Almost 400,000 people at risk of housing-related distress had received a total of more than $5.5 billion of money from the $9.96 billion fund as of June 30, according to a Treasury Department report issued this week.

The money allocated in the second quarter was up 28% from the first and the number of people helped rose from where it stood around the time of the fund's two-year anniversary in March, when the Treasury had reported that it had assisted 230,000 people. 

The progress is heartening given the problems with distribution in states like Pennsylvania, which put its program on hold early this year to transition away from vendor management to an in-house strategy.

Pennsylvania's program is one of five that the National Council of State Housing Agencies listed as suspended at deadline. However, the state maintains an emergency hotline to help those at risk of foreclosure.

Other states with programs paused at the time of this writing were Kansas, Nebraska, New York and Tennessee. In some cases states have paused programs due to the need to establish a waitlist. Fifteen jurisdictions had closed programs. Program status and eligibility can fluctuate.

Policymakers designed the Homeowner Assistance Fund programs to help borrowers with hardships transition away from temporary foreclosure relief measures available during the pandemic. Mortgage companies have played a key role in the distribution of funds, which many states allocated to rectify delinquencies that could put homeowners at risk of losing their homes. 

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has required mortgage servicers to suspend foreclosures for up to 60 days if they receive notice a borrower has applied for HAF funds.

Problems with servicer participation remained low in the latest report, constituting just 1% of denials.

The largest contributor to denials, at 39%, was the inability to complete applications in time. The cause of many or 32% of denials wasn't specified. 

The next biggest cause of denials at 9% was lack of a pandemic-related hardships, followed by income eligibility (7%), homeowners not meeting their jurisdiction's definition of delinquent (6%), late payments over a program's maximum (3%).

Other applicants were disqualified because their homes weren't primary residences (2%) or they had a principal balance above the conforming limit (1%).

More than half of recipients had incomes lower than 50% of the area median. A little over 21% had an AMI above 50% but below 80%. Around 13% had incomes higher than 80% of the area median but under 100%. Roughly 5% had earnings that topped 100% AMI but ran under 150%.

A very small percentage of recipients, 0.15% had incomes above 150% of the area median. The balance had unspecified incomes.

By ethnicity or race, the three largest groups of recipients were white residents (46.8%), followed by Black or African-American households (35.22%), and Hispanic or Latino homeowners (18.17%). A little over 3% of recipients were Asian borrowers.

Some specific programs outside state authority have been earmarked for indigenous people living on tribal lands.