Search results

This study is a restricted data file of data from the L.A.FANS Neighborhood Observation Study, an in-person observational by trained L.A.FANS interviewers of the census blocks on which L.A.FANS respondents lived during L.A.FANS Wave 1. Interviewers were trained to walk each block face and record social and physical observations on precoded check sheets. Each block face was observed by several different interviewers working independently at different times of the day and week. These data are designed to be used with L.A.FANS Wave-1 survey interview data restricted versions 2.5 or 3 to provide data on the census block and census tract in which individual respondents lived.

Users who apply for these restricted data must also be approved for using restricted version 2.5 or 3. 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.

The study is described in detail in the L.A.FANS Neighborhood Observations Codebook.

Further information is available in:

Jones, M., Pebley, A. R., and Sastry, N. (2011). Eyes on the block: Measuring urban physical disorder through in-person observation. Social Science Research, 40(2), 523-537.

This data collection contains the first four waves of the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP), conducted in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. The Iowa Youth and Families Project was developed from an initial sample of 451 7th graders from two-parent families in rural Iowa. The study was merged with the Iowa Single Parent Project (ISPP) to form the Iowa Family Transitions Project in 1994, when the target youth were seniors in high school. Survey data were collected from the target child (7th grader), a sibling within four years of age of the target child, and both parents. Field interviewers visited families at their homes on several occasions to administer questionnaires and videotape interaction tasks including family discussion tasks, family problem-solving tasks, sibling interaction tasks, and marital interaction tasks.

The Household Data files contain information about the family's financial situation, involvement in farming, and demographic information about household members.

The Parent and the Child Survey Data files contain responses to survey questions about the quality and stability of family relationships, emotional, physical, and behavioral problems of individual family members, parent-child conflict, family problem-solving skills, social and financial support from outside the home, traumatic life experiences, alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, and opinions on topics such as abortion, parenting, and gender roles. In addition, the Child Survey Data files include responses collected from the target child and his or her sibling in the study about experiences with puberty, dating, sexual activity, and risk-taking behavior.

The Problem-Solving Data files contain survey data collected from respondents about the family interactions tasks.

The Observational Data files contain the interviewers' observations collected during these tasks.

Demographic variables include sex, age, employment status, occupation, income, home ownership, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, as well as the ages and sex of all household members and their relationship to the head of household. Demographic information collected on the parents also includes their birth order within their family, the ages and political philosophy of their parents, the sex, age, education level, and occupation of their siblings, and the country of origin of their ancestors.

The Malawi Journals Project provides a unique perspective on a contemporary epidemic in Africa. Begun in 1999, when HIV incidence and prevalence peaked, it tracked contradictions between survey data and qualitative data. After the first round of the Malawi Longitudinal Study of Families and Health (MLSFH) (ICPSR 20840), in 1998, the researchers had a great deal of data about the composition and structure of local social networks in which rural Malawians talked about AIDS. They had not; however, learned much about the content of the social interactions--what people said to each other, rather than to interviewers, about AIDS or their strategies for avoiding infection and death--and even less about the wider everyday interactions that shaped responses to the epidemic.

In 1999 Susan Watkins instituted "The Malawi Journals Project" as a complement to a longitudinal survey that she was conducting in rural Malawi. At that time, Malawians were suffering and dying from a major AIDS epidemic. After the first round of the survey, she found evidence of social desirability bias. For example, when survey interviewers asked men under age 35 how many sexual partners they had, the typical response was that they had only one sexual partner, their wife. In the context of Malawi, as well as other African countries; however, a man with only one partner was so unusual that his survey response was not believable.

Watkins thus developed a new approach to data collection: learning what men and women said to each other rather than to an interviewer. After the first round of the survey the researchers had a great deal of data about the composition and structure of the social networks in which rural Malawians talked about AIDS. They had not; however, learned much about the content of the social interactions--what people said to each other, rather than to interviewers, about AIDS or their strategies for avoiding infection and death--and even less about the wider everyday interactions that shaped responses to the epidemic. Thus, the researchers improvised by commissioning 10 high school graduates, both men and women, who had worked for the survey to be participant observers as they went about their daily routines. They were to pay attention to what their peers said about the AIDS epidemic in their informal social networks, such as walking to a funeral or drinking at a bar, and to write the conversation word for word in a private space. If they overheard anything concerning AIDS, they were to make mental notes of what people said and did, and then write their recollections word-for-word in commonplace school notebooks that evening or soon thereafter. The notebooks were given to a local intermediary who mailed them to the researchers. In 2005, Watkins invited a colleague, Adam Ashforth, an ethnographer who had conducted research in Malawi, to join the Malawi Journals Project

More than 1,000 journals have been written since 1999, each approximately 12 single-spaced typed pages, and each usually covering several different conversations or incidents. Since there are frequently several people conversing, the reader can overhear, at second hand, several thousand people. Twenty-two journalists (9 females, 13 males) have contributed to the corpus of texts, with three (two males, one female) contributing very frequently, 13 frequently, and six only occasionally. The diarists wrote in English, a language learned in school, and used parentheses or carets to set off their explanatory comments or untranslatable expressions in the local language. The handwriting and repetitions suggest they often wrote rapidly. We have retained locutions that reflect local adaptations of English. English is taught in Malawian public schools starting in Standard 5, equivalent to U.S. fifth grade, and has become somewhat indigenized. For example, to be sexually promiscuous is to be "movious" and one who has multiple partners is said to be "moving around," an Anglicization of a Chichewa expression, woyendayenda, derived from the earlier association of multiple partners with migrant labor. The naturalness with which the journalists adapt English to Chichewa, chiYao, or chiTumbuka linguistic forms means that their English is somewhat closer to local languages than is the standard English in which a Canadian, British or American ethnographer might translate local languages. In our publications, we have retained most of the idiosyncrasies in grammar and spelling, although on occasion we insert obviously missing words in brackets and make minor corrections.

Initially, Malawians were convinced that all would die of AIDS, and were skeptical about the attempts of the government and international organizations to reduce new HIV infections. Over the subsequent years, this began to change as conversational partners advised each other to be careful to select their sexual partners with care. By 2017, men and women speaking about AIDS in their social networks acknowledged that times had changed, and the number of new HIV infections had steeply declined.

The data producers have recompiled the ACTIVE data into a new study which is available as of December 2023, ICPSR 38821; data users should plan to use study 38821 instead.

ACTIVE (Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly), 1999-2001 [United States] was a multisite randomized controlled trial conducted at six field sites with New England Research Institutes (NERI) as the coordinating center. The field sites included the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged in Boston, Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of Florida/Wayne State University (Detroit). The primary aim of the trial was to test the effects of three distinct cognitive interventions -- previously found to be successful in improving elders' performance on basic measures of cognition under laboratory or small-scale field conditions -- on measures of cognitively demanding daily activities. Trainings consisted of an initial series of ten group sessions followed by four-session booster trainings at one and three years. The three cognitive interventions focused on memory, executive reasoning, and speed of processing. The design included a no-contact control group. Participants were assessed at baseline, immediately after training, and annually thereafter. A total of 2,832 older adults were enrolled in the trial, and 2,802 were included in the analytical sample. Twenty-six percent of the participants were African American.

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.

ZIP Codes are administrative codes generated by the United States Postal Service (USPS) that refer to the geographic area covered by a specific set of mail delivery routes. The U.S. Census Bureau calculates and distributes aggregated social, economic, and demographic information for the population associated with "ZIP Code Tabulation Areas" (ZCTAs), which are roughly analogous to ZIP Codes and serve as identifiers for specific neighborhoods and communities. These aggregated census data, however, are unable to account for changes in ZIP Code boundaries that occur between decennial censuses, leading to measurement error and missing data problems for scholars who attempt to use the aggregated ZCTA data. The purpose of this crosswalk file is to allow researchers to overcome this limitation, enabling them to appropriately link spatial reference information (ZIP Codes) with characteristics of the populations to which they refer.

Most ZIP Codes do not change boundaries in a decade, but a large enough percentage do as to create a problem with missing or mis-specified data. Boundary changes typically involve one or more of the following three processes, although a small number of cases do not conform to these typologies: (1) two or more existing ZIP Codes are combined to create a single surviving ZIP Code, (2) an existing ZIP Code is divided into multiple resulting ZIP Codes, and (3) boundaries between two or more existing ZIP Codes are altered.

Each of these types of changes alters the geographic area that a ZIP Code refers to, and as such, the spatial unit identified by the ZIP Code includes a different population, with a different array of characteristics. By linking the spatial units associated with ZIP Codes as these boundary changes are enacted, the research team can both prevent the loss of observations due to missing data, and more accurately measure social, demographic, and economic characteristics associated with each ZIP Code.

This data set identifies changes in ZIP Code boundaries between 1990 and 2020, and provides numeric codes that cluster the ZIP Codes into the smallest geographic unit, or group of ZIP Codes, that are consistent across a decade: 1990 - 2000, 2000 - 2010, and 2010 - 2020. This "crosswalk" covers the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. Since much administrative data is available with ZIP Code as the smallest identifiable geography, ZIP Codes are often used to embed observations from administrative data (patients, businesses, survey respondents, etc.) within their social, demographic, and economic contexts. However, ZIP Code boundaries change over time, resulting in measurement error (matching observations to the wrong contextual unit) or missing data (due to an observation reporting a ZIP Code that did not exist at the beginning of the observational period). These data were collected, and the crosswalk created, in an attempt to resolve these data quality issues.

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 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

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 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

Placental malaria is associated with maternal illness and anemia, low birth weight, and preterm birth. Mali has one of the highest malaria case incidence rates globally, according to World Health Organization (WHO) reports on malaria. Using a rural to urban longitudinal cohort of women who initially resided on the Bandiagara Escarpment at study enrollment, this observational study addressed the following questions:

1. Was risk for placental malaria higher in Bamako (urban) or on the Bandiagara Escarpment (rural)?
2. What were the maternal risk factors for placental malaria in this cohort?
3. What was the association between number of intermittent preventative treatment in pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) doses, placental malaria, and birth outcomes?
4. What factors predicted how many doses women received?

Placental samples (N = 317) and accompanying demographic data were collected from 249 women living on the Bandiagara Escarpment or in the District of Bamako during the years 2011 to 2019. Samples were evaluated by histology to assess placental malaria infection stage and parasite density. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) for logistic regression were used to model the risk factors for placental malaria infection (yes/no) and to assess the characteristics of women who had no doses or fewer doses of SP versus 3 or more doses of SP during pregnancy. Lastly, GEE was used to model birth outcomes as continuous dependent variables (birth weight, birth length, and placenta weight).

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.

In 2000, the Kentucky General Assembly passed historic early childhood legislation (Kentucky's KIDS [Kentucky Invests in Developing Success] NOW Initiative) of which a component included the development of a seamless professional development system. The professional development system includes core content, articulation, credentials, scholarships and a training framework. This comprehensive professional development system, along with other initiative components in assuring maternal and child health, supporting families, enhancing early care and education, and establishing a support structure, have moved the field of early childhood care and education forward in the state and improved child and family outcomes.

This study was designed to build on the KIDS NOW Initiative by conducting research investigating the degree to which a statewide unified professional development system impacted the educational level of early care and education providers and subsequent classroom quality. It focused on three major predictors of professional development outcomes:

1. Individual teacher characteristics, including learning readiness, education (level and type), training experience, attitudes towards training, personality (conscientiousness, self-efficacy), job satisfaction (perceptions of support)
2. Characteristics of the program administrator, including administrator education and administrator support of professional development
3. Characteristics of the teacher's work setting, including program administration, and policies and procedures, and classroom setting (Child Care, Head Start, or Public Preschool)

The impact of these three predictors was measured on two major outcomes: (a) professional development outcomes, as measured by job status, learning and transfer of learning, and (b) organizational outcomes, as measured by program quality, child outcomes and staff retention.

The research questions guiding this research were focused on determining the degree to which (1) a unified professional development framework initiated at the state level results in positive child outcomes, and (2) the educational level of early care and education providers enhances the quality of classroom environments. Specifically:

• What components of a professional development framework are more effective in encouraging and supporting individuals to remain in early care and education settings?
• What components of a professional development framework are more effective in supporting early care and education professionals in enhancing classroom quality and child outcomes?
• Are there specific factors that impact early care and education professionals' ability to participate in professional development activities at various levels?
• Does the level and intensity of professional development experiences impact classroom quality and child outcomes?
• What personnel factors have the highest impact on quality classroom environments and child outcomes?
• What is the interaction between the personnel, professional development, and program variables on classroom quality and child outcomes?

Sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Active for Life (AFL) initiative investigated how two physical activity programs for adults aged 50 and older, Active Choices (AC) and Active Living Every Day (ALED), worked in community settings. Created by researchers at Stanford University, Active Choices used lifestyle counseling and personalized telephone support to encourage older adults to be physically active. In AFL, this was a 6-month program delivered through one face-to-face meeting followed by up to eight one-on-one telephone counseling calls. Active Living Every Day, which was created by the Cooper Institute and Human Kinetics Inc., also provided lifestyle counseling to promote physical activity, but in a classroom and workbook format. During the first three years of the four-year AFL initiative, ALED was delivered as a 20-week program where participants attended weekly small group meetings, but in the last year it was shortened to 12 weekly meetings. Nine organizations received AFL grants to implement the programs during 2003-2006. Four grantees implemented the one-on-one AC model, while five implemented the group-based ALED model.

Data were collected from the AC and ALED sites for both a process and outcomes evaluation. The primary aims of the process evaluation were to (1) monitor the extent to which the grantees demonstrated fidelity to the AC and ALED models in their program implementation, (2) assess staff experiences implementing the programs, and (3) assess participants' impressions of the programs. A quasi-experimental, pre-post study design was used to assess outcomes. Primary aims of the outcomes evaluation were to evaluate the impact of AC and ALED on self-reported physical activity, and to evaluate the impact of the programs on self-reported stress, depressive symptoms, and satisfaction with body function and appearance. Secondary aims of the outcome evaluation were to (1) evaluate the impact of the programs on measures of functional fitness, (2) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity and functional fitness were moderated by participant characteristics, including age, gender, race, baseline physical activity self-efficacy, and baseline physical activity social support, and (3) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity were consistent with a mediation model for physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity social support.

The collection has 14 data files (datasets). Datasets 1-7 constitute the process evaluation data, and Datasets 8-14 the outcomes evaluation data:

Dataset 1 (AC Initial Face-to-Face Sessions Data) contains information about the initial face-to-face AC session: the format, date, and length of the session, whether the 8 steps required in the face-to-face session were completed, what was discussed between the health educator and the participant related to physical activity plans, interests, benefits, and barriers, and the health educator's progress notes. The file contains one record for each AC participant.

Dataset 2 (AC Completed Calls Data) comprises information about the completed AC calls, but does not cover the topics discussed on the calls. Recorded information about each call includes the date and length of the call, the health educator's progress notes, and whether the participant was assessed for injury, light activity, moderate activity, exercise goals, or exercise intentions. Each call is represented by a separate record in the data file and, typically, there are multiple records per participant.

Dataset 3 (AC Topics Discussed on Completed Calls ) contains information about the topics discussed on each completed AC call, e.g., exercise barriers/benefits, previous exercise experiences, goal setting, long term goals, injury prevention, rewards/reinforcement, social support, progress tracking, and relapse prevention. Each record in the file represents one topic and there are often multiple records per call for each participant.

Dataset 4 (AC Aggregate Call Data) aggregates the call data across calls for each AC participant. For example, for a given participant, this dataset shows the total number of calls completed, the number of calls where injury/health problems were assessed, etc. The file contains one record per participant.

Dataset 5 (ALED Sessions Data) contains information about each class session for every ALED group, including the session date, start time, and end time, learning activities covered in the session, participant evaluations of the session and the facilitator, facilitator progress notes, the number of participants who were in various stages of readiness for moderate exercise, and the number of participants who tracked physical activity and thoughts about physical activity. This file has one record for each session of every ALED group.

Dataset 6 (ALED Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) consists of participant-level attendance and tracking data for every ALED session during the second to fourth years of the evaluation, including the participant's attendance at the session, whether the participant's stage of readiness was assessed, and whether the participant tracked thoughts about physical activity or actual physical activity. There is no participant-level ALED data for the first year. Each participant has a separate record for each session. Thus, the file contains 20 records per participant in the years 2-3, and 12 records per participant in year 4.

Dataset 7 (ALED Aggregate Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) contains ALED attendance and tracking data for each participant in years 2-4, aggregated across the sessions. The data file has one record for each participant.

Dataset 8 (Demographics) comprises program information (e.g., program status, start date, end date, site, etc.), demographic information (e.g., age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, employment status, income, and the participant's state and ZIP code of residence), and responses to the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q), a screening tool that was used to assess possible risks of exercising based on answers to specific health history questions. The file contains one record for each AFL participant, except for those with a status of "nonstarter" or "repeater."

Datasets 9 (Pretest Survey Data) and 10 (Posttest Survey Data) contain data from the Pretest and Posttest Surveys. The Pretest Survey was administered at the beginning of the AC and ALED programs, while the Posttest Survey was administered at their end. Topics covered by the surveys include social and recreational activities, activities undertaken for exercise, perceived stress, depressive symptoms, satisfaction with body appearance and function, social support for physical activity, self-efficacy for physical activity, neighborhood environment, health conditions, health-related quality of life, caregiving, and self-reported height and weight. Both surveys included items from the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors Physical Activity Questionnaire (CHAMPS), the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Questionnaire (CES-D), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Questionnaires (BRFSS), and the International Physical Activity Prevalence Study Environmental Module. These data files each have one record for each participant who submitted a questionnaire.

Dataset 11 (ALED Week 12 Survey Data (Year 4)) contains responses to the ALED Week 12 Posttest Survey, which was used to evaluate the 12-week adaptation of ALED in Year 4. (In Year 4, ALED participants completed both a 12- and 20-week posttest survey). There is one record for each participant who returned this survey.

Dataset 12 (Six-Month Posttest Follow-Up Survey Data (Years 3-4)) comprises data from a special 6-month follow-up survey which was administered in years 3-4 in six of the ALED sites and one of the AC sites. Participants were questioned about their current physical activities, weight, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with bodily function, and other topics. As with Datasets 9-11, the data file contains one record for each participant who returned a questionnaire.

Dataset 13 (Functional Fitness Tests Data) contains the results of pretest and posttest functional fitness tests which were administered by one ALED grantee. Four tests were adminstered: (1) the 30-Foot Walk Test, (2) the 30-Second Chair Stand, (3) 8-Foot Up and Go, and (4) the Chair Sit and Reach Test. This participant-level data file also includes pretest height measurements plus pretest and posttest weight measurements.

Dataset 14 (Participants' Impressions of the Programs (Years 1, 3, and 4)) contains data collected by the last sections of the Posttest Survey, ALED Week 12 survey, and 6-Month Follow-up Survey. The topics it covers include the participants' impressions of the programs, participation in physical activities, and changes (compared to before they started the AFL program) in motivation to be physically active, actual level of physical activity, medical and health conditions, overall pain, flexibility/limberness, level of stress, happiness, and enjoyment of life. The file has a separate record for each survey completed by the participants. Thus, there are 1-3 records per participant.

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 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.

Tsogolo la Thanzi (TLT) is a longitudinal study in Balaka, Malawi designed to examine how young people navigate reproduction in an AIDS epidemic. Tsogolo la Thanzi means "Healthy Futures" in Chichewa, Malawi's most widely spoken language. Data are being collected to develop better understandings of the reproductive goals and behavior of young adults in Malawi - the first cohort to never have experienced life without AIDS. To understand these patterns of family formation in a rapidly changing setting, TLT used the following approach: an intensive longitudinal design where respondents are interviewed every four months at TLT's centralized research center. Data collection began in May of 2009 and was completed in June of 2012. To assess changes on a longer time-horizon, a follow-up survey referred to as TLT-2 was fielded between June and August of 2015.

The Household Listing Dataset are supplementary data related to the Tsogolo la Thanzi [Healthy Futures] longitudinal data series. The Household Listing includes data from the complete household census used to generate the sample for the TLT study. It includes data from all persons living within seven kilometers of the TLT research center.

The NIH-funded Katrina@10 Program consists of an interrelated set of three primary data collection projects that focus on specific sub-populations who were uniquely affected by Hurricane Katrina: households along Louisiana and Mississippi's Gulf Coast, low-income parents from New Orleans, and Vietnamese families living in New Orleans. In addition, the program contains two secondary analyses of data that are more broadly representative of the overall affected population, and three cores (Administrative, Data Collection, Data Management and Dissemination) to support the set of research projects. The following research questions represent the studies together as a whole:

• How well does the socio-ecological model of disaster recovery developed by the research team (Abramson et al. 2010) predict recovery across the three cohort studies?
• How do trajectories of long-term recovery differ among and within these sub-populations?
• How do the trajectories of recovery compare to those of mainstream populations?
• How do the effects of predisposing factors (such as poverty) and degree-of-impact (such as flooding depth) vary among the three sub-populations?
• How do interpretations of the disaster, resilience, and recovery differ among respondents?
• What are the determinants of long-term recovery in domains such as mental and physical health, socio-economic status, and community and social roles? How are these domains related to each other across individuals and across sub-populations?

The Katrina Impacts on Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans (KATIVA NOLA) study was a longitudinal study interested in measuring the impact of Hurricane Katrina on Vietnamese-Americans living in New Orleans. The original sample was taken in summer 2005 and was followed by three rounds of short and medium-term data collection in the 5 years following Katrina. This study measured a variety of outcomes, including physical and mental health, economic stability, housing stability, and social ties, to examine the long-term recovery trajectories of participants.

The data in this collection are from an additional, long-term follow-up survey conducted between 2017 and 2019. A public-use version (DS1) and restricted-use version (DS2) are available. Open-ended responses, continuous respondent age, continuous total household income, and a variable indicating exposure to specific flood events have been masked in the public-use version. These items are available in the restricted-use version.

The Tsogolo La Thanzi (TLT): Migration Autopsy collection contains data collected as part of the Tsogolo la Thanzi (TLT) Study. TLT is a longitudinal study in Balaka, Malawi designed to examine how young people navigate reproduction in an AIDS epidemic. Tsogolo la Thanzi means "Healthy Futures" in Chichewa, Malawi's most widely spoken language. New data is being collected to develop better understandings of the reproductive goals and behavior of young adults in Malawi -- the first cohort to never have experienced life without AIDS. To understand these patterns of family formation in a rapidly changing setting, TLT used the following approach: an intensive longitudinal design where respondents are interviewed every fourth months at TLT's centralized research center.

The Migration Autopsy collection contains many TLT respondents whom moved away during the study period. In order to both carefully track attrition and gather valuable information about migration, TLT performed a migration autopsy on study participants who migrated from the study area during the course of the 8-wave observation period. Data collection began in April of 2009 and was completed in December of 2012. To assess changes on a longer time-horizon, a follow-up survey we refer to as Tsogolo la Thanzi 2 (TLT-2) was fielded between June and August of 2016.