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: Passarella, Letitia L.; Nicoli, Lisa T.
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    Economic recovery from the Great Recession has been slow for families with very low incomes. Those with incomes at the very bottom have only experienced two years of household income growth, rising 9% to $13,608 in 2016. Comparatively, middle-income families have had five years of growth with an increase of 11% to just over $59,000. Middle-income families now have earnings higher than their pre-recession levels, while those at the bottom still have not fully recovered. Given these low earnings and slow growth, it is important to examine those families who may have required additional support through Maryland’s Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) program.

    The annual report series, Life after Welfare, examines outcomes of families who left cash assistance. The series focuses on families’ characteristics, employment and earnings outcomes, and the receipt of other public benefits. The 2017 update includes a sample of 12,597 families who left the TCA program between January 2004 and March 2017. We examine trends through the lens of three different cohorts: (a) Mid-2000s Recovery—a...

    Economic recovery from the Great Recession has been slow for families with very low incomes. Those with incomes at the very bottom have only experienced two years of household income growth, rising 9% to $13,608 in 2016. Comparatively, middle-income families have had five years of growth with an increase of 11% to just over $59,000. Middle-income families now have earnings higher than their pre-recession levels, while those at the bottom still have not fully recovered. Given these low earnings and slow growth, it is important to examine those families who may have required additional support through Maryland’s Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) program.

    The annual report series, Life after Welfare, examines outcomes of families who left cash assistance. The series focuses on families’ characteristics, employment and earnings outcomes, and the receipt of other public benefits. The 2017 update includes a sample of 12,597 families who left the TCA program between January 2004 and March 2017. We examine trends through the lens of three different cohorts: (a) Mid-2000s Recovery—a declining caseload between January 2004 and March 2007; (b) Great Recession Era—an increasing caseload between April 2007 and December 2011; and (c) Great Recession Recovery—a declining caseload between January 2012 and March 2017.

    The main findings from this report indicate that families’ financial situations improved after exiting the TCA program, compared with their circumstances before they came onto the program. Nonetheless, these families struggle to rise above poverty and maintain independence from cash assistance. (Author abstract) 

  • Individual Author: Hoagwood, Kimberly Eaton; Atkins, Marc; Kelleher, Kelly; Peth-Pierce, Robin; Olin, Serene; Burns, Barbara; Landsverk, John; Horwitz, Sarah McCue
    Reference Type: Journal Article
    Year: 2018

    At a time when the prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents, particularly in those living at a low income, is increasing dramatically and only 2% of children using publicly funded services receive evidence-based services, it is timely to ask whether federal funding for research on the delivery of effective services, the structure of systems, and the development and implementation of effective interventions is keeping pace. It is even more critical to ask this question when faced with near-certain cuts to programs that provide mental health services (e.g., Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income) and a safety net (e.g., Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) for many low-income families. (Author abstract)

    At a time when the prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents, particularly in those living at a low income, is increasing dramatically and only 2% of children using publicly funded services receive evidence-based services, it is timely to ask whether federal funding for research on the delivery of effective services, the structure of systems, and the development and implementation of effective interventions is keeping pace. It is even more critical to ask this question when faced with near-certain cuts to programs that provide mental health services (e.g., Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income) and a safety net (e.g., Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) for many low-income families. (Author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Levy, Diane K. ; Edmonds, Leiha; Simington, Jasmine
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    This brief presents information on work requirement policies implemented by public housing agencies and estimates the percent of households affected by the requirements. Noting the lack of evidence on the outcomes and effects of work requirements on households’ employment and income and on the agencies’ implementation costs, it closes with questions to guide future research and policy considerations. (Author abstract) 

    This brief presents information on work requirement policies implemented by public housing agencies and estimates the percent of households affected by the requirements. Noting the lack of evidence on the outcomes and effects of work requirements on households’ employment and income and on the agencies’ implementation costs, it closes with questions to guide future research and policy considerations. (Author abstract) 

  • Individual Author: McCay, Jonathan; Derr, Michelle; Person, Ann
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    A road test is an iterative, rapid prototyping approach used to refine the design and implementation of a program strategy or intervention. This analytic piloting process involves multiple cycles of gathering formative feedback, adjusting the design, and strengthening the implementation of a strategy prior to scaling it up. By using this accessible approach to vetting programmatic changes, human services practitioners can clarify and strengthen the linkages between a program strategy and its anticipated outcomes and more precisely identify the necessary conditions for successful implementation. The road test is part of the Learn, Innovate, Improve (LI2) process for using and producing evidence in the course of program change. Pilot testing is a common practice in human services programs (such as workforce development and employment services, safety net programs, child welfare services, early childhood education programs, and healthy family programs, among others), yet programs can often do more to maximize learning from the experience of trying something new. In cases where a...

    A road test is an iterative, rapid prototyping approach used to refine the design and implementation of a program strategy or intervention. This analytic piloting process involves multiple cycles of gathering formative feedback, adjusting the design, and strengthening the implementation of a strategy prior to scaling it up. By using this accessible approach to vetting programmatic changes, human services practitioners can clarify and strengthen the linkages between a program strategy and its anticipated outcomes and more precisely identify the necessary conditions for successful implementation. The road test is part of the Learn, Innovate, Improve (LI2) process for using and producing evidence in the course of program change. Pilot testing is a common practice in human services programs (such as workforce development and employment services, safety net programs, child welfare services, early childhood education programs, and healthy family programs, among others), yet programs can often do more to maximize learning from the experience of trying something new. In cases where a strategy or intervention is rolled out without intentional and incremental refinement, the program change might ultimately be abandoned due to complications or perceived ineffectiveness, resulting in wasted energy and resources. (Author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Derr, Michelle; Person, Ann; McCay, Jonathan
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    The Learn, Innovate, Improve (LI2) process is a systematic, evidence-informed approach to program improvement. LI2 involves a series of analytic and replicable activities, supported by collaboration between practitioners and applied researchers, to help human services programs design, implement, and iteratively test programmatic changes. As a continuous improvement process, LI2 is intended to build practitioners’ capacity for better using and producing high-quality evidence; ultimately, this process can be institutionalized within the program environment. Human services programs (such as workforce development and employment services, safety net programs, child welfare services, early childhood education programs, and healthy family programs, among others) often seek to improve their practices in order to better help their clients. For various reasons, however, undertaking a systematic and evidence-informed approach to program change may not always happen. The LI2 process was collaboratively designed as a flexible solution to help programs embed analytic methods into their change...

    The Learn, Innovate, Improve (LI2) process is a systematic, evidence-informed approach to program improvement. LI2 involves a series of analytic and replicable activities, supported by collaboration between practitioners and applied researchers, to help human services programs design, implement, and iteratively test programmatic changes. As a continuous improvement process, LI2 is intended to build practitioners’ capacity for better using and producing high-quality evidence; ultimately, this process can be institutionalized within the program environment. Human services programs (such as workforce development and employment services, safety net programs, child welfare services, early childhood education programs, and healthy family programs, among others) often seek to improve their practices in order to better help their clients. For various reasons, however, undertaking a systematic and evidence-informed approach to program change may not always happen. The LI2 process was collaboratively designed as a flexible solution to help programs embed analytic methods into their change and quality improvement efforts. (Author abstract) 

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 1935 to 2018

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations