Reimagining how Oregon funds affordable housing: building a faster, more accessible system through ORCA

This interview was conducted by Freddie Price (Senior Partnerships Manager, Apolitical), as part of a series for Apolitical’s 50 States, 50 Breakthroughs, created in collaboration with the National Academy of Public Administration and Humans of Public Service.

Oregon is addressing its housing affordability crisis by overhauling how affordable housing gets funded. In June 2024, Oregon Housing and Community Services launched the Oregon Centralized Application (ORCA), a streamlined, standards-based system that replaces the state’s fragmented and highly competitive funding process. Instead of navigating multiple Notice of Funding Availabilities (NOFA) with different rules and deadlines, developers now submit through one coordinated intake and advance on a “first ready, first reviewed” basis. This reduces delays, increases transparency and opens access for rural, tribal and culturally specific organizations that previously struggled to compete.

In conversation with Apolitical, Andrea Bell, Executive Director of Oregon Housing and Community Services, reflected on what drove this work, how OHCS approached the underlying challenges, what the agency set out to change, and what they have learned so far.

What specific problem were you aiming to solve with the Oregon Centralized Application (ORCA), and what made it urgent to change Oregon’s affordable housing funding process now?

Oregon is facing a two-part housing challenge. First, there is not enough housing in all shapes and sizes to serve the people of Oregon. Second, the cost of living is high, and that is affecting people’s day-to-day livelihoods.

As a state housing finance agency, we manage many programs, state and federal, that are designed to respond to these issues. But we were also focused on operational excellence, because the way government processes work determines how quickly resources reach communities, or how slow and arduous it feels.

With ORCA, we aimed to break down a competitive funding process that could take more than a year, and reimagine something that lived up to our values around public excellence. The goal was simple: get resources out the door quicker, so construction can start sooner, and housing units can be built in communities faster.

Before ORCA, what did the funding journey look like for an affordable housing developer in Oregon?

Slow, and that is the charitable description. In practice, the legislature would convene and decide how much money to invest in housing. Then we would run several different competitive funding processes over the course of a year, each with different timelines, standards, and requirements. Some applicants would receive funding, others would not, and it could take more than a year from legislative investment to funding commitments.

We believed we could do better. We wanted to get rid of the year-long delay and the piles of documents with different requirements. If any of us had to navigate a service like that in our own lives, we would likely find it insufficient, or even give up because it is too challenging.

What did you implement with ORCA and what are the major components that make it work?

We set out to replace a slow, fragmented set of competitions with a faster, more efficient way to move funding to communities, without losing sight of equity and Oregon’s priorities. That meant redesigning the process around speed and operational excellence, so resources can move faster from funding decisions to commitments, and ultimately to construction. It also meant creating a simpler experience for applicants, reducing the burden of navigating multiple timelines and stacks of different requirements.

At the same time, we wanted to make sure the push for efficiency did not come at the expense of who can realistically compete. ORCA preserves access through set-asides, including for tribes, small towns and rural communities, and culturally specific organizations. It also ties standards to resources, using policy and funding to drive accountability and embed shared values and innovation, rather than treating streamlining as the only goal.

ORCA’s process has a clear sequence of steps that projects move through at their own pace, within defined timelines:

• Prequalification: OHCS prequalifies developers and key partners to establish eligibility for state investments, including review of portfolio performance, track record, and legal standing.
• Intake: Every project starts with a brief web-based intake form, which helps OHCS provide early support, build a statewide pipeline, and forecast resource needs. Projects that need help can be connected to technical assistance resources.
• Impact assessment: Applicants provide more detail on design, intended community and tenant impact, and high-level financial information. If standards are met and resources are available, projects can receive conditional approval and a letter of intent that serves as a conditional funding hold.
• Financial eligibility: The focus shifts to lender and cost documentation and a more detailed proforma. OHCS describes this as an iterative process with opportunities for feedback or curing, and projects have a defined window to complete the step.
• Commitment: Projects submit final plans and financing materials. Successful projects receive a reservation letter, which provides a formal funding commitment for projects ready to reach closing within a defined period.

Funds are reserved and allocated on a “first-ready, first-reviewed” basis, so projects that are most ready to proceed can be funded in a timely way.

How did you go about designing ORCA and how did you validate your approach?

As a housing agency, even when we operate in technical policy spaces and funding cycles, we are building a future for Oregon that should serve the next generation. Many developments will outlive any one person’s tenure, so we want what we build to reflect Oregon values and to lean into innovation and technology. That includes materials and energy efficiency, not only as a cost issue but as part of the built environment.

One example is modular design. We wanted to incorporate pathways for funding modular housing, including workforce training and the use of equipment that can increase production. A specific example mentioned is a hornet saw, which can enable modular producers to create two-bedroom homes every two days.

The point, for us, is not innovation for its own sake. It is innovation that produces outcomes people can feel in everyday life. In ORCA, the standards-based approach is part of streamlining, but also part of cementing innovation, advancing shared values, and driving accountability by tying policy and resources together.

What results have you seen since the launch, and what has worked well?

One of the most meaningful outcomes is that ORCA has shown what is possible. Too often, people do not associate government with efficiency, speed, or technology. We wanted to challenge that assumption and demonstrate that government innovation is happening and has to happen to keep up with the pace of change.

As a specific proof point, we have seen resources getting to communities six times faster, moving from over a year to 60 days.

That speed matters because it helps get units on the ground sooner, which means people can get housed sooner. It has also raised expectations about how things can be better. There was concern and critique leading up to launch, and then on opening day there was the practical worry of whether the system would hold up and whether projects could move through swiftly.

Government efficiency is valuable, but we are particularly interested in efficiency that centers humanity.

What has ORCA changed for applicants that historically struggled to compete?

We consistently heard from small towns and rural communities, Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribes, and culturally specific organizations that the old process was so complicated that it could be discouraging from the very start. On top of that, these applicants often had less capacity to devote to a competitive process, and they sometimes felt that larger institutions were better positioned to win funding. In some cases, they were right.

We also heard a deeper question: where does competition actually help the people we serve, and where is it an outdated framework that gets in the way of innovation, progress, and access?

With ORCA, we aimed to maintain our values in serving people across Oregon by preserving key resource set-asides for tribes, small towns and rural communities, and culturally specific agencies. That creates more assurance that applicants can pursue resources without feeling they have to rush simply to keep up.

And it is not only about the desired outcome of more housing. It is also about building in communities where state and federal government has failed to live up to the value of building in rural areas, honoring tribal sovereignty, and ensuring government serves its people, not the other way around.

What’s one thing you wish you knew at the start of this project, as advice to any other governments looking to replicate your work?

There are many technical pieces, but the biggest lesson I would pass on is about risk tolerance. Government can get stuck focusing on everything that could go wrong, including the fear of public failure, and that becomes the reason not to move forward.

But people’s lives are changing faster than government can keep up with. My advice is: if you see a problem, tackle it without pause or delay, whether it is small or big. Also, think about the use of technologies, including artificial intelligence, because it will be part of the world we are building. It is not something you can choose to participate in or not. It is already part of our lives.

I would challenge government to think about how it can constrain itself by being tethered to risk tolerance. We have not averted risk just by holding back, given what people are facing with cost of living. Now is the time for government to lean in and lead change that makes everyday life better and more affordable for people.