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.


  • Author: DeMaster, Dana
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2008

    This report is the second in a series of annual reports that focus on a one-month snapshot of cases at their lifetime limit of MFIP receipt. It looks at two groups: 1) all cases that already have 60 counted months and continue to receive MFIP and 2) cases that reached their 60th counted month in the report month, December 2006. It identifies the total number of adults made ineligible due to the time limit, compares the characteristics of eligible adults that have reached their lifetime limit to those with less than 60 months, and gives the reasons that those in the first group continue to receive MFIP, the counties where these families reside, what happens to families in relation to MFIP in the month after they reach month 60, and outcomes for these families in their first six months after reaching the time limit. The first report in this series was At the Limit: December 2005 Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) Cases that Reached the 60 Month Time Limit.

    The first section examines the demographic characteristics and chemical and mental health diagnoses of adults...

    This report is the second in a series of annual reports that focus on a one-month snapshot of cases at their lifetime limit of MFIP receipt. It looks at two groups: 1) all cases that already have 60 counted months and continue to receive MFIP and 2) cases that reached their 60th counted month in the report month, December 2006. It identifies the total number of adults made ineligible due to the time limit, compares the characteristics of eligible adults that have reached their lifetime limit to those with less than 60 months, and gives the reasons that those in the first group continue to receive MFIP, the counties where these families reside, what happens to families in relation to MFIP in the month after they reach month 60, and outcomes for these families in their first six months after reaching the time limit. The first report in this series was At the Limit: December 2005 Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) Cases that Reached the 60 Month Time Limit.

    The first section examines the demographic characteristics and chemical and mental health diagnoses of adults that have reached the time limit and continue to receive MFIP. The next section looks at the reasons for continued eligibility, extensions, work hours and income, and number of caregivers in these households. Following that is a section that looks at the number of cases that reached 60 counted months by county and breaks down data from the previous section into the largest eight counties. The final section focuses on the 86 households that reached their 60th counted month in December 2006. (author abstract)

  • Author: Herd, Dean; Lightman, Ernie; Mitchell, Andrew
    Reference Type: Journal Article
    Year: 2007

    This paper examines time limits on the receipt of welfare, based on experiences in the United States and, since 2002, in British Columbia, the only province to have introduced time limits in Canada. In effect, time limits start a ‘clock’ running and when the time has expired, welfare recipients become subject to penalties, up to lifetime exclusion from welfare. The paper begins by describing the introduction of time limits in the US and Canada, detailing the often complex policies themselves. It then reviews the research evidence, drawing primarily on the US experience which has been more fully evaluated. Overall, the research shows that time limits are both philosophically flawed and a blunt and ineffective policy tool. Proponents of time limits advocate their use as part of a package of measures designed to change the behaviour of individuals and to reduce welfare “dependency”. Instead, the research shows that those who reach time limits face multiple barriers to employment. In practical terms, recognition of the human costs of time limits in both the US and British Columbia...

    This paper examines time limits on the receipt of welfare, based on experiences in the United States and, since 2002, in British Columbia, the only province to have introduced time limits in Canada. In effect, time limits start a ‘clock’ running and when the time has expired, welfare recipients become subject to penalties, up to lifetime exclusion from welfare. The paper begins by describing the introduction of time limits in the US and Canada, detailing the often complex policies themselves. It then reviews the research evidence, drawing primarily on the US experience which has been more fully evaluated. Overall, the research shows that time limits are both philosophically flawed and a blunt and ineffective policy tool. Proponents of time limits advocate their use as part of a package of measures designed to change the behaviour of individuals and to reduce welfare “dependency”. Instead, the research shows that those who reach time limits face multiple barriers to employment. In practical terms, recognition of the human costs of time limits in both the US and British Columbia has led to the development of broad exemptions and extensions. While this has negated many of the impacts of time limits, the powerful symbolism remains. The presence of time limits graphically highlights the transformed purpose and scope of welfare. As such, while the practical impact in British Columbia has been significantly reduced, time limits continue to cast an ominous shadow over those in need of assistance. (author abstract)

  • Author: Gordon, Anne; James-Burdumy, Susanne; Loeffler, Renee; Guglielmo, Barbara; Kuhns, Carole
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2002

    Most welfare recipients now face a time limit on their eligibility for cash assistance. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 instituted a five-year lifetime limit on federal cash assistance for most recipients and permitted states, under the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, to set shorter time limits. Some states, including Virginia, had already begun to implement time limits under waivers. Because time-limited welfare is relatively new, policymakers and the public at large have been concerned about what happens to families who lose TANF benefits because of time limits. Because time limit policies vary widely, this question can only be answered state by state.

    In 1995, Virginia, as part of its welfare reforms, instituted a 24-month time limit on benefits under the Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW). To provide reliable information on time limit families and what happens to them after reaching the time limit, the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) contracted with Virginia Tech...

    Most welfare recipients now face a time limit on their eligibility for cash assistance. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 instituted a five-year lifetime limit on federal cash assistance for most recipients and permitted states, under the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, to set shorter time limits. Some states, including Virginia, had already begun to implement time limits under waivers. Because time-limited welfare is relatively new, policymakers and the public at large have been concerned about what happens to families who lose TANF benefits because of time limits. Because time limit policies vary widely, this question can only be answered state by state.

    In 1995, Virginia, as part of its welfare reforms, instituted a 24-month time limit on benefits under the Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW). To provide reliable information on time limit families and what happens to them after reaching the time limit, the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) contracted with Virginia Tech and Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), for a longitudinal study. The study includes analysis of
    administrative data and of surveys of time limit families conducted about 6 and 18 months after their TANF cases closed.

    This is the second of four planned reports from the Virginia Time Limit Study. It presents 18 months of follow-up data on families whose TANF cases closed because of the time limit in early 1998 (cohort 1) and 6 months of follow-up data for a larger sample that includes families that reached the time limit in early 1998 and early 1999 (cohorts 1 and 2). (author abstract)

  • Author: DeMaster, Dana
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2007

    This report is the first in a series of annual reports that focuses on a one-month snapshot of cases at their lifetime limit. It looks at two groups: 1) cases that already have 60 counted months and continue to receive MFIP, and 2) cases that reached their 60th counted month in the report month, December 2005. It identifies the total number of adults made ineligible due to the time limit, compares the characteristics of eligible adults that have reached their lifetime limit to those with less than 60 months, and gives the reasons that those in the first group continue to receive MFIP, the counties where these families reside, what happens to families in relation to MFIP in the month after they reach month 60, and outcomes for these families in their first six months after reaching the time limit. (author abstract)

    This report is the first in a series of annual reports that focuses on a one-month snapshot of cases at their lifetime limit. It looks at two groups: 1) cases that already have 60 counted months and continue to receive MFIP, and 2) cases that reached their 60th counted month in the report month, December 2005. It identifies the total number of adults made ineligible due to the time limit, compares the characteristics of eligible adults that have reached their lifetime limit to those with less than 60 months, and gives the reasons that those in the first group continue to receive MFIP, the counties where these families reside, what happens to families in relation to MFIP in the month after they reach month 60, and outcomes for these families in their first six months after reaching the time limit. (author abstract)

  • Author: Born, Catherine; Ovwigho, Pamela; Patterson, Kathryn
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2007

    The federal time limit on welfare receipt imposed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 was designed to create a sense of urgency for families to make the transition from welfare to financial self-sufficiency. Today the controversy originally generated by the time limit policy is a distant memory as states focus on meeting federal work participation standards and avoiding fiscal penalties

    Despite the initial controversy over the time limit policy, surprisingly little research has been done on the topic. The few studies available have shown that those cases that have reached the time limit have characteristics differing from those of the remainder of the caseload (Bloom, et. al., 2002; Caudill & Born, 1997; Richardson, Schoenfeld, & LaFever, 2003). In addition, time-limited families may face a greater number of barriers to self-sufficiency than their counterparts who are able to end their reliance on cash assistance at an earlier point (Hetling, Tracy, & Born, 2005; Seefeldt & Orzol, 2005; Welfare and Child...

    The federal time limit on welfare receipt imposed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 was designed to create a sense of urgency for families to make the transition from welfare to financial self-sufficiency. Today the controversy originally generated by the time limit policy is a distant memory as states focus on meeting federal work participation standards and avoiding fiscal penalties

    Despite the initial controversy over the time limit policy, surprisingly little research has been done on the topic. The few studies available have shown that those cases that have reached the time limit have characteristics differing from those of the remainder of the caseload (Bloom, et. al., 2002; Caudill & Born, 1997; Richardson, Schoenfeld, & LaFever, 2003). In addition, time-limited families may face a greater number of barriers to self-sufficiency than their counterparts who are able to end their reliance on cash assistance at an earlier point (Hetling, Tracy, & Born, 2005; Seefeldt & Orzol, 2005; Welfare and Child Support Research and Training Group, 2001; Zedlewski, 2003).

    The University of Maryland has been in the forefront of examining this important issue (Caudill & Born, 1997; Hetling, et al., 2005; Welfare and Child Support Research and Training Group, 2001). Our most recent study compared outcomes for families leaving after reaching the 60 month limit to the outcomes for a matched comparison group (Hetling, Patterson, & Born, 2006). We found that time limit leavers fared worse than other leavers in terms of employment and recidivism, and these differences could not be explained by factors such as urban residence, exiting because of a work sanction, or having more children.

    For policymakers and program managers, several key questions remain regarding the TANF time limit. In this study, we address four of the most critical ones:
    1) What are the characteristics of families reaching the time limit? Have these characteristics changed over time?
    2) What barriers to employment do time-limited families face?
    3) What happens to families after they reach the limit? Do they remain on TCA? To what extent do they find employment?
    4) What is the relationship between families’ employment barriers and outcomes?

    (author abstract)

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 1946 to 2019

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations