Search results

This study examined the effects of QUEST+AI, an AI-supported inquiry model, on AI literacy and authentic performance among preservice teachers in Central China. The study used a nonequivalent-groups, quasi-experimental pretest–posttest design with two intact sections of an undergraduate Educational Research Methods course at a public university. Ninety-five preservice teachers participated, including 52 students in the experimental group and 43 students in the comparison group. Both groups received the same face-to-face course instruction over a 10-week period. The experimental group completed two QUEST+AI inquiry cycles with coached use of generative artificial intelligence, while the comparison group completed conventional homework assignments.

The data include participant demographic variables, pretest and posttest responses to a multidimensional AI literacy questionnaire, AI literacy total and subscale scores, final research proposal scores, and group assignment indicators. AI literacy measures cover use and application of AI, knowledge and understanding of AI, AI detection, AI ethics, AI creation, AI-supported problem solving, AI persuasion literacy, and AI emotion regulation. Authentic performance is represented by scores on a final educational research proposal, evaluated with a common rubric by two independent raters. The dataset also includes variables used in the study’s comparative analyses, including group condition, pretest scores, gender, grade level, age, and major.

An Analysis of the Effects of an Academic Summer Program for Middle School Students, 2012, funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation's Social Innovation Fund, was conducted in the Summer of 2012 in three school districts (District A, B, C) that were new partnerships for the Building Educated Leaders for Life program (BELL). Of the three study districts, District A and B offered the BELL program in one middle school each; District C offered the program in three schools.

Several types of quantitative data were collected about students and BELL teachers in the study. The nature and purpose of these data sources are described below.

(1) Spring (baseline) characteristics and test scores:During the application process, parents provided information about their child's socioeconomic characteristics (racial or ethnic group, parents' education, and so on. In addition, schools provided information about whether students in the study were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, whether they had an individualized education plan (IEP), and whether English was their second language. Schools also provided students' scores on the spring 2012 math and reading assessments administered by their state; these scores were used to determine whether students were proficient, based on local cutoff scores on their state test.

(2) Attendance records: BELL provided the evaluation team with the attendance records of students in the study during summer 2012, including any students in the non-BELL group who may have attended the program.

(3) Fall reading and math tests: Students in the study were encouraged to take standardized tests in math and reading in fall 2012. In the average study district, students took the tests six weeks after the end of the program, or one week after the start of the school year. Students' reading achievement was assessed using the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GRADE), and their math achievement was assessed with its math counterpart, the Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GMADE). The GRADE contains two subtests (reading comprehension and vocabulary), and the GMADE contains three (concepts, operations, and processes).

(4) Fall student survey: In the same session as the GRADE and GMADE were administered, students also completed a short survey asking about the extent to which they were engaged in various aspects of instruction when they returned to school in the fall (for example, whether they paid attention in class and whether they completed their homework on time). The survey also included a set of items asking students to describe their activities during the summer.

(5) BELL teacher survey: BELL administers a survey to its teachers as part of regular program monitoring and evaluation activities. The survey captures teachers' characteristics as well as their perceptions of various aspects of the BELL program (such as training, materials, and staffing), of their own performance in the classroom, and of their students' performance and engagement. BELL administers the survey to all of its teachers -- academic (English Language Arts [ELA] or math or both) and enrichment teachers -- as well as mentors (teaching assistants). However, given the academic focus of this evaluation, the target population for the study's purposes was academic teachers who taught students in the study.

This collection contains two datasets. Part 1 is a student-level dataset that includes all information collected about students in the study sample (baseline data, GRADE and GMADE test scores, student survey data, and attendance data). Part 2 is a teacher survey dataset that includes teachers in the analysis sample (i.e. academic middle school teachers who responded to the survey and who taught students in the study).

Demographic information about the students include socioeconomic characteristics like racial or ethnic group, parents' education, and so on. Demographic information about the teachers in the sample include their education and experience backgrounds.

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.

The purpose of College and Beyond II (CBII) is to better understand how students' undergraduate experiences in and out of the classroom relate to their long-run development. The College and Beyond II Administrative Data contains administrative student records obtained for nearly all bachelors-seeking undergraduate students at 19 postsecondary institutions representing 7 postsecondary system in the United States from approximately 2000 to 2021. Partner colleges provided information on demographics (race, gender), family background, entry term, degree term, college major, admissions test scores, term-by-term information on majors, credits, and grades, and information on all courses taken.

Students' administrative data can be linked to other data in the CBII series. Students are linked across studies in the series by a unique anonymized person identifier. Colleges are linked across studies in the series by a unique anonymized college identifier. Files are organized by the postsecondary system they are a part of and can be linked by a unique anonymized system identifier.

The purpose of College and Beyond II (CBII) is to better understand how students' undergraduate experiences in and out of the classroom relate to their long-run development. The CBII Alumni Survey provides data collected from graduates ten years after earning their bachelor's degrees. It serves as the main source of information on students' long-run development for the study series. Domains covered by the CBII Alumni Survey include arts appreciation and engagement; health and well-being; labor market participation and wealth; civic engagement; beliefs about diversity and pluralism; and democratic participation. The survey also asks about respondents' recollections of their college experiences, as well as their current family structure, social identities, educational attainment, experiences with discrimination, and political and religious identification. The survey contains scales that are widely used in various disciplines such as education, economics, political science, and psychology.

The CBII Alumni Survey data can be linked to other studies in the CBII series using the ID_PERSON anonymized student identifier. These CBII studies provide information about respondents' academic backgrounds, undergraduate course transcripts, descriptions of courses taken, and postsecondary enrollment and degree attainment. Contextual data about respondents' neighborhoods can be linked to the National Neighborhood Data Archive using current zip codes, and contextual data about the colleges respondents applied to can be linked to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System using U.S. Department of Education UNITID identifiers.

This study provides data about the experiences of students at community colleges that participated in the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey between 1995 and 2007. Since 1966, the CIRP Freshman Survey has provided data on incoming college students' background characteristics, high school experiences, attitudes, behaviors, and expectations for college. The survey resides at the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California-Los Angeles. Information about the history and administration of the Freshman Survey can be found on the HERI website.

Community colleges in this study were identified using Carnegie Classifications. The data include responses from 95,646 students at 106 institutions. Additional Freshman Survey data are available as studies in the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Series.

The Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies is a multi-site, multi-year effort to determine whether and how different child care subsidy policies and procedures and quality improvement efforts help low-income parents obtain and hold onto jobs and improve outcomes for children. Funding from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by the Child Care Bureau are divided into two purposes. The vast majority are aimed at assisting children of low-income working parents whose eligibility is determined by states within broad federal guidelines, while a much smaller portion (4 percent) work with state matching funds to improve the quality of child care for all children. For this study series, four experiments were conducted, two test alternative subsidy policies for low-income families and two test approaches to the use of set-aside funds for improving child care quality for all children. The four study sites and focus of evaluation include: (1) the effectiveness of three language and literacy curricula on teaching practices and children's language and literacy outcomes (Miami Dade County, Florida); (2) the impact of alternative eligibility and re-determination child care subsidy policies on parental employment outcomes (Illinois); (3) the impact of alternative child care co-payment structures on use of child care subsidies and employment outcomes (Washington) and (4) the effectiveness of training on Learning Games curriculum in changing care-giving practices in family child care homes and children's developmental outcomes (Massachusetts).

The Illinois site of the Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies was designed to test the impact of increased income eligibility and extended redetermination period on various child care and economic outcomes (such as type of care used, stability of child care arrangements, earnings, employment, etc.). Under the state's 2005 program rules, a family was eligible for subsidies if their income was below 50 percent of the state median income (SMI) for their family size, and this eligibility was redetermined for most families every 6 months. In the evaluation, income eligibility was extended to 50 to 65 percent of state median income, and the redetermination period was extended from 6 to 12 months. To isolate the impact of each programmatic change, families who qualified for the study were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a control group, (2) a 6-month redetermination program group, or (3) a 12-month redetermination program group. Families in the control group received no enhanced access to subsidies; families in the 6-month program group were eligible for subsidies as long as their income remained below 65 percent of SMI and had to reapply for subsidies every 6 months; and families in the 12-month redetermination program group were eligible for subsidies with income up to 65 percent of SMI and had to reapply for subsidies every 12 months.

In the follow-up survey, respondents were asked a series of questions about the following topics:

• Child Care Arrangements: These data were used to construct child-level measures of type and stability of the primary care arrangement.

• Child Care Reliability and Flexibility, Satisfaction with the Care, and Costs: These questions were used to create a summary measure of whether the respondent experienced any job-related problems due to child care arrangements. This section of the survey also contained a set of statements about the convenience of and satisfaction with child care at the time of the interview. Respondents were asked the total weekly amount they paid for all care at the time of the interview. This measure of out-of-pocket expenses was used rather than the provider-specific cost question from the section on child care arrangements because it was thought that parents would more reliably report their overall expenditures than their expenditures for each provider for each child.

• Employment: Information on jobs held at the time of the survey interview was used to create measures of employment, hours worked, and job characteristics for that job. Information on all jobs held in the year after random assignment was used to create measures of employment stability.

• Major Life Events: Respondents were asked about the occurrence of nine major types of events or other problems since the time of random assignment.

• Income: Respondents were asked about total household income and sources of income in the month prior to the survey.

The Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies is a multi-site, multi-year effort to determine whether and how different child care subsidy policies and procedures and quality improvement efforts help low-income parents obtain and hold onto jobs and improve outcomes for children. Funding from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by the Child Care Bureau are divided into two purposes. The vast majority are aimed at assisting children of low-income working parents whose eligibility is determined by states within broad federal guidelines, while a much smaller portion (4 percent) work with state matching funds to improve the quality of child care for all children. For this study series, four experiments were conducted, two test alternative subsidy policies for low-income families and two test approaches to the use of set-aside funds for improving child care quality for all children. The four study sites and focus of evaluation include: (1) the effectiveness of three language and literacy curricula on teaching practices and children's language and literacy outcomes (Miami Dade County, Florida); (2) the impact of alternative eligibility and re-determination child care subsidy policies on parental employment outcomes (Illinois); (3) the impact of alternative child care co-payment structures on use of child care subsidies and employment outcomes (Washington) and (4) the effectiveness of training on Learning Games curriculum in changing care-giving practices in family child care homes and children's developmental outcomes (Massachusetts).

The Washington evaluation was designed to test the impact of changing parental copayment levels on various child care and economic outcomes (such as type of care used, earnings, employment, etc.). The copayment amount refers to the amount that families who are receiving child care subsidies contribute to the cost of child care, while the copayment schedule refers to the amount or the rate at which the copayment changes as income increases or decreases. In all states, the copayment amount is larger for families with higher incomes. In Washington in 2005, a three-person family receiving child care subsidies paid 3 percent of the cost of child care if their income was 33 percent of the federal poverty threshold, but 16 percent of the cost of care if their income was 200 percent of the threshold. In the Washington child care subsidy program, families were divided into three income tiers. Families in Tier 1 had incomes at or below 82 percent of the federal poverty threshold, families in Tier 2 had incomes between 83 and 137.5 percent of the threshold, and families in Tier 3 had incomes between 137.5 and 200 percent of the threshold. Under the standard copayment schedule used by Washington in 2005, child care subsidy recipients in Tier 1 paid $15 per month, while recipients in Tier 2 paid $50 per month. Families in Tier 3 faced a sliding copayment schedule, with the copayment increasing by 44 cents for each additional dollar of income beyond 137.5 percent of the poverty threshold. In the evaluation, study participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) a control group assigned to the standard copayment schedule, and (2) a program group assigned to an alternative copayment schedule, which had copayment amounts that were equal to or lower than standard copayment schedule amounts.

Schools are a primary referral source to the juvenile justice system, helping create and perpetuate the school-to-prison pipeline. Seeking to dismantle this pipeline in the city, the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) partnered with the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) and the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) to develop and operate the Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program. Implemented in May 2014, all first-time offending youth aged 10 years or older who commit specified school-based minor misdemeanor or summary offenses on school property are diverted from arrest, referred to a Department of Human Services (DHS) social worker and community-based services, and face no consequences even if they decline services.

This evaluation examined long-term outcomes for diverted youth and sustained program impacts over five years. From a full sample of 3,616 diverted and arrested students, this study used a quasi-experimental design to compare data for diverted youth (quasi-experimental group; n = 1,281) and similar youth arrested in schools in the year before the program's implementation (quasi-control group; n = 531). PPD school police officers completed surveys regarding their knowledge and perceptions of the Diversion Program immediately before and after a training session held prior to its implementation, then on an annual basis through year five. A cost-benefit analysis of the program was conducted in partnership with the Vera Institute of Justice.

The data have been organized by analysis. Short-term analysis refers to two-year recidivism analyses and one-year child welfare involvement, and covers the full and quasi-control arrested samples and youth diverted in school years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017. Long-term analyses include four-year graduation/drop-out, five-year recidivism analyses, and five-year child welfare involvement, and covers the full and quasi-control arrested samples and youth diverted in school year 2014-2015.

Short- and long-term recidivism outcome data (DS1 and DS2), police survey data before and after program implementation (DS3), and cost-benefit analysis tables (DS9) are included in this collection. Please refer to the User Guide for details on how to acquire additional data from SDP and DHS and steps to create the full analytic files for academic-related and child welfare involvement outcomes.

In 1999, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation started the Gates Millennium Scholars Program (GMS), a 20-year initiative which intends to expand access to higher education for high achieving, low-income minority students. In addition to its academic objectives, GMS also has the goal of creating future leaders in minority groups. The program is administered by the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). Awardees can receive the scholarship for up to 5 years as an undergraduate and 4 years as a graduate student. The scholarship is renewable through graduate school in math, science, engineering, library science, and education.

In order to see how GMS has impacted students and to know how to better prepare minority students for college, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has commissioned a survey of recipients. Cohorts are composed of both recipients and non-recipients. Non-recipients are defined as individuals who were asked to go on to the scholar confirmation/verification phase, but did not become a scholar for one or more reasons.

For the first year of the program, GMS awarded 4,053 scholarships to freshman, continuing undergraduate students, and graduate students. Baseline, first follow-up, second follow-up, and longitudinal survey data have been collected from both recipients and non-recipients. Freshmen constitute one respondent type and continuing undergraduate and graduate students comprise a second respondent type.

In 1999, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation started the Gates Millennium Scholars Program (GMS), a 20-year initiative which intends to expand access to higher education for high achieving, low-income minority students. In addition to its academic objectives, GMS also has the goal of creating future leaders in minority groups. The program is administered by the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). Awardees can receive the scholarship for up to 5 years as an undergraduate and 4 years as a graduate student. The scholarship is renewable through graduate school in math, science, engineering, library science, and education.

In order to see how GMS has impacted students and to know how to better prepare minority students for college, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has commissioned a survey of recipients. Cohorts are composed of both recipients and non-recipients. Non-recipients are defined as individuals who were asked to go on to the scholar confirmation/verification phase, but did not become a scholar for one or more reasons.

Baseline, first follow-up, second follow-up survey, and longitudinal survey data have been collected from both recipients and non-recipients.

In 1999, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation started the Gates Millennium Scholars Program (GMS), a 20-year initiative which intends to expand access to higher education for high achieving, low-income minority students. In addition to its academic objectives, GMS also has the goal of creating future leaders in minority groups. The program is administered by the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). Awardees can receive the scholarship for up to 5 years as an undergraduate and 4 years as a graduate student. The scholarship is renewable through graduate school in math, science, engineering, library science, and education.

In order to see how GMS has impacted students and to know how to better prepare minority students for college, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has commissioned a survey of recipients. Cohorts are composed of both recipients and non-recipients. Non-recipients are defined as individuals who were asked to go on to the scholar confirmation/verification phase, but did not become a scholar for one or more reasons.

Baseline, first follow-up, second follow-up survey, and longitudinal survey data have been collected from both recipients and non-recipients.

In 1999, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation started the Gates Millennium Scholars Program (GMS), a 20-year initiative which intends to expand access to higher education for high achieving, low-income minority students. In addition to its academic objectives, GMS also has the goal of creating future leaders in minority groups. The program is administered by the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). Awardees can receive the scholarship for up to 5 years as an undergraduate and 4 years as a graduate student. The scholarship is renewable through graduate school in math, science, engineering, library science, and education.

In order to see how GMS has impacted students and to know how to better prepare minority students for college, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has commissioned a survey of recipients. Cohorts are composed of both recipients and non-recipients. Non-recipients are defined as individuals who were asked to go on to the scholar confirmation/verification phase, but did not become a scholar for one or more reasons.

Baseline, first follow-up, second follow-up survey, and longitudinal survey data have been collected from both recipients and non-recipients.

In 1999, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation started the Gates Millennium Scholars Program (GMS), a 20-year initiative which intends to expand access to higher education for high achieving, low-income minority students. In addition to its academic objectives, GMS also has the goal of creating future leaders in minority groups. The program is administered by the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). Awardees can receive the scholarship for up to 5 years as an undergraduate and 4 years as a graduate student. The scholarship is renewable through graduate school in math, science, engineering, library science, and education.

In order to see how GMS has impacted students and to know how to better prepare minority students for college, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has commissioned a survey of recipients. Cohorts were composed of both recipients and non-recipients. Non-recipients were defined as individuals who were asked to go on to the scholar confirmation/verification phase, but did not become a scholar for one or more reasons.

Baseline survey data has been collected from both recipients and non-recipients of Cohort 9.

The Growth, Opportunity, Aspirations and Learning of Students in College (GOALS) study is used by NCAA policymakers and member institutions to study the experiences of student-athletes across all sports and NCAA divisions. It also provides objective and attitudinal data from student-athletes on possible academic and social trade-offs and sacrifices they have made in order to participate in collegiate athletics.

During the 2005-06 Academic Year, the GOALS study surveyed 19,786 student-athletes representing all three divisions and 620 NCAA institutions. Respondents provided information on important topics regarding their lives as student-athletes that included:

• Academic engagement and success
• Athletics experiences
• Social experiences and integration
• Career aspirations
• Physical and mental health and well-being
• Campus and team climate
• Time commitments

The High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) is nationally representative, longitudinal study of 9th graders who were followed through their secondary and postsecondary years, with an emphasis on understanding students' trajectories from the beginning of high school into postsecondary education, the workforce, and beyond. What students decide to pursue when, why, and how are crucial questions for HSLS:09.

The HSLS:09 focuses on answering the following questions:

• How do parents, teachers, counselors, and students construct choice sets for students, and how are these related to students' characteristics, attitudes, and behavior?
• How do students select among secondary school courses, postsecondary institutions, and possible careers?
• How do parents and students plan financing for postsecondary experiences? What sources inform these plans?
• What factors influence students' decisions about taking STEM courses and following through with STEM college majors? Why are some students underrepresented in STEM courses and college majors?
• How students' plans vary over the course of high school and how decisions in 9th grade impact students' high school trajectories. When students are followed up in the spring of 11th grade and later, their planning and decision-making in 9th grade may be linked to subsequent behavior.

This data collection also provides data for some arts-related topics, including the following: student participation in outside of schools arts activities; credit hours of arts classes taken; GPA from arts classes; and parent-led arts experiences.

For the public-use file, a total of 23,503 students responded from over 900 high schools both public and private.

Across the United States (U.S.), school districts have grappled with how to create safe community- and achievement-oriented schools and how to ensure the necessary discipline is applied transparently, fairly, and without bias. Two programs that many schools have turned to in order to achieve these goals are Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Restorative Justice (RJ). PBIS is an evidence-driven schoolwide behavioral management approach that aims to outline clear expectations for students and to cultivate shared norms and practices across classrooms and school spaces. PBIS has become a popular approach in schools and districts: as of 2020; over 19,000 schools in the U.S. have implemented PBIS.

A second program, Restorative Justice (RJ), has grown in popularity in recent years. RJ typically focuses on restorative relationship building between affected parties, peaceful reconciliation, and non-punitive approaches to rectifying harm, using a structured circle discussion format. RJ schools use both community circles, designed to build a safe space for students and staff to share and listen to each other, and restorative circles, designed to share perspectives on and redress a behavioral issue.

Working with a large school district in a mid-Atlantic state, researchers set out to test whether these two programs substitute for or complement each other. In partnership with the school district researchers conducted two separate school-level randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The first RCT (RCT 1) sought to uncover the marginal impact of RJ by adding the program to a set of randomly selected schools that were already implementing PBIS. The second RCT (RCT 2) was designed to discover the impact of introducing both programs together into schools that had neither program at baseline. Researchers conducted student and staff surveys to collect measures of school climate, teacher logs to record program implementation, and researchers also received administrative data from the district on student test scores, teacher and student absences, student disciplinary infractions, and school costs.

There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of each of these programs in isolation. A recent meta-analysis of 32 experimental and quasi-experimental impact studies of PBIS found that PBIS reduced disciplinary exclusions and problem behavior and increased academic achievement. The findings were statistically significant and showed small to medium effect sizes. Individual studies have found that PBIS reduces the use of office disciplinary referrals and other exclusionary disciplinary measures (including the use of in-school and out-of-school suspensions), while improving student behavior and attitudes across school levels. Individual studies show variable--some statistically significant and some null--impacts on academic outcomes.

The empirical evidence on the effect of RJ in U.S. schools is more limited, with little rigorous casual evidence published to date. Based on patterns across rigorous and non-rigorous research, restorative justice is associated with decreases in suspension rates and disciplinary disparities, improved student behavior, and improved school climate and relationships.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigators if further information is needed.

This study is a secondary analysis (syntax only, no data) of Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961) and Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 32282).

The purpose of this study was to further existing knowledge of juvenile justice intervention and how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood. This study examines three main aims using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which followed a sample of serious adolescent offenders for seven years to examine the desistance process. First, trajectories of secure institutional placement for serious offenders during the study period were identified. Second, trajectories of gainful activities for serious adolescent offenders during the study period were identified. Gainful activities were defined as working or attending school. Third, factors associated with turning points in the gainful activities trajectories were explored. In the course of estimating the gainful activities trajectories, there appeared to be a key moment, around year 3, where multiple trajectories with moderate levels of engagement in gainful activities diverged. Together, these three aims will inform how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood and identify factors that may be related to positive outcomes and critical turning points in the trajectories of serious adolescent offenders.

Group differences were examined by testing bivariate differences in a broad range of variables: demographic variables (gender, age, and race/ethnicity); study site and year of interview; characteristics of prior service receipt at baseline (location and orientation); school, family and neighborhood characteristics; characteristics of the offense and offense history; individual factors (mental health and substance use symptoms); and risk scores.

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 Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) is a project that was funded by the National Science Foundation in 1985 and was designed to examine the development of: (1) student attitudes toward and achievement in science, (2) student attitudes toward and achievement in mathematics, and (3) student interest in and plans for a career in science, mathematics, or engineering, during middle school, high school, and the first four years post-high school. The relative influence parents, home, teachers, school, peers, media, and selected informal learning experiences had on these developmental patterns was considered as well.

The older LSAY cohort, Cohort One, consisted of a national sample of 2,829 tenth-grade students in public high schools throughout the United States. These students were followed for an initial period of seven years, ending four years after high school in 1994. Cohort Two, consisted of a national sample of 3,116 seventh-grade students in public schools that served as feeder schools to the same high schools in which the older cohort was enrolled. These students were followed for an initial period of seven years, concluding with a telephone interview approximately one year after the end of high school in 1994.

Beginning in the fall of 1987, the LSAY collected a wide array of information including: (1) a science achievement test and a mathematics achievement test each fall, (2) an attitudinal and experience questionnaire at the beginning and end of each school year, (3) reports about education and experience from all science and math teachers in each school, (4) reports on classroom practice by each science and math teacher serving a LSAY student, (5) an annual 25-minute telephone interview with one parent of each student, and (6) extensive school-level information from the principal of each study school.

In 2006, the NSF funded a proposal to re-contact the original LSAY students (then in their mid-30's) to resume data collection to determine their educational and occupational outcomes. Through an extensive tracking activity which involved: (1) online tracking, (2) newsletter mailing, (3) calls to parents and other relatives, (4) use of alternative online search methods, and (5) questionnaire mailing, more than 95 percent of the original sample of 5,945 LSAY students were located or accounted for. In addition to re-contacting the students, the proposal defined a new eligible sample of approximately 5,000 students and these young adults were asked to complete a survey in 2007. A second survey was conducted in the fall of 2008 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes and to measure the civic scientific literacy of these young adults, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. A third survey was conducted in the fall of 2009 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes and to measure the participants' use of selected informal science education resources, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. A fourth survey was conducted in the fall of 2010 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes, as well as provided questions about the participants' interactions with their children, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. Finally, a fifth survey was conducted in the fall of 2011 that sought to gather updated information about education outcomes and included an expanded occupation battery for all participants, as well as an expanded spousal information battery for all participants. The 2011 questionnaire also included items about the 2011 Fukushima incident in Japan along with attitudinal items about nuclear power and global climate change. To date approximately 3,200 participants responded to the 2011 survey.

There were no surveys conducted in 2012 or 2013. Beginning in 2014 the LSAY was funded by the National Institute on Aging for five years. This data release adds the 2017 data to the previous data release that included data through 2016.

The public release data files include information collected from the national probability sample students, their parents, and the science and mathematics teachers in the students' schools. The data covers the initial seven years, beginning in the fall of 1987, as well as the data collected in the 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 questionnaires.

Part 1: LSAY Merged Cohort (Base File) contains student and parent data from both cohorts of the LSAY from 1987-1994 and student follow-up data from 2007-2011 and 2014-2017. Additionally, Parts 2 - 5 contain information gathered from two teacher background questionnaires and two principal questionnaires from 1987-1994.

The Higher Education Randomized Controlled Trial (THE-RCT) study aims to capitalize on existing data from postsecondary education RCTs to foster substantive and methodological scholarship and encourage teaching and learning opportunities. The cornerstone of THE-RCT is a restricted access file (RAF). The initial version contains individual-participant data from more than 25 of MDRC's higher education RCTs covering 50 institutions and over 50,000 students. The data were originally collected as part of different randomized controlled trial evaluations of a variety of higher education interventions. The data were collected for different student samples, at different times, and in different locations for each study.

The data were collected from four data sources: 1. Baseline: Baseline student demographic data (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, age, etc.) were gathered, either via a survey administered to students upon joining the study (but prior to random assignment) or from study colleges' administrative records; 2. College Transcript: Student transcript data (e.g., enrollment, credits attempted, credits earned, GPA) were provided by the study colleges or state higher education agencies; 3. College Credential Attainment: Student credential attainment data were provided by the study colleges or state higher education agencies; 4. National Student Clearinghouse: Student enrollment and credential attainment data were provided by the National Student Clearinghouse via their StudentTracker database. This includes enrollment and credential attainment data at colleges beyond the colleges where the study took place.

The RAF contains student-level data, including baseline demographics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity), outcomes (e.g., enrollment, credits earned, credentials), an indicator of experimental group (e.g., program or control group), and study variables (e.g., a variable that allows users to link to the RCT-level database).