middle-class families, working-class families were losing their homes during the Depression when they became unemployed and so there were many unemployed middle-class, working-class white families and this was the constituency that the federal government was most interested in. And so the federal government began a program of building public housing for whites only in cities across the country. The liberal instinct of some Roosevelt administration officials led them to build some projects for African-Americans as well, but they were always separate projects; they were not integrated. …
The white projects had large numbers of vacancies; black projects had long waiting lists. Eventually it became so conspicuous that the public housing authorities in the federal government opened up the white-designated projects to African-Americans, and they filled with African-Americans. At the same time, industry was leaving the cities, African-Americans were becoming poorer in those areas, the projects became projects for poor people, not for working-class people. They became subsidized, they hadn’t been subsidized before. … And so they became vertical slums that we came to associate with public housing. …
The vacancies in the white projects were created primarily by the Federal Housing Administration program to suburbanize America, and the Federal Housing Administration subsidized mass production builders to create subdivisions that were “white-only” and they subsidized the families who were living in the white housing projects as well as whites who were living elsewhere in the central city to move out of the central cities and into these white-only suburbs. So it was the Federal Housing Administration that depopulated public housing of white families, while the public housing authorities were charged with the responsibility of housing African-Americans who were increasingly too poor to pay the full cost of their rent.
Radio producers Sam Briger and Thea Chaloner and Web producers Bridget Bentz and Molly Seavy-Nesper contributed to this story.
PVHH Board member demographics
As of the summer of 2024, Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity has 15 active members of the Board, which governs the organization. Current board members have been, on average, active volunteers with our affiliate for 4.3 years. Half were involved in some volunteer or professional capacity prior to joining the board, while the other half were first engaged as Board members.
