Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco’s Affordable Housing Program Investments in Arizona: Economic and Social Impact January 2026
Morrison Institute for Public Policy Erica Quintana, Senior Research Analyst Alison Cook-Davis, Director of Research
L. William Seidman Institute Eva Madly, Research Economist Anthony Evans, Center Director
Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................1 Key Takeaways...........................................................................................................................2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................3 Background and Investment in Arizona .......................................................................................3 Challenges in Developing Affordable Housing.............................................................................4 Economic Impact of Investments in Arizona ................................................................................5 Vision to Reality: Two Phoenix Developments ............................................................................9 Urban Living on Fillmore: Workforce Affordable Housing .................................................9 Acacia Heights Apartments Phase I: Senior Affordable Housing ....................................14 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................19 Methods ....................................................................................................................................19 Endnotes...................................................................................................................................22
This research was sponsored by the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (FHLBank San Francisco). 1
Key Takeaways •
Substantial Investment and Output: The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco awarded $117.5 million in Affordable Housing Program (AHP) grants to Arizona over 20 years, resulting in 7,056 income-restricted units statewide and 2,374 units in Maricopa County alone.
•
Economic Impact: These investments added $82.7 million to Arizona’s gross domestic product (GDP) and $30.2 million to Maricopa County’s GDP, while generating 1,040 jobyears statewide and 301 job-years in Maricopa County.
•
Labor Income Growth: AHP investments increased labor income by $48.2 million statewide and $19.3 million in Maricopa County, supporting wages and salaries across construction and related industries.
•
Critical Role of Partnerships and Services: Developers emphasized the importance of strong partnerships and flexible funding sources like AHP grants, while resident services specialists play a vital role in creating supportive communities through programs, events, and resource connections.
•
Persistent Development Barriers: Arizona’s legal and regulatory environment— including prohibitions on rent control and inclusionary zoning—combined with zoning restrictions, parking minimums, and Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) opposition, continues to hinder affordable housing development.
•
Human-Centered Impact: Two Phoenix developments—Urban Living on Fillmore and Acacia Heights Apartments—illustrate how affordable housing improves lives by providing workforce housing near employment centers and fostering social connection for seniors through multigenerational design.
•
Strategic Design and Sustainability: Strategic location and design features of developments allow residents greater access to public transit, healthcare facilities, and neighborhood amenities such as schools and libraries. Thoughtful design and inclusion of sustainability measures such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Certified (NIMBY-certified) construction and xeriscaping lead to aesthetically beautiful developments and lower utility costs for residents.
•
Community Building Beyond Construction: Resident services specialists play an important role in creating vibrant communities by organizing events, offering classes, and connecting residents to essential resources like food programs and job assistance. These functions make a significant impact on the quality of residents’ experiences living in an affordable housing development.
2
Introduction Affordable housing offers numerous benefits to households, including improved health outcomes, reduced stress, and enhanced mental well-being. Housing instability is linked to adverse health outcomes, including depression and asthma.1 However, when households are able to access affordable housing, they can spend more on food and healthcare. 2 Affordable housing provides benefits to surrounding communities as well. Specifically, affordable housing can support community cohesion by offering shared spaces for social connections and peer support.3 It also helps prevent displacement, which can help maintain the cultural and economic diversity of an urban neighborhood. 4 While the benefits of housing are well understood, developing sufficient affordable housing in Phoenix remains difficult. There are significant financial and regulatory hurdles to contend with. Multiple, complex funding streams are typically necessary to build affordable housing, and managing the grant requirements of different capital streams for affordable housing requires developers to pay careful attention to deadlines, income restrictions for residents, size requirements for units, and the type or size of the units that will work in a development to satisfy grant requirements. Additionally, developers must navigate complex regulatory and compliance requirements, like inspections and audits from different sources of funding to support development. In Arizona, there are also legal and regulatory barriers that further complicate the development of affordable housing. Arizona prohibits rent control and mandatory inclusionary zoning, a housing policy that requires developers to set aside a specific percentage of units in new residential developments as affordable housing, typically for low- to moderate-income households. 5 This limits governments’ ability to incentivize affordable housing. Zoning typically favors single-family homes and the Private Property Rights Protection Act discourages rezoning that could reduce property values.6
Background and Investment in Arizona The Federal Home Loan Bank system was established in 1932 during the Great Depression to extend loans to financial institutions and support home financing.7 The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (FHLBank San Francisco) was officially formed in 1946 when the Los Angeles and Portland banks merged. The FHLBank San Francisco serves California, Arizona, and Nevada and provides liquidity and support for affordable housing and economic development.8 The Affordable Housing Program (AHP) from the FHLBank San Francisco is a cornerstone initiative intended to expand access to affordable housing across Arizona, California, and Nevada. To qualify for funding, applicants must demonstrate a need for subsidy as well as developmental and operational feasibility. Applications are ranked based on a scoring process detailed each year in the AHP application package and allocations are made to the highestranking projects each year until all funds have been allocated. 9 Once awarded, projects have four years to complete construction and draw down AHP funds. Compliance is closely 3
monitored, and developers are required to ensure that the property remains affordable and adheres to AHP requirements for 15 years after receiving AHP grants. 10 Between 2003 and 2022, FHLBank San Francisco awarded $117.5 million in AHP grants in Arizona for the construction or rehabilitation of multifamily housing, resulting in 7,056 incomerestricted units. Out of these funds, $22.8 million was awarded for housing units located in Maricopa County between 2013 and 2022, resulting in 2,374 income-restricted units. All AHP Affordable Housing Developments in Arizona 2003-2022
Challenges in Developing Affordable Housing Developing multi-family affordable housing in Arizona presents a complex array of challenges that hinder the state’s ability to meet its growing housing needs. According to the Morrison Institute for Public Policy’s 2022 report, Housing Arizona: Meeting Development Challenges to Arizona’s Housing Shortage, zoning restrictions are among the most significant barriers. Many municipalities zone over half of their land for single-family use, leaving limited space for higherdensity housing. Developers must often undergo lengthy rezoning processes, sometimes lasting 4
up to two years, which can jeopardize critical funding sources like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). 11 Even when land is zoned appropriately, development standards such as parking minimums and setback requirements add substantial costs and reduce the number of units that can be built. These standards are especially burdensome for projects located near public transit, where reduced parking requirements could otherwise support more efficient land use. Community opposition, commonly referred to as Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) sentiment, further complicates development. Concerns about property values, increased density, and the perceived impact of affordable housing tenants often lead to public hearings and political pressure that delay or derail projects. Developers report that even well-designed, communityintegrated projects face resistance, particularly in neighborhoods with organized homeowner associations.12 Financing is another major hurdle. Affordable housing developments typically require multiple layers of funding, including federal, state, and local sources. Each funding stream comes with its own compliance and reporting requirements, increasing administrative burden and risk. The LIHTC program, while essential, is highly competitive and insufficient to meet demand. In 2022, fewer than half of Arizona’s LIHTC applications were funded.13 Despite these persistent barriers, strategic investments in affordable housing address critical supply shortages, providing stable homes for residents that may not otherwise be able to afford them, while also generating significant economic benefits for Arizona’s communities. This report presents both the economic impacts associated with FHLBank San Francisco AHP investments in Arizona as well as the qualitative, human-centric impact that affordable housing has for residents.
Economic Impact of Investments in Arizona To better understand the multiple ways in which funding from the FHLBank San Francisco’s Affordable Housing Project investments (AHP) has impacted Arizona’s economy, an economic impact analysis was performed. An economic impact analysis is an effective way of demonstrating the total contribution that a project makes to the state or regional economy and includes direct, indirect, and induced impacts. See Methods for more information about the approach used to estimate the economic impact of investments.
5
Types of Economic Impacts Considered Direct impacts: Impacts related to building development and construction, such as material costs, as well as direct construction-related workers. Indirect impacts: Second-order expenditures and jobs that are created as a result of the initial “injection” of capital and hiring of new workers. Multiplier impacts represent additional economic wealth created in the supply chain, such as businesses providing services in support of the new project. Induced impacts: The rise in personal income from new employees and subsequent participation in the economy. Multiplier impacts: The sum of indirect and induced impacts represents multiplier impacts. Total economic impacts: The sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts represents the total economic impacts. Between 2003 and 2022, FHLBank San Francisco awarded $117.5 million in AHP grants in Arizona for the construction or rehabilitation of multifamily housing. Out of these funds, $22.8 million was awarded for housing units located in Maricopa County between 2013 and 2022.
Statewide estimates of impact The following table (Table 1) details gross domestic product (GDP) impacts by direct and multiplier effects. The breakdown of total impacts into direct and multiplier effects is only available using IMPLAN. Direct and multiplier effects are not available for the REMI model’s results for the State of Arizona. Table 1: Cumulative GDP Impacts- State of Arizona and Maricopa County Total Effects Direct Effects Multiplier Effects Total Effects
Arizona (20 years) Maricopa County (10 years)
$82.7 million $10.4 million $19.8 million $30.2 million
Source: REMI model of Arizona and IMPLAN model of Maricopa County economies
FHLBank San Francisco’s AHP investments added $82.7 million to Arizona’s State GDP between 2003 and 2022. Between 2013 and 2022, investments in Arizona led to more than $30.2 million in total effects in state GDP generated within Maricopa County.
6
Table 2: Average Annual GDP Impacts- State of Arizona and Maricopa County Total Effects Direct Effects Multiplier Effects Total Effects
Arizona (20 years) Maricopa County (10 years)
$4.1 million $1.0 million $2.0 million $3.0 million
Source: REMI model of Arizona and IMPLAN model of Maricopa County economies
Table 2 shows the annual average addition to State GDP in Arizona between 2003 and 2022 was $4.1 million and the annual average addition to State GDP produced within Maricopa County between 2013 and 2022 amounted to $3.0 million.
Employment impact Table 3 shows cumulative and average annual employment impacts for the State of Arizona and Maricopa County. Table 3: Cumulative Employment Impacts: Arizona and Maricopa County (Job-Years) Direct Effects Multiplier Effects Total Effects Direct Effects Multiplier Effects Total Effects
Arizona (20 years)
Maricopa County (10 years)
485 555 1,040 113 188 301
Source: REMI model of Arizona and IMPLAN model of Maricopa County economies
FHLBank San Francisco’s AHP investments created and supported a total employment impact of 1,040 job-years in Arizona between 2003 and 2022. The total employment impact for Maricopa County was 301 job-years between 2013 and 2022. Table 4 shows the annual average jobs supported were 52 Arizona jobs and 30 Maricopa County jobs.
7
Table 4: Average Annual Employment Impacts: Arizona and Maricopa County (Jobs) Direct Effects Multiplier Effects Total Effects Direct Effects Multiplier Effects Total Effects
Arizona (20 years)
Maricopa County (10 years)
Source: REMI model of Arizona and IMPLAN model of Maricopa County economies
24 28 52 11 19 30
Jobs versus “Job-Years” It is important to distinguish the term “job-years” from “jobs” in the long-term economic impact analysis. A job-year is equivalent to one person having a full-time job for one full year. For example, a person employed at a company for ten consecutive years represents a single job but ten job-years of employment. The job count includes direct construction employment onsite, jobs supported in businesses or government agencies that supply goods and services to the construction sector, and the induced employment stemming from the expenditures of all these workers as consumers. The top industries impacted by AHP investments include construction, support activities for construction (e.g., concrete product manufacturing, ready-mix concrete manufacturing, cement manufacturing, sand and gravel mining, veneer and plywood manufacturing, window and door manufacturing), retail, and wholesale. Of the total Arizona employment impact, 485 were direct jobs and 555 were multiplier jobs. Of the total Maricopa County employment impact, 113 were direct jobs and 188 were multiplier jobs.
Labor income impact Table 5 shows detailed labor income impacts, separating direct and multiplier effects. However, this level of detail is only available when using IMPLAN. As a result, they are not shown for the State of Arizona. Labor Income Labor Income: This is a measure of income, including the following components: (a) the combined total wages and salaries of workers; (b) the contributions by employers to worker social security and benefit accounts; and (c) the combined proprietor’s earnings by owners of small businesses.
8
Table 5: Cumulative Labor Income Impacts- State of Arizona and Maricopa County Total Effects Direct Effects Multiplier Effects Total Effects
Arizona (20 years) Maricopa County (10 years)
$48.2 million $ 7.1 million $ 12.2 million $19.3 million
Source: REMI model of Arizona and IMPLAN model of Maricopa County economies
FHLBank San Francisco’s AHP investments have increased labor income in Arizona by approximately $48.2 million between 2003 and 2022. Labor income to Maricopa County residents has risen by $19.3 million between 2013 and 2022. Table 6: Average Annual Labor Income Impacts - State of Arizona and Maricopa County Total Effects Direct Effects Multiplier Effects Total Effects
Arizona (20 years) Maricopa County (10 years)
$2.4 million $ 0.7 million $ 1.2 million $1.9 million
Source: REMI model of Arizona and IMPLAN model of Maricopa County economies
The annual average addition to labor income from FHLBank San Francisco’s AHP investments was $2.4 million per year for Arizona, and $1.9 million per year in Maricopa County (see Table 6). These additions to aggregate labor income include the wages and salaries paid in the newly created jobs and any salary appreciation that accrues across the economy as the induced economic activity creates additional demands for products and services.
Vision to Reality: Two Phoenix Developments Urban Living on Fillmore: Workforce Affordable Housing Urban Living on Fillmore (ULF) is an affordable housing development focusing on providing workforce family housing in the Central City Village in downtown Phoenix. The property provides one-, two-, and three-bedroom units for families employed in downtown Phoenix. ULF provides 63 units of affordable housing for households earning between 40% and 60% of the area median income (AMI), which is $109,600 for ULF’s location. To qualify for a unit, a resident’s income must fall between $43,840 and $65,760. Additionally, there are some priority households that are considered first for units at ULF. These priority conditions include households that are currently homeless, but have adequate income, households that are currently living in an over-occupancy situation, households that are in non-subsidized housing whose rent is greater than 30% of their annual income, and households that do not currently have a lease or mortgage in their name.14 The ULF property features a playground, a fitness center, community-wide Wi-Fi, and bicycle storage. Situated just half a mile from Roosevelt Row, Urban Living on Fillmore provides 9
residents with a thriving, walkable community near restaurants and amenities (see map below for some highlighted amenities near ULF). ULF is also situated in the heart of the First Friday Art Walk hosted in downtown Phoenix, allowing access to art and exposure to artists and rich cultural experiences. ULF was developed using Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED-certified) construction and xeriscape landscaping. These features help reduce utility costs for residents.15 ULF is located near the Metro Light rail, allowing residents to more easily access transportation to employment, schools, healthcare, and entertainment. This is especially important for the households at ULF, since it is affordable housing specifically for the workforce. In general, the families that live at ULF are employed by businesses in the downtown Phoenix area, but they typically do not earn enough to afford traditional housing near their employment. Workers in hospitality, healthcare, and education often struggle to afford market-rate housing in central Phoenix. According to Morrison Institute’s 2025 State of Housing in Arizona report, a minimum wage worker would need to work 76 hours per week to afford a one-bedroom apartment.16 ULF also helps downtown employers retain workers who would not be able to afford to live in the area. Notably, before the construction of ULF in 2019, there had been no new affordable housing developments in downtown Phoenix since 2013.17 The construction of ULF required over $22 million in funding from multiple funding sources, including:18 • • • • •
Low-income Housing Tax Credit equity City of Phoenix HOME funds Federal Home Loan Bank San Francisco Affordable Housing Program grant ($823,590) Loans from LISC and seller carryback financing Deferred developer fees
Pictured: Urban Living on Fillmore
10
Native American Connections The developing organization for ULF was Native American Connections (NAC). NAC was founded in 1972 and its mission is to improve the lives of individuals and families by reducing health disparities and providing affordable housing to communities it serves. NAC emphasizes interconnectedness, belonging, and respect for all individuals. While NAC serves a diverse population, a primary focus of the organization is to serve tribal communities and urban Native Americans. NAC currently provides over 1,000 units of affordable income-based housing.19,20 In an interview with former president and CEO of NAC, Dede Devine, she explained that NAC has owned the land that ULF is built on for many years and it used to be a service site where NAC provided behavioral health services. When NAC moved its behavioral health services to a different location, they leased the site to other nonprofits until the building needed too many repairs and upgrades. When NAC decided to redevelop the land for the purpose of affordable housing, Devine submitted a LIHTC application and was able to secure AHP funds to help fill the gaps. When speaking about the importance of AHP funds, she said, “I don’t think we have done any LIHTC project without having AHP, it was an important key gap source of funding.” Allowing NAC to serve lower income residents and plan for needed supportive services. With its location on the light rail and surrounded by high rents in downtown Phoenix, Devine said it was never difficult to get the units at ULF leased up. “You’re in development for two years and in construction for a year, people see your logo, and they know what you’re building. They ask to be put on the waiting list so the development kind of markets itself.” Devine recalled that the property was fully leased within 30 days of opening. According to Jennifer Jennings, the Senior Director of Real Estate Development, “ULF is the number one requested property that NAC has,” and people don’t typically move out once they move in. Jennings added that because residents typically stay once they move in, there is a lower vacancy rate and that in the past year, seven units were vacated out of a 63-unit property. Development partners and community integration Joe Keeper, the former Director of Real Estate Development at NAC, and the project manager on behalf of NAC at the time of ULF’s construction, stressed the importance of partnerships and relationships when building affordable housing. He said, “As the developer, you are on the hook for everything and responsible for others’ mistakes as well as any material cost increases.” He emphasized that this is why people in the affordable housing development space tend to work with others they have worked with before and trust. Part of this, Keeper says, is because the relationships you form to accomplish development of a property may be short-term but they are intense, and it’s important to maintain a strong working relationship to ensure that things are on schedule and that everyone can support each other and engage in creative problem-solving if plans goes awry. 11
When asked about NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) which is a common reaction to affordable housing developments, Joe Keeper said it is always present, but says, “[you] can’t shy away from who you are and what you do [and] you have to be available for the hard questions and accommodating where you can, by altering some design features or security features, for example.” Ongoing challenges of property management The work doesn’t end after the property is built and residents move in. Property managers and resident services specialists put in a lot of time, effort, and care into making the property feel like a supportive community. Scott Sinon, the former property manager at ULF, described how hard he worked to help families complete their applications or recertification packets so they are able to maintain housing. He says, “I didn’t just have them take the application and leave because I tried that and they wouldn’t give me everything I needed, or we would miss times and be off schedule. So I would set an appointment date.” He noted those appointments could take some time to work through everything, but he tried to help the process be as painless as possible. For example, if the resident was a mom with 4 kids, he would give the kids toys to play with and snacks so he could work with the mom to complete the paperwork to renew their lease on time. The resident services specialist for ULF, Cher Hayou, wears many hats in her role, including planning community-wide events, organizing food supports for residents, and helping the new property manager meet the residents and adjust to her role. Hayou shared that she also helps people apply for scholarships for school, and recently helped one of the residents apply for jobs and interview prep and also helped her 16-year-old son apply for jobs as well. She also arranges for residents to receive free haircuts and free phones by working with local businesses. In addition to classes that are required by different funding streams, such as financial literacy classes like “Savings 101” Hayou plans holiday parties, Thanksgiving potlucks, or even just lends her presence in the community space when teens want to hang out, do homework, and play board games. Resident perspectives The residents were incredibly complimentary and appreciative of ULF and especially of the current resident service specialist, Cher Hayou. All of the residents interviewed were grateful and appreciative of their unit at ULF and the support services offered through ULF. Each resident shared their story and experiences living at ULF and all residents indicated they intended to remain at ULF for at least the next five years. One resident said that he was living previously in an affordable housing development that was set to be demolished and the ULF property manager at the time, Scott Sinon, reached out to him and helped him apply and move into ULF. When asked about friendships with other residents in the building, this resident proudly mentioned knowing everyone in the building because he walks indoors for exercise, and shared that he also enjoys helping his neighbors. For example, he helps one neighbor who doesn’t speak English by translating for her and he helps some of the older residents transport heavy items up to their units. When asked about the services provided at ULF, this resident praised the resident services specialist by saying she 12
prioritizes the residents and always makes time for them, “no matter if she’s doing something, we come first.” He talked about how he would love to take computer literacy classes at ULF and she tried to get that started, but there wasn’t anyone to lead the classes so instead, she helped him set up an email account and showed him how to use it. This resident said he hopes to still be living at ULF in five years. Another resident, who has lived at ULF for six years, shared her gratitude and appreciation for her apartment at ULF and described that her apartment before ULF had mold growing throughout the unit and management wouldn’t address it. The mold was aggravating her health problems and she was excited when she heard from ULF that her name was next on the waitlist. She emphasized that her apartment is beautiful and said, “I come here and I got this amazing apartment, I’ve never had [this] even as a young girl.” This resident also praised the resident services specialist and said, “Cher, I cannot say enough about her she’s just so awesome, and she’s so understanding, she’s so giving, she’s out there with the residents, she knows a little bit about every resident.” This resident described how she recently lost her job and Cher has been helping her fill out applications and apply for utility assistance through a local utility company, and in the past, helped her apply for rental assistance. This resident says that she hopes to still be living at ULF in five years. During an interview a third resident shared that she was living by herself in a one-bedroom apartment and when she adopted four kids, she needed a bigger place. She shared that she used to work at ULF as a janitor and was very happy to find out she was accepted from the waitlist for an apartment in the building. This resident said that she would love to be able to afford a house with a backyard, but houses are just too expensive. When asked her thoughts about the location of ULF, she said that she loves being right by the light rail. Her kids can get to school and they can go around town to get soda or pizza. She also mentioned it’s nice that there are a lot of parks around and the library is close on the light rail too. She appreciates the accessibility because she uses the light rail and the bus to get around and so do her kids. This resident also hopes to be living at ULF in five years. Below is a table that shows some of the neighborhood characteristics based on the zip code of ULF. This can provide context for how the ULF neighborhood compares to Maricopa County. Surrounding ULF Neighborhood Characteristics Compared to Maricopa County Characteristics Median Household Income Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Employment Rate Poverty rate Mean travel time to work
85003 zip code $47,337 44.8% 57.9% 26.8% 19.7 minutes
Maricopa County $87,048 37% 65.2% 10.9% 26.3 minutes
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for 85003 http://censusreporter.org/profiles/86000US85003-85003/
13
Map of Urban Living on Fillmore and Surrounding Neighborhood Amenities Within One Mile
Acacia Heights Apartments Phase I: Senior Affordable Housing Acacia Heights Apartments Phase I, completed in 2021, provides 78 units of affordable housing for seniors. To qualify for a unit, at least one applicant must be 62 or older and must have income between 40% and 60% of the area median income, which is $109,600. It has on-site parking for residents with cars, a community room, a computer lab, and outdoor patios where residents can gather. Located in the Pierson Place Historic District of Phoenix, it is part of a larger multi-phase initiative in partnership with Catholic Charities to transform the land into a multi-generational community for both seniors and families.
14
Pictured: Acacia Heights Apartments Phase I
AllThrive 365 The developing organization for Acacia Heights Apartments Phase I (AHA I) is AllThrive 365, formerly Foundation for Senior Living. AllThrive 365 provides support to individuals through the three pillars of health, housing, and social connection. AllThrive 365 develops and manages affordable housing across Arizona, with a focus on housing for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and families facing financial difficulties. 21 Acacia Heights Apartments Phase I is part of a plan that will involve building other properties on the same lot. Acacia Heights Phase II and Phase III are geared towards family housing. The resulting development will be multigenerational housing. There is evidence that intergenerational housing models and programs that allow for seniors to interact with youth yield benefits in higher physical functioning, decreases in loneliness, and decreases in depressive symptoms for older adults. 22 Elena Burr, explained that this approach was intentional during an interview about the property. She stated, “What you’ll find with most of AllThrive 365’s apartment communities is that the land was purposely chosen close to essential services such as transportation and health care facilities, including hospitals. There is also an effort to be near elementary schools and other places where children gather, because we understand the social and emotional impact that hearing kids laugh and play right across the street has on our residents. Creating a project like this, where intergenerational living truly comes to life, is something very special.” The communications director noted that many residents are single or widowed and often live alone without nearby family. She emphasized that fostering community is a priority, and features 15
such as a shared barbecue area and playground between senior and multifamily housing help encourage interaction and build meaningful connections that enhance quality of life. To see some of the neighborhood amenities surrounding AHA, refer to the map below. Map of Acacia Heights Apartments and Surrounding Neighborhood Amenities Within One Mile
Another way AllThrive 365 strengthens community is by promoting volunteerism. At Acacia Heights Apartments, a robust, volunteer-led food program operates through a partnership with a local food bank. Residents also share their talents by teaching crafts to others. “At one of our properties we could have someone leading beadwork, while another is teaching sewing,” Burr said. In an interview with Steve Hastings, the Chief of Real Estate Services for AllThrive 365, he talked about the difficulty of building affordable housing. He discussed the process those interested in building affordable housing have to follow such as applying for LIHTC funding and multiple other sources of funding. He also mentioned the balancing act for all of the units in the development because different funding streams have different requirements for rent and requirements of residents to qualify for a unit. For this property, the two main programs are LIHTC and the Federal HOME program. He says, “You’re doing this high wire act and you gotta pull it all together.” Hastings says the balancing act is what makes the Affordable Housing Program dollars from FHLBank San Francisco so wonderful. Hastings says, “[It’s] the most amazing grant you can get. It’s flexible. It’s patient. They’re like the adults in the room.”
16
Funding The construction of AHA required over $19 million in funding from multiple funding sources including: • • • • •
Low-income Housing Tax Credit equity City of Phoenix HOME funds Federal Home Loan Bank San Francisco Affordable Housing Program grant ($800,000) Loans Owner equity (from AllThrive 365)
The importance of partnerships In his interview, the Chief of Real Estate Services for AllThrive 365, Steve Hastings, discusses how important it is to have the right connections, relationships, and partnerships when trying to build affordable housing. He says, “You need to have somebody on your team who either knows the city council members and planning committee or knows how to get in contact with them.” He goes on to explain that it is difficult to get the right permits at the right time for development and to get the right zoning approvals. Hastings said they were interested in having a specific density for Acacia Heights Apartments and described a few steps AllThrive 365 took to help the community feel heard and more comfortable with the affordable housing development and density. AllThrive 365 hired an attorney who was great at managing crowds and people, adding that she listens to feedback from the community. Another step was that AllThrive 365 and the architectural firm (Architectural Resource Team) responsible for AHA’s design asked for community input on the design of the building and incorporated feedback where they could. Another step to obtaining community approval was to have representatives from AllThrive 365 walk around the neighborhood to deliver flyers and provide contact information in case they had questions. Hastings said that it’s tough because everybody imagines affordable housing to be like the infamous public housing from the 1940’s and 1950’s, so they are always working on changing the image of what affordable housing can be. He also noted, “We never build something that we wouldn’t want to live in.” COVID’s unique challenges Steve Hastings described the unique set of challenges that arose while building during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hastings explained that people are in close confines during construction and there were a few times where work had to stop because the construction staff became ill, leading to quarantines for the workers for two weeks. He says that it was particularly difficult because affordable housing developments require hard deadlines and the construction has to be completed by a specific time to remain in compliance with funding requirements. Another unique challenge in the Acacia Heights Apartments construction was due to supply chain issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acacia Heights Apartments is a four-story building with elevators. Hastings relayed that during COVID-19, the vertical elevator rails, “Got stuck in San Diego and so we literally had to send a truck over to San Diego to pick them up.” Staff had to go to the port and ask for the elevator rails to be found. Then, after getting the elevator rails
17
back to Phoenix, the workers who were building the elevator got sick with COVID-19 which, in turn, caused another 2-3-week delay. Resident perspectives The residents had unique situations and stories that led them to live in Acacia Heights Apartments. One resident was living in a small community with separate individual condos, and when she lost her job during the COVID-19 pandemic, she started looking for a more affordable living situation. She found Acacia Heights Apartments and says it’s so important that the rent is affordable, especially for senior citizens who rely on their social security income. The resident informed researchers that rent is based on a resident’s social security check, so it is helpful to know after recertification every year how much money the residents will have to budget for other needs after accounting for rent. She also mentioned that, “It really is a community, a beloved community,” and that everyone takes care of each other. She gave an example where she noticed that some of the other residents didn’t have transportation to a nearby grocery store on senior citizen discount day, so she asked the resident services coordinator to arrange rides for those residents, and now the residents can sign up for rides and get to the grocery store and access senior citizen discounts for groceries. When asked what she expected her housing situation to look like in five years, she responded that she was planning on moving with her daughter to Las Vegas within the next five years. Prior to living at Acacia Heights Apartments, one resident said she was living with her partner and her mother, and between the three of them they were able to afford their own place. However, she decided that her mother needed more intensive care and as a result, she and her partner could no longer afford their own place until they found Acacia Heights Apartments. She says that even with the affordable rent, it is still tough to budget their social security checks to make them last all month. When asked what she expected her housing situation to look like in five years, she responded that she expected her and her partner would still be living in Acacia Heights Apartments. Another resident decided to give her house to her youngest daughter, who was starting a family, and she moved into Acacia Heights Apartments because they were affordable. When asked about friendships in the building, she described having close friends who all sit outside together for a cigarette. She also talked about how she and her friends in the building will sometimes ride the light rail for $1.00 to go out to eat or go to the dollar store together for entertainment. When asked what she expected her housing situation to be like in five years, she said that her son was trying to ask her to move out to California to live with his family, and she may do that, but said she would miss her friends if she moved. The table below shows some of the neighborhood characteristics based on the zip code of AHA. This can provide context for how the AHA neighborhood compares to Maricopa County.
18
Surrounding AHA I Neighborhood Characteristics Compared to Maricopa County Characteristics Median Household Income Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Employment Rate Poverty rate Mean travel time to work
85013 zip code $68,895 46.6% 72.8% 11.4% 24.7 minutes
Maricopa County $87,048 37% 65.2% 10.9% 26.3 minutes
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for 85013 http://censusreporter.org/profiles/86000US85013-85013/
Conclusion This report highlights the significant economic and social value of affordable housing investments in Arizona, particularly those investments supported by the Federal Home Loan Bank San Francisco’s Affordable Housing Program. The use of rigorous economic modeling quantified the impacts of the investments, demonstrating that the AHP investments contributed to meaningful increases in state and county-level GDP. Beyond the economic impacts, interviews with development partners and residents at Urban Living on Fillmore and Acacia Heights Apartments reveal the human-centered benefits of affordable housing. The rich interviews highlighted that these properties provide many benefits outside of just offering shelter. Residents emphasized that these housing developments foster community, provide stability, and offer peace of mind for residents that would otherwise struggle to afford housing at market rates. As Arizona continues to face housing affordability challenges, this report emphasizes the importance of sustained and expanded investment in affordable housing. The economic returns, combined with the deeply personal and community-level benefits, affirm that affordable housing is a critical component of Arizona’s housing supply.
Methods Economic impacts For this report, the Morrison Institute for Public Policy (MI) partnered with the L. William Seidman Research Institute (Seidman) to complete the economic impact analysis of FHLBank San Francisco’s affordable housing investments in Arizona over the past 20 years. Economic impacts were also calculated for Maricopa County for a shorter time period of 10 years. In addition to the direct economic impacts from the new construction projects facilitated by the affordable housing investments, second-order expenditures and jobs are created as a result of the initial “injection” of capital and hiring of new workers. These multiplier impacts represent additional economic wealth created in the supply chain, such as businesses providing services in support of the new project (indirect impacts), and through the rise in personal income from new employees (induced impacts). The sum of indirect and induced impacts represents 19
multiplier impacts, while the sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts represents the total economic impacts. While the direct impacts are related to building development and construction, the multiplier impacts occur in other sectors of the regional economy, such as construction supporting industries, retail trade, wholesale trade, and transportation. State-level economic impacts To assess the state-level impacts of AHP investments, this study uses an Arizona-specific version of the REMI regional input-output forecasting model (PI+ version 3.2.0, updated in August 2024) to produce numeric estimates of the impact on the Arizona economy of a new economic activity in the state. The REMI model has unique features that make it an excellent choice for analysis of statewide impacts over a long time period. Unlike most other models, the REMI model has been developed with dynamic capability for projections over a long-term time horizon. Other models provide a static, one-time impact. Since the FHLBank San Francisco’s AHP investments take place over several decades, the REMI model was used for its ability to provide economic impact results year-by-year over a longer time horizon. The model’s estimated impacts represent the difference between the baseline economy and the baseline economy augmented with the new project. The simulations are designed in the current application to measure the Arizona economy over the last two decades with and without the FHLBank San Francisco’s AHP projects in place. The changes in key measures of economic activity are known as the economic impacts. County-level economic impacts The county-level economic analysis uses the IMPLAN model. IMPLAN is suitable for more detailed geographic levels, such as zip codes, but is also available at the county and state levels. It uses classic, static input-output analysis in association with regional social accounting matrices and multiplier models. This report uses IMPLAN data year 2016 for analysis. The economic impacts are reported in terms of the following measures: • Total Employment: An estimate of the total number of full-time (or equivalent) jobs in the area of study, encompassing every sector and industry, and including government and farm workers. Jobs over the years can be combined into “job-years,” a long-term measure of employment.23 • Gross Domestic Product (GDP): This represents, at the state or county level, new production, sometimes called “value added.” More specifically, it is the dollar value of all goods and services produced for final demand in the state or county. It excludes the value of intermediate goods and services purchased as inputs to final production. • Labor Income: This is a measure of income, including the following components: (a) the combined total wages and salaries of workers; (b) the contributions by employers to worker social security and benefit accounts; and (c) the combined proprietors’ earnings by owners of small businesses. 20
Data on FHLBank San Francisco’s AHP projects by year, geographic area, construction start and end dates, and approved subsidy amounts were provided by FHLBank San Francisco and the Morrison Institute to Seidman for analysis. The latest available data year was 2022. All AHP investments were used to build multifamily housing units located in the State of Arizona. All monetary amounts in this report are measured in 2025 dollars unless otherwise stated. Economic impact analysis notes and limitations The economic impacts estimated in this report only measure the construction-related impacts of the AHP investments. They do not capture economic impacts once residents move into the multifamily housing units. The spending of residents on household items, retail purchases made in the area, utilities, transportation, and other activities have generated additional ongoing economic impacts. However, capturing these additional effects is beyond the scope of this report. Some economists report output or gross receipts as a measure of economic impact. However, while it is useful as a facilitating variable in the mathematical solution of regional input-output models, output is also acknowledged by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to be an upward-biased estimate of the effect of an economic activity on local area income. Value added (equivalent to State GDP) is a conceptually more precise estimate of income. This report measures economic impacts in terms of GDP at the state or county level. Qualitative impacts Additionally, MI conducted research to better understand the impact of affordable housing developments outside of what economic models capture. To do this, MI narrowed its focus on two affordable housing developments in the Phoenix Metro area that were built in the last 10 years. Specifically, MI identified the urban workforce development called Urban Living on Fillmore and the senior development called Acacia Heights Apartments. MI conducted a total of 15 interviews for this study. Interviews were conducted with individuals involved in helping to build and sustain the two affordable housing developments in Phoenix to better understand the process and challenges of building affordable housing. Individuals from this group of experts included architects, representatives from both developing organizations (AllThrive 365 and Native American Connections), property managers, and resident services specialists. Additionally, MI conducted interviews with residents from each property highlighted in the report to better understand daily life and experiences at affordable housing developments. Three current residents were interviewed from each property.
21
Endnotes Arizona Research Center for Housing Equity and Sustainability. State of Housing in Arizona. August 2024. https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-08/state-of-housing-in-arizona-mr.pdf 2 Habitat for Humanity. (n.d.). How does housing impact health? [Evidence brief]. Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://www.habitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/EvidenceBrief-How-housing-impactshealth.pdf 3 Habitat for Humanity. Evidence brief: Civil and social engagement. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://www.habitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/22-85504_USRM_EvidenceBriefCivilSocialEng_FASH-hires%20%285%29.pdf 4 Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Building Arizona: Constructing a Rental Market that Meets Demand and Serves All Arizonans. April 2021. https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/building_az_2021.pdf 5 Gentry, K., Irvine, B., Cook-Davis, A. State-Level Legal Barriers to Adopting Affordable Housing Policies in Arizona. (November 2021). https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/state-level-legal-barriersto-adopting-affordable-housing-policies-in-arizona-nov-2021.pdf 6 Gentry, K., Irvine, B., Cook-Davis, A. State-Level Legal Barriers to Adopting Affordable Housing Policies in Arizona. (November 2021). https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/state-level-legal-barriersto-adopting-affordable-housing-policies-in-arizona-nov-2021.pdf 7 Federal Reserve History. Federal Home Loan Bank Advances. Last modified October 15, 2024. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/federal-home-loan-bank-advances 8 FHLBank San Francisco. Mission and History. (n.d.). Accessed September 3, 2025. https://www.fhlbsf.com/about-us/mission-history 9 Federal Home Loan Bank San Francisco. Affordable Housing Program. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://www.fhlbsf.com/products/community-programs-grants/ahp 10 Federal Home Loan Bank San Francisco. Affordable Housing Program. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://www.fhlbsf.com/products/community-programs-grants/ahp 11 Tziganuk, A., Kurtz, L. C., Cook-Davis, A., & Hicks, A. State of housing in Arizona. (2024). Morrison Institute for Public Policy Arizona State University. https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz841/files/housing_arizona_final.pdf 12 Tziganuk, A., Kurtz, L. C., Cook-Davis, A., & Hicks, A. Housing Arizona: Meeting development challenges to Arizona’s housing shortage. (2022). Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University. Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz841/files/housing_arizona_final.pdf 13 Tziganuk, A., Kurtz, L. C., Cook-Davis, A., & Hicks, A. Housing Arizona: Meeting development challenges to Arizona’s housing shortage. (2022). Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University. Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz841/files/housing_arizona_final.pdf 14 Native American Connections. Affordable Rental Criteria. (n.d.). Accessed June 30, 2025. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nativeconnections.org/assets/pdf/Housing/rent al%20criteria-native%20american%20connections.pdf 15 Native American Connections. Urban Living on Fillmore Project Profile. (n.d.). Accessed June 30, 2025. https://dtphx.org/development/urban-living-on-fillmore 16 Arizona Research Center for Housing Equity and Sustainability. State of Housing in Arizona. (August 2025). https://issuu.com/asuwattscollege/docs/arches_-_2025_state_of_housing_in_arizona_report 17 Federal Home Loan Bank San Francisco. Affordable Housing Program (AHP) Awarded Project Data. (n.d.). FHLBank San Francisco. Accessed June 30, 2025. https://www.fhlbsf.com/products/community-programs-grants/ahp/ahp-project-info. 18 Native American Connections. Urban Living on Fillmore Project Profile. (n.d.). Accessed June 30, 2025. https://dtphx.org/development/urban-living-on-fillmore 19 Native American Connections. Housing – Get the Help You Need. (n.d.). Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.nativeconnections.org/housing/#:~:text=Housing%20%2D%20Get%20the%20Help%20You,p rograms%20you%20may%20qualify%20for. 1
22
Native American Connections. About. (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2025, from https://www.nativeconnections.org/about/ 21 AllThrive 365. (n.d.). Age with confidence: Health, housing, and connection programs. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://allthrive365.org 22 Suleman, R., & Bhatia, F. Intergenerational Housing as a Model for Improving Older-Adult Health. (2021). British Columbia Medical Journal, 63(4), 171–173. 20
23