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: O'Dell, Kelley
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2005

    During the past several years, policymakers and program administrators have paid more attention to child-only cases, which comprise a growing percentage of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) caseload.  While the number of child-only cases dropped between 1996 and 1998 from a peak of 978,000 families (22 percent of the caseload), the number and proportion have since increased. In fiscal 2001 there were about 786,900 child-only cases, accounting for 37.2 percent of the total TANF caseload. In addition, because the children and caregivers in child-only cases have some unique or particularly marked needs, there are questions and concerns about the well-being of these children and how best to serve them and their caregivers.

    To address the circumstances of child-only cases, some states have designed specific programs and policies for them, such as specialized case management and increased financial assistance. Other states are focusing on a holistic service approach and integrating the services of the welfare and child welfare systems. (author abstract)

    ...

    During the past several years, policymakers and program administrators have paid more attention to child-only cases, which comprise a growing percentage of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) caseload.  While the number of child-only cases dropped between 1996 and 1998 from a peak of 978,000 families (22 percent of the caseload), the number and proportion have since increased. In fiscal 2001 there were about 786,900 child-only cases, accounting for 37.2 percent of the total TANF caseload. In addition, because the children and caregivers in child-only cases have some unique or particularly marked needs, there are questions and concerns about the well-being of these children and how best to serve them and their caregivers.

    To address the circumstances of child-only cases, some states have designed specific programs and policies for them, such as specialized case management and increased financial assistance. Other states are focusing on a holistic service approach and integrating the services of the welfare and child welfare systems. (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: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA)
    Reference Type: Dataset
    Year: 2013

    Description: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance collects caseload, expenditure, and work participation data for State and Tribal TANF programs. 

    Population: State and Tribal TANF program participants.

    Periodicity: State TANF program data available through Fiscal Year 2014. Tribal TANF program data available through Fiscal Year 20013.

    (Information adapted from the publisher)

    For more information, please see the Compendium of Family-Self Sufficiency Databases

    Description: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance collects caseload, expenditure, and work participation data for State and Tribal TANF programs. 

    Population: State and Tribal TANF program participants.

    Periodicity: State TANF program data available through Fiscal Year 2014. Tribal TANF program data available through Fiscal Year 20013.

    (Information adapted from the publisher)

    For more information, please see the Compendium of Family-Self Sufficiency Databases

  • 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: Cheng, Lee-Joy; Wong, Seng-Lee
    Reference Type: Journal Article
    Year: 2012

    This study treats the administrative effect factor as a moderator in LISREL analyses to build an explanatory model that best explains Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program caseload changes. The analysis reveals that the administrative effect factor, followed by fiscal expenditure, social needs, and political factors, directly contribute to changes in TANF caseloads in the United States. (author abstract)

    This study treats the administrative effect factor as a moderator in LISREL analyses to build an explanatory model that best explains Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program caseload changes. The analysis reveals that the administrative effect factor, followed by fiscal expenditure, social needs, and political factors, directly contribute to changes in TANF caseloads in the United States. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Felder, Henry E.
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2006

    The January 1998 start of the California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program introduced welfare reform to Los Angeles County and changed the focus of the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) from income maintenance to non-cash assistance, services and employment support.

    In January 1998, there were 738,794 persons aided on CalWORKs and 80,335 persons aided on General Relief – the primary cash assistance programs for DPSS. Of the 1.55 million persons aided, 53% received cash. By January 2006, only 20.8% of the 2.16 million persons aided by DPSS received cash, while the vast majority now received non-cash assistance, such as Medi-Cal Only, Food Stamps and In-Home Supportive Services. (author abstract)

    The January 1998 start of the California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program introduced welfare reform to Los Angeles County and changed the focus of the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) from income maintenance to non-cash assistance, services and employment support.

    In January 1998, there were 738,794 persons aided on CalWORKs and 80,335 persons aided on General Relief – the primary cash assistance programs for DPSS. Of the 1.55 million persons aided, 53% received cash. By January 2006, only 20.8% of the 2.16 million persons aided by DPSS received cash, while the vast majority now received non-cash assistance, such as Medi-Cal Only, Food Stamps and In-Home Supportive Services. (author abstract)

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 1991 to 2018

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations