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 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: Blagg, Kristin; Chingos, Matthew; Corcoran, Sean P.; Cordes, Sarah A.; Cowen, Joshua; Denice, Patrick ; Gross, Betheny; Lincove, Jane Arnold ; Sattin-Bajaj, Carolyn; Schwartz, Amy Ellen; Valant, Jon
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2018

    How to get to school is an important issue for families who want to send their children to schools outside their neighborhood and for education policymakers seeking to implement school choice policies that mitigate educational inequality. We analyze travel times between the homes and schools of nearly 190,000 students across five large US cities that offer a significant amount of educational choice:  Denver, Detroit, New Orleans, New York City, and Washington, DC. We find: 

    • Despite wide variation across cities in student transportation policy, there are similar student transportation patterns across our cities. Most students live within a 20-minute drive from home to their school. Older students travel farther to school than younger students, and black students travel farther than white or Hispanic students. Students who are not low income tend to travel farther than their low-income peers.
    • Particularly among older students, those enrolled in traditional public schools tend to travel as far, or in some cases farther, than those attending charter schools....

    How to get to school is an important issue for families who want to send their children to schools outside their neighborhood and for education policymakers seeking to implement school choice policies that mitigate educational inequality. We analyze travel times between the homes and schools of nearly 190,000 students across five large US cities that offer a significant amount of educational choice:  Denver, Detroit, New Orleans, New York City, and Washington, DC. We find: 

    • Despite wide variation across cities in student transportation policy, there are similar student transportation patterns across our cities. Most students live within a 20-minute drive from home to their school. Older students travel farther to school than younger students, and black students travel farther than white or Hispanic students. Students who are not low income tend to travel farther than their low-income peers.
    • Particularly among older students, those enrolled in traditional public schools tend to travel as far, or in some cases farther, than those attending charter schools.
    • Access to “high quality” high schools varies across cities, race and ethnicity, and on the quality measure used. However, ninth-grade students, on average, tend to live about a 10-minute drive from a “high quality” high school.
    • Access to a car can significantly increase the number of schools available to a family. Typical travel times to school by public transit are significantly greater than by car, especially in cities with less efficient transit networks.

    Just as there are inequalities and differences in students’ academic performance across these cities, we see parallel inequalities and differences in the distances that students travel and in the availability of nearby school options. Experiments in targeted policy interventions, such as implementing transportation vouchers for low-income parents of very young students, using yellow buses on circulating routes, or changing the way that school siting decisions are made, might yield pragmatic solutions that further level the playing field for a city’s most disadvantaged students. (Author abstract) 

  • Individual Author: Joshi, Pamela; Flaherty, Scott; Corwin, Elise; Bir, Anupa; Lerman, Robert
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2010

    In 2002, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) instituted the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (CHMI) evaluation to document operational lessons and assess the effectiveness of community-based approaches to support healthy relationships and marriages and child well-being. A component of the CHMI study involves implementation research on demonstrations approved by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) under authority of Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. The goals of the demonstrations are to achieve child support objectives through community engagement and service delivery activities related to healthy marriage and relationship (HMR) education programs.

    A series of reports is being produced on the implementation of the Section 1115 projects. A total of 14 programs are included in the CHMI evaluation implementation study. Earlier reports covered the implementation of demonstrations in five locations: Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Grand Rapids, MI; Jacksonville, FL; and Nampa, ID. This report focuses on the demonstrations in Minneapolis, MN;...

    In 2002, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) instituted the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (CHMI) evaluation to document operational lessons and assess the effectiveness of community-based approaches to support healthy relationships and marriages and child well-being. A component of the CHMI study involves implementation research on demonstrations approved by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) under authority of Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. The goals of the demonstrations are to achieve child support objectives through community engagement and service delivery activities related to healthy marriage and relationship (HMR) education programs.

    A series of reports is being produced on the implementation of the Section 1115 projects. A total of 14 programs are included in the CHMI evaluation implementation study. Earlier reports covered the implementation of demonstrations in five locations: Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Grand Rapids, MI; Jacksonville, FL; and Nampa, ID. This report focuses on the demonstrations in Minneapolis, MN; Lexington, KY; New Orleans, LA, Atlanta, GA; and Denver, CO. The report examines community engagement efforts, the design and implementation of service delivery (healthy marriage and relationship training workshops and related services), and links with child support. It does not present estimates of program impacts or effectiveness. The report is based on site visits conducted from November 2008 to June 2009, a time when the sites were in various stages of program implementation—demonstrations in Denver and Minneapolis were each in the last year of funding, whereas the other three demonstrations were in earlier stages of implementation.(author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Paulsell, Diane; Max, Jeffrey; Derr, Michelle; Burwick, Andrew
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2007

    The public workforce investment system aims to serve all job seekers, but many of those most in need of help do not use it. Language barriers, dislike or fear of government agencies, limited awareness of available services, and difficulties using self-directed services are some of the challenges that may limit the accessibility of the system. While not traditionally partners in the workforce investment system, small, grassroots faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) may be well positioned to serve people who do not currently use the public workforce system. Some job seekers may be more likely to access services from FBCOs because they typically have earned the trust of local community members and understand their needs. Moreover, FBCOs often provide personal, flexible, and comprehensive services that are well suited to people who face multiple barriers to employment.

    The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has recognized that by filling a service gap and serving some of the neediest populations, FBCOs have the potential to be valuable partners in the workforce...

    The public workforce investment system aims to serve all job seekers, but many of those most in need of help do not use it. Language barriers, dislike or fear of government agencies, limited awareness of available services, and difficulties using self-directed services are some of the challenges that may limit the accessibility of the system. While not traditionally partners in the workforce investment system, small, grassroots faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) may be well positioned to serve people who do not currently use the public workforce system. Some job seekers may be more likely to access services from FBCOs because they typically have earned the trust of local community members and understand their needs. Moreover, FBCOs often provide personal, flexible, and comprehensive services that are well suited to people who face multiple barriers to employment.

    The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has recognized that by filling a service gap and serving some of the neediest populations, FBCOs have the potential to be valuable partners in the workforce investment system. Collaborating with FBCOs may also allow the government to leverage its workforce investment funds by taking advantage of the volunteers, donated goods and services, and other resources FBCOs are often able to access. Moreover, an FBCO’s knowledge of its community and its needs may help workforce investment agencies plan and deliver services more effectively.

    Collaborations between government agencies and FBCOs may not, however, come easily. In many communities, workforce investment agencies and grassroots FBCOs have little experience working together. Government agencies may not know about the work of FBCOs, and FBCOs may be unaware of the ways that public agencies could help their clients. Each may perceive the other’s mission as different from its own. In addition, government agencies may be concerned about their customers’ rights and legal issues when services are provided by faith-based organizations (FBOs), and the limited administrative and service capacity of some FBCOs may also be a barrier to collaborative relationships.

    Cognizant of the potential barriers to these collaborations, DOL has since 2002 granted over $30 million to promote and sustain collaborations between FBCOs and the workforce investment system. These grants have been made to FBCOs, states, intermediaries, and Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs). Intermediaries are larger nonprofit faith- or community-based agencies that can facilitate collaboration with smaller, grassroots organizations. WIBs are state or local entities that oversee the local workforce investment systems. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Taylor, Judith Combes; Rubin, Jerry
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2005

    Employers make choices that are key to the ability of low-income people to get and keep jobs and to advance in the workforce. Given this important role, Engaging Employers to Benefit Low-Income Job Seekers asks: What kinds of employers are likely to be open to doing business with workforce intermediaries that seek to connect low-wage workers with employers? It also looks at the extent to which employers will support low-income workers—for example, by modifying human resources policies—and the factors that promote employer practices and policies favorable to the hiring, retention, and advancement of low-income workers.

    The authors of this report reflect on the experiences of employers in the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Jobs Initiative, a nine-year, six-site, $30 million effort to reform local labor markets and help connect low-income people to good jobs. The research base includes interviews with and surveys of Jobs Initiative employers. (author abstract)

    Employers make choices that are key to the ability of low-income people to get and keep jobs and to advance in the workforce. Given this important role, Engaging Employers to Benefit Low-Income Job Seekers asks: What kinds of employers are likely to be open to doing business with workforce intermediaries that seek to connect low-wage workers with employers? It also looks at the extent to which employers will support low-income workers—for example, by modifying human resources policies—and the factors that promote employer practices and policies favorable to the hiring, retention, and advancement of low-income workers.

    The authors of this report reflect on the experiences of employers in the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Jobs Initiative, a nine-year, six-site, $30 million effort to reform local labor markets and help connect low-income people to good jobs. The research base includes interviews with and surveys of Jobs Initiative employers. (author abstract)

  • Individual Author: Plastrik, Peter; Taylor, Judith C.
    Reference Type: Report
    Year: 2001

    In 1995, the Annie E. Casey Foundation was in the vanguard of a shift to a systems-change focus when it launched the Jobs Initiative in six metropolitan areas—Denver, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Seattle. “We hoped in the long run to influence how low-income, young-adult job-seekers could create better connections to regional labor markets on a sustainable basis,” explains Bob Giloth, program manager for the Jobs Initiative. “That meant changing the system’s behavior.”

    The foundation believed that several critical ingredients had to come together at the local level to mount systemic reform: first, a local intermediary well-positioned within the regional civic infrastructure, and second, that intermediary would have to have the funds and capacity to conduct research, assemble powerful coalitions, and test experimental programs and policies that would guide eventual changes in the system. In particular, the Casey Foundation thought that intermediaries, as they developed projects to help place low-income job seekers, would “rub” against the existing...

    In 1995, the Annie E. Casey Foundation was in the vanguard of a shift to a systems-change focus when it launched the Jobs Initiative in six metropolitan areas—Denver, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Seattle. “We hoped in the long run to influence how low-income, young-adult job-seekers could create better connections to regional labor markets on a sustainable basis,” explains Bob Giloth, program manager for the Jobs Initiative. “That meant changing the system’s behavior.”

    The foundation believed that several critical ingredients had to come together at the local level to mount systemic reform: first, a local intermediary well-positioned within the regional civic infrastructure, and second, that intermediary would have to have the funds and capacity to conduct research, assemble powerful coalitions, and test experimental programs and policies that would guide eventual changes in the system. In particular, the Casey Foundation thought that intermediaries, as they developed projects to help place low-income job seekers, would “rub” against the existing system, identify critical issues to be addressed, and, based on what they were learning, develop long-term strategies to reform systems. One such project that the foundation encouraged intermediaries to undertake was the creation of a Jobs Policy Network, an effort to bring together actors in the system to identify and advocate for changes. (author introduction)

Sort by

Topical Area(s)

Popular Searches

Source

Year

Year ranges from 2000 to 2018

Reference Type

Research Methodology

Geographic Focus

Target Populations