HARDEST HIT FUND

Final Report and Key Lessons Learned – January 2023
HARDEST HIT FUND

Background and Reference

2

• In 2010, Treasury established The Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 

HHF allocated $7.6 billion to 18 states and the District of Columbia to assist struggling homeowners 

through locally tailored programs administered by each respective housing finance agency (HFA) in order 

to help prevent avoidable foreclosures and stabilize housing markets. These areas were designated 

“hardest hit” because they experienced steep home price declines and/or severe unemployment in the 

economic downturn.

• On February 19, 2016, Treasury announced an additional $2 billion allocation to HHF, for a total 

allocation of $9.6 billion. States were required to finalize any decisions with respect to underwriting 

homeowner assistance or blight elimination projects by June 30, 2021.

• HFAs reported program performance on a quarterly basis to Treasury. This Report is intended to serve as 

an additional resource for Hardest Hit Fund program information, data and key lessons learned. For more 

detailed information, including previously published quarterly reports and summaries please refer to: 

www.treasury.gov/data/troubled-assets-relief-program/reports . 

• Additionally, each participating state’s official quarterly reports are posted on each Housing Finance 

Agency’s website accessible on the “State-by-State Information” page found here: 

www.treasury.gov/HHF.
HARDEST HIT FUND

Program History

3

• The housing crisis that began in 2007 led to unprecedented home price declines and sustained, high 

unemployment in many parts of the United States.

• Families in these areas were particularly hard hit by this crisis as they struggled to make their 

monthly mortgage payments and grappled with deeply underwater mortgages.

• Treasury established the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) in February 2010 to provide targeted aid to 

families in states hit hard by the economic and housing market downturn.

• As part of the overall strategy for restoring stability to housing markets, HHF provided funding for 

19 state Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to develop locally-tailored foreclosure prevention 

solutions in areas that had been hard hit by home price declines and high unemployment.

• The 19 HFAs were selected based on high levels of home price depreciation and/or unemployment 

rates within their states.
HARDEST HIT FUND

Eligible State Participants

4

State Launch Date Allocation

($ Million)

September 2010 

Unemployment

Alabama February 2, 2011 $163 8.9%

Arizona September 20, 2010 $296 9.7%

California January 10, 2011 $2,359 12.4%

District of Columbia April 19, 2011 $29 9.8%

Florida April 18, 2011 $1,136 11.9%

Georgia April 1, 2011 $370 10.0%

Illinois July 25, 2011 $715 9.9%

Indiana May 10, 2011 $284 10.1%

Kentucky April 1, 2011 $207 10.1%

Michigan July 12, 2010 $761 13.0%

Mississippi May 16, 2011 $144 9.8%

North Carolina December 1, 2010 $707 9.6%

New Jersey May 8, 2011 $415 9.4%

Nevada February 21, 2011 $203 14.4%

Ohio September 27, 2010 $762 10.0%

Oregon December 10, 2010 $315 10.6%

Rhode Island December 1, 2010 $116 11.5%

South Carolina January 20, 2011 $317 11.0%

Tennessee March 1, 2011 $302 9.4%
HARDEST HIT FUND 

Summary of Program Results

5

• HFAs implemented several different programs, including mortgage payment assistance, mortgage 

reinstatement, short sale assistance, principal reduction and modification assistance, down payment 

assistance, and residential blight elimination programs.

• Over the course of the program, funds were disbursed on behalf of 91 programs. Most of this 

assistance has been provided from HHF mortgage payment and reinstatement programs; which 

assisted borrowers suffering a financial hardship typically related to either unemployment or 

underemployment.

• In the aggregate, states disbursed $8.8 billion of their program funds from Treasury and assisted 

418,670 homeowners while spending an additional $1.0 billion on administrative expenses.

• The largest number of HHF homeowners were assisted in 2013, and the largest amount of HHF 

assistance was disbursed in 2014.
HARDEST HIT FUND

Program Results – Number of Homeowners Assisted

6

Homeowners Assisted per Year Total Assistance Provided 

per Year

2010 757 $4,214,974

2011 29,883 $210,681,965

2012 63,416 $801,941,498

2013 67,727 $1,317,979,183

2014 56,667 $1,398,106,676

2015 31,292 $1,018,424,824

2016 42,464 $1,006,366,404

2017 55,211 $1,232,507,025

2018 36,204 $942,774.828

2019 22,880 $569,023,752

2020 8,810 $221,288,950

2021 3,359 $64,031,714
HARDEST HIT FUND

Program Results – Homeowner Retention

7

• 96.9% of homeowners who received HHF assistance avoided loss of a home due to foreclosure, 

deed-in-lieu, or short sale for at least 2 years after assistance*

State Retention Percentage

Alabama 96.5%

Arizona 99.5%

California 97.8%

Florida 96.9%

Georgia 97.6%

Illinois 98.5%

Indiana 91.8%

Kentucky 98.9%

Mississippi 95.3%

North Carolina 96.4%

Nevada 97.7%

Ohio 96.1%

Oregon 96.1%

South Carolina 99.0%

Tennessee 91.2%

*Data for District of Columbia, Michigan, New Jersey and Rhode Island not available
HARDEST HIT FUND 

Key Lessons Learned

8

• The decentralized, state-run model of HHF allowed for innovation in the foreclosure mitigation 

space, with states experimenting with various models of foreclosure prevention assistance. Hardest 

Hit Fund programs vary state to state, included the following:

• Mortgage payment assistance for unemployed or underemployed homeowners

• Principal reduction to help homeowners attain more affordable mortgages

• Assistance for homeowners transitioning out of their homes and into more affordable places of 

residence

• Blight elimination and down payment assistance efforts

• The HHF program was criticized for delays in providing assistance to homeowners at-risk of 

foreclosure. Primary reasons for this delay were challenges in standing up unprecedented programs, 

difficulties in securing the participation of mortgage loan servicers and initially, strict eligibility 

criteria for program applicants.

• Based on this experience, the HHF Program Team sought to build partnerships between Treasury, 

states, and servicers in order to ensure participation of key entities. These initiatives included the use 

of the Hardest Hit Fund’s Common Data File (CDF), a record transfer process between states and 

servicers developed in the early days of HHF to facilitate approval of eligible homeowner applicants.

• Treasury also worked with state participants on revising eligibility criteria and documentation 

requirements in favor of more programmatic flexibility. In addition, Treasury facilitated sharing best 

practices through annual Hardest Hit Fund Summit meetings.
HARDEST HIT FUND

Key Lessons Learned

9

• Treasury owed a great deal to the state Housing Finance Agency partners who ran the Hardest 

Hit Fund Programs, which underlines the importance of participation and partnership at the state 

level in these housing programs. Also notable, was mortgage servicer participation in partnering 

with states HFAs to ensure at risk borrowers could take advantage of the various programs. 

• Each state HFA’s ability to manage the day-to-day operations of these programs allowed 

Treasury to focus on and manage larger and more long-term complexities within and among the 

programs and communicate across the state HFA partners.

• Treasury officials have publicly stated that lessons learned from the Hardest Hit Fund informed 

the Treasury Department's approach to implementing the Homeowner Assistance Fund, made 

available through the American Rescue Plan in response to the impact of the COVID pandemic 

on homeowners.