NASFAA public comment

July
 26,
 2016

To
 Whom
 It
 May
 Concern:

On
 behalf
 of
 the
 National
 Association
 of
 Student
 Financial
 Aid
 Administrators
 (NASFAA),
 I
 am

writing
 to
 offer
 our
 comments
 on
 the
 Generic
 Clearance
 for
 Federal
 Student
 Aid
 Customer

Satisfaction
 Surveys
 and
 Focus
 Groups
 Master
 Plan
 (Docket
 No.:

 ED-­‐2016-­‐ICCD-­‐0063).

 NASFAA

represents
 more
 than
 3,000
 member
 institutions
 and
 its
 broad
 membership
 serves
 nine
 out
 of

every
 10
 undergraduates
 in
 the
 country.

The
 Office
 of
 Federal
 Student
 Aid
 (FSA)
 is
 a
 valued
 partner
 in
 NASFAA's
 commitment
 to
 college

access
 and
 success,
 and
 as
 such
 we
 appreciate
 this
 opportunity
 to
 make
 the
 following

recommendations
 with
 respect
 to
 information
 collection
 activities.
1. Formally
 Establish
 School
 Operational
 Feedback
 Groups

In
 April
 of
 2016,
 NASFAA
 surveyed
 its
 membership
 about
 their
 operational
 encounters
 with

FSA
 and
 respondents
 identified
 what
 they
 experienced
 as
 unreasonable
 accountability

demands
 placed
 on
 them
 without
 corresponding
 accountability
 standards
 for

FSA.

 Administration
 of
 federal
 student
 assistance
 is
 a
 highly
 complicated
 affair.

 In
 keeping

with
 FSA’s
 new
 strategic
 goal
 to
 “foster
 trust
 and
 collaboration
 among
 stakeholders,”
 as

well
 as
 its
 objective
 to
 support
 system
 participants
 in
 implementing
 requirements,
 FSA

should
 establish
 and
 effectively
 utilize
 formal
 school
 operational
 feedback
 groups.

By
 consulting
 formally
 with
 a
 wide
 range
 of
 schools
 and
 partners
 before
 making

operational
 changes
 and
 updates,
 FSA
 could
 rectify
 unanticipated
 problems
 or
 curtail

damage
 caused
 by
 unintended
 consequences.
 The
 establishment
 of
 such
 user
 groups

would
 help
 to
 ensure
 ongoing
 feedback
 and,
 as
 an
 example,
 may
 have
 forestalled
 or
 de-­‐
escalated
 the
 troubled
 implementation
 of
 Gainful
 Employment
 regulations.

Additionally,
 formal
 user
 feedback
 groups
 allow
 FSA
 to
 be
 more
 transparent
 in
 its

deliberations
 and
 puts
 schools
 in
 a
 partnership
 position.
 In
 order
 for
 these
 to
 work

effectively,
 feedback
 groups
 should
 be
 selected
 from
 within
 and
 by
 the
 institutional

community,
 as
 opposed
 to
 being
 appointed
 solely
 by
 FSA.

2. Establish
 more
 robust
 performance
 metrics
 with
 basic,
 measurable
 customer
 service

goals

The
 FSA
 FY2015-­‐19
 Strategic
 Plan
 includes
 the
 laudable
 goal
 to
 “foster
 trust
 and

collaboration
 among
 stakeholders,”
 however;
 the
 only
 performance
 metric
 that

NASFAA

July
 26,
 2016

corresponds
 to
 this
 goal
 for
 postsecondary
 institutions
 is
 the
 use
 of
 a
 short
 “ease
 of
 doing

business”
 survey
 sent
 to
 institutions.
 NASFAA
 recommends
 developing
 a
 more
 robust

measurement
 tool
 for
 quantifying
 and
 assessing
 this
 goal.
 The
 tool
 should
 measure
 basic

customer
 service
 goals,
 such
 as
 measuring
 the
 time
 it
 takes
 to
 complete
 certain
 tasks,

approve
 program
 additions
 or
 changes,
 respond
 to
 processing
 questions,
 and
 submit
 final

compliance
 review
 reports.

In
 addition,
 FSA
 should
 publish
 basic
 customer
 service
 and
 operational
 targets
 on
 items

that
 schools
 report
 as
 the
 most
 problematic
 areas
 in
 their
 encounters
 with
 ED.
 Those

metrics
 should
 include
 targets
 for:
 approving
 Program
 Participation
 Agreement
 renewals
 or

changes;
 issuing
 program
 review
 and
 FSA
 audit
 final
 reports;
 and
 response
 times
 for

institutional
 requests
 for
 policy
 or
 procedural
 guidance.

3. Align
 customer
 satisfaction
 surveys
 of
 borrowers
 and
 FSA
 employees
 with
 FSA
 strategic

goals
 and
 Principles
 of
 Student
 Loan
 Servicing

Another
 stated
 FSA
 strategic
 goal
 is
 to
 “improve
 quality
 of
 service
 for
 customers
 across
 the

entire
 student
 aid
 life
 cycle.”

 Additionally,
 the
 Department
 of
 Education,
 Department
 of

the
 Treasury,
 and
 the
 Consumer
 Financial
 Protection
 Bureau,
 in
 their
 Joint
 Statement
 on

Principles
 of
 Student
 Loan
 Servicing,
 include
 accuracy
 as
 one
 of
 their
 four
 tenets.

 FSA

measures
 Direct
 Loan
 servicers’
 performance
 in
 this
 area
 with
 its
 customer
 service

satisfaction
 survey
 of
 borrowers,
 one
 of
 five
 servicer
 performance
 measures.

 However,
 the

National
 Consumer
 Law
 Center
 has
 pointed
 out
 that
 the
 current
 design
 of
 borrower

satisfaction
 surveys
 does
 not
 accurately
 measure
 the
 quality
 of
 service
 or
 accuracy
 of

information
 provided
 because
 there
 is
 no
 opportunity
 for
 borrowers
 to
 report
 whether

they
 were
 advised
 of
 their
 full
 range
 of
 available
 options.

 The
 US
 Government

Accountability
 Office
 (GAO)
 found
 in
 its
 May
 2016
 report,
 Federal
 Student

Loans:

 Education
 Could
 Improve
 Direct
 Loan
 Program
 Customer
 Service
 and
 Oversight,
 that

within
 the
 current
 servicer
 evaluation
 system
 there
 exists
 an
 implicit
 disincentive
 to

servicers
 to
 give
 borrowers
 complete
 information
 about
 their
 repayment
 options
 since

some
 options
 would
 result
 in
 loan
 transfer,
 negatively
 impacting
 another
 almost
 equally-­‐
weighted
 servicer
 performance
 measure
 based
 on
 number
 of
 borrowers
 in

repayment.

 Borrower
 surveys
 could
 be
 improved
 to
 ask
 more
 pointedly
 if
 certain
 options

were
 described
 as
 opposed
 to
 simply
 rating
 general
 satisfaction
 with
 servicer
 interactions.
With
 respect
 to
 program
 integrity,
 FSA
 includes
 customer
 satisfaction
 surveys
 of
 FSA

employees
 as
 another
 servicer
 performance
 metric.

 However,
 the
 GAO
 (2016)
 noted
 that,

as
 with
 the
 borrower
 surveys,
 the
 questions
 focus
 on
 FSA
 managers’
 satisfaction
 with

working
 with
 the
 servicers’
 data
 systems,
 work
 products,
 information
 and
 communication,

interactions,
 working
 relationship,
 and
 general
 overall
 experiences
 with
 the
 servicers
 and

do
 not
 measure
 compliance
 directly.

 Surveys
 should
 be
 revised
 to
 specifically
 address

issues
 of
 compliance.

2

NASFAA

July
 26,
 2016

Finally,
 institutions
 need
 some
 way
 to
 be
 formally
 consulted
 on
 servicer
 performance,

which
 could
 be
 accomplished
 through
 a
 formal
 feedback
 group,
 as
 referenced
 above.

Congress
 often
 seeks
 institutional
 feedback
 on
 loan
 servicing,
 clearly
 indicating
 the
 public

interest
 in
 the
 institutional
 perspective.
 We
 find
 it
 troubling
 that
 FSA
 eliminated

institutional
 surveys
 without
 implementing
 another,
 more
 formal
 and
 transparent
 way
 to

collect
 institutional
 feedback.

We
 appreciate
 the
 opportunity
 to
 offer
 these
 comments
 and
 we
 look
 forward
 to
 working
 with
 you

on
 these
 important
 application
 issues.
 Questions
 about
 our
 comments
 may
 be
 directed
 to
 Jill

Desjean
 at
 [email protected].

Sincerely,

Justin
 Draeger,
 President
 &
 CEO

3