News Article | March 1, 2017
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) has been named the largest investor in affordable multifamily housing in the U.S., according to research conducted by accounting firm, Cohn Reznick. With increasing demand for affordable rental options across the nation, Wells Fargo is helping to bridge the affordability gap as the number one investor in Low Income Housing Tax Credits for affordable multifamily housing in the U.S., with $9 billion in investments over the last five years. “ There is a significant affordable housing crisis impacting the country right now,” said Mark Myers, head of Wells Fargo Commercial Real Estate. “ Demand for affordable rental housing continues to be extremely high with many people paying a disproportionate percentage of their income on rent. As the largest commercial real estate lender in the country, being able to help meet the need for more affordable living options for our customers and communities is a top priority for Wells Fargo.” Wells Fargo contributes debt and equity to support affordable multifamily housing and has financed more than 180,000 units of affordable housing over the last five years. The Urban Institute estimates that for every 100 “extremely low-income” renter households (those with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median), there are just 29 affordable units available in the marketplace, translating into a total shortfall of more than eight million units. New York City is just one example of cities across the country struggling to provide enough affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents. “ In New York, we have more people who want to live here than we have housing,” said Rafael Cestero, president and CEO of Community Preservation Corporation (CPC), a non-profit affordable housing lender in NYC. “ This creates a supply and demand issue that’s driving rents higher and creating an exasperated need for affordable housing. Without Wells Fargo’s commitment to working with local government and investing in organizations like CPC, New York would be a different place and there would be fewer opportunities for low- and middle-income families to have affordable living options in the city.” Wells Fargo has been investing in tax credits for more than 15 years and is one of the few banks active in both direct and fund equity investments, which increases the amount of capital used to build affordable housing for individuals and families. Federal housing tax credits are awarded to developers of qualified projects. Developers then sell these credits to investors like Wells Fargo to raise capital for their projects, which reduces the debt the developer would otherwise have to borrow, enabling the developer to charge reduced rents. In addition to tax credit investments, Wells Fargo is an active lender to the affordable housing sector. Since 2014, Wells Fargo has lent $9.6 billion for affordable housing properties by providing short-term construction, bridge and permanent financing for affordable multifamily properties using its balance sheet as well as the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs. Wells Fargo works closely with experienced multifamily market-rate and affordable housing developers and investors, as well as mission-oriented for-profits and not-for-profits and Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) that are focused on affordable housing and economic development. Wells Fargo supports the development and preservation of affordable housing, including both multifamily and single-family housing, in numerous ways including tax credit investments, commercial lending, foundation grants, mortgages, and bank team member volunteer time. Since 2012, Wells Fargo has contributed $25 billion in loans, investments and grants for multifamily affordable housing (Community Reinvestment Act data). In addition, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (WFHM) is the No. 1 originator of home loans to residents of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. WFHM’s loan originations in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods totaled nearly $15 billion, or 46,401 loans. Details of select Wells Fargo affordable housing developments are available on Wells Fargo Stories. Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) is a diversified, community-based financial services company with $1.9 trillion in assets. Founded in 1852 and headquartered in San Francisco, Wells Fargo provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance through more than 8,600 locations, 13,000 ATMs, the internet (wellsfargo.com) and mobile banking, and has offices in 42 countries and territories to support customers who conduct business in the global economy. With approximately 269,000 team members, Wells Fargo serves one in three households in the United States. Wells Fargo & Company was ranked No. 27 on Fortune’s 2016 rankings of America’s largest corporations. Wells Fargo’s vision is to satisfy our customers’ financial needs and help them succeed financially. News, insights and perspectives from Wells Fargo are also available at Wells Fargo Stories.
Agency: Cordis | Branch: FP7 | Program: CP-FP | Phase: HEALTH.2010.3.2-1 | Award Amount: 3.73M | Year: 2010
International Research Project on Financing Quality in Healthcare InterQuality gathers the interest for financing systems effect on quality of healthcare of researchers from seven EU countries and US. The study, based on administrative and survey data, is designed for 36 months. It will take into account needs of four different patient groups (sectors), affected by: hospital, outpatient, pharmaceutical and integrated care. The scope of research will cover: utilization of resources and efficiency, quality of care, including: equity of access, patient satisfaction and safety of treatment. Resources allocated by each sector will be analyzed in relation to risk of their overuse, underuse or misuse. Critical appraisal of individual contracts will be based on the New Institutional Economics theory. Principal-Agent framework, the new standard approach to modelling relationships between payers and providers in healthcare, will be applied to the analysis of reimbursement schemes. The first two work-packages will prepare theoretical background and collect statistical data in required format. Dedicated Data Warehouse will be launched and exploited by all project participants. Work-packages 3-6 will perform core analytical work by building and testing sector-specific models and delivering expected project results. The research will be conducted in Poland, Italy, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom and United States. Each of the chosen countries has different health care financing system therefore the comparison of the results and outcomes, addressing different aspects of financial incentives effect on quality of care, will advance the knowledge base on sustainability of the health systems. Further knowledge gained from the project will provide support for Member States to choose the right financing mechanisms in the different areas of the health care system, according to their needs, in order to achieve better health with available resources.
de Briggs X.S.,Office of Management and Budget |
Comey J.,The Urban Institute |
Weismann G.,100 Cambridge Street
Housing Policy Debate | Year: 2010
Improving locational outcomes emerged as a major policy hope for the nation's largest low-income housing program over the past two decades, but a host of supply and demand-side barriers confront rental voucher users, leading to heated debate over the importance of choice versus constraint. In this context, we examine the Moving to Opportunity experiment's first decade, using a mixedmethod approach. MTO families faced major barriers in tightening markets, yet diverse housing trajectories emerged, reflecting variation in: (a) willingness to trade location - in particular, safety and avoidance of "ghetto" behavior - to get larger, better housing units after initial relocation; (b) the distribution of neighborhood types in different metro areas; and (c) circumstances that produced many involuntary moves. Access to social networks or services "left behind" in poorer neighborhoods seldom drove moving decisions. Numerous moves were brokered by rental agents who provided shortcuts to willing landlords but thereby steered participants to particular neighborhoods. © 2010 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Freedman V.A.,University of Michigan |
Spillman B.C.,The Urban Institute
Health Affairs | Year: 2016
Understanding long-range trends in longevity and disability is useful for projecting the likely impact of the baby-boom generation on long-term care utilization and spending. We examine changes in active life expectancy in the United States from 1982 to 2011 for white and black adults ages sixty-five and older. For whites, longevity increased, disability was postponed to older ages, the locus of care shifted from nursing facilities to community settings, and the proportion of life at older ages spent without disability increased. In contrast, for blacks, longevity increases were accompanied by smaller postponements in disability, and the percentage of remaining life spent active remained stable and well below that of whites. Older black women were especially disadvantaged in 2011 in terms of the proportion of years expected to be lived without disability. Public health measures directed at older black adults-particularly women-are needed to offset impending pressures on the long-term care delivery system as the result of population aging. © 2016 Project hope.
Freedman V.A.,University of Michigan |
Spillman B.C.,The Urban Institute
The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences | Year: 2014
OBJECTIVES: Older adults with care needs live in a variety of settings-from traditional community housing to nursing homes. This analysis provides new estimates of the size and characteristics of the older population across settings and examines unmet needs for assistance.METHOD: Data are from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study (N = 8,077). Multinomial logistic regressions focus on people in settings other than nursing homes who are at risk for unmet needs, defined as receiving help or having difficulty with household, self-care, or mobility activities (N = 4,023).RESULTS: Of 38.1 million Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 and older, 5.5 million (15%) live in settings other than traditional housing: 2.5 million in retirement or senior housing communities, nearly 1 million in independent- and 1 million in assisted-living settings, and 1.1 million in nursing homes. The prevalence of assistance is higher and physical and cognitive capacity lower in each successive setting. Unmet needs are common in traditional community housing (31%), but most prevalent in retirement or senior housing (37%) and assisted living settings (42%). After controlling for differences in resident characteristics across settings, those in retirement or senior housing communities have a higher likelihood of unmet needs than those in traditional community housing, while those in independent or assisted living settings have a lower relative likelihood.DISCUSSION: Substantial numbers of older adults, many with care needs, live in a continuum of settings other than traditional community housing. Unmet needs are prevalent among older adults with limitations across all settings and warrant further investigation and monitoring. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Jones R.M.,Virginia Commonwealth University |
Devers K.J.,The Urban Institute |
Kuzel A.J.,Virginia Commonwealth University |
Woolf S.H.,Virginia Commonwealth University
American Journal of Preventive Medicine | Year: 2010
Background: Barriers experienced by patients influence the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Prior research has quantified how often patients encounter these challenges but has generally not revealed their complex perspective and experience with barriers. Purpose: This mixed-methods study was conducted to understand current perspectives on CRC screening. Methods: A two-part, mixed-methods study was conducted of primary care patients recruited from Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network practices. First, in June-July 2005 a survey was mailed to 660 patients aged 50-75 years posing an open-ended question about "the most important barrier" to CRC screening. Second, beginning in October 2005, seven gender- and largely race-specific focus groups involving 40 patients aged 45-75 years were conducted. Beginning in October 2005, survey verbatim responses were coded and quantitatively analyzed and focus group transcripts were qualitatively analyzed. Results: Responses to the open-ended survey question, answered by 74% of respondents, identified fear and the bowel preparation as the most important barriers to screening. Only 1.6% of responses cited the absence of physician advice. Focus group participants cited similar issues and other previously reported barriers, but their remarks exposed the intricacies of complex barriers, such as fear, lack of information, time, the role of physicians, and access to care. Participants also cited barriers that have little documentation in the literature, such as low self-worth, "para-sexual" sensitivities, fatalism, negative past experiences with testing, and skepticism about the financial motivation behind screening recommendations. Conclusions: Mixed-methods analysis helps to disaggregate the complex nuances that influence patient behavior. In the present study, patients explained the web of influences on knowledge, motivation, and ability to undergo CRC screening, which clinicians and policymakers should consider in designing interventions to increase the level of screening. © 2010 American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
Pendall R.,The Urban Institute |
Theodos B.,The Urban Institute |
Franks K.,The Urban Institute
Housing Policy Debate | Year: 2012
This article has two purposes. First, it explores the ideas of vulnerability, precariousness, and resilience as they apply to people, housing, neighborhoods, and metropolitan areas. People might be more vulnerable to shocks or strains, we propose, if they are members of racial/ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, non-high school graduates, are children or over 75 years old, disabled, recent veterans, living in poverty, or living in single-parent households. Housing may be more precarious, we propose, when it is rented, multi-family, manufactured, crowded, or subject to overpayment. The article goes on to document the relationships between potential personal or household vulnerability and potentially precarious housing conditions. Microdata from the 2005-2007 American Community Survey suggest that an important minority of people have multiple vulnerabilities; these vulnerabilities associate with residence in precarious housing. We suggest that policy be directed toward precarious situations most likely to afflict the most vulnerable populations, especially single-parent households and immigrants. © 2011 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Comment on Emily Talen and Julia Koschinsky's "Is subsidized housing in sustainable neighborhoods? Evidence from Chicago": "Sustainable" urban form and opportunity: Frames and expectations for low-income households
Pendall R.,The Urban Institute |
Parilla J.,The Urban Institute
Housing Policy Debate | Year: 2011
Talen and Koschinsky demonstrate that Chicago's walkable, dense, mixed-use neighborhoods score poorly on measures of health, accessibility, safety, and social interaction. This comment raises and discusses several questions: How good a frame is "sustainable" for describing the urban form the authors measure? What are the connections between "sustainable urban form" (SUF) and good outcomes for assisted tenants in Chicago? Do SUF neighborhoods provide better conditions for assisted housing tenants? How does the scale at which we investigate this question influence the answer? More broadly, how do we expect SUF to work for assisted housing tenants and other low-income people? Finally, to what extent is SUF a necessary and sufficient condition for ensuring long-term income diversity through investment in affordable housing? The answers to all these questions are still open, making this is a promising time for more fine grained research supporting efforts to bring greater social justice to the city. © 2011 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Barber P.,The Urban Institute
Voluntas | Year: 2012
A major shift in the climate for the solicitation of charitable donations in the United States occurred in the second half of the twentieth century. Starting with legislation passed by the Legislatures of New York and Massachusetts in 1954 and eventually including 40 largely similar laws in force today, state governments grew to playing a predominant part in the regulation of appeals for public support for charitable activities. State regulators, voluntary oversight and advocacy groups, accounting standards-setting bodies, and the data-collection activities of the Internal Revenue Service all influenced the development of the body of regulations which now shape the process of seeking support for nonprofits' work. This article summarizes the effect of earlier innovations in the field of fundraising and then examines the interplay of public and private actors in the course of the creation of the present regulatory climate. © 2011 International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University.
Popkin S.J.,The Urban Institute
Housing Policy Debate | Year: 2010
The Chicago Housing Authority is midway through its ambitious Plan for Transformation. This paper presents new evidence about how residents have fared since the transformation began. Questions remain about where they are living, the circumstances of their new housing, and how relocation has affected their overall well-being. This paper presents new evidence on resident outcomes from the HOPE VI Panel Study, a national study that includes Chicago. The findings show that those residents who received vouchers are living in better housing in dramatically safer neighborhoods; many report improved mental health; and their children are having fewer behavior problems. But there are also very real reasons for concern. Voucher holders are experiencing economic hardship that may place them at risk for housing instability and the most troubled families are at risk for being left behind in traditional public housing, little better off than they were when the Plan began. © 2010 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.