The Promise of Democracy Must Include Power | Statement on the Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Voting Rights

Our Statement on the Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Voting Rights

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act is disappointing, but not surprising. And as history shows, these decisions consistently and disproportionately shape the realities of the South.

In 1980, one of the earliest challenges to the Voting Rights Act emerged from Alabama in Mobile vs. Bolden, where Black residents petitioned for their voices to count through their vote in a city that was one-third Black, yet had no Black representation. A 6-3 Court opinion held: “The [15th] Amendment does not entail the right to have Negro candidates elected, but prohibits only purposefully discriminatory denial or abridgment by government of the freedom to vote ‘on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’”

In his dissent, Thurgood Marshall warned of the implications: “A plurality of the Court concludes that, in the absence of proof of intentional discrimination by the State, the right to vote provides the politically powerless with nothing more than the right to cast meaningless ballots.”

Taken together, the message was clear: the right to representation of our cultures is not enshrined in the Constitution. We are free to participate in democracy, but participation does not guarantee outcomes, equity, or an equal share of power.

And now, in 2026, amid continued challenges to race-based equity practices, the majority opinion again asserts (as it did in 2013 in Shelby vs Holder):

“(V)ast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South… As this Court has recognized, ‘things have changed dramatically’ in the decades since the passage of the Voting Rights Act.”

But the lived reality tells a more complicated story. Change has not been nearly as drastic —or as Just — as suggested, and the trajectory for Black communities in the South remains precarious. 

This moment demands action. We must actively engage in defending and preserving democratic principles, particularly fighting for voting rights amidst challenges to the democratic process. We must organize locally, support civic infrastructure, and hold institutions accountable. The promise of democracy must be more than unrepresented participation, it must include power.

The FY2027 Budget Request: A Blueprint for Widening the Racial Wealth Divide

By Alex Camardelle, Ph.D.

In April 2026, the White House released its fiscal year 2027 budget request, a document that doubles down on the fiscal trajectory set by the Working Families Tax Cut Act signed into law on July 4, 2025. While the budget’s authors frame it as a plan to “right our fiscal ship,” a close reading reveals something far more consequential: a systematic dismantling of the federal programs, agencies, and employment pathways that Black families and families of color have relied upon to build economic stability for generations. For advocates working to close the racial wealth divide, this budget proposal is a policy roadmap that, if enacted, would accelerate wealth extraction from the communities least positioned to absorb it.

The Starting Line Is Already Unequal

Any honest assessment of this budget must begin with the baseline reality it ignores. White households hold over 83 percent of total national wealth in the United States, despite representing 68 percent of the population. Black and Hispanic households each hold a fraction of that share. These disparities are the compounding result of decades of policy choices around housing, education, employment, and the social safety net.

The FY2027 budget does not acknowledge this context. It does not contain a single analysis of how its proposals would affect communities across racial or economic lines. Instead, it treats equity-focused programming as inherently wasteful, systematically targeting for elimination the very agencies and initiatives designed to address structural disparities.

Gutting the Safety Net: Medicaid and SNAP

The budget builds on the Working Families Tax Cut Act (also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”), which slashed an estimated $1 trillion from Medicaid and hundreds of billions from SNAP over the next decade. Beginning in 2027, Medicaid expansion beneficiaries face new work requirements mandating at least 20 hours per week of work, school, or community engagement. Congressional Budget Office estimates project that millions of people stand to lose health coverage, while millions more could lose some or all of their food assistance as a result of new eligibility restrictions.

These cuts land hardest on communities of color. Workers of color are overrepresented among low-income households due to structural inequities in wages and employment access. In 2023, more than one in five Black households (23.3%) and Hispanic households (21.9%) experienced food insecurity, more than double the rate of white households (9.9%). Approximately 25 percent of Black Americans receive SNAP benefits, and about 46 percent of all SNAP recipients are people of color. Each dollar cut from these programs is a dollar that would have otherwise freed family resources for savings, education, or the down payment on a first home.

The budget also proposes eliminating the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the $775 million Community Services Block Grant, both of which disproportionately serve Black and Latino households. These are not abstractions. They are the programs that keep the heat on in winter and connect families to job training and financial literacy services.

Dismantling Pathways to Black Middle-Class Stability

Federal employment has long served as one of the most reliable engines of Black economic mobility in America. Black workers represent 18.7 percent of the federal workforce, significantly above their 13 percent share of the general population. In states across the South, the numbers are even more striking: Black workers make up 43.8 percent of federal employees in Georgia, 37.6 percent in Louisiana, and 34.8 percent in Mississippi.

Housing: Pulling the Ladder Up

Housing is the primary vehicle through which American families build wealth, and the homeownership divide remains one of the starkest markers of racial inequality. Roughly 74 percent of white households own their homes compared to about 45 percent of Black households. Rather than addressing this divide, the FY2027 budget proposes to widen it.

The budget cuts HUD by 13 percent, a $10.7 billion reduction, and proposes eliminating some of the department’s most consequential programs. The Community Development Block Grant, a $3.3 billion program that has funded affordable housing and community infrastructure in underserved neighborhoods for decades, is proposed for elimination. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which provides $1.3 billion for affordable housing construction and rehabilitation, is slated for termination. The budget also eliminates Pathways to Removing Obstacles (PRO) Housing grants, the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, and Native American housing programs.

The budget frames these cuts as eliminating “woke” spending. But what it labels ideological are programs that cities have used to address displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods, invest in energy-efficient affordable housing, and connect historically marginalized communities with stable shelter. The elimination of CDBG alone would remove a critical funding stream for economic development in majority-Black and majority-Latino census tracts nationwide.

Targeting Equity Infrastructure by Name

Perhaps the most revealing feature of this budget is what it eliminates by name. The Minority Business Development Agency, the only federal agency dedicated to the growth of minority-owned businesses, is proposed for termination with a $47 million cut. The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH is slated for elimination. Minority-Serving Institution programs at the Department of Education face a $354 million cut. The Digital Equity program, a $2.2 billion initiative to close the digital divide in communities of color, has been cancelled.

The budget does not merely cut equity programs. It characterizes their core missions as unconstitutional, discriminatory, or fraudulent. This framing matters because it does not just defund current initiatives; it delegitimizes the very premise that the federal government has a role in addressing racial economic disparities. It sends a clear signal that future administrations would need to rebuild not just funding levels but the legal and political justification for equity-oriented policy itself.

Who Benefits? Follow the Money

While these cuts strip resources from low-income families and communities of color, the budget’s fiscal posture reflects the tax architecture of the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which delivered an estimated $1 trillion in tax reductions overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthiest one percent of households and corporations. The contrast is stark: a budget that finds hundreds of billions in savings by cutting food assistance for hungry families while extending tax provisions that primarily benefit households with seven-figure incomes.

The racial dimension of this tradeoff is impossible to ignore. Nine out of ten households with wealth above the estate tax threshold are white. The families gaining the most from the WFTCA’s tax provisions are overwhelmingly white and already wealthy. The families losing the most from its spending cuts are disproportionately Black, Latino, and Indigenous. This is not a budget that asks everyone to sacrifice equally. It is a transfer of resources from those who have the least to those who have the most, superimposed on an already vast racial wealth divide.

A Call to Action for Advocates

For policy advocates, the FY2027 budget is a clarifying document. It makes explicit what the past year of executive action has implied: that this administration views racial equity programming not as a policy priority but as a policy problem to be solved through elimination.

The response must be equally clear. Advocates should push Congress to reject the proposed eliminations of CDBG, HOME, MBDA, and LIHEAP. State-level coalitions should prepare contingency plans for the millions who will lose Medicaid and SNAP coverage under the new work requirements. Legal organizations should challenge the constitutional arguments being used to dismantle Minority-Serving Institution funding. And every organization working on the racial wealth divide should be communicating to the public, in concrete terms, what these budget numbers mean for real families.

The racial wealth divide did not emerge by accident, and it will not close through indifference. If this budget moves forward as written, the distance between Black and white wealth in America will not merely persist. It will grow.

The only thing of note that I would reconsider through the text is contained here – the notion that this administration should utilize a racialized context when building out their policy agenda.

All For One and One For All

By Janelle Williams, Ph.D.

Earlier this month, I had the honor of speaking to a room teeming with women leaders – journalists, C-suite members, educators, physicians, nonprofit executives and entrepreneurs – in Savannah during the Greater Savannah Black Chamber of Commerce’s EmpowHer Voices of Influence 2026.

It wasn’t just a gathering in celebration of Women’s History Month, though we all appreciate occasions that lift up the contributions of women to events in history and contemporary society. This beautiful moment felt like more. Being surrounded by the generations of leadership in the room was the embodiment of the spirit of resilience that is Black women’s lineage. Women who have raised families while building careers. Women who have mentored girls while leading organizations. Women who have held communities together while navigating systems that were never built with us in mind. It was an affirmation of purpose and impact that we all need so much right now as we are still leading, still building and still rising even while Black women are facing disproportionate job losses.

It’s no secret that Black women faced the steepest losses – a purging from the labor market described by The Economic Policy Institute as “one of the sharpest one-year declines in the last 25 years.”

More than 350,000 Black women were pushed out of the labor market, and the employment-to-population ratio dropped to 55.7 percent. By the end of the year there were 113,000 fewer jobs held by Black women, and tens of thousands left the workforce entirely. These statistics are not hard to find. What’s missing from the discourse, however, is that when Black women experience economic displacement, the ripple effects are not isolated. 

Because Black women are disproportionately breadwinners, when we lose economic ground—entire households feel the impact. Entire communities feel the impact. 

And so, resilience has never been optional for us. But here is what I find extraordinary and reassuring about Black women. When systems close doors, we do not simply disappear. We adapt. We organize. We build. 

In fact, what I often describe as the resilient rebellion of Black women is happening all across this country. Despite facing the highest barriers to capital, Black women are the fastest-growing group of entrepreneurs in America. Despite systemic inequities in education and income, Black women are among the most educated groups in this nation, pursuing college and advanced degrees at remarkable rates. And despite political systems that historically marginalized our voices, Black women remain among the most powerful civic leaders in this country—organizing communities, mentoring young people, and shaping our democracy. 

That is not just resilience. That is leadership. That is power. And none of it happens alone because one of the greatest strengths of Black women’s leadership is community. 

In my life, I am part of a circle of women we call the Council. 

There are no bylaws. No formal titles. No official meetings. But what we have is sacred. We hold each other accountable; we root fiercely for each other and challenge each other to live fully into our purpose. And we have collectively rejected something society often encourages among women. We reject “pick-me” attitudes. The idea that there is only room for one woman at the table. The idea that success requires separating yourself from other women. In our circle, we reject that completely. 

Because we understand something deeply rooted in Black women’s history. There has never been just one seat at the table. 

 

Images, Shots by Somi

Why We Can’t Wait: How Southern Legislatures Are Shaping Economic Security in 2026

By Joseph-Emery Kouaho, Ph.D.

In January, Kindred Futures published a legislative playbook, “Now Is The Time,” comprising a set of policy initiatives aimed at institutionalizing wealth creating mechanisms for families who have been systemically excluded from accessing wealth-building tools. The policy priorities were informed by Kindred Futures’ R3 Framework,1 (Repair, Resilience, and Revenue) and were crafted to spark policy movement at the municipal and state levels.2  

With a quarter of the year gone, and state legislative sessions underway, we provide a synopsis of the legislation we have been monitoring across the Southern legislatures that are currently in session.3 Across the Southern states we’re tracking—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Mississippi—several clear legislative battle lines emerge. The major policy fights center on expanding or constraining pathways to economic security, particularly for Black households. States are advancing competing approaches to housing affordability and land ownership, including community land trusts, land banks, rent stabilization authority, and protections for heirs’ property. At the same time, lawmakers are grappling with how to regulate the rapid growth of data centers and high‑demand industries to prevent residential customers from subsidizing industrial energy costs and to strengthen environmental and infrastructure oversight.  

Several states are also pushing significant reforms on medical debt relief and healthcare access, including limits on interest, curbs on predatory debt collection, and proposals for more expansive public healthcare systems. Additional battles involve worker and family economic supports, such as paid leave and minimum wage proposals, contrasted with efforts to restrict safety‑net access through tightened eligibility rules for programs like SNAP. Finally, states are debating tax restructuring, including proposals to eliminate income tax, which would shift revenue burdens and have broad implications for equity. Taken together, these themes illustrate a South in which legislatures are actively shaping the economic conditions that determine whether families can build and sustain wealth. 

The bills we highlight include relevant information pertaining to the following: where it was introduced, the issue(s) addressed, the latest action, and Kindred’s position on how they impact the opportunities to build Black wealth for the two million households across the South that have zero or negative net worth.4 

ALABAMA 

The Alabama state legislative session convenes from January 13th to April 27th, 2026, in Montgomery, Ala. Currently, the Republican party holds a majority in both the House and Senate, with 76 (Republicans) to 29 (Democrats) in the House of Representatives, and 27 (Republicans) to 8 (Democrats) in the Senate.5 Table 1 outlines the key proposals that we have been monitoring. 

Table 1: Alabama Proposals 

Bill Number   Bill Summary   Latest Action   Latest Action Date  
AL HB 402   This bill creates local land bank authorities; shortens tax sale redemption period; restrictions on geographic scope; creation of multijurisdictional land banks by agreement; Governor’s emergency authorization to create land bank. The bill aims to help communities more efficiently acquire, manage, and redevelop tax-delinquent and blighted properties.  Read for the First Time and Referred to The House Committee on Fiscal Responsibility   02/05/2026 
AL HB 404  This bill authorizes Class 1 municipalities in Alabama (the state’s largest cities, essentially Birmingham) to create nonprofit community land trusts (CLTs) aimed at providing long-term affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families.  Heard in the County and Municipal Government Standing Meeting   02/25/2026 
AL HB 501  
This bill authorizes the City of Prichard to create self-help business improvement districts where businesses can collectively fund local improvements and services through special assessments (up to 4% of gross revenue). Formation requires 60% business owner support, City Council approval, and public hearings. Districts are managed by business owners’ associations and can operate for up to 10 years, with provisions for renewal, modification, and dissolution. 		 Read for the First Time and Referred to the House Committee on Mobile County Legislation  02/24/2026 
AL SB 270 
The bill is a consumer protection measure aimed at ensuring that the growing demand from large data centers (likely driven by AI and cloud computing expansion) does not shift costs onto ordinary ratepayers, and that such contracts deliver tangible benefits to the broader customer base 		 Hearing scheduled in the Transportation, Utilities, and Infrastructure Standing Meeting   03/17/2026 

Source: Plural 

FLORIDA 

The Florida legislative session convenes from January 13th to March 13th, 2026, in Tallahassee, Fla. Republicans hold a majority both in the House of Representatives (84 Republicans to 33 Democrats) and the Senate (27 Republicans to 11 Democrats).6 Table 2 provides a synopsis of key legislative proposals.  

Table 2: Florida Proposals 

Bill Number   Bill Summary   Latest Action  Latest Action Date 
FL HB 675  This bill strengthens affordable housing requirements by ensuring incentives are used for construction, extending affordability commitments, tightening eligibility criteria, and providing tax relief to first-time homebuyers.  In Ways and Means Committee   2/2/2026 
FL HB 1271 
This bill strengthens affordable housing requirements by ensuring incentives are used for construction, extending affordability commitments, tightening eligibility criteria, and providing tax relief to first-time homebuyers. 		 In Insurance and Banking subcommittee   01/15/2026 
FL HB 1489 
This bill, titled the “Healthy Florida Act,” proposes two major healthcare reforms; creates comprehensive protections for patients dealing with medical debt from large healthcare facilities; and creates a comprehensive state-run universal healthcare system. 		 Now in Healthcare Facilities and Systems Subcommittee   01/15/2026 
FL SB 484 

 

The bill aims to increase transparency, ensure data centers bear their full infrastructure costs, protect against foreign control, preserve local government authority, and safeguard water resources. 

 Passed, third reading house  03/11/2026 
FL SB 1222  Medical Debt; Defining the terms “medical debt collector” and “medical debt creditor”; prohibiting medical debt creditors and medical debt collectors from engaging in specified activities to collect medical debt; specifying limitations on the amount of interest a debtor may be charged for medical debt; providing that certain debtors may not be charged any interest or late fees on their medical debt, etc.  Introduced  1/13/2026 

Source: Plural 

GEORGIA

The Georgia legislative session convenes from January 12th to April 6th, 2026, in Atlanta Ga. The Republican party in Georgia holds a majority of seats in both the House of Representatives (99 Republicans to 79 Democrats) and the Senate (32 Republicans to 23 democrats7Table 3 summarizes some key legislative proposals in Geogia.  

Table 3: Georgia Proposals 

Bill Number       Bill Summary   Latest Action  Latest Action Date  
GA SB 410  This bill protects residential electricity customers from costs associated with serving large industrial customers (100+ megawatts) by requiring utilities to include cost-recovery provisions in contracts, while simultaneously eliminating tax breaks for new high-tech and data center equipment purchases (though existing exemptions are preserved). 

Passed Senate (03/06/2026)  

Now with House Second Readers 

 03/10/2026 
GA SB 463 
This bill proposes to restrict corporate ownership of single-family residential properties in Georgia through ownership limits, foreign investment prohibitions, and tax penalties. 

Passed Senate (03/03/2026) 

Now with House Second Readers 

 03/06/2026 
GA HB 947 

 

This bill significantly tightens SNAP eligibility requirements, verification processes, and work requirements in Georgia, while expanding fraud investigation capabilities and limiting state flexibility to provide broader eligibility than federal minimums require. 

Passed House (03/06/2026) 

Senate Read and Referred  

 03/09/2026 
GA HB 1063  This bill requires electric utilities in Georgia to include specific protective contract terms when serving large data centers (100+ megawatts) to ensure that residential and retail electricity customers do not subsidize the costs of data center construction and operation. The provisions apply only to future contracts and are enforced by the state Public Service Commission. 

Passed House (02/17/2026) 

Now Senate read and referred  

 02/18/2026 
GA HB 1118 
This bill proposes to establish paid maternal birth leave for certain Georgia state and local education agency employees. 

Passed House (03/04/2026) 

Now Senate Read and Referred  

 03/06/2026 
GA HB 61  This bill dramatically accelerates the removal of unauthorized occupants from property by creating expedited administrative and law enforcement procedures that bypass traditional court eviction processes, while adding significant criminal penalties for squatting-related fraud.  Senate committee favorably reported by substitute   02/03/2026 
GA HB 295 
This bill would provide procedures for real property owners to make claims for compensation from local governments for loss of property value or expenses incurred due to the local government’s failure to comply with or nonenforcement of certain laws, ordinances, and resolutions or due to the local government maintaining a public nuisance; and for other purposes. 		 Passed House (03/04/2026).  Senate Read and Referred (03/06/2026) 
GA SB 476 

 

This bill modifies Georgia’s tax code by establishing flat rates, dramatically increasing standard deductions, eliminating most tax credits and exemptions, while broadening the tax base and reducing complexity. 

 Passed Senate (02/12/2026)  House Second Readers (02/18/2026) 
GA SB 477  This bill significantly accelerates and deepens tax cuts for Georgia taxpayers, reducing individual rates faster than previously planned, establishing fixed corporate/partnership rates, doubling the standard deduction increase, and making it easier to implement these cuts by lowering revenue growth requirements. 

Passed Senate (02/12/2026) 

Now with House Second Readers  

 02/18/2026 
GA HB 689  The bill creates a third category of assistance under Georgia’s housing trust fund, focusing on preventing homelessness through emergency rental assistance, legal services, and eviction diversion rather than only providing housing after homelessness occurs.  Passed House (02/25/2026)  Senate Read and Referred (02/26/2026) 
HB 1132  This is a targeted tax incentive to encourage charitable organizations to build affordable housing for low-to-moderate income first-time homebuyers.  Passed House (03/06/2026)  Senate Read and Referred (03/09/2026) 

Source: Plural 

LOUISIANA 

The Louisiana legislative session convenes from March 9th to June 1st, 2026, in Baton Rouge, La. Republicans hold a majority both in the House of Representatives (80 Republicans to 19 Democrats) and the Senate (28 Republicans to 6 Democrats).8 Table 4highlights important legislation proposed in Louisiana. 

Table 4: Louisiana Proposals 

Bill Number  Bill Summary  Latest Action  Latest Action Date  
LA HB 209  This bill proposes to establish a state minimum wage with scheduled increases and enforcement mechanisms.  Pre-filed  02/19/2026 
LA HB 472 

 

This bill grants Louisiana municipalities and parishes the legal authority to implement rent control/stabilization policies. Specifically, it allows local governing bodies to adopt rent stabilization ordinances by majority vote, where such authority may not have previously existed under state law. This represents a delegation of power from the state to local governments on housing policy matters. 

 Pre-filed   02/26/2026 
LA HB 478  This bill mandates prompt, full reimbursement of any utility overcharges with specific timelines and labeling requirements, providing consumer protection against billing errors by regulated utility companies in Louisiana.  Pre-filed  02/26/2026 

Source: Plural 

TENNESSEE 

The Tennessee legislative session convenes from January 13th to April 24th, 2026, in Nashville, Tenn. Republicans hold a majority both in the House of Representatives (75 Republicans to 24 Democrats) and the Senate (27 Republicans to 6 Democrats).9 Table 5 highlights key proposals moving through the Tennessee legislature.  

Table 5: Tennessee Proposals 

Bill Number  Bill Summary  Latest Action  Latest Action Date  
TN SB 398  This bill grants eligible state employees mandatory paid leave for fostering a minor child.  Placed on Senate regular calendar   03/09/2026 
TN HB 2392 
This bill prohibits a person from operating a data center without first being issued a permit by the water and wastewater operator board of certification (“board”). This bill grants the board oversight in compliance with the permits and the ability to enforce compliance. 		 Placed on calendar for the Agriculture & Natural Resources Subcommittee   03/11/2026 
TN SB 2410 

 

This bill establishes the community workforce housing innovation pilot program to be administered by the Tennessee housing development agency; authorizes the agency to provide loans to an applicant for construction or rehabilitation of workforce housing in each of the three grand divisions; requires the housing to be affordable to natural persons or families whose total annual household income does not exceed 150 percent of area median income; prioritizes projects that set aside at least 80 percent of units for workforce housing.  

 

 Recommended for passage with amendments  03/10/2026 

Source: Plural 

SOUTH CAROLINA  

The South Carolina legislative session convenes from January 13th to May 7th, 2026, in Columbia, S.C. The Republican party holds a majority both in the House of Representatives (88 Republicans to 28 Democrats) and the Senate (34 Republicans to 12 Democrats).10 Table 6 highlights a key proposal we support from South Carolina. 

Table 6: South Carolina proposals 

Bill Number   Bill Summary  Latest Action  Latest Action Date  
SC S 950 [Heirs’ Property]  This bill creates an exception to property tax reassessment when heirs’ property is transferred between qualified family members for the purpose of clearing title. This bill would facilitate the resolution of unclear property titles among family heirs without triggering property tax reassessment.  Referred to Committee on Finance   02/24/2026 

Source: Plural  

MISSISSIPPI 

The Mississippi legislative session convenes from January 6th to April 5th, 2026, in Jackson, Miss. The Republican party holds a majority both in the House of Representatives (78 Republicans to 45 Democrats) and the Senate (34 Republicans to 18 Democrats). Table 7 highlights two key initiatives moving through the Mississippi legislature. 

Table 7: Mississippi proposals  

Bill Number  Bill Summary  Latest Action  Latest Action Date  
MS SB 2409  This bill significantly strengthens and expands Mississippi’s home mitigation program by broadening coverage beyond hurricanes, increasing funding through new fees, raising grant amounts, and establishing permanent status with enhanced oversight.  Passed House (03/04/2026); Senate Declined to Concur   03/11/2026 
MS HB 1063  This bill incentivizes energy generation and storage infrastructure investment in Mississippi by expanding and extending tax exemption programs, particularly targeting renewable energy and battery storage project  Passed House (02/25/2026); Senate Pass as Amended   03/10/2026 

Source: Plural 

Overall, the proposals selected are a fraction of the bills considered by state policymakers in the South. While we cannot analyze each proposal, we can note with confidence that most of the proposals successfully navigating through each state’s legislative cycle are those sponsored by legislators from each respective state’s majority party. This has several implications for our efforts. First, because proposals from minority party legislators are not being examined with fidelity, there exists a vacuous environment wherein constituents affiliated with the minority party are not adequately represented in their own state governments. Second, if proposals from majority party affiliates are the only ones being legislated, it follows then that a not insignificant number of voters are summarily being disenfranchised. Our next legislative outlook will provide additional insight.  

 

Kindred Futures Hosts Beltline Commercial Affordability Consortium Roundtable

On January 29th, Kindred Futures, in partnership with Atlanta Beltline, Inc. and Urban Land Institute Atlanta, convened the inaugural Roundtable of the Beltline Commercial Affordability Consortium (BCAC). The BCAC is a cross-sector collaborative that brings together community organizations, small business owners, developers, policymakers, and advocates to address commercial affordability and displacement along the Beltline corridor. It is designed to co-create a shared, actionable framework for commercial affordability that is grounded in both data and lived experience and advances inclusive, community-driven economic growth in Atlanta. 

This convening builds on Phase I of Kindred Futures’ work with Atlanta Beltline, Inc., during which Kindred partnered with HR&A Advisors to conduct foundational research and analysis to inform the Consortium’s focus and structure. Phase I research centered on understanding the dynamics of commercial affordability and displacement in a rapidly changing real estate market, with particular attention to the long-term viability of small, local, and minority-owned businesses. Through market assessments, policy audits, and national best practice reviews, the research identified several persistent challenges, including escalating commercial rents, limited access to patient and flexible capital, restrictive leasing practices, and heightened displacement pressures in Beltline-adjacent corridors. 

The Roundtable was intentionally designed to translate this research into a shared learning and alignment space. Opening remarks from Kara Lively (Atlanta Beltline, Inc.), Janelle Williams, Ph.D. (Kindred Futures), and Daphne Bond-Godfrey (Urban Land Institute Atlanta) set the context for the Consortium’s purpose and emphasized the importance of collaborative, cross-sector solutions. Sulin Carling of HR&A Advisors and Kara Lively then grounded participants in key findings from Phase I research, highlighting the scale of commercial affordability challenges and the gaps in existing policy and capital tools. 

In the second half of the session, Consortium members engaged in facilitated discussion to begin affirming a shared definition of commercial affordability—one that reflects not only rent levels, but also lease terms, access to capital, business stability, and pathways to long-term resilience. These conversations marked an important first step toward developing a collective framework and set of measurable goals that will guide the Consortium’s ongoing work. The session closed out with remarks from Clyde Higgs, president & CEO of Atlanta Beltline, Inc., reinforcing the Beltline’s commitment to addressing commercial displacement through sustained partnership and coordinated action. 

Out of the Lab | The Care Economy and Wealth Building

By Kim Addie

As a proud parent—and a former Sheltering Arms kid myself—you couldn’t have told me that one day, I’d be thinking about the sophistication of payer mix in center-based care or interrogating whether cooperative models are feasible as one pathway toward sustainability and shared ownership in child care.

Back then, I was trying to figure out two very real things:
Should I find care near my job or near my home—because what happens when my baby gets sick and I need to leave work?
And how much of my limited income could I actually afford?

Most parents aren’t focused on staff earnings or the long-term sustainability of a childcare center. They’re looking for warm smiles at drop-off, clear feeding and nap schedules, and maybe a camera in the classroom to be able to check on their little ones throughout the day. I was no different. As a young mama with three children, juggling after-school care, pickups, and preschool, I just wanted a place that cared for my babies as much as I did.

Today, I understand that what parents don’t always see—educator pay, staffing stability, and whether a center is built to survive and thrive—is inseparable from quality, consistency, and outcomes for children.

In my role at Kindred, I lead a body of work deeply informed by our Lead team’s research and policy recommendations—while also intentionally building evidence for what it takes to achieve different results. That work depends on enabling conditions: partner capacity, access to resources and capital, and—critically—policy environments that either allow models to grow or quietly constrain them.

This is especially true in the South.

We spend a lot of time interrogating what doesn’t work or what actively impedes progress. We ask questions like: What makes a model viable in Georgia versus Pennsylvania? What policy scaffolding is required for collective ownership models to have a real chance at building wealth rather than being doomed from the start?

Why Pennsylvania?

Our decision to reference Pennsylvania is not incidental. In Q4 of last year, we highlighted Childspace, a cooperative childcare model based in Pennsylvania, as part of our broader exploration of shared ownership approaches in the care economy. Childspace has often been lifted up as a practitioner-led example of cooperative governance, educator voice, and quality outcomes in early childhood education.

What Childspace offers is not a simple blueprint to replicate—but rather a lens. Its longevity raises an important question: what conditions make it possible for a cooperative child care model to sustain itself over time? That question inevitably leads us beyond organizational design and into policy and financing context.

Child Care Subsidy Generosity & Structure: Georgia vs. Pennsylvania

One of the clearest differences between Georgia and Pennsylvania shows up in child care subsidy structure and adequacy.

In Georgia, Childcare and Parent Services (CAPS) reimbursement rates consistently fall below the true cost of care and the federally recommended benchmark for market rates. Only about 22% of children under age 15 in Georgia who may require paid child care are actually in paid care, reflecting deep affordability and access gaps for families.¹² At the same time, the average annual wage for child care workers is approximately $27,760, reinforcing chronic workforce instability and high turnover in a sector essential to the broader economy.³

Providers in Georgia are left to survive by shifting payer mix, cross-subsidizing where they can, and absorbing financial risk personally—particularly in home-based settings and small centers.

By contrast, Pennsylvania has made different structural choices. The state has invested in higher base child care subsidy reimbursement rates, tiered quality add-ons through the Keystone STARS system, and more predictable public funding streams that reduce volatility for providers.⁴ These choices do not solve child care—but they do create greater stability, which matters deeply for any model that relies on shared governance, collective decision-making, and long-term planning.

And to be clear:

I’m not arguing that Pennsylvania has solved child care; I’m saying it has made different policy choices that give providers more stability and more room to experiment with ownership and sustainability.

Public Investment: What It Signals

Public investment isn’t just about dollars—it’s about what a state signals it values.

Georgia has maintained historically high state budget reserves, even as child care subsidy rates lag behind cost, workforce wages remain near poverty levels, and providers struggle to keep their doors open.⁵ This sends a clear message: child care is perceived as a private family problem rather than essential economic infrastructure.

Pennsylvania’s approach, while still imperfect, signals something different. By allocating state dollars to stabilize providers and leverage federal investments, the state has acknowledged that child care is foundational to workforce participation and economic resilience.⁶

These signals shape outcomes. They determine whether providers can plan beyond survival, whether educators can remain in the field, and whether ownership models—particularly cooperative ones—have the operating margin required to function.

Cooperative Models: Promise and Limits

This reality was front and center during a care economy convening we hosted late last year, where we intentionally lifted up cooperative models as one potential pathway toward shared ownership and collective wealth-building in child care.

To be clear, cooperative models are not a silver bullet. We are still actively examining their efficacy within the child care sector—particularly when tested against existing financial models and deeply uneven policy environments. Our inquiry is focused on understanding when cooperative ownership can enhance stability and wealth-building, where it is constrained by subsidy structures, capital access, and operating margins, and what policy conditions are required for these models to function as intended.

This framing is especially important in Georgia, where women of color—particularly Black women—are the child care system. Nationally, women of color make up roughly 50% of home-based providers, and in Georgia, Black women represent approximately 33% of all child care providers.⁷⁸ Yet, the current system systematically undervalues their labor while limiting pathways to asset-building and ownership.

As scholar Jessica Gordon Nembhard has long articulated, cooperative ownership holds potential to generate individual, collective, and community wealth but only when enterprises operate within enabling policy and financial environments that support capitalization, revenue stability, and long-term viability.⁹ A cooperative model that might stabilize and grow in a state like Pennsylvania can be structurally constrained in Georgia—not because the model is flawed, but because the surrounding policy environment does not allow it to breathe.

A Personal Closing

As a mom, my vantage point has changed. I see parents making impossible tradeoffs like late rent, fewer health care options, and limited choices because of policy decisions far removed from their daily lives. I also see places like Sheltering Arms worrying about payroll, staffing ratios, and payer mix just to keep their doors open.

And this work is personal.

My son had an incredible foundation. He’s now a Posse Fellow, with a double major in Music and Economics and a master’s in Economic Theory and Policy.  We have some dope conversations about the economy. I owe that, in no small part, to places like Sheltering Arms  and to educators like Mr. Tony, one of the few Black male teachers my son had.

The care economy isn’t just about care. It’s about dignity. It’s about ownership.

And it’s about whether our policy choices allow those who do this essential work to build wealth or simply survive.

Footnotes

  1. Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (GBPI). Child Care Assistance in Georgia: Limited Access and Low Provider Reimbursement Rates.
  2. Conference Board Committee for Economic Development (CED). Child Care in the United States: 2019–2023 Analysis.
  3. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, Childcare Workers, 2023.
  4. Pennsylvania Office of Child Development and Early Learning (OCDEL). Child Care Works Subsidy Program Policies and Rates.
  5. Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (GBPI). Georgia’s Revenue Shortfall Reserve and Child Care Funding Analysis.
  6. U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Economics of Child Care Supply and Public Investment.
  7. Economic Policy Institute. Who’s Caring for Our Children? Child Care Workforce Characteristics.
  8. IPUMS CPS, University of Minnesota. Child Care Workforce Data.
  9. Gordon Nembhard, Jessica. Asset Building Through Cooperative Business Ownership: Defining and Measuring Cooperative Economic Wealth. University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, 2008.
 

*Out of the Lab is Kindred Futures’ practice-facing arm—where theory meets the field. Drawing from our work we share real-time insights from what we’re testing, learning, and adjusting in motion. Starting with the care economy, we intend to surface what’s actually happening on the ground—what’s working, where they are real challenges to the work, and what it will take to build systems that get us to sustainable impact. 

 

Kindred Futures Releases A Beloved Community, A Brighter Tomorrow Report On Climate Resilience and Racial Wealth Equity

ATLANTA, GA, January 28, 2026 – Today, Kindred Futures released its new report, A Beloved Community, A Brighter Tomorrow, which addresses the intersection of climate resilience and racial wealth equity in Atlanta. The report offers steps stakeholders can take to help Black communities safeguard assets, reduce vulnerabilities, and protect lives.

The freedom to live in climate-resilient communities is essential for the economic prosperity of residents in Atlanta. Bold and climate-resilient strategies will need to incorporate solutions addressing historical systems and current public policies that have created and entrenched racial and socioeconomic wealth divides and inhibited many from accessing safe and affordable housing.

Most City of Atlanta residents surveyed (69%) shared concern over potential climate impacts to their homes and property. These concerns served as the backdrop to everyday challenges such as paying for utilities, the high cost of living, and building wealth.

“Atlanta sits at the intersection of two urgent challenges: climate risk and racial wealth inequality. As climate threats intensify and energy and mitigation costs rise, wealth extraction continues to undermine household stability,” said Dr. Alex Camardelle, vice president of Policy and Research at Kindred Futures. “While rooted in Atlanta, this report offers scalable solutions for cities across the country and makes clear that public investment must step up to meet this moment.”

An effective climate resilience strategy requires interventions at all levels of society (e.g., household, neighborhood, local, state, federal); needs to be inclusive of residents who are renters; and requires decision-makers to acknowledge and address both historical systems and current public policies to create affordable, reliable, and climate-resilient energy solutions for Black, low-wealth, and frontline communities most at risk.

“The release of Beloved Communities matters because it amplifies residents’ realities, connects climate to our collective well-being, and advances policy solutions rooted in what communities actually need,” said Janelle Williams, Ph.D., CEO of Kindred Futures.

Key findings from the report include: 

  • When faced with climate, environmental, and everyday financial challenges, residents chose collective action and resilience. Aid programs, guaranteed energy bill savings, and cash rebates up front were some of the more popular ways residents said could help them protect their homes and weather the growing climate crisis.
  • Residents, community advocates, and policy and decision-makers in the City of Atlanta must call for more substantial support for affordable, safe, and sustainable housing. Actions that policy and decision-makers can take include expanding home weatherization programs, strengthening assistance for utility costs, enforcing renter protections, and mitigating harmful environmental exposures for residents who live near industrial sites. Exploration of community-centered utility models that reinvest in neighborhoods would usher in bold and timely reform in utility ownership, operation, and regulation, to advance energy equity.

 

The report also makes the following policy recommendations:

  • Continue investing in home weatherization programs
  • Expand provisions under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
  • Increase regulations to mitigate environmental harms
  • Advance public and community-controlled utility models for energy equity
  • Enforce tenant protections ratified under Georgia HB 404, and HB 346

Kindred Futures partners with Black Wealth Solution Providers, redefining wealth so that Black people have the opportunity to contribute to and accelerate a just and inclusive economy. We are connected and committed to new models of abundance because we know that investing in people pushed to the economic fringes, results in thriving economies and communities.

Read the report here.

Kindred Futures Releases Now is the Time: A Policy Playbook for State and Local Action That Builds Black Wealth in the South

ATLANTA, GA, January 26, 2026 – Kindred Futures today announced the release of Now Is the Time: A Policy Playbook for State and Local Action That Builds Black Wealth in the South, a new policy roadmap designed to support lawmakers, advocates, and community leaders as they enter pivotal 2026 legislative sessions across the region. 

As Black households across the South face rising costs of living, labor market instability, and continued fallout from federal retrenchment, the playbook outlines pragmatic, state- and local-level policy solutions that protect income, preserve assets, and expand pathways to wealth building. The playbook is rooted in Kindred Futures’ Repair, Resilience, and Revenue framework and focuses on policies that are fiscally responsible, politically actionable, and grounded in real-world examples from Southern states and municipalities. 

Now is the Time presents ten core policy priorities, including children’s trust funds or baby bonds, curbing predatory lending, reducing medical and student debt, expanding first-generation homeownership, protecting heirs’ property, supporting community development financial institutions, strengthening worker protections, expanding retirement savings, scaling cooperative ownership and community land trusts, and taking action on reparations. Each priority includes a clear policy rationale, examples of implementation, and model bill language to support lawmakers and advocates in drafting legislation.  

“Too many Black families in the South are doing everything right and still struggling to build or hold onto wealth because the policy environment has not been designed with them in mind,” said Dr. Alex Camardelle, vice president of Policy and Research at Kindred Futures. “This playbook is about meeting this moment with solutions that are bold but practical. It shows that states and local governments have real tools right now to repair past harms, protect hard-won assets, and expand opportunities for families to build lasting wealth.” 

While the playbook centers Black wealth building, its recommendations are designed to strengthen state and local economies overall by expanding homeownership, stabilizing communities, supporting small businesses, and growing a more resilient middle class. 

“Building Black wealth is not a niche issue,” Camardelle added. “When families can buy homes, start businesses, save for retirement, and pass assets to the next generation, entire communities and state economies are stronger. Now is the time for states, counties, and cities to act.” 

Trump Accounts will turbocharge wealth for families who already have it, and the racial wealth divide will grow

By Alex Camardelle, Ph.D.

America loves a simple promise: give every child a stake, let time and the market do the rest. That is the story being told about “Trump Accounts,” or Section 530A accounts, a new child-focused investment account created under federal tax law.

The problem is not the idea of helping children build assets early. The problem is design. As structured, Trump Accounts are far more likely to accelerate wealth for families who already have disposable income, stable employment benefits, and access to financial systems. That means they are poised to widen racial wealth divides, not close them.

How Trump Accounts work

Trump Accounts are a new type of IRA for eligible children. Under federal guidance, a parent or guardian generally must make an “election” to establish the account, and contributions cannot begin until July 4, 2026. 

The headline feature is a one-time $1,000 federal deposit for eligible children born from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2028.  After that, the account’s growth depends largely on contributions from families, employers, and other sources, up to an aggregate limit of $5,000 per year. Employers can contribute up to $2,500 annually, and those employer contributions do not count as taxable income to the employee, though they do count toward the $5,000 limit. Funds must be invested in certain mutual funds or ETFs tied to the S&P 500 or another index of primarily U.S. equities. Withdrawals generally cannot happen before the year the child turns 18, and the account is then treated largely like a traditional IRA. 

The “universal” seed is not the real benefit

A one-time $1,000 deposit sounds meaningful, but in wealth-building, the compounding advantage comes from who can keep adding money, year after year, without sacrificing groceries, rent, childcare, or medical care. A family that can afford to contribute the maximum, or even a few thousand dollars annually, will turn Trump Accounts into a powerful, tax-advantaged pipeline for intergenerational wealth. A family that cannot contribute will be left with a modest balance at adulthood, and a lesson that the market rewards those who can already afford to play.

That is not a moral failing on the part of low-income families. It is structural reality. The Urban Institute has warned that most Americans’ financial lives do not include surplus income for stock-based investing, and that early wealth accounts will struggle to unlock opportunity for everyone unless paired with progressive deposits for families with little-to-no assets and lower incomes.

A policy that “matches” existing inequality will reproduce it

To understand why Trump Accounts are likely to widen racial wealth divides, start with the baseline. Federal Reserve analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances shows that racial wealth gaps are large and persistent, even when wealth rises for Black families in percentage terms. In 2022, the typical Black family’s wealth remained far below the typical white family’s wealth, and those gaps are rooted in longstanding differences in assets, inheritances, and access to wealth-building opportunities. 

At Kindred Futures, we focus on the South because the severity of these dynamics is already deeply pronounced. We have pointed to the reality that nearly two million Black households in the region have zero or negative net worth, and that without targeted approaches, wealth begets wealth and the divide widens. Trump Accounts do not interrupt that cycle. They supercharge it.

When a program’s main growth mechanism is voluntary contributions, the biggest gains accrue to households with the most cash flow. Brookings put the core critique plainly: because Trump Accounts depend primarily on family and employer contributions, many policymakers predict they will disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans, and evidence from other “asset-subsidy schemes” shows higher participation and larger benefits for those already advantaged. 

“Opt-in” systems and market structures leave people behind

There is another equity problem baked into the model: participation is not automatic. The account requires an election, a process, and sustained engagement over 18 years. In the real world, opt-in programs consistently have unequal take-up, with the lowest-wealth families least likely to enroll, even when programs are beneficial.

Then there is the question of fees and administration. Analysts raised concerns that if accounts are not centralized in a low-cost structure, administrative and management fees can erode gains, hurting low-wealth families most. In other words, even the modest benefits that families do receive can leak out of the account through friction and cost.

What real wealth-building for all children would require

If policymakers truly want every child to start adulthood with meaningful assets, the answer is not a one-time seed plus a system that rewards whoever can contribute most. The answer is a public commitment scaled to need. That is why many researchers and practitioners point to “Baby Bonds” style approaches: universal accounts with progressive public deposits, where children from the lowest-wealth households receive the largest endowments. This policy is designed to address wealth inequality rather than subsidize existing advantage. 

We also need complementary policies that stabilize families now, not only at age 18: strong income supports, protections from predatory debt, and pathways to homeownership and entrepreneurship that do not require families to already be wealthy to benefit.

Kindred Futures believes in creating economies that work for everyone. If Trump Accounts are going to exist, they should be redesigned to match that principle, with automatic enrollment, progressive public contributions, and guardrails that prevent the account from becoming yet another tax-advantaged conveyor belt for families already positioned to win.

Our bottom line is simple. If we build a “wealth-building” policy that runs on surplus income, then surplus income will determine who gets wealth. That is not shared prosperity. That is wealth acceleration for the already-wealthy, and it is how racial wealth divides become permanent.

Power is the Prerequisite: Economic Justice is the Next Civil Rights Frontier

By Janelle Williams, Ph.D.

As we prepare to commemorate one of our nation’s most consequential civil rights leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I am drawn back to the prophetic clarity of his Letter from Birmingham Jail. In it, Dr. King did more than indict moral complacency—he named a structural truth that remains unresolved today: rights in America are inseparable from power. 

Dr. King understood that in a nation founded on racial hierarchy, proximity to power determined access to rights. Justice was never simply a matter of law or principle; it was a function of who possessed the agency to shape reality. Power, at its core, requires the ability to decide—not just to participate, but to determine outcomes. 

From its inception, the American economic system has been engineered to concentrate that power. It has depended on the existence of a permanently power-less class—people essential to the engine of growth yet systematically excluded from the yield of that growth. Their labor built wealth; their exclusion preserved it for others.  

As we prepare to commemorate 250 years of independence, the democratic experiment increasingly resembles something far more brittle: an oligarchic society with democratic aesthetics. Without meaningful guardrails, history shows that extreme concentration of wealth hollowing out the middle class leads not to stability, but to collapse. Empires do not fall from external invasion alone—they erode from internal imbalance. 

Today, the racial wealth divide has reached its highest dollar value in U.S. history. This is not accidental. Our tax system actively preserves and deepens inequality by disproportionately taxing income rather than wealth—penalizing work while protecting accumulation. The result is economic immobility so entrenched that children inherit not only their parents’ circumstances, but their constraints. Poverty, in this system, is not a temporary condition; it is a design outcome.  

While these structural inequities are not new, the threats they pose are escalating. The gradual decline of the U.S. dollar—once unthinkable—is now a looming reality. In the early months of 2025 alone, the dollar dropped approximately 9% against a basket of foreign currencies. Trade policy, ballooning debt, regressive tax structures, and geopolitical shifts all contribute to this weakening position. 

As national economic power contracts, vulnerability expands. And as always, those who have borne the brunt of exclusion in our so-called “more perfect union” will feel the impact first and hardest. When an economic tsunami hits, it does not strike evenly. It follows the fault lines of inequality already carved into our society. 

The truth is stark: the current economic system works exceptionally well for the elite. It was never designed to work for families living paychecks to paychecks, burdened by rising debt simply to survive. Stability, let alone wealth, remains out of reach for millions—not because of personal failure, but because the system extracts more than it returns. 

But systems are human-made. And what has been designed can be redesigned. 

We can build economic models that are sustainable precisely because they work for everyone. Converting workers into owners creates collective pathways to wealth generation rather than isolated survival. Ownership is not just an asset—it is agency, voice, and power made tangible. 

Likewise, equitable tax structures that protect retirement, strengthen safety nets, and invest in public goods do more than redistribute resources; they build intergenerational wealth that expands opportunity beyond a privileged few. These are not radical ideas. They are democratic ones. 

Dr. King warned us that injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere. Today, economic injustice threatens the very foundation of our democracy. The question before us is not whether change is necessary, but whether we have the courage to realign power with the people who have always sustained this nation. 

The unfinished work of civil rights is economic. And the future of democracy depends on whether we finally choose to build systems that allow all people—not just the powerful—to determine their own reality.