CRA will be essential for COVID-19 economic recovery in the communities hardest hit by the pandemic.
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 to end discrimination known as redlining.
It required banks to meet the credit needs of the communities where they do business. Discrimination in lending is still a problem.
Contact us for more information about strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act.
Public comments on a notice of proposed rulemaking from federal banking agencies were due Aug. 5, 2022. The agencies are now reviewing thousands of public comments on how best to update the rules banks must follow to comply with CRA — many of them submitted by NCRC members. We anticipate a final rulemaking announcement later this fall. But with the banking industry pushing back harder than expected on the rules, it is crucial that we keep the public pressure on in support of the strongest possible final rule.
Help us spread the word in your community.
Use the tools on this page to reach your friends and local leaders.
See how much CRA lending has gone into your community.
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data from the FFIEC (pre-2018) and the CFPB (2018-2020). Originations only to borrowers that are low-or-moderate income or who are in a low-or-moderate income census tract. Business loans are from the FFIEC. Loans to businesses with less than $1 million in annual revenue or which are in LMI census tracts are included. These two figures are independent of each other and will have some loans that are counted in both figures.
The comment period ended on August 12 at 11:59 PM EDT.
Here is the Federal Register Notice: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/03/2022-10111/community-reinvestment-act
OCC: Go to this link: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/OCC-2022-0002-0001. After clicking on this link, the user will see a form and can either type in comments directly and/or upload a file.
FDIC:
Email: comments@fdic.gov. Include RIN 3064-AF81 on the subject line of the message.
Federal Reserve Board: Email: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include docket and RIN numbers (Docket No. R-1769 and RIN 7100-AG29) in the subject line of the message.
(Name of organization) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) regarding updating the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This NPR represents the most significant changes to the CRA regulation and exams in 27 years.
CRA will be more effective in bolstering bank reinvestment activity in underserved communities, the more rigorous CRA exams and ratings are. The NPR proposed some significant improvements in test rigor but the improvements are not across the board on all aspects of exams. The NPR also improved data collection and the breadth of geographical areas on exams but did not include race on exams.
Persistent racial disparities in lending should compel the agencies to incorporate race and ethnicity in CRA exams. A recent national level analysis showed continuing disparities in loan denials by race and when people of color received home loans, their equity accumulation was less. NCRC had asserted in a paper that it is possible for changes to CRA to comply with legal standards if CRA examined lending by race and ethnicity in geographical areas experiencing ongoing discrimination. By including race and ethnicity, CRA can identify and address persistent racial disparities that have direct impacts on quality of life and health outcomes.
Since CRA requires banks to meet the needs of communities, the agencies must elevate the importance of public comments regarding the extent to which banks meet needs. The agencies proposed to continue the current practice of sending any comments on CRA performance to banks and are also considering publishing comments received on agency websites. We urge the agencies to post comments on their websites and also to establish a public registry for community organizations to sign up if they wish to comment on CRA performance. In addition, we ask that the agencies publish a list of organizations that comment and that the agencies identify those led by people of color and women in an effort to seek input from a diverse range of organizations.
The agencies bolstered the rigor on the large bank retail lending test by introducing performance ranges for comparisons among a bank’s lending and demographic and market benchmarks. This approach would decrease ratings inflation and result in more failing and low satisfactory ratings on the lending test. As a result of this proposed reform, several banks would likely respond by boosting their retail lending to underserved communities. The other large bank tests such as community development finance and services include improvements but need to be further developed to guide examiners against inflating ratings.
The agencies correctly proposed to include new data collecting requirements for deposits, community development activities and automobile lending. Some of this data such as deposit and automobile lending would not be publicly available, which limits the extent to which the public can hold banks accountable. We ask the agencies to reconsider this decision and also to expand this data collection to all large banks.
Advocates have urged the agencies to examine lending that occurs online. The agencies proposed to create assessment areas where a large bank does not have branches when a bank has issued 100 home loans or 250 small business loans This proposal would result in the great majority of total lending being incorporated on exams and would therefore hold banks more accountable for serving low- and moderate-income communities. However, the agencies must further ensure that exams do not overlook assessment areas containing smaller metropolitan areas and rural counties.
The agencies proposed to eliminate certain subtests for about 1,000 medium-sized and smaller banks that would eliminate their accountability for providing community development finance and branches in underserved communities. These changes lack justification since these banks have been successfully performing these activities for several years. We urge the agencies to eliminate this aspect of the NPR since it would reduce reinvestment activity.
The NPR is a good start and promises to make parts of CRA exams more rigorous but we urge the agencies to extend the rigor of the large bank lending test to the other tests. We also ask the agencies to incorporate race in CRA exams, to expand the public reporting of their data collection proposals and to incorporate the other improvements discussed above. If CRA is improved while maintaining public input and accountability, we believe the proposed rule could help reduce inequalities, disinvestment and other disadvantages in America’s overlooked communities.
To Whom it May Concern:
(Name of organization) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) regarding updating the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This NPR represents the most significant changes to the CRA regulation and exams in 27 years.
CRA has successfully leveraged loans, investments and services. Between 2009 and 2020, banks have made more than $2.58 trillion in home loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers or in LMI census tracts. They made $856 billion in loans to small businesses with revenues under $1 million. (Use this CRA $ tool to find the totals in your area). We need to build on this progress and address remaining disparities in lending through CRA reform.
CRA will be more effective in bolstering bank reinvestment activity in underserved communities, the more rigorous CRA exams and ratings are. The agencies proposed important improvements in the CRA regulation including increasing the rigor of the subtests on the CRA exams, expanding geographical areas on CRA exams and collecting more data to scrutinize bank performance. However, they did not sufficiently address racial inequities.
CRA must explicitly consider bank activity by race and ethnicity
Although the CRA statute does not mention race, it required banks to serve all communities, which provides room for the federal bank agencies to incorporate race in CRA exams. Persistent racial disparities in lending should compel the agencies to incorporate race and ethnicity in CRA exams. A recent national level analysis showed continuing disparities in loan denials by race and when people of color receive home loans, their equity accumulation was less. (NCRC members should use this fair lending tool to report on disparities in their communities here).
The agencies proposed to use the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data to produce exam tables describing lending by race, but not to use the results of these analyses to influence a bank’s rating. NCRC had asserted in a paper co-authored by Relman Colfax PLLC that changes to CRA would comply with legal standards if CRA examined lending by race and ethnicity in geographical areas experiencing ongoing discrimination or exhibiting significant racial disparities in lending. NCRC had also proposed including analyses of lending in underserved neighborhoods with low levels of lending, which are disproportionately communities of color.
While we believe the agencies can examine banks’ record of lending to race, the agencies should at least bolster fair lending reviews accompanying CRA exams for banks that perform poorly in the HMDA data analysis of lending by race. In addition, the agencies proposed using Section 1071 data on small business lending by race and gender of the business owner, and this data should be used as a screen for fair lending reviews. By including race and ethnicity, CRA can identify and address persistent racial disparities that have direct impacts on quality of life and health outcomes.
Public input mechanisms: agencies propose improvements that must be codified
Since CRA requires banks to meet the needs of communities, the agencies must elevate the importance of public comments regarding the extent to which banks meet local needs. The agencies proposed to continue the current practice of sending any comments on CRA performance to banks and are also considering publishing comments received on agency websites.
Posting comments on agency websites will establish accountability on the part of examiners to consider them. In addition, these comments can be referenced during future merger applications to determine if the banks addressed significant concerns of the public. Also, the agencies should establish a public registry that community organizations can use to sign up if they want to be contacted about community needs and bank CRA performance. Furthermore, we request that the agencies start to publish which organizations they consult with to understand local community needs, commit to collecting input from a diverse range of organizations that includes organizations led by people of color and women, follow up on needs identified and detail how community input was factored into the results of CRA performance evaluations.
We also agree with Acting Comptroller Hsu that the agencies must hold frequent public hearings on large bank mergers. CRA exams, if they are made more rigorous by a final rule, will help hold merging banks accountable. However, merging banks must also submit a community benefits plan as part of their merger applications which could include community benefits agreements negotiated with community organizations. As further described in recent comments we agree with NCRC that an outstanding CRA rating must not be considered evidence that merging banks have satisfied the public benefits legal requirement.
Reducing CRA ratings inflation: progress on the lending test of the large bank exam, but not as much on the other subtests
Currently, about 98% of banks pass their CRA exams on an annual basis with just less than 10% receiving an Outstanding rating and almost 90% of them receiving a rating of Satisfactory. CRA has successfully leveraged more loans, investments and services for LMI communities but it would be more effective in doing so if the ratings system more accurately revealed distinctions in performance. More banks would be identified as significantly lagging their peers, which would motivate them to improve their ratings and increase their reinvestment activity.
The agencies bolstered the rigor on the large bank retail lending test by introducing performance ranges for comparisons among a bank’s lending and demographic and market benchmarks. This quantitative approach would decrease ratings inflation and result in more failing and low satisfactory ratings on the lending test. As a result of this proposed reform, several banks would likely respond by boosting their retail lending to underserved communities.
The agencies proposed improvements to the other subtests of the large bank exam but did not establish as many guidelines for the performance measures, which could contribute to inflation on the subtests. The community development finance test, for example, will consist of a quantitative measure of a bank’s ratio of community development finance divided by deposits. The bank’s ratio will be compared to a local and national ratio. The agencies, however, did not provide enough guidelines to examiners for comparing the bank’s ratio to either the local or national ratio, making it possible for an examiner to inflate a rating by choosing the lowest comparator ratio.
The possibilities of misplaced examiner discretion can also occur on the retail services test and the community development services test. The retail services test contains quantitative measures comparing a bank’s branch distribution to market and demographic benchmarks but does not provide enough instructions to examiners about how to weigh these benchmarks.
We believe that is it possible for the agencies to further develop guidelines for how to use the performance measures on the community development and services subtests of the large bank exam in order to produce a uniformly rigorous CRA exam and guard against ratings inflation.
Enhancements to community development definitions will increase responsiveness of banks to community needs
The agencies proposed refinements to the definitions of affordable housing, economic development, climate resiliency and remediation, community facilities and infrastructure that we believe will more effectively target revitalization activities to communities such as persistent poverty counties and Native American communities.
The NPR clarified that financing health services qualifies under the definition of community support services. Essential community facilities now include hospitals and health centers without current documentation requirements, applied inconsistently, that the financing attract and retain residents to the community. This streamlining would boost financing of critical community infrastructure.
However, the community development finance test will include an impact review which must be further developed and include points and ratings like other subtests so that the test can be even more effective in stimulating responsive community development activities. Finally, we ask the agencies to reconsider their proposal to expand CRA consideration for financial literacy with no income limits; scarce counseling resources need to be targeted to LMI and other underserved populations.
Data improvements will help hold banks accountable but all new data should be publicly available
The agencies correctly proposed to include new data collecting requirements for deposits, community development activities and automobile lending. Some of this data such as deposit and automobile lending would not be publicly available, which limits the extent to which the public can hold banks accountable for reaching underserved communities. We ask the agencies to reconsider this decision and also to expand data collection to all large banks instead of just banks with assets of more than $10 billion in the case of deposits and automobile lending. Finally, CRA exams should not only analyze access to deposits accounts for LMI communities but also affordability by comparing and refining, if necessary, fee information collected in call report data.
Accountability for discrimination will increase but the agencies need to bolster their reviews concerning the quality of lending
The agencies proposed to include all activities and products including deposit accounts in addition to credit in anti-discrimination and consumer protection legal reviews. This is an important advance but we urge the agencies to expand their reviews to include the quality of lending. Massachusetts CRA exams include analysis of delinquency and defaults rates in home lending. Federal CRA exams should do likewise in all major product lines. Moreover, reviews of lending must include an affordability analysis and impose penalties when banks offer on their own or in partnerships with non-banks abusive, high-cost loans that exceed state usury caps and that exceed borrowers’ abilities to repay. Finally, we are pleased that the agencies added the Military Lending Act in the list of laws to be included in the fair lending review but we urge them to also add the Americans with Disability Act.
Assessment areas are expanded to include online lending but performance in smaller areas needs to be considered more carefully
For several years, advocates have urged the agencies to examine lending that occurs online. The agencies proposed to create retail assessment areas where a large bank does not have branches when a bank has issued 100 home loans or 250 small business loans This proposal would result in the great majority of total lending being incorporated on exams and would therefore hold non-traditional banks more accountable for serving LMI communities.
We ask the agencies to expand upon their proposal to include partnerships with banks and non-banks for retail lending. When a bank partners with more than one non-bank, the lending of all the non-banks needs to be totaled together for calculating if the threshold is exceeded for purposes of creating assessment areas.
In order to ensure that banks serve smaller metropolitan areas and rural counties, the agencies proposed requiring that banks with 10 or more assessment areas must receive at least a Low Satisfactory rating in 60% of the assessment areas in order to pass overall. This still may not be an adequate solution since the smaller areas could represent a minority of areas, allowing a bank to pass the 60% threshold by focusing on the larger areas. One possible fix is to require banks to achieve at least a Low Satisfactory rating of 60% in each of its large metropolitan, small metropolitan and rural assessment areas.
Reclassifying banks as small and intermediate small banks (ISB) would reduce community reinvestment activity
By adjusting asset thresholds for qualifying for various CRA exams, the agencies proposed to reclassify 779 ISB banks as small banks, which would involve no longer holding these banks accountable for community development finance. In addition, the agencies proposed to reclassify 217 large banks as ISB banks, eliminating their service test and accountability for placing branches in LMI communities. These changes lack justification since these banks have been successfully performing these activities for several years. We urge the agencies to eliminate this aspect of the NPR since it would reduce reinvestment activity.
Conclusion
The NPR is a good start and promises to make parts of CRA exams more rigorous but we urge the agencies to extend the rigor of the large bank lending test to the other tests. We also ask the agencies to incorporate race in CRA exams, to expand the public reporting of their data collection proposals, to bolster their assessment area proposal to make sure that smaller communities are not left out and to refrain from reducing reinvestment requirements for any segment of banks. If CRA is improved while maintaining public input and accountability, we believe the proposed rule could help reduce inequalities, disinvestment and other disadvantages in America’s overlooked communities.
RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of the [Name of Hospital System/Medical practice/health care agency/etc], a [non-for-profit health system/description] in [Sample City, USA], I would like to convey my support of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). We believe that the proposed changes to the Community Reinvestment Act regulations outlined in the NPR would help to clarify and enhance investment in the health of our community.
[Sample Hospital System] is the [descriptor of your organization relative to your region, for example if it is the largest hospital system in the region or other notable characteristics/roles]. We employ more than [Number] individuals and operate [Number] speciality acute care facilities. Our [health system] has more than [Number] beds in [Number] states. We serve more than [Number] patients annually.
[Sample Hospital] has collaborated with several community-based organizations in our region to invest in projects that impact the social determinants of health for our most vulnerable community members. Banks that we partner with look to CRA credit as added incentive to collaboration. A strong and clear CRA offers the potential for greater collaboration between hospitals and banks to invest in and create healthier communities.
The expanded definition of “community development” helps to clarify that banks can and should make investments in hospital systems to support community development. Two of the definitional categories, community infrastructure and essential community facilities, now name health services explicitly. The NPR also removes the stipulation that community facilities must also attract or retain businesses and residents. This is a laudable goal but was applied inconsistently in CRA exams, making it more difficult to qualify the activities for CRA consideration. The proposed changes will enable more banks to feel secure that their investment in healthcare will go towards their CRA credit. This can lead to increased investment and have direct positive impacts on the health and wellbeing for residents in low and moderate income communities.
We also urge the agencies to improve data collection for the impact review section of the community development finance test. Data on impacts such as the number of beds in health facilities or how many housing units had lead paint abatement will better capture the importance of funding health initiatives and better motivate banks to invest in these initiatives since their outcomes will be more accurately reflected on CRA exams. We also strongly support the proposed data collection for all large banks regarding the dollar amount of community development activity, the category of the activity and the location of the activity.
Clinical care and personal behavior are not the only factors that contribute to health outcomes. Sixty percent of health outcomes are due to social determinants such as: affordable and stable housing, income, job opportunities, access to healthy foods, and more. In order to best promote healthier outcomes, we need affordable housing, steady job growth, thriving schools, and recreation and green spaces in our communities. A strengthened CRA is needed to encourage banks to make loans and investments to support these social determinants of health.
The agencies bolstered the rigor on the large bank retail lending test by introducing performance ranges for comparisons among a bank’s lending and demographic and market benchmarks. This approach would decrease ratings inflation and result in more failing and low satisfactory ratings on the lending test. As a result of this proposed reform, several banks would likely respond by boosting their retail lending to underserved communities. The other large bank tests such as community development finance and services include improvements but need to be further developed to guide examiners against inflating ratings.
The NPR does not go far enough in considering racial inequality. Persistent racial disparities in lending should compel the agencies to incorporate race and ethnicity in CRA exams. A recent national level analysis showed continuing disparities in loan denials by race.
[Sample Hospital] appreciates the consideration of the health of our underserved communities as a critical part of CRA. The agencies should codify those pieces of the NPR. And while we believe that the NPR is a good start and promises to make parts of CRA exams more rigorous, we urge the agencies to extend the rigor of the large bank lending test to the other tests. We also ask the agencies to incorporate race in CRA exams. Thank you for providing this opportunity for [Sample Hospital] to comment on this critical rulemaking.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title, Organization]
The following sample resolution provides the history, purpose, and some of the basic functions of CRA and includes the key principles that are critical to preserve in the on-going regulatory reform effort by the nation’s bank regulators.
This template is a start and can be adapted by non-profits, localities, state legislatures and other governing bodies moved for immediate adoption. It should also include one or more clauses about the importance of CRA or the role it has played that is specific to the moving organizations or the local/state jurisdiction.
Resolution To Protect The Community Reinvestment Act – To Ensure That Efforts To Modernize Regulations Do Not Undermine The Intent Of The Law
WHEREAS, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was enacted on October 12, 1977, to end the practice of “redlining” by financial institutions where they would draw a red line on a map around the neighborhoods they did not want to offer financial services; before the enactment of the CRA, redlining made it near impossible for low- and moderate-income Americans, people of color, and their neighborhoods to access credit services, such as mortgages and business loans, regardless of their qualifications or creditworthiness; and
WHEREAS, CRA was a landmark civil rights law passed in 1977 to end discrimination that was once common in America’s banking and housing markets; and
WHEREAS, discrimination in lending is still a problem; and
WHEREAS, the CRA states that “regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligations to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered”; and
WHEREAS, the CRA establishes a regulatory regime for monitoring the level of lending, investments, and services in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods traditionally underserved by lending institutions; examiners from three federal agencies assess and rate a bank’s activities in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the federal agencies conducting CRA examinations are: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which examines nationally chartered banks and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board – both of whom examine state-chartered banks; and
WHEREAS, if a regulatory agency finds a bank not serving these neighborhoods, it can delay or deny that institution’s request to merge with another bank or to open a branch or expand any of its other services; the bank’s regulatory agency can also approve the merger application subject to specific improvements in a bank’s lending or investment record in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, a bank’s CRA rating can be downgraded if a federal agency uncovers evidence of illegal, abusive or discriminatory lending on their fair lending exams that occur at about the same time as CRA exams; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, according to analysis of bank lending data by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), CRA-covered banks issued more than 32 million small business loans in low- and moderate-income tracts, totaling $1.334 trillion, and $1.459 trillion in community development loans that support affordable housing and economic development projects benefiting low- and moderate-income communities; and
WHEREAS, a NCRC review of the CRA examinations of intermediate small banks (ISBs)/mid-sized banks (banks with asset sizes today between $346 million and $1.384 billion) found that ISBs produced over $9.3 billion of community development (CD) loans and grants about every three years; and
WHEREAS, studies have found that CRA-covered home lending is safer and sounder than non-CRA covered lending; when a larger share of lending is issued by CRA-covered banks than by independent mortgage companies, a neighborhood experiences lower delinquency rates and less risky lending; and
WHEREAS, despite the tremendous benefits of CRA to communities, the full potential of CRA has not been realized because it has not been updated to take into account changes in the banking industry and the economy; independent mortgage companies not covered by CRA now make more than 50 percent of the home mortgage loans in America and financial technology companies (“Fintech”) not covered by CRA operating via the internet are rapidly increasing their lending; and
WHEREAS, as part of CRA modernization, geographic assessment areas must remain the focus of CRA exams for all banks; banks should continue to be rated based on every geography where they lend or receive a significant percentage of their deposits; banks cannot be allowed to cherry-pick where they lend – or to ignore the credit needs of distressed and vulnerable communities; and
WHEREAS, as part of CRA modernization, CRA must consider bank lending, investing and services to communities of color in order to narrow racial and ethnic disparities in lending and wealth; and
WHEREAS, CRA should explicitly state the law’s obligation to fairly serve all races and ethnicities; banks that engage in large-scale illegal and harmful activities should fail their CRA exams; the federal bank agencies should improve their proposal to analyze data on lending by race and ethnicity but not to use that analysis in a meaningful way to inform fair lending review; and
WHEREAS, any new proposed scoring system must reduce CRA grade inflation under which 98% of banks pass and 90% receive the same rating of Satisfactory; changes in the ratings system that more accurately reflects bank performance will provide more incentive for the lagging banks to increase their lending, investing and services to underserved populations;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will support efforts to modernize CRA, but not relax or undermine the law’s goal and intent; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will oppose regulators efforts including in the just issued interagency Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to raise bank thresholds and exempt more banks, such as ISBs/mid-sized banks, from examination of their community development lending and investments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will support modernizing CRA to apply it to non-bank institutions including mortgage companies, financial technology companies, and credit unions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will oppose any effort to water down the penalties under CRA for discrimination; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will support a CRA with a clearly-defined ratings system that emphasizes lending, bank branches, fair lending performance, and responsible loan products for working class families;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the recently issued federal interagency notice of proposed rulemaking expands geographical areas to consider lending beyond bank branches, bolsters the lending test to combat grade inflation, and positively expands data on community development financing to better assess banks’ records of financing neighborhood revitalization; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name) urges the agencies to recognize and encourage community benefit agreements that some banks negotiate with community-based organizations during the merger application process and which commit banks to make more loans, investments, and services available to traditionally underserved communities.
Respectfully submitted on _____,
Read more about local resolutions.
NYC Community Board 12 Manhattan, NY
NGO RESOLUTIONS
Spread the word about CRA. Here are some things you can use.
⏰⌛️⏱️ Time is running out to make your voice heard! Comment letters on the proposed update to Community Reinvestment Act rules are due THIS FRIDAY, August 5! Click here for guidance on how to submit comments, sample comment letters, and more: ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action⌛️⏰⏱️
Let’s remind federal regulators any CRA rule must modernize and strengthen CRA so all communities have access to lending and investments. @USOCC @FDIC @FederalReserve #TreasureCRA https://bit.ly/3K6IhkT
To counter the effects of discrimination, Congress identified banks’ affirmative duty to meet the credit needs of their entire communities. A modernized and strengthened CRA must add a robust consideration of race. #TreasureCRA https://bit.ly/3uHsMcC
There are only a few days left to submit comments on CRA! In order to influence the final rule, community groups need to show up and submit comment letters. Need help drafting yours? Visit our #TreasureCRA page! www.ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action
Changes to CRA rules that influence trillions of dollars of loans, investments, philanthropy and services in lower-income communities could offer a new path to survival for struggling local news and information providers. https://ncrc.org/could-a-banking-law-designed-to-end-redlining-drive-more-capital-into-local-journalism/
Communities cannot thrive without access to childcare – which is why it should factor into CRA modernization. TAKE ACTION: Submit comments to regulators on new rules that will shape our work for decades! https://ncrc.org/could-a-banking-law-designed-to-end-redlining-drive-more-capital-into-local-journalism/
Millions of LMI families face daily tradeoffs between housing, utilities, medical care, education, and food. Food security advocates have a tangible, simple, right-now moment for action: Submit comments to regulators on new CRA rules that will shape our work for decades! https://ncrc.org/why-food-justice-advocates-should-care-about-cra-reform/
(Twitter thread)
1/
🧵Friday, August 5 is the deadline to submit a comment letter about the Community Reinvestment Act to the @FDICgov @USOCC & @federalreserve.
Already sold? Click below for help submitting!
Wondering why this matters? Keep reading! #TreasureCRA ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action
2/
CRA rules haven’t been meaningfully updated since 1995. Email had barely been invented. The dot-com bubble hadn’t happened. Hootie and the Blowfish were headlining stadium tours.
That’s why it’s such a big deal that regulators proposed sweeping changes this spring. #TreasureCRA
3/
By law, regulators are required to review all comment letters they receive on proposed rule changes like this. So when we tell them what we think of their proposal – what we like, what we don’t – they have to listen! #TreasureCRA
4/
CRA rules have a HUGE impact on quality of life in low- and moderate-income communities. They shape which community projects get funded and which don’t. Where BIPOC families and businesses can get loans and where they can’t. The stakes could NOT be higher! #TreasureCRA
5/
Care about gentrification? Then you care about CRA – and you should TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT YOU THINK: #TreasureCRA ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action
6/
Care about access to childcare? Then you care about CRA – and you should TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT YOU THINK: #TreasureCRA ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action
7/
Care about food security? Then you care about CRA – and you should TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT YOU THINK: #TreasureCRA ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action
8/
Care about promoting Black economic power? Then you care about CRA – and you should TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT YOU THINK: #TreasureCRA ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action
9/
Care about closing the racial wealth divide in this country? About redlining? About financial discrimination? About access to affordable housing? Then you care about CRA – and your government needs to hear from you: #TreasureCRA ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action
10/
The proposed rules are just that – a proposal. The regulators can make changes before finalizing the rules. This is our chance to show the regulators where they’ve done well and should resist criticism, and where they’ve come up short and should make changes. #TreasureCRA
11/
Whatever formal comments the regulators receive before the deadline on Friday 8/5, they must read and consider. So help us make sure they know what needs to be done for our communities, our neighbors, and our nation. Submit a comment today: #TreasureCRA ncrc.org/treasurecra#take-action
What We Want:
Geography must remain the focus of CRA exams for all banks. We want banks to be graded based on every geography where they lend or receive a significant percentage of their deposits. Lending isn’t tied to bank branches the way it used to be. But branches are still essential for low- and moderate- income people. Geography still matters. Neighborhoods still matter.
What We Can’t Let Happen:
We can’t eliminate geographic assessment areas. We can’t allow banks to cherry-pick where they lend – and where they don’t lend at all. We can’t allow banks to ignore the credit needs of distressed and vulnerable communities. We can’t allow a reboot of redlining.
What We Want:
We want new language explicitly stating the law’s obligation to fairly serve all races and ethnicities. Banks that engage in large-scale illegal and harmful activities should fail their CRA exams.
What We Can’t Let Happen:
In 2017, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) watered down the penalties for discrimination. We can’t allow regulators to allow banks to pass CRA exams if they discriminate.
What We Want:
We want the Community Reinvestment Act applied to all lenders, the same way it’s applied to traditional banks. The financial landscape has changed. Mortgage companies, credit unions, fintechs and other “nonbank” lenders now make the majority of the home loans in America.
What We Can’t Let Happen:
We can’t allow a majority of mortgage lenders to avoid CRA requirements. Banks and the Treasury Department have acknowledged that the financial landscape has changed, and that CRA should be updated to reflect the current marketplace and increase safe reinvestment in our communities.
What We Want:
We want a clearly-defined grading system that emphasizes lending, branches, fair lending performance, and responsible loan products for working class families. We want each of these important aspects to get their due weight in analyzing a bank’s CRA performance. We do not support one ratio that lumps all of a bank’s activity together.
What We Can’t Let Happen:
We cannot allow a rating system that makes it easy for banks to pick the lowest hanging fruit and ignore critical community needs.
What We Want:
We need regulators unafraid to stand up to financial institutions. If a bank fails its CRA exam, or wishes to acquire a bank with a better CRA grade, agencies should recognize and encourage community benefit agreements. We want to motivate a race to the top across our financial industry.
What We Can’t Let Happen:
This spring, the OCC weakened its CRA enforcement by allowing banks with failed CRA ratings to merge, acquire, and grow their business. We cannot allow regulators to adopt this policy. The “wink and nod” CRA exam has gone on long enough.
Read the rest of our principles for CRA reform.
WHEREAS, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was enacted on October 12, 1977 to end the practice of “redlining” by financial institutions where they would draw a red line on a map around the neighborhoods they did not want to offer financial services; before the enactment of the CRA, redlining made it near impossible for low- and moderate-income Americans, racial and ethnic minorities, and their neighborhoods to access credit services, such as mortgages and business loans, regardless of their qualifications or creditworthiness; and
WHEREAS, CRA was a landmark civil rights law passed in 1977 to end discrimination that was once common in America’s banking and housing markets; and
WHEREAS, discrimination in lending is still a problem; and
WHEREAS, the CRA states that “regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligations to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered”; and
WHEREAS, the CRA establishes a regulatory regime for monitoring the level of lending, investments, and services in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods traditionally underserved by lending institutions; examiners from three federal agencies assess and “grade” a lending institution’s activities in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the federal agencies conducting CRA examinations are: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which examines nationally chartered banks and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board – both of whom examine state-chartered banks; and
WHEREAS, if a regulatory agency finds a financial institution not serving these neighborhoods, it can delay or deny that institution’s request to merge with another lender or to open a branch or expand any of its other services; the financial institution regulatory agency can also approve the merger application subject to specific improvements in a bank’s lending or investment record in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, a financial institution’s CRA grade can be downgraded if a federal agency uncovers evidence of illegal, abusive or discriminatory lending on their fair lending exams that occur at about the same time as CRA exams; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, according to analysis of bank lending data by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), CRA-covered banks issued almost 29 million small business loans in low- and moderate-income tracts, totaling $1.156 trillion, and $1.179 trillion in community development loans that support affordable housing and economic development projects benefiting low- and moderate-income communities; and
WHEREAS, a 2016 review of the CRA examinations of intermediate small banks(ISBs)/mid-sized banks (banks with asset sizes today between $313 million and $1.252 billion) found that ISBs produced over $9.3 billion of community development (CD) loans and grants; and
WHEREAS, studies have found that CRA-covered home lending is safer and sounder than non-CRA covered lending; when a larger share of lending is issued by CRA-covered banks than by independent mortgage companies, a neighborhood experiences lower delinquency rates and less risky lending; and
WHEREAS, despite the tremendous benefits of CRA to communities, the full potential of CRA has not been realized because it has not been updated to take into account changes in the banking industry and the economy; independent mortgage companies not covered by CRA now make more than 50 percent of the home mortgage loans in America and financial technology companies (“Fintech”) not covered by CRA operating via the internet are rapidly increasing their lending; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the need to modernize CRA, we are concerned about ideas from some federal regulators that would substantially weaken the law; and
WHEREAS, geographic assessment areas must remain the focus of CRA exams for all banks; banks should continue to be graded based on every geography where they lend or receive a significant percentage of their deposits; banks cannot be allowed to cherry-pick where they lend – and where they don’t lend at all or to ignore the credit needs of distressed and vulnerable communities; and
WHEREAS, regulators review of a bank’s CRA commitment should not be consumed by an approach that is primarily driven by dollar amount. The OCC and FDIC propose a presumptive rating which would mainly consist of the dollar amount of a bank’s total CRA activities divided by the bank’s deposits. CRA was designed to encourage the financial system to meet the credit and capital needs of people with low and moderate incomes and small businesses who frequently have a need for relatively smaller sized loans. Moving to a dollar volume approach would encourage larger deals at the expense of underserved borrowers the law was designed to protect; and
WHEREAS, the OCC’s and FDIC’s proposal of January 2020 would also move CRA away from its focus on low- and moderate-income families and communities and count the financing of sports stadiums, middle-income rental housing, and financial education for middle- and upper-income consumers; and
WHEREAS, CRA should explicitly state the law’s obligation to fairly serve all races and ethnicities; banks that engage in large-scale illegal and harmful activities should fail their CRA exams.
WHEREAS, allowing banks to fail in half of the markets they take deposits from and still pass their CRA performance evaluations will allow banks to pick and choose where they proactively support the credit and capital needs of people with low- and moderate-incomes, and ignore them in other markets where they currently have an obligation; and
WHEREAS, the new proposed scoring system will radically devalue the importance of maintaining branches in neighborhoods with low- and moderate-incomes, despite strong evidence that branches are still heavily used by households with lower incomes; and
WHEREAS, proposal to give a multiplier of two to many ways that banks already finance community development for CRA credit, which is likely to lead to a reduction in actual community development financing; and
WHEREAS, basing new assessment areas off of physical addresses of depositors is problematic since this information is not currently collected, and if collected would likely not be shared with the public, leaving cities to guess whether a bank has an obligation to serve their community; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will support efforts to modernize CRA, but not relax or undermine the law’s goal and intent; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will oppose regulators efforts to raise bank thresholds and exempt more banks, such as ISBs/mid-sized banks, from examination of their community development lending and investments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will support modernizing CRA to apply it to non-bank institutions including mortgage companies, financial technology companies, and credit unions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will oppose regulators efforts to water down the penalties under CRA for discrimination; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will support a CRA with a clearly-defined grading system that emphasizes lending, bank branches, fair lending performance, and responsible loan products for working class families; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the (organization’s name), will support efforts to hold a bank accountable if it fails its CRA exam, or wishes to acquire a bank with a better CRA grade, and urge agencies to recognize and encourage community benefit agreements and efforts that motivate banks to make more loans, investments, and services available to traditionally underserved communities.
Respectfully submitted on _____,
Use this code to embed it on your site:
<div class=”iframely-embed”><div class=”iframely-responsive” style=”padding-bottom: 66.1454%; padding-top: 120px;”><a href=”https://ncrc.org/treasurecra/” data-iframely-url=”//cdn.iframe.ly/api/iframe?url=https%3A%2F%2Fncrc.org%2FtreasureCRA%2F&key=738171d7203bc68ef1de3239cfe4a24b”></a></div></div><script async src=”//cdn.iframe.ly/embed.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>
We’re counting on these people and organizations.
Importance of local press
While many local news outlets continue to struggle, some are holding on, continue to report on local issues and have attentive audiences focused on them. These local media providers can be an important channel to reach local audiences and leaders and an invaluable resource for community organizations trying to build momentum for a national law that seems at times more inside-the-beltway than community-focused. And for all the political games swirling around CRA reform right now – the people who will be most affected will be you and your neighbors. Let’s work together to get the word out – we will not let the CRA be gutted – and together we can start a new movement to further a just economy for all.
There are several ways to get your point of view into local media:
How to reach out:
Sample Pitch:
Bank regulators in Washington have published new rules to change the Community Reinvestment Act, a law enacted in 1977 to get rid of discrimination that was once common in mortgage and small business lending by banks. Redlining was once widespread across America, and it happened here too. It kept capital out of neighborhoods where minorities and immigrants lived. CRA was passed to put a stop to that.
But discrimination in lending is still a problem. This law has a direct impact on [city / our community]. Our local banks make mortgage and small business loans, as well as grants to local nonprofits, in order to comply with the law. The proposed changes ould have a big impact here, especially on low- and moderate-income people. Would you be interested in writing about this issue and why it matters to our community? If so, I’d love to share more info with you.
New Orleans Needs a Stronger, Not a Weaker Community Reinvestment Act
OpEd’s:
OpEd’s are another way to get local press coverage. Here you write an opinion piece and then shop it around to local papers and magazines. Most outlets have their own requirements, so be sure to check with them before you write and pitch your piece.
Suggested Content:
We suggest you start your OpEd off with local impacts. What has CRA done for your community in the past? How will the proposed changes halt these investments? And then you can use some of our talking points below to further bring home the point that these proposed changes are disastrous for our underserved communities.
All parties invested in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) – bankers, regulators, community leaders and watchdog groups – have agreed for some time that CRA was in need of modernization to reflect changes in how people access banking services today opposed to in 1977 when the act was first enacted. However, there is no doubt that the proposed changes from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) would greatly diminish the effectiveness of the law and does a terrible job of addressing our mutual concerns. Instead, the agencies came up with ways for banks to do less for lower-income neighborhoods and borrowers, and a host of complex and confusing options.
When 98% of banks already pass their CRA exams, do we really need to make it easier for them? This is exactly what the rules proposed in December would do. It would even make it easier for banks to cherry-pick where they do business by reducing the importance of assessment areas. Banks would be able to invest outside of their assessment areas before they have met the needs within their assessment areas and still receive full credit on their CRA exams. They would also be able to completely ignore half of their assessment areas, because they only need to pass 50% of their CRA exams to receive an outstanding rating.
But that isn’t even the worst of it. With the one ratio metric, an overly simplistic measure that divides the dollar value of CRA activities by the bank’s total deposits, banks would likely favor larger loans and investments. Add in the fact that large infrastructure projects like bridges and sports stadiums in Opportunity Zones are worthy of CRA credit, and it is clear that these proposed changes do nothing short but encourage banks to reduce their lending to lower-income borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods, neighborhood-based nonprofit organizations, small business and home mortgages. Because what would you do if you had the choice between a high-dollar, high-return project or a bunch of small, low-return investments? (note – if you have a large infrastructure project planned or in the works in your community, it would be good to highlight it here and show how it could skew community investments)
Banks are literally being told by the federal regulators to turn their backs on potentially millions of people whose deposits are the foundation of the banking business. A clear descent against the intent of the law.
And if those changes weren’t bad enough, the banking regulators took it even further. The definition of affordable housing would be expanded in a manner that will not ensure bank activities are actually going to LMI people. The small business revenue threshold for CRA credit would be increased from $1 million to $2 million, and up to $10 million for family farms, diluting the emphasis on revitalizing low-income communities and lending to the smallest businesses. And small banks with assets of less than $500 million could opt out of these new exam requirements and instead keep their current CRA examinations, which do not include any community development financing requirements.
Based on the Federal Reserve’s research into the financial impact of CRA, mortgage and small business lending in some LMI neighborhoods could drop by 20% over five years. That would result in a loss of $105 billion in loans. There is a reason the Federal Reserve did not sign on to this proposal.
There is no doubt that these changes would diminish the effectiveness of a law that was desperately needed when it was enacted and which remains essential to ensure banks meet the credit needs of all communities where they take deposits, not just the wealthy ones.
The regulators violate cardinal principles of rulemaking in terms of both fulfilling their statutory responsibilities under CRA and not proposing a rule based on clear and transparent data analysis. The FDIC and OCC need to discard the notice of proposed rulemaking and instead work with the Federal Reserve Board and propose an interagency rule that will augment the progress achieved under CRA in terms of reinvesting in LMI communities, not halting or reversing this progress.
OpEd Examples:
Here is an example of a recent OpEd Jesse Van Tol did in the New York Times, and three from our members:
A Green Light for Banks to Start ‘Redlining’ Again
Bank merger calls for community benefits agreement
Your View: Law promotes homeownership in poorer Lehigh Valley neighborhoods. Why weaken it?
Keep up with the campaign to strengthen CRA.
Reforming CRA must not become a pretext for relaxing CRA.
NCRC
740 15TH STREET, SUITE 400, WASHINGTON DC 20005 | 202 628-8866
COPYRIGHT © NCRC. SOME RIGHTS RESERVED.
Position Paper on CRA Reform