U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–602 PDF 2012

HUD AND NEIGHBORWORKS HOUSING 

COUNSELING OVERSIGHT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INSURANCE, HOUSING AND 

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 112–61 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

NAN A. S. HAYWORTH, New York 

JAMES B. RENACCI, Ohio 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

FRANCISCO ‘‘QUICO’’ CANSECO, Texas 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

LARRY C. LAVENDER, Chief of Staff 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chairman 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia, Vice Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

September 14, 2011 .......................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

September 14, 2011 .......................................................................................... 41 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 

Bell, Peter H., President & CEO, National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association (NRMLA) .................................................................................................. 25 

Cackley, Alicia Puente, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................................... 8 

Fitzgerald, Eileen M., Chief Executive Officer, NeighborWorks America .......... 6 

Hill, Candy, Senior Vice President, Social Policy and Government Affairs, 

Catholic Charities USA ....................................................................................... 27 

Holston, Deborah C., Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family 

Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .................... 4 

Olson, Debra, Interim Executive Director, DuPage Homeownership Center, 

and Board Member, DuPage County, Illinois, on behalf of the National 

Association of Counties (NACo) .......................................................................... 29 

Raymundo, Raul I., Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, The Resurrection Project ............................................................................................................ 31 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Bell, Peter H. .................................................................................................... 42 

Cackley, Alicia Puente ..................................................................................... 49 

Fitzgerald, Eileen M. ........................................................................................ 66 

Hill, Candy ........................................................................................................ 81 

Holston, Deborah C. ......................................................................................... 89 

Olson, Debra ..................................................................................................... 104 

Raymundo, Raul I. ............................................................................................ 114 

(1) 

HUD AND NEIGHBORWORKS HOUSING 

COUNSELING OVERSIGHT 

Wednesday, September 14, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, HOUSING

AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Judy Biggert [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Biggert, Hurt, McHenry, 

Duffy, Dold; Gutierrez, Waters, Clay, Watt, and Sherman. 

Also present: Representative Green. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. 

We will start with our opening statements. Without objection, all 

members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record. I 

will recognize myself for such time as I may consume. 

Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing on HUD and 

NeighborWorks Housing Counseling Oversight. I welcome today’s 

witnesses. Today, we will examine the Federal housing counseling 

programs administered by HUD and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, or NeighborWorks. 

Housing counseling is an important form of financial literacy. As 

a former real estate attorney, I understand and appreciate the 

value of wise counsel. Now, we don’t ever go to a closing on a home 

purchase without an attorney, which I enjoyed being able to go to 

all those, and I cannot say enough good things about encouraging 

prospective or current homeowners to seek in person HUD-certified 

housing counseling. 

When constituents come to my office for help, we always coordinate with our local housing counselors. That is why I am concerned 

that appropriations for the housing counseling programs administered by HUD were zeroed out in Fiscal Year 2011 and would remain cut under the Fiscal Year 2012 appropriations bill. 

Meanwhile, a separate program, NeighborWorks, has become the 

only recipient of Federal housing counseling funds, and I fear that 

by eliminating funds over the 2,300 HUD-certified local housing 

counseling agencies, as well as States and intermediaries, many 

seniors and first-time home buyers and others will lose access to 

housing counseling, and that is unacceptable. 

In the darkest days of this financial crisis in my Congressional 

District, it has been the counselors, not the array of new Federal 

2 

foreclosure programs, that have helped many families restructure 

their budget, communicate with lenders or servicers, avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. More than any government foreclosure scheme, reliable and effective financial counseling has made 

the difference for struggling homeowners. It also helps potential 

borrowers make informed decisions and avoid financial pitfalls 

down the road. 

Throughout this crisis, we have been reminded that some individuals would be better served by renting versus owning a home. 

We have also seen how certain financial products, such as mortgages or reverse mortgages, are not suitable for every household. 

That is why the law requires seniors to obtain impartial, nonpartisan advice from a HUD-certified housing counselor before securing a reverse mortgage. 

Today, our task is to closely examine Federal housing counseling 

programs and ensure they are working effectively to help those in 

need. I look forward to today’s discussion, particularly about the 

distribution of funds, standards for agencies, counselors and counseling, and data on the effectiveness of counseling. 

I also look forward to an update on HUD’s progress in setting up 

the Office of Housing Counseling and witnesses’ comments on discussion draft legislation to enhance oversight and transparency of 

NeighborWorks housing counseling programs. 

The bottom line is that Congress should fund and encourage effective housing counseling to be more accessible in our communities. It is the first line of defense to prevent another foreclosure 

crisis, helping some families recover from this one, and is critical 

for our seniors seeking security in their retirement years. 

With that, I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Gutierrez from Illinois. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Biggert. 

And thank you to all of the witnesses for joining us this afternoon as we discuss these vital housing counseling programs. I 

know that some of you have traveled from Illinois to be here, so 

a special welcome to you. 

As we sit here today, one in four families are underwater on 

their mortgages. Home values continue to fall in many parts of the 

country, and millions of families are still facing the possibility of 

foreclosure. 

Meanwhile, programs designed to prevent foreclosure aren’t 

reaching as many people as intended. Faced with these challenges, 

it is essential that we use taxpayer dollars responsibly and in the 

most effective way possible. That is part of what we are here today 

to discuss. We need to work toward better coordination between 

various housing counseling programs, better research to show us 

which programs give us the biggest bang for our buck, and better 

oversight and guidance for the thousands of agencies providing 

these services in our community. 

But here is the unfortunate fact: While we sit here working with 

HUD and NeighborWorks, challenging them to constantly improve 

the way they deliver their services, HUD’s housing counseling programs have been almost entirely stripped of funding for the second 

year in a row. HUD is facing $88 million in cuts that would have 

3 

been used for pre-purchase counseling, rental counseling, and reverse mortgage counseling for seniors. This makes no sense. 

The market is desperate for more first-time home buyers, and we 

are shutting down programs that help families toward homeownership. It is getting more difficult for renters to find affordable apartments in many parts of our country, and we are telling community 

organizations to stop helping them. 

Seniors are struggling to make ends meet, and we are denying 

them the access and information they need to make tough decisions 

about reverse mortgages. It is hard to believe that this is how Congress is choosing to respond to an ongoing housing crisis. 

Today is a challenge to talk about solutions. We need to know 

that housing counseling dollars lead to positive outcomes in our 

neighborhoods. We need to understand the impact that funding reductions will have on the ground. I am looking forward to a productive discussion about what works. 

Before I conclude, I would like to ask the chairwoman for unanimous consent to submit two statements for the record: one from the 

National Council of La Raza; and the other from the Coalition of 

HUD Housing Counseling Intermediaries. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. With that, I thank the gentlelady for hosting 

this hearing, and I really look forward to working with my colleague, the chairwoman from Illinois. Thank you so much. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. 

While we are on that, I would also insert for the hearing record, 

without objection: a letter dated September 12, 2011, from the National Association of REALTORS®; and a letter dated September 

13, 2011, from the executive director of the HOPE NOW Alliance. 

Mr. Hurt from Virginia, you are recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I am grateful for her 

leadership as the subcommittee conducts another vital oversight 

hearing. 

Today, we are examining the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal housing counseling programs operated by HUD, 

NeighborWorks America, and the State and local organizations 

with which they work. Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, 

the Financial Services Committee has been engaged in rigorous 

oversight of the Dodd-Frank Act as well as the agencies and programs within the committee’s jurisdiction. Today’s hearing demonstrates this committee’s commitment to this important work. 

As our country faces a national debt exceeding $14.5 trillion, my 

constituents, the people of Virginia’s Fifth District, and all Americans are demanding that the Federal Government do more to maximize the value of the limited funds we can allocate to Federal programs, such as the housing counseling initiatives that this subcommittee is analyzing today. 

I thank Chairwoman Biggert for holding this important hearing. 

I thank each of you for joining us and sharing with us your insights. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I thank the vice chairman of this committee. 

4 

And with that, I recognize Mr. Dold of Illinois for 1 minute. This 

must be Illinois day here. 

Mr. DOLD. We certainly are concerned about housing in Illinois, 

so we are glad to have the witnesses here. Thank you all for joining 

us. I certainly want to thank Chairwoman Biggert for hosting the 

hearing. And I want to thank again all of you witnesses for joining 

us today and for your important work in our community. 

As our witnesses will detail for us all, housing counseling helps 

people, and counseling assistance is especially important during 

these difficult financial conditions. At the same time, we must acknowledge our extremely difficult fiscal reality with repeated trillion and a half dollar deficits and with over $14.6 trillion in our 

national debt, the official national debt—if we look at the unofficial 

debt and our liabilities, long-term liabilities, it is significantly larger than that. This fiscal reality requires very difficult decisions 

with very difficult trade-offs that will necessarily dissatisfy many 

people. 

In this context, housing counseling programs, like many other 

Federal programs, must show meaningful, measurable, and 

verifiable cost-effectiveness, along with transparency and accountability. By doing so, we maximize the chances that the highest 

number of beneficiaries will receive the maximum available assistance and that American taxpayers will support these programs to 

the greatest extent possible given the fiscal realities. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can 

work together to achieve these important objectives. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Dold. 

We will now proceed with our first panel of witnesses. 

We have with us for the first panel: Ms. Deborah Holston, acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ms. Eileen Fitzgerald, chief executive officer, NeighborWorks America; and Ms. 

Alicia Puente Cackley, Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment, U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made a part 

of the record, and you will each be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. 

We will start with Ms. Holston. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH C. HOLSTON, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. HOLSTON. Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierrez, 

and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today regarding HUD’s Housing Counseling Assistance 

Program and the steps we are taking to speed and improve the program to ensure that it has the greatest possible impact in our Nation’s communities. 

I appreciate the strong support for the program provided by so 

many members of this subcommittee, including, of course, Chairwoman Biggert. 

5 

For nearly 4 decades, HUD’s Housing Counseling Program has 

played a critical role in helping American families realize the 

dream of owning a home and finding quality, affordable rental 

housing. In 2010, HUD-approved housing counseling agencies counseled more than 3 million households, a record for the program. 

However, Congress recently elected to cut HUD’s housing coun- seling appropriation from $88 million in 2010 to zero in 2011. 

While we will be able to fund housing counseling agencies through 

September 30th, without 2012 appropriations, counseling agencies 

across the Nation will face a gap in funding. The effects of our severe economic downturn make this a wrong time to cut counseling 

funding. 

Madam Chairwoman, there is strong evidence that housing counseling is one of our most powerful weapons to help distressed 

homeowners avoid foreclosure. Preliminary findings from a recent 

study by ABT Associates show that the vast majority of homeowners who receive foreclosure counseling from HUD-approved 

agencies, that is 84 percent, continue to live in their homes after 

18 months. More than two-thirds were current on their mortgage. 

In terms of pre-purchase counseling, one well-cited study found 

that face-to-face counseling was the most effective mode of delivering counseling, resulting in a 34 percent reduction in delinquencies. 

Put simply, Madam Chairwoman, housing counseling works. 

And HUD’s Housing Counseling Program is focused on results. 

Through the first three quarters of 2011, agencies have used HUD 

grant funds to help more than 15,000 clients bring their mortgages 

current; 11,000 to obtain mortgage modifications; 11,000 to purchase homes; 12,000 to become mortgage-ready; and nearly 8,000 

seniors to obtain reverse mortgages. 

The HUD program is the only dedicated source of Federal funding for the full spectrum of housing counseling. Because of this, 

agencies can use their funds to provide services that respond to 

local needs. For example, in Florida, agencies provided 60 percent 

of their clients last year with foreclosure prevention counseling 

while also dedicating 20 percent of their services to providing reverse mortgage counseling to their large population of seniors. 

Housing counseling grant funds are made available to locally approved housing counseling agencies, intermediaries, and State 

housing finance agencies. Approximately 650 local agencies are unaffiliated with an intermediary or State agency. Last year, HUD 

provided grants to approximately 400 of these agencies, more than 

100 in New York, North Carolina, Florida, California, and Illinois, 

States hard hit by the housing crisis. 

That said, Secretary Donovan has shown a commitment to measuring what works and discovering what we need to do better, and 

housing counseling is no exception. One area where we know we 

can improve is speed. 

Historically, running the housing counseling grant competition 

and obligating all the funds has taken about 8 months from the 

time appropriations are made, and we know that is not quick 

enough. That is why HUD has developed a department-wide plan 

to streamline its processes and reduce that timeframe. We have already made great progress. HUD has reduced the average number 

6 

of days between appropriations and NOFA publication to 60 days, 

an 82 percent reduction from last year. 

But it is not just about doing our jobs faster. We also need to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is achieving results. Our certification and monitoring includes onsite and remote reviews. In 2011, 

we enhanced our monitoring of intermediaries by awarding a contract to a top 10 CPA firm to ensure compliance with Federal financial and administrative grant requirements. 

Finally, as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, we have been in discussions with the Appropriations Committee about establishing the 

Office of Housing Counseling, and we expect to submit our request 

for staffing reorganization to counsel Congress in the next 60 days. 

So, Madam Chairwoman, I am confident that the changes we are 

making will result in a more effective Housing Counseling Program. I look forward to continuing our work together, and, with 

that, I would be happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Holston can be found on page 89 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Fitzgerald, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EILEEN M. FITZGERALD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, NEIGHBORWORKS AMERICA 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierrez, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Eileen Fitzgerald and I serve as CEO of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, doing business as NeighborWorks America. 

Thank you for inviting us to speak today. My testimony will address NeighborWorks America, our role as administrator of the National Foreclosure and Mitigation Counseling Program, or NFMC, 

and the need for a broad scope of housing counseling programs. 

NeighborWorks America was established by Congress in 1978. It 

is the Nation’s original community public-private partnership 

model. NeighborWorks provides support for a wide range of housing and community development activities, not just housing counseling, to its network and to the broader field. Today, 

NeighborWorks’ affiliated network includes more than 235 local 

and regional nonprofits serving urban, rural, and suburban communities in all 50 States. 

NeighborWorks has a rigorous annual assessment process for the 

members of our network, and we hold them to high standards. For 

those organizations that cannot meet the standards, we provide intensive assistance. However, if they are unable to turn around 

their organization, we do disaffiliate them. We also have led a coalition, including HUD, to develop the national industry standards, 

which establish criteria for housing counseling and training. My 

written testimony goes into greater detail about our governance, 

our oversight, and our transparency. 

NeighborWorks is an efficient and effective local delivery system 

for getting taxpayer dollars working quickly in our cities, towns, 

and counties, which is especially important in this period of scarce 

Federal budget dollars. 

7 

In Fiscal Year 2010, NeighborWorks organizations generated $4 

billion in direct investments in their communities, leveraging our 

core Federal appropriation 23 to 1. In Fiscal Year 2010, 

NeighborWorks and its network assisted 252,000 families with 

their housing needs; owned and managed 80,000 quality, affordable 

rental units; counseled over 100,000 families on homeownership; 

and supported more than 22,000 local jobs. 

NeighborWorks, as the largest nonprofit trainer in the affordable 

housing and community development field, also awarded 20,000 

training certificates to staff and board members at more than 3,500 

nonprofit and governmental agencies. 

NeighborWorks was already a national leader in the fight 

against foreclosure when Congress asked us to administer the 

NFMC program in Fiscal Year 2008. To date, more than 1.2 million 

homeowners have been counseled through NFMC. 

We view this as a temporary role, responding to the mortgage 

crisis. The NFMC legislation required us to launch the program 

and award funds within 60 days, which we did. NeighborWorks 

continues to get money out quickly while ensuring a high level of 

compliance and oversight to meet our fiduciary duty to Congress 

and to the taxpayers. 

And through an independent study by the Urban Institute, we 

know that NFMC foreclosure counseling works, saving homeowners 

$3,200 a year on modifications compared to clients who did not go 

through NFMC counseling, and they also have shown that NFMC 

reduces the likelihood of redefault. 

We know, however, that the best defense against foreclosure is 

objective education and counseling before a borrower buys a home, 

and the most reliable counseling is provided by independent agencies that put consumers and communities first. 

NeighborWorks is a strong partner and supporter of HUD’s 

Housing Counseling Program. For many years, NeighborWorks, as 

a HUD-approved intermediary, has received HUD housing counseling funds to pass through to some of our affiliates. HUD funds 

also support a portion of the housing counseling training which we 

provide to practitioners. 

HUD housing counseling funds have been critical to building the 

infrastructure for a strong foundation in a wide range of counseling 

activities, pre-purchase, rental, reverse mortgage, for 

NeighborWorks organizations and other agencies. In comparison, 

NFMC provides very targeted support only for foreclosure counseling activities. 

In closing, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of families 

served by the NeighborWorks network and NFMC counselors 

across the country, I thank the committee for its support and stand 

ready to respond to any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fitzgerald can be found on page 

66 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thanks so much. 

Ms. Cackley, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

8 

STATEMENT OF ALICIA PUENTE CACKLEY, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MARKETS AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. CACKLEY. Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierrez, 

and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. I am pleased to 

be here to participate in today’s hearing on housing counseling. 

As you know, housing counseling can take many forms and can 

help consumers determine whether and when to purchase a home, 

how to manage a mortgage, and how to deal with setbacks that 

could limit their ability to make timely mortgage payments. 

My statement today is based on recent work we have conducted 

on one type of housing counseling, homeownership counseling, and 

we will discuss three related topics: first, what research suggests 

about the effectiveness of homeownership counseling and the challenges of conducting such research; second, shortcomings that our 

prior work found in Federal agencies’ implementation of homeownership counseling requirements; and, third, the status of efforts to 

establish an Office of Housing Counseling within HUD. 

With respect to the research, the limited body of literature on 

homeownership counseling does not provide conclusive findings on 

the impact of all the different types of such counseling. Recent research on foreclosure mitigation counseling, which helps financially 

distressed homeowners who are delinquent on payments, suggests 

that it can help homeowners avoid foreclosure and prevent them 

from lapsing back into default. 

Findings on pre-purchase counseling, which helps potential home 

buyers learn about buying a home and explains the financial responsibility of homeownership, are less clear. One study we reviewed concluded that such counseling lowered the default rate for 

new homeowners, while other studies showed no effect. 

Efforts to measure the impact of homeownership counseling have 

been hampered by a lack of data, as well as by challenges in designing studies and creating effective performance measures. Our 

recent evaluation of Treasury’s financial education and counseling 

pilot program illustrates this last point. 

As a condition of receiving grant funds under the program, grantees are required to report on results of 5 performance goals within 

6 months of disbursement and annually thereafter. We found that 

some grantees were calculating the results of their impact measures in erroneous or misleading ways or were not fully capturing 

meaningful information, potentially limiting the usefulness of these 

data for assessing program effectiveness. Further studies on the 

impact of homeownership counseling are under way at HUD and 

at Fannie Mae, and these studies are designed to overcome some 

of the limitation we and others have found related to data and 

study design. 

Turning to my second topic on implementation of homeownership 

counseling programs, prior GAO work identified shortcomings in 

the implementation of homeownership counseling requirements for 

two Federal programs. A 2009 study of HUD’s reverse mortgage 

program found that HUD’s internal controls did not ensure that 

counselors were complying with program requirements. HUD later 

made improvements to the program that specifically addressed our 

recommendations. 

9 

Another GAO study from 2009 found that Treasury did not effectively track whether borrowers required to seek counseling under 

the Home Affordable Modification Program actually received the 

counseling or whether it reduced their rate of redefaults. Treasury 

officials said that they had not implemented a monitoring process 

because it was too burdensome for Treasury and for mortgage 

servicers. They also did not plan to assess the effectiveness of counseling in limiting redefaults, in part because they believed that the 

benefits of counseling on the performance of borrowers with high 

debt burdens were well-documented. 

We continue to believe that monitoring and assessment would 

provide valuable information on whether the counseling requirement is having its intended effect. 

Finally, with respect to HUD’s establishment of the Office of 

Housing Counseling, as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act, according to HUD, the agency is developing a reorganization plan but has not yet submitted 

it for congressional review. Budget constraints could affect the new 

counseling office. Although the Dodd-Frank Act authorized $45 million per year 

through Fiscal Year 2012 for the operations of the new office, HUD 

has not received appropriations for this purpose. In addition, appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 eliminated HUD’s housing counseling assistance funds, which are primarily grant funds for approved counseling agencies. HUD officials told us that some counseling agencies had already reduced the level of services they provided due to this cut in funding. 

Housing counseling groups we spoke with said that the cuts in 

HUD funding, which they use to leverage private funds, ultimately 

could result in fewer counseling services for prospective and existing homeowners unless private funds make up the difference. 

Chairwoman Biggert, this concludes my prepared statement. I 

would be happy to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cackley can be found on page 49 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you so much. 

With that, we will turn to questions from the members. 

I will recognize members for 5 minutes each to ask questions, 

and I will claim the time for the first 5 minutes. 

Ms. Holston, in House Report 111–564, House appropriators 

noted that the reason they zeroed out HUD’s housing counseling 

funds for Fiscal Year 2011 is because HUD was too slow to disburse funds. In House Report 111–218, to accompany the Fiscal 

Year 2010 Transportation-HUD appropriation bill, House appropriators expressed a similar concern of the slow expenditure of funds. 

Has HUD fixed this problem? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Thank you, ma’am, for the question, and I would 

like to say with great pride that we have tremendously increased 

our NOFA process. In fact, in 2011, we have decreased the time it 

takes to clear a NOFA to 60 days, which is an 82 percent reduction 

in that timeframe. So we are very happy to say that there have 

been significant improvements in our NOFA process. 

That also includes a major reduction in time from publication to 

obligation. In fact, in our most recent grant competition, comparing 

10 

publication to obligation, we were actually comparable to the 

NeighborWorks’ most recent competition. So we are very pleased to 

say that not only is the Department improving its NOFA processing, we are also doing that for the Housing Counseling Assistance Program, where we are actually streamlining that process to 

include a streamlined manner for high-performing agencies or 

high-performing grantees. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. All right. Thank you. 

Then, Ms. Holston, again, what evidence do we have that housing counseling is effective? In my Congressional District, our local 

housing counselors do a great job with helping many struggling 

families or those seeking impartial advice about buying a home or 

securing a reverse mortgage. But what kind of data has HUD collected to measure the results of housing counseling and its effectiveness? 

Ms. HOLSTON. HUD is conducting a housing counseling outcome 

evaluation in partnership with—excuse me, ma’am. HUD has actually conducted research and is conducting a review of 10 prior studies by Collins and O’Rourke—finds that counseling provided before 

a homeowner purchases a home can reduce the likelihood of mortgage delinquency. Most studies have found that pre-purchase counseling leads to positive results, reducing delinquency anywhere 

from 19 to 50 percent, although one study did report no impact. 

HUD’s PD&R office has implemented a controlled experiment to 

measure the impact of pre-purchase counseling on a random sample of pre-purchase counselees over time. We will have the preliminary results of that study a year from now, next fall. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Is there room for improvement, to better 

track the effectiveness of counseling? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Yes, there is room for improvement, and we are 

studying that, the effects of counseling now. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. As a follow-up, we want to make 

sure that all counseling agencies as well as their counselors are 

qualified and giving sound advice to our constituents. Are HUD 

standards for oversight of agencies and counselors sufficient, and 

is there room for improvement? 

Ms. HOLSTON. HUD has actually embarked on a strengthened 

oversight program where we are overseeing not only our HUD-approved—not only the national intermediaries, but also the State 

housing finance agencies. We oversee multiple State agencies and 

also local housing counseling agencies. We actually conduct onsite 

visits or remote monitoring of all of them, all of the affiliates of our 

national intermediaries, and we do that once every 2 years, at least 

once every 2 years, providing technical assistance when we are 

there. 

We also are in the process of developing a risk model with 

realtime data that will allow us to target or better target our remote monitoring, and which would tell us where to go for onsite 

monitoring. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I have additional questions, but I will try 

later or submit them for the record. I recognize Ranking Member 

Gutierrez for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. 

11 

Ms. Holston, following up, you spoke about program dollars coming to an end in the very immediate future. Just what program dollars again are coming to an end, and what particular types of counseling would it impact, or all counseling in general, housing counseling in general? 

Ms. HOLSTON. HUD provides the only dedicated source of Federal funding for the full range of housing counseling; that is prepurchase to foreclosure prevention. We fund 450 grants—or we provide 450 grants a year. If we were not to receive 2012 funding, 

then we would not be able to provide that funding. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. All housing counseling programs under HUD, 

none of them would receive any funding? They would all come to 

an end in the very immediate future? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that it was all 

and not just some of the programs. 

Ms. HOLSTON. All of them. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So how many people were served by these housing counseling programs last year? 

Ms. HOLSTON. In 2010, we served 3,000 counselees or clients. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. But how many families? So for $88 million, we 

served 3,000 families? 

Ms. HOLSTON. I am sorry, 3 million. I am sorry. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I was hoping we were going to do a little bit better than that. It is okay; take your time. 

Ms. HOLSTON. Okay. We actually serviced in 2010, 3 million families, and that includes 108 with our specific HUD funds. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Ms. Fitzgerald, what is looming in the immediate future and what needs to happen so there aren’t some draconian impacts on housing counseling? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. As we mentioned in our testimony, we think 

having a HUD Housing Counseling Program is really critical. What 

it does is support an infrastructure of agencies out there that then, 

depending on the issues in those communities and the issues like 

foreclosure, they can leverage that infrastructure to attract additional funding. But without that base of HUD counseling funds, 

those agencies don’t know that they can just keep their staff on, 

or train their staff to provide that broad range of services. 

We know that foreclosures, unfortunately, are still going to happen. There are estimated to be 2 million families facing foreclosure 

in the next year. So continued resources, both through the NFMC 

program and through HUD counseling, are critical. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Is there any particular requirement under the 

law that before someone can receive a reverse mortgage, they must 

receive counseling? 

Ms. HOLSTON. I am sorry, could you repeat the question? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Is there any particular requirement in the law 

that someone receive counseling before they receive a reverse mortgage? 

Ms. HOLSTON. For our HECM program, yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And will there be any money in the budget in 

the immediate future for that kind of counseling? 

Ms. HOLSTON. At this point, if we don’t receive an appropriation 

in 2012, no. 

12 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So there won’t be any money, but it is a requirement. 

Ms. HOLSTON. That is right, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So senior citizens would have to acquire the 

counseling? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Senior citizens would have get to get the counseling, because it is statutory, but there are no funds in the budget 

for that. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It seems to me a rather complicated—I have 

seen them on TV, and I understand why people would want to access the equity in their home. At other times, it would probably be 

easier just to sell your home, but you might not be able to sell your 

home. 

What do you think, Ms. Fitzgerald? What do you think the impact will be of not having money for senior citizens? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. One big impact is going to be an increase in 

scammers, so both NeighborWorks and HUD have done a lot of 

work to try to prevent loan scams, mortgage scams. Many of those 

folks who were out doing predatory and subprime loans 5 years ago 

are now in communities trying to really strip equity out of senior 

citizens. And we have several cases where those scammers know 

that a person is in a health crisis or needs to fix a leaky roof or 

something and just doesn’t have the income to do it, but has the 

equity, and they will turn around, scam them, charge them, sometimes actually taking title to their home, which they can’t get back. 

So having money for counselors so that we can all tell people, 

here is a safe place for you to go so that you can be protected from 

these shysters. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. HURT [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. 

I will yield myself 5 minutes. I was hoping to hear from each of 

you on the question of the Office of Housing Counseling. It sounds 

to me from your testimony and from what I have read that that 

office has not really gotten up and running yet. I would like to 

know about how effective you think that will be in reaching more 

people with less resources, and is the future for this office viable? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Thank you, sir. 

Last year when we realized that we would not receive any additional funds, we quite frankly changed our focus. But we have 

since—at that point, we had a plan established, and we have since 

been working with the appropriators to put that in play. 

An Office of Housing Counseling would allow us to actually target housing counseling activities. We could strengthen our oversight. We could provide a more directed program to assist families 

in not only pre-purchase but the full range, the full gambit of housing counseling services. 

Mr. HURT. When you say ‘‘target the services,’’ what do you 

mean? 

Ms. HOLSTON. That means that the HUD program actually provides a full array, as you know, of housing counseling services, allowing each locality, each area to target specific services or to develop a tailored approach to housing counseling. So that if there is 

a community that actually needs two types of services more than 

others, they can provide those—it’s up to them. 

13 

Mr. HURT. So it is not necessarily prioritizing counseling among 

the people you are trying to serve; it is really just trying to identify 

the needs? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HURT. Can you submit to this committee a report of where 

you all are in the planning for this office at this point? 

Ms. HOLSTON. We intend to have a plan together within 60 days, 

a reorganization that shows the Office of Housing Counseling. 

Mr. HURT. Maybe we can just skip to Ms. Cackley, if you could 

answer that question as it relates to this Office of Housing Counseling. What will it be providing us that we didn’t have before and 

especially in the context of the fact that we are really in bad financial shape here in Washington? 

Ms. CACKLEY. We have just started looking at the Office of Housing Counseling more specifically so we haven’t done direct work on 

it, especially because it is still so much in the process of being 

stood up. But we expect to be looking much more carefully at what 

the counseling office will do in the near future as part of our ongoing work, looking at issues. 

Mr. HURT. But you all have looked at other programs, and I am 

sure that the inclusion of this office in the Dodd-Frank bill was 

well-intentioned, but I guess my question is, what will it be doing 

that the current structure does not provide for? Based on what you 

all have found, is there a need for it? 

Ms. CACKLEY. What we—we have not yet tried to look into the 

distinctions that this office will make in terms of how they will differ from what came before. Our understanding in talking to HUD 

officials is that they are reorganizing from within. So we have been 

waiting to hear what their reorganization plan is, and then we will 

be able to give you a better answer in terms of whether it makes 

sense or not. We are just not at a point where we have gotten 

enough information to tell you. 

Mr. HURT. All right. 

And this brings me to my last question really for Ms. Holston 

and Ms. Fitzgerald. When you are faced with obviously diminished 

resources coming from Washington and from the appropriators, 

how do you target your counseling? Can you only provide enough 

funding for so much, that is, you hit a threshold, or are you able 

to determine what the people who need it the most, that is the priority? Is there a mechanism, some sort of measurement that allows 

you to prioritize the counseling, when we all know that we are not 

going to be able to provide as much as we would like? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. In the NFMC program, we are required to look 

at the areas of greatest need. Given how much the foreclosure crisis has expanded across the country, that does include a large portion of the country, but we make sure that most of the resources 

are going there. 

The Urban Institute study found that clients who went through 

NFMC counseling saved more on their loan modifications than 

those didn’t. And that is because a counselor pushes back on the 

servicer and says, this family has to keep their car to make sure 

that they can get to the job so they can keep their job so they can 

pay you. If you total average savings by the number of clients who 

got loan modifications, that is an annual savings to the American 

14 

taxpayer who owns a home of $560 million. So we are generating 

savings more than—far in excess of what the program for NFMC 

is costing. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, and my time has expired. 

Ms. Holston, do you have anything briefly you want to add? My 

time has expired. 

Ms. HOLSTON. I would just add that in our last round of funding, 

we directed our funding to 100 major metropolitan areas with the 

highest need for—that showed a need for mortgage scam funding. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Ms. Holston. 

My time has expired, and so I am pleased to recognize Mr. Watt, 

the gentleman from North Carolina, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I understand we have only 4 minutes left before the end of the 

voting process, so I will try to expedite this. 

I want to direct this question to Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Holston. 

Some of us have raised questions in the past about directing all 

of the counseling funds through only one neighborhood organization, NeighborWorks, when there might be in some communities 

other agencies that can do this work more effectively or better. We 

had some discussions about that previously. Can you tell me what 

the current status of that is and if we are still directing all of the 

funds through NeighborWorks, or are there other agencies that are 

receiving counseling funds? 

Ms. Holston, maybe you can tell me that from the HUD perspective, and then Ms. Fitzgerald I am sure will defend her own agency. But I am not condemning what you are doing. I am just trying 

to find out, is this a rational approach to confine it to just one 

agency? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. What NeighborWorks does— 

Mr. WATT. Let me hear from Ms. Holston first. 

Ms. HOLSTON. One of the differences between NeighborWorks 

and HUD is that we provide the full spectrum of housing services 

and also eligibility. We provide 450 grants every year— 

Mr. WATT. Wait a minute. You are answering a question I didn’t 

ask, Ms. Holston. I am asking, is there a rationale for your directing all of your counseling dollars only through NeighborWorks as 

opposed to through other community-based organizations? 

Maybe Ms. Fitzgerald understood the question a little bit better. 

Ms. FITZGERALD. So under the NFMC program, by statute, Congress has directed us to give funds to HUD-approved intermediaries, State-housing financing agencies— 

Mr. WATT. How many of those are there? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Only 10 percent of the money goes to 

NeighborWorks organizations. By statute— 

Mr. WATT. How many other organizations have been identified 

and approved by HUD? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Over 1,500. 

Mr. WATT. And how is that working? That is all I am trying to 

find out. This is not a trick question. 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Great. Other parts of what NeighborWorks does 

are under a very different model. Under what we do for counseling, 

we try to cast as broad a net as possible. We have had 35 State 

15 

FHAs, between 16 and 20 HUD intermediaries, and they have 

worked with over 1,600 grantees. 

Mr. WATT. So any organization that is out there complaining 

about this, we ought to direct them to HUD to make sure that they 

get preapproval, is that what you are saying? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Exactly. 

Mr. WATT. All right. I thank you, and I yield back so I can go 

vote. 

Mr. GREEN. Madam Chairwoman? 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Mr. Green is recognized for a unanimous 

consent request. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would by unanimous consent ask that a report entitled, ‘‘The Role of Housing 

Counseling for Asian American and Pacific Islanders,’’ this would 

be the AAPI community, be placed in the record, and my hope is 

that I will have an opportunity to speak when I come back with 

reference to this and other things. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Yes. Thank you. 

In case you are wondering why everybody is going in and out, if 

you see the lights up there, we had votes, but it is only one. So we 

were trying to keep going while we were running back and forth. 

So I just ran back. 

Ms. Waters from California is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I am sorry I could be not 

be here, Madam Chairwoman. But I have a few concerns that I 

would like to try and address. 

I know that some actions have been taken recently against the 

Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America; that is NACA. I 

have a letter here from NACA complaining about NeighborWorks’ 

administration of NFMC and legal compliance. I ask unanimous 

consent to enter both of these documents in the hearing record. 

Can you tell me what actions have been taken against NACA 

and who took them? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. NACA has now filed a lawsuit against 

NeighborWorks America. NACA’s lawsuit suggests that all of the 

funding of round five of the last round of NMFC, which is out in 

communities, should be pulled back and the entire process should 

be rescored for that. Obviously, that would put lots of homeowners 

at risk of not receiving foreclosure counseling. NACA has said that 

because they are concerned with our administration of the program. 

NACA did receive funds in rounds one, two, three and four. In 

round five, NACA at the time the round five awards were made 

was not receiving funds from HUD because HUD had them in a 

form of a suspended status due to some compliance issues. So HUD 

can speak to that better for that piece. 

Ms. HOLSTON. NACA was approved as a HUD-approved housing 

counseling agency in 2008. In May of 2009, we conducted a site 

visit to investigate several themes that had come to our attention 

after monitoring about 14 of their branches and affiliates. On that 

day, we identified several compliance issues. We asked them to provide information. They did not do that. 

In December of 2010, we suspended their grant. And in August 

of 2011, they responded to us, and we have cleared their outVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:04 Mar 28, 2012 Jkt 072602 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72602.TXT TERRIE
16 

standing compliance issues and went forward and obligated their 

funds for the 2010 Housing Counseling Assistance Program. They 

had two grants, one in the amount of $700,000 and the other 

$200,000. 

Ms. WATERS. Let me just slip away from that for a moment, if 

I still have some time left here on the clock. I want to get a feeling 

for, how successful are the counseling operations periods with loan 

modification work? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. They are very successful, given the servicer environment. And certainly, Ms. Waters, you have highlighted in the 

past some of the challenges that counselors have with servicers. So 

to the degree that the counselors—we have worked to get much 

better forms of communications with the servicers. 

The Urban Institute study that was performed on the NFMC 

program shows that a comparison group of NFMC clients who did 

not go through counseling performed worse. 

Ms. WATERS. You have some numbers for loan modifications? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Absolutely. Right. NFMC clients who got a loan modification saved $267 a month on their loan modification compared to those who didn’t go through counseling, and that is because counselors know how to talk with the servicer— 

Ms. WATERS. How many successful loan modifications are you 

talking about? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Probably a couple hundred thousand; I can get 

back to you with those numbers. 

Ms. WATERS. And have you come to us with documentation of the 

obstacles that these counselors face working with the servicers? Do 

you have something to show us that we could use in trying to alleviate these obstacles that the counselors and others are facing in 

attempting to get loan modifications? Do you have any recommendations whatsoever? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Yes, absolutely. In our most recent—we have 

had reports to Congress on the NFMC program. They all document 

some examples of reported challenges that counselors face in dealing with the servicers. So we have that, and there is a recent report that we are just producing, and we also—because we also 

train counselors, we frequently have meetings with them to get 

really detailed feedback on what their challenges with the servicers 

are, and we are happy to share those with you. 

Ms. WATERS. Any other recommendations relative to loan modification? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. That the servicers move more quickly. There is 

still a big a challenge with them taking months and months and 

months to give an answer to a counselor or a homeowner and to 

make sure that those that are outside Making Home Affordable are 

realistic modifications. 

Ms. WATERS. How much fraud have the counselors experienced? 

Do you have any idea? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. They see a lot of loan scams from their clients. 

Ms. WATERS. What do they do with those loan scams or fraud? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. There is a couple of things they do. 

NeighborWorks has worked with a broad consortium, including 

HUD and Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and on our 

loan scam alert site, homeowners or counselors can put in a report 

17 

that is then given to the lawyer’s committee on civil rights who will 

follow up on that scam. They will also connect them with individual attorneys who can represent them in that case. 

Ms. WATERS. What does HUD do about loan scams and fraud 

that come to their attention? 

Ms. HOLSTON. We have actually just announced awards for our 

mortgage modification—our mortgage scam grant and—with regard 

to mortgages that were modified—11,000 mortgages were modified 

in 2011, and I am looking for other data for you. 

Ms. WATERS. So you have grants that go out to nonprofits or others? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Legal Aid, is that one of them? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Any HUD-approved housing agency was able to 

compete, and I will read a list of those successful grantees. Do we 

have those? I will get back to you with that information. 

Ms. FITZGERALD. And one of the big challenges is building awareness. So we have both worked on awareness campaigns. Obviously, 

the best prevention against scams is trying to help people not be 

scammed in the first place. 

Ms. WATERS. But we have been through this for a long time now. 

We have been educating and counseling and the rip-off artists and 

the servicers and the bad folks are winning. They still win and people can’t stay in their homes. We have to be more aggressive. We 

have to come up with some better policies, and I am seeking information and recommendations about what we can do because we are 

just not able to help enough people. 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Right. Through our database in the last yearand-a-half, 17,500 homeowners reported scams. The Federal Trade 

Commission actually does take some of that information when they 

have enough, and goes after Internet scammers, as do State AGs 

and various other enforcement agencies. So encouraging folks to report is also critical. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. A further question, Ms. 

Holston. We are told that HUD is developing a risk model to evaluate the effectiveness of housing counselors and grant recipients. 

Could you update this committee on the status of—on the development of this risk model with an explanation of the objectives of the 

model? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Yes, ma’am. We have already developed the preliminary aspects of it. We have already identified the data sets that 

we need. We will be collecting it from our systems and other systems. We intend to launch it within the year. We will base the risk 

model on the performance review score, the level of grant funding, 

timely expenditure of grant funding, leveraging funds from lenders 

and other industry partners, agency performance, substantial complaints, the number of noncompliance findings and recurrence findings, directly approved or not, experience in the program, unspent 

funds, counselor compensation model. Those will be built into our 

system. It will take additional funding and we have approximated 

that cost to be about $800,000, and that it will take about 9 to 12 

months for implementation. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. So how would that make things better? 

18 

Ms. HOLSTON. It would make things better because we would 

have more targeted monitoring reviews. We would understand 

going in what the issues are associated with that housing counseling agency. We would be able to provide more technical assistance and identify those housing counseling agencies that are not in 

compliance. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. Ms. Cackley, in your research, 

what has GAO found about the effectiveness of homeownership 

counseling, and what have been the challenges in such research? 

Ms. CACKLEY. We have found that the study that has already 

been referred to that the Urban Institute did on foreclosure mitigation has been the best result in terms of effectiveness, shown the 

most effectiveness of all of that type of counseling. The counseling—pre-purchase counseling, when we looked at the literature, 

we found a more mixed bag in terms of some studies that did find 

positive effects and other studies that it wasn’t that they found 

negative effects, it was that you couldn’t find a particular effect one 

way or the other, and that has to do with the challenges which is 

the study design is very difficult. 

It is hard to get good data. It is hard to design a study in a way 

that allows you to identify the counseling as having an impact or 

not. You need to be able to have a control group. You need to be 

able to really identify the factors in a way that and control for 

them carefully. It is hard to do that, but it is not impossible. More 

studies are being done, and HUD is doing some of that work but 

it isn’t done yet. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Can you work with HUD to offer recommendations for improvement? 

Ms. CACKLEY. We can certainly share with HUD our information 

on what we found in the literature, and we would be happy to do 

that. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. Thank you. The gentleman from 

California, Mr. Sherman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. What role is the 

housing and mortgage industry playing in financing or otherwise 

providing housing counseling? Should we be doing more to encourage private industry participation, housing counseling efforts? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Yes. It is— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. That is the answer to the second question. 

What is the answer to the first question? What are they doing now? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. In a very inconsistent and ad hoc way as far as 

providing support, they do in certain areas. However, in general, 

they are not—despite conversations by many, many HUD intermediaries, they have not adopted a fee for service. We know that 

they save money, usually up to $20,000 to $35,000 if their property—if their loan doesn’t go through foreclosure. Paying a counselor $500 or $700 to help make sure that happens is a very cheap 

proposition, but time and again, we haven’t had any success there, 

and that would save the taxpayers money. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Although, does the servicer have the option to do 

that on behalf of what might be dozens of people who own that particular home mortgage? 

19 

Ms. FITZGERALD. It would seem that for the relatively de minimis 

amount of money that we are talking about, their legal team could 

figure out that. We have evidence that shows that this makes a 

better loan, that there is lower redefault. They will pay someone 

$500 to just go find a customer, but they won’t pay a counselor 

$500 to help the family work through a budget. 

Mr. SHERMAN. You say they pay $500. I am talking about the 

mortgage servicer. It is not the lenders. The problem that we have 

here is you are describing what would be logical if you had one decision-maker acting for the benefit of the lender. The problem is we 

have 20 lenders owning a single mortgage and no one can act logically on their behalf. The servicer can’t act on their behalf, only 

pursuant to the existing agreements that all 20 mortgage lenders 

who are participating in that mortgage have signed on to. We need 

in Congress to provide that servicers, regardless of what contract 

they have signed, have the right to spend the lender’s money, in 

this case, as you say, $500 or $700 to provide this counseling if it 

makes sense. 

Other than that, you basically are criticizing a ship for careening 

in the water illogically and harmfully. There is nobody with the 

power to steer it, as far as I understand. Do either of the witnesses 

have a comment on that? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. I would just like to say the investors have said 

that the servicers can choose to pay for counseling but they have 

to do it out of the fees that the servicer is getting to manage that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We can—any one of us here in this room could 

pay for the servicing out of our own salaries, and a few of us make 

charitable contributions to do a little bit toward that, but to say 

that the servicer should go spend $700 of its money for an act designed to benefit the banks or the homeowner asks them to be 

charitable, and as you explained, part of the beneficiary of the 

charity goes to these big banks who are not on my personal charity 

list. 

Let me move on. I would like to explore with some of our colleagues here whether the servicer should be able to do what you 

want them to do but to charge the banks for it. To say that it 

should come out of the servicing fee ignores the fact that their 

whole fee on that mortgage, absent the default, might be $500 for 

the year or less. 

I understand, though, that research on the impact of housing 

counseling is under way at HUD and Fannie Mae. What do you believe would be the best ways to measure the impact of housing 

counseling on clients? Perhaps I could hear from either of the other 

two witnesses. Yes, Ms. Cackley? 

Ms. CACKLEY. The best way to—could you, please— 

Mr. SHERMAN. They are studying the effect of housing counseling. What do you believe would be the best measures of whether 

that housing counseling is doing a good job? 

Ms. CACKLEY. The best measure would be if the study was designed to be a randomized sample so that one could effectively be 

able to tell—in other words, there are some people who get the 

counseling and some people who don’t, and one can tell truly what 

the impact is of the counseling. The hardest part of doing this kind 

of research is being able to make those distinctions. 

20 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you would have to pick from a pool of 1,000 

borrowers, 500 at random who would get free counseling, because 

if you just look at those who sign up for it, that is not randomized? 

Ms. CACKLEY. That is right. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I believe my time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. Mr. Hurt, you are recognized. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just had one question that I would love to hear Ms. Holston and Ms. Fitzgerald 

speak to if they can, and it may be something that is kind of hard 

for HUD to speak to if you are not at the ground level dealing with 

these counseling sessions. But I would love—as you know, we in 

this committee are struggling with the aftermath of—and as a 

country, of course, we are struggling with the aftermath of what 

happened in 2008 or what culminated in 2008. 

I was wondering if you could speak to, from the perspective of 

one who deals with folks who have gotten themselves into a situation that has gone bad on them or could potentially have gone bad 

and they end up losing a tremendous amount of wealth as a consequence, if you could speak to the underwriting practices that you 

all have found in the last couple of years that maybe we need to 

be focused on in terms of making sure this doesn’t happen again. 

I know it is probably beyond your jurisdiction, but I would love to 

have your comments on that. 

Ms. FITZGERALD. At NeighborWorks for 30 years, we have always 

focused on sustainable mortgages for families, and our focus is on 

low- and moderate-income families, and we would say that 30-year 

fixed mortgages for most of those families that are underwritten at 

a DTI of 31 percent at the front end is a good mortgage. One of 

the things that happened certainly was front-end debt-to-income 

ratios that were way too high and families encouraged to be in 

that, and that is just not a sustainable solution, particularly, again, 

for a low- to moderate-income family. Another thing that happened 

is teaser ARMs, all of those kind of things that underwrote. So 

somebody got an ARM where the rate was 1.99 percent for the first 

year, and then bumped up 2 percent a year for 3 years. But the 

underwriting at that point only underwrote whether they could afford a 1.99 percent rate, not whether they could afford what the 

payment was going to be in 2 years, and most families don’t see 

their incomes double or triple in a 2-year period. 

So those are two really egregious things that happened that we 

certainly hope would never show up again. 

Ms. HOLSTON. I would think that good, solid housing counseling, 

where a family is able to learn how to budget and understand what 

the responsibilities of homeownership are going to be. I know I am 

not speaking directly to your underwriting question, but a good understanding of what homeownership is about, how to qualify for a 

30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and I think that is probably the basis 

for it. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Hurt. The gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Green, do you have—you have 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for 

allowing me to be part of the hearing. I thank the witnesses as 

well. 

21 

I am fortunate in that I represent a district that has the ballot 

printed in three different languages. It is in English, it is in Spanish, and it is in Vietnamese. I think there is a reality that we 

sometimes don’t see with reference to the linguistic challenges that 

we have in our country, people who are lawfully here and who do 

need assistance, which is why I was proud to submit to the record 

the national capacity document entitled, ‘‘Role of Housing Counseling for Asian American and Pacific Islander Communities.’’ This 

organization has done a stellar job. It is in 17 States, has more 

than 100 community-based organizations and individuals working 

with it, and they work to help the AA/PI community. I am in support of what they do and I am proud to submit their document for 

consideration. 

I am also very much concerned about the loss of the $87.5 million. There are people who can benefit from this individually and 

families, but more importantly, the country benefits. Statistical information has been recorded indicating that we actually save 

money when we have people receiving this counseling, and my suspicion is that at some point, we would move into some sort of refinancing of many of the loans that are with the GSEs, Fannie and 

Freddie, through FHFA, and if this is done, many persons who 

could benefit from this and help the country benefit by virtue of not 

going into foreclosure because this counseling is done from the purchase through foreclosure mitigation, first-time home buyer, many 

of these people who could benefit, many persons who could benefit, 

will not benefit simply because of some of the linguistic challenges, 

and these organizations perform a meaningful function. This did 

not happen by accident that they are doing what they do. They 

have to prove and demonstrate that they would be a help. So I am 

supportive of what they do and wanted to make sure that we got 

this in the record. 

With reference to the counseling, let me just ask a question. I 

know you don’t have the empirical evidence today because a study 

is being performed, but can you give some anecdotal evidence—we 

take a lot of anecdotal evidence, and if you have anecdotal evidence, that has become very important to this committee, and I 

would ask that you share anecdotal evidence with the committee 

if you have such, and it doesn’t matter to me who shares first. 

Ms. FITZGERALD. In addition to the Urban Institute report we 

have spoken about, there is a—the Peter Zorn report from the early 

2000s that Freddie Mac funded and is still probably one of the 

state-of-the-art reports, and that report showed—and it used 

Freddie Mac data—that there was a 34 percent reduction in delinquencies if there was counseling. So there has been evidence out 

there. The one thing that hasn’t happened is this random blind 

study, but that is both incredibly expensive and very difficult. 

On a local basis, we have organizations that have done very 

strong studies showing that counseling has brought an increase in 

credit scores and they look at a FICO score for pre-purchase education and counseling, and over 6 months or a year, there is an increase in the FICO score. So there are several studies and maybe 

Ms. Holston can speak more about them. 

Ms. HOLSTON. The studies that we are conducting now will not 

be completed until next year, but preliminary findings from a reVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:04 Mar 28, 2012 Jkt 072602 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72602.TXT TERRIE
22 

cent study by ABT Associates shows that the vast majority of 

homeowners who received foreclosure housing from HUD-approved 

counseling agencies, and that is 84 percent, continued to live in 

their homes 18 months later and more than two-thirds were current on their mortgages. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My time is about 

up, so I will yield back. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman yields back. I might note, 

Ms. Holston, that we really do want more tracking and comments 

on the discussion draft to address the oversight. And with that, I 

would recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Holston, this 

question for you to start out with, if I may. 

Prioritizing funds obviously is something that I think is very important certainly for our government as we try to make them go 

and stretch further and that they get to the area of greatest need. 

Can you tell me how HUD right now is determining how the funds 

are being distributed? Are they being distributed—and I apologize 

if you covered this while I was voting—but are they being distributed on the greatest need first or is it more by geographic region 

first or how is it really being disseminated? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Because we offer a full range of housing services— 

housing counseling services, we actually develop a NOFA, send it 

out, and it is on a geographic basis, but we also set aside funding. 

We have—this last year, we actually developed a NOFA and put 

$1 million for scam elimination. So, at this point, it is geographic 

primarily. 

Mr. DOLD. Okay. I appreciate that. In your testimony and other 

data we read that since 2005, between 2005 and today, over 4.1 

million households have received individual foreclosure prevention 

counseling and more than 150,000 have participated in homeowner 

default education workshops which I recognize represents a little 

over a third of the HUD housing counseling activity between 2005 

and 2010. Do you know how many of these households were able 

to stay in their homes as a result of housing counseling? 

Ms. HOLSTON. I know for those who received housing counseling 

in 2010— 

Mr. DOLD. Okay. 

Ms. HOLSTON. —84 percent continued to live in their homes— 

this is foreclosure counseling, 2005 forward. Just a moment. Let me 

get the exact figure. 

Mr. DOLD. Not a problem. 

Ms. HOLSTON. Could we get back to you, please, sir? 

Mr. DOLD. Absolutely. Again, it—I believe, again, as we talked 

about in the opening statements it is important that we are able 

to reflect how well things are going. We want to make sure we can 

highlight these things so we can try to make sure that when it 

comes time for the appropriators to make some difficult decisions, 

which we know are not going to be received by many well, that we 

can highlight programs that are working and working well. 

Can you give me just your own thoughts or if there are ones that 

you believe—and I will ask this both of Ms. Holston and Ms. Fitzgerald and then we will try to get down another one to make sure 

we are not leaving everybody out—in terms of the role that you beVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:04 Mar 28, 2012 Jkt 072602 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72602.TXT TERRIE
23 

lieve that housing counseling should play in preventing another 

foreclosure crisis? Obviously, we are in the midst of a foreclosure 

crisis right now. What should the counseling do in order to try to 

prevent another foreclosure crisis from happening again? 

Ms. HOLSTON. In many instances, a housing counselor is the best 

friend of a homeowner going into foreclosure. So a housing counselor can help that family secure a modification. They can provide 

comfort to them as they go forward, giving them options as to the 

best route to take. In terms of what we can do as housing counselors to avoid foreclosure or to avoid this mortgage crisis, better 

and more housing counseling earlier in the process, so some families will decide perhaps not to purchase, and others will know what 

the responsibilities of homeownership are before they purchase 

their home. 

Mr. DOLD. Ms. Fitzgerald? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Absolutely. The best prevention against foreclosure is an educated consumer who understands the responsibilities they are getting into, can choose a mortgage product, and also 

understand the impacts of other credit that often gets offered to 

them after they become a homeowner and how to manage that. 

And we know that for the last 20 years, homeowners who have 

gone through that process early enough—not the day before the 

closing table—are more successful. If both spouses lose their jobs, 

obviously things in life happen that counseling can’t prevent, but 

it makes them much more likely to be sustainable. 

Ms. HOLSTON. One more thing. I also think it is important to 

have a third-party counselor so that you have a non-involved party 

in the deal, a counselor giving advice and guidance. 

Mr. DOLD. And I appreciate that. I guess, obviously, we would 

love to be able to have some sort of counseling before they make 

any purchase decisions because they might not be able to, but in 

the reality, that might not be realistic. Ms. Fitzgerald, you talked 

just a moment ago about, the earlier the better. Do you know the 

percentage in terms of the counseling you see beforehand, how 

close to the actual purchase of a home? I know my time has expired. 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Certainly in our network we recommend that it 

is at least 90 to 180 days beforehand, and our organizations work 

really hard to get that message out early to customers to do that, 

but I don’t have a percentage. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Chairwoman Biggert. Ms. Holston, 

does HUD use a competitive method to, or a merit-based system to 

award counseling funding? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Yes, sir. We actually issue a NOFA and open it 

up for any HUD-approved housing counseling agency to compete. 

They submit their proposals. We rate and rank them. They have 

to receive a fundable score. And then based on the availability of 

funding and formula, it is determined how much their grant will 

be for. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay. Ms. Fitzgerald, in terms of NeighborWorks, 

do you have metrics for success, in terms of your operations? 

24 

Ms. FITZGERALD. We do two different things. On the counseling 

side for NFMC when we have a competitive process, we had the 

Urban Institute give an independent evaluation which has shown 

that the program actually works. Again, 70 percent of the clients 

who enter are more likely to cure their foreclosure than clients who 

did not go through that program. We require reporting from the 

counseling agencies on a quarterly basis on what is happening with 

them. 

Mr. MCHENRY. And so you determine if these intermediaries are 

actually spending the funds appropriately? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. We do substantial on-site and off-site compliance. We do on site to those who receive 64—we do a risk rating 

system that we have had in place for 3 years, and in doing that, 

we made sure that we are going to the folks who get the largest 

amounts of funding, and we make sure that they are spending that 

money well in a variety of ways. 

Mr. MCHENRY. So how do you determine success rates for 

these—for counseling, how do you determine success rates? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. One of the challenges for foreclosure counselors 

is that because servicers take so long still to handle a situation, 

often 9 months—the most recent data shows that the average loan 

has been in foreclosure for 599 days. That means there are 599 

days that the homeowner doesn’t necessarily know what is happening, nor does the counselor. So the counselor is doing everything 

in their power to help solve that, but often they are at the mercy 

of servicers who are very backlogged. 

But a success, they are always working to, if at all possible, get 

that homeowner a loan modification, and if they can’t, then helping 

them exit in a good way for that family. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay. So the eligibility of each applicant of the 

national foreclosure mitigation counseling is based on their approval by HUD, correct? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. The eligible applicants, by statute, are HUD-approved intermediaries, State housing finance agencies, and 

NeighborWorks organizations. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay. So how do you become HUD approved? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Your question is how to become a HUD-approved 

housing counseling intermediary? 

Mr. MCHENRY. Yes. 

Ms. HOLSTON. I will get back to you in just a second. 

Mr. MCHENRY. That is fine. So what is the average time and cost 

to become one of these intermediaries? 

Ms. HOLSTON. Three to 6 months. 

Mr. MCHENRY. And cost? 

Ms. HOLSTON. And the cost is processing. There is no cost associated with it. There is no cost. They submit an application. We review the application and approve it or disprove it. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Yes, time has cost. So if you have five staffers 

putting something together to fill this paperwork out, their salaries 

actually have a cost. That is what I am interested in. 

Ms. HOLSTON. We will have to get back with you and compute 

that cost. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay. I would be interested in that because we 

do want qualified counselors, but if the hurdle is so difficult to beVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:04 Mar 28, 2012 Jkt 072602 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72602.TXT TERRIE
25 

come one of these intermediaries, then you need to look at your 

processes so that reasonable groups can go through this process. 

So, with that, I am obviously concerned that we do have foreclosure counseling and it is done well, and the challenges are for 

determining success and that was to you, Ms. Fitzgerald. If you— 

no two families are the same. No two family situations are the 

same. No two foreclosures are exactly the same. So determining 

success in counseling is a challenge because you have some folks 

for whom there can be a remedy. Let’s say they have a job. It is 

much easier for them to get something worked out than those who 

are not employed; is that right? 

Ms. FITZGERALD. Typically, yes, unless there is a local program 

that would help those folks, yes. 

Mr. MCHENRY. All right. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. I 

would like to thank the first panel for your insights and the information that you have given us, and I would note that some members may have additional questions for this panel which they may 

wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record 

will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. 

Again, thank you so much, and we will now turn to Panel II. 

Thank you. 

Welcome to the second panel: Mr. Peter H. Bell, president, National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association; Ms. Candy Hill, senior vice president, social policy and government affairs, Catholic 

Charities USA; Ms. Debra Olson, interim executive director, 

DuPage Homeownership Center and DuPage County board member, on behalf of the National Association of Counties. And I would 

like to say a special welcome to Ms. Olson who is from the district 

and from the State of Illinois. 

Ms. OLSON. Thank you for the invitation. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And then Mr. Raul Raymundo, chief executive officer, The Resurrection Project. 

Thank you all for being here, and again, for the panel, without 

objection, your written statements will be made a part of the 

record, and you will each be recognized for a 5-minute summary of 

your testimony. We will begin with you, Mr. Bell, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PETER H. BELL, PRESIDENT & CEO, NATIONAL 

REVERSE MORTGAGE LENDERS ASSOCIATION (NRMLA) 

Mr. BELL. Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for convening this hearing to look into the 

important issue of housing counseling. This subcommittee, including members from both sides of the aisle, has been consistently 

sensitive to reverse mortgage issues and has continually taken 

steps to improve and enhance FHA’s Home Equity Conversion 

Mortgage (HECM) program. For that, we are very appreciative, as 

are the 660,000 senior households who have utilized the HECM 

program. 

I would like to focus today on one aspect of housing counseling 

that is a relatively small niche but a very important one for those 

who are affected. This is counseling for older homeowners who are 

26 

contemplating obtaining a reverse mortgage or for those older 

homeowners who already have a reverse mortgage and find themselves facing new financial challenges. 

The equity accumulated in a home represents the largest component of personal wealth for many middle-class households. Typical 

retiree households might have one or two incomes from Social Security, a modest pension, perhaps some savings and low-yielding 

fixed-income instruments and nowadays perhaps a diminished 

401(k) account. The equity they have built up in their home is by 

far their greatest asset and an important resource for funding their 

future. 

Analyzing how a reverse mortgage might fit into the picture, 

however, is not an easy task, particularly for older homeowners 

who might not have been active in financial markets in recent 

years, for newly-widowed individuals whose loss of their spouse’s 

Social Security creates financial insecurity, for seniors struggling to 

make ends meet, and for those trying to plan ahead to maximize 

their resources and sustain their financial independence. 

When Congress enacted the HECM program back in the 1987 

Housing Act, it recognized this and made mandatory counseling a 

critical component of the HECM program. Counseling is a very effective consumer safeguard, and as a result of that, we have seen 

very few problems with the HECM program over the years. Reverse mortgage counselors are employed by HUD-approved, community-based and nationally designated nonprofit housing and 

credit counseling organizations. Each individual counselor must be 

qualified by passing a HUD-administered exam and must meet 

continuing education requirements. The result of this has been the 

development of a robust network of committed counseling organizations and qualified individuals who deliver counseling through faceto-face sessions or via telephone, depending on each client’s personal choice and mobility. 

On top of the fact that all seniors considering a reverse mortgage 

must undergo counseling before they can actually even apply for a 

HECM, counseling agencies are required by HUD to perform such 

counseling at no cost whatsoever to any clients whose income is 

below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Fifty-six percent of 

HECM clients report one of the most major counseling agencies fall 

under this threshold. 

So the issue we face today is, how will these mandates be met? 

How will counseling continue to be available to all HECM borrowers? We face a legal mandate to make sure the counseling is 

provided. We face a moral mandate to make sure that this counseling is equally available to those with more limited means who 

are unable to pay for it up front. 

In the earliest years, the AARP foundation provided technical assistance and support for HECM counseling. In more recent years, 

their work has been taken over by NeighborWorks and the National Council on Aging. Each of these organizations has made a 

very significant contribution towards furthering the quality and 

availability of counseling by training, tracking, collecting and analyzing data, and providing technical education for the counseling 

community. 

27 

One particular area that has emerged in recent years, due to the 

economic downturn—and both NeighborWorks and MCOA are to be 

commended for stepping up to the plate on this issue—is providing 

remedial counseling to reverse mortgage borrowers who have had 

setbacks in their financial affairs and have had difficulties meeting 

their obligations to pay property taxes and insurance. 

As a result of this remedial counseling, a high percentage of 

households facing this situation have been able to be put on a repayment plan to reimburse the lenders’ advances, protecting FHA 

from possible payouts for claims while preserving the homeowners’ 

ability to continue living in their home, a win-win solution for all 

involved. All in all, the cost of providing this type of HECM counseling for those who cannot afford it is small. The cost of not providing it would be very great. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell can be found on page 42 of 

the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Bell. 

Ms. Hill, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CANDY HILL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SOCIAL POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA 

Ms. HILL. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Biggert, and thank you 

to the subcommittee for having us here today. 

I am here representing Catholic Charities USA where I am the 

senior vice president for social policy and government affairs. Housing has always been a primary area of service delivery for Catholic 

Charities throughout its 100-year history, and is a major concern 

presently in our work to serve those in need and reduce poverty in 

America. We very much appreciate this opportunity to come before 

the subcommittee and provide input and data on the critical importance of housing counseling based on our experience as a national 

housing counseling intermediary for more than the past 10 years. 

With 38 of our agencies serving 26,429 individuals during the grant 

cycle of 2009–2010, we want to underscore the value of these services to so many in these challenging economic times. 

The important role that housing counseling services has played 

and continues to play in ensuring a stable housing market and 

safe, affordable housing for those who receive these services is immeasurable. These services are comprehensive and should not be 

narrowly directed only to foreclosure prevention. In fact, housing 

counseling assists with rapid rehousing prevents renters from losing their homes and addresses homelessness. It is essential that 

these services, which support individuals and families in need, be 

preserved. In fact, if it had not been for housing counseling programs, thousands more would have been vulnerable in the housing 

crisis. 

At the same time, it is incumbent on those who administer these 

funds to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of these services 

without undue or unnecessary administrative burdens so that more 

funds go directly to those who need the services. For example, in 

Elmira, New York, the housing counseling program operates a 

28 

first-time home buyer program. Four hundred families have purchased their first home through this program which is a partnership between Catholic Charities and the City of Elmira. The program consists of intensive pre-purchase education and support. 

Successful participants complete 9 hours of some kind of education 

and workshop and approximately 7 to 10 hours of one-on-one counseling. Their housing counseling services are tailored to the clients’ 

needs, not necessarily their wants. 

The success of the first-time home buyer program in part is attributed to the extensive pre- and post-education and support given 

by housing counselors, and the foreclosure rate for homes bought 

by home buyers in this program is under 3 percent. 

Stable housing is the goal for all those that we serve in our network. Housing counseling is an essential element of our housing 

services. Catholic Charities’ programs uniquely reach those who 

are challenged by poverty and often turn to us as a last resort. 

However, I want to mention that the population that we see currently is not just low income. More and more middle-income individuals and families, including significant numbers of military families, are approaching Catholic Charities’ agencies to receive housing counseling services. 

Catholic Charities continues to work for innovative ways to help 

people secure and maintain housing with the ultimate goal of helping individuals and families to achieve self-sufficiency. I highlight 

that for you that in my written testimony; I have reported on a 

number of local Catholic Charities housing counseling programs 

and the innovation and success that they have had. 

As you well know, funding for HUD’s housing counseling assistance program was eliminated in the HUD Fiscal Year 2011 budget 

appropriation. However, funding for the National Foreclosure Mitigation Program was maintained at $65 million. While Catholic 

Charities USA recognizes that NeighborWorks America’s NFMC 

program does important work related to foreclosure intervention, 

and in fact, 11 Catholic Charities agencies received grants from 

NeighborWorks, it is important that we highlight the fact that 

there is a difference between the two in that one is a program that 

addresses specifically foreclosure intervention and mitigation, while 

the other is a more holistic approach to housing counseling services 

which are crucial as it provides much-needed counseling to millions 

of families and seniors. 

With that, I would like to make a few recommendations to this 

committee. We urge you to make affordable and accessible comprehensive housing a priority and encourage local governments and 

private interests to do the same; invest in this critical housing 

counseling program and support comprehensive and innovative 

programs that allow communities the flexibility to meet local housing concerns; restore the $87.5 million in funding to the housing 

counseling program; and finally, ensure that all Federal programs, 

including these we discuss today, are effective and efficient, not 

overly burdened with layers of administrative oversight, but effectively overseen so that funding and services meet the needs of 

those individuals these programs have been designed to serve. 

Thank you. 

29 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hill can be found on page 81 of 

the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Ms. Hill. 

Ms. Olson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DEBRA OLSON, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DUPAGE HOMEOWNERSHIP CENTER, AND BOARD MEMBER, DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NACo) 

Ms. OLSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member 

Gutierrez, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the special invitation today. 

My name is Debra Olson and I am a DuPage County, Illinois, 

board member and a member of the National Association of Counties (NACo) community and economic development steering committee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important 

oversight hearing. It is my privilege to represent NACo today, and 

we appreciate Chairwoman Biggert holding a hearing on housing 

counseling programs. 

NACo, the only national organization representing America’s 

3,068 counties, supports housing counseling programs which provide vital services to county residents, particularly in this stalled 

housing market and difficult economy. Low property values caused 

by foreclosed homes have led to a smaller tax base and budget 

shortfalls. 

HUD-certified counseling agencies help to ensure that county 

residents are getting accurate information and effective services, 

which can mean the difference between homeowners saving or losing their homes. These services are primarily offered free of charge, 

thanks in part to Federal funding. Empowering residents with information makes the process better for all involved. Counties know 

these services have prevented foreclosures and helped homeowners 

make better decisions in a process that can be confusing and overwhelming. 

This year, NACo published an issue brief on foreclosure, ‘‘The 

Fall and Rise of Neighborhoods in Counties Across the Country.’’ 

The brief notes the importance of having homeowners who are potentially facing foreclosure contact HUD-approved housing counseling agencies for assistance in working with their lender. 

In NACo’s June 2008 survey of large urban counties, approximately 96 percent of the county officials responding noted an increase in home foreclosures during that year. Approximately 36 

percent reported a 50 percent or more increase in foreclosures. 

Fifty-six percent of the officials reported a decline in housing values as a result of foreclosures, and 52 percent are experiencing revenue shortfalls, a result of either foreclosures or declining home 

values. 

DuPage County has experienced similar problems. Furthermore, 

according to RealtyTrac, Illinois has the 5th highest foreclosure 

rate in the United States, and DuPage County foreclosure rates, as 

a ratio of homeownership, rank 8 out of 102 counties. In DuPage, 

over 8,500 houses are in some stage of foreclosure. 

DuPage County has, for years, partnered with the DuPage 

Homeownership Center, DHOC, the only HUD-certified housing 

30 

counseling agency providing comprehensive services in the county. 

DHOC has a national reputation for excellence. We have received 

numerous awards, and our innovative programs have been profiled 

in six national best practices publications, and as the volunteer interim executive director, I can assure you we believe in, and welcome, strong accountability. 

DHOC provided services to over 2,500 families in Fiscal Year 

2011. Of those, 833 households were in some state of default, many 

more in imminent threat of default. Though DHOC has received 

NeighborWorks grants, as well as HUD grants, NeighborWorks 

round six is not guaranteed and the significant cut in HUD funding 

is jeopardizing DHOC services for these thousands of DuPage residents. 

Perhaps now more than ever, there is a need for comprehensive, 

federally-funded housing counseling services. More than 85 percent 

of DHOC’s foreclosure clients report they never had any home 

buyer education. Pre-purchase counseling and reverse mortgage 

counseling have been defunded, and local agencies may be forced 

to charge cash poor seniors for these services which are required 

by law. 

Foreclosure prevention counseling has proven to be highly costeffective. According to a report in Mortgage News Daily, the average cost of a foreclosure is $77,000 while the average cost of foreclosure prevention is $3,300. DHOC helped 279 families prevent 

foreclosure in Fiscal Year 2011 alone, saving lenders, governments, 

communities and homeowners in crisis over $20 million. Hundreds 

more DHOC clients are in process. 

HUD’s housing counseling programs provide accessibility to financial education for all, creating more responsible renters and 

homeowners. HUD’s housing counseling programs impose standards of certification on participating agencies resulting in professional, accurate, reliable information for renters, home buyers, and 

families in crisis. 

HUD requires accountability measures such as independent third 

party audits, biennial on-site performance reviews, and uniform reporting of performance outcomes. HUD’s competitive grant process 

ensures participating organizations will meet and exceed mandated 

goals or lose funding. 

DuPage County applauds strict enforcement of the standards of 

certification and accountability measures to give Congress and consumers confidence that their tax dollars are being spent wisely. We 

support requiring stringent compliance with national industry 

standards for home buyer education and counseling for grant 

awards. 

As a government official myself who looks for the most effective 

and efficient use of tax dollars, the cost of housing counseling is a 

fraction of the cost of a foreclosure. Defunding housing counseling 

is counterproductive to long-term resolution of the economic problems we face today and prevention of recurrence in the future. I 

implore you to improve HUD’s programs, not gut them. 

Thank you for this opportunity and I welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Olson can be found on page 104 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

31 

Mr. Raymundo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RAUL I. RAYMUNDO, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE RESURRECTION PROJECT 

Mr. RAYMUNDO. Buenos tardes. Good afternoon. I am honored to 

be here. 

The Resurrection Project is a community-based nonprofit serving 

primarily Latino neighbors in Chicago’s west side and the City and 

suburbs. The Resurrection Project is also a proud affiliate of National Council of La Raza and the National Association of Latino 

Community Asset Builders, for which I am the current board chair. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Biggert and Congressman Gutierrez, for 

allowing me to be here to talk to you about the impact of HUD 

counseling support that we have received over the past few years. In 1990, The Resurrection Project began with a $30,000 seed capital investment from area parishes. Today, we have leveraged more 

than $200 million in reinvestment through our comprehensive community development efforts, a cornerstone of which is housing and 

financial literacy counseling. As a HUD-approved agency, we empower families with the knowledge about the right way to purchase 

a home and arm them against predatory lenders. 

Last year, The Resurrection Project counselors served over 2,700 

families through pre-purchase, foreclosure, and basic financial literacy education. Many of these families successfully purchased a 

home, improved their credit scores, and opened savings accounts. 

The families we serve on the southwest side of the City and western suburbs have been hit hard by this great recession. Communities of colors have lost far more wealth in this great recession 

than the general public as a result of banking and what used to 

be a secure investment, owning part of the American dream 

through homeownership. 

The counseling support we provide to families is often the only 

thing that helps with the soft landing that many of these families 

are experiencing. When they are foreclosed on, it does not only impact their finances but also the entire psyche of the family. I cannot imagine how much worse things could have been for our communities had we not received counseling support over the past 5 

years. 

In a survey of HUD-certified counseling agencies conducted by 

Housing Action Illinois, several agencies indicated that cuts would 

force them to lay off staff or see fewer clients. Two agencies anticipated they would be forced to shut down completely. We know that 

counseling alone does not revitalize neighborhoods, but again, it is 

a cornerstone for comprehensive revitalization efforts. 

Currently, there is an incredible excess of inventory of foreclosed 

housing units in the market. Many of the strategies being considered across the country to reduce this inventory is supply driven, 

REO disposition of properties, short sales, and donations. The key 

to reducing this inventory should be demand driven as well. In 

other words, we need well-prepared buyers, well-qualified buyers, 

and well-educated buyers. It is shortsighted to think that preparing 

the next generation of home buyers will happen overnight. It is 

going to take some time to build this foundation, not just repair the 

old. 

32 

Let me give you an example of the foundation I am speaking 

about. Orelia Abeja, a single mother of four, came to The Resurrection Project in 2000 with a dream of owning a home, but settled 

into one of our affordable apartments to give her the time and 

space she needed to save money. Over the next 10 years, Ms. Abeja 

earned a bachelor’s degree and eventually a master’s and became 

a schoolteacher. In 2006, she began receiving one-on-one counseling 

to help realize her dream of owning a home. After a few years of 

budgeting, saving, and learning the ins and outs of homeownership, 

Ms. Abeja purchased a single family home, and in 2009, she and 

her family moved into a 3-bedroom home. 

The Resurrection Project and similar HUD-approved counseling 

agencies across the Chicagoland area continue to help families like 

the Abejas work to manage steps towards sustainable homeownership and a better life. 

Without this funding, our neighborhoods will suffer. Home buyers like Ms. Abeja will not be able to receive the type of high-quality individualized education to help prepare them for sustainable 

homeownership and prevent future foreclosures. HUD counseling is 

crucial right now in order to jump start a demand market to prepare families like the Abejas, often first-time home buyers to buy 

a home. This demand will, in turn, spur local economies which will 

create much-need jobs, which will, in turn, help revitalize local 

neighborhoods. 

Therefore, I urge Congress to restore the housing counseling pro- grams funding to the Fiscal Year 2010 level of $88 million. 

Secondly, and finally, I urge Congress to invest more in counseling agencies that are culturally and linguistically sensitive to 

communities that have been hit hardest by this great recession and 

this housing crisis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raymundo can be found on page 

114 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

We will now move to questions and members will have 5 minutes 

to ask the questions and we will start with that. 

This question is really for everyone. While helping families, especially those who are in foreclosure counseling, what are the greatest challenges that counselors face? Just one or two from each of 

you, so we get your top challenges that what you see. Some of the 

Panel I witnesses mentioned problems with servicers, for example. 

We will start with you, Mr. Raymundo. 

Mr. RAYMUNDO. Yes. I think that continues to be a serious problem, that servicers are taking a very long time. We heard earlier 

in the panel the length of time that it takes them to respond to 

families, to the counselors, and I think there needs to be some kind 

of legislation that forces, if you will, servicers to act as one instead 

of many in terms of providing mitigation as quickly as possible to 

our families. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. Ms. Olson? 

Ms. OLSON. I would agree with the assessment that working with 

servicers is perhaps the most difficult part. Furthermore, I would 

say that scams have definitely been a problem, and one of the problems that nonprofit agencies have is that we don’t have a lot of dollars for public relations (PR). We offer these highly professional 

33 

certified counseling services, but don’t have the dollars for PR in 

order to get the word out there that we offer these services. So 

scammers who have lots of money to put toward PR have their 

name out there and promise to help. I think that is another problem that we face as an agency that would be helpful to—more PR 

dollars would be helpful, I think. 

Chairman BIGGERT. Ms. Hill? 

Ms. HILL. I would echo that servicers are a great challenge for 

us, but I would also say that the— 

Chairman BIGGERT. Could you pull the microphone closer to you? 

Ms. HILL. —continued economic downturn, so in families where 

unemployment is an issue or a loss of job, where it has been over 

the course of more than a year, makes it much more difficult to 

mitigate a situation where foreclosure is imminent because of the 

lack of funds to actually pay the mortgage. So I would say both the 

servicers and the continued economic downturn for this length of 

time are a great challenge for us. 

Chairman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Bell? 

Mr. BELL. Yes. Our clientele is slightly different because they are 

the elderly, and there is a different set of issues there. But when 

it comes to mitigation counseling for the seniors who have problems, one of the challenges has been that the servicers possess personal nonpublic financial information that would be very helpful to 

the counselors, but because of privacy laws, it is challenging for 

them to be able to share that with the counselor, which would help 

make a much more informed counseling session. 

We have been working on some efforts to overcome those, but it 

would be helpful if the Congress would look at that and perhaps 

engineer some opportunities within the privacy laws to allow the 

servicers to make such information available to the counselors. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Mr. Bell, what are the losses associated 

with reverse mortgages to FHA over the last 5 years? 

Mr. BELL. Historically to date, the program has been run on a 

revenue-neutral basis. The way this has been maintained is that 

each year in budgeting for the program, FHA and then OMB 

project out how the book of business might perform based on its 

projections of future home values, and then they have made adjustments accordingly. 

Over the past couple of years, they have reduced the benefit that 

seniors can get out of a reverse mortgage. Two years ago, they reduced the amount by 10 percent across-the-board and, for the current Fiscal Year, from 1 to 4 percent, depending on the age of the 

borrower. Also for the current Fiscal Year, they increased the mortgage insurance premium, the annual mortgage insurance premium, 

that is paid to keep the program on a revenue-neutral basis. So, 

to date, there has not been any real loss from the HECM program. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. There was a story not too long ago about 

some seniors who had gotten a reverse mortgage, and they were 

given a lump sum instead of like a monthly or whatever, and they 

spent it all. Then, of course, they didn’t have the money to pay the 

property taxes or anything. Is this happening still, or is this something that has changed? 

34 

Mr. BELL. A borrower under the HECM program has the choice 

of having a fixed-rate mortgage or a variable-rate mortgage, and 

they have the choice of receiving the money all at once as a lump 

sum or taking it out in fixed monthly payments or setting it up as 

a line of credit and drawing it down as needed. 

The fixed rate requires a full draw. The reason for that is that 

a lender can put out the money today because he knows the cost 

of funds if somebody takes it all at once. If they want to take it 

out a little bit at a time, they must choose a variable rate. By and 

large, in the last couple of years, with the financial uncertainty, 

seniors have overwhelmingly chosen the full draw fixed rate to 

have the security of the fixed rate. So that is in fact going on in 

more than half of the reverse mortgages that are made. 

In a large percentage of those cases, the other reason for taking 

out the full amount up front is because they are paying off existing 

indebtedness on the property, and they require all those funds for 

it. However, if a senior does not need all the money up front, they 

are well advised to consider the variable rate, which gives them the 

other options. Unfortunately, that is not often what they choose, 

but that is why the counseling once again becomes so critical, to 

help them make that determination. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. So the housing counseling should really 

make sure that they understand taking all the money out at once 

is not going to work? 

Mr. BELL. Or that they have to guard their money and use it judiciously. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I think the reverse mortgages are an 

issue that maybe we want to consider looking into with another 

hearing or something. So I appreciate your being here. 

Mr. BELL. We would welcome the opportunity. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I yield to Mr. Gutierrez for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. First of all, I want to welcome my friend and advocate for housing, for people who really, 

without his advocacy, wouldn’t have an opportunity to be part of 

the American dream. 

So I wanted to thank Raul Raymundo for taking up our invitation to come, and for—I was on the city council when you were— 

your resurrection more than 2 decades ago. So thank you for all of 

the wonderful work, Raul, that you have done, and I am really delighted that you are here, because I think you add a magnificent 

and very timely voice to what we are doing. 

So, tell me, Mr. Raymundo, the relationship between HUD funding, lack of HUD funding and what that might do in terms of what 

you do. I know you represent a broader group of people who are 

just like you and that do the kind of work. Tell me what your fear 

is. Tell me what we should know. 

Mr. RAYMUNDO. I think we are facing—the foreclosure crisis has 

been ongoing for a few years now. And as I mentioned in my remarks, we continue to have increase in these units out there. I 

think if we really are going to turn around the devastation that is 

going on in these communities as a result of boarded-up buildings 

and crime that is happening in these communities as a result of 

these buildings, we need to figure out how to stimulate a demand 

side of the market. 

35 

I think what has worked for us, and I believe what has worked 

for many counseling agencies, is preparing people and well educating them. This is not going to happen overnight. In our experience, it often takes 2 to 3 years to make sure that there is a wellqualified, well-prepared buyer to become a homeowner. It is not 

going to happen overnight, particularly as a result of the crisis that 

people are facing with lack of jobs, lower wages, and so forth. 

So, it might take a little longer to be ready to become a homeowner, but once they are ready and they do become a homeowner, 

it is going to have other ripple effects in our community, such as 

building up our communities and creating a better economy in our 

communities. It is something we have to look at differently. It is 

not short term. We have to be looking at this longer term as well. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So what kinds of moneys does the Federal Government provide— 

Mr. RAYMUNDO. It would be devastating if HUD cuts their funding or future funding. As my colleagues mentioned as well, it is not 

just about the one-on-one counseling; it is getting the word out. It 

is making sure that people know that there are opportunities in today’s market, but also to prevent them from going down the wrong 

path, as they have. 

We are competing daily against predators who are better 

resourced than housing counselors who are out there promoting on 

a weekly basis. In our community, as you know, Congressman, they 

do this through radio shows, sponsoring the whole half-hour, a 

whole hour of radio show, inviting people to come to them, and 

they will assist them, often charging them hundreds if not thousands of dollars for assistance that HUD counselors provide absolutely free and do a better job of this. 

So that is the market and the environment we are competing 

with. Resources to be proactive in informing people, marketing to 

them, to do it the right way, is very important, as well as one-onone counseling. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I just want to say to you, Mr. Raymundo, and 

the thousands of others like you, which I know we have, like Mrs. 

Olson and others, who really are out there to give a benefit to the 

consumers, and to watch out for their interests; I want to thank 

you for the wonderful work and contribution you make toward the 

realization of the American dream of homeownership or just getting a decent place to rent. 

I think, Madam Chairwoman, it is interesting, because I was listening to Mr. Bell’s response to the question, and it just seems to 

me that it might be a good idea to take a look at it, because I had 

this concept, because I guess I am not old enough to be thinking 

about a reverse mortgage, so I just kind of watch it on TV, and it 

always came across to me that you kind of get this income, you 

don’t lose your home, you get to live in it until you die. Anybody 

raise your hand if you don’t think this is the way you got it. I 

watch the commercials. 

But then it sounds like the explanation can be pretty starkly different, right? I am wondering, what if the roof leaks and you don’t 

pay the taxes, a host of things. You have a medical emergency; you 

lose your house. 

36 

So, I think that housing counseling is very, very important. I 

think we should look at it. Because you don’t have to be—even I 

was walking the other day through the airport, and they said, oh, 

you know, get this credit card, 25,000 miles and you get a free airline ticket somewhere. Has anybody ever really tried to get a free 

airline ticket with 25,000 miles? They got them for 60, for 90. 

Then I signed up for a credit card for one of the major hotels. 

I said, oh, great. They said, you have accumulated enough for three 

nights. When I went to try to get one of the nights, it was at the 

lousiest hotel in their chain—no, I am not making this up. You try 

it. You are going to say that Luis was right. 

So just think about, what it is you perceive to be, right, that warranty on your car. It is like, oh, those things weren’t under the 

warranty. Only the little light bulb was under warranty. And if it 

happens to me on such simple things as a reward program, on frequent flier miles, on my—imagine how important, because those 

things, I just won’t take the hotel, right? 

But this can have very grave consequences beyond what hotel or 

what trip you might have to cancel or how much you are going to 

have to deal with your car and not let it turn into a clunker. So 

I think it might be advisable, we will talk more later. But I want 

to thank all of the panelists. Thank you so much. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Remember, there is no free lunch. 

Mr. Hurt is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thank each of you all for joining us this afternoon. 

One of the things that I was asking about in the earlier panel, 

and I think many of you were here, but I was wondering, do the 

programs that HUD and NeighborWorks coordinate and operate, 

are they able to target those most in need? It sounds to me that 

there really is not a mechanism to do that, that the targeting, to 

use Ms. Holston’s word, was really more geographic by nature. And 

that makes sense to me. Obviously, that would be the easiest way 

to do it. But is there a way to target those most in need? 

The reason, of course, I ask that is because we do have limited 

resources, and our ability to fund these programs is going to be 

more and more difficult as we face, as I said in my opening statement, as we face the prospect of balancing a budget that is $1.5 

trillion out of whack. So it seems to me that it is incumbent on all 

of us to try to figure out how to help the most in need. 

Does that make sense to you? And if it does, what can you tell 

us or what thoughts might you have on how to reach those who are 

most in need. I would just like to hear from each, if you have any 

thoughts on that, starting with Mr. Bell, if that is okay? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, Congressman. In the HECM counseling, it is very 

definitely targeted to need, because the counseling agencies, many 

of them charge for the counseling, and they use the HUD funds to 

provide the counseling to those people who are under 200 percent 

of the Federal poverty level. So the HUD funding is targeted to the 

lowest income. 

The other place the HUD funding gets used is people get the 

counseling before they apply. You cannot apply for an FHA-insured 

reverse mortgage until you have been out, met with the counselor, 

completed the counseling and return to the lender with a counVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:04 Mar 28, 2012 Jkt 072602 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72602.TXT TERRIE
37 

seling certificate issued by the counselor. What happens sometimes 

is people go out for the counseling— 

Mr. HURT. Which is different than foreclosure prevention, I 

guess. Right? 

Mr. BELL. Yes. Right. People go out for the counseling, and they 

decide it is not for them as a result of the counseling, so, therefore, 

the counseling agency has incurred this cost but does not have a 

client who will get the loan and will ultimately pay for it. So the 

HUD funding is used for that. Those are the two spots: for those 

below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; and for those where 

the client does not proceed with the HECM loan. 

Mr. HURT. Got it. Thank you. 

Ms. Hill, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Ms. HILL. I do. A couple of things that I just want to highlight. 

One of the comments when we were preparing to testify here from 

our housing counseling agencies was to underscore that we have a 

number of underserved communities and particularly in rural communities from housing counseling programs. 

So as a national intermediary, we actually go through an RFP 

process with our own Catholic Charities agency where they both 

have to demonstrate their capacity to do the work as well as the 

compelling need in their local community. So one way for us under 

the NOFA is to actually look at our network and then have them 

make the compelling argument from their local community that 

they need the funds to do this particular work, because it is a finite 

pot of money. 

So that is the way in which we address it. We do believe, however, that there needs to be more attention given to underserved 

communities, especially rural communities that need the services. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you. Ms. Olson? 

Ms. OLSON. Thank you for your question, Congressman. 

It really depends in my view on how you define need. Do you define need based on the number of foreclosed homes in a geographic 

area; based on the number of foreclosed homes as a percentage of 

homeownership; based on unemployment rates, because with unemployment, you have people who won’t be able to pay their mortgages; based on poverty levels; based on percentage of drop in 

home values, so you have homeowners who are underwater. There 

are so many factors that go into determining why and where foreclosure happens— 

Mr. HURT. Is there a mechanism that you know of that HUD or 

NeighborWorks uses or could use, is there a mechanism in place 

that you go to, to make that assessment? 

Ms. OLSON. When we apply for grants, when local agencies apply 

for grants to HUD, we are required to demonstrate need, both in 

narrative and in data. So it is HUD that has been making that determination of what the need is. And I understand it has been on 

geographic. 

But I think requiring agencies to demonstrate need in their applications is going to help any agency, funding agency, then 

prioritize where those funds are going to go. 

Other than that, I honestly would have to think about that and 

provide you with a written answer, because that is something that 

I am very happy to think about and provide you my thoughts on. 

38 

Mr. HURT. Thank you. Mr. Raymundo? 

Mr. RAYMUNDO. Yes, I would agree with Ms. Olson. 

I think it depends. You don’t necessarily want to just focus on 

need, because communities that are adjacent have different problems. One community that is adjacent to another may have a greater need. But it doesn’t do very much for that community that is 

doing okay to also fall apart. And that is important to recognize, 

because we don’t want to necessarily penalize communities that are 

improving themselves, and at the same time, we don’t want to necessarily not include communities in need or in the greatest need. 

So I think what exactly we are defining as need is something 

that we have to look at. But we need to invest again moving forward. Some communities are ready to improve themselves more 

than others because they are ready. But given the economy, it 

won’t take long for them to fall back. 

Mr. HURT. Got it. Thank you. Thank you for your answers. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Hurt. 

Just one quick issue. I think, Ms. Hill, you mentioned that one 

of the challenges was PR and getting the word out. Is that correct? 

Ms. OLSON. Actually, I think we both did. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. You both did. Good. In the testimony from 

Ms. Fitzgerald of NeighborWorks, she talks about the fact that 

they have reached millions of homeowners in their Ad Council campaign which she says was primarily financed by private sector 

funds from NeighborWorks America’s partners, but this campaign 

has been ranked in the top 10 of all Ad Council campaigns, and it 

reached millions of household its and garnered more than $165 

million in donated media. 

I wonder if any of you had been benefited by this ad campaign, 

had you been part of that? 

Ms. OLSON. I am sure that there are clients that DHOC has seen 

that came because they have seen that. We do look at the data as 

to how people found out about our services. Really, the majority of 

people find out about our services either through recommendations 

from our county government or another agency that they are going 

to because they are in need. So it is more word of mouth or referral. 

Also our Web site—we are actually find out that IT, using the 

Internet is the most effective way to let people know that you have 

services available. It is just a matter of funding that kind of IT development within an agency. Word of mouth from friends and 

neighbors, people share at their churches that they are in trouble. 

That would be the third way. 

So, really, I would put the NeighborWorks ad campaign down 

lower in terms of our agency. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. But NeighborWorks didn’t reach out to 

you or other counties to be part of the campaign or have your— 

DuPage County or whatever—mentioned in that? 

Ms. OLSON. Not to my knowledge. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Or Catholic Charities? 

Ms. HILL. Not to my knowledge, either. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And the other one was also a scam alert 

that was—to have an anti-rescue scam public education campaign, 

and that was done in 2009. Were either of you involved in that? 

39 

It was actually partnered with a lot of other organizations, like 

HUD, Treasury, FTC, the Department of Justice, Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac. Does anybody know anything about that? FDIC, 

State attorneys general? 

Ms. OLSON. We applied for the HUD funding round, the most recent one that included mortgage scam assistance, but we have not 

been asked to participate in an ad campaign like that. Actually, the 

Attorney General of Illinois has a Web site that we refer people to 

when they have been scammed or a local legal service, but no ad 

campaign. That would be great. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. I think there is a lot there. 

With that, the Chair notes that members may have additional 

questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in writing, 

and without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit their questions to the witnesses and 

to place your responses in the record. 

I really appreciate all of you being here. This has been a great 

panel. Thank you so much for coming here and really giving us the 

information that we need as we move forward on these issues. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 

September 14, 2011 

42 


72602.001
43 


72602.002
44 


72602.003
45 


72602.004
46 


72602.005
47 


72602.006
48 


72602.007
49 


72602.008
50 


72602.009
51 


72602.010
52 


72602.011
53 


72602.012
54 


72602.013
55 


72602.014
56 


72602.015
57 


72602.016
58 


72602.017
59 


72602.018
60 


72602.019
61 


72602.020
62 


72602.021
63 


72602.022
64 


72602.023
65 


72602.024
66 


72602.025
67 


72602.026
68 


72602.027
69 


72602.028
70 


72602.029
71 


72602.030
72 


72602.031
73 


72602.032
74 


72602.033
75 


72602.034
76 


72602.035
77 


72602.036
78 


72602.037
79 


72602.038
80 


72602.039
81 


72602.040
82 


72602.041
83 


72602.042
84 


72602.043
85 


72602.044
86 


72602.045
87 


72602.046
88 


72602.047
89 


72602.048
90 


72602.049
91 


72602.050
92 


72602.051
93 


72602.052
94 


72602.053
95 


72602.054
96 


72602.055
97 


72602.056
98 


72602.057
99 


72602.058
100 


72602.059
101 


72602.060
102 


72602.061
103 


72602.062
104 


72602.063
105 


72602.064
106 


72602.065
107 


72602.066
108 


72602.067
109 


72602.068
110 


72602.069
111 


72602.070
112 


72602.071
113 


72602.072
114 


72602.073
115 


72602.074
116 


72602.075