Skip to main content
Back to Top

SSRC Library

The SSRC Library allows visitors to access materials related to self-sufficiency programs, practice and research. Visitors can view common search terms, conduct a keyword search or create a custom search using any combination of the filters at the left side of this page. To conduct a keyword search, type a term or combination of terms into the search box below, select whether you want to search the exact phrase or the words in any order, and click on the blue button to the right of the search box to view relevant results.

Writing a paper? Working on a literature review? Citing research in a funding proposal? Use the SSRC Citation Assistance Tool to compile citations.

  • Conduct a search and filter parameters as desired.
  • "Check" the box next to the resources for which you would like a citation.
  • Select "Download Selected Citation" at the top of the Library Search Page.
  • Select your export style:
    • Text File.
    • RIS Format.
    • APA format.
  • Select submit and download your citations.

The SSRC Library includes resources which may be available only via journal subscription. The SSRC may be able to provide users without subscription access to a particular journal with a single use copy of the full text.  Please email the SSRC with your request.

The SSRC Library collection is constantly growing and new research is added regularly. We welcome our users to submit a library item to help us grow our collection in response to your needs.


  • Individual Author: Tsethlikai, M.; Murray, D.W.; Meyer, A.M.; Sparrow, J.
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    The words that comprise “self-regulation” (e.g., ‘self’ and ‘regulation’) may be problematic for many Native communities that emphasize community and learning through observing, internalizing, and doing.  Self-regulation may still be relevant for Native communities because self-regulation occurs in relationships, can be developed through a range of different ways of learning, and can serve the well-being of whole communities. (Author abstract)

     

    The words that comprise “self-regulation” (e.g., ‘self’ and ‘regulation’) may be problematic for many Native communities that emphasize community and learning through observing, internalizing, and doing.  Self-regulation may still be relevant for Native communities because self-regulation occurs in relationships, can be developed through a range of different ways of learning, and can serve the well-being of whole communities. (Author abstract)

     

  • Individual Author: Bauman, Kevin; Christensen, Cody
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    To address these labor market challenges, many have turned to America’s workforce development system. Recent efforts from Congress and the White House confirm that policymakers are serious about expanding job-training opportunities. But even with the heightened focus, a shockingly small percentage of individuals leveraging the workforce system combine available Department of Labor training funds with money from other federal and state programs—despite that many more might qualify for additional aid. Incongruent bureaucratic processes commonly inhibit the effectiveness of workforce training, and policy requirements are not clearly communicated to training seekers, financial aid administrators, and private entities. If the goal is to increase the number of job seekers that participate in high-quality training programs, more can be done to improve the coordination between the Department of Labor and these groups. This report offers recommendations for enhancing the federal workforce development system by reviewing and identifying inefficiencies in the current system. It concludes by...

    To address these labor market challenges, many have turned to America’s workforce development system. Recent efforts from Congress and the White House confirm that policymakers are serious about expanding job-training opportunities. But even with the heightened focus, a shockingly small percentage of individuals leveraging the workforce system combine available Department of Labor training funds with money from other federal and state programs—despite that many more might qualify for additional aid. Incongruent bureaucratic processes commonly inhibit the effectiveness of workforce training, and policy requirements are not clearly communicated to training seekers, financial aid administrators, and private entities. If the goal is to increase the number of job seekers that participate in high-quality training programs, more can be done to improve the coordination between the Department of Labor and these groups. This report offers recommendations for enhancing the federal workforce development system by reviewing and identifying inefficiencies in the current system. It concludes by forwarding several policy suggestions aimed at improving the way that Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funding is used by job seekers and training providers. (Excerpt from author introduction) 

  • Individual Author: Neumark, David
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    Poverty remains a persistent problem in many areas in the United States. Existing place-based policies—especially enterprise zones—have generally failed to provide benefits to the least advantaged. Drawing on lessons from the often-negative findings on effects of past place-based policies, but preserving the potential advantage of policies that try to improve economic outcomes in specific areas, I propose a new place-based policy—Rebuilding Communities Job Subsidies, or RCJS—to encourage job and income growth in areas of economic disadvantage. RCJS targets neighborhoods classified as extremely poor, and low-income workers in those neighborhoods, with a period of fully subsidized jobs to build skills and improve and revitalize areas of extreme poverty, to be followed by partially subsidized private sector jobs. (Author abstract). 

    Poverty remains a persistent problem in many areas in the United States. Existing place-based policies—especially enterprise zones—have generally failed to provide benefits to the least advantaged. Drawing on lessons from the often-negative findings on effects of past place-based policies, but preserving the potential advantage of policies that try to improve economic outcomes in specific areas, I propose a new place-based policy—Rebuilding Communities Job Subsidies, or RCJS—to encourage job and income growth in areas of economic disadvantage. RCJS targets neighborhoods classified as extremely poor, and low-income workers in those neighborhoods, with a period of fully subsidized jobs to build skills and improve and revitalize areas of extreme poverty, to be followed by partially subsidized private sector jobs. (Author abstract). 

  • Individual Author: Newville, David; Ain, Joanna
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    Last week, the House of Representatives passed a Farm Bill with damaging changes to SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) that could reduce or eliminate nutritional benefits for two million Americans. One critical change in the House bill is the elimination of states' ability to increase or remove savings penalties (sometimes known as asset limits), which require families to spend down their savings to a specified level before they can receive SNAP benefits. The Senate version of the bill does the opposite by protecting SNAP, including states’ abilities to increase or remove savings penalties. To provide a better understanding of what savings penalties are and why they matter, Prosperity Now has released a new policy brief, Savings Penalties Push Families Deeper into Poverty, detailing how savings penalties in public benefits programs, including SNAP, force low-income households to choose between saving for their future and getting supports for their basic needs today. (Author introduction)

    Last week, the House of Representatives passed a Farm Bill with damaging changes to SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) that could reduce or eliminate nutritional benefits for two million Americans. One critical change in the House bill is the elimination of states' ability to increase or remove savings penalties (sometimes known as asset limits), which require families to spend down their savings to a specified level before they can receive SNAP benefits. The Senate version of the bill does the opposite by protecting SNAP, including states’ abilities to increase or remove savings penalties. To provide a better understanding of what savings penalties are and why they matter, Prosperity Now has released a new policy brief, Savings Penalties Push Families Deeper into Poverty, detailing how savings penalties in public benefits programs, including SNAP, force low-income households to choose between saving for their future and getting supports for their basic needs today. (Author introduction)

  • Individual Author: Parness, Jeffrey A.; Timko, Matthew
    Reference Type: Journal Article
    Year: 2018

    Traditionally, American state laws have recognized that the federal constitutional right to the “care, custody, and control” of a child vests in either the heterosexual birth parents or the adoptive parents of the child. Recently, state laws have also recognized this parental right of “care, custody, and control” to opposite sex unmarried couples who bore the child of sex. Even more recently, state laws have recognized this parental right for those who did not engage in sexual intercourse leading to a pregnancy and birth. State laws have also increasingly limited this childcare right of traditionally recognized parents by allowing nonparents to secure court-ordered childcare over the objections of current parents, whether by recognizing these nonparents as de facto parents or as third parties with childcare standing. While state childcare law opportunities have evolved significantly as family structures, genetic testing, and assisted reproduction techniques have changed, the laws on parental and nonparental child support have not changed much. This Article explores actual and...

    Traditionally, American state laws have recognized that the federal constitutional right to the “care, custody, and control” of a child vests in either the heterosexual birth parents or the adoptive parents of the child. Recently, state laws have also recognized this parental right of “care, custody, and control” to opposite sex unmarried couples who bore the child of sex. Even more recently, state laws have recognized this parental right for those who did not engage in sexual intercourse leading to a pregnancy and birth. State laws have also increasingly limited this childcare right of traditionally recognized parents by allowing nonparents to secure court-ordered childcare over the objections of current parents, whether by recognizing these nonparents as de facto parents or as third parties with childcare standing. While state childcare law opportunities have evolved significantly as family structures, genetic testing, and assisted reproduction techniques have changed, the laws on parental and nonparental child support have not changed much. This Article explores actual and potential child support laws arising from the new childcare laws for both parents and nonparents. (author abstract)

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 1965 to 2019

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations