The growth of Native CDFIs with Miriam Jorgensen

There was a time not long ago when capital simply did not move in Indian Country.

Banks didn’t lend. Investment dollars rarely reached tribal communities. The barriers weren’t a lack of ideas or opportunity — they were structural.

In 2001, the Native American Lending Study put those barriers into writing, identifying 17 distinct obstacles to capital access. Fifteen years later, a second study asked a harder question: What had actually changed?

In Episode 2 of Difference Makers 3.0, researcher Miriam Jorgensen, a senior scholar at the Native Nations Institute, traces how Native CDFIs grew from roughly 10 certified institutions in the early 2000s to nearly 70 by 2016 — and why that growth was deliberate, costly and anything but automatic.

Jorgensen helped author the 2016 follow-up report and joined co-hosts Brian Edwards and Pete Upton to examine what drove expansion, what slowed it, and what comes next. Here are highlights from the conversation.

On the impact of the 2001 Native American Lending Study:
“It had a list of 17 barriers to access to capital and credit in Indian Country that ranged from legal barriers to institutional and governmental barriers, to economic and financial barriers to educational barriers. If you don’t have the financial capital to get things going, it’s really hard to get things going.”

On the growth of Native CDFIs between 2001 and 2016:
“There were something like 10 Native CDFIs at the founding of the Native Initiatives Program. By 2015 or 2016, we had around 70. That is a remarkable amount of growth within the sector.”

On why growth required patience and training:
“You might not start lending right away. You might not even start lending for five or six years. There was a lot of hand holding to say your experience might be slow. It might happen in fits and starts.”

On whether the field has stagnated:
“I’m not sure I’d call it stagnation of growth. I think maybe we’re in a holding and growth getting ready for a growth pattern, as opposed to a stagnation point.”

On the role of tribal government investment:
“Native CDFIs that received injections of capital from their tribal governments were up and running faster than those that did not. It’s about seeing a joint future — that the tribal government and the Native CDFI grow together.”

On separating business from politics:
“Having a CDFI that’s organized separate from the tribal government has advantages. It shouldn’t be caught up in the political cycle. Broad strategy can be set at the political level — but who gets the money and how it’s run, that’s for the CDFI.”

On the future if the CDFI Fund were reduced or eliminated:
“We’re not going to see Native community development finance institutions go away. We’ll see sector change and evolution, but not sector death.”

On the next phase of Native finance:
“Native CDFIs are critical because they understand the unique capital stacks that can be created. We need players like the Native CDFIs who know how to put those things together, who know Indian Country and Native communities, and who have made it their job to know the different players and connect the players.”

Visit Difference Makers 3.0 to listen to the full episode and subscribe on your favorite podcast platform.