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: Gubits, Daniel; Shinn, Marybeth; Wood, Michelle; Bell, Stephen; Dastrup, Samuel; Solari, Claudia D.; Brown, Scott R.; McInnis, Debi; McCall, Tom; Kattel, Utsav
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2016

    The Family Options Study: Three-year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families documents the outcomes of the 2,282 formerly homeless study families approximately 37 months after having been randomly assigned to one of four housing and/or services interventions. The findings at 37-months in large part mirror the findings documented at 20 months, with the long-terms outcomes again demonstrating the power of a voucher to convey significantly improved housing outcomes to formerly homeless families, when compared with the housing outcomes of families offered other interventions. Families offered a permanent subsidy experienced less than half as many episodes of subsequent homelessness, and vast improvements across a broad set of measures related to residential stability. Many of the non-housing outcomes of interest that were strongly influenced by the offer of a voucher in the short-term, such as reductions in psychological distress and intimate partner violence, are still detected, but some positive impacts found at the 20-month followup are not detected at...

    The Family Options Study: Three-year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families documents the outcomes of the 2,282 formerly homeless study families approximately 37 months after having been randomly assigned to one of four housing and/or services interventions. The findings at 37-months in large part mirror the findings documented at 20 months, with the long-terms outcomes again demonstrating the power of a voucher to convey significantly improved housing outcomes to formerly homeless families, when compared with the housing outcomes of families offered other interventions. Families offered a permanent subsidy experienced less than half as many episodes of subsequent homelessness, and vast improvements across a broad set of measures related to residential stability. Many of the non-housing outcomes of interest that were strongly influenced by the offer of a voucher in the short-term, such as reductions in psychological distress and intimate partner violence, are still detected, but some positive impacts found at the 20-month followup are not detected at the longer, 37-month followup. For example, 20 months after random assignment, assignment to SUB reduced the proportion of families with child separations in the 6 months before the survey--this effect was not detected in the 6 months before the 37-month survey. Also in this longer window of observation, some positive impacts in the child well-being domain have emerged. Families offered a voucher continue to be significantly more food secure and experience significantly less economic stress than families offered the other interventions. On measures of employment and earnings, the modest negative impacts of vouchers relative to usual care have fallen, although some remain statistically significant. (Author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Collins, Ann M.; Briefel, Ronette; Klerman, Jacob A.; Bell, Stephen; Bellotti, Jeanne; Logan, Christopher W.; Gordon, Anne; Wolfe, Anne; Rowe, Gretchen; McLaughlin, Steven M.; Enver, Ayesha; Fernandes, Meena; Wolfson, Carrie; Komarovsky, Marina; Cabili, Charlotte; Owens, Cheryl
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2012

    Children’s development, health, and well-being depend on access to a safe and secure source of food. In 2010, 8.0 million households with children were food insecure (one in five such households) and nearly half of these, 3.9 million, included children who were food insecure at times during the year (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011). Nearly 8.5 million children lived in households with food-insecure children, and 1.0 million children lived in households with very low food security among children (VLFS-C).

    To address needs in the summer, when school is out of session, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provides meals and snacks to children who receive the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) or the School Breakfast Program (SBP) during the school year. The SFSP enriches the lives of millions of low-income children in communities across the U.S., however, it reaches far fewer children than the school programs (FNS 2011a; Gordon and Briefel, 2003; Food Research and Action Center, 2011). Many communities also provide other types of food assistance and child programs during the...

    Children’s development, health, and well-being depend on access to a safe and secure source of food. In 2010, 8.0 million households with children were food insecure (one in five such households) and nearly half of these, 3.9 million, included children who were food insecure at times during the year (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011). Nearly 8.5 million children lived in households with food-insecure children, and 1.0 million children lived in households with very low food security among children (VLFS-C).

    To address needs in the summer, when school is out of session, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provides meals and snacks to children who receive the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) or the School Breakfast Program (SBP) during the school year. The SFSP enriches the lives of millions of low-income children in communities across the U.S., however, it reaches far fewer children than the school programs (FNS 2011a; Gordon and Briefel, 2003; Food Research and Action Center, 2011). Many communities also provide other types of food assistance and child programs during the summer months to meet the nutritional needs of low-income children. Locations and resources are limited, though, so there are still gaps in many communities.

    As part of its efforts to end child hunger, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is studying alternative approaches to providing food assistance to children in the summer months. The 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-80) authorized and provided funding for USDA to implement and rigorously evaluate the Summer Food for Children Demonstration, one component of which is the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC). FNS contracted with Abt Associates, Mathematica Policy Research, and Maximus to study how the demonstration program has unfolded over time and its impact on program participants. (author abstract)

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 2012 to 2016

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations