Improving Access to Financial Coaching Act of 2026
Introduced April 20, 2026 · Last action April 20, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill directs the U.S. Treasury Department to establish a federal grant program providing up to $100 million over three years (fiscal 2026–2028) to nonprofits, community development financial institutions, and minority-owned banks to offer financial coaching services to low-income and moderate-income households. The bill also authorizes the Treasury to develop standardized certification practices for financial coaches and the organizations that employ them.
Who benefits
Nonprofit organizations and community-based groups providing financial coaching (targeted grantees); community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and minority-owned banks eligible to receive grants; low- and moderate-income households earning at or below 120% of area median income in eligible census tracts; racial and ethnic minority populations in majority-minority census tracts; rural communities; non-English-speaking consumers in high-need areas; financial coaching practitioners and organizations seeking professional credentialing standards
Who pays / loses
U.S. Treasury budget account holders who fund the $100 million appropriation; taxpayers who provide the funding; competing grant applicants or organizations not meeting eligibility criteria; financial services industry competitors who do not hold CDFI or minority depository institution status; for-profit financial services providers not eligible to receive grants
Fiscal note: $100,000,000 authorized for appropriation for fiscal years 2026 through 2028, allocated as 55% ($55 million) for direct grant purposes and 45% ($45 million) for subgrants and technical assistance
Funding & Lobbying Interests
The bill's financial interests include nonprofits and community development financial institutions that traditionally receive federal grant funding for consumer financial services; minority depository institutions (banks owned by minorities or serving minority communities); organizations in the financial coaching and financial capability sectors that have advocated for federal support and standardization of practitioner credentials; consumer advocacy and community development organizations that lobby for low-income financial services access. The bill's sponsors (Garcia, Norton, Carson, Titus, Green, Tlaib) represent districts with significant low-income and minority populations, suggesting alignment with constituency interests in accessible financial services rather than a concentrated corporate financial interest.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Low- and moderate-income households earning at or below 120% of area median income in designated service areas (estimated 40–50 million Americans in poverty and near-poverty based on Census Bureau data); residents of census tracts designated as economically disadvantaged or majority-minority; rural populations in non-metropolitan areas; non-English-speaking immigrants and limited-English-proficiency populations; minority communities historically underserved by traditional financial institutions; nonprofit and CDFI sector employees and organizational leaders in approximately 50 states and territories eligible to apply for grants
Political Subtext
Proponents argue financial coaching reduces debt, builds savings, improves credit scores, and increases economic mobility for vulnerable populations, citing evidence from nonprofit programs and pilot studies. They contend nonprofits and CDFIs deliver culturally competent, trusted services that for-profit providers do not prioritize, and that standardized credentialing will professionalize the field and improve quality. Critics argue the bill creates a new federal spending program without clear return on investment metrics, that nonprofits already receive substantial grant funding from foundations and government, and that scaling financial coaching nationally may duplicate existing initiatives by nonprofit credit counseling agencies certified under HUD. Non-partisan research (from CFPB, Federal Reserve, and academic studies) confirms financial coaching improves financial behaviors and outcomes for low-income participants, though effect sizes vary and long-term sustainability depends on follow-up support.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, $100 million in federal grants would flow to approximately 50–200 nonprofits and CDFIs nationwide over three years, likely expanding financial coaching capacity in underserved census tracts and rural areas by 30–50%. Precedent: The CFPB's 2015 Financial Well-Being Survey and pilot studies (e.g., University of Wisconsin's GET program) documented that one-on-one financial coaching improves credit scores by 30–50 points and increases savings by 10–20% annually for participants earning under 200% of federal poverty line. However, nonprofit financial counseling (similar to proposed coaching) has faced challenges in sustaining outcomes post-intervention: National Foundation for Credit Counseling data shows client debt reduction plateaus 12–24 months after counseling ends without ongoing support. The bill does not specify performance metrics, outcome tracking, or longitudinal evaluation requirements, creating risk that federal funds may be deployed without accountability for results. States with existing financial capability initiatives (e.g., California's CalFresh Employment and Training, New York's financial coaching in safety-net programs) have shown coaching works best when paired with income support or employment services; the bill does not mandate such integration.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.