Analysis · Homeowner Assistance Fund
Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF): unspent money by state
The Homeowner Assistance Fund was Congress's 2021 pandemic program to help homeowners catch up on their mortgages. By March 2026, South Dakota had spent 5.8% of its share and Tennessee 37.1%. Most of the slowest states had few homeowners in serious trouble to begin with.
The states that spent the least mostly had few mortgages far behind
Each dot is a state. Share of HAF award spent by March 2026, against the share of mortgage holders 90 days or more behind in early 2025.
Use this chart Free to use with credit
The quote: By March 2026, South Dakota had spent 5.8% of its Homeowner Assistance Fund award, the smallest share of any state, and Tennessee 37.1% (U.S. Treasury).
The states that spent the smallest share of their Homeowner Assistance Fund money mostly had the fewest homeowners in serious trouble. All six of the slowest spenders were in the half of states with the fewest mortgages three months behind. Some had rules that turned many applicants away. Tennessee came closest to typical trouble and still spent little.
Each state designed and ran its own version of the fund, called HAF for short. The money paid overdue mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance and utilities for people hurt by the pandemic. By the end of March 2026, the 50 states and DC had spent 95.8% of $9.31 billion. Six states had spent less than 80%.
That raises a fair question. Did the slow states leave money behind because their people needed it less, or because their programs made it hard to get? From the data, the answer is mostly the first, with a large share of the second.
How much HAF money each state spent
Six states stand apart. South Dakota had spent 5.8% of its $50 million award. Tennessee had spent 37.1% of $168.2 million, and Wyoming 48.9% of $50 million. Idaho, Montana and Alaska had spent between 69% and 78%.
Everyone else was close to done. Forty-one of the 51 had spent at least 90%, and 14 had spent it all.
Between them, the six slowest states held more than half of the roughly $392 million the states hadn’t spent. Tennessee alone had about $106 million left, more than any other state.
HAF spending by state
The table uses two of Treasury’s terms. Spent means money paid out for homeowners, plus the cost of running the program, which Treasury caps at 15% of the award. Committed means money a state has promised under a contract but may not have paid yet.
| South Dakota | $50 million | 5.8% | 5.8% | 324 | 3.5 | 0.90% | 31 | 0.60% | 29 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee | $168.2 million | 37.1% | 44.0% | 2,985 | 4.1 | 1.00% | 28 | 0.80% | 15 | 50 |
| Wyoming | $50 million | 48.9% | 49.4% | 2,200 | 37.4 | 0.70% | 46 | 0.60% | 29 | 12 |
| Idaho | $71.9 million | 69.4% | 69.4% | 2,991 | 14.7 | 0.70% | 46 | 0.30% | 49 | 28 |
| Montana | $50 million | 74.9% | 74.9% | 1,872 | 16.4 | 0.80% | 38 | 0.50% | 36 | 8 |
| Alaska | $50 million | 77.9% | 80.7% | 7,258 | 98.4 | 0.80% | 38 | 0.30% | 49 | 20 |
| New Jersey | $326 million | 82.1% | 83.3% | 8,159 | 8.6 | 1.20% | 20 | 0.90% | 10 | 56 |
| North Dakota | $50 million | 86.4% | 86.5% | 3,463 | 43.3 | 0.80% | 38 | 0.60% | 29 | 0 |
| Hawaii | $50 million | 86.8% | 90.4% | 2,067 | 14.4 | 0.90% | 31 | 0.60% | 29 | 24 |
| Oklahoma | $87.1 million | 87.0% | 87.0% | 3,862 | 9.4 | 1.50% | 6 | 1.00% | 6 | 60 |
| Maine | $50 million | 90.8% | 91.2% | 2,949 | 20.8 | 0.90% | 31 | 0.80% | 15 | 16 |
| Georgia | $354.2 million | 91.3% | 92.0% | 11,984 | 10.6 | 1.50% | 6 | 0.80% | 15 | 88 |
| Alabama | $125.7 million | 94.7% | 94.7% | 6,254 | 12.0 | 1.50% | 6 | 1.10% | 5 | 74 |
| Iowa | $50 million | 95.1% | 95.6% | 4,276 | 13.2 | 0.90% | 31 | 0.60% | 29 | 22 |
| Oregon | $90.9 million | 95.6% | 95.8% | 3,951 | 9.3 | 0.80% | 38 | 0.50% | 36 | 64 |
| District of Columbia | $50 million | 96.0% | 96.4% | 1,458 | 21.0 | 1.40% | 12 | 0.70% | 26 | 70 |
| Kentucky | $85.5 million | 96.7% | 96.8% | 4,457 | 9.7 | 1.30% | 14 | 1.00% | 6 | 72 |
| Arkansas | $63.3 million | 96.8% | 96.9% | 3,595 | 11.5 | 1.30% | 14 | 1.00% | 6 | 54 |
| New Mexico | $55.8 million | 97.5% | 97.5% | 5,703 | 26.8 | 1.40% | 12 | 1.20% | 4 | 80 |
| West Virginia | $50 million | 97.6% | 97.8% | 7,673 | 43.4 | 1.60% | 3 | 1.40% | 3 | 58 |
| Utah | $66 million | 97.6% | 97.9% | 2,748 | 7.8 | 0.60% | 50 | 0.30% | 49 | 18 |
| Maryland | $248.6 million | 97.7% | 98.5% | 26,053 | 41.6 | 1.30% | 14 | 0.80% | 15 | 68 |
| Louisiana | $146.7 million | 98.3% | 98.9% | 7,629 | 16.5 | 2.50% | 1 | 1.50% | 1 | 98 |
| South Carolina | $144.7 million | 98.4% | 99.5% | 14,873 | 26.7 | 1.50% | 6 | 0.90% | 10 | 86 |
| Ohio | $280.8 million | 98.4% | 98.4% | 34,755 | 29.2 | 1.10% | 23 | 0.70% | 26 | 48 |
| Colorado | $175.1 million | 98.9% | 99.6% | 10,067 | 16.7 | 0.80% | 38 | 0.40% | 43 | 34 |
| Florida | $676.1 million | 99.0% | 99.2% | 68,843 | 29.3 | 1.50% | 6 | 0.90% | 10 | 96 |
| Connecticut | $123.1 million | 99.1% | 99.2% | 4,513 | 12.2 | 1.30% | 14 | 0.90% | 10 | 76 |
| Illinois | $386.9 million | 99.2% | 99.2% | 17,068 | 13.4 | 1.20% | 20 | 0.80% | 15 | 66 |
| Massachusetts | $178.5 million | 99.2% | 99.2% | 7,400 | 10.3 | 0.80% | 38 | 0.60% | 29 | 32 |
| Rhode Island | $50 million | 99.4% | 99.4% | 1,851 | 16.6 | 1.10% | 23 | 0.50% | 36 | 42 |
| Nebraska | $50 million | 99.4% | 99.4% | 3,094 | 15.3 | 0.80% | 38 | 0.40% | 43 | 10 |
| Virginia | $258.4 million | 99.5% | 99.5% | 12,612 | 14.2 | 0.90% | 31 | 0.50% | 36 | 40 |
| Pennsylvania | $350.4 million | 99.5% | 99.7% | 22,597 | 17.3 | 1.30% | 14 | 0.80% | 15 | 52 |
| Texas | $842.2 million | 99.8% | 99.8% | 63,188 | 19.9 | 1.60% | 3 | 0.80% | 15 | 94 |
| Wisconsin | $92.7 million | 99.9% | 99.9% | 9,801 | 16.4 | 0.60% | 50 | 0.50% | 36 | 14 |
| Michigan | $242.8 million | 99.9% | 99.9% | 29,151 | 28.8 | 1.00% | 28 | 0.50% | 36 | 92 |
| Vermont | $50 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 6,603 | 102.4 | 0.90% | 31 | 0.80% | 15 | 6 |
| Missouri | $138.3 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 9,825 | 15.7 | 1.10% | 23 | 0.70% | 26 | 38 |
| Arizona | $197 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 12,573 | 16.5 | 1.10% | 23 | 0.40% | 43 | 78 |
| Delaware | $50 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 3,278 | 30.9 | 1.30% | 14 | 0.80% | 15 | 84 |
| Kansas | $56.6 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 4,351 | 14.6 | 1.00% | 28 | 0.60% | 29 | 30 |
| Minnesota | $128.7 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 8,057 | 13.8 | 0.80% | 38 | 0.40% | 43 | 24 |
| Mississippi | $72.3 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 5,080 | 17.2 | 2.10% | 2 | 1.50% | 1 | 90 |
| North Carolina | $273.3 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 17,974 | 16.1 | 1.10% | 23 | 0.80% | 15 | 44 |
| Washington | $173.2 million | 100.0% | 100.0% | 6,835 | 8.5 | 0.70% | 46 | 0.40% | 43 | 36 |
| California | $1.06 billion | 100.0% | 100.0% | 31,933 | 8.1 | 0.90% | 31 | 0.40% | 43 | 82 |
| New Hampshire | $50 million | 100.3% | 100.3% | 3,295 | 23.3 | 0.70% | 46 | 0.50% | 36 | 4 |
| New York | $539.5 million | 100.6% | 100.6% | 19,072 | 9.5 | 1.50% | 6 | 1.00% | 6 | 62 |
| Indiana | $167.9 million | 102.1% | 102.1% | 11,332 | 16.3 | 1.20% | 20 | 0.80% | 15 | 46 |
| Nevada | $120.9 million | 102.9% | 102.9% | 3,893 | 11.9 | 1.60% | 3 | 0.90% | 10 | 100 |
How much of its Homeowner Assistance Fund award each state had spent, beside how many of its mortgages were 90 days or more behind. All 50 states and DC, sorted by share spent, lowest first. Tap a column to re-sort. Sources: U.S. Treasury, HAF Quarterly Compliance Data through March 31, 2026; Philadelphia Fed Consumer Credit Explorer (New York Fed Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax); American Default State Distress Index.
Four states show more than 100% spent (Nevada, Indiana, New York and New Hampshire). That's Treasury's reported figure. Money a state recovered and paid out again may explain it; we haven't confirmed that.
Did states with more mortgage trouble spend more of their HAF money?
Only at the bottom of the list. The slowest spenders mostly had few mortgages far behind, but across all 51 states, mortgage trouble and share spent barely line up (a rank correlation of +0.13, where 0 means no match).
To test that, I needed a measure of trouble in each state. The one I used is the share of people with a mortgage who are at least 90 days behind, from the Philadelphia Fed’s Consumer Credit Explorer, which draws on credit records from the New York Fed and Equifax. Ninety days behind means three or more missed payments.
The slowest spenders all sat in the calmer half. In the first quarter of 2025, the latest data, Wyoming ranked 46th of 51 for mortgages 90 days behind, Idaho 46th, Alaska 38th, Montana 38th and South Dakota 31st. Tennessee came closest to the middle, at 28th.
In plain numbers, about one in 130 mortgage holders was that far behind in the typical slow state (0.80%). In the other states it was about one in 90 (1.10%).
It was much the same while the programs were open. At the end of 2021, when most states were taking applications, Idaho and Alaska were tied with Utah for the lowest share of mortgages 90 days behind in the country. Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota were all in the lower half too. Tennessee was 15th, the only one of the six in the upper half.
The other end of the list makes the same point. The 10 places with the most mortgage trouble in 2025 all spent at least 87%, and most were close to 100%. Louisiana had the highest share behind, about 3 in 100 (2.50%), and spent 98.3%.
Our own State Distress Index tells the same story. It scores each state from 0 to 100 on household money trouble across seven measures, most of them not about mortgages; 100 is the most strained. South Dakota scored 2, second lowest of the 51.
But this only holds at the bottom of the list. Across all 51, a state’s mortgage trouble barely lines up with how much it spent. Plenty of calm states spent everything. Utah and Wisconsin were tied for the lowest share of mortgages behind in the country and spent 97.6% and 99.9%.
Award size lines up better. Congress gave every state at least $50 million. That floor was a lot of money for a small state with few homeowners behind. Fifteen places got the minimum, and four of them are among the six slowest: South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and Alaska.
Why some states spent so little of their HAF money
Need wasn’t the whole story. Each state wrote its own rules, and some rules kept people out.
South Dakota offered a loan, not a grant. Its plan to Treasury said the help “will be structured as a 0% interest loan, no monthly payment” (South Dakota Housing Development Authority, HAF plan, Aug. 20, 2021). You’d repay it when you sold, refinanced or moved.
South Dakota also told Treasury it didn’t have much of a problem. The same plan put its share of mortgages behind at 3.75%, against 6.12% nationally.
The people who did apply often didn’t finish. Of 1,522 applications, 659 were withdrawn, about four in 10. More than half of the denials, 55%, were for having no hardship from COVID. The state’s announcement said who qualified: “Qualifications are primarily based on being financially impacted due to COVID-19 and the household’s income” (SDHDA, Feb. 24, 2022).
Tennessee stopped its main program early. Catching up on missed mortgage payments in one lump sum was HAF’s main use in most states. Tennessee stopped it nearly three years before the deadline: “Submissions for reinstatement programs were closed on August 6, 2023” (Tennessee Housing Development Agency HAF page, read Oct. 8, 2026). What came after was narrow. Its later phase was only for certain second mortgages from down-payment programs, for people earning under 60% of the national median income (THDA term sheet filed with Treasury, Feb. 15, 2022). The federal limit was 150% of the area’s median income.
Tennessee’s denials point the same way. Seven in 10 were for no COVID hardship. It had helped about four households for every 10,000 residents, the second lowest of any state. I couldn’t find any statement from Tennessee on how much it expects to send back.
Wyoming said the money ran out. Treasury’s numbers say otherwise. The state’s program page says “The closure decision arises from the depletion of allocated federal funds” (Wyoming Department of Family Services, HAF page, read Oct. 8, 2026). It stopped taking applications on Oct. 31, 2024. Yet by March 2026, Wyoming had spent 48.9%. One likely reason is that the state meant a budget it had set aside, not the whole award. Wyoming hasn’t said.
Wyoming’s case is different from South Dakota’s. It reached about 37 households per 10,000 residents, more than most states. It also denied more applications than it approved, mostly for incomplete applications or reasons Treasury files as “other.” Few were turned away for lack of a COVID hardship.
Montana saw little interest in parts of its program. When it ended help with homeowners insurance, the state’s acting commerce director said “this decision was made due to a lack of interest in this element of the program” (Mandy Rambo, Montana Department of Commerce, in the Roundup Record-Tribune, May 21, 2025). The money moved to property-tax help instead.
What happens to unspent HAF money?
Unspent HAF money goes back to the U.S. Treasury, not to other states. Treasury’s closeout rules say “HAF recipients and subrecipients may no longer obligate HAF award funds after September 30, 2026” (Treasury, HAF Standard Closeout Checklist). Obligate means commit. Money a state committed by then but hasn’t paid by Jan. 28, 2027, goes back too.
There’s no step to move South Dakota’s leftover money to a state that ran out. The law allowed one reshuffle, in 2021. Treasury’s guidance says every state asked for its money on time, so “no reallocations occurred” (Treasury, HAF Guidance).
Could something else explain the slow HAF spending?
Yes, several things could. Here’s the strongest case against my reading.
The $50 million floor. Small states got more money than their need called for. A low share spent there may mean too much money, not too little effort. But that doesn’t explain South Dakota. It reached about 3.5 households per 10,000 residents, the fewest of any state. Wyoming, with the same award, reached about 11 times as many for its size.
The rules, not the need. A loan instead of a grant, a strict COVID test and an early closing date would all keep people out, whatever the need. In South Dakota and Tennessee, the rules may matter more than the number of homeowners behind. I can’t separate the two with this data.
Timing. These figures stop at March 31, 2026. Some states were still paying out. Alaska closed applications in April 2022 yet kept paying for years, and it reached about 98 households per 10,000 residents, one of the highest. A state’s final report could show the gap closed.
The wrong kind of trouble. HAF only paid for hardship tied to the pandemic, starting Jan. 21, 2020. Our mortgage measure counts everyone 90 days behind, for any reason. A state could have plenty of homeowners behind that HAF wasn’t allowed to help.
The measure is broad. Neither our mortgage measure nor the State Distress Index counts the people HAF was built for: owners of the home they live in, earning under 150% of their area’s median income, with a COVID hardship. The mortgage figures are a sample of credit records, one quarter at a time, and the latest is from early 2025.
A small group. Six states out of 51 is a small group. Move one or two and the pattern weakens. This describes what happened. It doesn’t prove why.
What “spent” counts. Spent includes the cost of running the program. Of South Dakota’s 5.8%, 3.7% went to homeowners and 2.1% to running it.
What would prove the low-need reading wrong
- Final reports showing near-full spending. States file final reports by Jan. 28, 2027. If South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming report spending close to their full awards, the gap was timing, not low need or tight rules.
- A count of who was eligible. If someone counted homeowners with a COVID hardship and income under 150% of the area median, and the slow states had as many per household as other states, then need doesn’t explain the gap and the rules do.
- Newer or in-between mortgage data. If the slow states ranked in the troubled half in 2022 or 2023, when most money went out, the low-need reading fails.
- Wyoming’s own records. If they show its award really did run out, with requests left unpaid, then demand outran the money there.
If you’re behind on your mortgage now
HAF can’t help with new requests. Programs couldn’t commit new money after Sept. 30, 2026. If your state’s program approved you before then, call the program and ask about payments still being processed.
Most of the help that’s left comes through your loan itself, from your mortgage company. Here’s what help is still available: See what mortgage help is left →
A HUD-approved housing counselor is a free adviser, approved by the federal housing department, who can go over your options with you. You can reach one at 800-569-4287 or find a HUD-approved counselor near you →
How we did this
- Share spent is a state’s program spending plus its administrative spending, divided by its award, from Treasury’s Q1 2026 workbook. Share committed uses Treasury’s columns for committed money, which it calls obligations, the same way. Treasury publishes neither share; we worked them out.
- Households helped is Treasury’s “Homeowners Assisted,” a running count since 2021 that includes people helped only through housing counseling. Per 10,000 residents uses the Census Bureau’s 2025 state population estimates.
- Mortgages 90 days behind is the Consumer Credit Explorer’s share of people with a mortgage who have one at least 90 days past due. We used Q1 2025, the latest, and Q4 2021, when most programs were open.
- Comparing the two. We ranked all 51 on both measures and checked how closely the rankings match (a rank correlation, where 0 means no match and 1 a perfect match). Mortgage trouble and share spent: +0.13 in 2025 and −0.03 in 2021, both near zero. Award size and share spent: +0.35.
- Reasons for denial are Treasury’s shares of each state’s denied applications, from the same workbook’s “Applications by Participant” tab.
- We cover the 50 states and DC and leave out territories and tribal programs. Our total matches Treasury’s own State/DC total.
Sources
- U.S. Treasury, HAF Quarterly Compliance Data, Q1 2026 (released July 21, 2026)
- U.S. Treasury, Homeowner Assistance Fund program page
- U.S. Treasury, HAF Standard Closeout Checklist
- U.S. Treasury, HAF Guidance
- Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Consumer Credit Explorer (New York Fed Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax), state mortgage 90+ days past due, Q4 2021 and Q1 2025
- American Default, State Distress Index
- South Dakota Housing Development Authority, HAF plan submitted to Treasury (Aug. 20, 2021; revised Dec. 22, 2021)
- SDHDA, announcement, Feb. 24, 2022
- Tennessee Housing Development Agency, HAF page (read Oct. 8, 2026)
- THDA, Phase 2 term sheet filed with Treasury (Feb. 15, 2022)
- Wyoming Department of Family Services, HAF page (read Oct. 8, 2026)
- Roundup Record-Tribune, Montana ending insurance help (May 21, 2025)
- Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Homeowner Assistance page
- Related on our site: the mortgage-help guide, the FHA mortgage delinquency rate, the State Distress Index, our HUD-approved counselor directory.