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: Freedman, Stephen; Mitchell, Marisa; Navarro, David
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 1998

    This report is part of an ongoing evaluation of Jobs-First GAIN program in Los Angeles County. The report examines the impacts of the program after the first year that welfare recipients entered it and compares the effects of the program with those attained by previously evaluated welfare-to-work programs. The previously evaluated programs used include Los Angeles GAIN (the county's education-focused program operated in the late 1980s and early 90s); Riverside County GAIN (an employment-focuses, mixed-services program, operated in during the same year) and; Riverside Labor Force Attachment (L.F.A.), the county's Work First program, operated in the early-to-mid 1990s. The study shows that 1) During the first year, few experimental group members participated in an employment-related activity, 2) a large proportion of experimental group members received a grant reduction for non-compliance during year 1, 3) Jobs-First GAIN produced large employment and earnings gains in the first half-year of follow-up, 4) Jobs-First GAIN reduced AFDC/TANF expenditures, and 5) Jobs-First...

    This report is part of an ongoing evaluation of Jobs-First GAIN program in Los Angeles County. The report examines the impacts of the program after the first year that welfare recipients entered it and compares the effects of the program with those attained by previously evaluated welfare-to-work programs. The previously evaluated programs used include Los Angeles GAIN (the county's education-focused program operated in the late 1980s and early 90s); Riverside County GAIN (an employment-focuses, mixed-services program, operated in during the same year) and; Riverside Labor Force Attachment (L.F.A.), the county's Work First program, operated in the early-to-mid 1990s. The study shows that 1) During the first year, few experimental group members participated in an employment-related activity, 2) a large proportion of experimental group members received a grant reduction for non-compliance during year 1, 3) Jobs-First GAIN produced large employment and earnings gains in the first half-year of follow-up, 4) Jobs-First GAIN reduced AFDC/TANF expenditures, and 5) Jobs-First GAIN produced large first year reduction in Food Stamp receipt. The report concludes that these savings should persist in the second year of follow-up. (Author abstract)

  • Individual Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 1998

    Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) efforts to implement the Access to Jobs program, focusing on DOT's: (1) overall plan to distribute Access to Jobs funds among grantees in urban and rural areas; (2) criteria to award specific Access to Jobs grants to states, localities, and other organizations; (3) efforts to coordinate the Access to Jobs program with other welfare-to-work programs; and (4) proposals to evaluate the program's success.

    GAO noted that: (1) DOT has decided it will distribute the $75 million available for the program in fiscal year 1999 to as many people as possible by setting suggested limits on the amount areas can receive on the basis of their population levels; (2) under this approach, DOT intends to provide first-year grants that average $1 million for large urban areas and $150,000 for rural areas; (3) DOT will use four key criteria for evaluating grant applications on the basis of their merits; (4) DOT will assess each grant application and assign points on the basis of these criteria, as well...

    Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) efforts to implement the Access to Jobs program, focusing on DOT's: (1) overall plan to distribute Access to Jobs funds among grantees in urban and rural areas; (2) criteria to award specific Access to Jobs grants to states, localities, and other organizations; (3) efforts to coordinate the Access to Jobs program with other welfare-to-work programs; and (4) proposals to evaluate the program's success.

    GAO noted that: (1) DOT has decided it will distribute the $75 million available for the program in fiscal year 1999 to as many people as possible by setting suggested limits on the amount areas can receive on the basis of their population levels; (2) under this approach, DOT intends to provide first-year grants that average $1 million for large urban areas and $150,000 for rural areas; (3) DOT will use four key criteria for evaluating grant applications on the basis of their merits; (4) DOT will assess each grant application and assign points on the basis of these criteria, as well as bonus program components such as particularly innovative transportation approaches; (5) whether these criteria will enable DOT to make sufficient distinctions among the many applications it expects is unclear; (6) accordingly, DOT may use other factors; (7) however, DOT may unintentionally suggest that merit-based criteria used to score applications are less important than other factors that are not based on merit; (8) DOT has made efforts to coordinate its Access to Jobs program with other welfare-to-work programs; (9) DOT established a policy council of representatives from four other federal agencies and the White House and it met with local human service organizations; (10) because grantees can use other federal funds to match the DOT's grants, sustained coordination between DOT and other federal agencies, as well as sustained collaboration among local agencies, is critical for ensuring the effective use of federal welfare-to-work programs; (11) as part of its evaluation effort, DOT will require Access to Jobs grantees to collect data on four important program outputs: (a) the number of new and expand transportation services; (b) the number of jobs made accessible by public transportation to the targeted riders; (c) the number of people using the new transportation services; and (d) the level of collaboration achieved; and (12) however, the data alone will not be sufficient to measure the program's overall success because DOT has yet to establish goals or benchmarks against which the cumulative data on new routes, new system users, and newly accessible jobs can be compared. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: U.S. Congress
    Reference Type: Statute
    Year: 1998

    This statute reauthorized programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. To make higher education more accessible to low-income students, it:
    - maintained a lowered interest rate on federal student loans;
    - created GEAR UP, a competitive grant program that supports colleges that partner with high-poverty middle schools and communities to increase awareness of financial aid for college attendance, and that provide support through the college preparation process;
    - supported improved K-12 teacher quality in low-income school districts through incentives such as scholarships for teachers; and
    - promoted adoption of and innovation in distance learning, as well as opened financial aid to distance learners.

    Public Law No. 105-244 (1998).

    This statute reauthorized programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. To make higher education more accessible to low-income students, it:
    - maintained a lowered interest rate on federal student loans;
    - created GEAR UP, a competitive grant program that supports colleges that partner with high-poverty middle schools and communities to increase awareness of financial aid for college attendance, and that provide support through the college preparation process;
    - supported improved K-12 teacher quality in low-income school districts through incentives such as scholarships for teachers; and
    - promoted adoption of and innovation in distance learning, as well as opened financial aid to distance learners.

    Public Law No. 105-244 (1998).

  • Individual Author: Pugh, Margaret
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 1998

    The time limits and work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law present a great challenge to large U.S. metropolitan areas, where hundreds of thousands of low-income people must find entry-level jobs. The welfare-to-work effort underway in American cities uncovers a phenomenon that many scholars already knew: there is a “spatial mismatch” between where workers live and where jobs are located, and low-income workers often have no easy way to travel between home and work.

    Officials at the federal, state, and local levels already are scrambling to solve spatial mismatch through transportation solutions, yet they lack solid information about what spatial mismatch is, why it occurs, and how best to remedy it through transportation. A review of empirical literature and practical work shows that not all metropolitan areas experience the same degree of spatial mismatch, and that policy solutions may vary from city to city.

    This discussion paper does three things. First, it proposes an index by which we could assess the degree of spatial mismatch and categorize...

    The time limits and work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law present a great challenge to large U.S. metropolitan areas, where hundreds of thousands of low-income people must find entry-level jobs. The welfare-to-work effort underway in American cities uncovers a phenomenon that many scholars already knew: there is a “spatial mismatch” between where workers live and where jobs are located, and low-income workers often have no easy way to travel between home and work.

    Officials at the federal, state, and local levels already are scrambling to solve spatial mismatch through transportation solutions, yet they lack solid information about what spatial mismatch is, why it occurs, and how best to remedy it through transportation. A review of empirical literature and practical work shows that not all metropolitan areas experience the same degree of spatial mismatch, and that policy solutions may vary from city to city.

    This discussion paper does three things. First, it proposes an index by which we could assess the degree of spatial mismatch and categorize metropolitan areas according to the severity of mismatch. Second, it performs a preliminary categorization of five cities to illustrate the varying degrees of mismatch found among metropolitan areas with large welfare populations. Third, it makes both short and long term recommendations for federal and state policies. (author introduction)

  • Individual Author: Lacombe, Annalynn
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 1998

    This study uses a geographic information system (GIS) to assess mobility for the recipients living in the City of Boston. Although the scope and specific nature of the mobility problem vary considerably among U.S. cities, Boston presents a good case study for older Frostbelt cities with mature central areas and well-developed transit systems. 

    This study has three objectives: 

    1. Determine recipients' overall access to transit service.

    2. Estimate where in the metropolitan area recipients are likely to find work and determine these potential employers' proximity to transit.

    3. Ascertain how well mass transit in Boston connects welfare recipients and employers and thus meets recipients' mobility needs. 

    This study did not address other key mobility considerations, such as the locations of day care centers and other services upon which working mothers rely. 

    This report profiles the recipient population nationwide and describes their most significant mobility challenges, namely, the transportation demands of single parenthood and the...

    This study uses a geographic information system (GIS) to assess mobility for the recipients living in the City of Boston. Although the scope and specific nature of the mobility problem vary considerably among U.S. cities, Boston presents a good case study for older Frostbelt cities with mature central areas and well-developed transit systems. 

    This study has three objectives: 

    1. Determine recipients' overall access to transit service.

    2. Estimate where in the metropolitan area recipients are likely to find work and determine these potential employers' proximity to transit.

    3. Ascertain how well mass transit in Boston connects welfare recipients and employers and thus meets recipients' mobility needs. 

    This study did not address other key mobility considerations, such as the locations of day care centers and other services upon which working mothers rely. 

    This report profiles the recipient population nationwide and describes their most significant mobility challenges, namely, the transportation demands of single parenthood and the changing spatial patterns of employment. It also looks at the spatial distribution and key characteristics of TANF recipients in Boston, and assesses recipients' job opportunities and the location of potential employers. It provides an analysis of recipients' access to jobs and of transit system performance, and presents key conclusions and suggests areas for future analysis. (author introduction)

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 1935 to 2019

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations