Use your widget sidebars in the admin Design tab to change this little blurb here. Add the text widget to the Blurb Sidebar!
| Posted: November 20th, 2013
For many years Urban Institute studies have provided fundamental information about American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) communities, including demographics, housing conditions, and federal assistance designed to help AIAN households in need.
An Urban report highlighting tribal use of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) was released November 8. And two other studies, a congressionally mandated assessment of Native American housing needs and research on the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), are ongoing.
As America recognizes Native American Heritage Month this November, here’s some of what we know.
1. More than 5 million people identify as American Indian and Alaska Native. During the 2010 census, when asked their race, 2.9 million US residents identified as AIAN only or what demographers refer to as “AIAN alone,” and an additional 2.3 million people selected AIAN as one of multiple races.
2. Hispanic AIAN individuals have grown as a share of the AIAN population and generally live in different places than Non-Hispanic AIAN persons. The US Census Bureau considers race and ethnicity separately, with Hispanic heritage treated as an ethnic distinction. The Hispanic share of the AIAN alone population climbed from 8.4 percent in 1990 to 23 percent in 2010. In 2010, only 32 percent of Hispanic AIAN alone lived in tribal areas and their adjacent counties. In contrast, tribal lands and their surrounding counties accounted for two-thirds of the population of non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Natives.
3. Native Americans have seen gains in housing quality, but large gaps in access to basic facilities still remain. In larger tribal areas, the share of AIAN households lacking full in-home plumbing fell markedly, from 9.5 in 2000 to 6.1 percent in the 2006-
2010 period, but was still 11.5 times the national average.
4. Not all Native Americans benefit from casino revenues. In 2011, 18 percent of tribal gambling enterprises accounted for 75 percent of revenues. This means a large share of gaming revenues flow to a relatively small number of tribes and benefit a small percentage of the AIAN population.
5. Native Americans are utilizing the flexibility of some federal programs to tailor services to respect cultural traditions. The Urban Institute’s Tribal TANF study illustrates how some Native American communities are using TANF to meet the program’s goal of enhancing family stability while supporting tribal cultural activities and values. In the area of food provision, participating tribes consider tribal preferences and nutritional needs when selecting the foodstuffs available through the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
These data come from the Decennial Census, the American Community Survey, and National Indian Gaming Association.
More Urban Institute work on Native American communities, including a 2009 report on tribal food assistance, is available here.
For announcements of forthcoming reports, sign up for the Urban Institute's Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center newsletter.
Filed under: People |Tags: AIAN, alaska native, native, native american, Urban Institute Add a Comment »
| Posted: November 6th, 2013
In 1997, Geoffrey Canada set about tackling poverty in Harlem by focusing on the neighborhood’s children. Today, his 97-block Harlem Children’s Zone is a cradle-to-diploma network of schooling and other supportive programming designed to help kids from families with low incomes succeed in college and beyond.
Impressed by this model, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Education began offering grants to encourage other communities to create children’s zones, or “Promise Neighborhoods,” of their own. But can an idea born in upper Manhattan work in western Kentucky? What counts as success for such an ambitious undertaking, and how do you measure it? The Department of Education asked the Urban Institute to answer that last question. “Measuring Performance: A Guidance Document for Promise Neighborhoods on Collecting Data and Reporting Results” was released earlier this year. I sat down with “Measuring Performance” co-author Peter Tatian to talk about the challenge of quantifying the impact of a long-term, multifaceted program.
Promise Neighborhoods provide resources for children and parents over many years. There are literally hundreds of different outcomes grantees could measure for thousands of people. How did you decide where to begin?
Part of what an organization agrees to when it accepts Promise Neighborhoods funding is that it will report on 15 Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures. For example, one of the measures asks, does a child have a medical home, that is, a doctor or some other certified healthcare provider, whom he or she can see on a regular basis? Other indicators focus on early childhood development and academic standards. These 15 GPRAs were our starting point.
What were some of your primary considerations as you tried to translate these measures into a robust data program?
First, the grantees are diverse. Some are community-based non-profits. Others are attached to universities. When it comes to data gathering, they have different strengths and face different challenges, so we wanted to leverage information sources that would be accessible to all of them.
Secondly, we wanted to identify data that they can collect repeatedly, because they have to measure progress over time.
And where possible, we used existing sources, like standardized test scores.
Some of this is completely new to them. Because collecting and using data is, essentially, research, Promise Neighborhoods have to do things like have their research plans approved by an institutional review board (IRB) [a body that screens research involving human beings for potential ethical issues]. The IRB process is second nature to researchers, but for many community-based groups, it’s not necessarily something they’ve done before.
This is not easy work. People have been trying to solve these issues for generations, and I think our partners understand, if they don’t do a good job tracking the results, this could just be another well-intentioned effort that doesn’t lead anywhere.
You’ve studied or provided technical assistance for other federally funded community development initiatives. Are the reporting requirements for Promise Neighborhood grantees especially demanding?
I think they are. The folks we’ve worked with at the Department of Education have commented that the 15 GPRA measures written into the Promise grants are the most they’ve seen in any program with which they’re familiar.
But these measurements have proven very useful in helping focus the grantees’ resources and attention. For example, one of the first things the GPRAs ask you to assess is whether three-year-olds are exhibiting “age-appropriate functioning,” that is, timely cognitive development. In some places, the percentage of children who have reached this benchmark is small. A grantee will, naturally, ask, why is that? Is it because too few area three-year-olds have access to early care [e.g. Head Start and other pre-school programs]? Maybe a lot of them are in early care, but the quality is insufficient. How do you fix the problem today and make sure children who will turn three a few years from now will be significantly better off?
A single question spurs action across many areas. In this case, a focus on three-year-olds forces communities to think about how they can best meet a range of early childhood development needs. We have a term for this now: “GPRA discipline,” this process of thinking rigorously about specific outcomes and what it will take to achieve them.
You don’t have to be a Promise Neighborhood to ask these questions in your community.
Not at all.
So is it realistic to think that this type of measurement and needs assessment could spread beyond the funded areas?
That’s the hope. It’s a model many hope will prove to be beneficial and that will be replicated in the form of additional Promise Neighborhoods and in other initiatives, which use some of the things we’ll learn from Promise.
Once the data on Promise Neighborhoods becomes available, who will be interested in it?
I think lots of people will be: the Promise Neighborhoods grantees themselves, the Department of Education. The federal government and other funders need to be able to show this investment is yielding results.
The people who live in these communities are another important consumer of these data. They have the right to know whether the Promise Neighborhood is achieving the kind of results they’d like in their community.
And, finally, there’s the research and policy world more broadly. We know a lot about how to evaluate individual programs, but here, the hope is that the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts—and there are a lot of parts. The frameworks and techniques researchers develop to tease out the impact of individual elements of Promise Neighborhoods could shape the way we examine place-based initiatives for years to come.
Students image from Shutterstock
Filed under: People |Tags: children, neighborhood, poverty, promise, promise neighborhoods, Urban Institute Add a Comment »
| Posted: October 31st, 2013
Click to view BPC's full Economics of Immigration Reform infographic
The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) released a report earlier this week on the economic and fiscal effects of immigration reform. By my account, it’s the 10th study this year on the topic. But while each report covers similar ground, they differ in scope and methodology, and so reach different conclusions. Even when studies find that immigration is a win for the economy, the particulars of the findings differ.
To bring clarity to the debate, my Urban Institute colleagues and I assessed six studies that we think are important for the current immigration debate. Our goal was to pause and take stock of these studies’ methods, critical assumptions, and strengths and limitations—and then create a guide to help readers evaluate what’s being said.
Our upcoming report “Understanding the Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Immigration: A Guide to Current Studies and Future Extensions” lays out a framework we’ve developed for assessing current and future studies. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s report came out too late to be included in our guide, but the questions we ask of all the studies can still be applied.
In general, BPC’s study stacks up well against the reports we analyzed, and does better than most. For instance, we argue in our guide that studies should assess how well their results hold up under different scenarios, such as how impacts differ if we assume a different wage growth rate for the legalized population. The BPC study does a good job on this count, providing readers with different wage growth assumptions.
We also suggest that studies clearly state their underlying assumptions, such as labor force growth and wage increases, and model what would happen without reform. The BPC also does that well. In our guide, we also point out that it is important to simulate different immigration policies. BPC highlights five different scenarios in its report. However, BPC’s report does not describe nor justify its modeling approach, making it difficult for the reader to figure out from where the findings come from. That said, the BPC study is methodologically stronger than prior studies on this topic.
Our guide also suggests ways to expand studies of immigration reform’s economic and fiscal impacts. BPC studies effects on the housing market, which is a new addition to analysis on this topic. However, there is still room to answer questions that are innate to this debate. For instance, we do not know enough about state and local fiscal impacts. And we don’t know how the effects of immigration reform will be distributed: who will be the winners and losers? How will current U.S. workers benefit? Per capita GDP figures are not presented, so we do not know how the wellbeing of the average resident is improved by immigration. Also, we still lack information about the fiscal and economic impacts of legalization, the most controversial aspect of immigration reform.
I hope future work in this area can expand our understanding of these and other effects of immigration reform.
Image from Bipartisan Policy Center
Filed under: Economy, People |Tags: Bipartisan Policy Center, BPC, economics, immigration, reform, Urban Institute 1 Comment »
| Posted: October 29th, 2013
This morning, I submitted written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the effect of Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws on civil rights and public safety.
There are racial disparities throughout the juvenile and criminal justice system in America. African Americans are more likely to be stopped and frisked, to have their motor vehicle searched at traffic stops, and to receive longer prison sentences than are whites.
One area of possible racial disparity—differences in findings that a homicide was ruled justified prior to a trial—had little attention before the investigation and trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. Using data from the Federal Bureau of Investigations Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR), my research examined the effects of racial disparities in justifiable homicide findings on public safety:
- Are there racial disparities in the justification of homicides? That is, are homicides by shooters of differing races, or involving victims of different races, ruled justified at different rates?
- Is the degree of disparity higher in states that have SYG laws than in states that do not?
- In states with SYG laws, did the degree of disparity increase or decrease when SYG laws were passed?
The answer to the first question is clearly yes. The starkest contrast is between homicides of blacks committed by whites, of which 11.4 percent are justified, and homicides of whites committed by blacks, of which 1.2 percent are justified.
The answer to the second question is also clearly yes. States with SYG laws have higher disparities than states without SYG laws.
The answer to the third question is the most complex and relies on the smallest set of data. My preliminary answer to this question, too, is yes.
These findings have substantial implications. Justification of homicides is used in a racially disparate manner, and more so in states with SYG laws. Whether SYG laws are more likely to be enacted in those states with more disparity in justifications, and whether SYG laws increase the degree of disparity, or both, is not yet completely clear. But the implications are disturbing regardless.
The purpose of enacting SYG is to increase the rate of justifiable homicide findings. In doing so, SYG could make disparities better, worse, or keep them constant. There is no evidence SYG reduces disparities in the SHR data. If it makes disparities worse, as our study suggests, that is poor policy. If it simply keeps the disparities the same but increases justifiable homicide findings, then it increases the number of people exposed to the disparity, which is also poor public policy.
Finally, I note that 'racial disparity' is a value-free term. It simply reflects the objective observation that the likelihood of an event (in this case a justified homicide finding) varies systematically by race. It is therefore a necessary but not sufficient condition to conclude that racial animus is the cause of the disparity.
I note that in John Lott’s written testimony for the hearing, he concludes that my data support the opposite of what I have described above. More on that later this week.
Filed under: People, Quality of Life |Tags: homicide, race, stand your ground, SYG, Trayvon Martin, Urban Institute Add a Comment »
| Posted: October 24th, 2013
The House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee met on Wednesday to consider why the current child welfare system is failing to prevent so many at-risk youth from engaging in the sex trade, and how it can be reformed to better safeguard these young people.
These are important questions to tackle if we want to seriously address how and why so many vulnerable girls, boys, transgender, lesbian, gay, heterosexual, and bi-sexual youth enter the commercial sex market in order to have their basic needs met, particularly shelter and food.
My colleagues and I also asked these questions while conducting research on the characteristics and needs of youth involved in the commercial sex market. Our research told us that youth involved, or at risk of becoming involved, in the sex trade are often looking for two things: emotional and financial support. And evidence we gathered suggests these youth are too often not finding them in the current child welfare system.
We interviewed hundreds of youth engaged in the commercial sex market during the course of these studies and many of these young people told us they were neglected, and in some cases abused, while under the care of child welfare. They eventually fled the system because they thought they could find better financial and emotional support outside of it.
This is often how at-risk youth get involved in the sex trade.
One 19-year-old male told me he’d been trading sexual acts for money, food, and shelter since he was 16.
"I was in group homes and things like that, I would get into fights a lot … staff would tell me don’t come back, we’re going to get you arrested,” he said. “So I just [wouldn’t] go back, then I’d be homeless for a month. So one time a person came up [to] offer me money for sex, and I had none, so I did it. And so from then [on] it has been easy money.”
He is not alone. Many youth run from the child welfare system and cycle through stints on friends’ couches, friends’ parents’ couches, shelters, and homelessness. All the while, they’re desperate to find some means of supporting themselves. Such precarious circumstances leave these youth vulnerable to exploitation.
So what can be done now to better prevent more narratives and experiences like the one told by the 19 year-old young man? While considering long-term answers, four steps I recommend that Congress consider are:
- Better training should be provided to foster families and guardians so that they can better provide the security these youth need to prevent them from becoming involved in the sex trade. Providing a safe and secure home for at-risk youth in the child welfare system is a critical first step to preventing them from running away and engaging in the commercial sex market.
- The number of caseworkers who oversee a young person in the child welfare system should be decreased and stabilized. Caseworkers are too often taken off and/or reassigned new cases, and this turnover causes many of these youth to become distrustful of adults and the system.
- More peer-led groups should be developed to allow youth involved in the child welfare system to share their experiences and lend each other advice. These peer groups should be a place where a young person, no matter what their sexual orientation or gender identity is, can feel comfortable to talk about their experiences and not feel judged.
- More professional counselors and therapists should be made available to at-risk youth in the child welfare system to help them sort through complicated feelings and frustrations, before they run away from the system.
Although these are just a handful of suggestions for an extremely complicated and nuanced problem, I believe they are good starting points as Congress works toward legislative answers to address this issue.
Illustration by Daniel Wolfe, Urban Institute
Filed under: Economy, People |Tags: child, congress, sex trade, Urban Institute, welfare, youth 1 Comment »
Erwin de Leon
| Posted: October 22nd, 2013
Now that the government shutdown has ended and the debt limit lifted, President Obama has shifted his attention to immigration reform. He argues that it is imperative that the broken immigration system be fixed once and for all. Considering the bruising everyone just went through, it is hard to imagine lawmakers duking it out over another contentious issue.
Imagine that comprehensive immigration legislation does manage to clear Congress and the White House. Will systems be in place to handle the surge of immigrants who will be eligible for legalization? I cannot speak to the capacities of federal and state governments, but I can begin the conversation on the nonprofit infrastructure that helps immigrants integrate.
The U.S. Senate immigration reform bill that passed last June includes a path to citizenship for a vast majority of undocumented immigrants. The Congressional Budget Office estimates about 8 million will be eligible and apply for regularization of their status. The process will be long, arduous, and costly. But before they embark on this path, individuals will need, first and foremost, legal assistance in understanding the process and submitting applications.
Unauthorized immigrants, who are mostly low-income, will have few resources, if any at all, to secure the services of immigration attorneys. Many will turn to immigrant-serving nonprofits providing free legal information and advice. A new Urban Institute brief provides an outline of these organizations.
An analysis of data from the National Center for Charitable Statistics indicates at least 684 nonprofits provide some form of legal aid to immigrants. These providers are dispersed throughout the United States and can be found where immigrant communities have settled.
It appears, however, that there aren’t enough of them. In the 10 states with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants, nonprofits that provide legal services to immigrants would have more people to serve than other nonprofits. For instance, in Texas, there is one nonprofit providing legal aid to immigrants for every 41,250 undocumented clients. In contrast, the ratio of other nonprofits to the general population is 1 to 2,916.
In the top 10 states with the largest percentage change in undocumented immigrants, nonprofits that provide legal services to immigrants potentially have a larger population to serve compared to other nonprofits. For instance, in Maryland, the ratio of nonprofits that provide legal aid to immigrants to potential undocumented clients in 1 to 27,500. In contrast, the ratio of other nonprofits to the general population is 1 to 2,182. Alabama is a stark case, where the two nonprofits that provide legal services to immigrants could face an estimated 120,000 undocumented individuals.
This very high ratio of undocumented immigrants to potential sources of nonprofit legal aid should be a cause for concern. Adding thousands of new cases to existing caseloads without substantial infusion of resources—funding and staffing and volunteers—is not a realistic scenario.
The infrastructure for assisting undocumented immigrants with legal issues is very thin, compared to the projected needs. A concerted effort to assess capacity and plan for expansion is required. Further analysis will help identify where and how infrastructure and capacity can be built to prepare for comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime funders and other stakeholders can step up and support this research.
Filed under: People |Tags: immigrants, nonprofits, reform, Urban Institute 1 Comment »
| Posted: October 10th, 2013
A recent study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) aimed to learn about the roots of adult sexual violence by asking 1,058 people aged 14 to 21, whether they'd ever "kissed, touched, or done anything sexual with another person when that person did not want you to?"
Nine percent of the respondents said yes to one of these violations or another. What’s more, roughly three-quarters of the victims were in a romantic relationship with the perpetrator, according to the study.
We often overlook that much coercion and abuse amongst teenagers happens inside romantic relationships. Even more so we overlook that coercion and abuse happens inside of romantic relationships shared by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) teenagers.
My Urban Institute colleagues Pamela Lachman, Jennifer Yahner, Janine Zweig, and I recently conducted a study focused on the rates at which LGBT teens in relationships are physically, psychologically, digitally, and sexually abused and coerced by their partners.
The results we found were just as concerning as those discovered by the CDC.
We found that LGB teens in relationships experience abuse significantly more frequently than teen heterosexual couples. We also found that lesbian, gay, bisexual females, bisexual males, and transgendered teens each experience different types of abuse at different rates.
Dating transgendered teens that participated in our study experienced the most abuse and coercion across the board and by large margins. Female teens in a relationship experienced more abuse than dating male teens in all categories except physical abuse.
The specifics are available in our report and in a related video, but, taken together, the numbers tell us that these populations suffer unique problems that require prevention and intervention programs specifically designed for LGBT teens.
The teenagers we surveyed for our study reported that LGB teens are twice as willing to seek help than their heterosexual counterparts, and with specialized programs – such as peer to peer counseling – we could take them up on that willingness to make romantic life safer for LGBT teens.
There are certainly risks out there for young people in romantic relationships and the more we learn about what they’re experiencing, the smarter we can be about finding ways to help them avoid danger.
Filed under: People |Tags: bullying, CDC, dating abuse, dating violence, lgb, lgbt, sexual violence, teenagers, Urban Institute Add a Comment »
Theresa Anderson Erika Huber
| Posted: October 7th, 2013
The ongoing federal government shutdown has already affected two important safety net programs that primarily serve low-income women and children: the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
Neither program has received regular federal funding since the shutdown began on October 1. Though many states have been able to cover the gap temporarily and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deployed emergency funds for WIC, the situation will only worsen as the impasse continues.
The immediate impact on WIC was buffered by USDA guidance and assistance
WIC provides assistance for families to purchase formula and food to promote nutrition for low-income pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women; infants; and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk. In 2012, WIC helped to feed 8.7 million women, infants, and children living in households with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty guideline, providing an average food benefit worth about $45 per person per month. In 2009, half of all infants and a quarter of young children, pregnant women, and mothers received WIC beneﬁts.
USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) negotiated with some states—such as Alabama— before the shutdown, allowing those states to use funds from the previous fiscal year to keep offices open. After the government shut down, FNS informed other states that were operating with state funds that those states could use unspent federal funds to support the program. (Under normal circumstances, states must return unspent WIC funds to the federal government at the beginning of the new federal fiscal year.)
Some states, such as Utah, did not have sufficient funding left from the previous fiscal year to keep the program running. Utah closed its WIC offices in the first days of the shutdown but was able to reopen them when FNS issued the state $2.5 million in one-time emergency contingency funds. In all, FNS released $125 million in contingency funds to states that could not support their WIC programs.
Though the immediate blow of the shutdown has been buffered by emergency resources, few states will have sufficient funds to keep WIC running after October. Some states expect the funds to be exhausted even sooner; Michigan, for example, estimates that its remaining WIC funding will only last 10 days, and Wyoming and Vermont estimate that they have only two weeks’ worth of funding left. In all, these three states provided WIC to 316,500 women, infants, and children in 2012.
TANF funding is even more precarious
TANF provides cash assistance to low-income families, most of whom are single mothers with children. In 2012, 4.4 million individuals—including 3.3 million children—received cash benefits from TANF. The average benefit across all states was $440 per month.
While WIC has received temporary support from the federal government, TANF has not. On September 30, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) announced that no new funding would be available for TANF in the event of a government shutdown. Technically, program authorization expired at midnight that day, meaning states would have to rely on leftover funding from the previous fiscal year to continue to serve their residents.
Some states will continue to operate normally in October, but are uncertain (and uneasy) beyond that. Others are less optimistic. For example, Michigan only has two weeks of TANF funding available. After that, approximately 105,000 people—two-thirds of whom are children—could stop receiving benefits.
Arizona’s situation is even more dire. Due to the shutdown, the state has suspended all TANF benefit payments as of October 3, cutting off assistance to 40,000 people, including 28,000 children.
As the shutdown continues, poor women and children will increasingly--and disproportionately--be affected.
Filed under: Government, People |Tags: government, poverty, shutdown, tanf, Urban Institute, WIC 1 Comment »
Lisa Dubay Heather Sandstrom
| Posted: September 20th, 2013
Tuesday’s release of the 2012 poverty numbers painted a grim picture: Poverty rates for children remained stuck at 22 percent – the same as at the peak of the Great Recession. Driven largely by the high unemployment rates of parents, there are currently 16.1 million children living in poverty, despite the slow but steady improvement in the economy. Trends show that the nation has a long way to go to drop below pre-recession rates and improve the economic conditions of low-income families with children.
Even as families recover, the experience of economic insecurity can have lasting impacts on children. Two recent Urban Institute reports document the increases in economic insecurity for families with children during the recession and the effects instability has on children’s developmental outcomes.
Economic insecurity arises when families lack the resources to meet their needs, or face a sudden financial shock that is not buffered by a financial or social safety net. Between 2007 and 2010, the share of children with an unemployed parent or a parent who received unemployment insurance in the past year rose by 7 percentage points – from 9 to 16 percent. Though this share fell to 14 percent in 2012, it remains much higher than pre-recession levels.
Rates of child poverty increased from 18 to 22 percent in 2010, where they remain today. As a consequence, the share of children living in food-insecure households rose from 13 percent to 22 percent over the course of the recession.
The numbers also revealed an increase in the share of children in families that were “doubling up,” or sharing living space with other family members or friends.
Moreover, the recession disproportionately affected minority children and children whose parents had less education, widening the large economic disparities that existed prior to the recession.
As parents divert both monetary and emotional resources to deal with economic shocks, children are often left with limited material and emotional support during difficult transitions. Research shows that the experience of abrupt, involuntary, and/or negative change in a child’s life—or instability—can have long-term negative consequences for children’s academic achievement and social development.
Sudden drops in family income, parental unemployment, changes in residence and family structure, and changes in schools and child care providers can produce extreme levels of stress—even for children from more economically secure families. Single changes alone during sensitive developmental periods can have negative impacts on children’s development, such as difficulties in school, lower educational attainment, and problem behaviors.
What are the long-term implications of the persistent poverty rates among children?
As millions of children continue to suffer from economic insecurity, there is a growing need to intervene. Investments in the supportive systems that serve children are critical not only to their well-being, but to the nation’s future economic security.
Filed under: People |Tags: children, poverty, Urban Institute 1 Comment »