Foreclosure mediation and mitigation programs began appearing in local, state, and national contexts in response to the foreclosure crisis. As the crisis persists, more states have adopted or are looking to adopt such programs as a way to ensure borrowers and lenders sit down together to discuss the foreclosure at hand.
Resolution Systems Institute has long advocated that mediation programs begin their program development process by establishing clear, articulated goals. This will inform every other part of the program, including the standards by which the program will be evaluated later. So, RSI is quite interested in how the goals of the program have shaped foreclosure mediation process and outcomes.
Most legislative or administrative foreclosure mediation programs state purposes behind the creation of the program. Interestingly, even court programs that are supposed to be outcome-neutral state a particular intended outcome (other than judicial efficiency) for the program.
Below is a list of purposes and the states or localities that articulate that purpose. Where a program cites more than one purpose, the program is included under multiple categories. Note that the stated purposes are from publicly-available sources and may not reflect what is actually happening in the programs. For a more comprehensive summary, including citations and specific language from the citations, stay tuned to CourtADR.org’s special topics page on foreclosure mediation.
No Enumerated Purpose
- Kentucky (Louisville)
- Massachusetts (Boston)
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New York
Improve Efficiency and Timeliness
- New Mexico (1st District)
- Illinois (Cook County)
- Rhode Island
Tags: California, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Florida, foreclosure, foreclosure mediation, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, purpose, Vermont, Washington