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: Gleason, Elizabeth; Passarella, Letitia Logan
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2017

    This latest edition in the Caseload Exits at the Local Level series describes the continuation of this pattern of TCA case closures. This report examines case closures during FFY 2016, which is the one-year period of October 2015 to September 2016. It employs a series of tables and figures to characterize statewide and jurisdictional trends in case closures. Case closure information, where appropriate, is compared with open TCA cases in October 2015 and historical case closure data to highlight relevant changes and trends. Outcomes of the analyses provide policymakers and program managers with information to better understand the characteristics and reasons for case closure. (Author abstract)

    This latest edition in the Caseload Exits at the Local Level series describes the continuation of this pattern of TCA case closures. This report examines case closures during FFY 2016, which is the one-year period of October 2015 to September 2016. It employs a series of tables and figures to characterize statewide and jurisdictional trends in case closures. Case closure information, where appropriate, is compared with open TCA cases in October 2015 and historical case closure data to highlight relevant changes and trends. Outcomes of the analyses provide policymakers and program managers with information to better understand the characteristics and reasons for case closure. (Author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Brodkin, Evelyn Z.; Majmundar, Malay
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2008

    This inquiry takes up the question of how bureaucratic proceduralism operates in benefits delivery and, specifically, whether it produced exclusionary effects in the case of welfare delivery.  Bureaucratic proceduralism, a construct of this analysis, is defined as organizational practices occurring through the interaction of formal rules and procedures with informal administrative activities. This focus on proceduralism directs empirical attention to the processes that affect the cost of claiming, not on the categorical standards for eligibility themselves.  It recognizes that eligibility rules are not self-executing, but depend on the formal and informal steps, interactions, and judgments that constitute the business of claimsmaking at the street-level. 

    Using data from the National Survey of America’s Families, this inquiry addresses two empirical questions.  First, was bureaucratic proceduralism a factor in declining welfare caseloads in the period post-welfare reform?   Second, did proceduralism have differential effects on welfare claimants, depending on their...

    This inquiry takes up the question of how bureaucratic proceduralism operates in benefits delivery and, specifically, whether it produced exclusionary effects in the case of welfare delivery.  Bureaucratic proceduralism, a construct of this analysis, is defined as organizational practices occurring through the interaction of formal rules and procedures with informal administrative activities. This focus on proceduralism directs empirical attention to the processes that affect the cost of claiming, not on the categorical standards for eligibility themselves.  It recognizes that eligibility rules are not self-executing, but depend on the formal and informal steps, interactions, and judgments that constitute the business of claimsmaking at the street-level. 

    Using data from the National Survey of America’s Families, this inquiry addresses two empirical questions.  First, was bureaucratic proceduralism a factor in declining welfare caseloads in the period post-welfare reform?   Second, did proceduralism have differential effects on welfare claimants, depending on their socioeconomic status, race, or ethnicity?  That is, did proceduralism produce inequality in access to benefits?  This analysis builds on and contributes to the theoretical and empirical literature on street-level bureaucracy and welfare administration.  Beyond these analytic concerns, it has practical implications for welfare administration as well as political implications for administrative justice. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Gooden, Susan; Doolittle, Fred; Glispie, Ben
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2001

    The passage of federal legislation reforming welfare in 1996 challenged states to be innovative in structuring and administering public assistance for needy families with children. As one of the first states to end Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and replace it with a new program, Wisconsin provided a new vision for many key decisions that states now face about imposing time limits on assistance (within the federal five-year lifetime limit), setting levels of cash assistance, the variety of employment-related services to offer, and how to enforce requirements for participating in services.

    In the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program, applicants for public assistance under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) must be assessed and assigned quickly to one of several “tiers” that entail different levels of cash assistance, different services, and different participation requirements. Two tiers (community service jobs and W-2 transitional placements) have two-year limits unless an extension is granted. Thus, caseworkers' decisions about initial tier...

    The passage of federal legislation reforming welfare in 1996 challenged states to be innovative in structuring and administering public assistance for needy families with children. As one of the first states to end Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and replace it with a new program, Wisconsin provided a new vision for many key decisions that states now face about imposing time limits on assistance (within the federal five-year lifetime limit), setting levels of cash assistance, the variety of employment-related services to offer, and how to enforce requirements for participating in services.

    In the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program, applicants for public assistance under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) must be assessed and assigned quickly to one of several “tiers” that entail different levels of cash assistance, different services, and different participation requirements. Two tiers (community service jobs and W-2 transitional placements) have two-year limits unless an extension is granted. Thus, caseworkers' decisions about initial tier assignments have important implications for participants and the agencies that administer services. Although state policy sets guidelines for making initial tier assignments, caseworkers have much discretion in designing an individualized service plan for applicants and participants. Moreover, in Milwaukee County, the state has contracted with private agencies to administer W-2, and the agencies have developed their own procedures for conducting intake and assessing applicants.

    This report - the first in a series on W-2 administration - describes how the early assessment of applicants' job readiness and service needs was actually done in Milwaukee County during the program's first two years. Based on field research, administrative records, and observations of program operations, it analyzes the initial tier and activity assignments. The study's findings illustrate how W-2 has evolved, how caseworkers have handled the many tasks of enrolling someone in the program, and the challenges of assessing the circumstances and needs of applicants who have serious barriers to employment. (Author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Watson Bishop, Sheilah
    Reference Type: Journal Article
    Year: 2004

    Established by the Family Support Act of 1988, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, known as FUTURES in the State of Missouri, experienced a shift in focus with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996. Once a program that emphasized educational opportunities and job skills training, FUTURES has more recently stressed short-term activities aimed at moving the welfare recipient into the workplace as quickly as possible. This study examines the shift in program components that took place with the advent of welfare reform in 1996, and attempts to provide some insight into whether current case management services are helping clients attain self-sufficiency. The analysis concludes that in terms of wages and recidivism, individuals who participated in the FUTURES program did no better than individuals who had not enrolled in the program. (author abstract)

    Established by the Family Support Act of 1988, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, known as FUTURES in the State of Missouri, experienced a shift in focus with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996. Once a program that emphasized educational opportunities and job skills training, FUTURES has more recently stressed short-term activities aimed at moving the welfare recipient into the workplace as quickly as possible. This study examines the shift in program components that took place with the advent of welfare reform in 1996, and attempts to provide some insight into whether current case management services are helping clients attain self-sufficiency. The analysis concludes that in terms of wages and recidivism, individuals who participated in the FUTURES program did no better than individuals who had not enrolled in the program. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Brock, Thomas; Kwakye, Isaac; Polyne, Judy C.; Richburg-Hayes, Lashawn; Seith, David; Stepick, Alex; Dutton Stepick, Carol; Cullen, Tara; Rich, Sarah
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2004

    The 1996 national welfare reform law introduced a five-year time limit on federally funded cash assistance, imposed tough new work requirements, restricted benefits for noncitizens, and gave states more flexibility to design their welfare programs than in the past. Anticipating that the law might pose particular challenges for urban areas — where poverty and welfare receipt are concentrated — MDRC launched a study to examine its implementation and effects in four big cities. This report focuses on trends in Miami-Dade County between 1996 and 2002. (Author abstract) 

    The 1996 national welfare reform law introduced a five-year time limit on federally funded cash assistance, imposed tough new work requirements, restricted benefits for noncitizens, and gave states more flexibility to design their welfare programs than in the past. Anticipating that the law might pose particular challenges for urban areas — where poverty and welfare receipt are concentrated — MDRC launched a study to examine its implementation and effects in four big cities. This report focuses on trends in Miami-Dade County between 1996 and 2002. (Author abstract) 

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 1997 to 2019

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations