Foreclosure-Response.org | All Maps & Data

<< back

All Maps and Data

The level, distribution, and root causes of foreclosures vary from place to place, and small area data can help communities understand the patterns and begin to craft informed strategies. Ideally, localities would have current, reliable, and low-cost data from local sources to monitor foreclosures and the housing market in general.

For areas without extensive data capacity, national publicly available data sources offer several indicators that can provide a starting point. No single indicator does it all, but the options on Foreclosure-Response.org can shed some light on the foreclosure story for your area. Click on the links below to access the different types of data available, or learn more about how the data indicators provided on Foreclosure-Response.org were selected.

Data available for download on this page provide insight on:

How Can Data Help with Setting Neighborhood Priorities?

LISC Housing Market Index and Census Tract Level Foreclosure Risk Scores
These two datasets are combined into a housing market/foreclosure risk matrix that communities can use to assess and compare foreclosure risk and housing market strength at the census tract level. The housing market index is comprised of separate indicators of mortgage transaction velocity for owner-occupants and investors, the percent of purchases by owners, the percentage of high cost loans, and median value of first-lien mortgages. The foreclosure risk scores are a composite measure of foreclosure risk that incorporates measures of subprime lending, foreclosures, and mortgage delinquencies to calculate a relative score, and adjusts this value by state and local vacancy rates.

Click here to access the housing market/foreclosure risk matrix and related guidance.

Notes on these datasets:

Available at census tract level.
Foreclosure risk data are as of September 2012.
Housing market data are based on 2009 to 2010 HMDA two-year averages.
Scores may be compared within a single metropolitan area.
Maps of the census tract level foreclosure risk scores are available through the High-Cost Loans maps.
Maps of the housing market index are available through the Housing Market Conditions maps.
Go to the Setting Neighborhood Priorities page to download the matrix of these data.

What Neighborhoods Have High Foreclosure Risks?

LISC Foreclosure Risk Scores
This dataset provides a composite measure of foreclosure risk that incorporates measures of subprime lending, foreclosures, and mortgage delinquencies to calculate a relative score, and adjusts this value by state and local vacancy rates. These summary measures ("scores") allow you to quickly assess the relative foreclosure risk of different jurisdictions in a state (for the intrastate scores) or a metropolitan area (for the intra-metropolitan scores). This approach is similar to that used by HUD to allocate Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds. Both composite measures and component scores for the three variables are available.

Notes on this dataset:

Available at ZIP code level only.
Census tract level estimates are available through the housing market/foreclosure risk matrix.
Data are as of September 2012.
Intrastate scores may be compared for ZIP codes within a single state, but not between states.
Intra-metropolitan scores may be compared for ZIP codes within a single metropolitan area.
Maps are available for intrastate scores only.
Archived data are available going back to June 2008.
Go to the LISC data page to download the data and methodology.

Component scores include:

Subprime lending - shows areas with a high share of loans with high interest rates, reset clauses, or balloon payments

Foreclosure component - shows areas that have already had high levels of foreclosures

Delinquency component - shows areas where borrowers are already having difficulty making payments

Other options:

Additional data are available on HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program Data web site and via the Mortgage Bankers Association's Sources of Foreclosure Data Research Note [PDF].

HMDA High Cost Loans (Alternative Data)
LISC's Foreclosure Risk Scores can only provide data at the ZIP code level. To access data for areas smaller than a ZIP code or to compare larger places like states, counties, or cities, an alternative data source is needed, such as data collected through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). While HMDA data do not include information on actual mortgage foreclosures, they do include data on the share of mortgages that are high-cost, which has proven to be a useful proxy for foreclosures. Areas with a high density of high-cost loans are at greater risk for a higher concentration of foreclosures. [see note 1]

Key indicators include:

Density of High-Cost Home Purchase Loans -- High-cost loans have higher interest rates and are more likely to be at risk of foreclosure than loans with lower rates. This indicator compares the number of high-cost loans in a given area with the number of 1-4 family housing units in that area, enabling communities to identify places where foreclosures may be more likely to occur and to compare impacts across areas of different sizes. While more recent data are available, the data selected for inclusion in this report -- loans made from 2004 to 2006 -- are best suited for identifying areas at risk of foreclosure because they were issued at the peak of the housing boom. The loans covered by this indicator includes loans for single-family homes, condominiums, and other properties with fewer than five units.

Density of High-Cost Investor Purchase Loans -- This indicator identifies areas where renters in small properties (1-4 units) may be vulnerable to foreclosure-related evictions. Similar to Density of High-Cost Home Purchase Loans, described above, Density of High-Cost Investor Purchase Loans compares the number of high-cost loans in a given area with the number of 1-4 family housing units in that area, but only for properties that are not owner-occupied. For the reasons described above, data on loans made from 2004 to 2006 have been used to populate this report.

NOTE: In addition to rental homes, second homes and vacation homes are not considered owner-occupied for purposes of HMDA, so caution should be taken in interpreting results and their policy implications for resort towns and retirement areas. In addition, this indicator does not reflect loans made for multifamily rental properties with five or more units.

Notes on this dataset:

Available at census tract, city, county, metropolitan area, state, and national levels.
Data from 2004 to 2006 (peak of the housing boom).
Data may be compared across areas.
Go to the HMDA data page to download the data.

How Severe are Mortgage Delinquencies in Our Metro Area?

Metropolitan Delinquency and Foreclosure Data

This dataset provides the share of mortgages in each U.S. metropolitan area that is seriously delinquent -- either 90 or more days past due or currently in foreclosure -- as well as the metropolitan foreclosure rate and 90+ day delinquency rate. The prime foreclosure rate and subprime foreclosure rate are also available. The data were derived through analysis of LPS Applied Analytics Data by Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC). The data are available in an Excel workbook for all 366 U.S. metropolitan areas. Rankings and a map are also available.

Notes on this dataset:

Data as of September 2012.
Data will be updated on a quarterly basis.
Archived data are available going back to March 2010.
Each quarter's data include year-over-year comparisons of selected indicators.
Go to the metropolitan delinquency data page to download the data.

What Market Data Can Help Inform Our Policy Response?

Housing Market Conditions
This set of indicators uses HMDA data to provide a picture of local housing market conditions, including the density of home purchase and investor loans and the median purchase loan amount. These indicators provide a picture of local demand for housing. Areas with a higher private-market demand for housing may need less intensive intervention than other areas.

Key indicators include:

Density of Home Purchase Loans -- The number of home purchase loans made in a given area, relative to the number of 1-4 family housing units in that area, signals the strength of local demand for residential property. This indicator uses 2010 data, the most recent data available, to provide a picture of market potential as the housing market began to decline in many areas. Areas with high density of home purchase loans in 2010 may be better positioned than other areas to absorb foreclosed properties.

Median Purchase Loan Amount -- While housing prices nationally have fallen, trends in individual neighborhoods still vary widely, with some places seeing continued appreciation while others experience steep declines. This indicator shows the median purchase loan amount in 2010, an indicator of local demand for housing that may also provide a benchmark against which purchase prices for foreclosed properties can be negotiated.

Density of Investor Loans -- This indicator compares the number of purchase loans issued for properties that are not owner-occupied with the number of 1-4 family housing units in a given area, indicating the role that investors play in the area's housing market.

Notes on this dataset:

Available at census tract, city, county, metropolitan area, state, and national levels.
Data from 2010.
Data may be compared across areas.
Go to the HMDA data page to download the data.

Vacancy Rates -- Another relevant indicator of market demand for housing is the vacancy rate. You may access quarterly vacancy data from the U.S. Postal Service that is made publicly available through HUD USER. Click here to leave this site and access the HUD USER dataset.

[1] See, for example, the Mortgage Bankers Association's National Delinquency Survey for the third quarter of 2008 [PDF]. While 6.99 percent of all loans for 1- to 4- unit residential properties were in foreclosure, the foreclosure rate for prime loans was 4.34 percent, while the rate for high-cost subprime loans was more than 4.5 times as high, at 20.03 percent. See also, Walker and Winston, 2008.