Search results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Preserving Kidney Function in Children With Chronic Kidney Disease (PRESERVE) study was designed to provide new knowledge to inform shared decision-making regarding blood pressure (BP) management for pediatric chronic kidney disease (CKD). PRESERVE compared the effectiveness of alternative strategies for monitoring and treating hypertension on preserving kidney function; expanded the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Common Data Model by adding pediatric- and kidney-specific variables and linking electronic health record data to other kidney disease databases; and assessed the lived experiences of patients related to BP management.

Participants were recruited from 15 clinical institutions across the United States. The research team analyzed electronic health record (EHR) data from 11,851 children with CKD and their caregivers to compare different ways to monitor and treat BP to preserve kidney function. In addition, a subset of patients and caregivers completed an online survey detailing patient-reported outcomes, such as fatigue, life satisfaction, pain levels, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and peer relationships (n=395).

Due to the risk of re-identification based on unique patterns in the individual-level PCORnet electronic health record (EHR) data, patient privacy regulations prohibit the public release of the individual-level data. This collection contains the code underlying the analysis; instructions, codesets, and output lists for the PCORnet queries; and the survey questionnaires for patients and family members.

The 2020 Child Care Licensing Study provides information collected about child care licensing programs and policies and the facility requirements for child care centers, family child care homes, and group child care homes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The data about licensing requirements for child care centers, family child care homes, and group child care homes were collected by the National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance from the regulations posted on the National Database of Child Care Licensing Regulations that were in effect as of December 31, 2020. The licensing regulations data cover the following areas:

• Licensing regulations
• Additional staff training requirements
• Definition of licensed child care centers
• Child-staff ratios and group size
• Staff roles and age requirements
• Supervision of children
• Staff qualifications and ongoing training requirements
• Care of children
• Facility requirements
• Staff hiring requirements

The same web site was used to collect licensing regulations covering the above listed topics for small family child care homes and large/group family child care homes.

The Guatemalan Survey of Family Health (EGSF) was undertaken to investigate the health of children under the age of five and women during pregnancy and childbirth residing in 60 communities within the departments (geopolitical units) of Chimaltenango, Suchitepequez, Totonicapan, and Jalapa in Guatemala. Data were collected at the household, individual, and community levels to gain an in-depth understanding of the way residents in these rural populations think about their health, treatment, and family relations.

Data at the household level (Parts 1-5, 90-92) provide information on household members, relation to household head, age, education, and language used.

The individual-level data (Parts 6-37) describe the respondent's background, marital/relationship history, social ties and social support, and economic status, along with health beliefs, a complete birth history, knowledge and use of contraception, health problems and treatment during the last two pregnancies, and anthropometry on mothers and children. Extensive data were gathered regarding the health problems and treatment for each of the two youngest children born since January 1990, with particular focus on diarrhea and respiratory infections.

The community data (Parts 41-60) supply information gathered from three knowledgeable individuals called "key informants" about occupations in the community, crops grown, wages, utilities and community services, and the history of the community. Parts 61-89 contain information regarding Health Posts (health care centers) through interviews conducted with key informants, doctors (Parts 72-80), and other health service providers (Parts 81-89), including traditional providers such as curers, midwives, and bone setters, regarding their practices, patients, referrals, fees, payment, and the use of specific treatments.

In 2019, RWJF commissioned the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) to survey U.S. adults and develop a typology to better understand current mindsets within the U.S. adult population related to resource problems such as: adequate incomes and access to healthy food, child-care programs, and preschool. The idea was to use a typology to understand values and beliefs related to promoting solutions to the problems, including differing views about the deservingness of low-income families, the importance of systemic-level causes, and the proper role for government to play in addressing the problems. The work was to be modeled on previous NORC American Health Values Survey work completed for RWJF.

Specific objectives of the work were to:

• Identify prevailing values and beliefs related to child and family health promotion among U.S. adults, especially those related to the causes, solutions, and impacts of important problems facing families with young children along with who should be responsible for addressing the problems.

• Better understand differences in these values and beliefs through development of a typology.

• Generate strategic insights for stakeholders working to address the important problems facing families with young children.

The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) is a large-scale, multi-round survey providing information on fertility, infant and child mortality, the practice of family planning, maternal and child health, reproductive health, nutrition, anemia, and utilization and quality of health and family planning services in India.

The First National Family Health Survey (NFHS-1) was conducted in 1992-93. The survey collected extensive information on population, health, and nutrition, with an emphasis on women and young children. Eighteen Population Research Centres (PRCs), located in universities and institutes of national repute, assisted IIPS in all stages of conducting NFHS-1. All the state-level and national-level reports for the survey have already been published (48 reports in all).

The Second National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2) was conducted in 1998-99 in all 26 states of India with added features on the quality of health and family planning services, domestic violence, reproductive health, anemia, the nutrition of women, and the status of women. The results of the survey are currently being published.

The Third National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) was carried out in 2005-2006. Eighteen Research Organizations including five Population Research Centres carried out the survey in 29 states of India. The funding for NFHS-3 is provided by USAID, DFID, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UNICEF, UNFPA, and MOHFW, GOI., ICF (USA), is providing technical assistance for NFHS-3, and the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) and the National AIDS Research Institute (NARI) are providing technical assistance for the HIV component.

The 2015-16 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), the fourth in the NFHS series, provides information on population, health, and nutrition for India and each state and union territory. All four NFHS surveys have been conducted under the stewardship of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India. MoHFW designated the International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai, as the nodal agency for all of the surveys. Funding for NFHS-4 was provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), UNICEF, UNFPA, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Government of India. ICF provided technical assistance through The DHS Program, which is funded by USAID. Assistance for the HIV component of the survey was provided by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) and the National AIDS Research Institute (NARI), Pune. NFHS-4 fieldwork was conducted by 14 field agencies, and seven laboratories conducted the HIV testing (see Appendix Table XX). Data collection took place in two phases from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2016. NFHS-4 was designed to provide information on sexual behaviour; HIV/AIDS knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour; and domestic violence only at the state level (in the state module), while most indicators in the district module are reported at the district level. The primary objective of the 2015-16 National Family Health Survey is to provide essential data on health and family welfare, as well as data on emerging issues in these areas. The clinical, anthropometric, and biochemical (CAB) component of NFHS-4 is designed to provide vital estimates of the prevalence of malnutrition, anaemia, hypertension, HIV, and high blood glucose levels through a series of biomarker tests and measurements.

The National Family Health Survey 2019-21 (NFHS-5), the fifth in the NFHS series, provides information on population, health, and nutrition for India, each state/union territory (UT), and for 707 districts as on March 31 st 2017. All five NFHS surveys have been conducted under the stewardship of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India. MoHFW designated the International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai, as the nodal agency for all the rounds of NFHS. Funding for NFHS-5 was provided by the MoHFW, Government of India. ICF, USA provided technical assistance through the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, which is funded by USAID. Assistance for the Dried Blood Sample (DBS) component of the survey was provided by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National AIDS Research Institute (NARI), Pune. NFHS-5 fieldwork for India was conducted in two phases-- Phase-I from 17 June 2019 to 30 January 2020 covering 17 states and 5 UTs and Phase-II from 2 January 2020 to 30 April 2021 covering 11 states and 3 UTs -- by 17 Field Agencies and gathered information from 636,699 households, 724,115 women, and 101,839 men. Like NFHS-4, NFHS-5 also provides district-level estimates for many important indicators. The contents of NFHS-5 are similar to NFHS-4 to allow comparisons over time. However, NFHS-5 includes some new topics, such as preschool education, disability, access to a toilet facility, death registration, bathing practices during menstruation, and methods and reasons for abortion. The scope of clinical, anthropometric, and biochemical testing (CAB) has also been expanded to include measurement of waist and hip circumferences, and the age range for the measurement of blood pressure and blood glucose has been expanded. However, HIV testing was not included in NFHS-5. The NFHS-5 sample was designed to provide national, state/union territory (UT), and district level estimates of various indicators covered in the survey. However, estimates of indicators of sexual behaviour; husband's background and woman's work; HIV/AIDS knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour; and domestic violence are available only at the state/union territory (UT) and national level.

To request this data, fill out: International Institute for Population Sciences Data Request Form.

Patients often take surveys about their health or quality of life. Results from these surveys can help doctors meet patients' needs. Young children can't fill out surveys by themselves. They may not be able to read or understand the questions. Most often, parents or hospital staff read the questions aloud, or parents answer the questions for their children. But this method may not give accurate results.

In this study, the research team tested three surveys for children ages 4 to 12 who are going to have or who recently had surgery. The first survey asks about general health. The second survey asks about feeling worried before surgery. The third survey asks about pain after surgery. A computer program reads the survey questions aloud. The surveys are animated and choices for the answers appear as cartoons.

The team wanted to learn if the surveys were

• Accurate, or correctly capturing how the children were feeling
• Reliable, or if children answered in a consistent way when asked similar questions

The broad aims of this overall project were to examine predictors of children's adjustment, mainly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), after a single-incident injury. The overarching hypothesis was that a combination of physiological/biological, cognitive, and parental anxiety factors would predict children's later adjustment. The dataset in this collection comes from the combination of two broad projects that recruited from the same hospitals, with the first (smaller) project being built upon by the second project (which contained additional measures and an additional follow-up).

Children and adolescents aged 7 to 17 and their families (n=135) were recruited for the study after presentation to either of two major metropolitan Australian hospitals following a single-incident injury. Children's heart rate was recorded at hospital triage. Children and parents completed risk screening measures within 4 weeks of injury. Measures for cognitive appraisals, social support, traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety symptoms were assessed at 3 months and 6 months post-injury.

The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study SM is the largest long-term study of brain development and child health in the United States. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded leading researchers in the fields of adolescent development and neuroscience to conduct this ambitious project. The ABCD Research Consortium consists of a Coordinating Center, a Data Analysis, Informatics & Resource Center, and 21 research sites across the country, which have invited 11,880 children ages 9-10 to join the study. Researchers will track their biological and behavioral development through adolescence into young adulthood.

Arts measures in ABCD include how can arts experiences be best used to enhance development of each individual? How can arts experience be best used to promote health and address developmental disorders? And also, how can neuroscience research provide a foundation for rational approaches to how we integrate arts into development?

ABCD enables us to track a trajectory of broad measures of cortical area thickness of the brain over time and see whether individuals keep on with the mean, go higher, lower, and so forth. And what factors might affect those trajectories.The data shows the relationship between music engagement and brain and behavioral developmental trajectories in childhood and adolescence, using rich characterization of brain, behavior, demographics, and genetics available in ABCD.

Arts experiences in ABCD are captured largely as part of something called the activities questionnaire, which is a pretty detailed questionnaire given to parents, which includes detailed information about participation in a wide range of activities, which include many different sports, but also performance in the arts, music, dance, drama, visual and crafts. Activities such as active engagement, learning, lessons, playing in bands, creating art (school, outside school, private lessons, and self-study). The data offers insights into effects of arts-related activities on cognitive outcomes like fluid and crystallized intelligence, executive function, working memory-specific measures, risk scores for IQ, and educational attainment.

Watch the recording of NADAC's webinar featuring Dr. Gay Dowling, Director of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Project, and Dr. Iversen, a cognitive neuroscientist. Dr. Dowling provides an overview of the ABCD study, while Dr. Iversen discusses the arts-specific measures within the ABCD data and explains how these measures, combined with comprehensive brain and cognitive assessments, reveal the impact of the arts on brain development.

Additional ABCD resources:

• The Sound Health Network

• The ABSD Data Dictionary

• NIMH Data Archive

• ABCD GitHub

• ABCD Study Infographics

The National Children's Study (NCS), authorized by the Children's Health Act of 2000, was a large-scale study to investigate environmental influences on child health and development. The NCS Vanguard (Pilot) Study, launched in 2009, tested methods for the larger Main Study and enrolled approximately 5,000 children across 40 locations by July 2013. The Main Study followed 100,000 children from before birth to age 21. On December 12, 2014, the NIH Director closed the study per advice from the expert review group.

The NCS Archive, created after the study's closure, offers researchers access to over 250,000 data and samples, including nearly 19,000 biological and 5,500 environmental samples from the Vanguard Study. The archive contains study visit data from preconception to 42 months post-birth, neuro-psychosocial and cognitive assessments, physical examinations, study protocols, operation manuals, data collection instruments, and more.

The NCS Archive includes various arts-related variables that were part of the study questionnaires and interviews conducted with participants and covered a range of activities and exposures. Specifically, the study captured data on children's participation in artistic activities, including music, dance, drama, and visual arts. Information was collected on the frequency and type of arts engagement, such as attending classes, participating in performances, or creating art. Examples include:

• DANCE_DAYS: The average number of days per week someone dances with the child.

• THEATER_DAYS: The average number of days per week someone engages in theater, play-acting, or make-believe with the child.

• MUSIC_DAYS: The average number of days per week someone plays musical instruments, sings, or listens to music with the child.

• DRAWPAINT_DAYS: The average number of days per week someone spends drawing or painting with the child.

• ART_EVENT_DAYS: The average number of days per week someone takes the child to arts-related events outside the home.

• DAYS_READ: The number of days in the past week that family members read stories to the child.

• TOTAL_NUMBER_BOOKS: The total number of children's books in the home, including library books.

• FREQ_BOOKS: The average number of days per week someone reads or looks at books with the child.

• READ_STORIES: The number of days per week stories are read to the child.

• TELL_STORIES: The number of days per week stories are told to the child.

The NCS Archive is available in NICHD's Data and Specimen Hub (DASH) for researchers to request access and conduct their own studies. For more information, researchers can consult the National Children's Study Archive: Study Description and Guide or contact NICHD's Data and Specimen Hub at [email protected].

These data were collected as part of the evaluation of the Healthy School Program (HSP), a program that provides support to elementary, middle, and high schools in the United States as they work to create healthy school environments that promote physical activity and healthy eating for students and staff. HSP was created in 2006 by the Alliance for a Healthier Generation with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The HSP evaluation addressed both process and impact outcomes:

1. Is the HSP technical assistance and training model effective in increasing the implementation of policies and programs that promote and provide access to healthier foods and more physical activity before, during and after school?

2. Are there distinctive or common school-level characteristics that hasten or hinder school-level implementation of policies and programs that promote and provide access to healthy foods and physical activity in the school setting in HSP schools?

3. Does participation in HSP contribute to an increase in healthy eating behaviors and physical activity participation among students? Does participation in HSP contribute to a decrease in body mass index (BMI) among students?

The evaluation used a mixed-method design incorporating both quantitative and qualitative components. The quantitative component of the evaluation was a longitudinal design that measured student changes in eating and physical activity behaviors and BMI and schools' implementation of policies and practices promoted by HSP. For the qualitative component the evaluation team conducted site visits in a sample of HSP schools.

Nine data files constitute this data collection:

1. HSP Participation and Inventory Data File, 2006-2011 (originally called the Inventory Data File)

2. Pilot Student Survey Data File

3. Pilot Student Height and Weight Measurements Data File

4. Survey of Students in Boston and Miami-Dade Public Schools Data File

5. HSP Participation and Inventory Data File, 2006-2014

6. Arizona, Prince George's County and Nevada Healthy Schools Youth Survey Data File

7. Arizona and Prince George's County Youth Height and Weight Measurements Data File

8. Arizona Academic Achievement Data File

9. Prince George's County School Wellness Coordinator Survey Data File

Dataset 1 contains data on school characteristics, HSP engagement indicators, baseline and follow-up responses to the Healthy Schools Inventory, and indices derived from the Inventory for all HSP schools as of August 2011. The Inventory collected information about each school's adherence to the Healthy Schools Program Framework, a set of best practice guidelines that promote physical activity and healthy eating among students and staff.

Datasets 2, 4 and 6 contain data from baseline and follow-up administrations of the Healthy Schools Youth Survey questionnaire in three samples of HSP schools: students in grades 5-12 in the initial pilot cohort of HSP schools; students in grades 5, 8 and 10 in the 2007-2008 cohort of HSP schools in Boston, Massachusetts and Miami-Dade County, Florida; and students in grades 5, 8 and 10 or 11 in HSP schools in Arizona, Nevada and Prince George's County, Maryland. Topics covered by the Healthy Schools Youth Survey questionnaire include eating and physical activity habits, attitudes about healthy eating and physical activity, health knowledge, and school food environments.

Datasets 3 and 7 contain baseline and follow-up height and weight measurements and derived BMIs, the former for students in grades 4-12 in schools sampled by the Pilot Student Survey and the latter for students in grades 5, 8, and 10 in Arizona and grades 1-12 in Prince George's County in schools sampled by the Arizona, Prince George's County and Nevada Healthy Schools Youth Survey.

Dataset 5 is an update to Dataset 1. Like Dataset 1 it contains data on HSP participation and engagement and school characteristics. Dataset 5 covers 8,500 schools that participated in HSP through fall 2014. It includes 4,028 of the 4,542 schools in Dataset 1.

Dataset 8 contains average math, reading and language scores for grades in HSP and comparable non-HSP schools in Arizona. Every record in the data file represents a grade (one or more of the grades 2-9) within a school (150 schools) for a given school year (up to seven years 2007-2008 to 2013-2014).

Dataset 9 contains data from a survey of HSP school coordinators in Prince Georges County. The coordinators were interviewed about the implementation of HSP in their schools.

ICPSR did not receive the site visit data.

The Children's Futures initiative was designed to enhance the health and well-being of children from birth to age three in Trenton, New Jersey through three major strategies: (1) Improving access to prenatal care and strengthening effective parenting; (2) Improving the quality of child care; and (3) Strengthening and sustaining positive involvement of fathers in their children's lives. As part of the initiative, data were simultaneously collected to assess the effectiveness of the initiative.

The data collection efforts included a baseline survey of the Trenton community conducted in 2002 and surveys of Trenton child care providers conducted in 2003, 2004, and 2005. In addition, births records for Trenton, Camden, and Newark were obtained from the New Jersey State Department of Health. These survey and birth records data were released as ICPSR 21640: Evaluation of Children's Futures: Improving Health and Development Outcomes for Children in Trenton, New Jersey, 2001-2005. The data from the 2002 community survey represents a baseline picture of the primary caregivers of children ages 0-5 in Trenton on a set of outcomes, among them parenting behaviors and strategies that the initiative hoped to influence.

This data collection contains the data from two follow-up community surveys. Like the baseline community survey, the follow-up surveys interviewed the primary caregivers of children aged 0-5 in Trenton households about child and parental health, parenting practices, fathers' involvement in their children's lives, health insurance and health care utilization, attendance at parenting groups or classes, and utilization of child care. In addition, the surveys collected information on country of birth, year of immigration, race, Hispanic origin, education, employment status, alcohol use, earnings, and household income.

The community surveys followed a repeated cross-sectional design. That is, individual community residents were not followed over time; rather, at each wave of data collection, a new sample of respondents were interviewed.

In 2010, the United States Congress authorized the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, which started a major expansion of evidence-based home visiting programs for families living in at-risk communities. MIECHV is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in collaboration with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The authorizing legislation required an evaluation of the program, which became the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE). The evaluation is being conducted for HHS by MDRC with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, the University of Georgia, and Columbia University.

MIHOPE was designed to learn whether families benefit from MIECHV-funded early childhood home visiting programs, and if so, how. The study included the four evidence-based models that 10 or more states chose in their initial MIECHV plans in fiscal year 2010-2011: Early Head Start - Home-based option, Healthy Families America, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Parents as Teachers. MIHOPE was the first study to include all of these four evidence-based models.

To provide rigorous evidence on the MIECHV-funded programs' effects, the study randomly assigned more than 4,200 families to receive either MIECHV-funded home visiting or information on community services. As is the standard method in studies that use random assignment, the primary analytical strategy in MIHOPE was to compare the outcomes of the entire program group with those of the entire control group.

As per the authorizing legislation, the study measured early effects on family and child outcomes in the areas listed below, with the exception of school readiness and academic achievement (which were not included at this point because children were too young to measure those outcomes):

• Prenatal, maternal, and newborn health
• Child health and development, including child maltreatment
• Parenting skills
• School readiness and child academic achievement
• Crime and domestic violence
• Family economic self-sufficiency
• Referrals and service coordination

Videos and Video Metadata: Two sets of videos are included in the MIHOPE restricted access files. They include:

• Mother-home visitor interactions at 387 home visits and
• Interactions between child and mother using the "Three Bags" and "Clean-Up" tasks with 2,832 families.

The mother-home visitor interaction videos were recorded only for treatment group families at two points in time: the first was, on average, about eight weeks after the family's first home visit and the second was about eight months after the family's first home visit. Overall, 264 families are included in the mother-home visitor interaction videos in total, with 123 of these families recorded at both points in time.

The mother-child interaction videos, during which the child and mother play with toys contained in three bags and place the toys back in the bags (the "Three Bags" and "Clean-Up" tasks), were recorded when the 15-month in-home assessments were conducted and are available for 2,832 families in the treatment and control groups.

The videos are only linkable to a few pieces of metadata (home visiting model, video ID, treatment status, and variables indicating whether the family appears in the home visit videos, the three-bag task videos, or both). The videos in the restricted access data are not linkable to any other data included in the restricted access files. Additionally, the videos may only be viewed at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research's on-site Physical Data Enclave in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorizes states to create early intervention (EI) programming to provide developmental and therapeutic services to infants and toddlers with a developmental condition; EI programs are mandated to report on child and family outcomes for purposes of accountability and quality improvement. For both purposes, there is critical need for research evidence on the adequacy of EI services. The researchers for this study partnered with a large urban EI program in Colorado that had recently transitioned to electronic data capture and was implementing a statewide initiative to facilitate function-focused care with individual families and paired collected electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PRO) data with EI administrative data on child and family characteristics and service use to more fully examine EI service adequacy relative to patient-important outcomes.

This study collected information from Young Children's Participation and Environment Measure (YC-PEM e-PRO) on home, environment, and community participation, involvement, and desired change. Measurements were also collected from the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT e-PRO) on mobility, social cognitive, and daily activities domains. The Child Outcomes Summary (COS) was used to capture functional performance related to having positive social relationships, acquiring and using knowledge and skills, and taking appropriate action to meet needs. Early Intervention Service Use measured EI intensity, whether child received specific services including physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), speech therapy (ST), psychology, or developmental intervention (DI), and the total number of service hours received within each discipline. Demographic variables include reasons child received EI services, number of developmental delay conditions, age, race, and ethnicity; as well as caregiver's education, employment, number of children at home, income, and insurance type.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2017 Child Care Licensing Study provides information collected about child care licensing programs and policies and the facility requirements for child care centers, family child care homes, and group child care homes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Limited center regulations data are available for U.S. territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

The data about state licensing policies, including facility monitoring, enforcement of licensing regulations, and licensing program staff, were gathered by the National Association for Regulatory Administration (NARA) in the 2017 NARA Child Care Licensing Programs and Policies Survey. NARA sent an online survey to all state child care licensing agencies in March 2018. Respondents submitted their answers via Survey Monkey, and by January 2019, all states had responded.

The data from the Licensing Survey cover the following topical areas:

• Number of licensed facilities
• Complaint investigations
• Licensing staff
• Enforcement actions
• Types of inspections
• Licensing information on the Internet
• Frequency of inspections
• Licensing fees
• Frequency of licensing
• Licensing staff requirements
• Inspections and monitoring
• Licensing's role in quality initiatives

The data about licensing requirements for child care centers, family child care homes, and group child care homes were collected by the National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance from the regulations posted on the National Database of Child Care Licensing Regulations that were in effect as of December 31, 2017. The licensing regulations data cover the following areas:

• Licensing regulations
• Additional staff training requirements
• Definition of licensed child care centers
• Child-staff ratios and group size
• Staff roles and age requirements
• Supervision of children
• Staff qualifications and ongoing training requirements
• Care of children
• Facility requirements and
• Staff hiring requirements

The same web site was used to collect licensing regulations covering the above listed topics for small family child care homes and large/group family child care homes.

Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation-Strong Start (MIHOPE-Strong Start) was a large-scale evaluation that rigorously tested the effectiveness of evidence-based home visiting in improving birth and health outcomes during pregnancy and in the year after birth. Local programs included in the study's analysis implemented one of two evidence-based models: Healthy Families America (HFA) or Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP). These models were chosen because earlier evaluations found some evidence of their having positive impacts on birth outcomes.

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) partnered with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to sponsor the study. MIHOPE-Strong Start was part of the CMMI's Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, which evaluated whether enhanced, nonmedical prenatal interventions, when provided in addition to routine medical care, have the potential to improve birth outcomes and reduce health care costs for women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under contract with OPRE, MDRC conducted MIHOPE-Strong Start in collaboration with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, and New York University.

The analysis for MIHOPE-Strong Start included 2,899 women and 66 local programs (37 HFA and 29 NFP programs) operating across 17 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. Women were eligible for MIHOPE-Strong Start if they were pregnant and at least 8 weeks from their due date.

The MIHOPE-Strong Start analysis included a subset of families and local programs that were recruited for MIHOPE, the national evaluation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program. Specifically, the MIHOPE-Strong Start impact analysis included information on 46 local home visiting programs and 1,845 families that were initially recruited for MIHOPE but met the MIHOPE-Strong Start eligibility criteria. An important distinction between MIHOPE-Strong Start and MIHOPE is that MIHOPE included only programs receiving MIECHV funding, while MIHOPE-Strong Start included both MIECHV and non-MIECHV-funded programs.

In both studies, families were randomly assigned either to an evidence-based home visiting program or to a control group who was given information on other services available in the community. The random assignment design was intended to create program and control groups that were similar when women entered the study, so that systematic differences in the outcomes of interest observed between the two groups can be attributed to the home visiting services rather than to the preexisting characteristics of the women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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

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 investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The objective of this project was to use a mixed methods approach to expand the understanding of constructs important to resilience after children's exposure to violence (CEV), expand the range of outcomes examined, develop and refine measures appropriate for youth, and identify protective factors that could be targets for prevention and intervention. Eight focus groups and 24 cognitive interviews were conducted with parents and youth to explore resilience constructs. These were followed by a survey completed by 440 youth ages 10 to 21, recruited from youth-serving organizations. Key variables in this collection include demographics such as age, gender, and education; experience of violence; and physical and psychological well-being.

The data collection includes:

• Survey data file, NCAC.CEVres.survey-data_Updated.sav, n=440, 208 variables
• Focus group data file, NCAC.CEVres.Focus-group-transcripts.pdf, n=70
• Cognitive interview data file, NCAC.CEVres.Cognitive-interview-transcripts_updated.pdf, n=24

The focus group and interview data files are not available at this time, even under restricted use.

Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorizes states, with the incentive of federal financial support, to create Early Intervention (EI) systems, which is a primary source of rehabilitation (e.g., physical, occupational, and speech therapy) services for infants and toddlers with, or at risk for, developmental delays. Having worked with two EI Colorado (EI-CO) programs that employed electronic documentation, the researchers sought to leverage their electronic administrative data in order to examine social disparities in EI service use, including specific rehabilitation services.

The dataset for this data archiving project was generated in collaboration with a large, urban EI program in Colorado, a community partner for an NIH/NCMRR R03 study. This academic-community research partnership provided researchers with access to an urban EI program's electronic administrative database; The researchers' goal was to make these data available for further EI research. Therefore, a database was created and a number of variables were derived that could be of importance to EI stakeholders when conducting clinical queries for quality improvement. Examples of derived variables include EI service use intensity (i.e., hours per month) for all EI services, as well as discipline-specific (e.g., physical or occupational therapy) service use. The researchers obtained permission from the partnering EI agency to archive their EI program data through this project.

The dataset included as part of this collection includes 2045 cases for 44 variables; demographic variables include: race, ethnicity, language, sex, age, and developmental condition type.

Sinai Community Health Survey 2.0 was a cross-sectional health survey conducted by Sinai Urban Health Institute (SUHI), a member of Sinai Health System in Chicago. The survey's purpose was: (1) document the health status of selected Community Areas in Chicago, (2) understand the social factors associated with health-related behaviors, service utilization, and outcomes, and (3) use survey findings to develop public health interventions and policies to address health inequities.

There are three datasets associated with this survey: adult, child, and a merged adult-child dataset. The final adult questionnaire includes questions about general health status, access to and utilization of health care, mental health, health behaviors, social factors, and demographic characteristics. The child dataset includes questions related to children's health, allergies, sickle cell anemia, car seat use, emotional development, and bullying. More information about the study can be found at Sinai Community Health Survey 2.0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2014 Child Care Licensing Study provides information collected about child care licensing programs and policies and the regulations for childcare centers, family child care homes, and group child care homes for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the two U.S. Territories (Guam and the Virgin Islands). The data about States and Territories' licensing policies, including facility monitoring, enforcement of licensing regulations, and licensing program staffing, were gathered by the National Association for Regulatory Administration (NARA) in the 2014 NARA Child Care Licensing Programs and Policies Survey. NARA sent an online survey to all state child care licensing agencies in September 2014. Respondents submitted their answers via the Internet, and by January 2015, all States had responded.

The data from the Licensing Survey cover the following topical areas:

• Number of licensed facilities
• Complaint investigations
• Licensing staff
• Enforcement actions
• Types of inspections
• Licensing information on the Internet
• Frequency of inspections
• Licensing fees
• Frequency of licensing
• Licensing staff requirements
• Inspections and monitoring
• Licensing's role in quality initiatives

The child care center licensing regulations used for this study were compiled by the National Center for Early Childhood Quality Assurance from the regulations posted on the National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education (NRC) website between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014. That site is no longer active but directs users to the National Database of Child Care Licensing Regulations. The licensing regulations data cover the following areas:

• Licensing regulations
• Additional staff training requirements
• Definition of licensed child care centers
• Child-staff ratios and group size
• Staff roles and age requirements
• Supervision of children
• Staff qualifications and ongoing training requirements
• Care of children
• Facility requirements and
• Staff hiring requirements

The same web site was used to collect licensing regulations covering the above listed topics for small family child care homes and large/group family child care homes.

Since its beginning in 1965 as a part of the War on Poverty, Head Start's goal has been to boost the school readiness of low income children. Based on a "whole child" model, the program provides comprehensive services that include preschool education; medical, dental, and mental health care; nutrition services; and efforts to help parents foster their child's development. Head Start services are designed to be responsive to each child's and family's ethnic, cultural, and linguistic heritage.

In the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start, Congress mandated that the United States Department of Health and Human Services determine, on a national level, the impact of Head Start on the children it serves. This legislative mandate required that the impact study address two main research questions:

1. What difference does Head Start make to key outcomes of development and learning (and in particular, the multiple domains of school readiness) for low-income children? What difference does Head Start make to parental practices that contribute to children's school readiness?
2. Under what circumstances does Head Start achieve the greatest impact? What works for which children? What Head Start services are most related to impact?

The Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) addresses these questions by reporting on the impacts of Head Start on children and families during the children's preschool, kindergarten, and first grade years. The HSIS was conducted with a nationally representative sample of nearly 5,000 three- and four-year old preschool children across 84 nationally representative grantee/delegate agencies in communities where there are more eligible children and families than can be served by the program. The children participating were randomly assigned to either a treatment group (which had access to Head Start services) or a comparison group (which did not have access to Head Start services, but could receive other community resources). The HSIS data collection began in the fall of 2002 and ended in spring 2006, following children through the spring of their first grade year. Baseline data were collected through parent interviews and child assessments in fall 2002. The annual spring data collection included child assessments, parent interviews, teacher surveys, and teacher-child ratings. In addition, during the preschool years only, data collection included classroom and family day care observations, center director interviews, care provider interviews, and care provider-child ratings.

The Third Grade Follow-up to the Head Start Impact Study builds upon the existing randomized control design in the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) in order to determine the longer-term impact of the Head Start program on the well-being of children and families through the end of third grade. The data collection for the Third Grade Follow-up to the Head Start Impact Study was conducted during the spring of the children's third grade year (2007 and 2008). In addition to the child assessments, parent interviews, teacher surveys, and teacher-child-ratings used for the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) data collection, a principal survey was added to collect school data, including school demographics, and characteristics and quality indicators for schools, teachers and classrooms. As part of the third grade child assessment, self-reported data also was collected on the child's perception of his/her academic and social skills.

Both studies, for different grade levels, examined differences in outcomes in several domains related to school readiness: children's cognitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes (e.g., use of spanking, exposing children to cultural enrichment activities, and parenting styles). It also examined whether impacts differed based on characteristics of the children and their families, including the child's pre-academic skills at the beginning of the study; the child's primary language; whether the child has special needs; the mother's race/ethnicity; the primary caregiver's level of depressive symptoms; household risk; and urban or rural location.

Since its beginning in 1965 as a part of the War on Poverty, Head Start's goal has been to boost the school readiness of low income children. Based on a "whole child" model, the program provides comprehensive services that include preschool education; medical, dental, and mental health care; nutrition services; and efforts to help parents foster their child's development. Head Start services are designed to be responsive to each child's and family's ethnic, cultural, and linguistic heritage.

In the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start, Congress mandated that the United States Department of Health and Human Services determine, on a national level, the impact of Head Start on the children it serves. This legislative mandate required that the impact study address two main research questions:

1. What difference does Head Start make to key outcomes of development and learning (and in particular, the multiple domains of school readiness) for low-income children? What difference does Head Start make to parental practices that contribute to children's school readiness?
2. Under what circumstances does Head Start achieve the greatest impact? What works for which children? What Head Start services are most related to impact?

The Head Start Impact Study addresses these questions by reporting on the impacts of Head Start on children and families during the children's preschool, kindergarten, and first grade years. It was conducted with a nationally representative sample of nearly 5,000 three- and four-year old preschool children across 84 nationally representative grantee/delegate agencies in communities where there are more eligible children and families than can be served by the program. The children participating were randomly assigned to either a treatment group (which had access to Head Start services) or a comparison group (which did not have access to Head Start services, but could receive other community resources). Data collection began in the fall of 2002 and ended in spring 2006, following children through the spring of their first grade year. Baseline data were collected through parent interviews and child assessments in fall 2002. The annual spring data collection included child assessments, parent interviews, teacher surveys, and teacher-child ratings. In addition, during the preschool years only, data collection included classroom and family day care observations, center director interviews, care provider interviews, and care provider-child ratings.

The study examined differences in outcomes in several domains related to school readiness: children's cognitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes (e.g., reading to the child, use of spanking and time out, exposing children to cultural enrichment activities, safety practices, parent-child relationships). It also examined whether impacts differed based on characteristics of the children and their families, including the child's pre-academic skills at the beginning of the study; the child's primary language; whether the child has special needs; the mother's race/ethnicity; the primary caregiver's level of depressive symptoms; household risk; and urban or rural location.

The Head Start Impact Study differs from other evaluations of early childhood programs in that it:

• represents children from the majority of Head Start programs,
• represents a scaled-up federal program,
• represents the full range of quality within the national program,
• employs a randomized control design, the strongest design for testing impacts,
• examines all domains of children's school readiness, as well as parenting outcomes,
• follows children through their early years of elementary school, and
• compares children who have access to Head Start to a control group that includes many children in center-based and other forms of early childhood education programs.

The Third Grade Follow-up to the Head Start Impact Study builds upon the existing randomized control design in the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) in order to determine the longer-term impact of the Head Start program on the well-being of children and families through the end of third grade. The data collection for the Third Grade Follow-up to the Head Start Impact Study was conducted during the spring of the children's third grade year (2007 and 2008). In addition to the child assessments, parent interviews, teacher surveys, and teacher-child-ratings used for the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) data collection, a principal survey was added to collect school data, including school demographics, and characteristics and quality indicators for schools, teachers and classrooms. As part of the third grade child assessment, self-reported data also was collected on the child's perception of his/her academic and social skills.

Both studies, for different grade levels, examined differences in outcomes in several domains related to school readiness: children's cognitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes (e.g., use of spanking, exposing children to cultural enrichment activities, and parenting styles). It also examined whether impacts differed based on characteristics of the children and their families, including the child's pre-academic skills at the beginning of the study; the child's primary language; whether the child has special needs; the mother's race/ethnicity; the primary caregiver's level of depressive symptoms; household risk; and urban or rural location.

This collection also includes the Center Analysis file, which contains data from a variety of publicly available data sources and provides information about the HSIS centers' communities, including population and household characteristics, crime statistics, labor, and housing data. The Center Analysis file is a new file for the collection to be accessed only through the VDE.

Since its beginning in 1965 as a part of the War on Poverty, Head Start's goal has been to boost the school readiness of low income children. Based on a "whole child" model, the program provides comprehensive services that include preschool education; medical, dental, and mental health care; nutrition services; and efforts to help parents foster their child's development. Head Start services are designed to be responsive to each child's and family's ethnic, cultural, and linguistic heritage.

In the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start, Congress mandated that the United States Department of Health and Human Services determine, on a national level, the impact of Head Start on the children it serves. This legislative mandate required that the impact study address two main research questions:

1. What difference does Head Start make to key outcomes of development and learning (and in particular, the multiple domains of school readiness) for low-income children? What difference does Head Start make to parental practices that contribute to children's school readiness?
2. Under what circumstances does Head Start achieve the greatest impact? What works for which children? What Head Start services are most related to impact?

The Head Start Impact Study addresses these questions by reporting on the impacts of Head Start on children and families during the children's preschool, kindergarten, and first grade years. It was conducted with a nationally representative sample of nearly 5,000 three- and four-year old preschool children across 84 nationally representative grantee/delegate agencies in communities where there are more eligible children and families than can be served by the program. The children participating were randomly assigned to either a treatment group (which had access to Head Start services) or a comparison group (which did not have access to Head Start services, but could receive other community resources). Data collection began in the fall of 2002 and ended in spring 2006, following children through the spring of their first grade year. Baseline data were collected through parent interviews and child assessments in fall 2002. The annual spring data collection included child assessments, parent interviews, teacher surveys, and teacher-child ratings. In addition, during the preschool years only, data collection included classroom and family day care observations, center director interviews, care provider interviews, and care provider-child ratings.

The study examined differences in outcomes in several domains related to school readiness: children's cognitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes (e.g., reading to the child, use of spanking and time out, exposing children to cultural enrichment activities, safety practices, parent-child relationships). It also examined whether impacts differed based on characteristics of the children and their families, including the child's pre-academic skills at the beginning of the study; the child's primary language; whether the child has special needs; the mother's race/ethnicity; the primary caregiver's level of depressive symptoms; household risk; and urban or rural location.

The Head Start Impact Study differs from other evaluations of early childhood programs in that it:

• represents children from the majority of Head Start programs,
• represents a scaled-up federal program,
• represents the full range of quality within the national program,
• employs a randomized control design, the strongest design for testing impacts,
• examines all domains of children's school readiness, as well as parenting outcomes,
• follows children through their early years of elementary school, and
• compares children who have access to Head Start to a control group that includes many children in center-based and other forms of early childhood education programs.

The Office of Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) provides comprehensive data on the services, staff, children, and families served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs nationwide. All grantees and delegates are required to submit PIR for Head Start and Early Head Start Programs. PIR data is compiled for use at the federal, regional, state, and local level.

The PIR collects data on child, staff, and family demographics and program characteristics including data on physical health, mental health, disabilities, and family services. All of this data is aggregated and reported by each program to the Office of Head Start.

These data are being released in BETA version to facilitate early access to the study for research purposes. This collection has not been fully processed by NACDA or ICPSR at this time; the original materials provided by the principal investigator were minimally processed and converted to other file types for ease of use. As the study is further processed and given enhanced features by ICPSR, users will be able to access the updated versions of the study. Please report any data errors or problems to user support and we will work with you to resolve any data related issues.

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually and sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the U.S. Public Health Service. The purpose of the NHIS is to obtain information about the amount and distribution of illness, its effects in terms of disability and chronic impairments, and the kinds of health services people receive across the United States population through the collection and analysis of data on a broad range of health topics. The redesigned NHIS questionnaire introduced in 1997 (see National Health Interview Survey, 1997 [ICPSR 2954]) consists of a core that remains largely unchanged from year to year, plus an assortment of supplements varying from year to year.

The 2010 NHIS Core consists of three modules: Family, Sample Adult, and Sample Child. The datasets derived from these modules include Household Level, Family Level, Person Level, Injury/Poison Episode Level, Injury/Poison Verbatim Level, Sample Adult Level, and Sample Child level.

The 2010 NHIS supplements consist of stand alone datasets for Cancer Level and Quality of Life data derived from the Sample Adult core and Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level derived from the Family core questionnaire. Additional supplementary questions can be found in the Sample Child dataset on the topics of cancer, immunization, mental health, and mental health services and in the Sample Adult dataset on the topics of epilepsy, immunization, and occupational health.

Part 1, Household Level, contains data on type of living quarters, number of families in the household responding and not responding, and the month and year of the interview for each sampling unit. Parts 2-5 are based on the Family Core questionnaire. Part 2, Family Level, provides information on all family members with respect to family size, family structure, health status, limitation of daily activities, cognitive impairment, health conditions, doctor visits, hospital stays, health care access and utilization, employment, income, participation in government assistance programs, and basic demographic information. Part 3, Person Level, includes information on sex, age, race, marital status, education, family income, major activities, health status, health care costs, activity limits, and employment status. Parts 4 and 5, Injury/Poisoning Episode Level and Injury/Poisoning Verbatim Level, consist of questions about injuries and poisonings that resulted in medical consultations for any family members and contains information about the external cause and nature of the injury or poisoning episode and what the person was doing at the time of the injury or poisoning episode, in addition to the date and place of occurrence.

A randomly-selected adult in each family was interviewed for Part 6, Sample Adult Level, regarding specific health issues, the relation between employment and health, health status, health care and doctor visits, limitation of daily activities, immunizations, and behaviors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Demographic information, including occupation and industry, also was collected. The respondents to Part 6 also completed Part 7, Cancer Level, which consists of a set of supplemental questions about diet and nutrition, physical activity, tobacco, cancer screening, genetic testing, family history, and survivorship. Part 8, Sample Child Level, provides information from an adult in the household on medical conditions of one child in the household, such as developmental or intellectual disabilities, respiratory problems, seizures, allergies, and use of special equipment like hearing aids, braces, or wheelchairs.

Parts 9 through 13 comprise the additional Supplements and Paradata for the 2010 NHIS. Part 9, Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level, is a supplemental set of six questions asked at the end of the Family Core questionnaire about sensory, mobility, self-care, cognition, and independent living issues. Part 10, Paradata Level, does not contain health related information, but rather data which are related to the interview process, including measures of time, contact-ability, and cooperation. Please see the User Guide for additional information and details. Part 11, Quality of Life Level, was asked to a randomly selected subsection of the Sample Adult questionnaire. Respondents were asked about participation in society, degree of difficulty and functioning in activity domains including vision, hearing, mobility, upper body, learning, cognition, affect, pain, fatigue, and communication. Part 12, Special Sample Adult Disability Weights Level, contains weights for use with an analysis of the merged data from the Sample Adult Level and Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level. Part 13, Sample Child Birth Weights Level, contains corrected birth weight data for 2010. Please see the Survey Description files for additional information and details.

The California Families Project (CFP) is an ongoing longitudinal study of Mexican origin families in Northern California. This study uses community, school, family, and individual characteristics to examine developmental pathways that increase risk for and resilience to drug use in Mexican-origin youth. This study also examines the impact that economic disadvantage and cultural traditions have in Mexican-origin youth. The CFP includes a community-based sample of 674 families and children of Mexican origin living in Northern California, and includes annual assessments of parents and children. Participants with Mexican surnames were drawn at random from school rosters of students during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school year. Data collection included multi-method assessments of a broad range of psychological, familial, scholastic, cultural, and neighborhood factors. Initiation of the research at age 10 was designed to assess the focal children before the onset of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use, thus enabling the evaluation of how hypothesized risk and resilience mechanisms operate to exacerbate early onset during adolescence or help prevent its occurrence. This study includes a diversity of families that represent a wide range of incomes, education, family history, and family structures, including two-parent and single-parent families.

The accompanying data file consists of 674 family cases with each case representing a focal child and at least one parent (Two-parent: n=549, 82 percent; Single-parent: n=125, 18 percent). Of the 3,139 total variables, 839 pertain to the focal child, 1,376 correspond to the mother, and 908 items pertain to the father.

Please note: While the California Families Project is a longitudinal study, only the baseline data are currently available in this data collection.

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually and sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the U.S. Public Health Service. The purpose of the NHIS is to obtain information about the amount and distribution of illness, its effects in terms of disability and chronic impairments, and the kinds of health services people receive across the United States population through the collection and analysis of data on a broad range of health topics. The redesigned NHIS questionnaire introduced in 1997 (see NATIONAL HEALTH INTERVIEW SURVEY, 1997 [ICPSR 2954]) consists of a Core that remains largely unchanged from year to year, plus an assortment of Supplements varying from year to year.

The 2011 NHIS Core components contain Household, Family, Person, Sample Adult, and Sample Child files. Each record in Part 1, Household Level, contains data on type of living quarters, number of families in the household responding and not responding, and the month and year of the interview for each sampling unit. Part 2, Family Level, is made up of reconstructed variables from the person-level data of the basic module and includes information on sex, age, race, marital status, education, veteran status, family income, family size, major activities, health status, health care costs, activity limits, and employment status, along with industry and occupation. As part of the basic module, Part 3, Person Level, provides information on all family members with respect to health status, limitation of daily activities, cognitive impairment, and health conditions. Also included are variables related to doctor visits, hospital stays, and health care access and utilization. Basic demographic information is provided as well.

A randomly-selected adult in each family was interviewed for Part 4, Sample Adult Level, regarding respiratory conditions, renal conditions, AIDS, joint symptoms, health status, health care and doctor visits, limitation of daily activities, and behaviors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Part 5, Sample Child Level, provides information from an adult in the household on medical conditions of one child in the household, such as developmental or intellectual disabilities, respiratory problems, seizures, allergies, and use of special equipment like hearing aids, braces, or wheelchairs.

Parts 6 through 11 comprise the additional Supplements and Paradata for the 2011 NHIS. Part 6, Injury/Poison Episode, is an episode-based file that contains information about the external cause and nature of the injury or poisoning episode and what the person was doing at the time of the injury or poisoning episode, in addition to the date and place of occurrence. Part 7, Adult Disability Level and Part 8, Child Disability Level, are a supplemental set of six questions asked at the end of the Sample Adult and Sample Child Questionnaires for half of families that did not receive the Family Disability Supplement. These specific disability questions were only asked of the Sample Adult and the Sample Child. Part 9, Family Disability Level, seeks to identify the subpopulation that is at a greater risk than the general population of experiencing restrictions in social participation, for example, restrictions in employment, education, or civic life. Specific questions ask about respondent difficulty performing daily activities, such as dressing, bathing, or walking. Approximately one half of sample adults were selected to receive the Part 10, Adult Functioning and Disability Level Supplement. Questions were asked about a respondent's functioning in various basic and complex activity domains: vision, hearing, mobility, communication, cognition, upper body, affect, pain, and fatigue. This supplement also included questions designed to capture an individual's ability to participate in society. Follow-up questions on the degree of difficulty, use of assistive devices, and functioning with assistance were included for most domains. Part 11, Paradata Level, does not contain health related information, but rather data which are related to the interview process, including measures of time, contact-ability, and cooperation. Please see the User Guide for additional information and details.

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The main objective of the NHIS is to monitor the health of the United States population through the collection and analysis of data on a broad range of health topics.

The NHIS contains many similar questions every year. The repeated items are called "core questions." Beginning with a new NHIS design in 1997, these core questions were divided into three components -- Family, Sample Adult, and Sample Child.

The 2012 NHIS data release consists of six core data files, a paradata file, the three Disability Questions Tests files, a Functioning and Disability file, and two Complementary and Alternative Medicine files. Users may see the Survey Description document for more details.

The 2012 NHIS contains the core questions, as well as enhanced questions on health care access and utilization. Supplemental topics are covered in the following questionnaires: the Family questionnaire covers subjects of food security; the Sample Adult questionnaire covers subjects of immunization, complementary and alternative medicine, non-cigarette tobacco use, voice, speech, and language; and the Sample Child questionnaire covers subjects of mental health, mental health services, immunization, complementary and alternative medicine, balance, voice, speech, and language. Along with the 2012 NHIS core data files are the Disability Questions Tests 2012 files which contain person-level data collected via a field test of six disability questions. These supplemental questions appeared on the NHIS, at the end of the Family, Sample Adult, and Sample Child Cores.

The Disability Questions Tests 2012 files are released as three separate files. A fourth disability supplement was also fielded in 2012 as part of the Sample Adult Core and is called "Adult Functioning and Disability Level."

The Adult and Child Alternative Health Supplement files were intended to expand on knowledge of alternative medical services. Questions focus on how often various types of alternative therapies are used, the associated costs, and the reasons they are used.

Lastly, the Paradata Level file contains information about the survey and data collection processes; included are data on response rates, keystrokes, interview times, and number of contact attempts.

Childhood Adversity and Traumatic Stress among Inpatients at a Psychiatric Hospital in the Baltimore Area from 1993-1995 includes data collected from adult patients at a psychiatric hospital about their experiences and symptoms throughout their lives.

The study sought to address the following research topics:

1. The capacity of childhood family environment (caretaker dysfunction, neglect, perceived social support), violent abuse (physical and sexual), and individual variables (other abuse) to predict adult psychiatric symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociation, and depression.
2. How psychiatric inpatient research participants appraised the level of upset and potential usefulness of research participation related to trauma-focused research interviews.
3. What patterns of gaps in memory are reported across types of abuse (physical, sexual, neglect) and other types of traumatic stress.
4. Whether and how low positive affect is related to specific childhood adversities, including abuse, neglect, caretaker dysfunction, and low childhood social support.

In addition, data from the study were used to develop and validate a self-report measure of traumatic stress symptoms and a brief, structured interview of self-destructiveness.

The data include diagnoses, psychological symptoms, and structured interview responses related to physical and sexual abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, and self-destructive behavior. Age, sex, marital status, race, and socioeconomic status comprise the demographic data.

Objective: To meta-analyze the diagnostic efficiency of checklists for discriminating pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) from other conditions. Hypothesized moderators included (a) informant - we predicted caregiver report would produce larger effects than youth or teacher report; (b) scale content - scales that include manic symptoms should be more discriminating; and (c) sample design - samples that include healthy control cases or impose stringent exclusion criteria are likely to produce inflated effect sizes.

Methods: Searches in PsycINFO, PubMed, and GoogleScholar generated 4094 hits. Inclusion criteria were (1) sufficient statistics to estimate a standardized effect size, (2) age 18 years or less, and (3) at least 10 cases (4) with diagnoses of PBD based on semi-structured diagnostic interview. Multivariate mixed regression models accounted for nesting of multiple effect sizes from different informants or scales within the same sample.

Results: Data included 63 effect sizes from 8 rating scales across 27 separate samples (N=11,941 youths, 1,834 with PBD). The average effect size was g=1.05. Random effect variance components within study and between study were significant, ps<.00005. Informant, scale content, and sample design all explained significant unique variance, even after controlling for design and reporting quality.

Discussion: Checklists have clinical utility for assessing PBD. Caregiver reports discriminated PBD significantly better than teacher and youth self report, although all three showed discriminative validity. Studies using "distilled" designs with healthy control comparison groups, or stringent exclusion criteria, produced significantly larger effect size estimates that could lead to inflated false positive rates if used as described in clinical practice.