#NNPA BlackPress

Brown, Senate Democrats Press Upstart, Lenders for Answers Following Reports of Higher Interest Rates for Students of Minority-Serving Institutions

NNPA NEWSWIRE — The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction. Under the statute, lenders can be liable if they treat applicants differently based on a prohibited basis, such as race or national origin. In addition, lenders can also be liable if their practices have a disproportionate impact on a protected class.

Published

6 years ago

February 28, 2020

Oakland Post

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) (Photo: Marc Nozell from Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA /Wikimedia Commons)

WASHINGTON — Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) pressed Upstart and other lenders and service providers for answers following a report from the nonprofit Student Borrower Protection Center that lenders may be charging higher interest rates to students who graduated from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

“The report found that a graduate of Howard University, an HBCU, would be charged $3,499 more over the life of five-year loan than a similarly situated graduate of New York University. Based on the racial demographics at these schools, these findings raise serious concerns that Upstart’s use of educational data may have a disparate impact on borrowers of color,” the Senators wrote.

The Senators’ letter points to past concerns from regulators about the use of educational data to make credit decisions and calls on lenders to ensure that their underwriting practices comply with fair lending laws. The Senators pressed Upstart and lenders for answers to their questions by Feb. 27.

See the full text of the letter to Upstart below and the letters to lenders HERE and service providers HERE.

Dear Mr. Girouard:

We write to express concern about a recent report that found lenders’ use of educational data to make credit determinations could have a disparate impact on borrowers of color. While we encourage lenders to innovate to improve access to credit—particularly for marginalized borrowers who have been shut out of the credit system—all lenders must ensure that their underwriting practices comply with fair lending laws.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction.^[1] Under the statute, lenders can be liable if they treat applicants differently based on a prohibited basis, such as race or national origin.^[2] In addition, lenders can also be liable if their practices have a disproportionate impact on a protected class.^[3^]

For years, regulators have raised concerns that lenders’ use of educational data to make credit decisions could result in discrimination against minority borrowers.^[4] In 2007, then New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo criticized private student lenders’ consideration of a student’s school in determining creditworthiness and described the practice as “educational redlining.”^[5] In a 2012 report, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) investigated private student lenders’ use of a “cohort default rate” (CDR)—which measures the rate at which students at a given institution default on their student loans—when determining creditworthiness.^[6] The Bureau found that the “[u]se of CDR to determine loan eligibility, underwriting, and pricing may have a disparate impact on minority students by reducing their access to credit and requiring those minority students . . . to pay higher rates than are otherwise available to similarly creditworthy non-Hispanic White students at schools with lower CDRs.”^[7] And in 2014, the FDIC brought an enforcement action against Sallie Mae Bank and Navient Solutions Inc., which found that use of CDR in their credit-scoring model for the pricing of private student loans violated ECOA.^[8]

On February 5, 2020, the Student Borrower Protection Center issued a report finding that Upstart Network Inc.’s (Upstart) use of educational data resulted in borrowers who had graduated from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) paying more in interest and fees than similarly situated borrowers who graduated from non-minority serving institutions.^[9] For example, the report found that a graduate of Howard University, an HBCU, would be charged $3,499 more over the life of five-year loan than a similarly situated graduate of New York University. Based on the racial demographics at these schools,^[10] these findings raise serious concerns that Upstart’s use of educational data may have a disparate impact on borrowers of color.

Upstart has stated that it does not consider the specific school that a student attended when determining creditworthiness.^[11] But the company has acknowledged that its underwriting model considers “groups of schools that have similar economic outcomes and educational characteristics.”^[12] In other words, Upstart appears to be assessing creditworthiness based on non-individualized factors, which the CFPB, FDIC, and New York Attorney General have found raise fair lending concerns.

So that we can better understand how Upstart has used educational data to make credit determinations, as well as how your company tests for and demonstrates compliance with fair lending laws, we request that Upstart provide responses to the following questions by February 28, 2020:

Describe how Upstart tests whether its credit determinations have a disparate impact on borrowers of a protected class under ECOA, and the results of any such testing.
Provide the following information about the use of “educational characteristics” used to determine the “groups of schools”^[13]in Upstart’s model, including:
1. Each “educational characteristic[]” considered by Upstart;
2. An explanation of how Upstart selected each characteristic;
3. An explanation of how and the extent to which the educational characteristics factor into credit determinations.
Provide the following information about the use of “economic outcomes” to determine the “groups of schools” used in Upstart’s model^[14]:
1. Each “economic outcome[]” considered by Upstart;
2. An explanation of how Upstart selected each outcome;
3. An explanation of how and the extent to which they factor into credit determinations
Provide any other relevant detail regarding how these “groups of schools” were formulated, including what metrics and cutoffs are used to determine the groups.
Provide detail on the number and characteristics of the “groups” constructed for your underwriting model, including:
1. The number of groups;
2. A list of the names or identifiers used to signify each individual group;
3. The total number of schools across all groups;
4. The number of schools in each individual group;
5. The total # of MSIs, including:
  1. The number of HBCUs;
  2. The number of HSIs;

The number of AANAPISI-serving institutions;

The number of women’s colleges; and
The proportion of existing MSIs and women’s colleges in the U.S. that are in each bucket.

Provide an explanation, supported by analysis, describing how grouping impacts credit determinations, including:
1. How each “group” is tiered with regard to credit determinations; and
2. How distributions of approval rates, financing fees, and interest rates charged to borrowers differ across “groups.”
Provide an explanation, supported by analysis, describing the impact that school grouping has on credit determinations for similarly situated borrowers across demographic groups.
Identify the sources of any data concerning the relationship between educational characteristics and economic outcomes used by your model.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Please contact Jan Singelmann, Counsel for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, at Jan_Singelmann@banking.senate.gov with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

^[1] See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1) (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, age, because all or part of an applicant’s income derives from public assistance, or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act).

^[2] 12 CFR Part 1002 Supp. I Sec. 1002.4(a)-1; 12 CFR Part 1002 Supp. I Sec. 1002.4(a)-1. “Disparate treatment” may be “overt” (when the creditor openly discriminates on a prohibited basis) or it may be found by comparing the treatment of applicants who receive different treatment for no discernable reason other than a prohibited basis. In the latter case, it is not necessary that the creditor act with any specific intent to discriminate.

^[3] See 12 C.F.R. pt. 1002, Supp. 1, § 1002.6, ¶ 6(a)-2.

^[4] In addition, according to a recent article, private student lenders that are members of the Consumer Bankers Association do not use alternative underwriting standards due to the risk of discriminating against borrowers. See https://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-advocates-worry-your-college-major-could-affect-your-ability-to-get-a-loan-2019-07-24.

^[5] See https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19loans.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. He also specifically criticized one lender that “divided colleges into groups based on how their alumni repaid federally subsidized loans . . . .” Id.

^[6] CFPB Report: Private Student Loans (Aug. 29, 2012) at 79-80, available at

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_Reports_Private-Student-Loans.pdf.

^[7] Id. at 80.

^[8] In re Sallie Mae Bank, Consent Order, No. FDIC-13-0366b, FDIC-13-0367k (filed May 13, 2014), available at https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2014/salliemae.pdf.

^[9] https://protectborrowers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Education-Redlining-Report.pdf.

^[10] According to the Student Borrower Protection Center data from the U.S. Department of Education, 89 percent of students at Howard University are African American, while African Americans and Latinos the comprise less than 20 percent of the students at NYU. See https://protectborrowers.org/new-report-finds-educational-redlining-penalizes-borrowers-who-attended-community-colleges-and-minority-serving-institutions-perpetuates-systemic-disparities/.

^[11] See https://www.upstart.com/blog/upstarts-commitment-to-fair-lending.

^[12] Id.

^[13] See supra n. 11.

^[14] Id.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

OP-ED: Why “green buildings” are a civil rights issue

Don't Miss

Congress Passes Historic Anti-Lynching Legislation

Oakland Post

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

LIHEAP Funds Released After Weeks of Delay as States and the District Rush to Protect Households from the Cold

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The federal government has released $3.6 billion in home heating assistance after a delay that left states preparing for the start of winter without the program’s annual funding.

Published

1 week ago

December 1, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

The federal government has released $3.6 billion in home heating assistance after a delay that left states preparing for the start of winter without the program’s annual funding. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, helps eligible households pay heating and cooling bills. The release follows a shutdown that stretched 43 days and pushed agencies across the country to warn families of possible disruptions.

State officials in Minnesota, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania had already issued alerts that the delay could slow the processing of applications or force families to wait until December for help. In Pennsylvania, more than 300,000 households depend on the program each year. Minnesota officials noted that older adults, young children, and people with disabilities face the highest risk as temperatures fall.

The delay also raised concerns among advocates who track household debt tied to rising utility costs. National Energy Assistance Directors Association Executive Director Mark Wolfe said the funds were “essential and long overdue” and added that high arrearages and increased energy prices have strained families seeking help.

Some states faced additional pressure when other services were affected by the shutdown. According to data reviewed by national energy advocates, roughly 68 percent of LIHEAP households also receive nutrition assistance, and the freeze in multiple programs increased the financial burden on low-income residents. Wolfe said families were placed in “an even more precarious situation than usual” as the shutdown stretched into November.

In Maryland, lawmakers urged the Trump administration to release funds after the state recorded its first cold-related death of the season. The Maryland Department of Health reported that a man in his 30s was found outdoors in Frederick County when temperatures dropped. Last winter, the state documented 75 cold-related deaths, the highest number in five years. Rep Kweisi Mfume joined more than 100 House members calling for immediate federal action and said LIHEAP “is not a luxury” for the 100,000 Maryland households that rely on it. He added that seniors and veterans would be placed at risk if the program remained stalled.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore used $10.1 million in state funds to keep benefits moving, but noted that states cannot routinely replace federal dollars. His administration said families that rely on medical equipment requiring electricity are particularly vulnerable.

The District of Columbia has already mapped out its FY26 LIHEAP structure in documents filed with the federal government. The District’s plan shows that heating assistance, cooling assistance, weatherization, and year-round crisis assistance operate from October 1 through September 30. The District allocates 50 percent of its LIHEAP funds to heating assistance, 10 percent to cooling, 13 percent to year-round crisis assistance, 15 percent to weatherization, and 10 percent to administrative costs. Two percent is used for services that help residents reduce energy needs, including education on reading utility bills and identifying energy waste.

The District’s plan lists a minimum LIHEAP benefit of $200 and a maximum of $1,800 for both heating and cooling assistance. Crisis benefits are provided separately and may reach up to $500 when needed to resolve an emergency. The plan states that a household is considered in crisis if it has been disconnected from energy service, if heating oil is at 5 percent or less of capacity, or if the household has at least $200 owed after the regular benefit is applied.

The District’s filing notes that LIHEAP staff conduct outreach through community meetings, senior housing sites, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, social media, posters, and mass mailings. The plan confirms that LIHEAP applicants can apply in person, by mail, by email, or through a mobile-friendly online application and that physically disabled residents may request in-home visits.

As agencies nationwide begin distributing the newly released funds, states continue working through large volumes of applications. Wolfe said LIHEAP administrators “have been notified that the award letters have gone out and the states can begin to draw down the funds.”

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

Seven Steps to Help Your Child Build Meaningful Connections

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Swinging side by side with a friend on the playground. Sharing chalk over bright, colorful sidewalk drawings. Hiding behind a tree during a spirited game of hide-and-seek. These simple moments between children may seem small, but they matter more than we think

Published

1 week ago

December 1, 2025

Oakland Post

By Niyoka McCoy, Ed.D., Chief Learning Officer, Stride/K12

Swinging side by side with a friend on the playground. Sharing chalk over bright, colorful sidewalk drawings. Hiding behind a tree during a spirited game of hide-and-seek. These simple moments between children may seem small, but they matter more than we think: They lay the foundation for some of life’s most important skills.

Through everyday play, young children begin learning essential social and emotional skills like sharing, resolving conflicts, showing empathy, and managing their emotions. These social skills help shape emotional growth and set kids up for long-term success. Socialization in early childhood isn’t just a “nice-to-have”—it’s essential for development.

Yet today, many young children who haven’t yet started school aren’t getting enough consistent, meaningful interaction with peers. Research shows that there’s a decline in active free play and peer socialization when compared to previous generations.

There are many reasons for this. Children who are home with a parent during the day may spend most of their time with adults, limiting opportunities for peer play. Those in daycare or preschool may have restricted free play, and large classrooms can reduce supervision and social coaching. Some children live in rural areas, are homebound due to illness, have full schedules, or rely on screens to fill their playtime. And for some families, finding other families with young children to connect with isn’t easy.

While these challenges can feel significant, opportunities for connection still exist in every community. Families can take simple steps to help children build friendships, create a sense of belonging, and strengthen social skills. Here are some ideas to get started:

Storytime sessions at libraries or local bookstores
Community offerings such as parent-child workshops, art, music, gymnastics, swimming, or sports programs
Weekly events at children’s museums, which may include art projects, music workshops, or science experiments
Outdoor exploration, where kids can play with peers
Local parenting groups that organize playdates and group activities
Volunteer opportunities where children can participate, such as pet adoption events or packing meals at a food bank
Classes for kids at local businesses, including hardware, grocery, or craft stores

Some of these community activities are free or low-cost and give kids the chance to build friendships and practice social skills. Parents can also model positive social behavior by interacting with other parents and encouraging their children to play with their peers.

These may seem like small moments of connection, but they can have a powerful impact. Every time your child shares a toy, plays make-believe with peers, or races a friend down the slide, they’re not just playing—they’re learning the skills that build confidence, empathy, and lasting friendships. And it’s good for you, too. Creating intentional opportunities for play also helps you strengthen your own network of parents who can support one another as your children grow together.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Seven Steps to Help Your Child Build Meaningful Connections

Published

1 week ago

December 1, 2025

Oakland Post

By Niyoka McCoy, Ed.D., Chief Learning Officer, Stride/K12

Storytime sessions at libraries or local bookstores
Community offerings such as parent-child workshops, art, music, gymnastics, swimming, or sports programs
Weekly events at children’s museums, which may include art projects, music workshops, or science experiments
Outdoor exploration, where kids can play with peers
Local parenting groups that organize playdates and group activities
Volunteer opportunities where children can participate, such as pet adoption events or packing meals at a food bank
Classes for kids at local businesses, including hardware, grocery, or craft stores