Search results

The 2021-2022 Study of Family and Staff Experiences in AIAN Head Start FACES Programs (2021-2022 Study) builds on the American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (AIAN FACES), which has been a source of national information on children and families enrolled in Head Start programs operated by federally recognized tribes (known as Region XI AIAN Head Start) since 2015. The motivation and goals of the Study of Family and Staff Experiences in AIAN FACES Programs (the 2021-2022 study) came from a need that arose as the COVID-19 pandemic continued into another year of affecting Region XI Head Start families' and staff's lives--and from recognizing the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on AIAN communities.

The 2021-2022 study included a nonrepresentative sample of Region XI Head Start programs and the children and families they serve. Although a nationally representative sample of Region XI Head Start programs, centers, teachers, and children were selected, fewer of them participated than expected, despite an extension of the planned parental consent collection and data collection windows.

The 2021-2022 Study of Family and Staff Well-Being in Head Start FACES Programs (2021-2022 study), builds on the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), which has been a source of national information about Head Start programs and participants since 1997. The motivation and goals of the Study of Family and Staff Well-Being in Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey Programs (the 2021-2022 study) came from a need that arose as the COVID-19 pandemic continued into another year of affecting Head Start families' and staff's lives.

The 2021-2022 study included two components. Firstly, the Program, Staff, and Family Study, was conducted in 60 programs, and included the collection of parent surveys and Teacher Child Reports (TCRs) in fall 2021 and spring 2022, as well as a teacher survey in fall 2021. Secondly, the Program and Staff Study, conducted in the 60 programs participating in the Program, Staff, and Family Study plus an additional 120 programs, included the collection of program director, center director, and teacher surveys in spring 2022.

The 2021-2022 study aimed to describe the national population of Head Start programs, centers, teachers, classrooms, and children during the 2021-2022 program year. However, the Data Producers were unable to fully meet this goal because of challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A nationally representative sample of Head Start programs was selected. However, fewer of the programs participated than expected. Probability samples of centers, teachers, and children within the participating programs were selected. Weights are available for analysis to account for the probability that children and their teachers, centers, and programs were selected for the study. This lessens the risk of bias due to study non-participation and survey nonresponse; and provide results that represent, to the extent possible, all programs, centers, teachers, classrooms, and children in Head Start. The responding sample may not fully represent the population due to higher-than-expected non-response that may not have been adequately addressed with weighting adjustments.

Despite these limitations, the 2021-2022 study sample design supports many analyses for programs and teachers, as well as children. The data from the programs in the Program, Staff, and Family Study can address questions about the children and parents who participate in the program, including about children's development across one year in the Head Start program for both newly entering children and those returning for a second year. The study also supports research questions related to subgroups of interest, such as families with low income and specific racial/ethnic groups, as well as policy issues that emerge during the study. In addition, the research questions investigate the characteristics of Head Start programs, centers, and teachers, and the classrooms they teach. Users can use the same data to answer questions about the relationships between program and classroom characteristics and child and family well-being. The data from the larger sample of programs in the Program and Staff Study are most useful for answering questions about Head Start programs, classrooms, teachers, and program and center directors.

The 500 Family Study was designed to obtain in-depth information on middle class, dual-career families living in the United States. To understand the complex dynamics of today's families and the strategies they use to balance the demands of work and family, over 500 families from 8 cities across the United States were studied. To address different issues facing parents with older and younger children, families with adolescents and families with kindergartners were included in the sample. Working mothers and fathers are now splitting their time between their responsibilities to their family, and to their respective occupations. This study of 500 families explores how work affects the lives and well-being of parents and their children.

The study's data allows researchers to explore a broad range of questions:

• How do dual-career families manage and organize their resources and time between family and work?
• How do work conditions, including characteristics of the job and workplace environment, affect the quality of relationships among household members?
• How do dual career parents manage the moral and social development and learning experiences of their children?
• How do the work-related responsibilities of working parents affect their child's moral, social, and educational development?
• What effect is consumerism and technology having on how working families direct the moral and social development of their children?
• What do parents believe is their role regarding the child-care of their children and how they should fulfill that role both in terms of time and in the allocation of economic and social resources? What are some of the resources in the community that parents use to supervise their children?
• How do families regard the "free time" of adolescents and how they allocate adolescent "free time" in maintenance of the household?
• What is the quality of relationships among family members?

To obtain a detailed picture of work and family life, mothers, fathers, and their children were asked to complete a series of instruments including surveys, in-depth interviews, and time diaries. These instruments were designed to provide information about work, marriage, child care and parental supervision, management of household tasks, time allocations, coping strategies, and psychological well-being.

The four datasets associated with this data collection are summarized below:

1. The Cortisol Data contains information for a subsample of families that elected to participate in a study of psychological stress. Parents and teenagers who agreed to participate completed an additional two days of ESM data collection. The health survey that was administered reported on a variety of health and lifestyle issues that might affect cortisol (stress hormone) levels such as medication use, consumption of caffeine and alcohol, use of nicotine, timing of menstrual cycle, pregnancy, presence of chronic illness, and respondent's height and weight. Additionally, parents reported on the health of the children (teenagers and kindergartners) participating in the study.
2. The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) Data contains a variety of information related to how individuals spend their time, who they spent it with, and what activities they were engaged in over the course of a typical week. Respondents wore programmed wrist watches that emitted signals (beeps) throughout the day. When possible, family members were placed on identical signaling schedules to provide information on a range of family activities. At the time of each beep, participants were asked to complete a self-report form which asked them to answer a number of open-ended questions about their location, activities, who they were with, and psychological states. Several Likert and semantic-differential scales were used to assess participants' psychological states.
3. The Parent Data contains basic demographic information from respondents as well as detailed information about parents' occupation job duties, income, work schedule, benefits (e.g., medical care, flexible work schedules, and family leave), and the consequences of their jobs (e.g. long hours, job stress, having to work weekends). Additionally, the data contain information about the extent to which parents experienced work-family conflict and what changes might help with better balance of the demands of work and family (e.g., more flexible work hours, more help from spouses with household and child care responsibilities, improved child care, and after-school care arrangements). Parental attitudes toward traditional arrangements, how household tasks were actually divided among family members, and how often the family paid for services (e.g., cleaning, yard work, meal preparation) were also captured. The data also contain information about how children are socialized in families with two working parents. Topics about the frequency with which parents engaged in various activities with their children (e.g., talking, eating meals together, attending religious services), how frequently parents monitored their teenager's activities, and how often they talked with their teenager about school activities, plans for college, career plans, friendships, and peer pressure.
4. The Adolescent Data contains data for sixth through twelfth graders, which focuses on family relationships and experiences, school experiences, paid work, psychological well-being and behavioral problems, and plans for the future (e.g., college, career, and marriage -- including expectations regarding spouses' sharing of responsibility for child care, cooking, chores, and paid work). To allow for comparison of parents' and adolescents' responses to similar questions, several items appear in both the adolescent and parent data. These items include the frequency with which parents and adolescents discuss school events, college and career plans, participation in religious and other activities, gender role attitudes and the division of household tasks within the family, and items measuring depression, stress, and anxiety.

Qualitative Data -- Interviews The main purpose of the interviews was to explore topics addressed in the parent and adolescent surveys in greater detail. Parent interviews were designed to examine how working parents cope with the demands of work and family life. Adolescent interviews touched on similar themes but altered questions to gauge the adolescent's perceptions of their parents work and family lives. Kindergartner interviews were brief and focused on children's after-school and child care arrangements and time spent with parents.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a major source of information on Head Start programs and the children and families they serve. Since 1997, FACES has conducted studies in a nationally representative sample of Head Start programs, but has historically not included Region XI (programs operated by federally-recognized tribes), whose programs are designed to serve predominantly American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and families. The American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey 2015 (AI/AN FACES 2015), the first national study of Region XI AI/AN Head Start children and families, is designed to fill this information gap.

The design of AI/AN FACES 2015 has been informed by members of the AI/AN FACES 2015 Workgroup which includes tribal Head Start directors, researchers with expertise working with tribal communities, Mathematica Policy Research study staff, and federal officials from the Office of Head Start, Region XI, and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Building on FACES as the foundation, members of the AI/AN FACES 2015 Workgroup have shared insights and information on the kinds of information needed about children and families served by Region XI AI/AN Head Start programs (including children's development and school readiness, parent and family demographics, health, and program engagement, and teacher, classroom, and program characteristics). Members also provided input on recruitment practices and study methods that are responsive to the unique cultural and self-governing contexts of tribal Head Start programs.

Data collection with Region XI children, families, classrooms, and programs took place in the Fall of 2015 and the Spring of 2016. Twenty-one Region XI Head Start programs participated. Procedures for tribal review and approval in each of those 21 communities were followed. Information about this study has been shared broadly with tribal Head Start programs and tribal leaders via OHS tribal consultations, nationally-broadcast webinars, National Indian Head Start Directors' Association Board of Directors (NIHSDA) annual conferences, the 2016 ACF National Research Conference on Early Childhood, and the Secretary's Tribal Advisory Council (STAC) December 2014 and 2016 meetings.

The Americans' Changing Lives (ACL) survey series is an ongoing, nationally representative, longitudinal study focusing especially on differences between Black and White Americans in middle and late life. These data constitute the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth waves in a panel survey covering a wide range of sociological, psychological, mental, and physical health items. Wave I of the study began in 1986 with a nation face-to-face survey of 3,617 adults ages 25 and up, with Black Americans and people aged 60 and over over-sampled at twice the rate of the others. Wave II constitutes face-to-face re-interviews in 1989 of those still alive. Survivors have been re-interviewed by telephone, and when necessary face-to-face, in 1994 (Wave III), 2001/02 (Wave IV), 2011 (Wave V), and 2019/21 (Wave VI).

Please note that for Wave VI, the majority of data collection occurred in 2019, with only a small subset (n=39) of participants surveyed in 2021.

ACL was designed and sought to investigate the following: (1) The ways in which a wide range of activities and social relationships that people engage in are broadly "productive," (2) how individuals adapt to acute life events and chronic stresses that threaten the maintenance of health, effective functioning, and productive activity, and (3) sociocultural variations in the nature, meaning, determinants, and consequences of productive activity and relationships. Among the topics covered are interpersonal relationships (spouse/partner, children, parents, friends), sources and levels of satisfaction, social interactions and leisure activities, traumatic life events (physical assault, serious illness, divorce, death of a loved one, financial or legal problems), perceptions of retirement, health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight, rest), and utilization of health care services (doctor visits, hospitalization, nursing home institutionalization, bed days). Also included are measures of physical health, psychological well-being, and indices referring to cognitive functioning.

Demographic information provided for individuals includes household composition, number of children and grandchildren, employment status, occupation and work history, income, family financial situation, religious beliefs and practices, ethnicity, race, education, sex, and region of residence.

The Carolina Abecedarian (ABC) Project and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) projects consist of two consecutive longitudinal studies on the effectiveness of early childhood educational intervention for children at high risk for developmental delays and school failure. Combined, the two studies test the hypothesis that child care, home visit, and home school resource interventions can enhance cognitive and academic outcomes for children at risk for school failure due to factors such as poverty, low maternal IQ, or low parental education. These studies provide the only experimental data regarding the efficacy of child care interventions that began during early infancy and lasted until the child entered kindergarten. In addition, the data allow for tests of the efficacy of intervention during the primary grades.

Research hypotheses include:

1. Within this high-risk sample, early cumulative risk will be negatively associated with young adult educational outcomes, employment outcomes, avoidance of teen parenthood, and avoidance of criminal behavior.
2. Early intervention will moderate the effects of risk such that the effects of increased risk would be weaker for those who received the intervention than for those who did not.
3. The early home environment would mediate any found effects for early risk and that early educational intervention would moderate the effects of the early home environment such that the effects of a poor-quality home environment would be weaker for those who received treatment compared to those who did not.

Further information can be found on the Carolina Abecedarian Project Web site.

The Carolina Abecedarian (ABC) Project and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) projects consist of two consecutive longitudinal studies on the effectiveness of early childhood educational intervention for children at high risk for developmental delays and school failure. Combined, the two studies test the hypothesis that child care, home visit, and home school resource interventions can enhance cognitive and academic outcomes for children at risk for school failure due to factors such as poverty, low maternal IQ, or low parental education. These studies provide the only experimental data regarding the efficacy of child care interventions that began during early infancy and lasted until the child entered kindergarten. In addition, the data allow for tests of the efficacy of intervention during the primary grades.

Research hypotheses include:

• Within this high-risk sample, early cumulative risk will be negatively associated with young adult educational outcomes, employment outcomes, avoidance of teen parenthood, and avoidance of criminal behavior.
• Early intervention will moderate the effects of risk such that the effects of increased risk would be weaker for those who received the intervention than for those who did not.
• The early home environment would mediate any found effects for early risk and that early educational intervention would moderate the effects of the early home environment such that the effects of a poor-quality home environment would be weaker for those who received treatment compared to those who did not.

Demographic variables included in this collection: gender, age, level of education.

This project was a mixed-method, multi-level study of low income families of children with special needs and the system which served them, focusing primarily on child care, employment, and balancing work and family. This approach included an analysis of existing national and state-level data sets, statewide surveys of parents and child care providers, and a field study to look at these issues at the local level in three selected communities in the state of Maine: Portland, Lewiston/Auburn, and Presque Isle. While the primary focus was on access to child care, this project also looked at the related issues of welfare reform, the impact of work force participation on having a child with special needs, and the issue of coordination of early intervention services with the child care system. The goal was to understand better the issues facing low income families with special needs children across the programs and policies affecting their employment, access to child care, and meeting the special needs of their children. In the first year of the study, qualitative research was conducted to learn directly from parents about their experiences. In the second and third years, a field study of three communities was conducted as well as statewide surveys and analysis of national data bases to supplement the data collected in the first year. This data collection is comprised of the two quantitative data files produced during the second and third years of the study which are described in more detail below.

Child Care Provider Survey: The Child Care Provider Survey was a statewide survey of child care providers selected at random from the list of licensed providers in Maine given by the state licensing agency. Questions focused on the perspective of child care providers on the issues of access and inclusion that parents raised.

Parent Survey: The Parent Survey was a statewide survey of parents and children aged 0-18 years with diagnosed special needs (enrolled in Maine Care - Katie Beckett and Title V eligibility groups - and Child Development Services early intervention caseloads). Questions focused on child care utilization and work experiences in relation to children with special needs.

Researchers interested in information about the qualitative data should contact the Child Care and Children with Special Needs Project Web site.

The purpose of this project was to measure and estimate the distribution of income in both rural and urban areas of the People's Republic of China. The principal investigators based their definition of income on cash payments and on a broad range of additional components: payments in kind valued at market prices, agricultural output produced for self-consumption valued at market prices, the value of ration coupons and other direct subsidies, and the imputed value of housing. The rural component of this collection consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis. Individual rural respondents reported on their employment status, level of education, Communist Party membership, type of employer (e.g., public, private, or foreign), type of economic sector in which employed, occupation, whether they held a second job, retirement status, monthly pension, monthly wage, and other sources of income. Demographic variables include relationship to householder, gender, age, and student status. Rural households reported extensively on the character of the household and residence. Information was elicited on type of terrain surrounding the house, geographic position, type of house, and availability of electricity. Also reported were sources of household income (e.g., farming, industry, government, rents, and interest), taxes paid, value of farm, total amount and type of cultivated land, financial assets and debts, quantity and value of various crops (e.g., grains, cotton, flax, sugar, tobacco, fruits and vegetables, tea, seeds, nuts, lumber, livestock and poultry, eggs, fish and shrimp, wool, honey, and silkworm cocoons), amount of grain purchased or provided by a collective, use of chemical fertilizers, gasoline, and oil, quantity and value of agricultural machinery, and all household expenditures (e.g., food, fuel, medicine, education, transportation, and electricity). The urban component of this collection also consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis. Individual urban respondents reported on their economic status within the household, Communist Party membership, sex, age, nature of employment, and relationship to the household head. Information was collected on all types and sources of income from each member of the household whether working, nonworking, or retired, all revenue received by owners of private or individual enterprises, and all in-kind payments (e.g., food and durable and non-durable goods). Urban households reported total income (including salaries, interest on savings and bonds, dividends, rent, leases, alimony, gifts, and boarding fees), all types and values of food rations received, and total debt. Information was also gathered on household accommodations and living conditions, including number of rooms, total living area in square meters, availability and cost of running water, sanitary facilities, heating and air-conditioning equipment, kitchen availability, location of residence, ownership of home, and availability of electricity and telephone. Households reported on all of their expenditures including amounts spent on food items such as wheat, rice, edible oils, pork, beef and mutton, poultry, fish and seafood, sugar, and vegetables by means of both coupons in state-owned stores and at free market prices. Information was also collected on rents paid by the households, fuel available, type of transportation used, and availability and use of medical and child care.

The Chinese Household Income Project collected data in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. ICPSR holds data from the first three collections, and information about these can be found on the series description page. Data collected in 2007 are available through the China Institute for Income Distribution.

The Chitwan Valley [Nepal] Family Study: Labor Outmigration, Agricultural Productivity and Food Security is a three year project with the aim to investigate the consequences of labor outmigration on agricultural productivity in a poor agricultural country persistently facing food security problems. A Data Guide for this study is available as a web page and for download.

This project's data collection is made up of twenty-five datasets:

Datasets 1-6: The Household Agriculture and Migration Survey includes information on household agricultural practices and remittances received by the household. Face-to-face interviews were conducted to collect data from household members who previously participated in the Chitwan Valley Family Study (ICPSR 4538).

Topics of the survey include crop production and farm technology use, wealth, assets, income, consumption, food security and information about each household member currently away from home. The survey also collected information on gender, ethnicity, and age.

Datasets 7-16: Measured yields of major crops grown by farm households that previously participated in the Chitwan Valley Family Study (ICPSR 4538).

Dataset 17: A monthly demographic event registry administered to all households that previously participated in the Chitwan Valley Family Study (ICPSR 4538).

Datasets 18-23: The Women's Time Use Survey was designed and administered to married, Nepalese women to collect information on changes in their time and involvement in agriculture and other activities. Face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews were conducted to collect data from women who previously participated in the Chitwan Valley Family Study (ICPSR 4538).

The collection covered a range of topics including farm work, hygiene, finances, health, and religion. Further, respondents were queried concerning socialization and assisting children and the elderly.

Datasets 24-25: The Women's Time Use Survey was designed and administered to married, Nepalese women to collect information on changes in their time and involvement in agriculture and other activities. Face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews were conducted to collect data from women who previously participated in the Chitwan Valley Family Study (ICPSR 4538).

Early Head Start (EHS) programs are comprehensive, two-generation programs that focus on enhancing children's development while strengthening families. Designed for low-income pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers up to age 3, Early Head Start programs strive to achieve their goals by designing program options based on family and community needs. Programs may offer one or more options to families, including a home-based option, a center-based option, a combination option in which families receive a prescribed number of home visits and center-based experiences, and locally designed options, which in some communities include family child care.

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation (EHSRE) Study was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) and included five major components: (1) an implementation study; (2) an impact evaluation, using an experimental design; (3) local research studies to learn about pathways to desired outcomes; (4) policy studies to respond to information needs in areas of emerging policy-relevant issues; and (5) continuous program improvement. The study involved 3,001 children and families in 17 sites representing diverse program models, racial/ethnic makeup, urban-rural location, program auspice, and program experience in serving infants and toddlers. Three phases comprise the collection: Birth to Three ("0-3"), Pre-Kindergarten ("PreK") Follow-up and the Elementary School ("G5") Follow-up. A brief description of each phase is provided below:

• Birth to Three Phase (1996-2001): included a cross-site national study that encompassed an Impact Evaluation and Implementation Study that investigated program impacts on children and families through their time in the program as well as site-specific research conducted by local research projects.
• Pre-Kindergarten Follow-up Phase (2001-2005) : built upon the earlier research and followed the children and families who were in the original study from the time they left the Early Head Start program until they entered kindergarten. It was designed to document the long-term consequences of receiving either Early Head Start services or other community services up until age 3 combined with subsequent Head Start or other formal early care and education programs on children's school readiness and parent functioning.
• Elementary School Follow-up Phase (2005-2010): assessed children and families when the children were fifth graders or attending their sixth year of formal schooling. The study included direct assessments of children's cognitive, socio-emotional, and physical development; parent interviews; teacher questionnaires; and videotaping of maternal-child interactions.

The Early Head Start findings are based on a mixture of direct child assessments, observations of children's behavior by in-person interviewers, ratings of videotaped parent-child interactions in standardized ways, ratings of children's behaviors by their parents, and parents' self-reports of their own behaviors, attitudes, and circumstances. Data in this collection were constructed by the Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) researchers for use in their analyses. Very few of the original source variables are present in this public-use file. The constructs came from several data sources:

1. Baseline data, which were collected from the Head Start Family Information System (HSFIS) program application and enrollment forms and the MPR Tracking System. These data contain information on the program status of each case, characteristics of the applicant, mother, and focus child from the MPR Tracking System, summary variables pertaining to all family members, and information on the father, on family circumstances, on the mother's pregnancy, and on the focus child.

2. Parent services follow-up interviews (PSI) targeted for 6, 15, and 26 months after random assignment. These data contain information on use of services both in and outside of Early Head Start, progress toward economic self-sufficiency, family health, and children's health.

3. Parent interviews (BPI) targeted for completion when children were 14, 24, and 36 months old. These interviews obtained a large amount of information from the primary caregivers about their child's development and family functioning. Specific questions asked of parents in the parent interview included items about raising a baby, child's health, household composition, child care, mother figure, father figure, family routines, parents' and parent-child activities, child behavior, and stressful events.

4. Child and family assessments targeted for administration when children were 14, 24, and 36 months old. Field interviewers recorded information from their observations of children's behavior and home environments. Direct child assessments included Bayley Assessments, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Tests (PPVTs), and videotaped semi-structured parent-child interactions.

5. Child care provider interviews and observations targeted for administration when children were 14, 24, and 36 months old. Interview and observation data were collected from child care providers for children who were in child care arrangements that met particular criteria when they were approximately 14, 24 and 36 months old. Different data collection instruments were used for children in child care centers and children cared for by family child care providers or relatives. Data from both types of providers may be used together for some types of analyses.

6. Father interviews targeted for collection when children were 24 and 36 months old. In addition to asking mothers about their child's father, biological fathers and father figures in 12 sites were interviewed directly about fathering issues at the time of the 24- and 36-month birthday-related interviews (but not when children were 14 months old).

The Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS, formerly known as the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study) follows a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large, U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The study oversampled births to unmarried couples; and, when weighted, the data are representative of births in large U.S. cities at the turn of the century. The FFCWS was originally designed to address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers:

1. What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?
2. What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?
3. How do children born into these families fare?
4. How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

The FFCWS consists of interviews with mothers, fathers, and/or primary caregivers at birth and again when children are ages 1, 3, 5, 9, 15, and 22. The parent interviews collected information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and program participation. Beginning at age 9, children were interviewed directly (either during the home visit or on the telephone). The direct child interviews collected data on family relationships, home routines, schools, peers, and physical and mental health, as well as health behaviors.

A collaborative study of the FFCWS, the In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School Aged Children (In-Home Study) collected data from a subset of the FFCWS Core respondents at the Year 3 and 5 follow-ups to ask how parental resources in the form of parental presence or absence, time, and money influence children under the age of 5. The In-Home Study collected information on a variety of domains of the child's environment, including: the physical environment (quality of housing, nutrition and food security, health care, adequacy of clothing and supervision) and parenting (parental discipline, parental attachment, and cognitive stimulation). In addition, the In-Home Study also collected information on several important child outcomes, including anthropometrics, child behaviors, and cognitive ability. This information was collected through interviews with the child's primary caregiver, and direct observation of the child's home environment and the child's interactions with his or her caregiver.

Similar activities were conducted during the Year 9 follow-up. At the Year 15 follow-up, a condensed set of home visit activities were conducted with a subsample of approximately 1,000 teens. Teens who participated in the In-Home Study were also invited to participate in a Sleep Study and were asked to wear an accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist for seven consecutive days to track their sleep (Sleep Actigraphy Data) and that day's behaviors and mood (Daily Sleep Actigraphy and Diary Survey Data).

An additional collaborative study collected data from the child care provider (Year 3) and teacher (Years 9 and 15) through mail-based surveys. Saliva samples were collected at Year 9 and 15 (Biomarker file and Polygenic Scores). The Study of Adolescent Neural Development (SAND) COVID Study began data collection in May 2020 following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It included online surveys with the young adult and their primary caregiver.

The FFCWS began its seventh wave of data collection in October 2020, around the focal child's 22nd birthday. Data collection and interviews continued through January 2024. The Year 22 wave included a young adult (YA) survey with the original focal child and a primary caregiver (PCG) survey. Data were also collected on the children of the original focal child (referred to as Generation 3, or G3).

In 2017, the FFCWS team announced the Fragile Families (FF) Challenge, a collaborative effort in which participants were tasked with using machine learning methods and FFCWS data (Baseline to Year 9) to build a model that would predict six key outcomes at Year 15. Materials used in the FF Challenge have been archived in this collection.

Documentation for these files is available on the FFCWS website under Data and Documentation. For details of updates made to the FFCWS data files, please see the project's Data Alerts page.

Data collection for the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations.

Below is the citation for use of the FFCWS data accessed through ICPSR. For information on additional citation requirements when using FFCWS in publications, please refer to this FAQ on the FFCWS project site.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) has been a source of information on the Head Start program and the children and families it serves. The 2019 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2019, is the seventh in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2014. It includes nationally representative samples of Head Start programs and centers, classrooms, and children and their families during the 2019-2020 program year. Data from surveys of Head Start program and center directors and classroom teachers provide descriptive information about program policies and practices, classroom activities, and the background of Head Start staff. These data compromise the Classroom Study. A sample of these programs also provides data from parent surveys, teacher child reports, and direct child assessments as part of the Classroom + Child Outcomes Study. FACES 2019 is designed to help policymakers address current policy questions and to support programs and practitioners working with Head Start families.

According to the study design, FACES would have assessed children's readiness for school, surveyed parents, and asked teachers to provide information on children in both fall 2019 and spring 2020. In response to the COVID-19 (for coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, however, FACES 2019 cancelled the first piece--the in-person data collection of child assessments in spring 2020. In-person classroom observations as part of the Classroom Study were also cancelled in spring 2020.

FACES is designed so that researchers can answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program directors and policymakers. FACES 2019 data may be used to describe (1) the quality and characteristics of Head Start programs, teachers, and classrooms; (2) the changes or trends in the quality and characteristics of the classrooms, programs, and staff over time; (3) the school readiness skills and family characteristics of the children who participate in Head Start; (4) the factors or characteristics that predict differences in classroom quality; (5) the changes or trends in the children's outcomes and family characteristics over time; and (6) the factors or characteristics at multiple levels that predict differences in the children's outcomes. The study also supports research questions related to subgroups of interest, such as children with identified disabilities and children who are dual-language learners (DLLs), as well as policy issues that emerge during the study. The study addresses changes in children's outcomes and experiences as well as changes in the characteristics of Head Start classrooms over time and across the rounds of FACES. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include:

1. What are the characteristics of Head Start programs, including structural characteristics and program policies and practices?
2. What are the characteristics and observed quality of Head Start classrooms?
3. What are the characteristics and qualifications of Head Start teachers and management staff?
4. Are the characteristics of programs, classrooms, and staff changing over time?
5. What are the demographic characteristics and home environments of children and families who participate in Head Start?
6. Are family demographic characteristics and aspects of home environments changing over time?
7. How do families make early care and education decisions?
8. What are the experiences of families and children in Head Start?
9. What are the average school readiness skills and developmental outcomes of the population of Head Start children in fall and spring of the Head Start year?
10. What gains do children make during a year of Head Start?
11. Are children's school readiness skills (average skills or average gains in skills) improving over time?
12. Does classroom quality vary by characteristics of classrooms, teachers, or programs?
13. What characteristics of programs, teachers, or classrooms are associated with aspects of classroom quality?
14. Do the school readiness skills of children in fall and spring and their gains in skills vary by child, family, program, and classroom characteristics?
15. What is the association between observed classroom quality and children's school readiness skills? Between child and family characteristics and children's school readiness skills?

The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2019 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices.

• Appendix A. Elements of the FACES Design and Key Instruments Used (and Child Outcomes Captured): FACES 1997-FACES 2019
• Appendix B. Copyright Permissions
• Appendix C. Instrument Content Matrices
• Appendix D. Instruments
• Appendix E. Spring 2020 Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix F. Spring 2020 Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix G. Fall 2019-Spring 2020 Child Codebook
• Appendix H. Descriptions of Composite Variables

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is an ongoing national longitudinal study of the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development of Head Start children. It examines the characteristics, well-being, and accomplishments of families, the observed quality of Head Start classrooms, and the characteristics and opinions of Head Start teachers and other program staff. FACES was designed to address four central questions related to program performance objectives:

1. Does Head Start enhance children's development and school readiness?
2. Does Head Start strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children?
3. Does Head Start provide children with high quality educational, health, and nutritional services?
4. How is classroom quality related to child outcomes?

The FACES 1997 Cohort involved a nationally representative sample of children and families in Head Start programs in the United States who were studied at entry into the program in the fall of 1997, assessed in the spring at the completion of one or two years of Head Start, and followed up in the spring of the kindergarten and first grade years. During these visits, the research team completed individual interviews with staff and parents, child and classroom observations, direct child assessments through one-on-one interviews, and indirect assessments of children by their teachers and parents.

The data collection instruments used in FACES were designed to measure several different types of skills, accomplishments, and behaviors that are relevant to a child's school readiness and social competence:

1. The parent interview was designed to collect up-to-date information about current Head Start families while being sensitive to differences based on the background of the respondents. The interview provided descriptive information about the parents (education, work status, health, nativity, depression, social support, use of discipline and rules, exposure to violence), the household (income, housing, activities with children, use of child care), and the children (gender, ethnicity, health, behavior, literacy skills, disabilities, exposure to violence). Additionally, parents reported how their families came to Head Start and how they perceived their Head Start experiences.
2. The staff interview was designed to provide a profile of the background, qualifications, and training of Head start personnel as well as an understanding of classroom activities, family activities, services, local programs offered to families, and staff perspectives on their programs and the families they served.
3. The child and classroom observations were designed to record information from the observations of children's behavior and home environments. Some of the assessments used included Peabody Picture Vocabulary Tests (PPVTs), Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement, Norm Referenced Cognitive Tests, Story and Print Concepts, and McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is an ongoing national longitudinal study of the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development of Head Start children. It examines the characteristics, well-being, and accomplishments of families, the observed quality of Head Start classrooms, and the characteristics and opinions of Head Start teachers and other program staff. FACES was designed to address four central questions related to program performance objectives:

1. Does Head Start enhance children's development and school readiness?
2. Does Head Start strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children?
3. Does head Start provide children with high quality educational, health, and nutritional services?
4. How is classroom quality related to child outcomes?

The FACES 2000 Cohort involved a nationally representative sample of children and families in Head Start programs in the United States who were studied at entry into the program in the fall of 2000, assessed at the completion of one or two years of program experience, and followed up in the spring of the kindergarten year. The FACES 2000-2003 battery has four main components: the child assessment, parent interview, teacher and staff interviews, and classroom observations.

1. The child assessments included the major components of school readiness, and were collected through direct child assessments and rating scales completed by parents and teachers. Direct child assessments included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Third Edition-Revised (PPVT-III), Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised, McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities, story and print concepts, social awareness, color names and one-to-one counting, Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised, interview ratings, and follow-up Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten (ECLS-K) measures.

2. The parent interview was designed to provide Head Start with a comprehensive understanding of the families that they serve, including the characteristics of households and household members, levels and types of participation in the program and in other community services, involvement with their children, and an understanding of their children's development. In addition to this, parents were asked to rate each child on a set of behaviors that assessed the child's basic social skills and behavior problems.

3. The teacher and staff interview was designed to provide information on Head Start personnel experience, education, and training as well as knowledge and beliefs about child development, and educational activities with children and parents.

4. The classroom observations were designed to measure peer interactions, friendships of children, and the extent to which Head Start programs employed skilled teachers and provided developmentally appropriate environments and curricula for their children. Some of the assessments used included the Assessment Profile, Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R), classroom observation of teacher-directed activities, and the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is an ongoing national longitudinal study of the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development of Head Start children. It examines the characteristics, well-being, and accomplishments of families, the observed quality of Head Start classrooms, and the characteristics and opinions of Head Start teachers and other program staff. FACES was designed to address four central questions related to program performance objectives:

1. Does Head Start enhance children's development and school readiness?
2. Does Head Start strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children?
3. Does head Start provide children with high quality educational, health, and nutritional services?
4. How is classroom quality related to child outcomes?

The FACES 2003 Cohort involved a nationally representative sample of children and families in Head Start programs in the United States who were studied at entry into the program in the fall of 2003, assessed at the completion of their program experience, and followed up at the end of their kindergarten year. The FACES 2003 battery has five main components: the child assessment, parent interview, teacher and staff interviews, classroom observations and teacher-child reports.

1. The child assessments included the major components of school readiness, and were collected through direct child assessments and rating scales completed by parents and teachers. Some of the direct child assessments included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Third Edition-Revised (PPVT-III), Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised, McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities, story and print concepts, social awareness, color names and one-to-one counting and assessor ratings.

2. The parent interview was designed to provide Head Start with a comprehensive understanding of the families that they serve, including the characteristics of households and household members, levels and types of participation in the program and in other community services, involvement with their children, and an understanding of their children's development. In addition to this, parents were asked to rate each child on a set of behaviors that assessed the child's basic social skills and behavior problems.

3. The teacher and staff interview was designed to provide information on Head Start personnel experience, education, and training as well as knowledge and beliefs about child development, and educational activities with children and parents.

4. The classroom observations were designed to measure peer interactions, friendships of children, and the extent to which Head Start programs employed skilled teachers and provided developmentally appropriate environments and curricula for their children. Some of the assessments used included the Assessment Profile, Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R), classroom observation of teacher-directed activities, and the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale.

5. The teacher-child report was designed to capture important sources of information about children's learning and behavior through the use of the Teacher-Child Report (TCR), social skills ratings, the Behavior Problems scale and the Preschool Learning Behavior Scale (PLBS).

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a periodic, ongoing longitudinal study of program performance. Successive nationally representative samples of Head Start children, their families, classrooms, and programs provide descriptive information on the population of children and families served; staff qualifications, credentials, and opinions; Head Start classroom practices and quality measures; and child and family outcomes. FACES includes a battery of child assessments across multiple developmental domains (cognitive, social, emotional, and physical).

For nearly a decade, the Office of Head Start, the Administration for Children and Families, other federal agencies, local programs, and the public have depended on FACES for valid and reliable national information on (1) the skills and abilities of Head Start children, (2) how Head Start children's skills and abilities compare with preschool children nationally, (3) Head Start children's readiness for and subsequent performance in kindergarten, and (4) the characteristics of the children's home and classroom environments. The FACES study is designed to enable researchers to answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program managers and policymakers. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include:

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the population of children and families served by Head Start? How has the population served by Head Start changed?
2. What are the experiences of families and children in the Head Start program? How have they changed?
3. What are the cognitive and social skills of Head Start children at the beginning and end of their first year in the program? Has Head Start program performance improved over time?
4. Do the gains in cognitive and social skills that Head Start children achieve carry over into kindergarten? Do larger gains (or greater declines in problem behavior) translate into higher achievement at the end of kindergarten?
5. What are the qualifications of Head Start teachers in terms of education, experience, and credentials? Are average teacher education levels rising in Head Start?
6. What is the observed quality of Head Start classrooms as early learning environments, including the level and range of teaching and interactions, provisions for learning, emotional and instructional support, and classroom organization? How has quality changed over time? What program- and classroom-level factors are related to observed classroom quality? How is observed quality related to children's outcomes and developmental gains?

FACES also supports analyses of subgroups of interest, such as children with disabilities, dual language learners, and children who are performing above or below average on standardized assessments. Its design changes in response to emerging policy and research questions. For example, in response to the growing concern about childhood obesity, measures of children's height and weight were introduced in FACES 2006.

Measures for FACES 2006 were selected to balance the need to support comparisons to previous cohorts of FACES (particularly with respect to program performance measures) against the need to update the measurement battery and address emerging policy issues and benefits from progress in the assessment field. Many of the measures used in FACES 2006 were included in previous cohorts and they are presented below by the five major measurement sources in FACES: (1) child direct assessments; (2) parent interviews; (3) teacher interviews and survey; (4) classroom observations; and (5) program director, center director, and education coordinator interviews.

1. The child direct assessments included the major components of school readiness. They included a language screener, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition/Test de Vocabulario de Imagines Peabody, subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Third Edition/Bateria III Woodcock-Munoz (letter word identification, applied problems, spelling, and word attack), a measure of early math literacy based on items from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth and Kindergarten Cohorts math assessments (geometry, patterns, and measurement), story and print concepts, and physical measurements (height and weight). At the end of the direct child assessment, interviewers rate the child's attention, organization/impulse control, activity level, and sociability using items from the Leiter-R scales.
2. The parent interview was designed to provide Head Start with a comprehensive understanding of the families that they serve, including the demographic characteristics of households and household members, parent-child relationships and the quality of the child's home life, and parent ratings of the child's behavior problems, social skills, and competencies, levels and types of participation in the program and in other community services.
3. The Head Start teacher interview was designed to collect information about classroom and teacher characteristics related to the quality of care provided by Head Start programs. Teachers were asked about their classroom activities and use of curricula, as well as their demographic and educational background and professional experience. They also used a Web survey to rate the social skills, problem behaviors, and competencies of each FACES child in their classroom. Kindergarten teachers provided information about schools attended by Head Start children, their classrooms and school experiences using a Web survey. They also completed ratings of each FACES child's social skills, behavior problems and competencies.
4. The classroom observations were designed to measure peer interactions and the extent to which Head Start programs employed skilled teachers and provided developmentally appropriate environments and curricula for their children. The measures used included the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R), the Arnett Scale of Lead Teacher Behavior, and the Instructional Support scale from the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Counts of children and adults were also taken to calculate group size and child-adult ratios.
5. The Program Director, Center Director, and Education Coordinator Interviews gathered information about staffing and recruitment, teacher education initiatives and training, waiting lists and program expansion, classroom activities, curriculum, overview of program management, and parent involvement.

The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2006 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices.

• Appendix A -- Copyright Statements
• Appendix B -- Instrument Content Matrices
• Appendix C -- Questionnaires
• Appendix D -- Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix E -- Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix F -- Child Codebook
• Appendix G -- Description of Constructed/Derived Variables

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a periodic, ongoing longitudinal study of program performance. Successive nationally representative samples of Head Start children, their families, classrooms, and programs provide descriptive information on the population of children and families served; staff qualifications, credentials, and opinions; Head Start classroom practices and quality measures; and child and family outcomes. FACES includes a battery of child assessments across multiple developmental domains (cognitive, social, emotional, and physical). FACES 2009 is the latest FACES cohort study and followed children from Head Start entry in fall 2009 through one or two years of program participation and to kindergarten.

For nearly a decade, the Office of Head Start, the Administration for Children and Families, other federal agencies, local programs, and the public have depended on FACES for valid and reliable national information on (1) the skills and abilities of Head Start children, (2) how Head Start children's skills and abilities compare with preschool children nationally, (3) Head Start children's readiness for and subsequent performance in kindergarten, and (4) the characteristics of the children's home and classroom environments. The FACES study is designed to enable researchers to answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program managers and policymakers. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include:

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the population of children and families served by Head Start? How has the population served by Head Start changed?
2. What are the experiences of families and children in the Head Start program? How have they changed?
3. What are the cognitive and social skills of Head Start children at the beginning and end of their first year in the program? Has Head Start program performance improved over time?
4. Do the gains in cognitive and social skills that Head Start children achieve carry over into kindergarten? Do larger gains (or greater declines in problem behavior) translate into higher achievement at the end of kindergarten?
5. What are the qualifications of Head Start teachers in terms of education, experience, and credentials? Are average teacher education levels rising in Head Start?
6. What is the observed quality of Head Start classrooms as early learning environments, including the level and range of teaching and interactions, provisions for learning, emotional and instructional support, and classroom organization? How has quality changed over time? What program- and classroom-level factors are related to observed classroom quality? How is observed quality related to children's outcomes and developmental gains?

In response to recent trends and mandates, FACES 2009 expanded the information collected on families and children who speak a primary language other than English and the information collected on children who are homeless. Earlier cohorts of FACES gathered information on the languages spoken in the home and used for classroom instruction. Given the growth in the population of Hispanic/Latino preschoolers (Hernandez 2006), FACES 2009 placed additional emphasis on Dual Language Learners (DLLs). In addition, given the 2007 Head Start Act's focus on children and families who are homeless, FACES 2009 expanded coverage on the enrollment of such children, how the program ensures that they enroll in Head Start, and the special services available to such children and their families.

FACES 2009 carefully balanced the need for consistent measurement of outcomes against the need for improvements in instrumentation and techniques. In some instances, new instruments were added to obtain more comprehensive information on Head Start children. For example, the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test was added to assess children's expressive language, which is related to later reading achievement even more so than receptive language (National Early Literacy Panel 2008). A measure of phonemic awareness from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) preschool wave was also added to assess children's knowledge of beginning and ending sounds in words. Further, FACES 2009 included a direct assessment of executive functioning-a pencil tapping task to examine children's inhibitory control, working memory, and attention-which has been shown to relate to young children's development in mathematics, vocabulary, and literacy (Blair and Razza 2007; Espy et al. 2004; McClelland et al. 2007).

The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2009 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices.

• Appendix A - Copyright statements
• Appendix B - Instrument Content Matrices
• Appendix C - Questionnaires
• Appendix D - Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix E - Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix F - Child Codebook
• Appendix G - Description of Constructed/Derived Variables

The 2014 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2014, is the sixth in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. FACES 2014 used a new study design that differs from earlier rounds of FACES in several important ways: (1) it included larger program and classroom samples, (2) all data were collected in a single program year, (3) the baseline sample of children included both children enrolled in their first and second year of Head Start, and (4) several special studies were conducted along with the main (Classroom + Child Outcomes Core and Classroom Core) study to collect more detailed information about a given topic, to study new populations of Head Start programs and participants, and to evaluate measures for possible use in future rounds of FACES. For example, the Family Engagement Plus study collected information from parents and staff (teachers and family services staff) on family engagement efforts and service provision in Head Start programs.

The FACES 2014 Family Engagement Plus study took place in spring 2015 within the 60 programs that participated in the child-level data collection in the Classroom + Child Outcomes Core study. This Plus study describes family engagement practices in Head Start from the perspectives of parents and Head Start staff. It examines how practices align with the Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework and targeted family outcomes. It also explores how programs engage with community partners to provide comprehensive services to families and how parents and staff characterize their relationships with one another. It includes semi-structured interviews with parents and family services staff (FSS) as well as supplemental content added to the Core parent and teacher surveys. This release includes open-ended qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews included in the Family Engagement Plus study.

The primary research questions for the Family Engagement Plus study are as follows:

1. What do family engagement efforts look like in Head Start?
2. How are families engaged in Head Start and in their children's learning and development at home and in the community?
3. What staff are involved in family engagement efforts, and in what ways are they involved in those efforts?
4. How are comprehensive family services provided in Head Start?
5. How do parents and staff characterize their relationships and interactions with one another?
6. How do family engagement efforts and service provisions align with the Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework?

The User's Manual provides detailed information about the Family Engagement Plus study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses or pairing the Family Engagement qualitative data collection sources with other FACES 2014 sources.

The 2014 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2014, is the sixth in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. This release includes nationally representative samples of Head Start programs and centers, classrooms, children and their families through spring of 2017. Data from surveys of Head Start program and center directors, classroom teachers, and parents provided descriptive information about program policies and practices, classroom activities, and the background and experiences of Head Start staff and families. Classroom observations were used to assess the quality of Head Start classrooms. Children in the study participated in a direct assessment that provided a picture of their school readiness skills at different time points.

FACES 2014 used a new study design that differs from earlier rounds of FACES in several important ways: (1) it included larger program and classroom samples, (2) all data were collected in a single program year, (3) the baseline sample of children included both children enrolled in their first and second year of Head Start, and (4) several special studies were conducted along with the main (Core) study to collect more detailed information about a given topic, to study new populations of Head Start programs and participants, and to evaluate measures for possible use in future rounds of FACES. For example, the Family Engagement Plus study collected information from parents and staff (teachers and family services staff) on family engagement efforts and service provision in Head Start programs.

The Office of Head Start, the Administration for Children and Families, other federal agencies, local programs, and the public have depended on FACES for valid and reliable national information on (1) the skills and abilities of Head Start children, (2) how Head Start children's skills and abilities compare with preschool children nationally, (3) Head Start children's readiness for and subsequent performance in kindergarten, and (4) the characteristics of the children's home and classroom environments. The FACES study was designed to enable researchers to answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program managers and policymakers. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include:

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the population of children and families served by Head Start? How has the population served by Head Start changed?
2. What are the experiences of families and children in the Head Start program? How have they changed?
3. What are the cognitive and social skills of Head Start children at the beginning and end of the program year? Has Head Start program performance improved over time?
4. What are the qualifications of Head Start teachers in terms of education, experience, and credentials? Are average teacher education levels rising in Head Start?
5. What is the observed quality of Head Start classrooms as early learning environments, including the level and range of teaching and interactions, provisions for learning, emotional and instructional support, and classroom organization? How has quality changed over time?
6. What program- and classroom-level factors are related to observed classroom quality?
7. How is observed quality related to children's outcomes and developmental gains?

The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2014 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices.

• Appendix A - Elements Of The FACES Design And Key Measures Used (And Child Outcomes Captured): FACES 1997 - FACES 2014
• Appendix B - Copyright Permissions
• Appendix C - Instrument Content Matrices
• Appendix D - Instruments
• Appendix E - Spring 2015 Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix F - Spring 2015 Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix G - 2014-2015 Child Codebook
• Appendix H - Spring 2015 Family Engagement Family Service Staff Interview Codebook
• Appendix I - Spring 2015 Family Engagement Parent Interview Codebook
• Appendix J - Spring 2017 Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix K - Spring 2017 Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix L - Descriptions of Constructed/Derived Variables
• Appendix M - Synthetic Estimation for Child Growth Across Two Years

The Healthy Steps for Young Children program began in 1995 as a new approach to primary health care for young children, birth to age three. The program is intended to enhance early pediatric care by incorporating preventive developmental and behavioral services as part of a comprehensive, whole-child, whole-family model of health care and to help provide mothers and fathers with the childrearing information and guidance they seek.

The evaluation of Healthy Steps consisted of three components: the National Evaluation, the Affiliate Evaluation, and the Embedded Observational Study. All data contained in these public release data sets come from the National Evaluation. For additional information on the Affiliate Evaluation or the Embedded Observational Study, please visit http://www.jhsph.edu/WCHPC_/Projects/Healthy_Steps/index.html.

These data were gathered to assess whether the Healthy Steps program was successful in reorienting pediatric practice to emphasize child development issues in increasing parents' knowledge about early nurturing of infants and parents' involvement in their children's development and in promoting parents' practices that improve the health, safety, and health care utilization of their children.

The data are organized as follows:

• Parent Forms: Newborn

  The newborn form was used to gather data on the baby's characteristics, demographic characteristics of the mother, father, and family, prenatal utilization of services, health behaviors of the mother and father, and parents' decisions about a pediatric provider for their newborn.

• Parent Forms: 6 Month

  The 6 month form was used to gather information on selected family demographic characteristics, child's health, parenting practices, and health behaviors of the mother and father. Questions included the frequency of injuries, emergency department visits, and hospitalization in the past 6 months, use of safety devices, activities that promote learning and development, sources of information on speech development, child care arrangements, smoking practices, and mother's receipt of postpartum care.

• Parent Forms: 12 Month

  Like the 6 month form, the 12 month form was used to gather information on selected family demographic characteristics, child's health, parenting practices, and health behaviors of the mother and father. Questions included the frequency of injuries, emergency department visits, and hospitalization in the past 12 months, use of safety devices, activities that promote learning and development, sources of information on speech development, child care arrangements, smoking practices, and mother's receipt of postpartum care.

• Medical Record Abstraction: Vaccinations

  This file contains demographic and vaccination data, including gender, race/ethnicity, and insurance provider.

• Medical Record Abstraction: Medical Visits

  This file contains data abstracted from forms completed for every visit recorded in the medical record or other primary care files, including type visit and whether a physical assessment was conducted.

• Medical Record Abstraction: Referrals/Consultations

  These data are limited to information on any referrals or consultations noted in the child's medical record or other primary care files, including type of and reason for the referral.

• Medical Record Abstraction: Hospitalizations/ED Visits

  These data are limited to information on any hospitalization, emergency department visit, or urgent care visit recorded in the child's medical record or other primary care files, including the type of and reason for the visit.

• Healthy Steps Specialist Contact Logs

  Data contained in this file represent every interaction between Healthy Steps Specialists and the family, including home visits, office visits, telephone calls to or from the family, parent groups, mailings, and other types of contacts, such as hospital visits. Information collected on each contact included the date of contact, type of contact, person contacted, status of the contact, reason for the contact, whether a handout was given out or a referral made during the contact, the issues/ problems discussed during the contact, and any action taken by the Healthy Steps Specialist.

• Parent Interviews: 2-4 Month

  The 2-4 month interview included questions about the respondent's knowledge of child development, his/her sense of competence about childrearing, his/her perception of support for childrearing activities from both formal and informal sources, and his/her engagement in activities with the child that promote health, learning, and development. The interview also gathered information on the socio- demographic characteristics of the family, including the mother's and father's education, marital status, employment, income, and household composition.

• Parent Interviews: 30-33 Month

  The 30-33 month interview is the source of data on parent and child outcomes and assessed the extent to which families received the Healthy Steps intervention. Specifically, parents were asked about utilization of health-related services and about the child's health and progress in reaching age-appropriate developmental milestones, concerns the parent had about the child's development or behavior, and whether the child was referred to services for a behavior or developmentally-related problem. Additional questions addressed parenting activities that promote development, family routines, engagement in safety activities, the mother's general health status, use of substances, use of mental health services, and use of the child's doctor or her obstetrician/gynecologist as a source for discussing problems with depression and use of preventive health care.

A Data Guide for this study is available as a web page and for download. The India Human Development Survey 2005 (IHDS) is a nationally representative, multi-topic survey of 41,554 households in 1,503 villages and 971 urban neighborhoods across India. Two one-hour interviews in each household covered topics concerning health, education, employment, economic status, marriage, fertility, gender relations, and social capital. Children aged 8-11 completed short reading, writing and arithmetic tests. Additional village, school, and medical facility interviews are also available.

This study includes public user data files of two waves of interviews with L.A.FANS respondents. There often are multiple respondents in L.A.FANS households and Wave 2 includes both panel respondents and a new sample. Users' Guides which explain the design and how to use the sample are available for Wave 1 and Wave 2 at the RAND website.

The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS) is a two-wave study of adults and children in Los Angeles County and of the neighborhoods in which they live. The first wave (L.A.FANS-1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002, interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a stratified probability sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The samples of neighborhoods and individuals were representative of neighborhoods and residents of Los Angeles County. Poorer neighborhoods and households with children were oversampled. In Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (L.A.FANS-2), Wave 1 respondents living in Los Angeles County were reinterviewed and updated information was collected on Wave 1 respondents who had moved away from Los Angeles County. A sample of individuals who moved into each sampled neighborhood between Waves 1 and 2 was also interviewed, for a total of 2,319 adults and 1,382 children (ages less than 18 years). Additional information on the project is available at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 1 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds a "pseudo-tract ID" which is a number from 1 to 65, randomly assigned to each census tract (neighborhood) in the study. It is not possible to link pseudo-tract IDs in any way to real tract IDs or other neighborhood characteristics. However, pseudo-tract IDs permit users to conduct analyses which take into account the clustered sample design in which neighborhoods (tracts) were selected first and then individuals were sampled within neighborhoods. Pseudo-tract IDs do so because they identify which respondents live in the same neighborhood. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 1 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes restricted data file, version 2, for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes restricted data version 2.5, for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2.5 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2.5 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes restricted data version 3, for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 3 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in and geographic coordinates data for a number of locations reported by the respondent (including home, grocery store, place of work, place of worship, schools, etc.). It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 3 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes public user data files of two waves of interviews with L.A.FANS respondents. There often are multiple respondents in L.A.FANS households and Wave 2 includes both panel respondents and a new sample. Users' Guides which explain the design and how to use the sample are available for Wave 1 and Wave 2 at the RAND website.

The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS) is a two-wave study of adults and children in Los Angeles County and of the neighborhoods in which they live. The first wave (L.A.FANS-1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002, interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a stratified probability sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The samples of neighborhoods and individuals were representative of neighborhoods and residents of Los Angeles County. Poorer neighborhoods and households with children were oversampled. In Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (L.A.FANS-2), Wave 1 respondents living in Los Angeles County were reinterviewed and updated information was collected on Wave 1 respondents who had moved away from Los Angeles County. A sample of individuals who moved into each sampled neighborhood between Waves 1 and 2 was also interviewed, for a total of 2,319 adults and 1,382 children (ages less than 18 years). Additional information on the project is available at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file for Wave 2 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 1 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 2 (study 2). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 2 public use files. Specifically, it adds a "pseudo-tract ID" which is a number from 1 to 65, randomly assigned to each census tract (neighborhood) in the study. It is not possible to link pseudo-tract IDs in any way to real tract IDs or other neighborhood characteristics. However, pseudo-tract IDs permit users to conduct analyses which take into account the clustered sample design in which neighborhoods (tracts) were selected first and then individuals were sampled within neighborhoods. Pseudo-tract IDs do so because they identify which respondents live in the same neighborhood. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 2 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 1 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 2 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file, version 2, for Wave 2 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 2 (study 2). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 2 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 2 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 2 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file, version 2.5, for Wave 2 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2.5 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 2 (study 2). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 2 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 2 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2.5 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 2 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file, version 3, for Wave 2 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 3 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 2 (study 2). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 2 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in and geographic coordinates data for a number of locations reported by the respondent (including home, grocery store, place of work, place of worship, schools, etc.). It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 2 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 3 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 2 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes one public use data file of follow-up interviews, conducted between 2011 and 2013, with respondents to Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey). This follow-up data collection effort (hereafter called L.A.FANS-3 or Wave 3) was part of the broader Mixed Income Project (MIP), which was designed to allow for detailed examination of neighborhood context, residential mobility, and mixed-income housing in Los Angeles and Chicago. The two anchor studies for the MIP are L.A.FANS and the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN).

Wave 3 targeted a random probability sample of approximately 1,000 randomly selected adults and children from the prior wave of L.A.FANS, which was fielded between 2006 and 2008, who still resided within Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles field operation first assigned selected respondents to a telephone survey center for interviews. Cases that were not interviewed by telephone were transferred to experienced field interviewers in the Los Angeles area. The final response rate was 75 percent of eligible participants (i.e., residents who still resided in Los Angeles County and who were not institutionalized, incapacitated, or deceased) for a combined sample of 1,032. Two-hundred and two (202) of these respondents were reached during a preliminary Field Test in 2011, after which point the survey was slightly revised. After making these revisions, 830 respondents were reached during the Main Study. For more details on sampling procedures for the Field Test and Main Study, see Methodology section below.

For context, the L.A.FANS is a study of adults and children in Los Angeles County, and of the neighborhoods in which they live. The first wave (L.A.FANS-1 or Wave 1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002, interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a stratified probability sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The samples of neighborhoods and individuals were representative of neighborhoods and residents of Los Angeles County. Poorer neighborhoods and households with children were oversampled. In Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (L.A.FANS-2), Wave 1 respondents still living in Los Angeles County were re-interviewed, while updated information was collected on Wave 1 respondents who had moved away from Los Angeles County. A sample of individuals who moved into each sampled neighborhood between Waves 1 and 2 was also interviewed, for a total of 2,319 adults and 1,382 children (ages less than 18 years). Additional information on the project is available at the RAND website.

Young children are spending increasingly greater hours in early care and education. While research has clearly documented the importance of the quality of these experiences (National Research Council, 2000), more research is needed in several key areas.

This study is an assessment of the impact of varying hours of early care and education on children's school readiness, and the specific factors in both infant and preschool classrooms that promote school readiness, using two samples: one group of 242 children attending child care centers that have been followed since infancy (Family Income, Infant Child Care, and Child Development Study); and another group of 130 children attending child care centers primarily serving low-income families.

A developmental-ecological conceptual framework was employed, which considered the influence of ecological contexts on children's developmental trajectories. The following school readiness outcomes were assessed:

1. language development and communication
2. cognition and general knowledge, including early math
3. social and emotional development
4. approaches to learning
5. health and physical development

Additional information is available on the Massachusetts Early Care and Education and School Readiness Study Web site.