Use your widget sidebars in the admin Design tab to change this little blurb here. Add the text widget to the Blurb Sidebar!
and Ellen Seidman Jun Zhu
| Posted: July 16th, 2014
Default rates on loans guaranteed by Veterans Affairs (VA) are consistently lower than on loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). For loans originated in 2007, the worst origination year, 36 percent of FHA loans have experienced at least one delinquency of 90 days or more, compared with only 16 percent of VA loans, as shown in the figure. These differences persist; for 2012 origination, the 2.3 percent FHA default rate was 64 percent higher than the VA’s 1.3 percent default rate.
While FHA and VA borrowers spend roughly the same percentage of their income on their mortgage payments, FHA borrowers have lower incomes and lower credit scores. When controlling for income and credit score, VA borrowers still have considerably lower default rates. For 2008 loans, for example, the default rate for FHA loans was 26.1 percent compared with just 11.6 percent for VA loans. But even if we apply VA borrower characteristics to FHA borrowers, the FHA default rate for 2008 loans would still have been 20.1 percent.
Why does the difference persist over time? In a commentary posted today, we looked at some possible explanations:
- Military culture – Could military culture or special incentives not to default, such as potential loss of a security clearance, cause a significant difference? Evidence is weak to support this theory and in 2013, only 17 percent of VA borrowers were on active duty when they took out their loan.
- Direct contact – The VA has a statutory requirement to service its borrowers and contact them directly. FHA does not engage in direct contact; the servicer contacts the borrower. As a result, the VA intervenes at an earlier point in a more uniform manner. While this might improve the likelihood that a delinquent loan reperforms, often referred to as the cure rate (it actually doesn't seem to), it is unlikely to explain the difference in the substantially higher rate at which FHA loans go 90 days delinquent.
- Skin in the game – Unlike the FHA’s 100 percent insurance, VA lenders remain on the hook for losses after the VA’s limited guaranty is exhausted. As a result, VA loans tend to be concentrated in lenders who are familiar with the VA’s special underwriting and servicing systems. We hope to explore FHA and VA default rates for lenders who originate both types of loans.
- Residual income test -- While the VA’s uses a residual income test and debt-to-income (DTI) guidelines to assess a borrower’s ability to pay, the FHA and conventional lenders rely exclusively on DTI. The residual income test measures whether a borrower will have enough money left after paying their mortgage and related expenses each month to meet unanticipated expenses. Although the expense side of the VA’s test has not been updated for years, and therefore probably understates the residual income a family actually needs, it works. For 2008 originations by borrowers with incomes under $50,000, the VA default rate was about 60 percent of the FHA default rate.
While adding a residual income test may cause some families to rethink or delay a home purchase or purchase a less expensive house, it also appears to be an effective way to reduce default rates and ensure borrowers take out mortgages they can afford. FHA and conventional programs should consider adding residual income to their underwriting. Moreover, lenders making higher cost Qualified Mortgages may want to consider using a residual income screen to provide more certainty that their borrowers can truly repay the loan.
Filed under: Agency securitization, Credit availability, Economic Growth and Productivity, Federal programs and policies, GSE reform, Homeownership, Housing and Housing Finance, Housing and the economy, Housing finance, Housing Finance Policy Center, Tracking the economy |Tags: FHA, Homeownership, housing finance, loans, mortgages, Urban Institute, VA 3 Comments »
| Posted: July 16th, 2014
When it comes to correctional reform, the federal government could learn a thing or two from the states, according to Nancy La Vigne, director of the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center.
At yesterday’s convening of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigation, La Vigne outlined successful, evidence-based strategies adopted by the 17 states involved in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), and how these lessons could apply at the federal level.
“Many JRI states have slowed prison growth, reduced overcrowding, and saved taxpayers money without sacrificing public safety,” La Vigne testified. “The crime rate in almost all of the states that have reduced their prison populations continued to decline.”
But while “the state incarceration rate has remained largely constant for the past decade… the federal incarceration rate has grown by over a third,” she explained in her testimony. And with its current population exceeding 216,000 and projected to grow for the foreseeable future, the federal government will have to continue to allocate resources to the Bureau of Prisons at the expense of other public safety priorities.
So how have some states managed to reduce recidivism and stem the tide of unsustainable, expensive prison growth? Much of their success can be attributed to the adoption of proven strategies and evidence-based policy.
“Every decision we make will be a decision that research indicates is likely to have the best outcome,” said John Wetzel, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. “And if you sprinkle that throughout the whole system, starting at the front end, then you can’t go wrong.”
Texas has adopted a similar approach. “We asked what programs were working, and we asked for actual data that showed their successes,” testified Jerry Madden, senior fellow for Right on Crime and former chairman of the Texas House Corrections Committee.
So what does work? Based on the research, La Vigne concluded that a combination of front-end (sentencing and intake) and back-end (release and reentry) policies are necessary for both short- and long-term reductions in federal prison growth.
Specific evidence-based strategies include:
- Sentence reductions and earned time off for program participation and good conduct behind bars
- Reductions to mandatory minimums for low-level drug offenders
- Risk and needs assessments to determine what programs and treatment will best reduce an individual’s likelihood of offending
What doesn’t work: the status quo. Even with its prisons at 192 percent capacity, Alabama still has the nation’s eighth-highest crime rate, said State Senator Cam Ward. “That tells us one thing: Locking them up and throwing away the key is not the solution to our problem.”
Photo of Nancy La Vigne by Christina Baird, Urban Institute.
Filed under: AL, Corrections, reentry, and community supervision, Courts and sentencing, Crime and Justice, Crime and justice statistics, Justice Policy Center, Policing and crime prevention, TX |Tags: crime, justice reinvestment initiative, overcrowding, prison, Urban Institute Add a Comment »
| Posted: July 16th, 2014
I hardly need empirical support (though plenty exists) to claim that children in low-income families suffer when their parents lose their jobs. Since money was tight before the job loss, public supports for these families are critical to help offset losses in family income and reduce the risk that job loss will hurt children’s healthy development. So, does our safety net meet that need?
You’d perhaps think that unemployment insurance would save the day, but only about a third of children living with an unemployed parent receive UI benefits. Coverage rates tend to be low because many workers assume they are ineligible for the program, while others fail to meet non-monetary eligibility requirements that disproportionately affect low-wage workers.
Worse, only about a quarter of low-income children with an unemployed parent received unemployment insurance benefits in 2012, while 41 percent of children with higher-income unemployed parents did. So, how do newly unemployed, lower-income families get by?
As it turns out, many of them turn to nutrition assistance programs. More than half of children with low-income, unemployed parents relied on food stamps and almost two-thirds lived in families participating in the National School Lunch Program.
Why nutrition assistance programs and not cash assistance? In part, because cash assistance has become much more restrictive since welfare reform. Despite the sharp increase in parental unemployment and child poverty during the Great Recession, caseloads for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families did not expand much. This meant that very low-income families who failed to qualify for unemployment insurance were less able to rely on cash assistance.
On the other hand, the earned income tax credit (EITC) provides a great deal of support to low-income families, covering more than three-fourths of low-income children with unemployed parents (based on earnings before unemployment or from another parent). However, the EITC is primarily targeted to working parents. And parents don’t receive benefits until the tax season after they experience unemployment. This amounts to a one-time benefit, making it less effective at cushioning families against temporary losses in income when they occur.
To be clear, our safety net provides critical support for millions of families. But too many families with the most acute need are slipping through the cracks. This is a particularly serious problem given what we now know about how important it is for children to have economically and emotionally stable environments. Reforming our unemployment and cash assistance programs to improve access and coverage for those who most need it could help families become self-sufficient more quickly and promote children’s healthy development.
Filed under: Adolescents and Youth, Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population, Child care, Child welfare, Children, Children's health and development, Disability Insurance, Earned income tax credits, Economic well-being, Employment and income data, Hunger and food assistance, Job Market and Labor Force, Low-income working families, Poverty, Poverty, Vulnerability, and the Safety Net, Refundable tax credits, Social Security, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Nutrition–Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Unemployment, Unemployment insurance, Welfare and safety net programs |Tags: food stamps, poverty, safety net, snap, tanf, unemployment, Urban Institute Add a Comment »
and Jim Parrott Ellen Seidman
| Posted: July 15th, 2014
On May 15, 2014, the Senate Banking Committee passed S.1217, the Housing Finance Reform Act of 2013, more commonly known as Johnson-Crapo. While the bill passed out of committee with relatively broad bipartisan support, barring a late summer surprise it does not have the support needed for a vote on the Senate floor. The many months long effort was nonetheless an important step in the effort to reform the housing finance system, revealing a growing consensus on a number of critical issues and shedding light on the difficulties that remain.
We are among the many who have worked hard over the past several years to move housing finance reform forward, though from different positions and with different perspectives. The current pause gave us an opportunity to reflect on what happened in the Senate, why it happened and what the next steps look like. Work on Johnson-Crapo (as well as its predecessor Corker-Warner) was time well spent, providing lessons from which future reform efforts will undoubtedly benefit.
In our commentary , we focus on a range of issues critical both to the negotiations and to how the future system will function, with particular attention to credit access for historically underserved borrowers and communities—the issue that proved most challenging in the negotiations.
Although Johnson-Crapo contained a market-based incentive intended to ensure that the future system would serve these borrowers and communities well, some of the more progressive members of the Senate Banking Committee were skeptical that it would succeed. They were also uneasy with the impact that increased risk-based pricing and higher capital requirements likely under the bill would have on the cost of borrowing. At the end of the day, it became impossible to both meet progressive concerns and retain the bill’s bipartisan support.
Yet the Committee reached consensus on many other significant issues that we discuss at length in our dialogue. Indeed, with this increase in consensus there is hope that the next legislative run will face better odds, as the parties will be able to focus on the small number, though thorny, set of questions that remain. Meanwhile, there are many opportunities for administrative action to improve on the current system, a process the FHFA has already begun.
For an in-depth discussion of all of these issues and more, see here.
Photo from Shutterstock.
Filed under: Agency securitization, Federal programs and policies, GSE reform, Homeownership, Housing and Housing Finance, Housing finance, Housing Finance Policy Center |Tags: HFPC, housing finance, Johnson Crapo, reform, Urban Institute Add a Comment »
| Posted: July 14th, 2014
Amina Ajmal, an American citizen, was held in captivity for years and forced into a marriage by her own relatives in Pakistan. She escaped and found refuge in an American embassy. As Ajmal was flown home to Brooklyn, her father, Mohammad Ajmal Choudhry, ordered the murder of those who helped her escape. Earlier this month, Choudhry was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country.
In addition to illustrating the violence and barriers victims of forced marriage face when they seek safety and justice, the case shows how victims of forced marriage can utilize the justice system to hold perpetrators accountable, even when crimes occur across borders. But too often, these cases are never reported to law enforcement or service providers—or, when they are brought to their attention, the authorities neglect to identify the cases as forced marriage.
While there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a forced marriage in the United States, the Tahirih Justice Center defines it as one that takes place “without the full and free consent of one or both parties.” Though awareness of forced marriage isn’t particularly widespread in the United States, progress is being made and strategies for identifying and tackling forced marriage cases are beginning to crystalize across the country. Here is some of what we know so far:
- Forced marriage is often conflated with arranged marriage—a cultural and traditional practice. An arranged marriage isn’t always a forced marriage, and law enforcement and service providers may mistakenly view forced marriage as a cultural issue not worth a response. Even victims of a forced marriage may label their experience as an arranged marriage because they aren’t aware of the language and framework to use to draw a distinction between the two.
- When direct services providers encounter forced marriage cases, they may not have the right tools to identify it and respond. The Tahirih Justice Center surveyed more than 500 agencies, who reported encountering 3,000 suspected and confirmed forced marriage cases. However, 67 percent of services providers reported forced marriage cases weren’t being properly identified in their caseload, so the number is likely much higher.
- Forced marriage victims may face multiple forms of violence. My colleague Vidya Sri and I conducted a study of more than 500 students and direct services providers , and found that victims of forced marriage were subjected to multiple forms of abuse, including emotional violence (e.g., coercion and intimidation), domestic violence (e.g., sibling abuse, intimate partner violence, in-law violence), financial and economic abuse, sexual violence, immigration threats and fraud, isolation and false imprisonment, overseas abandonment, and in some cases, murder.
- Victims may experience negative mental health and physical health consequences, and may require a broad array of services. According to a review of 52 suspected and confirmed forced marriage cases, victims asked for counseling, advocacy, self-help groups, shelter, law enforcement assistance, and legal services (e.g., immigration, civil, criminal). Those who knew of someone who was threatened with or in a forced marriage stated the victim experienced depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse and alcohol dependence, and in some cases, committed suicide.
As awareness of forced marriage grows, the federal government is starting to pay attention. The Urban Institute, in collaboration with the Tahirih Justice Center and with an advisory board comprised of community agencies, is researching the intersection between forced marriage, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence among young South Asian women and men in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The Department of Justice-funded study will include interviews with people who have been threatened with or subjected to a forced marriage, as well as those who have watched a friend or loved one go through the experience. These voices of survivors and stakeholders will be used to develop a training manual for justice systems, educational institutions, and service providers on how to effectively respond to and prevent forced marriages.
Image from AP/STR. Pakistani women take part in a rally to condemn honor killings and victimization of women in society in Lahore Pakistan on Tuesday, Aug 10, 2004.
Filed under: Adolescents and Youth, Crime and Justice, Delinquency and crime, Families, Family violence, Father involvement, Human trafficking, Immigrants and Immigration, Justice Policy Center, Policing and crime prevention, Victims of crime |Tags: Amina Ajmal, forced marriage, Pakistan, Urban Institute, victims Add a Comment »
| Posted: July 14th, 2014
A couple of weeks ago over at FlowingData, Nathan Yau wrote a post about how to improve government data sites. The post was mostly a constructive critique of the difficulties users have extracting and using data provided by the federal government. (Surely state and local governments create similarly poor interfaces). It’s not that I disagree with Nathan, but I think it’s worth digging a little deeper into why government web sites and data sets aren’t particularly user-friendly.
Having worked at a government agency for nearly a decade and spoken to countless agencies about data visualization, presentation techniques, and technology challenges over the past few years, I thought I might add my own perspective.
In his post, Nathan suggests three reasons why government data sites are inexcusably poor:
Maybe the people in charge of these sites just don't know what's going on. Or maybe they're so overwhelmed by suck that they don't know where to start. Or they're unknowingly infected by the that-is-how-we've-always-done-it bug.
In my experience, government web sites aren’t difficult to use or extract data from because government workers don’t “know what’s going on” or are “overwhelmed by suck.” The real answer is probably closer to the “that-is-how-we’ve-always-done-it bug”—but even that simplifies a more complicated story.
Let’s say for the moment that you work at a large government agency and your job is to process a large household survey and make it available to the public (think, say, the Census Bureau). Up until the past couple of years or so, your target audience was other government workers, academics, and researchers in similar fields. And most of those analysts use tools similar to the ones you’re using: Stata, SAS, SPSS, MATLAB, maybe a little Fortran or C++. So what do you do? You create a data file so that they can download it, unpack it, and analyze it using those programming languages. Your primary audience is not journalists (data-driven journalism had not yet taken off) or bloggers (in-depth data blogging was just beginning) or data scientists (the term didn’t even exist).
Now, however, with the Open Data movement, interest in and demand for Big Data, expanded open source programming languages and tools, and the general explosion of DATA EVERYWHERE, everyone is clamoring for more of your government data. So the mandate has changed. And you, as the government worker who has for so long processed this survey the same way, now are being asked to provide that data in a variety of formats. You’re not familiar with those different file formats or tools, so you ask about training or maybe even hiring some additional staff. Unfortunately, that’s probably not going to happen. Demand for more (or better) data has not translated into more funds to train existing staff or hire new staff. For example, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013, the overall budget appropriation for the Census Bureau fell from $1.2 billion to $859.3 million, a decline of over 25 percent. (It’s hard to tell, but that may actually be an overstatement of the decrease, if there were still some extra funds in the 2011 appropriation to process the 2010 decennial census.) At the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the producer of the National Income and Product Accounts, total appropriations fell by a smaller amount: from $93 million in 2011 to $89.8 million in 2013.
I don’t believe that government agencies can’t or don’t want to make their data more accessible or are so overwhelmed by the technology that they’re unable to come up with solutions. Instead, I think many agencies have yet to adjust to a world that demands data, and demands that it be easily accessible at all times. It’s going to take time, money, and training for the government to catch up.
Filed under: Economic Growth and Productivity, Income and Benefits Policy Center, Monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, Tracking the economy |Tags: acs, BLS, Census, Flowingdata, government data sites, Nathan Yau, Urban Institute 2 Comments »
| Posted: July 11th, 2014
At Urban, we gather and analyze data in a lot of different ways, from programmatic administrative data, survey data, to focus group interviews. But don’t think all of our work occurs in an office—researchers working on the place-based Housing Opportunity and Services Together (HOST) Demonstration are in the field, working with families in low-income neighborhoods and developing whole-family strategies to help them rise out of poverty.
HOST is a new, whole-family approach to improving the life chances of the most vulnerable youth and adults in public housing developments around the country. The program brings integrated services to these communities, helping parents and children confront barriers to self-sufficiency like poor health, addiction, low literacy and educational attainment, and under- and unemployment.
We’re constantly evaluating new strategies to figure out what works. Our latest experiment: a “data walk” for residents of Altgeld Gardens, a public housing community and HOST site on Chicago’s South Side. Though our work is informed by residents’ experiences, residents aren’t typically involved in the ongoing data collection process. This time, though, we shared baseline survey and administrative data to hear what residents thought of the initiative and to learn what areas our data are not addressing. We are using their input to guide service provision for the remainder of the demonstration.
Community engagement in Altgeld Gardens is notoriously difficult, so we were prepared for the worst. But we worked hard with on-the-ground HOST staff to recruit families to participate and did our best to present the information in a user-friendly and engaging format. Ultimately, 28 adult residents and 8 HOST staff participated in our event—a great success in the Altgeld community. Here’s what we learned.
“I have had a lot of clients referred to food pantries because they don’t have enough food, so I can really relate to these numbers being so [high],” – HOST case manager
Our baseline survey revealed heartbreaking facts about food insecurity and hunger in Altgeld Gardens. About half of respondents didn’t have enough food to last the month or worried that their food supply would run out. One-fifth of residents had to cut the size of their meals to make food last longer.
It was shocking to hear responses from HOST staff and families; most felt the numbers should have been higher, indicating that food insecurity and hunger are more prevalent in the community than we expected.
“My son worked in the garden and he said, ‘Mama, come on out here.’ That made me interested [in HOST services].” – HOST adult
Many adults reported that their children’s HOST experiences motivated them to engage in HOST services themselves.
What resonated most for HOST adults and youth was being recognized for accomplishing their goals. As one case manager noted, “We had an event that was solely focused on the adults—they received awards and things of that nature—and afterward, my client came up to me and cried and said she had never been acknowledged like that.” We learned that whole family participation and recognition for reaching goals were huge motivating factors in getting HOST adults to take advantage of available services.
“She knows my whole family, she works with us.” - HOST adult
Before HOST, many Altgeld Gardens families were reluctant to engage with a case manager, but most eventually “came around” and built strong relationships with their services providers. Over the years, HOST families learned they can rely on their case managers and other HOST staff, and are beginning to see the changes they can help make.
The data walk experience really illustrated the value of bringing data back to the residents and involving them more in the data collection process. Engaging community members in research that concerns their well-being yields great response. It’s win-win; residents are more informed about their community, and researchers are more aware of what is and isn’t working. This feedback will help providers adjust services accordingly as the HOST demonstration comes to an end this year.
Moving forward, we’re planning similar data walk events in our other HOST sites. For more background, keep an eye out for an upcoming post from my colleague Brittany Edens.
Photo of the Altgeld Gardens "Data Walk" by Priya Saxena.
Filed under: Adolescents and Youth, Arts and culture, Chicago, Child care, Child support, Children, Children's health and development, Economic development, Economic well-being, Education and Training, Education reform/No Child Left Behind, Families, Geographies, Metro, Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, Neighborhood indicators, Neighborhoods and community-building, Neighborhoods and youth, Neighborhoods, Cities, and Metros, Poverty, Poverty, Vulnerability, and the Safety Net, Race, Ethnicity, and Gender |Tags: Altgeld Gardens, data, HOST, Urban Institute 1 Comment »
| Posted: July 10th, 2014
Yesterday, the Federal Reserve confirmed that it would end new purchases of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities (MBS)—what’s known as quantitative easing—in October. In response, the media are heralding the end of the Fed’s stimulus:
- “Fed Stimulus is Really Going to End and Nobody Cares,” says the Wall Street Journal.
- “Federal Reserve Plans to End Stimulus in October,” reports the BBC.
This is utterly wrong.
What the Fed is about to do is stop increasing the amount of stimulus it provides. For the mathematically inclined, it’s the first derivative of stimulus that is going to zero, not stimulus itself. For the analogy-inclined, it’s as though the Fed had announced (in more normal times) that it would stop cutting interest rates. New stimulus is ending, not the stimulus that’s already in place.
The Federal Reserve has piled up more than $4 trillion in long-term Treasuries and MBS, thus forcing investors to move into other assets. There’s great debate about how much stimulus that provides. But whatever it is, it will persist after the Fed stops adding to its holdings.
(P.S. I have just espoused what is known as the “stock” view of quantitative easing, i.e., that it’s the stock of assets owned by the Fed that matters. A competing “flow” view holds that it’s the pace of purchases that matters. If there’s any good evidence for the “flow” view, I’d love to see it. It may be that both matter. In that case, my point still stands: the Fed will still be providing stimulus through the stock effect.)
Filed under: Economic Growth and Productivity, Monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, Public and private investment, Taxes and Budget, Tracking the economy |Tags: Fed, Federal Reserve, quantitative easing, stimulus, Urban Institute Add a Comment »
| Posted: July 9th, 2014
After more than a decade of continuing resolutions, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) has passed Congress and should go this week to the White House for the president’s signature.
While in no way perfect, the new Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) is a clear improvement over its predecessor. It builds on 16 years of learning and knowledge and will provide better opportunities for workers who need new skills for the new economy.
Our paper last year on the innovations and future directions of workforce development highlights some of the key ideas that are embedded in WIOA.
Encouraging innovation. WIOA encourages local workforce boards to use promising strategies such as career pathways and sector strategies to better serve workers and employers. The advantage of these approaches is that they connect employer demand for skills and worker characteristics and abilities with the design of education and training programs. WIOA would also restore the provision for governors to reserve a full 15 percent of WIOA funds for statewide activities, allowing them to support greater innovations in their states.
Attaining industry-recognized credentials. One of the new core performance indicators under WIOA measures a student or trainee’s progress toward recognized postsecondary credentials. Again, this is designed to link employer and worker needs, as employers can be more confident that graduates have the right skills.
Improving data for measuring performance. While the original Workforce Investment Act introduced common measures of performance, WIOA strengthens performance reporting by enhancing and aligning a set of performance indicators across adult (including adult education) and youth programs. The legislation also supports efforts to link participant data to earnings data across all WIOA- funded programs and coordinate state and federal evaluation efforts.
Refocusing on disadvantaged populations. The Workforce Investment Act dismantled most requirements around serving disadvantaged populations. WIOA does not reinstate these provisions but does require boards and One-Stop operators to develop practices that encourage providing services to individuals with barriers to employment. This could be challenging considering that states need to meet performance level requirements but could help ensure that more disadvantaged individuals receive the often longer-term services they need.
What WIOA does not do is return overall workforce development funding to pre-sequestration levels immediately. Funding would be increased annually until 2020, but states and local areas will continue to be asked to do more with less.
For more of the legislative details, see the National Skills Coalition’s great side-by-side analysis of WIA and WIOA provisions.
Photo from Shutterstock.
Filed under: Economic Growth and Productivity, Education and Training, Income and Benefits Policy Center, Income and Wealth, Job Market and Labor Force, Job training and apprenticeships, Labor force, Low-wage workers, Tracking the economy, Unemployment, Wages and nonwage compensation, Wages and nonwage compensation, Work support strategies, Workforce development, training, and opportunity |Tags: apprenticeships, congress, jobs, labor market, low-income, unemployment, Urban Institute, WIA, WIOA 3 Comments »