CDFI Fund Institution Level Data and CDFI Asset Size in the Southeast
CDFI Fund Institution Level Data and CDFI Asset Size in the Southeast
In addition to the insights yielded by CDFI Fund transaction level data, institution level data give key information about CDFI total asset size that can be used to assess the full portfolio of CDFI assets available in a state. Furthermore, these data can be combined with U.S. Census Bureau data on state total population and population below the poverty line to create a rough proxy for unmet need at the state level. A similar estimation of estimated CDFI total assets per capita was conducted using 2010 census data in Community Scope Volume 1 Issue 1 from the Richmond Fed entitled “CDFIs in the Southeast."
The calculations of estimated CDFI assets per capita and estimated CDFI assets per person in poverty contained in Table 5 use data from 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 to mitigate one-year anomalies in the data and to give a more representative picture of CDFI assets within Southeast states.
Conclusion
A majority of the CDFIs represented in the 2015 survey sample do not provide products and services in markets nationwide, but instead focus their efforts on states and localities. Of those operating at the state and local level, most provide services across one state or multiple counties. CDFIs that serve multiple states or a single state have larger total assets and loan funds, on average, than those that operate at a local level. High risk loans and leases compose approximately 3 percent of state and local CDFI portfolios, on average. Within the Southeast, we observe patterns of geographic scope among CDFIs at the county level, including a high number of state CDFIs in Virginia and a high number of local CDFIs in Louisiana. Future research efforts may explore these variations to determine if there are state- or locality-specific factors that help determine geographic scale for CDFI operations, and may also look into the factors that influence CDFI activity across state borders.
Very broadly, our analysis of the survey responses indicates that a full range of financial products and services are provided to all target markets in the Southeast, even if this provision is limited to the work of one or two CDFIs. This conclusion is tempered by data from the CDFI Fund, which suggest that from 2009 to 2014, approximately one quarter of Southeast counties did not receive CDFI investment. While some of this discrepancy can be explained by differences in the two data sources, it also suggests that productive future research efforts may explore the geographic reach of non-lending activities, analyze CDFI branch location activity and examine the availability of specific credit products in more detail. Such efforts could also incorporate a broader range of specialized products and services demanded by more diverse markets to identify potential emerging needs.
The results of the 2015 survey do not suggest that LMI, distressed and/or underserved counties necessarily attract higher levels of CDFI activity. While CDFIs are directing higher percentages of their loan funds to distressed and underserved markets, this is not tied to an increased likelihood that counties with these characteristics will have higher levels of CDFI investment because CDFIs also invest in high needs urban markets. Respondent CDFIs were more likely to headquarter in urban counties than rural counties, but still included distressed and underserved counties in their service areas. Additional research may delve into the ways in which having a physical presence outside a distressed and/or underserved county impacts service provision to that county.