Updated: March 12, 2025
Homeowners who have home repair but not enough funds use a variety of programs source to help them repair their home.
- Homeowners across states get most direct help locally at the city, county level and through local non-profits.
- This is explained by the fact the Federal government provided indirect homeowner funding through HUD (block grants to states, counties and cities for home repair) and by the Department of Energy to non-profits for weatherization.
This is the 2nd part of MFP’s Survey on Homeowner Use of Official Government Repair Programs.
The third part goes over homeowners’ satisfaction with the different level of programs and finally review the main barriers to fund home repairs (from personal reasons to programs’ barriers)
Where homeowners get direct help for home repair programs?
| State | Federal | State | City/County | Non-profits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 9% | 13% | 44% | 34% |
| Alaska | 12% | 18% | 44% | 33% |
| Arizona | 11% | 18% | 27% | 53% |
| Arkansas | 7% | 18% | 47% | 30% |
| California | 9% | 18% | 34% | 37% |
| Colorado | 10% | 15% | 32% | 28% |
| Connecticut | 7% | 17% | 32% | 24% |
| Delaware | 12% | 11% | 47% | 53% |
| DC | 6% | 14% | 29% | 44% |
| Florida | 9% | 15% | 33% | 28% |
| Georgia | 11% | 9% | 40% | 45% |
| Hawaii | 8% | 10% | 34% | 53% |
| Idaho | 6% | 10% | 43% | 30% |
| Illinois | 7% | 10% | 35% | 40% |
| Indiana | 9% | 12% | 30% | 25% |
| Iowa | 6% | 17% | 45% | 32% |
| Kansas | 11% | 17% | 38% | 21% |
| Kentucky | 10% | 11% | 35% | 41% |
| Louisiana | 8% | 19% | 28% | 41% |
| Maine | 11% | 13% | 37% | 51% |
| Maryland | 6% | 18% | 41% | 37% |
| Massachusetts | 10% | 10% | 42% | 39% |
| Michigan | 6% | 11% | 37% | 23% |
| Minnesota | 11% | 19% | 38% | 39% |
| Mississippi | 6% | 18% | 37% | 35% |
| Missouri | 7% | 19% | 41% | 29% |
| Montana | 8% | 15% | 35% | 49% |
| Nebraska | 12% | 17% | 43% | 24% |
| Nevada | 10% | 10% | 42% | 44% |
| New Hampshire | 7% | 11% | 37% | 23% |
| New Jersey | 12% | 19% | 38% | 41% |
| New Mexico | 10% | 15% | 24% | 37% |
| New York | 7% | 19% | 24% | 38% |
| North Carolina | 6% | 17% | 29% | 46% |
| North Dakota | 12% | 15% | 28% | 31% |
| Ohio | 10% | 17% | 40% | 20% |
| Oklahoma | 11% | 16% | 36% | 50% |
| Oregon | 6% | 16% | 35% | 41% |
| Pennsylvania | 10% | 11% | 36% | 30% |
| Rhode Island | 9% | 13% | 37% | 21% |
| South Carolina | 7% | 13% | 35% | 41% |
| South Dakota | 6% | 12% | 24% | 54% |
| Tennessee | 12% | 10% | 27% | 32% |
| Texas | 9% | 13% | 42% | 53% |
| Utah | 12% | 10% | 30% | 42% |
| Vermont | 6% | 10% | 40% | 49% |
| Virginia | 6% | 17% | 35% | 39% |
| Washington | 10% | 11% | 26% | 29% |
| West Virginia | 7% | 14% | 47% | 36% |
| Wisconsin | 8% | 14% | 33% | 46% |
| Wyoming | 11% | 11% | 35% | 23% |
Trends in Home Repair Programs
Our data shows for this survey segment that awareness is the primary barrier to program participation, while application and approval rates reflect program accessibility and design. Key actions for improvement include:
- Increasing awareness through targeted outreach and community partnerships.
- Simplifying the application process to reduce barriers to participation.
- Streamlining approval processes to ensure eligible homeowners can access funding.
- Learning from high-performing states to replicate best practices.
- Relatively cheap improvements with return are used broadly (weatherization).
We’ll later see that programs’ funding is also a big barrier since their budgets tend to be used very fast.
| State | Awareness | Applied | Approved | Most Source | Most Common Repair Funded |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 29% | 69% | 30% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Alaska | 41% | 39% | 20% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Alaska | 41% | 39% | 20% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Arizona | 22% | 52% | 27% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Arkansas | 22% | 54% | 21% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| California | 33% | 41% | 37% | Non-profits | Roof |
| Colorado | 22% | 34% | 35% | City, county | Roof |
| Connecticut | 33% | 49% | 38% | City, county | Roof |
| Delaware | 32% | 49% | 26% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| DC | 19% | 36% | 23% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Florida | 32% | 46% | 24% | State, city, county | Roof |
| Georgia | 35% | 47% | 23% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Hawaii | 22% | 64% | 44% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Idaho | 44% | 47% | 33% | City, county | Roof |
| Illinois | 34% | 66% | 40% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Indiana | 29% | 71% | 49% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Iowa | 13% | 63% | 28% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Kansas | 39% | 64% | 31% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Kentucky | 43% | 55% | 49% | Non-profits | Weatherization/windows |
| Louisiana | 31% | 59% | 48% | Non-profits | Roof |
| Maine | 34% | 49% | 32% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Maryland | 43% | 54% | 30% | City, county | Roof |
| Massachusetts | 16% | 53% | 20% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Michigan | 27% | 60% | 36% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Minnesota | 19% | 43% | 41% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Mississippi | 41% | 38% | 25% | City, county | Roof |
| Missouri | 28% | 52% | 38% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Montana | 37% | 46% | 49% | Non-profits | Roof |
| Nebraska | 21% | 62% | 31% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Nevada | 25% | 45% | 21% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| New Hampshire | 33% | 43% | 21% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| New Jersey | 36% | 63% | 28% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| New Mexico | 23% | 54% | 46% | Non-profits | Roof |
| New York | 15% | 60% | 33% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| North Carolina | 37% | 45% | 37% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| North Dakota | 39% | 52% | 48% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Ohio | 12% | 71% | 38% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Oklahoma | 42% | 60% | 26% | City, county | Roof |
| Oregon | 42% | 63% | 31% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Pennsylvania | 21% | 40% | 21% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Rhode Island | 16% | 45% | 43% | Federal | Weatherization/Cindows |
| South Carolina | 15% | 62% | 44% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| South Dakota | 41% | 68% | 43% | Non-profits | Roof |
| Tennessee | 39% | 53% | 48% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Texas | 35% | 74% | 21% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Utah | 22% | 50% | 26% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Vermont | 41% | 50% | 27% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Virginia | 21% | 54% | 42% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Washington | 28% | 46% | 27% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| West Virginia | 20% | 69% | 43% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Wisconsin | 26% | 51% | 20% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
| Wyoming | 20% | 37% | 21% | Federal | Weatherization/windows |
Trends in Home Repair Programs for Homeowners
Awareness is a Big First Barrier
Observation: Awareness rates are generally low across states, even among homeowners who have a need for home repairs.
Implication:
- Awareness is a first bottleneck. Even in states with high application and approval rates, the low awareness means that many homeowners who could benefit from these programs are not even reaching the application stage. We’ll late see programs’ funding is the biggest barrier.
- Outreach efforts could significantly be improved. States should invest in targeted messaging, community partnerships, and simplified communication to increase awareness among homeowners in need.
High Conversion from Awareness to Application
Observation: In many states, a high percentage of homeowners who are aware of programs end up applying.
Implication:
- Programs are very appealing to those who know about them. This suggests that the programs are well-designed and meet the needs of homeowners.
- Focus on awareness campaigns. Since awareness is the main barrier, increasing awareness could significantly boost participation.
Approval Rates Reflect Program Accessibility
Observation: Approval rates vary widely, even among states with high application rates. Since we surveyed many different home repair programs, their eligibility varies a lot also.
General Implication:
- Eligibility criteria or funding limitations may be creating bottlenecks in the approval process. States with lower approval rates may need to revisit their criteria or increase funding to meet demand.
- Streamlining the approval process could also help. For example, reducing paperwork or simplifying verification steps could improve approval rates.
Non-profits Fill Gaps in Government Programs
Observation: Whether the State don’t want to offer a program (ex: Alabama) or the State prefer to outsource the management of programs (ex: California with Weatherization), non-profits are often the first line to manage and offer programs locally. Also, in states where non-profits are the most common funding source (e.g., Kentucky, Louisiana), approval rates tend to be higher (this is usually because most of the funding in the State are at non-profits’ levels):
Implication:
- In general, non-profits may have more flexible eligibility criteria or faster approval processes compared to government programs. This can be explained by the fact they usually have less funding per project.
- Collaboration between government and non-profits could improve program accessibility and efficiency in other states mostly by increasing programs’ funding.
End Note
A very important aspect of this data is showing that a relatively cheap program like weatherization can be use very broadly across the country with great benefits to homeowners at the lower end of cost for governments. That’s a broad impact for the bucks.
Next part of Survey: Homeowners’ satisfaction with the different level of programs and finally review the main barriers to fund home repairs (from personal reasons to programs’ barriers)