Introduction               

State governments are central to housing reform. They can do what neither local governments nor the federal government can: preempt exclusionary zoning, align housing with transportation and environmental policy, create fiscal incentives for production, and legislate at scale.

Other policy domains have long recognized the value of state-level reforms, and actors in these domains have collaborated accordingly. Education advocates built the Partners in Education (PIE) Network. Labor organizations created the Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN). Conservative leaders established the State Policy Network (SPN) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Each connects research with advocacy, strengthens organizational capacity, and provides shared tools that magnify the impact of individual state efforts.

Housing policy professionals have not established any comparable structures. Reform efforts remain scattered—strong locally and federally but thin at the state level. This report argues for the creation of a national network that supports evidence-based, pro-housing state policy through coordination, capacity-building, and leadership development.

The barbell problem: Federal and local  weight, state-level tenuity

The structure of housing policy research and advocacy in the United States is shaped like a barbell:  weighty at the federal and local levels but thin in the middle. While state-level housing policy serves a vital connector, researchers and advocates have lacked collaboration at this key intersection. The result is a fragmented system where most legislative activity lies with the actors at the federal and local levels, which are not well- equipped to coordinate large-scale solutions.

Federal housing policy is well-developed, but its capacity for reform is constrained by the slow pace of national policymaking.

Over the past several decades, a complex ecosystem of federal programs, private-sector intermediaries, and nonprofit organizations has emerged—particularly around low-income housing.

Since the launch of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) in 1986, a professionalized housing industry has evolved to help developers, investors, and lenders navigate complicated financing rules. As such, national real estate, construction, and affordable housing groups have built significant advocacy power.

Federal advocacy power is effective at delivering large-scale, federally supported projects. But it moves slowly, and reforms require years of negotiation. Federal networks—such as those representing governors, mayors, and housing finance agencies—play important roles but remain oriented toward individual programs rather than a coordinated, pro-growth housing agenda.

Local advocacy is energetic but fragmented.

At the local level, housing advocacy is dynamic and increasingly effective. Grassroots reformers—often associated with the YIMBY movement—are reshaping land-use debates and securing zoning victories across cities. The Welcoming Neighbors Network now links local organizations through shared playbooks, case studies, and campaign templates, enabling faster replication of successful efforts.

These groups have achieved tangible wins: Minneapolis ended single-family zoning, Portland legalized ADUs citywide, and Cambridge, Seattle, and Minneapolis eliminated parking mandates. Similar coalitions have contributed to state-level victories in Connecticut, California, Minnesota, and Washington.

Despite these successes, local advocacy faces structural limitations. Land-use authority is dispersed across more than 33,000 jurisdictions, creating a patchwork of rules and resistance. Local campaigns are often restricted to zoning reform, leaving broader questions on infrastructure, permitting, and finance largely untouched. The local scale of activism makes sustained, systemic change difficult.

States are decisive but underbuilt.

States sit at the critical midpoint. Unlike cities, they control the levers that shape housing production: they can preempt exclusionary zoning, align infrastructure and environmental policy with housing goals, and deploy fiscal tools to support large-scale development. According to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, more than 20 states have recently adopted housing-focused legislation, from parking reforms to transit-oriented development requirements. Yet, compared to the federal and local levels, state advocacy remains institutionally underbuilt.

State policymaking more closely mirrors Congress than city halls. Legislatures are organized around committees, operate at slower tempos, and require sustained expertise, relationships, and technical advocacy. The process demands continuity and specialization–capacities that few housing organizations currently possess.

Without dedicated attention to the state level, housing policy remains reactive—advanced locally, funded federally, but rarely coordinated where authority and opportunity meet. Building state-level capacity is therefore not a marginal improvement; it is the missing link in a system that aspires to deliver more housing where people need it most.

Other policy domains have adapted to this reality. In education, labor, and fiscal policy, state-level organizations maintain year-round engagement with governors, legislators, and committees to shape agendas and drive implementation. National networks connect these groups, pooling data, research, and strategy while cultivating future leaders. A state level housing network could add valuable infrastructure including developing leadership pipelines and coordinating advocacy across states.

Results from stakeholder interviews

For this report, we interviewed leaders from the Housing Affordability Institute, Minnesota Housing Partnership, Housing Forward Massachusetts, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Welcoming Neighbors Network, Regional Plan Association, CA YIMBY, Metropolitan Abundance Project, Up for Growth, and Think Tennessee.

Each interview focused on three areas:

1. Current research and advocacy to advance pro-housing reforms at the state level
2. Existing mechanisms for collaboration
3. Main challenges and opportunities for scaling a supply-focused agenda through state policy

These interviews helped identify where state-level housing reform is making headways and where gaps remain:

State-level opportunity: States are emerging as a decisive arena for housing reform. Nonetheless, most advocacy capacity is concentrated at the local and national levels, leaving states without the infrastructure needed to sustain reform.

Knowledge-to-action gap: Interviews confirm a significant barrier to reform is political and procedural hurdles at the state level. Solutions lie not in technical expertise, but in broad, bipartisan persuasion and coalition. This reality underscores the need for information-driven advocacy that emphasizes relationships, trust, and coalition-building.

Fragmentation across the housing field: Progressive and market-oriented advocates often work at cross-purposes. Tenant advocates, developers, business leaders, environmentalists, and planners frequently advance competing priorities. This fragmentation undermines collective impact and weakens the movement’s influence.

State-level capacity: Some states, such as Minnesota, have organizations dedicated to advancing pro-growth housing policy at the state level, but this capacity is uneven nationwide, and especially weak in red states. The disparity makes sustained reform and peer learning across states difficult.

Cross-state learning: Even where capacity exists, the infrastructure for systematic peer learning is not yet focused on state-level policy. Several organizations emphasized the value of connecting with their peers in similar geographies or political contexts. However, these connections currently happen sporadically.

The next policy frontier: Many organizations are uncertain about the next steps in housing policy beyond zoning reforms. Without coordination, the field lacks clarity on which frontier reforms to prioritize and test, slowing momentum.

Shared policy tools: There is strong demand for vetted model legislation and standardized advocacy tools, yet most groups develop their own independently. This duplication wastes time and resources. Shared frameworks tailored to state contexts could improve efficiency and accelerate reform.

Landscape analysis of policy networks

To understand what kinds of networks already exist in housing—and where the gaps might be—we conducted a landscape analysis of policy networks across several domains. Our aim was to examine both how these networks function and what they do.

On the “how” question, we built a framework with five dimensions: governance structure, political stance, operating mode, orientation, and core strength.

On the “what” question, we assessed strategic focus, program offerings, and priority areas, as well as the balance between producing actionable tools and serving as convening platforms.

The analysis found capacity building, policy alignment and strategy, and building a knowledge infrastructure are the most common functions for both housing networks and non-housing networks. However, stark differences emerge in how housing and non-housing networks operate. (The appendix offers detailed analysis for each organization.)

Framework for examining state-level networks

Governance structure:

• Top-down: Led by a single national entity that coordinates priorities and agendas among network members.
• Bottom-up: Emergent from members with organic alignment around core shared principles.

Political stance:

• Partisan: Networks aligned with a political ideology or party platform.
• Bipartisan/Nonpartisan: Structured to include a range of ideological perspectives and prioritize shared outcomes over ideology.

Operating mode:

• Collaboration: Emphasis on peer exchange, shared learning, talent development, and consensus-building.
• Direction: Emphasis on policy guidance, implementation frameworks, and structured accountability.

Orientation:

• Role-oriented: Built to strengthen the capacity of specific positions within government or advocacy (e.g., governors’ housing advisors, state budget directors).
• Issue-oriented: Organized around advancing a particular policy area (e.g., housing production, education finance, broadband expansion).

Core strength:

• Creator: Generates original content—research, analysis, model legislation—developed in-house and can be tailored by members for their needs.
• Aggregator: Curates and synthesizes external resources to equip members with relevant data, policy examples, and legislative insights.

Capacity-building for state and local actors

Networks across policy domains prioritize building the muscles of state and local actors. Among housing policy networks, organizations often focus narrowly within their institutional roles (governors, legislators, Housing Finance Agencies, or city leaders).

• Governors: The National Governors Association (NGA) Housing Policy Advisors Institute builds skills and networks for governors’ housing advisors, giving them space to share strategies and learn from peers.
• Legislatures: The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) strengthens the legislative branch through training, databases, and peer convenings. A cross-domain organization, the network ensures lawmakers have infrastructure to legislate effectively on housing and non-housing issues.
• Housing Finance Agencies: National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) equips HFAs with compliance tools, financial guidance, and federal advocacy to execute programs like LIHTC and housing bonds.
• Municipal leaders: The National League of Cities (NLC) develops city-level leadership through technical playbooks, campaigns like the Housing Supply Accelerator, and convenings.
• Education advocates: The Partners in Education (PIE) Network builds advocacy capacity with leadership training, tracking tools, and peer convenings for state-level education reform.
• Fiscal policy analysts: The State Priorities Partnership (SPP) strengthens state fiscal policy shops through Center on Budget and Policy Priorities-driven research, training, and alignment and incubation of new state-level organizations.

Policy alignment and strategy

Among non-housing organizations,, the most effective networks combine shared values with strategic alignment tools. Housing networks, apart from WNN, are more neutral, procedural, and actor-focused—stronger on exchange and weaker on collective action.

• Housing (NGA, NCSL, and NCSHA): These networks focus more on sharing practices and aggregating knowledge than on aligning states behind a reform agenda. NLC goes further, creating shared campaigns like the Housing Supply Accelerator.
• Education (PIE): The PIE Network aligns diverse state advocacy groups around shared reform principles (equity, accountability, educator excellence), while leaving room for ideological diversity.
• Economy (EARN): Anchored in a progressive lens, EARN coordinates labor and equity-focused research and campaigns across states.
• Fiscal policy (SPP): The SPP aligns state policy shops around progressive tax and budget reforms, coordinated by CBPP.
• Conservative policy (SPN, ALEC): These networks are explicitly ideological—SPN builds a durable conservative think tank infrastructure, and ALEC creates model legislation to push reforms across statehouses.
• Progressive policy (SiX): Working with progressive Provides progressive legislators with aligned policy playbooks, comms guidance, and campaign strategy.

Knowledge infrastructure

Stronger networks outside of housing policy excel as creators; they facilitate knowledge creation through model bills, tax models, and advocacy campaigns. In contrast, housing networks are more often aggregators—members and leaders catalogue legislation and research rather than produce it.

Examples of networks in aggregator roles:

• NCSL & NGA aggregate state practices and legislative trends.
• PIE aggregates education policy trends and convenes advocates to discuss action.
• SPN aggregates conservative policy victories for replication.

Examples of networks in creator roles:

• NCSHA develops technical guidance and compliance documents.
• EARN and SPP produce original state-level research and tax models.
• ALEC and SiX generate model legislation and messaging playbooks.
• NLC creates field guides tailored to cities.

Operating modes

Housing networks are collaboration-heavy and direction-light. Non-housing networks demonstrate that prescription—not just exchange—is key to scaling reforms.

• Collaboration: NGA, NCSL, PIE, EARN, and NLC rely heavily on peer learning, convenings, and coalition building.
• Direction: NCSHA, ALEC, SiX, and to some extent SPN and SPP, provide prescriptive policy resources (model bills, recommended practices, strategic coaching).

Role of ideology

Housing networks avoid ideological alignment, presenting themselves as bipartisan capacity builders. By contrast, successful education, economic, and fiscal networks achieve policy traction by choosing a stance, or at least a shared value frame.

• Bipartisan/Nonpartisan: NGA, NCSL, NCSHA, NLC, PIE (deliberately broad tent).
• Progressive: EARN, SPP, SiX (worker power, equity, racial justice).
• Conservative: SPN, ALEC (free markets, deregulation, limited government).

Main takeaways

Housing networks are role specific. Most national housing networks focus on institutions or actors—governors, mayors, legislators, or finance agencies.

They are effective at aggregating knowledge but rarely generate original ideas or align stakeholders around reforms.

Non-housing networks demonstrate durable influence. Networks such as ALEC, SiX, EARN, and SPN show how alignment, original content, and strategic direction can translate ideas into legislation and campaigns at scale.

A successful state-level housing network would move beyond convening and cataloguing to a structure that integrates capacity building, value setting, research, policy design, advocacy strategy, and collective alignment across states.

A dedicated state housing policy network for supply-oriented reforms

A dedicated network focused on state-level policy could add significant value to the pro-housing reform agenda. Such a network could be housed within an existing organization that now operates primarily at the federal or local level, or it could be established as a new entity with governance driven by its members.

Core functions

Our interviews point to a set of core functions that are essential for such a network. Other elements—such as governance structure, shared values, and near-term outputs—should be defined in the next phase of this work, informed by funders, state-level organizations, advocates, policy groups, and state leaders.

Capacity building

A national network can expand state-level capacity by drawing more actors into the policymaking arena. This includes local, state, and national organizations that play different roles—advocacy, research, business, funding, or grassroots organizing—and focusing their efforts on state-level reform. It can also bring existing state-based entities into the housing policy domain to broaden reach and influence.

Shaping collective values and agendas

As with education reform, pro-housing reforms succeed when they unite coalitions across ideological divides. A network can align members around shared values, set medium- and long-term priorities, and establish a common agenda for advancing housing growth.

Talent development

The network can strengthen leadership by offering professional development, peer consultations, and institutional support. Equally important, it can build a pipeline of policy talent by preparing leaders of member organizations to move into roles in governors’ offices, legislatures, and housing agencies.

Learning

The network can foster peer exchange, share resources—research, data, policy portals, messaging tools, advocacy strategies, and model legislation—and accelerate the adaptation of proven practices across states.

Network structure and governance

The network should be inclusive and pragmatic, designed to serve a wide range of organizations with different ideological perspectives but a shared commitment to abundant housing. Experience in states like Minnesota and Oregon shows that durable reform depends on coalitions that bridge differences—bringing together developers, tenant advocates, business leaders, and community organizations.

While details should be refined with input from prospective members, funders, and state leaders, our research and interviews suggest several guiding principles:

Governance

In other policy domains, the most successful networks are driven by member buy-in and participation but may rely on a central entity setting the agenda. In the pro-housing space, where coordination and coalition-building are essential, a bottom-up model would be stronger. Member organizations should serve on the board and help shape the network’s direction.

Political stance

The network should be nonpartisan but explicit about its core values. Members should commit to supply-oriented housing reforms, even while approaching the issue from different ideological perspectives.

Operating mode

The balance between collaboration and direction will depend on funding and the network’s maturity. At the outset, collaboration may be the most effective mode, given the number of organizations already active at the local level. Over time, as the network incubates state-level research and advocacy capacity, it may need to take a stronger directional role by providing policy guidance and implementation frameworks.

Orientation

Unlike actor-oriented networks that serve institutions (e.g., governors or legislatures), this should be an issue-oriented network uniting a broad array of actors around housing growth.

Core strength

The network’s immediate value lies in aggregating and curating resources—research, analysis, model legislation, and communications tools—to serve its members. Over time, as funding and capacity grow, the network can take on original content creation independently, or through its members, to meet evolving needs. 

Member obligations

Membership should be open and free, determined by a membership committee.[MG12]  It should have minimal financial burden on participants. The value of the network will come from high-quality data, tools, and coordination, sustained by philanthropic and institutional funding.

In return, members must commit to more than affiliation. They should uphold shared values, participate actively in the network’s activities, and contribute knowledge, expertise, and resources that would strengthen the collective effort.

Regional and National Integration

Each state operates in a distinct political and economic context, but housing challenges cut across borders. The network should promote regional collaboration among neighboring states while also coordinating nationally on federal policies that shape state housing authority. This dual approach ensures lessons are both tailored and scalable.

Implementation roadmap

The launch of a state policy-focused housing network must be deliberately designed as a vehicle to replicate the success seen in other policy domains. Just as the education reform community built durable capacity through the PIE Network, this effort should be anchored in strategy, coalition-building, and shared principles that can turn scattered initiatives into sustained state-level impact. The objective is not activity for its own sake, but for construction of infrastructure to advance pro-housing reforms at the state level.

Phase One: Foundation Building

• Establish a coordinating body with dedicated staff, either within an existing organization or as a new entity.
• Build digital platforms to support exchange and collaboration.
• Convene stakeholders to develop shared values, principles, governance, and first-year goals.

Phase Two: Capacity Development

• Deepen collaboration through regular convenings.
• Launch working groups on priority policy areas (e.g., permitting, infrastructure finance) and core network functions (membership, fundraising, programming).
• Begin systematic cross-state policy tracking and introduce programs that strengthen member organizations.

Phase Three: Strategic Coordination

• Set a five-year agenda for the network with clear metrics for success.
• Build advanced coalition- and messaging-support programs.
• Establish mentorship pipelines linking established organizations with emerging ones.
• Develop rapid-response mechanisms to seize policy opportunities and counter threats.
• Extend and standardize cross-state tracking of housing policy outcomes.

Conclusion

State-level reform represents a critical opportunity to advance a pro-housing policy agenda. While local governments retain authority over zoning and permitting, the most durable and transformative changes now require state action.

States can set broad land-use rules, align housing with transportation and environmental priorities, and mobilize public and private capital to unlock supply. State policy, therefore, is the lever through which a supply-focused housing agenda can be moved.

Other policy domains have adapted to this reality. In education, labor, and fiscal policy, state-level organizations maintain year-round engagement with governors, legislators, and committees to shape agendas and drive implementation. National networks connect these groups, pooling data, research, and strategy while cultivating future leaders.

Housing lacks this infrastructure. Advocacy remains fragmented—concentrated at the local and federal levels—with relatively few organizations equipped to sustain deep engagement with state actors. A national network of state-focused housing organizations can fill this gap by creating the space, tools, and relationships needed for pragmatic collaboration.

The value of such a network lies in its ability to expand state-level capacity—bringing new actors into housing debates while equipping existing organizations with the strategies and resources to shape policy. It can establish shared values and long-term priorities while leaving room for state-specific adaptation. It can build talent pipelines that place leaders in governors’ offices, legislatures, and housing agencies. And it can accelerate learning through peer exchange, policy tracking, and the cross-state adaptation of successful reforms.

Equally important, a network can help forge the cross-ideological coalitions necessary for durable success. Evidence from Minnesota, Oregon, and other reform states shows that victories endure when developers, tenant advocates, environmental groups, business organizations, and social justice leaders are aligned under a common banner. That alignment does not emerge organically—it requires deliberate coordination, trust-building, and sustained investment.

In this sense, a state housing policy network is not simply another convening space. It is a strategic tool for transforming scattered, fragile efforts into durable reform. By connecting ideas to action, building capacity where it is thin, and cultivating leaders who can carry the work forward, such a network can move pro-housing reforms from aspiration to reality.

Appendix 1. Why is the D.C. Policy Center interested in this issue?

The District of Columbia is a unique jurisdiction, functioning simultaneously as a state, a locality, a school district, and a city. As a result, both the executive and legislative branches exercise authority over areas of policy that elsewhere are divided between state and local governments. In most of the country, localities are responsible for public safety, zoning, and municipal services such as sanitation, while states oversee healthcare, transportation, and human services. In D.C., all of these responsibilities fall under a single government. Taxing powers that are typically fragmented across local jurisdictions are similarly consolidated.

This governance structure has shaped the D.C. Policy Center’s work. Unlike many think tanks that approach policy primarily from either a state or local lens, our work necessarily spans overlapping domains—housing, education, workforce, fiscal policy, and public safety. For housing policy in particular, we approach the subject as an economic development issue rather than a land-use question. Our portfolio includes analyses of housing affordability for families, rent control, Tenants Right to Purchase Act, the shadow rental market, the economic costs of restrictive land use policies, the feasibility of a land-value tax, the role of small housing providers, historic preservation, rent buy-downs cost-effective affordability strategy, and residential conversions. Each of these issues intersects with transportation, environmental policy, labor markets, public schools, demographics, public safety, and revenue structures—all overseen by the same institutions in the District. This vantage point has required us to analyze across silos and to understand housing policy as embedded within a broader policy ecosystem.

For this reason, our experience is directly relevant to the proposal at hand: to treat housing as a state-level matter, in addition to a local and federal one. The District offers a rare perspective in which the boundaries between state and local authority collapse, forcing a holistic approach to housing policy. This perspective makes clear the kinds of institutional infrastructure state governments must build to expand housing supply, and why state-level networks are essential to advance reforms that local governments alone cannot achieve.

Appendix 2. National housing policy networks

National Governors Association (NGA) Housing Policy Advisors Institute

NGA is a bipartisan organization representing the nation’s governors, providing them with resources and advocating for state-based solutions to pressing national issues. The Housing Policy Advisors Institute serves as a platform for governors’ housing policy advisors to collaborate, share best practices, and enhance their capacity to develop and implement effective housing policies at the state level.

The NGA Housing Policy Advisors Institute is a promising but still nascent effort to build state-level capacity around housing policy. It brings together senior housing advisors from governors’ offices to share strategies, identify common barriers, and learn from emerging practices. The Institute is modeled after NGA’s successful networks in workforce and health policy, but it is the first time NGA has applied this model to housing—a domain where state action is accelerating, but support infrastructure remains thin.

Focus Areas

• Affordable housing production: Encourages the creation of more affordable housing units through state-level initiatives, including streamlining housing production processes and incentivizing private-sector investment in affordable housing.
• Zoning and land use: Supports state governments in revising zoning laws to allow for more density, reduce regulatory barriers, and facilitate the development of housing, particularly in high-demand areas.
• Homelessness prevention and support: Provides guidance on policies that prevent homelessness and support those experiencing homelessness by improving access to services and creating pathways to stable housing.
• State housing finance: Examines how state housing finance agencies can leverage funding sources, including tax credits, bonds, and state budgets, to finance the development of affordable housing.

Framework Analysis: NGA Housing Policy Advisors Institute

1. Governance structure: Top-down
   The Institute is convened and managed by the National Governors Association—a national entity with formal relationships with all state executive branches. Participation is by invitation, and the agenda is set centrally, with structured convenings and curated technical assistance.
2. Political stance: Bipartisan
   NGA is explicitly bipartisan, and the Housing Policy Advisors Institute reflects this. It includes participants from both Republican and Democratic administrations, focusing on implementation and outcomes rather than ideology. Housing policy, framed as economic infrastructure, provides a common ground.
3. Operating mode: Collaboration
   The Institute operates primarily through peer exchange and collaborative learning. Convenings prioritize sharing state experiences, identifying common challenges, and discussing replicable strategies. There is no enforcement mechanism or policy directive—this is not about compliance, but capacity.
4. Primary focus: actor-focused
   The Institute is designed to support housing advisors within governors’ offices. While policy discussions center on housing supply and affordability, the structure is oriented around the role of the advisor—building their network, knowledge base, and strategic toolkit.
5. Core strength: Aggregator
   The work is based on cataloging what governors are advocating for in their respective states and provide a platform for peer exchange.

Summary:

The NGA Housing Policy Advisors Institute is a top-down, bipartisan effort built around collaboration among senior state officials. It’s not about ideology or branding; it’s about giving governors’ housing advisors a space to think out loud, compare notes, and learn from each other. While the policy focus is clear—increasing housing supply—the Institute is ultimately actor-driven, supporting a very specific set of roles within government. What makes it valuable is not a rigid policy agenda, but the infrastructure it creates for smart people doing hard jobs to make better decisions, faster. It still operates as a one-off convening, not a permanent network. It also works to create policy alliance among elected officials and does not inform the future of reforms through research, policy analysis, or legislative support. If states are going to be the drivers of housing reform, this kind of support needs to scale.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is a network of state legislatures—a nonpartisan organization created in 1975 through the merger of three smaller associations to elevate the role and capacity of the legislative branch across all 50 states and territories. Its mission is not to drive specific policy change, but to protect and strengthen the legislative process itself. It provides lawmakers and staff with training, research, technical assistance, and advocacy to promote effective governance and safeguard state authority—especially in the face of unfunded federal mandates.

Focus Areas

Its work is broad by design. Through standing committees, task forces, webinars, and national events, NCSL supports a wide range of functions:

• Research and analysis: Deep, bipartisan policy research across major domains including budgets, education, health, and natural resources.
• Technical assistance and training: Toolkits, databases, and leadership development offerings tailored to legislative staff and members.
• Peer exchange: Platforms like the Legislative Summit and Capitol Forum offer space for state officials to learn from one another.
• State–federal advocacy: NCSL articulates shared state interests in areas like cannabis regulation, tax conformity, and federal mandates.

Its focus areas reflect the breadth of state legislative work. From health care and education to criminal justice and governance, NCSL supports deliberation rather than directing it. In housing, its role is informational. NCSL doesn’t craft housing policy, but gives lawmakers tools to act:

• A searchable database of housing and homelessness legislation across all 50 states.
• A curated toolkit with zoning, affordability, and tenant stability resources.
• Webinars and video series exploring state responses to affordability, ADUs, and housing’s intersection with child welfare.

Framework Analysis: NCSL

• Governance structure: Bottom-up
  NCSL is centrally organized and nationally managed, with priorities coordinated through standing committees, task forces, and national convenings. Member states shape the agenda, but structure and execution are led by the national body.
• Political stance: Bipartisan/Nonpartisan
  NCSL is intentionally nonpartisan. It maintains credibility and engagement across all 50 state legislatures by focusing on shared challenges, procedural integrity, and support for legislative function—not ideological alignment.
• Operating mode: Collaboration
  The organization is designed to support peer learning and capacity building. Through conferences, professional development, webinars, and shared toolkits, it facilitates the kind of cross-state exchange that improves legislative decision-making without prescribing policy positions.
• Orientation: Role-oriented
  NCSL supports legislators and legislative staff across a range of domains. While it touches nearly every policy area, its primary purpose is to strengthen the capabilities of the legislative branch as an institution, not to advance a single policy agenda.
• Core strength: Aggregator
  NCSL excels at compiling and synthesizing information. Its databases, toolkits, and research briefs make legislative trends accessible and actionable. In housing, for example, it tracks state-level legislation and provides curated analysis—but it does not lead with original housing policy proposals.

Summary

NCSL is a network serving legislatures—deeply valuable, but intentionally neutral. Its role is to build procedural muscle, not to solve policy problems. It will help legislators understand how others are responding to the housing crisis, but it won’t convene coalitions to act on it or design strategies to scale reforms across states. For housing—and other areas where state policy is moving faster than federal action—this leaves a gap. What’s missing is a network that connects state-level policy shops, advocates, and implementers who are working on the same issues with a shared goal: to shape systems, not just understand them. NCSL lays the foundation. But states need more than infrastructure—they need data, analysis, and strategy.

The National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA)

NCSHA was established in 1974 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization to serve state Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) and related entities. It operates at the intersection of capacity-building, policy advocacy, and peer coordination for HFAs through federal advocacy and education, best practices models, peer learning and events, and provision of resources. 

Focus Areas

NCSHA is squarely focused on increasing the supply and quality of affordable housing through:

• Housing bonds & LIHTC: Technical and policy guidance, including compliance tools and recommended practices.
• Home ownership and rental assistance: Toolkits, advocacy, webinars supporting preservation and supportive housing programs.
• State HFA operations: Data publishing (Factbook), peer networks, compliance training, and staffing support
• Homelessness prevention: Works to develop state-level policies that prevent homelessness and provide support services for those at risk.

NCSHA provides advocacy, technical assistance, and policy support for state housing agencies to help improve housing access and affordability across the country.

Framework Analysis: NCSHA

• Governance structure: Top-down
  NCSHA is a centralized national organization that sets priorities, coordinates advocacy efforts, and develops tools for state Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs). While it is member-driven in spirit, strategy and content are organized and delivered by a central staff and leadership team.
• Political stance: Nonpartisan
  NCSHA is explicitly nonpartisan, focusing on technical housing finance issues that typically garner bipartisan support—such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), housing bonds, and rental assistance programs. It avoids ideological debates and emphasizes operational effectiveness.
• Operating mode: Direction
  The organization provides detailed policy guidance, technical assistance, compliance tools, and implementation support. It develops “Recommended Practices” and standard forms, and advocates at the federal level for enhancements to tax credits and housing programs. Peer exchange exists but is secondary to its directive role.
• Orientation: Role-oriented
  NCSHA is designed to support a specific set of institutional actors: state HFAs and their staff. Its training, resources, and advocacy efforts are geared toward building the capacity of these agencies to deliver housing finance programs effectively.
• Core strength: Creator
  NCSHA’s value lies in its ability to generate original, tailored content—compliance documents, recommended practices, legislative fact sheets, and policy guidance—specifically created to support the work of HFAs. It also produces detailed federal advocacy materials and implementation tools.

Summary

NCSHA is an operational alliance serving the institutions that finance and deliver much of the country’s affordable housing, not the advocates or policymakers pushing for structural change. It is a top-down, nonpartisan, role-specific network whose core strength is execution: helping state HFAs do their jobs better, more consistently, and at scale. It doesn’t convene policy innovators. It doesn’t coordinate across sectors. And it doesn’t shape public debate. That’s not a weakness—it’s clarity of mission. But what’s missing is the complementary layer: a network that connects the people designing housing policy—not just delivering it—across states. NCSHA builds capacity within the system. We still need something that moves the system forward.

The National League of Cities

The National League of Cities (NLC) is a nonpartisan organization that serves as both a resource and an advocate for America’s cities. Originally founded in 1924 as the American Municipal Association and rebranded in 1964, NLC was created to elevate the role of cities in national policymaking. Today, it represents nearly 2,800 cities, towns, and villages across the country. Its mission is threefold: to influence federal policy, strengthen municipal leadership, and accelerate local innovation.

NLC’s work spans the full range of urban governance, from municipal finance and infrastructure to public safety, technology, education, and housing. It supports local governments with technical tools, national visibility, and a platform to advance shared priorities.

Focus Areas

• Federal advocacy
  NLC represents city priorities in Washington—on infrastructure, public finance, broadband, and housing. It ensures local voices are heard in federal policymaking.
• Research & technical assistance
  The organization publishes practical tools for cities, including playbooks on eviction prevention, zoning reforms, and housing affordability. These are designed for direct application at the local level.
• Peer learning & conferences
  NLC convenes city leaders through major events like the City Summit and Congressional City Conference and provides year-round programming through its Center for Municipal Practice and NLC University.
• Capacity-building campaigns
  In 2022, NLC launched the Housing Supply Accelerator in partnership with the American Planning Association to help cities address production barriers. It also leads America’s Housing Comeback, focused on surfacing and scaling local housing innovations.

In housing, NLC provides guidance on zoning, eviction prevention, Housing First, and missing-middle development. Its housing campaigns are designed to do two things: lift local solutions to national visibility, and equip cities with tools—playbooks, templates, field guides—to act. 

Framework Analysis: NLC

• Governance structure: Top-down
  NLC is led by a central national organization that sets strategic priorities and programs on behalf of its member cities. While members help inform the agenda, initiatives like the Housing Supply Accelerator are conceived, developed, and coordinated by the national body.
• Political stance: Nonpartisan
  NLC operates across the political spectrum. Its strength lies in being a credible voice for municipal leaders regardless of ideology, focusing on local problem-solving rather than partisanship. This allows it to maintain broad legitimacy across cities of all sizes and political makeups.
• Operating mode: Collaboration
  NLC prioritizes peer exchange, shared learning, and co-design through conferences, working groups, and learning labs. Its campaigns—such as the Housing Supply Accelerator—emphasize joint solutions, not top-down mandates.
• Orientation: Role-oriented
  NLC supports a broad set of municipal roles—mayors, council members, city managers, housing directors. It is built to strengthen institutional capacity at the local level rather than to advance a single policy issue.
• Core strength: Creator
  NLC produces its own toolkits, policy briefs, campaign playbooks, and field guides tailored to city leaders. These are often grounded in member input but developed centrally to promote replicable local action.

Summary

The National League of Cities is a top-down, nonpartisan organization built for city leaders, not state policymakers. It operates as both a national advocate and a technical partner—providing mayors and municipal staff with tools, training, and visibility on everything from housing to digital equity. In housing, it’s one of the few national players offering city-specific guidance with practical, implementable tools—its Housing Supply Accelerator is a real contribution. But NLC is municipal by design. It is not—and does not pretend to be—a state policy network. What’s missing is the connective tissue between cities experimenting with bold housing ideas and the state systems that could scale or codify them. NLC shows us what’s possible at the city level. But to turn possibility into policy, we need a companion network that links local action to state reform.

Appendix 3. Non-housing networks focused on state-level policy change

There are several networks that support policy research across other policy areas and with various levels of ideological lenses.

Partners in Education (PIE) Network

PIE Network was founded in 2006 by 12 state advocacy organizations and national partners based on a recognition that a nascent education reform movement would be stronger by leveraging connections and collaboration to take great work to scale. It started as a coalition of diverse, nonpartisan education advocacy groups and has grown into a national alliance. At present, it is active in over 39 states with over 180 member organizations unified around equitable K–12 reform. Its membership is diverse, including state-based and national organizations across ideologies, functions (research, funding, organizing)—holding space for ideologically diverse but unified policy action.

Focus Areas

• Network building: Supports over 2,000 advocates across 38 states and DC, representing 134 organizations at the state level and 49 national partners.
• Policy alignment: Drives collective impact around shared principles: high expectations, educator excellence, innovative options, and responsive systems.
• Resources & tracking: Maintains policy portals, state legislation trackers, polling data, and a blog to surface timely state education policy trends.
• Leadership development: Runs a leadership institute and recognition events like the Eddies and a national Leadership Institute to build advocacy capacity and a pipeline of leaders at state-level executive or legislative agencies.
• Peer convening: Hosts member meetings, convenings, and provides tools that help members collaborate and share lessons.

 Framework Analysis: PIE Network

• Governance structure: Bottom-up
  PIE Network is led by a national staff, but their actions are governed by a Board and various committees populated by representatives of the network members. Member voices shape the direction and strategy, and execution is nationally managed.
• Political stance: Nonpartisan
  PIE is deliberately nonpartisan, bringing together a wide range of education advocates—including ideologically diverse organizations—to pursue shared outcomes like academic excellence, equity, innovation, and accountability.
• Operating mode: Collaboration
  The network emphasizes peer learning, shared strategy, and field-building. Through convenings, working groups, and leadership development, it facilitates relationship-driven coordination rather than top-down directives.
• Orientation: Issue-oriented
  PIE is squarely focused on education policy—particularly K–12 public education reform. Its organizing principles revolve around improving student outcomes through policy innovation, educator effectiveness, and system-level responsiveness.
• Core strength: Aggregator
  PIE is strongest as a connector and synthesizer. It tracks state-level policy, highlights trends, elevates lessons across contexts, and makes national insights usable to local actors. It does not typically create original policy products or model legislation but equips members with timely intelligence and peer-informed strategies.

Summary

PIE Network is not a single-issue campaign—it’s infrastructure for education policy and advocacy. It is an important example for housing, because its beginnings are rooted to advance state level education policy and advocacy, when state level work was just beginning. PIE is a bottom-up nonpartisan alliance, structured to incentivize member organizations to act in concert around shared education reform fundamentals. It equips education advocates with data, tracking tools, leadership development, and peer connections. But unlike some advocacy networks, it doesn’t originate policy—its value lies in enabling a widely distributed group of advocates to synchronize their local and state priorities with national-level insight. What’s missing? The next evolution: PIE could close the loop by supporting direct advocacy campaigns that unite state-level organizations around shared policy goals—turning alignment into action.

The Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN) Network

The Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN) was founded in the early 2000s as a program of the mainly progressive Economic Policy Institute (EPI). It has grown into a network of 56 affiliated research, policy, and advocacy organizations operating across 43 states and the District of Columbia. EARN’s core mission is to advance an inclusive, worker-centered economy via state- and local-level policy reform, underpinned by rigorous research and collaboration with advocates, labor, and community groups.

Their issue areas are largely progressive, and they have been successful in advancing progressive policies at the state level by providing convincing research, including:

• Paid Leave & minimum wage: EARN groups have shaped state-level minimum wage increases and paid leave policies, offering data-driven support and testimony across multiple jurisdictions.
• Worker power & wage theft: Special initiatives track labor standards enforcement, wage theft issues, and efforts to strengthen union representation.
• Family economic security & equity: The network produces accessible state fact sheets and analyses spotlighting disparities by gender, race, and geography, influencing campaigns for childcare, immigrant labor protections, and related policies.

Focus Areas

EARN focuses on three main functions:

• State & local research
  Conducts in-depth economic and policy analysis on issues like wages, paid leave, and racial equity. These reports serve as a basis for reform at the state level 
• Network & coalition building
  Acts as a coordinating platform, linking EPI with member organizations, labor unions, and grassroots groups. Together they co-design strategies grounded in equity and worker power 
• Training & peer learning
  Hosts an annual convening (EARNCon), working groups, and regional cohorts across areas like the South and Midwest, fostering shared learning and strategic alignment.

Framework Analysis: EARN

• Governance structure: Top-down
  EARN is housed within and coordinated by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which sets strategic direction, manages national convenings, and allocates shared resources. While member organizations drive work locally, EARN’s priorities and infrastructure are nationally anchored.
• Political stance: Nonpartisan (Progressive in practice)
  EARN is officially nonpartisan, but its values are explicitly pro-worker, pro-equity, and progressive. It doesn’t align with a party, but its worldview is clear: it centers racial, gender, and economic justice in everything it does.
• Operating mode: Collaboration
  The network functions through strong peer exchange, shared learning, and cross-state strategy development. EARNCon, regional convenings, and working groups reflect a commitment to collective learning and field alignment.
• Orientation: Issue-oriented
  EARN is built around one big idea: transforming the economy to work for working people. Its members engage on a range of interconnected issues—wages, paid leave, worker protections, tax equity—but all are rooted in building a just and inclusive economy.
• Core strength: Creator
  EARN organizations produce original, localized research and policy analysis. The national team at EPI supports this work by creating templates, offering strategic guidance, and publishing shared tools to elevate state campaigns.

Summary

EARN is not just a network—it’s a strategy. Built and coordinated by EPI, it exists to power state-level economic reform from the ground up, with worker-centered research at the core. It’s top-down in structure but collaborative in practice. And while it avoids partisan labels, its values are not neutral—it believes in higher wages, stronger worker protections, and racial and gender equity, and builds policy infrastructure to advance those goals. Its strength is original research—created locally, sharpened through national coordination, and used to win real change in statehouses. But EARN is still largely a research engine. The next step is building stronger delivery capacity: turning every insight into action, and every report into legislation.

State Policy Network (SPN)

SPN began in 1986 as the Madison Group, named after meetings at the Madison Hotel in Washington, D.C., where emerging conservative state think tanks first convened. In 1992, SPN formally incorporated as a 501(c)(3) to provide structure and support to the growing movement of state-level, free-market policy groups. Its stated mission: build a durable free-market infrastructure in the states, focusing on research, advocacy, litigation, and grassroots coordination to influence lasting policy change.

State think tanks in the SPN network have successfully pushed reforms in areas like school choice, tax policy, and deregulation. SPN-affiliated campaigns have successfully passed conservative policy initiatives, often using model legislation and messaging support to shift state-level debates.

Focus areas

• Institution-building
  SPNsupports the creation and scaling of state-level conservative think tanks through resources, coaching, and grant support. They provide ready-to-implement policy kits and messaging that affiliates adapt to fit local context.
• Network coordination
  SPN hosts annual meetings, specialized awards, working groups, and sectoral conferences to facilitate strategy-sharing and professional development.
• Policy campaign support
  SPN provides campaign planning tools, strategic advising, messaging platforms, and targeted policy grants to help affiliates drive state-level reforms.
• Public advocacy & messaging
  They highlight affiliate victories through media platforms like America At Its Best, and recognizes leaders with awards such as the Roe and Bob Williams Awards.

Framework Analysis: SPN

• Governance structure: Top-down
  SPN is a centrally managed umbrella organization headquartered in Arlington, VA. It sets network-wide priorities, manages capacity-building programs, and provides strategic direction to its affiliated think tanks across 50+ states.
• Political stance: Partisan
  SPN is explicitly conservative and libertarian, advancing free-market, limited-government, and federalist policies. Its member thinktanks work to restrict government scope—particularly in education, energy, labor, and tax—reflecting a clear ideological alignment.
• Operating mode: Both Collaboration & Direction
  SPN runs collaborative working groups where member think tanks share ideas and coordinate strategies across issues like energy, healthcare, and fiscal policy. At the same time, it offers policy grants, strategic coaching, and message support—providing targeted direction for state-level campaigns.
• Orientation: Issue-oriented
  The network is organized around broad policy issue areas—education, energy, healthcare, fiscal/regulatory freedom—which shape member work and SPN’s collective strategy, rather than focusing on specific roles or professional capacities.
• Core strength: Combo of creator & aggregator
  SPN produces original policy templates, model legislation, messaging toolkits, and grant-funded campaign materials. It also aggregates best practices and success stories from across its state affiliates—disseminating them through its “America At Its Best” series and working groups.

Summary

SPN is a partisan, issue-driven powerhouse—a top-down network that equips conservative state think tanks to shape policy from the grassroots up. It brings them together across working groups, funds targeted policy campaigns, and delivers model bills and messaging toolkits ready for state capitols. Its ideological clarity is its strength: SPN isn’t neutral—it’s purposeful, aligning its resources behind a coherent vision of limited government and free markets. it’s not a cross-partisan ecosystem, but rather a movement engine for conservative ideas. SPN lacks a credible equivalent for other perspectives—one that connects independent, nonpartisan or progressive think tanks in a state-level network that is both collaborative and directional but aligned around shared values beyond ideology.

State Priorities Partnership (SPP)

The SPP network began over 20 years ago as the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative (SFAI)—a collaboration between the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) and several foundations (Ford, Annie E. Casey, Mott) alongside a dozen state groups. It evolved into the State Priorities Partnership, a federation of 40+ independent state-level policy organizations, many incubated by CBPP, working to advance equitable, inclusive state policies.

CBPP drives the actions of the network through original research and state level policy recommendations. Individual Fiscal Policy Institutes advocate for these policies at the state level. The network has successfully advocated for combined reporting for corporate taxes, progressive income taxes, defeating fiscal caps, Medicaid expansion under ACA, among other things. The State Immigration Project supported by SPP raised $2.8 B in COVID-19 relief across eight states, expanded testing access, and repealed an ID law in Colorado.

Focus Areas

SPP’s core function is coordination and capacity-building—conducting peer learning, sharing best practices, and amplifying state campaigns in pursuit of shared equity goals. It supports state-based research and advocacy on a broad suite of issues:

• Fiscal policy & tax fairness
  SPP models progressive tax reform, defending against revenue caps (e.g., Taxpayers Bill of Rights), and promoting a more progressive state and local tax system. 
• Education, health care, and workforce

SPP develops and advocates for progressive state-level systems through analysis and media

• Economic opportunity & equity
  SPP promotes race, gender, and immigration-related reforms to increase economic opportunity. 
• Other areas
  Poverty, criminal justice, environmental protection, civic engagement.

Framework Analysis: (SPP)

• Governance structure: Top-down
  SPP is anchored at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which provides strategic coordination, capacity-building, and funding infrastructure. While member organizations retain independence, CBPP guides the network’s shared priorities and supports alignment through research, training, and convenings.
• Political stance: Nonpartisan (Progressive in practice)
  The network is officially nonpartisan, but its principles and priorities—progressive taxation, public investment, racial and economic equity—reflect a distinctly progressive orientation. It works across party lines where possible, but its values are not ideologically neutral.
• Operating mode: Collaboration, with some direction
  SPP operates through deep peer exchange, shared campaigns, and aligned messaging. Members co-develop strategies, tools, and training opportunities. The network emphasizes mutual learning and local customization over centralized directives. CBPP provides research and policy analysis subsidy, and guides members’ state level research.
• Orientation: Issue-oriented
  SPP is built around advancing equitable fiscal and economic policy at the state level. Its work spans tax justice, health care, education, and immigrant rights, but always through the lens of systemic equity and opportunity.
• Core strength: Creator
  While it occasionally aggregates external data, SPP’s core value is in generating original, locally grounded policy research and analysis. It produces tax models, legislative briefs, budget impact studies, and campaign frameworks tailored for state-level use and influence.

Summary

SPP is a powerful force in state-level policymaking—federated, equity-driven, and focused on empowering members to build local coalitions driven by research guided by CBPP. It’s a top-down structure with bottom-up execution: coordinated by CBPP but led locally by the organizations closest to the ground. Its stance is officially nonpartisan, but its values—fair taxation, expanded public investment, racial justice—align with a progressive worldview. What makes it work is its collaborative mode: not just sharing what to do, but how to do it—through coaching, tools, and peer support. SPP’s strength is in what it builds: original analysis that shapes real legislation. While members of SPP successfully provide legislative subsidy in opportune moments to progressive policymakers, their research is sometimes characterized as partisan.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

ALEC began in 1973 as the Conservative Caucus of State Legislators, founded by Illinois state staffer Mark Rhoads and conservative activists to promote limited government after the Goldwater era. It incorporated in 1975 and became a formal nonprofit advocacy group. Today, ALEC is America’s largest network of state legislators, partnering with private-sector members to draft and distribute model legislation that advances conservative free-market principles: limited government, tax reduction, deregulation, and federalism.

ALEC has been tremendously successful in pushing conservative legislation in red states. Some examples include:

• Stand-Your-Ground laws: ALEC’s Castle Doctrine Act helped spread these laws to over two dozen states after Florida’s law passed in 2005.
• Truth-in-sentencing: Standardized sentencing policies that removed judicial discretion—adopted in ~40 states—came from ALEC task force models.
• Right-to-work & labor restrictions: ALEC-supported bills, including Wisconsin’s Act 10, successfully limited public sector collective bargaining.
• Anti-protest “critical infrastructure” laws: Modeled in several states to expand felony penalties for pipeline and climate protests.

Focus Areas

ALEC operates through task forces—straight from both legislative and corporate members—which produce model bills in areas such as:

• Tax & budget policy
  ALEC works on cutting taxes, rolling back regulations.
• Labor & union rights
  ALEC promotes policies such as right-to-work, paycheck protection)
• Criminal justice & civil justice
  ALEC promotes truth-in-sentencing and tort reform.
• Environment & energy
  ALEC advocates for policies such as fracking exemptions and environmental deregulation.
• Education
  ALEC calls for policies such as school choice vouchers, education saving accounts and privatization.
• Public safety & voter laws
  ALEC calls for laws such as stand-your-ground laws, voter ID mandates.

Reports estimate about 200 model bills pass into law each year, often with little modification.

Framework Analysis: ALEC

• Governance structure: Top-down
  ALEC is a highly centralized organization. It sets the network’s legislative priorities, organizes policy task forces, and produces model bills. While members participate in shaping content, ALEC’s national leadership drives the agenda and coordination across states.
• Political stance: Partisan
  ALEC is explicitly conservative. It promotes a clearly defined ideological agenda centered on free markets, limited government, and federalism. While it engages a wide array of lawmakers and private-sector partners, its policy goals consistently align with right-of-center interests.
• Operating mode: Direction
  ALEC provides ready-to-use model legislation, campaign messaging, and strategic frameworks. Its aim is not just to support conversation, but to guide legislation—from bill text to advocacy strategy to implementation pathways.
• Orientation: Issue-oriented
  ALEC organizes its work around policy domains—tax, education, labor, energy, civil justice, public safety—rather than around specific roles within government. Its task forces are structured around these issues, producing detailed model laws and legislative roadmaps.
• Core strength: Creator
  ALEC’s primary strength is in content production. It creates original model legislation, talking points, and campaign templates designed for easy replication. Its bills are often introduced with minimal edits in multiple state legislatures each year.

Summary 

ALEC is a powerhouse of conservative policymaking—a private-public fusion that engineers legislation for statehouses. Founded in the 1970s to roll back regulatory power, it now convenes legislators and corporations to write draft laws that state lawmakers can file verbatim. It spans issues from tax cuts to labor restrictions, prison reform to school choice, voter ID to pipeline policing. Its success rate is startling: hundreds of ALEC model bills become law each year.

It’s unapologetically partisan, ideologically clear—and exceptionally effective. It is not a neutral, cross-partisan service. Instead, it’s a deliberate engine to manufacture conservative policy at scale. And while it shows how coordinated state-level policy movements can reshape state governments, it also reveals the power of pre-packaged legislation—no debate, no local crafting, just drop and pass.

State Innovation Exchange (SiX)

Founded in 2012 as the American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange (ALICE), under the Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS) at UW–Madison. In 2014, it merged with the Progressive States Network and the Center for State Innovation, becoming the State Innovation Exchange (SiX). Its mission is to empower state legislators with progressive, people-centered policy tools, research support, strategic advice, and collaborative infrastructure—grounded in racial, economic, and democratic equity.

SiX champions progressive priorities through several targeted programs including agriculture and food systems, economic justice issues, reproductive freedom, voting rights, and polling and messaging. They have achieved numerous successes across states and issue areas including: 

• Its Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council grew to 419 legislators in 46 states, directly shaping pro-choice legislation.
• Through polling and state campaigns, SiX helped achieve paid sick leave, childcare supports, surprise medical billing bans, and election protection in states like Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, and Wisconsin.
• Strategic support helped progressive coalitions block preemption campaigns (i.e., corporate-backed laws limiting local policy) in states like Iowa.

Focus areas

SiX provides continuous support to legislators through:

• Policy assistance
  Offers model legislation, research memos, polling data, and messaging templates.
• On-the-ground support
  Maintains State Director roles in several key states (e.g., Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina), offering localized coaching and advocacy strategy.
• Training & peer learning
  Hosts webinars, convenings, and the Progressive Governance Academy—a joint program with Local Progress and Re:power.
• Communications support
  |Helps craft earned media, sign-on letters, polling insights, and messaging guidance to amplify progressive campaigns.

Framework Analysis: SiX

• Governance structure: Top-down
  SiX is centrally managed, with a national team that sets strategy, manages programs, develops tools, and funds localized efforts. While it builds strong relationships with state legislators, the agenda is shaped and coordinated by the national organization.
• Political stance: Partisan (Progressive in practice)
  SiX is formally nonpartisan but explicitly progressive in its values and priorities—centered on racial, gender, economic, and democratic equity. Its work consistently supports left-of-center policy goals.
• Operating mode: Direction
  While it encourages collaboration among state lawmakers, SiX’s core function is strategic support—offering model legislation, communications tools, research memos, and coordinated campaigns that legislators can use to advance aligned agendas.
• Orientation: Role-oriented
  SiX is built to equip legislators—especially progressive state lawmakers—with the skills, information, and infrastructure to lead. It focuses on the policymaking role and provides direct support to elected officials, not just issue-area networks.
• Core strength: Creator
  SiX develops original policy resources, messaging guidance, polling memos, campaign playbooks, and legal research. It also supports in-state execution, helping legislators navigate political opposition, media framing, and advocacy coordination.

Summary 

SiX is the progressive counterpart to ALEC. It’s top-down in structure but deeply responsive to what legislators need to lead—and win. It creates model legislation, strategy memos, and polling-tested messaging, then backs it up with coaching and comms support. Its value isn’t just in what it knows—it’s in what it builds: state legislators who can confidently push complex, equity-centered policy.

It’s unapologetically progressive, role-oriented, and directive in approach. Legislators don’t just come for networking—they come for strategy, tools, and help getting laws passed. And it works: from paid sick leave to abortion access to voting rights, SiX has helped legislators deliver results in tough environments.

Appendix 4. Additional findings from the interviews

Interviews highlighted a shared view that land-use reform alone is insufficient to drive significant housing growth in the short term (MN, RPA, OR, HAI). While there are already numerous housing-related networks, most focus on low-income housing or local advocacy (MN), with a growing presence of YIMBY groups but no equivalent network of state-level organizations focused specifically on housing production (MA). Practitioners noted that state-level work often feels too tailored to local context to warrant peer collaboration (MN, RPA), yet successful interventions—such as those in Oregon—are both relevant and attractive to others. Working across state bureaucracies is a challenge, particularly because few are structured around housing systems, though states remain eager to learn from each other (MA, OR).

Importantly, housing production at the state level extends beyond land-use policy to include economic development, industrial and tax policy, transportation, and environmental regulation—all areas where legislatures play a central role. Participants also distinguished between “flashy” reforms like statewide ADU legalization and deeper systemic changes such as eliminating parking minimums (MA, OR, RPA). Each state brings its own ecosystem of coalitions and networks, often uniting unlikely allies such as the real estate industry and fair housing advocates.

Even through these discussions, opportunities for knowledge-sharing emerged—for example, Minnesota’s research on the comparative value of parking reform versus ADUs sparked interest from peers in RPA and Massachusetts.

While there was broad agreement on many issues, there were some points that were in conflict .

1. State-level action is crucial but under-supported.

Despite growing recognition of the state’s role in housing policy, most advocacy and research remain local or national. There is a shared belief that states are uniquely positioned to create systemic reforms, but few organizations are structured to work at this level consistently.

2. There is no clear “next policy frontier.”

Many interviewees expressed uncertainty about the next high-impact reforms after tackling single-family zoning and missing middle housing. Ideas mentioned include regulatory streamlining, permitting reform, infrastructure funding, and aligning housing with other social goals.

3. There is a strong appetite for a state-focused network.

Almost every organization interviewed saw value in a network of state-level housing policy groups—for peer learning, sharing research and strategies, coordinating advocacy, and overcoming the fragmentation of current efforts.

4. Lack of comparable policy impact data is a major gap.

Organizations want to understand what reforms have been enacted in other states, what the outcomes were (e.g., housing units added), and what lessons can be drawn. Digestible, cross-state comparisons would fill a major need.

5. Messaging and political strategy matter.

Some interviewees emphasized that the housing problem is not a knowledge deficit but a political challenge. They value messaging, relationship-building, and building coalitions that include skeptical stakeholders like planners and developers.

6. There are ideological, tactical, and structural tensions within the housing field.

Several organizations—especially those with broader coalitions—must balance progressive and market-based factions, tenant rights and developer interests, grassroots and technical expertise. This often limits consensus and affects coalition durability.

7. Model legislation and shared resources are in high demand.

Multiple interviewees said they would benefit from model legislation, standardized policy frameworks, and shared tools like FAQs or two-pagers tailored for campaigns. Several are trying to develop such tools on their own.

8. Infrastructure investment and permitting reform are emerging focus areas.

Groups in Oregon and California are shifting toward issues like funding local infrastructure to unlock housing and reforming complex permitting systems. These are seen as harder political battles but essential for housing production.

9. Coalition-building is challenging but essential.

Success often hinges on building unusual alliances—e.g., between developers and planners, or labor unions and housing advocates. Some states (like Minnesota and Oregon) have begun to convene these coalitions effectively.

10. Some regions have unique ecosystems but want more interstate collaboration.

Regions like New York, Massachusetts, and California have dense networks, while others (e.g., Tennessee, Minnesota) are more isolated. Even in mature ecosystems, there is interest in national or regional convenings to break silos and share practices.

Appendix 5. List of experts interviewed

Housing Affordability Institute

Nick Erickson, Executive Director

June 13, 2025

Welcoming Neighbors Network

Henry Honorof, Director

June 27, 2025

Minnesota Housing Partnership             

Anne Mavity, Executive Director

July 3, 2025

Regional Plan Association

Zoe Baldwin, VP State Policy

Moses Gates, VP Housing and Community Planning

July 7, 2025

Housing Forward Massachusetts

Josh Zakim, Executive Director

July 10, 2025

1000 Friends of Oregon

Sam Diaz, Executive Director

July 17, 2025

CA YIMBY and Metropolitan Abundance Project

Ed Mendoza, Policy Director
Abigail Doerr, Managing Director

July 22, 2025

Think Tennessee

Erin Hafkenschiel, President

July 22, 2025

Up for Growth

Mike Kingsella, CEO

July 30, 2025

Appendix 6. Interview guide

Introduction

We are conducting preliminary research on a new initiative to connect and support state-level research and advocacy organizations committed to advancing housing policies that increase supply. This proposed network would provide a platform for peer learning, research exchange, advocacy support, and leadership development. Inspired by effective models in education and economic development, it would strengthen state capacity, foster collaboration, and help translate momentum into durable state policy wins that measurably expand housing production. We want to understand if there is need or appetite for such a network.

We want to assure you that all conversations are confidential. We may refer to broad themes or insights, but we will not attribute anything to you or your organization without your explicit permission. Our goal is to create a space for candid, constructive discussion.

Background

• When was your organization founded and what is its mission?
• How has your organization grown or expanded in the years since it began?
• What is your next strategic direction? Are there any areas you are hoping to grow and expand in the coming years?

Focus of work

• What research does your organization conduct related to state level housing policies?
• Have you done any work on state-level promotion of housing production?
• What advocacy work does your organization do related to state level housing policies?
• What are the other areas of focus or sectors in your organization?
• What are your biggest successes?
• Who do you collaborate with for research?
• Who do you collaborate with for advocacy?

Plans

• What are your next issue areas for research or advocacy?
• Do you have any plans to do any state level advocacy work in the next year?

Network proposal

• Would your organization find value in a network of other state-level housing policy and research organizations?
• Who do you consider your peer organizations in other states?
• Please rank the top 1-4 areas you would find most valuable in a network:
  • Peer support and consultation
  • Aggregated or original research that can be used by my organization
  • Advocacy support
  • Ideological home
  • Access to funders
  • Leadership development
  • Access to talent
  • Issue polling
  • Other (explain)