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: The Urban Institute
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2013

     The overarching goal of the Choice Neighborhoods program (Choice) is to redevelop distressed assisted housing projects and transform the neighborhoods surrounding them into mixed-income, high-opportunity places. Choice builds on lessons learned during HOPE VI, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) long-running program to replace or rehabilitate distressed public housing. It maintains the emphasis of HOPE VI on public-private partnerships and mixed financing for replacing or rehabilitating assisted housing but extends eligibility to privately owned federally subsidized developments. It requires that grantees build at least one subsidized replacement housing unit for every assisted unit demolished in the target development. It also continues the emphasis of HOPE VI on protecting tenants during the redevelopment process and heightens aspirations to give existing tenants the opportunity to live in the redeveloped project upon its completion. It differs most from HOPE VI by providing funding for projects that create synergy between renovation of the target...

     The overarching goal of the Choice Neighborhoods program (Choice) is to redevelop distressed assisted housing projects and transform the neighborhoods surrounding them into mixed-income, high-opportunity places. Choice builds on lessons learned during HOPE VI, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) long-running program to replace or rehabilitate distressed public housing. It maintains the emphasis of HOPE VI on public-private partnerships and mixed financing for replacing or rehabilitating assisted housing but extends eligibility to privately owned federally subsidized developments. It requires that grantees build at least one subsidized replacement housing unit for every assisted unit demolished in the target development. It also continues the emphasis of HOPE VI on protecting tenants during the redevelopment process and heightens aspirations to give existing tenants the opportunity to live in the redeveloped project upon its completion. It differs most from HOPE VI by providing funding for projects that create synergy between renovation of the target development and revitalization efforts within the neighborhood surrounding the target development. Beyond providing funding for neighborhood investments, Choice also fosters partnerships among organizations, agencies, and institutions working throughout the neighborhood to build affordable housing, provide social services, care for and educate children and youth, ensure public safety, and revitalize the neighborhood’s commercial opportunities and infrastructure.

    This interim report provides a preliminary view of the first five Choice implementation sites: Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Seattle. (author abstract)

     

  • Individual Author: Hawkins, J. David; Kosterman, Rick; Catalano, Richard F.; Hill, Karl G.; Abbott, Robert D.
    Reference Type: Journal Article
    Year: 2008

    Objective  To examine the long-term effects of a universal intervention in elementary schools in promoting positive functioning in school, work, and community, and preventing mental health problems, risky sexual behavior, substance misuse, and crime at ages 24 and 27 years.

    Design  Nonrandomized controlled trial.

    Setting  Fifteen public elementary schools serving diverse neighborhoods including high-crime neighborhoods in Seattle, Washington.

    Participants  Sex-balanced and multiracial/multiethnic sample of 598 participants at ages 24 and 27 years (93% of the original sample in these conditions).

    Interventions  Teacher training in classroom instruction and management, child social and emotional skill development, and parent workshops.

    Main Outcome Measures  Self-reports of functioning in school, work, and community and of mental health, sexual behavior, substance use, and crime, and court records.

    Results  A significant...

    Objective  To examine the long-term effects of a universal intervention in elementary schools in promoting positive functioning in school, work, and community, and preventing mental health problems, risky sexual behavior, substance misuse, and crime at ages 24 and 27 years.

    Design  Nonrandomized controlled trial.

    Setting  Fifteen public elementary schools serving diverse neighborhoods including high-crime neighborhoods in Seattle, Washington.

    Participants  Sex-balanced and multiracial/multiethnic sample of 598 participants at ages 24 and 27 years (93% of the original sample in these conditions).

    Interventions  Teacher training in classroom instruction and management, child social and emotional skill development, and parent workshops.

    Main Outcome Measures  Self-reports of functioning in school, work, and community and of mental health, sexual behavior, substance use, and crime, and court records.

    Results  A significant multivariate intervention effect across all 16 primary outcome indices was found. Specific effects included significantly better educational and economic attainment, mental health, and sexual health by age 27 years (all P < .05). Hypothesized effects on substance use and crime were not found at ages 24 or 27 years.

    Conclusions  A universal intervention for urban elementary schoolchildren, which focused on classroom management and instruction, children's social competence, and parenting practices, positively affected mental health, sexual health, and educational and economic achievement 15 years after the intervention ended. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: The Lewin Group, Inc.
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2001

    This report summarizes the findings from information collected during three sets of focus groups conducted for a study on employment supports for people with disabilities sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The study is intended to increase the understanding of the role of various supports in helping people with disabilities find and maintain employment.

    The findings in this report are from focus groups conducted with 284 participants with significant disabilities, all of whom had obtained a measure of employment success, in Los Angeles, California; Newark, New Jersey; and Seattle/Tacoma, Washington, between April and December 2000. The focus groups were conducted between April and December 2000. All participants were 18 years old or older, had a significant disability with onset prior to first substantial employment, and had annual earnings of at least $8,240 before taxes and transfers. At the time of the focus groups, the latter was the federal poverty line for a...

    This report summarizes the findings from information collected during three sets of focus groups conducted for a study on employment supports for people with disabilities sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The study is intended to increase the understanding of the role of various supports in helping people with disabilities find and maintain employment.

    The findings in this report are from focus groups conducted with 284 participants with significant disabilities, all of whom had obtained a measure of employment success, in Los Angeles, California; Newark, New Jersey; and Seattle/Tacoma, Washington, between April and December 2000. The focus groups were conducted between April and December 2000. All participants were 18 years old or older, had a significant disability with onset prior to first substantial employment, and had annual earnings of at least $8,240 before taxes and transfers. At the time of the focus groups, the latter was the federal poverty line for a family of one.1 It is approximately equivalent to working 30 hours a week at the federal minimum wage. Basic socio-demographic, disability, and employment information was collected via a telephone screening instrument and a pre-focus group registration form.

    A slight majority of participants were male, and their average age was 38 at the time of interview. Just over half (55 percent) had experienced disability onset before age 13. Just over half were single, 61 percent were white, 16 percent were African-American, and 13 percent were of Hispanic ethnicity. While all had substantial earnings, 23 percent had annual earnings below $10,000. Median earnings were under $20,000. Only 7 percent had earnings above $50,000. Many lived in households with other income; median household income was about $40,000. The largest impairment category was mental illness (30 percent), followed by communication (21 percent) and mobility (19 percent) impairments.

    Prior to each focus group session, participants were asked to rank on a scale of 1 (very important) to 5 (not important) the importance of various supports in helping them find and maintain employment. About 75 percent (or more) of participants assigned a rank of 1 or 2 to each of five supports (listed in descending order): family encouragement; access to health insurance; skills development and training; college; and employer accommodations. Job coach services, personal assistance services (PAS) and special education ranked lowest, with more than 45 percent of participants assigning a rank of 4 or 5 to these supports.

    We asked focus group participants to discuss supports that were important to them at three critical periods of their lives: during childhood or at disability onset; obtaining first employment or first employment after disability onset; and in maintaining current employment. We present the findings from these focus groups below. Because we found that the supports used to obtain first employment and those used to maintain current employment were very similar, we have combined the discussion of these topics into one section. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: The Finance Project
    Reference Type: Stakeholder Resource
    Year: 2010

    Through increases in Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Services funding, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) brought significant federal support for summer youth employment programs across the nation in 2009. As a result many states and localities successfully expanded summer employment opportunities for youth. However, dedicated federal funding seems unlikely as state and local leaders seek to sustain summer youth employment efforts in 2010. Leaders can consider several creative financing strategies to maintain employment opportunities for youth this summer and in the years to come.

    This promising practice profile highlights effective strategies that three localities have used to finance and sustain summer youth employment efforts. Youth program leaders in New York City, Seattle-King County, and Hartford, Connecticut successfully engaged partners, utilized technology, and blended an array of funding sources to expand their summer youth employment programs in 2009. These efforts will help to maintain summer youth employment opportunities despite the...

    Through increases in Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Services funding, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) brought significant federal support for summer youth employment programs across the nation in 2009. As a result many states and localities successfully expanded summer employment opportunities for youth. However, dedicated federal funding seems unlikely as state and local leaders seek to sustain summer youth employment efforts in 2010. Leaders can consider several creative financing strategies to maintain employment opportunities for youth this summer and in the years to come.

    This promising practice profile highlights effective strategies that three localities have used to finance and sustain summer youth employment efforts. Youth program leaders in New York City, Seattle-King County, and Hartford, Connecticut successfully engaged partners, utilized technology, and blended an array of funding sources to expand their summer youth employment programs in 2009. These efforts will help to maintain summer youth employment opportunities despite the possibility of diminished federal support in 2010. (author abstract)

    The original hyperlink to this resource has been removed by the publisher. You may obtain a single use PDF by emailing the SSRC at ssrc@opressrc.org.

  • Individual Author: Fellowes, Matt
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2006

    In general, lower income families tend to pay more for the exact same consumer product than families with higher incomes. For instance, 4.2 million lower income homeowners that earn less than $30,000 a year pay higher than average prices for their mortgages. About 4.5 million lower income households pay higher than average prices for auto loans. At least 1.6 million lower income adults pay excessive fees for furniture, appliances, and electronics. And, countless more pay high prices for other necessities, such as basic financial services, groceries, and insurance. Together, these extra costs add up to hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars unnecessarily spent by lower income families every year.

    Reducing the costs of living for lower income families by just one percent would add up to over $6.5 billion in new spending power for these families. This would enable lower and modest-income families to save for, and invest in, incoming-growing assets, like homes and retirement savings, or to pay for critical expenses for their children, like education and health care.

    ...

    In general, lower income families tend to pay more for the exact same consumer product than families with higher incomes. For instance, 4.2 million lower income homeowners that earn less than $30,000 a year pay higher than average prices for their mortgages. About 4.5 million lower income households pay higher than average prices for auto loans. At least 1.6 million lower income adults pay excessive fees for furniture, appliances, and electronics. And, countless more pay high prices for other necessities, such as basic financial services, groceries, and insurance. Together, these extra costs add up to hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars unnecessarily spent by lower income families every year.

    Reducing the costs of living for lower income families by just one percent would add up to over $6.5 billion in new spending power for these families. This would enable lower and modest-income families to save for, and invest in, incoming-growing assets, like homes and retirement savings, or to pay for critical expenses for their children, like education and health care.

    The policies needed to capture these savings for families will require few taxpayer dollars and true public-private partnership. Together, government, nonprofit, and business leaders can pursue a number of market and regulatory initiatives to improve the cost of living for lower income families. And unlike most traditional anti-poverty initiatives, limited (strategic) public investments can match or seed innovative market solutions.

    This report, analyzing both national data and data from 12 major metropolitan areas across the country, is about this opportunity to put the market to work for lower income families. (author abstract)

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 1996 to 2017

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations