Retrofitting As Climate Justice: Sociotechnical Capacity and Climate Readiness In U.S. Public Housing Authorities

Background and Purpose:
This presentation reports findings from a national survey of public housing authorities (PHAs) assessing their organizational climate readiness and their policy and program utilization relevant to energy retrofit adoption. The context for the survey is an interdisciplinary social work–engineering study testing the feasibility and adoption of retrofit technologies intended to increase energy efficiency in aging public housing. Quality public housing is an essential common good providing approximately 1.6 million people with homes, yet historical underfunding and climate change have accelerated deterioration and disproportionately impacted communities of color. Grounded in a sociotechnical systems framework and social work’s climate justice mandate, we conceptualize retrofit adoption as a distributive and procedural equity issue.

Methods:
A survey of PHA representatives (N = 241; 86.3% executive directors) was conducted across teh U.S. (Northeast/Atlantic 17.1%, South/Southeast 31.3%, Midwest 40.0%, Pacific/Mountain 11.7%). Measures included housing stock characteristics, policy and program utilization, and a 10-item 4-point Likert climate readiness scale (0–40; higher scores indicate higher readiness). Organizational climate readiness was defined as the extent to which institutions are psychologically, procedurally, and operationally prepared to implement climate change adaptations. Missing data were addressed using predictive mean matching. Analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multiple linear regression.

Results:
Respondents reported low utilization of energy affordability programs; the most common was the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (21.2%), a key safety-net support for acute energy insecurity. Respondents more frequently utilized core HUD programs, including the Public Housing Operating Fund (55.2%), the Public Housing Capital Fund, and Housing Choice Vouchers (37.3%). Mean climate readiness was 26.32, with regional variation (Midwest lowest: 24.84; Southeast highest: 27.14). The regression model predicting climate readiness was statistically significant (p <.001) and explained 18.5% of the variance. Larger operating budgets (≥$10 million; B = 3.110, p <.001) and access to state or federal climate/energy policy (B = 2.509, p <.001) were positively associated with climate readiness. Housing stock made from wood (B = −2.382, p <.001) and steel (B = −1.745, p =.019) were negatively associated with readiness.

Conclusion:
Respondents demonstrated “moderate” climate readiness, reflecting awareness and concern but not necessarily implementation of adaptation plans. Findings identify a sociotechnical “capacity gradient” in which readiness to pursue retrofit technologies is strongly shaped by financial and policy access—factors unevenly distributed across place and organizational size. This is a climate justice concern because it can widen disparities in housing quality, thermal safety, and energy affordability: smaller and more rural PHAs may face structural barriers to retrofit uptake despite high need. For social work practice and implementation research, results support roles in cross-sector partnership and resident-centered change management—facilitating participation, mitigating disruption, building trust, and monitoring equity impacts. For policy, results suggest that without equity-oriented design, retrofit investments may preferentially flow to higher-capacity PHAs. Targeted capacity-building funds, dedicated rural funding, streamlined compliance, and accessible financing are needed to level access and prevent widening climate-related housing inequities.