A Q&A with Open Frontier’s Poilcy Director Larry Williams Jr. and Erin Kilmer Neel, Executive Director at the Beneficial State Foundation, on why financial outcomes are shaped by structures—not just choices—and what it will take to build a more just system.
Q: Beneficial State Foundation’s mission is both ambitious and unconventional: advancing racial justice through the banking system. What first made you see banking as a lever for systemic equity? Was there a turning point that led you to this work
The idea really came from our founders. They recognized that the banking system itself is inequitable and that if we want to address economic inequality, banking has to be part of the solution.
They started the bank to practice better banking, and they started the foundation alongside it to make sure the focus wasn’t just on maximizing profit, but on changing the broader system. The bank works to model better practices; the foundation works to spread those practices across the industry.
Q: Banking remains an industry where women are still underrepresented in leadership. How do you navigate that dynamic?
That underrepresentation shows up in how voices are perceived, respected, and heard in banking.. I’ve certainly had experiences where I say something in a room and then a man says essentially the same thing 10 minutes later and suddenly everyone has an “aha” moment. So, those dynamics are real.
But it hasn’t felt like a defining fight for me personally. I focus on the substance, I show up in the rooms I need to be in, and I engage in the conversations that matter. At the same time, I recognize that these patterns are structural, not just individual, and they continue to shape who advances into leadership across the industry
Q: Your organization argues that systems, not individual choices, primarily shape financial well-being. What does that mean in practice?
Take lending. At its core, banking is about making loans so people can build businesses, buy homes, or pursue other goals. In underwriting, banks look at things like cash flow and income, which can seem like neutral, mathematical measures.
But those numbers don’t exist in a vacuum. Because of this country’s history of racial and economic injustice, two people with the exact same job may not be paid the same amount. That means their cash flow looks different on paper, not because one person made better choices, but because the system produced different outcomes.
That’s true across many dimensions of financial life. The numbers attached to people often reflect unequal opportunity, not unequal effort.
Q: Why is it so important to challenge the personal responsibility narrative that dominates financial services?
If we don’t address the system, we’ll never actually fix the problem. We sometimes say it’s the water we’re swimming in, not the fish. If the system itself is perpetuating and exacerbating inequality, then focusing only on individual behavior misses the real issue.
There’s also a dignity issue here. If you’re providing financial education or guidance, you should consider those inequities. You shouldn’t tell someone, “You just need to save more,” or imply that their financial struggles are purely their own fault. That’s not only disrespectful; it’s inaccurate.
Q: You’ve spoken before about the patronizing side of financial literacy efforts. What does the right approach look like?
The right approach starts with recognizing that financial education is an exchange of information, not a lecture. You have to begin by asking what someone already knows and whether the issue is actually a knowledge gap at all. You shouldn’t assume from the outset that someone doesn’t understand their own finances.
It’s also important to explain the system people are navigating. Credit, for example, is in many ways a game with rules that were created over time. If you’re helping someone, you should explain those rules while acknowledging that some of them are unfair.
That creates a much more respectful conversation. You’re not telling someone they’re playing the game wrong; you’re helping them understand the game, where they stand within it, and what options they have.
Q: How are algorithms increasingly affecting credit decisions, and what concerns you most about where that is heading?
A lot of the conversation around AI bias in lending focuses on the fact that these systems are trained on historical data. If the past was inequitable, and it certainly was, then training on that past will reproduce those inequities.
Sometimes people assume that means the bias is only about individual acts of racism by specific lenders. That did happen, of course. But the bigger issue is that the underlying processes were unfair. One group had less opportunity to build wealth, less opportunity to build income, less opportunity to build home equity or other collateral, and less access to fair credit in the first place. All of that shows up as math.
That’s what concerns me most. Even if you try to strip out the most obvious forms of bias, the full history of inequitable underwriting is still embedded in the data. And if that data drives decision-making, the technology can end up reinforcing the very disparities people think they’ve removed.
Q: If Beneficial State Foundation succeeds over the next decade, what will the banking industry look like?
The changes will show up everywhere, in every nook and cranny of banking institutions. It will affect everything from the policies banks advocate for, to how underwriting works, to how customers are treated when they walk through the door, or open an app.
A more equitable banking system will feel welcoming. It will be more transparent about how decisions are made. It will help people understand what lenders are looking at, instead of keeping those processes deliberately vague. It will also be more flexible and realistic about how people actually live.
Ultimately, equity won’t live in a side program or a pilot. It will be integrated into the core governance, decision-making, and culture of financial institutions.
Q: What does financial well-being look like for communities that have historically been excluded?
The goal is financial well-being for everyone. That’s important to say, especially in a moment when there’s so much pushback against equity efforts. The path to getting there may require different approaches for different communities, but the goal is universal.
Financial well-being means having enough money to pay your bills, save for the future, and feel secure over time. It means not spending every waking moment trying to figure out where your next paycheck will come from. It means having time for family, friends, culture, joy, and rest.
In the end, financial well-being is about more than survival. It’s about having the stability and dignity to actually live a life.