Community and economic development (CED) organizations—community development corporations; affordable housing developers; community development financial institutions; and neighborhood nonprofits that work on housing, education, workforce and small business development, health and human services, and resident empowerment and advocacy—have a long history of working on environmental issues. Their expertise, experience, and proximity to climate-vulnerable communities makes them important partners for launching impactful climate mitigation, adaptation, and disaster recovery initiatives, and yet little is known about how the sector engages in climate-related work. Using results from a nationally representative survey, this report explores whether CED organizations see climate change as relevant to their mission, what climate-related work they are already doing, and what barriers and constraints are obstacles to further work.

Why This Matters

CED organizations work in underserved neighborhoods disproportionately vulnerable to flooding, extreme heat, and other climate hazards. These risks are rooted in the same historical disinvestment patterns the CED sector evolved to address. The CED sector is therefore well-positioned to help communities take transformative climate action, to address the root causes of climate inequalities. This report provides unique insight into how the CED sector is engaged on climate issues. It also offers helpful guidance for climate organizations seeking to build partnerships within the CED sector, for foundations deciding how to structure climate funding, for intermediaries designing technical assistance, and for local and state officials shaping the policy environment that CED organizations operate within.

What We Found

CED leaders largely see climate change as relevant to their work, but that recognition has not translated evenly into action:

• A climate engagement gap runs through the sector, despite wide acknowledgment of climate change’s effects. Eighty-six percent of leaders said climate change is very or somewhat important to their organization’s mission, and a large majority (63 to 85 percent) report seeing various climate harms (e.g., harms to health and safety, rising housing costs, diminished local economic well-being, gentrification and displacement) affecting the communities they work with. And yet only half of organizations (251) reported being moderately or highly engaged in climate-related work.
• Mission, cost, and capacity keep organizations from offering more climate-related solutions and services. Among organizations that are minimally or not engaged on climate issues, 81 percent cited expense and competing priorities as a reason, and 72 percent said they lack the financial resources or staff capacity to do more. Just 6 percent strongly agreed that political risk was too high to engage openly. Among organizations that were at least minimally engaged, 86 percent noted that additional financial resources would be beneficial to expanding their climate-related work, but they noted that having staff and expertise to channel those resources were crucial.
• CED organizations remain at the periphery of the climate ecosystem. Just over half collaborate with climate or environmental organizations at least sometimes, but most do so as a bridge to community members rather than as a codesigners or leaders of the work, and only a third participate in climate-specific networks.

How We Did It

Urban Institute researchers surveyed senior leaders at US-based CED organizations using an online survey fielded from March 2 to April 3, 2026. Invitations went to 3,273 contacts drawn from the Community Opportunity Alliance’s Grounding Values national census of community-based development organizations, supplemented with outreach to organizational leaders in 12 small to mid-sized cities. The survey yielded 464 valid responses, a 14 percent response rate. The survey frame was intentionally structured around organizations that engage or have engaged in development rather than the broader community development field, and nonresponse analysis shows respondent organizations’ characteristics reflected those of the full survey universe.