News and Events Type: Publications

The unemployment rate for Black Americans has risen sharply in 2025, reaching 7.2% in July, compared with the national average of 4.2%. This increase is particularly acute for Black women, whose unemployment rate stands at 6%, nearly double that of White workers and significantly higher than White women. Between May and August 2025 alone, an estimated 300,000 Black women exited or were displaced from the labor force, either through layoffs, attrition, or structural exclusion from employment opportunities. 

A critical driver of this trend has been government layoffs. Black women have historically been overrepresented in the public sector, where they have found relatively stable employment and access to middle-class wages. They account for approximately 18% of the federal workforce, compared to just 12% of the overall workforce in 2024. Recent cuts to agencies such as the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau disproportionately affected Black women, leading to a nearly 33% decline in federal employment for this demographic over the past year. In a single month, from February to March, roughly 266,000 Black women lost jobs, a drop that researchers warn is not only a setback for racial and gender equity but also a broader signal of economic weakness. This is particularly troubling given that Black women tend to remain unemployed for longer durations, an average of 27 weeks, compared to 17.4 weeks for White, 21.3 weeks for Asian, and 23.6 weeks for Hispanic women. 

The decline in employment among Black women is widely regarded as a leading indicator of deeper structural issues in the labor market. Economists have described this trend as a “canary in the coal mine,” noting that unemployment among Black women tends to rise before broader downturns become visible across the economy. Their overrepresentation in government work has made them uniquely vulnerable to the current wave of public sector retrenchment, but the problem extends beyond federal markets.  

The impact of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration has created additional strain for Black women entrepreneurs, raising consumer costs, reducing business confidence and suppressing consumer spending. Rising input costs, particularly in industries such as retail, food services, and beauty care, have narrowed already thin profit margins and limited expansion opportunities. For example, in the Black haircare industry alone, import tariffs on wigs, weaves, and braiding materials triggered widespread cost hikes, supply shortages, and plunging client retention for salon owners. In context, Black-owned businesses currently comprise approximately 3% of all U.S. firms, and current trends suggest a decline in the coming months. The dual role of Black women as workers and entrepreneurs exposes them to a compounded risk of diminished job opportunities in the private sector and increased financial strain on the businesses they lead.  

These convergence factors between federal layoffs, tariff-driven economic headwinds, and the rollback of diversity and equity programs in government hiring underscore a broader picture of structural inequity. As jobless claims rise nationally, with unemployment in Washington, D.C. now reaching 6% due to federal downsizing, the disproportionate impact on Black women illustrates both the fragility of recent gains and the extent to which policy choices can accelerate racial disparities. Taken together, what appears as short-term economic adjustment at the national level registers as long-term instability in the lives and livelihoods of those already navigating structural disadvantages. 

As we celebrate Black Philanthropy Month, we are proud to highlight the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)—a partner deeply committed to advancing equity, health, and opportunity. Their investment in the African American Alliance of CDFI CEOs (The Alliance) over the past 4 years reflects a shared belief; when capital flows into historically excluded communities, it fuels not just economic growth but healthier, stronger futures.  

We had an opportunity to speak with the team at RWJF and here’s what they had to say: 

Why RWJF Chose the Alliance 

RWJF’s mission is clear: to ensure everyone in America has a fair and just opportunity to thrive. For them, that means reimagining how capital reaches communities long denied access to investment. 

“RWJF aims to change how capital reaches communities that have historically lacked investment to help their residents reach their best possible health and wellbeing. The Alliance is a powerful force in catalyzing financing for essentials like housing that’s affordable and for small businesses that create jobs that build wealth. The Alliance’s members have a deep understanding of the needs of their communities and make loans that center resident priorities to create meaningful impact.” — Chloe Gurin-Sands and Amy Gillman, RWJF. 

By partnering with the Alliance, RWJF is aligning with leaders on the ground who know firsthand what their communities need to prosper. 

Why Investing in Black-led CDFIs Matters 

Generations of structural racism have denied Black families the ability to build and pass down wealth. This reality has shaped not only economic mobility, but also health outcomes and opportunities for generations. 

 “Everyone in America deserves a fair and just opportunity to thrive and plan for the future. Yet structural racism has deprived Black families from building wealth that can be passed down from generation to generation. CDFIs led by Black leaders can help address racial bias in how loans are processed and who receives fair financing. That can build wealth for families and improve health and wellbeing.” — Chloe Gurin-Sands and Amy Gillman, RWJF. 

RWJF understands that investing in Black-led CDFIs is about dismantling systemic barriers and building pathways to opportunity. 

Looking Ahead: Building Health and Wealth Together 

RWJF envisions a future where health is not a privilege, but a right. Their support of the Alliance reflects their commitment to ensuring every community has access to the building blocks of health: stable housing, thriving businesses, and generational wealth. 

 “RWJF is working toward a future where health is no longer a privilege, but a right. The Alliance’s work to increase investment in communities of color aligns with our vision that the places we live, learn, work, and play should offer everyone the chance to be as healthy as possible.” — Chloe Gurin-Sands and Amy Gillman, RWJF. 

A Shared Commitment 

At the Alliance, we are honored to partner with RWJF—an institution that understands the inextricable link between wealth and health. By working together, we are charting a path toward equity, ensuring that Black-led CDFIs have the resources to do what they do best: transform communities, close the economic wealth gap, and create a legacy of opportunity. 

As Black Philanthropy Month reminds us, philanthropy rooted in justice is about building futures, investing in equity, and believing in the power of Black leadership. 

 “RWJF’s partnership reinforces what we’ve long known: when we invest in Black-led CDFIs, we’re not just financing businesses or housing—we’re investing in the strength, resilience, and wellbeing of entire communities that have been left behind. That is how we close the racial wealth gap and create lasting change.” — Lenwood V. Long, Sr., CEO of The Alliance. 

As part of the Trump administration’s broader campaign to dismantle DEI initiatives across federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has eliminated the “socially disadvantaged” designation, reshaping the future of Black and other minority farmers. 

Section 2501(e)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 defines a “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” as a member of a socially disadvantaged group, including but not limited to African Americans, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, Hispanics, and Pacific Islanders. The USDA created the designation to address decades of documented discrimination, particularly against Black farmers, who were often denied loans, subsidies, and technical support. Lawsuits such as Pigford v. Glickman confirmed these patterns of exclusion, leading to over $2 billion in settlements. Decades later, an attempt to implement corrective measures by allocating $5 billion for debt relief and support to socially disadvantaged farmers through the American Rescue Plan of 2021 was met with a slew of lawsuits.  

Federal policies today continue to challenge established corrective measures. Under the Trump administration, the USDA officially eliminated the “socially disadvantaged” category, ending a 35-year framework that directed resources to Black, Brown, Indigenous, and other farmers historically denied access to federal support. In its July 10 ruling, it stated that past discrimination has been “sufficiently addressed” and that race- and sex-based remedies are “no longer necessary or legally justified.” In plain language, the agency is claiming it has resolved its history of discrimination. When in actuality this means, it is no longer willing to use race or sex as factors in extending benefits, erasing one of the only tools that directly acknowledged systemic inequities in agriculture.  

The data shows inequities persist. According to the agricultural census, Black farmers operated fewer than 2% of U.S. farms between 2017 to 2022, while White farmers operated 95%. This number fell from 35,470 in 2017 to 32,653 in 2022, reflecting an 8% decline in Black operated farms. Ownership numbers show a similar pattern. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (2024) reported Black farmers owned less than 2% of farmland, a drastic drop from 32,910 farms in 2017 to 28,723 in 2022, compared to White landowners who control nearly all the rest. Federal relief over the years, such as the USDA’s Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, deepened the gap as White farmers received nearly 97 percent of the $9.2 billion distributed through the USDA’s Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. On average, White farmers received $3,398, whereas the average Black farmer received $422.    

The beneficiaries from this rollback are not Black farmers, but rather White farmers and agribusinesses that already dominate the agricultural landscape. By removing the socially disadvantaged designation, government resources will flow without any equity lens, which in practice maintains the status quo where White farmers receive the overwhelming share of payments, relief, and loans. The lawsuits that triggered this change, such as the challenges from White farmers to block debt relief programs under the Biden administration, show exactly who stands to gain: those who already hold the most land, capital, and political influence.  

In short, the USDA’s decision signals a retreat from accountability. Instead, it is shifting the narrative to suggest that fairness is achieved by treating everyone the same, even though history and current data show the agricultural playing field remains deeply unequal. What is being presented as a neutral and fair policy is a deliberate disregard of equity, and it leaves Black farmers more vulnerable than ever. This and other trends visible before all of us make it clear that anything dressed as being fair will regress most Black people economically, socially, and politically.   

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the most important victories of the Civil Rights Movement. Passed in the wake of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, and decades of Jim Crow voter suppression, it outlawed discriminatory voting practices like literacy tests, poll taxes, and intimidation that kept Black voters from the ballot box. Most importantly, it required states with a history of racism to get federal approval before changing their voting laws or redistricting to prevent backsliding into segregationist tactics. 

For decades, it worked. Black voter registration soared. Local governments were finally held accountable. But over time, opponents began to quietly, methodically chip away at the Act and now, quite overtly. 

The Modern Assault In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted a major part of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v. Holder), removing the “preclearance” requirement. That opened the floodgates, and states have then raced to redraw congressional maps, close polling places, and push restrictive ID laws under the guise of race-neutral reforms. 

For example, in Louisiana, after the 2020 census, the state’s Republican-led legislature passed a congressional map with just one majority-Black district, despite the fact that Black residents make up nearly one-third of the population. Civil rights groups sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and a federal court agreed the map illegally diluted Black voting power. The court ordered a second majority-Black district, and the legislature reluctantly complied.

Subsequently, a new lawsuit was filed, Louisiana v. Callais, claiming that creating a second majority-Black district was itself a racial gerrymander and unconstitutional. In short, they argued that following the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court appears eager to entertain that argument as it asked the parties to re-brief the case with a new focus, namely, whether the intentional creation of a second Black-majority district violates the 14th and/or 15th Amendments. 

At this juncture, it won’t just affect Louisiana. It will send shockwaves through every state where race-conscious districting has helped ensure minority representation. It will all but guarantee whiter, more conservative legislatures. And it will launch the unraveling of nearly every federal protection designed to address historical injustice and systemic inequality. 

Meanwhile, in Texas, lawmakers have packed or cracked communities of color by stuffing minority voters into one district or scattering them to weaken their political power so they’re politically irrelevant. In July 2025, Texas Republicans unveiled a mid-decade redistricting map aiming to flip five Democratic House seats by reshaping districts in Austin, Dallas, Houston, and South Texas. The map adds two new majority-white districts, dilutes communities of color in Tarrant County and Central Texas, and transforms solidly Democratic seats to ensure Republican holds in the 2026 midterm elections. Despite a long history of courts finding Texas maps in violation of the Voting Rights Act, GOP lawmakers are pushing forward due to pressure from Trump. As of August 4, Texas Democrats have fled the state in an attempt to delay a vote on the proposed redrawn maps. 

In Florida, Governor DeSantis championed a map that dismantled a district designed to empower Black voters. In 2025, emboldened by a state Supreme Court decision upholding that map, DeSantis and Florida Republicans began pushing for a new round of redistricting, claiming the 2020 census was flawed and attacking the state’s Fair Districts Amendments as unconstitutional. The move could target several Democratic-held seats and further dilute the voting power of communities of color, mirroring Texas’s strategy and signaling a coordinated effort to entrench Republican power through gerrymandering. These are deliberate and calculated attacks using the law to suppress the very voters it once sought to protect. 

It’s Bigger Than Voting 

Over the last couple of years, there have been concerted efforts to destabilize the earned protected status of marginalized groups. These strategic actions are slowly turning back the clock on civil rights progress and returning to a period in our nation’s history where the rights of marginalized groups were an afterthought. 

The noticeable pattern: 

In 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned, stripping reproductive rights and deepening inequality in healthcare access. While all women are affected, the consequences are compounding for those in low-income and rural areas and women of color, who already face disproportionalities in mortality rates and quality access to care. 

In 2023, Affirmative action (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard) was gutted, ending race-conscious college admissions and undermining diversity in higher education. Affirmative action was created to address historic exclusion and expand opportunities for students of minority demographics. Its removal undercuts efforts to diversify higher education and reinforce privilege-based admissions, such as legacy admissions and donor preferences. 

In 2024, the Chevron deference was dismantled, giving Trump-appointed judges more power to reject federal agency regulations. Chevron deference ensured experts, not 

partisan judges, guided how laws were implemented. This shift threatens regulatory protections, including civil rights, environmental protection, and fair housing. 

Now in 2025, Section 2 of The Voting Rights Act, the last major safeguard against racial discrimination in voting, may be struck down. It has helped ensure fair representation for Black and other communities of color by blocking gerrymandering maps, voter suppression laws, among many other discriminatory tactics. 

All of this reveals a clear strategy to dismantle every safeguard meant to protect marginalized communities. Each decision erodes the very idea that government should play a role in correcting injustice. 

What We Should Be Doing 

To combat these attacks, we need targeted and united actions. The Voting Rights Act or any other civil rights policies weren’t passed out of goodwill; it was done because activists marched, fought, organized, and demanded change. 

In this moment, these are efforts we can take: 

1. Stay apprised and informed of your state’s voting laws and redistricting efforts. 
2. Support local candidates and legal groups on the frontline and attend local redistricting hearings. 
3. Encourage your representatives to consider bills that would reinstate preclearance requirements, allow same-day registration, and ban purging voters simply for missing a few elections. While they may face some challenges in the current Congress, this is a critical step in the ongoing fight to stabilize voting rights. 

We must not stand idly by as we regress to a period of American history that did not foster equality for all. Minimizing and diluting the voting power of Black and Brown Americans due to coercion from a sitting president is to the detriment of democracy, which has long been the foundation of this country. When we weaken the right to vote, we weaken the voice of the people. That loss of political power subsequently limits the ability to influence budget priorities, advocate for equitable public investments and demand reforms that expand access to education, housing and healthcare. 

A silenced vote hinders our ability to demand justice, shape policy, and hold leaders accountable. All of which are foundational to closing the racial wealth gap and ensuring the economic and social future of the nation. 

During challenging times like these, we must remember and embody the words of civil rights activist and politician John Lewis, who once said, “Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble.”

As we reflect on the past year, I am incredibly proud of the milestones we have achieved together. The African American Alliance of CDFI CEOs has continued to grow in both impact and influence, solidifying our role as a champion for Black-led CDFIs and the communities they serve. 

Over the past year, we have expanded our membership base by bringing together over 80 Black-led CDFIs and 24 mission-based organizations—all united in our mission to close the racial wealth gap. In just five years, The Alliance has secured more than $50 million in funding to strengthen our infrastructure, accelerate our mission, and fuel the transformative work of our members on the ground. 

One of our greatest achievements this year was leading the Community Builders of Color Coalition in the creation of the Justice Climate Fund—a historic collaboration that advances environmental justice through equitable investment. I was honored to be elected its inaugural chairman. Together, we secured a landmark agreement through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program. This initiative provides critical funding to Black-led CDFIs to finance clean energy projects in historically underserved communities.  

Our Power of Us campaign has galvanized our network, reinforcing the strength of our collective voice. Through this initiative, we mobilized hundreds of stakeholders, amplified our message, and deepened our impact. As we celebrate our 5-year anniversary in 2025, we remain steadfast in our commitment to building a more just and equitable financial ecosystem. I extend my deepest gratitude to our members, funders, and partners for standing with us in this urgent and vital work. 

Together, we are building a future where Black-led CDFIs are not just part of the solution—but are leading the way toward lasting economic empowerment and wealth creation. 

Be Steadfast!    
Lenwood V. Long, Sr. 
CEO   

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recently rolled out a policy change that could reshape how mortgage lenders evaluate creditworthiness. For the first time, lenders working with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be allowed to factor in on-time rent payments when reviewing mortgage applications. 

This change matters because for millions of renters, especially those who are Black or low-income, rent has long been one of their largest and most consistent financial obligations. But until now, it hasn’t helped them build credit in the way traditional debt products do. 

What’s Changing 

FHFA oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two entities that back most U.S. mortgages. Earlier this year, it approved VantageScore 4.0 for use in loans sold to the GSEs. That move expands which credit scoring models lenders can use and opens the door to include alternative data like rent, utility, and phone bill payments. 

Unlike the older FICO models still used in most lending, VantageScore 4.0 is designed to reflect a broader picture of how people manage money. That’s especially important for applicants who haven’t had access to credit cards, student loans, or other traditional credit lines. 

Why It Matters 

According to the Urban Institute, around 50 million Americans have too little credit history to generate a traditional score, and more than 20 million are completely “credit invisible.” These gaps fall hardest on Black and Latino households. This policy has the potential to move the needle. It gives lenders a way to recognize financial responsibility beyond the narrow lens of traditional credit, offering more people a real shot at qualifying for a home loan. 

Why VantageScore 4.0 Is Different 

For decades, mortgage underwriting has relied on FICO models that weren’t built to reflect the financial habits of renters or low-income households. VantageScore 4.0 was created to change that by incorporating rent and utility payments and weighing them alongside traditional credit data. 

However, the new score won’t help unless lenders start using it and rent payments actually get reported to the credit bureaus. That’s a separate challenge. Most small landlords don’t report rent data, and many renters aren’t aware of how or whether their payments are counted. 

What We’re Watching 

As this policy rolls out, we’ll be keeping an eye on four key issues: 

• Lender adoption – Will VantageScore 4.0 gain traction, or will FICO remain the default? 

• Rent reporting – Will systems and incentives emerge to help landlords report payments consistently? 

• Impact on access – Are more mortgage approvals happening for renters who were previously locked out? 

• Role of CDFIs – How can CDFIs help renters understand their options and advocate for equitable implementation? 

The Bottom Line 

Recognizing rent payments in mortgage underwriting is a practical, long-overdue step. It aligns the credit system a little more closely with how people actually live, and that’s a move toward fairness. But good ideas don’t always lead to real change. 

We’ve seen policies stall before, not because they lacked potential, but because adoption was uneven or the systems around them weren’t ready. This one will take more than a rule change. It’ll require coordination across lenders, landlords, credit bureaus, and housing advocates to make sure the benefits actually reach the people it was designed to serve. 

Whether that happens depends on what comes next and who stays committed to making it work. 

The U.S. Senate has passed a $9 billion rescissions package first approved by the House last month. The bill, driven by the Trump administration, would claw back already-approved funds from several discretionary programs, including foreign aid and public broadcasting. 

While the bill does not directly target CDFI programs, the way it was structured and the precedent it could set raises real concerns for CDFIs that rely on stable, long-term federal commitments to deliver capital and opportunity where it’s needed most.  

What’s a Rescissions Package? 

The rescission tool is authorized under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which gives the president limited authority to propose canceling funds that Congress has already approved but not yet spent. Once a rescission request is submitted, the targeted funds are temporarily frozen. Congress then has 45 calendar days to approve the request or allow it to expire. If it does not act by that deadline, the freeze lifts automatically, and the funds must be spent as originally intended. 

In this case, the Trump administration submitted its request on June 3, targeting funds for foreign assistance, public broadcasting, and global humanitarian programs. That date triggered the 45-day countdown under the Impoundment Control Act. The House passed the measure on June 12 in a tight 214–212 vote, and the Senate approved a revised version on July 17. The bill now returns to the House for a final vote by July 18 – the 45^th and final day under the law. If the House does not act, the rescission request will expire, and the frozen funds must be released.  

What’s in the Bill? 

The Senate-passed rescissions package includes: 

• ~$8 billion in cuts to foreign assistance programs overseen by USAID and the State Department, including funding for refugees, democracy promotion and the United Nations.  

• ~$1.1 billion in reductions to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports local NPR and PBS affiliates. 

An earlier version of the bill also proposed a $400 million cut to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a global HIV/AIDS initiative. That funding was restored in the Senate after bipartisan pushback. 

Proponents say the funds were unlikely to be used and that states or private donors could cover the gap. Critics argue many were tied to active initiatives and longstanding commitments and that withdrawing them now could undermine U.S. credibility abroad and weaken core infrastructure like public media. 

Where Things Stand Now 

The Senate concluded debate and approved the revised bill in a 51-48 vote early Thursday morning, July 17. Two Republicans – Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski – joined Democrats in voting no. One Democrat, Sen. Tina Smith, was absent due to hospitalization. 

An amendment to restore public broadcasting funds failed, leaving the $1.1 billion cut intact. Because the Senate version differs from what the House passed last month, the bill now returns to the House for a final vote before the July 18 deadline. If the House does not act in time, the rescission will lapse and the funds will move forward as originally intended. 

Why This Matters for CDFIs and the Communities We Serve 

The programs in this bill may not directly fund CDFIs, but they sit alongside the broader network of public investments that strengthen communities. When funding is reversed after being approved, it can impact systems that depend on stability and long-term planning. 

This vote is also a signal. If Congress becomes more comfortable clawing back money from approved programs, it becomes easier to do the same in other areas. That puts efforts like small business support, housing, and economic development at greater risk in the future. 

What We’re Watching 

As the Senate weighs its next steps, we’ll be watching: 

• Whether the House passes the Senate’s version of the bill before the July 18 deadline;  

• Whether future rescissions packages emerge targeting other types of funding, including economic and community development programs;  

• How moderate Republicans vote, particularly those with ties to public broadcasting or international development; and 

• The broader budget context, where deeper cuts to HUD, SBA, and CDFI-related programs are still on the table. 

The Bottom Line 

However this vote ends, it is a reminder that just because funding is approved does not mean it is safe. For CDFIs and the communities we serve, that uncertainty makes long-term planning harder and demands we stay vigilant as the federal budget landscape shifts. 

We’ll continue to monitor what happens in the House and share updates as the final vote approaches.  

Los Angeles shows us what can happen when protest is met with force instead of dialogue.

It started with a series of ICE raids at worksites and in neighborhoods across the city. More than 100 people were detained in a single day, many without prior records, according to legal observers. Community members responded quickly. That same night, thousands marched to demand answers and raise concerns about how fast and far the enforcement went. While most protests remained peaceful, tensions did rise. There were reports of scattered fires, broken windows, and confrontations with police.

Despite those tensions, Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass made it clear that the situation was under control. Both opposed federal intervention. But on June 9, the president sent more than 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines into Los Angeles without the governor’s consent.

This was the first time in more than 60 years that a sitting president federalized a state’s National Guard over that state’s objections. The White House cited a federal statute that permits such action in times of insurrection. Even so, civil liberties groups are now asking:  if protests can be framed this way, what does that mean for future demonstrations across the country? Sending in troops doesn’t just enforce the law; it sends a signal that dissent is something to be suppressed, not heard.

At the African American Alliance of CDFI CEOs, we believe protest is a core function of democracy. That right has never been easy, but it has always mattered, from labor strikes to civil rights marches to the ongoing fight for racial and economic justice. Protest is how people without power make their voices count.

We also believe in accountability. Acts of looting and violence are unacceptable. They put communities at risk and undermine the message of peaceful protest. Those actions should be addressed through the legal system. However, we cannot let isolated incidents justify a military-style response to public outrage. Protest, by itself, is not a threat. It is a sign that something deeper needs attention.

We’ve seen this before. When Black and Brown communities raise their voices for justice, they’re often met with force instead of listening. Protest gets redefined as chaos or disorder. Surveillance replaces engagement. Ultimately, it costs us our rights, our voices, and our momentum.

As Dr. King once warned, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Silence is not an option. And protest is not the problem. It’s the first step toward the solution.

The racial wealth gap in America is a persistent issue rooted in centuries of systemic inequities. Despite their mission to drive economic justice, Black-led Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) face significant challenges in accessing capital compared to their White-led counterparts. 
 
Our new research paper, Analyzing the Wealth Gap: Black-led vs. White-led CDFIs and the Role of Federal Programs, by Nucdalie Cherident and Ryan Gremillion, explores these disparities and their impact on the African American community. 
In this paper, we: 

• Examine historical funding inequities in federal programs like the CDFI Fund, NMTC, and SDL. 
• Highlight the disproportionate challenges faced by Black-led CDFIs. 
• Offer actionable policy recommendations to promote equity and sustainable development.

We invite you to read and engage with this pivotal report. Your insights and discussions will undoubtedly enrich our collective understanding and drive forward the essential work of advancing equity and inclusion.