Foreclosure Review: Opportunities Exist to Further Enhance Borrower Outreach Efforts
Released: 2012-07-05T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Mortgage servicers are the entities that manage payment collections and other activities associated with loans. Servicing duties can involve sending borrowers monthly account statements, answering customer- service inquiries, collecting monthly mortgage payments, and maintaining escrow accounts for property taxes and insurance. In the event that a borrower becomes delinquent on loan payments, servicers also initiate and conduct foreclosures. Several federal regulators share responsibility for regulating the banking industry in relation to the origination and servicing of mortgage loans. OCC has authority to oversee nationally chartered banks and federal savings associations. The Federal Reserve oversees insured state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System, bank holding companies, and entities that may be owned by federally regulated depository institution holding companies but are not federally insured depository institutions. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) oversees insured state-chartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System and state-chartered savings associations. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection oversees many of these institutions, as well as all mortgage originators and servicers that are not affiliated with banking organizations, with respect to federal consumer financial law.

Regulators Issued Consent Orders to Mortgage Servicers

Beginning in September 2010, several servicers announced that they were halting or reviewing their foreclosure proceedings throughout the country after allegations that the documents accompanying judicial foreclosures may have been inappropriately signed or notarized and after completion of self-assessments of their foreclosure processes that federal banking regulators directed them to conduct. In response, the banking regulators—OCC, the Federal Reserve, OTS, and FDIC—conducted a coordinated on-site review of 14 mortgage servicers to evaluate the adequacy of controls over servicers’ foreclosure processes and to assess servicers’ policies and procedures for compliance with applicable federal and state laws. Regulatory staff told us that as part of these reviews, their examiners evaluated internal controls and procedures for processing foreclosures and reviewed samples of individual loan files to better ensure the integrity of the document preparation process and to confirm that files contained appropriate documentation. Examiners reviewed more than 2,800 loan files comprising approximately 200 foreclosure loan files with a variety of characteristics from each servicer to test the institutions’ controls and governance processes with respect to foreclosures. Generally, the examinations revealed severe deficiencies in three primary areas: shortcomings in the preparation of foreclosure documentation; inadequate policies, staffing, or oversight of foreclosure processes; and insufficient oversight of third-party service providers, particularly foreclosure attorneys.

On the basis of their findings from the coordinated review, OCC, the Federal Reserve, and OTS issued formal consent orders against each of the 14 servicers under their supervision in April 2011 (see fig. 1). According to bank regulatory staff and these consent orders, each of the 14 servicers is required to enhance its compliance, vendor management, and training programs and processes. In addition, because examiners reviewed a relatively small number of foreclosure files, the consent orders require each servicer to retain an independent firm to conduct a review of foreclosure actions on primary residences from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010, to identify borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in foreclosure actions, and to recommend remediation for borrowers, as appropriate. Servicers proposed third-party consultants to conduct the foreclosure review and submitted engagement letters outlining their foreclosure review processes to the regulators by July 2011 as required by the orders. OCC reviewed and approved the engagement letters for banks under its supervision in late September 2011 and released the engagement letters in November 2011 on the OCC website. With the exception of one institution, the Federal Reserve approved the engagement letters for servicers under its jurisdiction by February 2012.

As required in the consent orders, the foreclosure review process has two components, a file review (look-back review) and a process for eligible borrowers to request a review of their particular circumstances (borrower outreach process). For the look-back review, the consent orders require the third-party consultant to submit an engagement letter outlining their plan for review subject to the regulators’ approval. Consultants are required to review various categories of loans, pursuant to regulators’ guidance and approval. These categories may vary by servicer but include, for example, files in every state where the institution conducted foreclosures, foreclosures where the borrower had a loan modification in place, or files that were handled by certain law firms where documentation errors have previously been found. The consent orders allow third-party consultants to use statistical techniques to select samples of files from some categories of loans for review. As required in the consent orders, the engagement letters describe procedures consultants will use to increase the size of samples depending on the results of the initial reviews. Consultants are not allowed to use sampling, but instead must review 100 percent of files in some high-risk categories, including certain bankruptcy cases and files involving borrowers protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The Federal Reserve is also requiring 100 percent review of files in several additional high-risk categories, including foreclosure-related complaints filed before the borrower outreach process was launched, foreclosure actions where a complete request for a loan modification was pending at the time of the foreclosure, and foreclosure actions that occurred when the borrower was not in default.

The second component of the foreclosure review, the borrower outreach process, is intended to complement the look-back review and help identify borrowers who may have suffered financial injury. According to regulatory documents and staff, the purpose of the outreach is to provide a robust process so that eligible borrowers who believe they suffered financial injury within the scope of the consent orders have a fair opportunity to request an independent review of their circumstances and, potentially, to obtain remediation. Regulatory staff noted that requiring institutions to hire a consultant to review files to identify the harmed pool of consumers as part of an enforcement action is typical. They said that including an outreach component in addition to a file review is unique and unprecedented in their experience. They also emphasized that the two components are intended to work together to provide a full and fair opportunity to identify as many financially injured borrowers as possible and the final results could not be fully evaluated until both the look-back file review and request-for-review process are completed. A Federal Reserve official testified that the borrower outreach process was critical to helping ensure that borrowers who suffered financial injury are identified and appropriately compensated. Acting Comptroller Walsh stated in a speech that the two processes combined are intended to maximize identification of and remediation for borrowers who have suffered financial injury as a result of the deficiencies identified in the orders. Consultants are required to review all eligible requests for review submitted through the borrower outreach process.

To make eligible borrowers aware of the opportunity to request a foreclosure review, regulators required servicers to develop an outreach process. The servicers’ borrower outreach plan includes multiple methods, including direct mail, print advertising, a toll-free phone number, a website, online marketing, and engaging a third party for community outreach. Since the servicers had contact information for all of the eligible borrowers, direct mail was the primary outreach method chosen. On behalf of the participating servicers, a third-party administrator began mailing uniform outreach letters on November 1, 2011, to 4.3 million These outreach letters describe the request-for-review borrowers. process and include a request-for-review form for borrowers to complete and submit if they believe they suffered financial injury as described in the outreach letter (see fig. 2). The third-party administrator took steps to update addresses of the eligible borrowers who may have lost their homes to foreclosure. A single, coordinated website, toll-free phone number, and national advertising campaign were launched in January and February 2012, to provide information about the request-for-review process. The regulators directed the servicers to develop their outreach plan in consultation with the third-party consultants and approved the plan. As of March 2012, borrowers may also submit requests for review The original deadline via the independent foreclosure review website.for submitting requests for review was April 30, 2012, but regulators decided in February to extend the deadline to July 31, 2012. On June 21, 2012, regulators extended the deadline again to September 30, 2012. A second round of national advertising occurred in April and May 2012, and a third round is planned before the deadline. Additionally, a second mailing to eligible borrowers who have not responded is scheduled for June 2012. The mailing directs borrowers to call the toll-free phone number or access the independent foreclosure review website for information or to submit a request-for-review form. In addition to the servicers’ coordinated efforts, regulators also have posted information about the foreclosure review on their agencies’ websites and issued press releases. Further, OCC has distributed public service announcements to small publications and radio stations, and the Federal Reserve developed a video to inform borrowers about the review process.

While the Outreach Efforts Have Improved over Time, Opportunities Exist to Enhance Readability and Content of the Communication Materials

As part of the outreach approach, the servicers formed a consortium to develop the initial outreach letter and request-for-review form with input from third-party consultants and approval from the regulators. The servicers and regulators did not test these communication materials with the borrowers or their community group advisers. Regulators consulted with and incorporated feedback from consumer groups on subsequent advertising and mailings to improve the format and clarity of current materials. However, according to representatives of these groups and our readability tests, the initial materials and the independent foreclosure website may be difficult for some borrowers to understand. In addition, the materials did not include specific information about the type of potential remediation borrowers could receive, which could affect borrowers’ motivation to respond and submit a request for review.

Communication Materials Could Impede Some Borrowers’ Ability to Respond

Servicers formed a consortium to develop the initial communication materials, including the outreach letter and request-for-review form mailed to eligible borrowers. Because the consent orders did not outline the specifics of a borrower outreach process, regulators provided servicers and consultants guidance in July 2011 outlining their expectations for mailing notifications to eligible borrowers and national advertising, among other requirements. Representatives of servicers with whom we spoke told us that after receiving this guidance the servicers decided to form a consortium to develop a coordinated outreach process and uniform communication materials. A representative of one servicer and regulatory staff said that this approach would reduce potential confusion among borrowers that could result if each servicer had developed separate advertisements, websites, and outreach letters. Therefore, the servicers worked together to develop initial drafts of the communication materials, relying primarily on the expertise of their internal marketing departments and class action lawsuit notices as a model for notifying borrowers of the request-for-review process. The third-party consultants reviewed the communication materials and provided their input. After the consultants’ review, the regulators also provided comments on the outreach plan and content of the communication materials and ultimately gave their final approval.

Although servicers developed the initial communication materials with input from third-party consultants and regulators, the servicers and regulators did not test the materials with the target audience. Our previous reports and federal guidelines about using plain language in public documents have emphasized the importance of testing communication materials, such as conducting focus groups or assessing their readability, before implementing them. For example, in a previous report we have stated that consumer testing can validate the effectiveness of messages and information or measure readers’ ability to comprehend them. We also have found that in order to develop clear and consistent audience messages, testing and refining language are important. The Plain Writing Act of 2010 states that starting October 13, 2011, agencies must use plain writing when issuing new or substantially revised documents, including documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement that the federal government administers or enforces. The act defines “plain writing” as “writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience.” In addition, federal guidelines developed to help executive agencies implement the Plain Writing Act of 2010 state that testing documents, including applications and websites, should be an integral part of the plain-language planning and writing process, especially when writing to millions of people. Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s handbook for companies preparing required disclosure documents to investors in easy-to-understand language states that testing documents with a focus group can provide helpful feedback on how well the document communicates information and identify any confusing language.

Representatives of one servicer and a consultant we interviewed said the consortium considered testing the communication materials with borrowers or conducting focus groups, but that the time frames were too short to take these steps and incorporate any changes by the November 2011 deadline by which regulators expected the outreach campaign to be launched. The servicer representative noted that because regulators provided guidance in July 2011 and initially expected an August 2011 launch, the servicers had only 60 days to develop the coordinated communication materials. tests with focus groups could take 6 to 8 weeks. Federal Reserve staff said they wanted to get the outreach process started quickly so that financially injured borrowers could receive remediation as soon as possible. According to these staff, no formal readability tests or focus groups with the target audience were conducted, partly due to their interest in expediting the remediation process. However, they consulted with staff in the agency’s Division of Consumer and Community Affairs for feedback on improving the communication materials to help ensure consumers could understand them. OCC staff also confirmed that no formal testing of the communication materials was conducted, but OCC also provided the materials to its Public Affairs and Community Affairs groups, which reviewed the materials for readability, and incorporated changes.

According to this representative, conducting Readability tests of the outreach letter and request-for-review form mailed to eligible borrowers and the website language indicate that these materials were written at a level above the reading proficiency of many borrowers. Federal plain language guidelines note that technical terms may be necessary, but that agencies should define them and avoid legal and technical jargon, where possible. At the same time, the guidelines state that agencies should take into account their audience’s current level of knowledge when preparing documents and that the documents should be easy to understand. An assessment of the reading level of the U.S.

According to regulatory staff, the August 2011 deadline was extended when it became apparent that the coordinated approach would require additional time. population indicated that nearly half of the adult population is estimated to read at or below the eighth-grade level. We have previously reported that to help ensure that the complex information public companies are required to disclose is written in plain language and is understandable, the Securities and Exchange Commission recommends that materials be written at a sixth- to eighth-grade level. However, one consumer group conducted a readability test of the language in the communication materials mailed to eligible borrowers and found that they were written at a second-year college reading level. Because the scheduled second wave of mailings and advertising direct borrowers to the independent foreclosure review website to obtain more information about the review and submit a request-for-review form, we conducted readability tests of the language used in the online request-for-review form. We used three tests that score how hard a piece of writing is to read based on quantitative measures, such as average number of syllables in words or numbers of words in sentences. One of these tests used the same method the consumer group used to evaluate the outreach letter and request-for-review form. These tests indicate that the website is written at an average of an eleventh-grade reading level, which is lower than the test results of the outreach letter and paper request-for-review form, but still above the average reading level of the U.S. population. Certain sections of the website required higher or lower reading levels to be understandable. For example, the legal section of the online submission form where borrowers acknowledge that they are requesting a review of their foreclosure and certify that the information is truthful were written at a fifteenth-grade level, the equivalent of 3 years of college education. However, one test indicated that the language used on the part of the form where borrowers input their contact information required only an eighth-grade reading level. As a whole, these tests are one indicator that portions of the foreclosure review communication materials may be too complex to ensure effective communication of all the relevant information.

The readability tests have some limitations and regulatory staff told us that they considered plain language guidelines when evaluating the materials. We note that the readability ratings only reflect the length of sentences and the length in syllables of individual words in the sentences and do not reflect the complexity of ideas in a document or how clearly the information has been conveyed. As the content in these materials refer to mortgages, some complex terms and phrases, such as foreclosure and loan modification, may be unavoidable. Regulatory staff told us that they were aware of the plain language guidelines and discussed using plain language so that the materials were likely to be understood. For example, they noted that they did not include unnecessary legal and technical language, but said it was difficult to convey complex mortgage and legal terms in simple language that would still clearly and precisely present the intended message. Federal Reserve and OCC staff noted that to the extent the Plain Writing Act applies to the servicers’ borrower outreach communication materials, they believed they had met the act’s requirements.

In addition to stating that agencies should take the audience’s current level of knowledge into account, federal guidelines on using plain language also state that agencies should use language the audience knows and feels comfortable with when creating documents, including websites. Representatives of consumer groups we interviewed expressed concern about the initial lack of materials available in languages other than English. According to 2008-2010 Census Bureau American Community Survey data, about 12.7 million adults in the United States— 5.5 percent of the total U.S. adult population—reported speaking English not well or not at all. In addition, as shown in figure 3, populations with limited English proficiency tend to be more concentrated in certain parts of the country. To the extent that these concentrations are also in areas with high numbers of foreclosures that servicers did not target with Spanish-language advertising, limited English proficiency could affect borrowers’ ability to complete their request-for-review form. We have previously reported that a lack of proficiency in English can affect financial literacy—the ability to make informed judgments and take effective actions on the current and future use and management of money. This report also stated that limited English proficiency can be a significant barrier to completing applications (such as the request-for-review form), asking questions about additional fees on credit card statements or correcting erroneous billing statements, and accessing educational materials such as print advertising or websites that are not available in languages other than English. Further, this report noted that having limited proficiency in English exacerbates the challenges of understanding complex information in financial documents. This report also acknowledged that factors other than language often serve as barriers to financial literacy for people with limited English proficiency, including a lack of familiarity with the U.S. financial system, cultural differences, mistrust of financial institutions, and income and education levels. Federal Reserve staff said that they required the servicers to handle the borrower outreach communication with non-English speaking borrowers in accordance with the servicers’ existing policies and procedures pertaining to such borrowers, which must comply with existing laws and regulations. However, because the initial communication materials were not available in languages other than English, borrowers with limited English proficiency may not have had the same opportunity as proficient English speakers to request a foreclosure review.

Regulators did not initially solicit input from consumer and community groups when evaluating the language used in the communication materials but have since taken steps to address these groups’ concerns. Representatives of several consumer and community groups we interviewed said that they have direct experience working with distressed borrowers or in developing national outreach campaigns. Regulators acknowledged that they initially did not obtain input from these groups when evaluating the early communication materials, but they have since held several meetings with selected groups to obtain their feedback on the outreach process and requested feedback from them on the current advertisements and mailings, as well as certain prior communications. For example, Federal Reserve and OCC staff noted that both regulators incorporated feedback from these groups to enhance readability, include more Spanish translations, and improve how borrowers might respond to second print advertisement and the content and the exterior of the second mailing. Regulators also made changes to increase accessibility for non- English speaking borrowers that are consistent with the feedback from consumer groups, such as requiring servicers to add frequently asked questions and a guide to filling out the request-for-review form in Spanish to the independent foreclosure review website. In addition, regulatory staff said they required servicers to include references to available assistance in other languages at the call center on the independent foreclosure review website and in communication materials.

The regulators also have taken their own initiative to enhance the communication materials. For example, they have posted on their agencies’ websites an archived version of the two webinars they hosted to educate community groups that assist borrowers with housing issues about the foreclosure review process as well as English and Spanish transcripts of the webinar. The agencies also consulted with the U.S. Department of Justice in December 2011 on the measures taken by the agencies to ensure that the independent foreclosure review is accessible to non-English speakers. In addition, the Federal Reserve released a YouTube video that provides information about the foreclosure review in Spanish and English. Further, OCC produced public service announcements and distributed them to more than 700 Spanish-language newspapers and 500 Spanish-language radio stations. Consumer group representatives involved in discussions about outreach with the regulators told us the recent improvements were positive, but said that they would like to see documents and information on the website offered in additional languages, language further simplified, and legal terms explained. For example, the webinar materials provide tips on how to answer request- for-review form questions that define terms, clarify questions, and indicate what additional documentation to reference; however, this information is not available on the independent foreclosure review website where borrowers are encouraged to submit their request-for-review forms.

Although regulators have ensured that some Spanish language materials are available, these materials may still be difficult for Spanish-speaking borrowers to understand. We have previously reported that in some cases even translations of materials may not be fully comprehensible if they are not written using colloquial or culturally appropriate language. In addition, a 2004 report by the National Council of La Raza noted that literal translations of financial education materials from English to Spanish are often difficult for the reader to understand. Federal Reserve staff acknowledged that some terms do not translate well, and said they consulted with two consumer groups with Spanish translation capability as well as native Spanish speaking staff in the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs for advice on terms to use. Our analysis of the Spanish guide to the request-for-review form available on the independent foreclosure review website indicated that the Spanish translation in the guide uses language similar in complexity to that of the English form, which we found requires a reading level higher than the national average. In addition, the English outreach letter is not translated, and some of the key information, such as the purpose of the review or the deadline for submitting the form, is not included in the cover of the Spanish guide, although regulatory staff noted that the deadline is included in bold text on the second page of the guide. Further, some of the terms and phrases that have been translated literally may be difficult to understand. For example, the term eligible is used in the English and Spanish documents, but this term has a different meaning in each language. In Spanish, “eligible” means “available” (that is, an option one is allowed to choose), rather than “qualified to participate or be chosen” as it indicates in English. Further, the Spanish word “administrador” is used to refer to both the mortgage servicer and the third-party administrator collecting request-for-review forms on the servicers’ behalf, which could be confusing given the different roles of these two entities and that the review process is intended to be independent of the servicer. Regulatory staff said that to distinguish between the two functions, the term is capitalized when referring to the third-party administrator. Further, because Spanish readers must refer to the guide and the English form simultaneously, they could make mistakes in recording information on the English form. According to regulator guidance to consultants, if borrowers do not select any specific areas of financial injury but sign the request-for- review form and provide current contact information, consultants will review the case for all types of financial injury. However, if borrowers select areas of financial injury on their request-for-review forms, consultants will review those areas specifically, so mistakes in filling out the form could affect which aspects of borrowers’ foreclosure cases the consultants review.

Limited Remediation Information May Affect the Response Rate

The content of the foreclosure review communication materials includes general information about the nature and terms of the request-for-review process. The communication materials follow regulators’ guidance on the content of the materials issued to borrowers, which includes why the borrower is being contacted, how eligibility will be determined, how borrower information needed will be collected to conduct the foreclosure review, how borrowers may contact their servicer, and when to expect a response. For example, to describe the nature of the foreclosure review process, the letter states that the purpose is to identify customers who may have been financially injured due to errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies during the foreclosure process. To identify the borrowers affected, the outreach letter states the eligible population of customers is borrowers whose primary residence was in foreclosure between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010. Additionally, the outreach letter outlines the steps of the review process and states that borrowers will receive a letter with the findings of the review. The information in the outreach letter is similar to what is typically included in a class action lawsuit notification. Regulatory staff and servicers informed us that they generally modeled the communication materials on class action lawsuit notifications. For example, sample communication materials for class action lawsuits designed by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) include specific information about the nature and terms of a class action, including what the lawsuit is about, who is eligible, and participants’ legal rights and options.

In addition to information about the nature and terms of the review, best practices and consumer groups also suggest including specific information about remediation in communication materials to help motivate eligible participants to respond. For example, outreach models for class action lawsuits and industry examples include specific information about the amount or type of remediation participants can expect to receive. While these models contain features that may not be applicable to each aspect of the foreclosure review, they do provide insights into the types of information that might incentivize individuals to participate and therefore improve response rates.

Federal Judicial Center—Sample class action communication materials, including notices and flyers, provide specific financial remediation information, such as stating a minimum, maximum, and average amount of compensation, by category of participant, that a class member may receive from a settlement (fig. 4). Another example provides the amount of compensation a class member may receive depending on the number of claim forms received. To develop these models, the FJC conducted “plain language” testing with nonlawyers, focus groups of ordinary citizens from diverse backgrounds, and survey testing for reading comprehension. According to these tests, participants’ motivation to read and comprehend class action notices can significantly improve as a result of changing the language, organizational structure, format, and presentation of the notice.

National Association of Consumer Advocates—Foreclosure class action guidelines this group developed recommend, among other things, that participants should be informed of the total amount of relief to be granted, stated in dollars, and the nature and form of the These guidelines individual relief each class member could obtain.also note that participants should be informed of the full range of recoveries that they could obtain, either at trial or through the settlement.

National Mortgage Settlement—A settlement between 49 state attorneys general, the federal government, and the five leading mortgage servicers for improper foreclosure practices will result in approximately $25 billion in monetary sanctions and relief. Summary documentation provided on the National Mortgage Settlement website specifically states the total amount of the settlement and the approximate amount eligible borrowers can expect to receive. For example, of the approximately $25 billion total, this documentation states that about $1.5 billion of the settlement funds will be allocated to compensation for borrowers who were not properly offered loss mitigation or who were otherwise improperly foreclosed on. It also provides the specific amount that those borrowers will be eligible to receive—a uniform payment of approximately $2,000 per borrower, depending on the level of response. In addition, the summary documentation states that servicers are required to provide specific amounts of assistance to servicemembers whose foreclosure violated SCRA.

Groups Experienced with Counseling, Representing, or Educating Distressed Borrowers—Consumer and community groups, including housing counselors, have advocated for including specific information about remediation that can help motivate participants to respond. Representatives of consumer groups we interviewed said that providing this information to borrowers and their advocates would allow them to make informed choices about submitting a request for review. They noted that even identifying the types of remediation available by category, such as moving expenses or costs due to delay, could be helpful. Consumer groups also informed us that such motivation is important because borrowers may be reluctant to submit their request-for-review form due to mistrust in government and the fatigue of repeated attempts to resolve a mortgage-related issue with a servicer. They said that borrowers who already have been through a taxing loan modification process and have little confidence in the system may be reluctant to go through this process again without a clear outcome. In a previous report, we discuss borrowers’ frustration, as reported by housing counselors, with delays in loss mitigation processes and borrower fatigue as a result of lost documentation, long trial modification periods, wrongful denials, difficulty contacting their servicer, and questions about the loan modification program or application.

Regulatory staff noted that settlements in class action lawsuits are different from the foreclosure review, and therefore may not be a fair comparison. For example, they noted that settlements typically involve a predetermined total amount of remediation that is to be divided up, often proportionally, and then paid to the participating class members, all of whom are assumed to have suffered the injury common to the class. On the contrary, as part of the foreclosure review, servicers are not required to provide a predetermined total amount of remediation to financially injured borrowers identified in the foreclosure review. Rather, Federal Reserve officials clarified that the servicers are required to pay whatever total amount is appropriate to remediate the financial injury. In addition, OCC staff noted that, unlike a class action lawsuit settlement where the class of injured borrowers is identified and the range of remediation is known at the outset, the 4.3 million borrowers includes borrowers who may or may not have suffered financial injury within the scope of the regulators’ consent orders. Further, regulatory staff noted that the National Mortgage Settlement, much like the class action settlements referenced above, involves a predetermined total amount of monetary sanctions and consumer relief, unlike the remediation that servicers must provide financially injured borrowers identified during the foreclosure review. Federal Reserve officials stated that although the regulators have not yet made detailed information about the amounts and types of remediation that may be provided to financially injured borrowers publicly available, the August 29, 2011, guidance from the regulators to the third- party consultants identifying types of injuries that may warrant remediation have been made publicly available, including in the testimony of an OCC official. Further, OCC staff noted that the request-for-review form, independent foreclosure review website, and agency websites include information that describes the types of financial injury that would be covered. At the time of our review, the regulators had not yet announced guidance regarding the amount of financial remediation that would be provided. However, OCC and Federal Reserve officials told us that public release of a financial remediation framework that contains detailed information regarding dollar amounts that may be associated with particular injury types was forthcoming.

Testimony by Suzanne G. Killian, Federal Reserve Board, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, on March 19, 2012. also mentions, as discussed earlier, that financial remediation guidance is being considered that will clarify expectations as to the amount and type of compensation recommended for certain categories of injury to help ensure consistent recommendations across the servicers for borrowers who suffered similar types of injury. Regulator-sponsored webinars for community groups stated similarly that the financial remediation framework will address borrowers’ questions about the kinds and amounts of remediation that will be offered for different types of injuries.

Specific information about potential remediation could be difficult to present in a simple manner given the 22 potential types of injury agencies identified and various unique borrower circumstances that could affect the type and amount of remediation borrowers will receive. Federal Reserve staff explained that providing borrowers specific information about remediation also is difficult because, as noted earlier, regulators have not set a predetermined total amount of remediation, and the foreclosure review is not yet complete so consultants have not yet identified all financially injured borrowers. Regulators are developing financial remediation guidance that is intended to serve as a baseline standard yet provide flexibility to the consultants to address the borrower’s direct financial injury. As of May 2012, regulatory staff said that they were still in the process of preparing such guidance, which the regulators intend to publish when it is finalized. As a result, representatives of some servicers we interviewed told us they could not include remediation information in the communication materials. Federal Reserve staff and one servicer also expressed concern that providing this information might confuse borrowers or raise false expectations for what compensation they might receive. However, a recent OCC speech provides some specific information about the potential range of remediation categories, which consumer groups said could help increase borrowers’ motivation to submit a request for review. For example, the remarks state that remediation for financial injuries may include, but is not limited to, lump- sum payments, rescinded foreclosures, reimbursements of lost equity, repayment of out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the error plus interest, correction of erroneous amounts owed in applicable records, and correcting credit reports. Similar information on a potential range of remediation categories is not discussed in any of the regulators’ other communication materials that we reviewed. Given the potential difficulties on reaching and motivating this population, without financial remediation information available, borrowers might not be motivated to respond.

Outreach Was Based on Limited Analysis of Eligible Borrower Subgroups

The initial coordinated servicer outreach plan approved by regulators provided for a uniform outreach process with additional targeted outreach to African-American and Spanish-speaking borrowers. In developing the outreach activities, servicers did not analyze the target audience for characteristics—such as those associated with low financial literacy—that may have limited some borrowers’ ability to respond to outreach activities. To address concerns that borrowers may not respond to outreach from servicers, a third-party entity serves as the contact point for borrower mailing and questions. While OCC and the Federal Reserve have acknowledged community groups as effective messengers to reach the target audience and have encouraged servicers to coordinate with these groups, servicers have leveraged outreach through community groups to varying degrees. Regulators regularly monitored the status of the outreach activities, but did not compare respondents to nonrespondents to determine whether certain groups of borrowers were underrepresented in the response to the initial outreach activities. Without this analysis, the extent to which the outreach process has effectively complemented the file-review process to identify borrowers who may have suffered financial injury is unclear.

Initial Outreach Was Largely Uniform with Limited Targeted Outreach

Regulators approved a uniform process to reach eligible borrowers, with additional targeted outreach limited to African-American and Spanish- speaking borrowers. According to Federal Reserve staff, the 14 servicers covered by the consent order service more than two-thirds of U.S. mortgages. According to the outreach plan developed by servicers and approved by OCC and the Federal Reserve, the target audience of 4.3 million eligible borrowers—that is, borrowers whose loans on their primary residences had been in some stage of foreclosure in 2009 or 2010—is concentrated in those states that experienced higher foreclosure rates, but broadly represents the U.S. population as a whole covering all ages and income levels. Therefore, servicers determined that the best way to reach their target audience of all eligible borrowers was to use direct mail—the same outreach letter and request-for-review form were mailed to all eligible borrowers—and to place advertisements in four national publications.analysis, the servicers selected these publications for their large circulation both nationally and in states with heavy foreclosure volume, as well as for their broad appeal among both men and women and across different ages and income levels. In addition to print advertisements, servicers provided online paid search advertising to assist borrowers using the Internet to find the independent foreclosure review website and OCC ran English-language public-service radio and newspaper advertisements in small radio stations and newspapers in 38 states. According to regulator guidance on the outreach process, the process was intended to be robust and to ensure that all borrowers had a fair opportunity to file a request-for-review form.

According to Federal Reserve staff, the regulator had already planned to conduct some outreach in Spanish prior to meeting with community groups. one additional national print publication that primarily targets the African- American community.

Our prior work has found that effectively reaching targeted audiences through outreach activities requires analysis of the target audience, including dividing the audience into smaller groups of people who have relevant needs, preferences, and characteristics. For example, one way to divide the foreclosure review target audience into smaller groups would be to analyze the geographic location of the target audience by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or zip code, rather than by state. These divisions could enable more refined outreach—such as concentrated advertising in local publications and on local radio stations, or holding community outreach events in addition to direct mail and national advertising—in those areas with high concentrations of the target audience. As illustrated in figure 5, our prior work analyzing foreclosure trends among nonprime loans found that as of June 2009—near the beginning of the review period—concentrations of loans in the foreclosure process varied by congressional district, even in those states with high default and foreclosure rates such as California and Florida, indicating that targeted outreach in these areas could be more likely to reach eligible borrowers. Other outreach campaigns have used this type of analysis to target their outreach activities, including a congressionally appropriated national loan modification scam alert campaign conducted by NeighborWorks America, a government-chartered, nonprofit corporation.minority homeowners and mortgage performance to identify areas within hardest hit states for targeted outreach—for example, areas of California south of San Francisco.

Conclusions

While the regulators have taken a number of steps to improve the servicers’ outreach associated with the independent foreclosure review over time by improving the format of communication materials, incorporating feedback from consumer and community groups, and increasing outreach to particular populations, among other things, opportunities for further improvement remain. An effective outreach process is designed to reach all segments of its audience, regardless of such factors as reading level and language spoken, among others. Neither the servicers nor the regulators conducted readability testing or focus groups with the target audience of eligible borrowers, and regulators initially did not solicit input from consumer or community groups familiar with these borrowers. Readability tests of the outreach letter, request-for-review form, and website indicate that a high school or even a college reading level may be required to understand them; however, the use of some complex terms may be unavoidable. In addition, although some information is now available on the website in Spanish, the initial communication materials were not available in languages other than English. Our previous reports and federal plain language guidelines indicate that whether agencies are preparing documents or requiring private sector companies to prepare them, testing communication materials is a sound practice to help ensure that the audience can understand them and use them to take action. Moreover, complexity in the communication materials may prevent people from becoming sufficiently aware of the foreclosure review, and the prospect of confusing or complex forms may discourage people from participating. In addition, borrowers with low financial literacy, including those with limited English proficiency, may have difficulty accessing and understanding the materials, potentially affecting the likelihood of them requesting a review. Because communication materials were not tested and were written at a high reading level, some eligible borrowers might have had difficulty understanding them. To the extent the accessibility of the communication materials affects certain groups’ likelihood of responding, they may not have had a fair opportunity to request a foreclosure review as the regulators intended the outreach process to provide. With the second wave of advertising and the additional mailing directing eligible borrowers to the independent foreclosure review website, ensuring that the online request-for-review form is understandable is especially important.

In addition, although the communication materials provide information about the purpose, scope, and process for the foreclosure review, and types of financial injuries covered, as well as disclosing that borrowers could be eligible for compensation, they do not include specific information about the potential types or amounts of remediation borrowers may receive. Specifically identifying that the types of remediation may consist of such items as lump-sum payments, rescinding foreclosures, repayment of out-of-pocket expenses, or correcting credit reports could help motivate borrowers to respond. Industry best practices and examples for notifying borrowers about class action lawsuits, which regulatory staff and servicer representatives used as a model in developing the materials, include specific information about the types and amounts of remediation for which participants could be eligible. Without specific information about remediation in communication materials, some borrowers may not be motivated to submit a request-for-review form.

Finally, the planning, and in particular, evaluation of the borrower outreach process were based on limited analysis of eligible borrowers. Although servicers conducted some targeted outreach to African- American and Spanish-speaking borrower, in part due to feedback from consumer groups, the outreach process was largely uniform. Our prior work has found that analyzing the target audience by various characteristics and identifying messengers the audience will consider credible helps ensure that the outreach is effective. However, in approving the outreach plan regulators did not require servicers to conduct such analysis and although the regulators have encouraged servicers to work with community groups that have experience as trusted advisers to distressed borrowers, servicers have done so to varying degrees. We have also found that evaluating the effectiveness of past activities is important before expanding them, such as by conducting additional advertising or mailings to eligible borrowers. Regulators have monitored the status of outreach activities, but have not analyzed the differences in characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents in planning the additional outreach efforts. This analysis could help identify whether any groups of borrowers, particularly those borrowers with characteristics that could make them less likely to respond to the request for review, are underrepresented. The results of such analysis also could provide regulators, third-party consultants, and servicers with the information to target additional outreach to any underrepresented groups or to make changes to the file-review sampling process to ensure that all borrowers are fairly represented. We acknowledge that because the borrower outreach and look-back review are complementary, the outcomes of the foreclosure review cannot fully be evaluated until the look-back review is completed. However, until analysis of the characteristics of respondents compared to nonrespondents is conducted, the potential that certain subgroups of eligible borrowers do not have a fair opportunity to request a foreclosure review remains.

Recommendations for Executive Action

OCC and the Federal Reserve have taken steps to improve the outreach from the initial roll-out. To further increase the possibility that all borrowers have a fair opportunity to request a foreclosure review, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should take the following actions:

Enhance the readability of the request-for-review form on the independent foreclosure review website so that it is more understandable for borrowers, such as by including a plain language guide to the questions.

Require that servicers include a range of potential remediation amounts or categories in communication materials and other outreach, such as direct mailings to borrowers, public service announcements, the independent foreclosure review website, regulators’ websites, and officials’ testimonies and speeches.

Require servicers to identify trends in borrowers who have and have not responded by factors such as MSA, zip code, servicer, and borrower characteristics and report to the regulators on weaknesses found. If warranted, regulators should require that servicers, in consultation with their third-party consultants, conduct more targeted outreach to better reach underrepresented groups, such as considering more credible messengers to reach these groups. If such action cannot be taken prior to the deadline for requests for review, regulators should consider expanding the look-back review to better ensure coverage for underrepresented groups.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We requested comments on a draft of this report from OCC and the Federal Reserve. We received written comments from OCC and the Federal Reserve that are presented in appendixes II and III, respectively. Both agencies emphasized that the outreach process that we focused on in this report is one part of a larger effort to identify financially harmed borrowers for remediation. The Comptroller of the Currency noted in his written comments that OCC shares the goals reflected in the report and is in the process of addressing each of the recommendations. The Comptroller’s letter also provides a more detailed list of initiatives OCC has undertaken related to the borrower outreach process, which is consistent with the actions we summarized in the draft report. The Director of the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System also noted that the Federal Reserve has begun implementing each of the recommendations. First, the letter states that the agencies plan to post a plain language guide to completing the request-for-review form to the agencies’ and independent foreclosure review websites. Second, the letter states that once a framework describing the range of potential remediation is finalized the regulators will issue press releases, post the framework on the regulators’ and independent foreclosure review websites and in frequently asked questions, and hold briefings with consumer and community groups. Third, the letter states that the Federal Reserve is conducting analysis to identify any gaps in respondents by geography and certain borrower characteristics, which will be publicly released to promote targeted outreach.

The Director’s letter noted the limitations of readability formulas in assessing how well the foreclosure review communication materials could be understood. We had also acknowledged these limitations in the draft report and noted that they are just one indicator of the readability of the materials. However, the results of these formulas when combined with other evidence, such as feedback from consumer and community groups who have had direct interaction with distressed borrowers, suggested that more could be done to clarify the communication materials. The plain language guide for borrowers completing the request-for-review form that the Federal Reserve is in the process of completing is an important step in addressing readability.

The Director’s letter also stated that the comparison between the foreclosure review communication materials and class action lawsuit settlement materials was “imprecise and not appropriate.” In the draft report, we acknowledged the differences between these two activities and the difficulty in providing specific information on remediation in the case of the foreclosure review. Because the borrower outreach process and materials were generally modeled after class action lawsuit activities, we considered it applicable criteria and presented the comparison as an illustrative example of the type of information that has been found to be helpful in motivating participation. The steps the regulators are taking to publicly release information on the types and amounts of remediation that financially harmed borrowers might receive as a result of the foreclosure review is another important step toward promoting participation.

We received technical comments from each regulator, which we incorporated where appropriate. In OCC’s letter, the Comptroller of the Currency stated that the agency provided us with specific report line edits that reflected both substantive comments as well as technical or editorial suggestions. The substantive comments emphasized that the outreach component of the foreclosure review was an additional step not typically taken in enforcement actions and provided more information on the actions the agencies and servicers took to reach out to potentially harmed borrowers. In addition, OCC staff raised concerns about the context for our criteria on plain language in the technical comments. The draft report acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the review, and we made changes to the draft report to reflect the other comments, as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or evansl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report focuses on the design and implementation of the borrower outreach process to determine how well information about the foreclosure review is communicated to eligible borrowers with different characteristics. Specifically, this report addresses (1) the extent to which the development of the approach and content of the communication materials and website reflected best practices; and (2) the extent to which the planning and evaluation of the outreach and advertising approach considered the characteristics of the target audience.

Development and Content of Communication Materials

To determine the extent to which the development of the approach and content of the communication materials and foreclosure review website reflected best practices, we (1) reviewed regulator documents, engagement letters, and outreach materials; (2) conducted readability testing of the online outreach letter and request-for-review form; (3) analyzed data on the extent of limited English proficiency in the United States and the effects of limited English proficiency on financial literacy; and (4) assessed the extent to which the remediation content in the communication materials reflects best practices. To do this, we reviewed key documents, including regulator guidance on outreach activities, the outreach plan, engagement letters between servicers and third-party consultants, and outreach materials, such as the outreach letter, request- for-review form, foreclosure review website, online request-for-review form, frequently asked question guide accompanying the foreclosure review website, print advertising materials, the reminder postcard, and community group webinar materials. We compared these documents with best practices we had previously established and guidelines established by federal agencies related to testing materials with the target audience prior to use and ensuring that materials are clearly written and take into account the audiences’ current level of knowledge. We considered these outreach practices applicable to the outreach campaign for the foreclosure review as they were developed to elicit a one-time action— similar to filing a request-for-review form—from the target audience. In our prior work analyzing the planning, implementation, and evaluation of outreach campaigns, we developed standards by conducting an expert panel of 14 senior management-level experts in strategic communications who identified key planning, implementation, and measurement components for consumer education and outreach. The experts were selected for their experience overseeing a strategic communications or social marketing campaign or other relevant experience and represented private, public, and academic institutions. In addition, we considered our prior work analyzing suggested improvements to the content and format of communication materials. Specifically, for our prior work on credit card disclosures, we conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and analyzed more than 280 comment letters requested by the Federal Reserve in 2005 from issuers, consumer groups, and others as part of the Federal Reserve’s preparation to implement new credit card disclosure requirements. Further, we considered the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Guidance on Implementing the Plain Writing Act of 2010 and accompanying Federal Plain Language Guidelines. We also considered the Securities and Exchange Commission’s A Plain English Handbook: How to Create Clear SEC Disclosure Documents. Finally, to describe the reading level of the U.S. population, we reviewed findings from the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey on adult reading comprehension levels and the subsequent 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (renamed from 1992). No further assessments have been conducted since 2003.

To evaluate the readability of the English language materials on the website, particularly the outreach letter and request-for-review form, we used computer-facilitated formulas to predict the grade level required to understand the materials. Readability formulas measure the elements of writing that can be subjected to mathematical calculation, such as the average number of syllables in words or number of words in sentences in the text, but do not reflect the complexity of ideas in a document or how clearly the information has been conveyed. We edited the text to help ensure that the tests returned accurate results and applied the following industry-standard formulas to the documents: Flesch-Kincaid Formula, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook Readability Test (FOG), and McLaughlin Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook Formula (SMOG).Using these formulas, we measured the grade levels at which the website was written, both for each page of the website separately and for the website as a whole (see table 1). We did not verify the accuracy of the formulas implemented by these tests, but we used multiple tests to collaborate the results. Despite limitations, we determined that these tests were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To analyze the quality of the translation and the readability of the Spanish-language outreach materials on the independent foreclosure review website—specifically, the Spanish- language guide for the request-for-review form—a trained translator (1) compared the translation of the Spanish- and English-language materials to assess the extent to which they provided the same information, (2) analyzed the Spanish-language materials for readability, and (3) reviewed the placement and content of the in-language Spanish statements in the English-language materials. The translator’s conclusions were then reviewed by a native Spanish speaker with professional experience translating and writing official documents. We determined that this review was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To describe the potential pool of eligible borrowers with limited English proficiency, we analyzed data on the extent of limited English proficiency and considered the effects of limited English proficiency on financial literacy. To describe the U.S. population of individuals with limited English proficiency, we updated analysis we conducted for a prior report on financial literacy.Census Bureau’s 2008-2010 American Community Survey. As noted in our prior report, the Census Bureau does not define the term limited English proficiency. As such, we replicated the measures of the limited English proficient population we used in our prior report based on questions in the American Community Survey that asked “Does this We obtained and analyzed data from the United States person speak a language other than English at home?” “What is the language?” “How well does this person speak English?” For our purposes, we included in the limited English proficiency estimate individuals over the age of 18 who self-reported that they speak English “not well” or “not at all.” Because the American Community Survey data are a probability sample based on random selections, this sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been selected. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that could have been drawn. In this report, All Public User Microdata Area-level percentage estimates derived from the 2008-2010 American Community Survey have 95 percent confidence levels of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To describe the potential effects on financial literacy from limited English proficiency, we reviewed our prior work and relied on those findings. The work conducted for the prior report included (1) reviewing relevant literature related to financial literacy among immigrants and people with limited English proficiency; (2) conducting interviews with and gathering relevant studies and educational materials from federal agencies, organizations that provided financial literacy and education, and organizations that serve or advocate for populations with limited English proficiency; and (3) conducting a series of 10 focus groups to discuss the barriers that individuals with limited English proficiency may face in improving financial literacy and conducting their financial affairs.

We against class action communication materials for homeowners, construction workers, and product liability suits developed by the FJC. The FJC developed illustrative notices of proposed class action certification and settlement by studying empirical research and commentary on the plain language drafting of legal documents, testing notices with nonlawyers for comprehension, evaluating them for readability, testing their effectiveness before focus groups composed of ordinary citizens from diverse backgrounds, and conducting a survey. We also reviewed guidelines available from the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) on the form and content of notices for class action settlements. These guidelines address issues such as the scope of class member releases, attorneys’ fees, and notice of settlement. NACA maintains the comprehensive Standards and Guidelines for Litigating and Settling Consumer Class Actions 176 F.R.D. 375, first published in 1998, and fully updated in 2006, to help ensure that class actions do not lead to restrictions on challenging abusive business practices. The guidelines were intended to be used by consumer class action attorneys as a standard for how to properly proceed, manage, and settle a class action case. They were also intended to be used by courts as a guidepost to judge the merits of cases before them. The standards and revised standards were drafted by a committee of consumer attorneys. After initial drafts were completed, the draft guidelines were submitted for comment to all sectors of the legal community, including professors, think tanks, and the defense bar. After these comments were received and considered, a final draft was published. Further, we reviewed summary documentation from the National Mortgage Settlement between the state attorneys general, and the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and HUD against the five largest mortgage servicers for errors in foreclosure practices to provide the context of a current example of a large-scale settlement involving similar stakeholders and issues similar to those of the foreclosure review.

Planning and Evaluation of the Outreach and Advertising Approach

To determine the extent to which the planning and evaluation of the outreach and advertising approach considered the characteristics of the target audience, we analyzed key documents discussed above as well as the indicators and analysis prepared by the third-party administrator to monitor implementation of outreach activities and meeting agendas between regulators and servicers. We compared these documents to best practices for outreach campaigns on analyzing the target audience, identifying credible messengers, and evaluating outreach activities identified in our prior work. As discussed earlier, we considered these practices applicable to the outreach campaign for the foreclosure review because they are specific to campaigns designed to elicit a one-time action. In addition, we considered practices we identified in our previous work on evaluation strategies for information dissemination activities. These strategies were developed based on analysis of case studies of how five federal agencies evaluated their media campaigns or instructional programs. Finally, we considered our internal control standards on managing risk and other control activities.

To identify additional characteristics to consider in an analysis of the target audience of eligible borrowers, we reviewed our prior work on foreclosure trends by congressional district as well as work on financial literacy. For our analysis of foreclosure trends, we analyzed data from LoanPerformance’s Asset-backed Securities database for nonprime loans originated from 2000 through 2007. The database contains loan-level data on the majority of nonagency securitized mortgages in subprime and Alt-A pools. For example, for the period 2001 through July 2007, the LoanPerformance database contains information covering, in dollar terms, an estimated 87 percent of securitized subprime loans and 98 percent of securitized Alt-A loans. For the purposes of the analysis conducted for our prior report, we defined a subprime loan as a loan in a subprime pool and an Alt-A loan as a loan in an Alt-A pool. We focused our analysis for that report on first-lien purchase and refinance mortgages for one-to-four-family residential units. In preparing our previous report we tested the reliability of these data by reviewing documentation on the process the data providers use to collect and ensure the reliability and integrity of their data, and by conducting reasonableness checks on data elements to identify any missing, erroneous, or outlying data. We also interviewed LoanPerformance representatives to discuss the interpretation of various data fields. We concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Nonprime loans do not represent the entire universe of loans—for example, they do not include prime loans. However, we determined that these data were applicable as an illustrative example of how analysis conducted below the state level could reveal significant concentrations of certain groups.

For our analysis of characteristics associated with low financial literacy, we considered our prior work on financial literacy and trends among certain demographics with lower financial literacy. This work included a survey, conducted by a private research firm under contract to GAO, from late July to early October 2004, to determine the extent of consumers’ knowledge of credit reporting issues. The telephone survey was conducted with 1,578 randomly sampled noninstitutionalized U.S. adults aged 18 and over and the results of this survey generally have confidence intervals of plus or minus 6 percentage points. We noted in our previous report that the practical difficulties of conducting a sample survey may introduce errors into estimates made from them. These errors include sampling, coverage, measurement, nonresponse, and processing errors. We made efforts in our prior work to minimize each of these. In addition, we generated an average or mean score for the survey as a whole. We then analyzed responses for all the survey questions and scores based on groups of questions for the national sample and cross-tabulated them across different demographic groups and across consumers with different credit-related experiences. Differences across demographic groups and across consumers with different credit-related experiences were tested for statistical significance at the 95-percent confidence level. In addition to cross-tabulations, we used a regression analysis of demographics and other factors that we thought would be associated with consumers’ knowledge of credit reporting issues. We concluded that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We confirmed these results during an October 2011 forum convened by GAO on key issues related to financial literacy, including identification of special populations that need sustained financial literacy efforts. Forum participants included representatives from federal, state, and local government agencies; academic experts; nonprofit practitioners; and representatives from the private sector. We also reviewed our prior work on the financial literacy challenges faced by speakers of limited English (discussed earlier).addition, we reviewed a government-chartered, nonprofit corporation’s methodology to identify and reach out to their target audience for an outreach campaign targeted to similar borrowers in foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure. Finally, four of the eight consumer groups whom we had previously interviewed for this work responded to our request to identify characteristics they considered important to understanding the target audience of eligible borrowers.

Interviews with Regulatory Staff and Stakeholders

To determine how well the development of the approach and content of the communication materials and website reflected best practices and the extent to which the planning and evaluation of the outreach and advertising approach considered the characteristics of the target audience, we conducted interviews with the following regulator staff and key stakeholders:

Staff from OCC and the Federal Reserve.

Representatives of five mortgage servicers and three third-party consultants responsible for providing third-party reviews of these servicers’ foreclosure activities. To identify a representative mix of servicers and third-party consultants to interview, we considered servicers overseen by both regulators and those that are considered some of the larger servicers.

Representatives from the third-party administrator hired by servicers to administer the outreach process, including sending out mailings, receiving borrowers’ request-for-review forms, and operating the toll- free customer assistance phone number and website.

Representatives of 11 consumer groups, community groups, and a mortgage servicing industry association. To identify these groups, we considered organizations identified by OCC and the Federal Reserve as stakeholders, groups receiving funding from servicers to conduct community outreach, organizations that provided testimony on the foreclosure review process, and organizations we had identified during the course of other work on foreclosures, including the Department of the Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program.

In addition, we reviewed speeches, testimony, and responses to official Questions for the Record on the outreach process provided by OCC and Federal Reserve officials, representatives of third-party consultants, and a representative from a consumer group and a mortgage servicing industry association.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2012 through June 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Appendix III: Comments from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Karen Tremba (Assistant Director), Jonathan Kucskar, Grant Mallie, Patricia MacWilliams, Marc Molino, Jill Naamane, Carl Ramirez, Robert Rieke, Jennifer Schwartz, Andrew Stavisky, and James Vitarello made key contributions to this report.