Between 2015 and 2024, Federal Home Loan Banks directed roughly $147 billion toward housing and community development activities, according to a new analysis published May 29, 2026, by researchers at the Urban Institute. The report by Jung Hyun Choi, Laurie Goodman, Daniel Pang, and Jun Zhu examines how the 11 regional banks in the FHLBank System are meeting affordable housing needs through both required and voluntary programs, finding that while funding has increased substantially, rising costs are stretching dollars thinner.

From 2015 to 2024, FHLBanks provided $3.75 billion to the Affordable Housing Program General Fund, which helped finance more than $70 billion in affordable housing development. These grants supported nearly 248,000 housing units, most of which were rental housing serving households with low or very low incomes, including people experiencing homelessness, older adults, and people with disabilities. A significant share of the funding supports smaller multifamily projects with 5 to 49 units, which often face greater financing challenges. Through the AHP Set-Aside Fund for homeownership, the program supported more than 157,000 households from 2015 to 2024. In 2024 alone, this program disbursed $241.6 million in grants and assisted more than 17,000 households. But the average AHP Set-Aside grant roughly doubled from $7,000 per household between 2015 to 2023 to $14,000 in 2024, meaning even as funding rose, the number of households served didn't increase at the same pace. Funding for voluntary programs has increased sharply since 2022, reaching $528 million in 2024, supporting disaster relief, community development financial institutions, tribal housing, and small business assistance.

The report finds that FHLBank contributions to the AHP and voluntary initiatives have averaged more than 15 percent of net earnings in recent years, reflecting a notable increase above the 10 percent legal requirement. The authors estimate that AHP General Fund grants have generated approximately $27 billion in economic activity over the past decade in the base-case scenario, ranging from $6 billion to $59 billion under more conservative and more expansive assumptions. According to the report, although AHP General Fund grants typically cover a small portion of total project costs, they are often critical to making projects financially viable. The grants are typically used to fill funding gaps—covering the difference between total development costs and what developers can raise from other sources.

The report explains that rising construction costs, home prices, and interest rates have made these activities more expensive, limiting how far funding can stretch. The doubling of average homeownership grants illustrates this squeeze: the same pot of money now helps fewer families because each household needs more assistance to afford a home. The authors note that voluntary initiatives offer each of the 11 FHLBanks the flexibility to address local needs often exceeding statutory requirements, but this flexibility creates challenges. The large number of programs administered by diverse member organizations makes it challenging to collect, analyze, and compare data. The report's estimates of economic impact don't capture long-term outcomes like improvements in housing stability or neighborhood conditions, leaving the full picture incomplete.

The authors recommend that strengthening data collection and reporting could help policymakers and practitioners identify which programs are most effective and help inform future program design. They argue that further research on program effectiveness—how well these programs are targeted and streamlined, how outcomes are measured, and whether resources can be better aligned or scaled—could help FHLBanks maximize the impact of their programs. Improved data, particularly for newer voluntary initiatives, could help the FHLBanks more rigorously assess program performance, make informed adjustments, and share best practices. The bottom line: FHLBanks are putting more money into housing than ever, but without better data and smarter targeting, rising costs will continue to erode how many people that money can actually help.