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: Montgomery, Ann Elizabeth; Cusack, Meagan
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2017

    The HUD-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program combines HUD’s housing choice vouchers, administered by public housing authorities (PHAs), with VA case management to offer homeless Veterans permanent supportive housing. The HUD-VASH Exit study, commissioned by HUD and VA, investigated HUD-VASH at four sites: Houston, TX; Los Angeles and Palo Alto, CA; and Philadelphia, PA. The study examined program implementation, the movement of Veterans from homelessness to being housed, and the nature of Veterans’ exits from HUD-VASH. To do this, the research team analyzed administrative data covering 2008 to 2014 at the four sites, and surveyed Veterans and conducted site visits (including interviews with staff and Veterans) between 2011 and 2014. As such the study captures HUD-VASH during a time of transformation. In 2008, HUD-VASH served fewer than 2,000 Veterans. By 2014, HUD-VASH was a major program that housed 53,000 Veterans and had served more than 80,000 Veterans. The study defined three HUD-VASH Veteran groups: (1) stayers (Veterans in the program for at least 600 days), (2) leased...

    The HUD-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program combines HUD’s housing choice vouchers, administered by public housing authorities (PHAs), with VA case management to offer homeless Veterans permanent supportive housing. The HUD-VASH Exit study, commissioned by HUD and VA, investigated HUD-VASH at four sites: Houston, TX; Los Angeles and Palo Alto, CA; and Philadelphia, PA. The study examined program implementation, the movement of Veterans from homelessness to being housed, and the nature of Veterans’ exits from HUD-VASH. To do this, the research team analyzed administrative data covering 2008 to 2014 at the four sites, and surveyed Veterans and conducted site visits (including interviews with staff and Veterans) between 2011 and 2014. As such the study captures HUD-VASH during a time of transformation. In 2008, HUD-VASH served fewer than 2,000 Veterans. By 2014, HUD-VASH was a major program that housed 53,000 Veterans and had served more than 80,000 Veterans. The study defined three HUD-VASH Veteran groups: (1) stayers (Veterans in the program for at least 600 days), (2) leased-up exiters (Veterans who exited after leasing up), and (3) nonleased exiters (Veterans who exited before accessing housing). “Exit” was defined as leaving VA case management as recorded in VA administrative data by case managers. The study finds that about half of the leased-up exiters left HUD-VASH for positive reasons such as accomplishing their goals or increased income, but that only a quarter of nonleased exiters had positive reasons for exit. Common negative reasons for exit included housing difficulties, loss of contact with the program, illness, incarceration, and non-compliance with program rules. Specific recommendations to ensure continued program effectiveness converge around (1) improving coordination of HUD and VA processes in HUD-VASH sites; (2) targeting financial resources for specific situations such as move-in, threat of eviction, and transitioning out of HUD-VASH; and (3) ensuring continuity of care for Veterans in the program. (Author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Polit, Denise F.; Nelson, Laura; Richburg-Hayes, Lashawn; Seith, David; Rich, Sarah
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2005

    The 1996 national welfare reform law imposed a five-year time limit on federally funded cash assistance, established stricter work requirements, and provided greater flexibility for states in designing and managing programs. This report — the last in a series from MDRC’s Project on Devolution and Urban Change — describes how welfare reform unfolded in Los Angeles County (particularly between 1998 and 2001) and compares welfare reform experiences and outcomes there with those in the other three Urban Change sites: Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Miami- Dade County, and Philadelphia.

    After presenting a digest of the study’s findings, this summary report offers background on the Urban Change study in Los Angeles, depicts the county’s demographic and economic environment, describes the implementation of welfare reform, explains the effects of reform on welfare receipt and employment and on the lives of welfare recipients, describes what happened in Los Angeles neighborhoods during welfare reform, and concludes with policy implications drawn from conclusions from all four Urban...

    The 1996 national welfare reform law imposed a five-year time limit on federally funded cash assistance, established stricter work requirements, and provided greater flexibility for states in designing and managing programs. This report — the last in a series from MDRC’s Project on Devolution and Urban Change — describes how welfare reform unfolded in Los Angeles County (particularly between 1998 and 2001) and compares welfare reform experiences and outcomes there with those in the other three Urban Change sites: Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Miami- Dade County, and Philadelphia.

    After presenting a digest of the study’s findings, this summary report offers background on the Urban Change study in Los Angeles, depicts the county’s demographic and economic environment, describes the implementation of welfare reform, explains the effects of reform on welfare receipt and employment and on the lives of welfare recipients, describes what happened in Los Angeles neighborhoods during welfare reform, and concludes with policy implications drawn from conclusions from all four Urban Change sites. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Polit, Denise F.; London, Andrew S.; Martinez, John M.
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2000

    Despite the strength of the American economy in the past few years, food insecurity and hunger continue to affect millions of American families. Drawing on 1998-1999 survey and ethnographic data from the Urban Change study (a multicomponent study of the implementation and effects of welfare reform in four large cities), this paper describes the food security of mother-headed families who were living in highly disadvantaged urban neighborhoods and who had received or were currently receiving cash welfare benefits. The families of four groups of women were compared: those who, at the time of the interview, worked and were no longer receiving welfare; those who combined welfare and work; nonworking welfare recipients; and those who neither worked nor were then receiving welfare. The survey results indicated that food insecurity in the prior year was high in all groups. Overall, about half the families were food insecure, and hunger was found in slightly more than 15 percent of the families. Moreover, in nearly one-third of the families there were food hardships that affected the...

    Despite the strength of the American economy in the past few years, food insecurity and hunger continue to affect millions of American families. Drawing on 1998-1999 survey and ethnographic data from the Urban Change study (a multicomponent study of the implementation and effects of welfare reform in four large cities), this paper describes the food security of mother-headed families who were living in highly disadvantaged urban neighborhoods and who had received or were currently receiving cash welfare benefits. The families of four groups of women were compared: those who, at the time of the interview, worked and were no longer receiving welfare; those who combined welfare and work; nonworking welfare recipients; and those who neither worked nor were then receiving welfare. The survey results indicated that food insecurity in the prior year was high in all groups. Overall, about half the families were food insecure, and hunger was found in slightly more than 15 percent of the families. Moreover, in nearly one-third of the families there were food hardships that affected the children’s diets. Food insecurity was most prevalent among families where the mother had neither employment income nor welfare benefits. Food insecurity was lowest among the families where the mothers were working and no longer getting welfare, but even in this group 44.5 percent were food insecure, and nearly 15 percent had experienced hunger. Data from in-depth ethnographic interviews indicate that, in this population, women who are food secure nevertheless expend considerable energy piecing together strategies to ensure that there is an adequate amount of food available for themselves and their children. (Author abstract)

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 2000 to 2017

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations