Search results

Please note that the data for this study are forthcoming in a future update.

This five-year Hybrid Type 1 Effectiveness-Implementation Randomized Control Trial (RCT) compared two models of linking and retaining individuals recently released from justice involvement to the continuum of community-based HIV and Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) prevention and treatment service cascades of care. A significant innovation of this RCT was that it was delivered within four communities where coalition infrastructures have been established as part of the Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (JCOIN) studies, a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded Cooperative Agreement initiative to mitigate the impact criminal justice (CJ)-involved individuals with OUD are having on local communities, and the investigators were able to build on that existing infrastructure. Specifically, 601 CJ-involved individuals were recruited across two Connecticut (New London/Middlesex Counties and Windham/Tolland/New Haven/Hartford Counties) & two Texas (Dallas and Tarrant Counties) high risk communities. HIV status will be assessed via rapid testing at initial point of contact. Participants were randomized to receive at post-release either: a) a Patient Navigator (PN) system for care, wherein navigators assisted linking study participants to appropriate community service providers (e.g., OUD/SUD treatment including medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and Hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing and treatment); those not living with HIV were provided access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) services, and those living with HIV received assistance with gaining initial or continued access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) services, or b) services delivered via a Mobile Health Unit (MHU) within the participants' community where participants received PrEP/ART, MOUD, and harm reduction services on the MHU or assistance from a community health worker (CHW) in linking to appropriate community-based OUD and other medical and behavioral health providers. The interventions lasted for six months post-release from custody. The focus of this study was the randomized controlled trial.

This multi-method, exploratory study investigated the practices, strategies, and tactics used by police to respond to people experiencing homelessness. Researchers utilized Open Source Social Media Data to document police responses to people experiencing homelessness across 1,004 geographically and jurisdictionally diverse United States police departments, developing an inventory and typology of policing responses. These open-source data were supplemented by coded Legal Case Data, drawn from publicly available legal case records for cases related to police department responses to homelessness, and Agency Policy Data, reporting all police department policies related to homelessness and homeless individuals. Researchers also completed in-depth case studies using observational and survey data collected at six site visits with police departments across the United States. The resulting Social Network Survey Data describe relationships between the homeless outreach team (HOT) at each site, their parent agencies, and community partners. These data are included as DS4 and DS5 in the current data release, alongside the Open Source Social Media Data (DS1), Legal Case Data (DS2), and Agency Policy Data (DS3).

The National Policing Institute (NPI) conducted a three-part study to examine policies, practices, knowledge, and outcomes in eyewitness identification. The two main eyewitness identification methods examined included photo arrays (lineups) and showups. A "showup" is a procedure that takes place shortly after a crime has occurred when the police have found a description-matched suspect. The witness or victim is driven to a location where the detained suspect is located to make an identification, usually close in proximity and time to the crime. Showups are typically conducted in the field, often from the back seat of a police vehicle where the witness or victim cannot be seen by the suspect, to allow an eyewitness to evaluate whether the detained person is the perpetrator.

Study 1: Laboratory-Based Experiment. In this experiment, participants recruited at the University of Bristol Neuroscience Festival watched actors in mock crimes. After viewing the mock suspects, they engaged in a 5-minute activity to serve as a distractor phase. Participants then returned to test their memory of the mock suspects in a showup identification procedure to measure both their confidence and the time taken to make a decision (latency).

Study 2: Field Study. This study collected data from Hartford Police Department and Denver Police Department on showup identifications conducted between 2014-2021 and 2021-2023, respectively. Data also included measures of witness confidence and latency. As the actual perpetrators were unknown in these real-world cases, the research team used a proxy for ground truth by employing a previously developed rating scale to assess evidentiary strength and to help determine the accuracy of the identifications.

Study 3: Agency Survey. Building on the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) national survey conducted in 2011 (published in 2013), this survey assessed changes over time in U.S. law enforcement agency policies, practices, and knowledge of scientific evidence about eyewitness identification. This study focused on photographic arrays and showups, as these are the most commonly used identification methods, while avoiding questions related to mug shots, live lineups, and composite sketches.

The UCLA/Duke University National Center for Child Traumatic Stress and its partners employed mixed-methods and a community-based participatory design to investigate the impact of, response to, and recovery from four deadly school shootings and six mass violence events that occurred in the U.S. between 2012 and 2019. Key partners included the UCLA Center for Public Health and Disasters; the UCLA Department of Biostatistics; the University of California, Irvine Department of Psychological Science; the Center for Child and Family Health; and other site-specific partners. A national advisory board with 15 distinguished members informed all aspects of the project.

The goals of this study were to:

• Describe how school shootings and mass violence affect differentially exposed populations, including those injured, those who directly witnessed the violence, bereaved family members, victim service providers, first responders, local community and government leaders, and the community at large
• Examine factors at the individual, family, organization, community, and societal levels that influence severity of traumatic reactions and duration of traumatic effects to school shootings and mass violence events
• Identify secondary adversities that have affected these communities, and how such adversities have influenced recovery
• Examine perceived benefits of victim services
• Identify common themes, trends, and how media and social media influence the impact, response, and recovery of affected communities and the broader community at large

The study investigated 10 mass violence incidents: Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio (February 27, 2012); Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut (December 14, 2012); Marysville Pilchuck High School in Marysville, Washington (October 24, 2014); Isla Vista/University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) (May 23, 2014); Century 16 Movie Theater in Aurora, Colorado (July 20, 2012); Washington, D.C. Navy Yard (September 16, 2013); Emmanuel AMC Church in Charleston, South Carolina (June 17, 2015); Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California (December 2, 2015); Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida (June 12, 2016); and the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada (October 1, 2017).

Data were obtained and coded from transcripts of focus group and key informant interviews (DS1), social media using Twitter (X) (DS2 through DS8), news media articles (DS9), and secondary/external reports (e.g., after-action reports, commissioned reports, and criminal records) (DS10). The qualitative interview data (DS1) are structured as a list of coded interview quotes with their accompanying code. Users should note that analytic data files were not provided for the content analyses (DS9, DS10). Lists of sources, codebooks, and SPSS syntax files used to create the content analysis data files are available.

The overall goal of the Baby's First Years (BFY) study is to assess the causal role played by household income in affecting children's early cognitive, socio-emotional, and brain development. Recent advances in developmental neuroscience suggest that experiences early in life have profound and enduring impacts on the developing brain. Family economic resources shape the nature of many of these experiences, yet the extent to which they affect children's development is unknown. The Baby's First Years project is the first randomized controlled trial to provide estimates of the causal impacts of unconditional cash gifts on the cognitive, socio-emotional, and brain development of infants and young children in low-income U.S. families.

Specifically, 1,000 recruited mothers of infants with incomes below the federal poverty line from four diverse U.S. communities are receiving monthly cash gift payments by debit card. Mothers were initially told the gifts would last for the first 40 months of their child's life, but the study has secured funding to continue the payments for three additional years (i.e., for a total of 76 months). Parents in the high cash gift group (n=400 in the study sample) are receiving a cash gift of $333 per month ($4,000 per year), while parents in the low cash gift group (n=600) are receiving a nominal monthly gift payment of $20 ($240 per year), also for 76 months.

In order to measure the impacts of the unconditional cash gift income on children's cognitive and behavioral development, the study is assessing high and low cash gift group differences at ages 4, 6, and 8 (and, for a subset of measures, the study captures interim development at ages 1, 2, and 3) in measures of cognitive, language, memory, self-regulation, and socio-emotional development. In order to understand the processes by which child impacts emerge, the study is measuring a host of family process measures summarized in the pre-registration chart. The data collection points are referred to as: "baseline", "age 1", "age 2," "age 3", "age 4", "age 6", and "age 8".

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, variables, and COVID-19 pandemic adjustments are available from:

• The User Guides for Baseline, Age 1, Age 2, Age 3, and Age 4, which are included under the "Data and Documentation" tab.
• The project's website: babysfirstyears.com

The researchers request that all peer-reviewed papers using BFY Data:

• be submitted to PubMed immediately upon acceptance for publication
• include the following citation to the data in their bibliography:

Citation

Magnuson, Katherine A., Kimberly Noble, Greg J. Duncan, Nathan A. Fox, Lisa A. Gennetian, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, and Sarah Halpern-Meekin. Baby's First Years (BFY), New York City, New Orleans, Omaha, and Twin Cities, 2018-2023. ICPSR37871-v9. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], YYYY-MM-DD. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37871.v9

• and include the following in their acknowledgements:

Acknowledgement

This research uses data from the Baby's First Years study. Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HD087384 and 2R01HD087384. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This research was additionally supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation; Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research-Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Andrew and Julie Klingenstein Family Fund; Annie E. Casey Foundation; Arnold Ventures; Arrow Impact; BCBS of Louisiana Foundation; Bezos Family Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Bill Hammack and Janice Parmelee, Brady Education Fund; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (Silicon Valley Community Foundation); Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies; Child Welfare Fund; Esther A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund; Ford Foundation; Greater New Orleans Foundation; Heising-Simons Foundation; Holland Foundation; Jacobs Foundation; JPB Foundation; J-PAL North America; Lozier Foundation; New York City Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity; Perigee Fund; Robin Hood Foundation; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Russell Sage Foundation; Sherwood Foundation; Valhalla Foundation; Weitz Family Foundation; W.K. Kellogg Foundation; and three anonymous donors.

Principal Investigators

Katherine Magnuson, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison, lead PI social and behavioral science

Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD; Teachers College, Columbia University, lead PI neuroscience

In alphabetical order:

Greg Duncan, PhD; University of California, Irvine

Nathan A. Fox, PhD; University of Maryland

Lisa A. Gennetian, PhD; Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy

Hirokazu Yoshikawa, PhD; New York University

Principal Investigators of Qualitative Substudy

Sarah Halpern-Meekin, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Katherine Magnuson, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Study Management

Lauren Meyer, Teachers College, Columbia University; National Project Director

Andrea Karsh, University of California, Irvine; Administrative Director

Matthew Maury, Duke University, Production and Retention Management

Study Co-Investigators

Sarah Black, PhD; University of New Orleans

William Fifer, PhD; Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Columbia University Medical Center

Michael Georgieff, MD; University of Minnesota

Joseph Isler, PhD; Columbia University Medical Center

Debra Karhson, PhD; University of New Orleans

Alicia Kunin-Batson, PhD, University of Minnesota

Connie Lamm, PhD; University of Arkansas

Dennis Molfese, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Victoria Molfese, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Jennifer Mize Nelson, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Timothy Nelson, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Sonya Troller-Renfree, PhD; Teachers College, Columbia University

Study Data Collectors

The Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is responsible for recruitment and baseline, age-1, age-2, and age-3 data collection waves. Starting at age-4 through age-8, SRC is responsible for tracking families and assisting site-based staff in locating families. SRC data collection operations are overseen by: Stephanie Chardoul, Director of Survey Research Operations and Piotr Dworak, Senior Survey Specialist, Survey Research Operations.

Contact

To contact the study investigators, email them at [email protected]

Website: babysfirstyears.com