Search results

Abstract

This position paper formalizes the concept of the Categorical Ceiling Tax (CCT), an interpretive limitation observed in intervention studies that employ quantitative scoring rubrics to classify proficiency levels. The CCT describes a form of structural resistance that occurs when a population mean approaches, but does not cross, a predefined categorical threshold, even when measurable quantitative gains are documented. Using pre–post score data from a one-group design involving the total population of N = 494 Grade 7 students, this paper illustrates how categorical reporting obscured a documented positive mean shift (Δx̅ = +0.20), while the population classification remained at the “Instructional” level. This paper argues that categorical transitions, when interpreted independently, may misrepresent population-level progress in large samples. It further proposes that changes in the deficiency floor—defined as the proportion of learners classified at the Frustration level—be reported as a complementary interpretive indicator alongside categorical outcomes. These observations provide applied insights into the interpretation of outcomes generated through technology-supported assessment and reporting systems commonly used in contemporary educational settings.

Author Biography

Mhel Cedric D. Bendo, College of Business Administration, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Cavite, Philippines

Mhel Cedric D. Bendo is a student researcher specializing in educational psychology, curriculum and instruction, educational measurement and evaluation, psychometrics, and educational technology. He is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. As of 2026, he holds an honorary appointment as an International Editorial Board Member for SIAR Publications, contributing to peer review, editorial guidance, and interdisciplinary journal development. He also serves as an invited peer reviewer for international peer-reviewed journals in online and distance learning, educational technology, educational evaluation, information literacy, interdisciplinary undergraduate research, and health and science education, including journals indexed in Web of Science (ESCI), Scopus (Q1–Q3, SCImago), ERIC, and DOAJ, supporting rigorous and ethically grounded interdisciplinary scholarship.

This multi-method study seeks to understand both the factors that contribute to harm reduction workers' occupational stress and those that mitigate it by pursuing the following aims:

Aim 1:

• Understanding occupational stressors and resilience strategies among this population by using semi-structured qualitative focus groups with leaders and workers in harm reduction organizations within Texas.

Aim 2:

• Stress First Aid (SFA) consultants utilized the feedback from the Aim 1 Qualitative Focus Groups to adapt the SFA content for harm reduction. The second aim of the study was to hold a 3-day in person train-the-trainer training on the SFA adapted materials for leaders and workers in harm reduction in Texas. The training was facilitated by SFA consultants. The goal of this initial SFA train-the-trainer session was to test the feasibility and acceptability of adapted SFA/HRW materials and develop cadre of team support champions.

Aim 3:

• A 4-month Field testing of the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the adapted SFA for leaders and workers in harm reduction. The Field Test included a 2-hour in-person training to introduce SFA concepts and how to use SFA on a day-to-day basis in participant's work life and with coworkers, facilitated by participants in Aim 2 who chose to be champions for the Aim 3 Field Test. Additionally, four virtual monthly learning collaboratives were held as part of the Field Test, designed as monthly touch points to refresh and reinforce the SFA principles and get coaching and feedback around any challenges around using SFA, facilitated by the research study team.
• Evaluating the adapted SFA materials and intervention. Reaction interviews were conducted with 13 participants to supplement the surveys.

This study assessed and evaluated the programmatic implementation of alternate light source (ALS) use during the examination of injuries among adult victims of sexual violence and intimate partner violence (IPV) in a hospital setting. Researchers selected two forensic nursing departments, one with no experience using ALS in clinical practice (Site A) and one with 10+ years' experience (Site B), and conducted a thorough contextual analysis of each site to 1. develop an evidence-based ALS implementation program for forensic nursing departments and 2. evaluate the feasibility of this ALS implementation program.

Contextual analysis involved the collection of qualitative data through structured focus groups with nurses and quantitative data using 6-months of de-identified forensic medical records from patients who received a medical forensic exam for reported (or suspected) sexual assault or IPV. Nurses were recruited to the study upon completing an anonymous survey about their prior knowledge of ALS, qualifications or certifications related to ALS, workplace team dynamics, and organizational support for changes in practice using the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment [ORCA]. This Nurse Survey Data and aforementioned Medical Record Data are currently available for secondary users, and qualitative interview transcripts will be made available in a future update.

This study was a longitudinal extension that examined trajectories of adult offending in a sample of women who participated in a randomized intervention trial aimed at reducing conduct problems and delinquency during adolescence. In the original study, girls ages 13 to 17 who had been referred for out-of-home placement due to chronic delinquency were randomly assigned to participate in services as usual (group care; GC) or in Treatment Foster Care Oregon (TFCO), previously known as Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care. TFCO is an evidence-based intervention designed as an alternative to residential care or incarceration for juvenile justice-involved adolescents and has been found to be effective in reducing youth delinquency, deviant peer affiliation, adolescent pregnancy, as well as longer term effects in reducing young adult criminal involvement, depression, suicidality, and substance use problems. The current study further evaluated outcomes in this sample of women at least six years after the last follow-up by examining trajectories of offending and involvement with the criminal justice system, health-risking behaviors, trauma, and long-term health outcomes, including biological indicators.

The Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence Act was enacted in 2018 to improve school safety by providing grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes in the United States. Under this legislation, the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) was allocated $50 million per year to dedicate to grants for mental health and violence prevention training and education for school personnel and students, as well as the development or enhancement of threat assessment systems and crisis response teams. In the first two years, 2018 and 2019, 43 and 85 grantees were awarded funding for STOP programs, respectively. In 2020, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded funding to researchers to study the implementation of the first STOP programs. A cross-disciplinary team of researchers from the University of South Florida Child and Family Studies Department and the College of Education received an NIJ grant to study the STOP programs from the first two years of the grant program.

The research questions guiding this study were:

1. How have diverse stakeholders (e.g., school administrators, school-based and community mental health professionals, teachers, student and families, law enforcement/SROs, policymakers) been involved in the various stages of implementation?
2. How have violence prevention and mental health training programs reflected community needs?
3. What are the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing violence prevention and mental health training programs across grantee sites?
4. How do various components of the implementation process contribute to satisfaction with implementation at different stages among stakeholders?
5. What measures are in place to evaluate and inform continuous implementation processes, and where do opportunities and needs exist for incorporating feedback to strengthen overall implementation?

This mixed-methods study included a cross-site survey and a case study analysis. The cross-site survey was sent to representatives from 128 grantee U.S. agencies who were involved in implementing programs or training from STOP grants (final n=90 respondents). Questions in the survey asked about implementation factors, barriers and facilitators to implementation, the capacity of schools at each site to address mental health, satisfaction of the implementation process, and how COVID-19 has impacted the implementation of STOP programs. There was also an opportunity to share open feedback. This survey was administered in July 2021 and in July 2022. The case study was an in-depth analysis of a smaller sample of grantee agencies. The researchers conducted stakeholder interviews, meeting observations, and document review to gain insights on participant experiences with implementation of STOP programs and what social, political, and cultural factors may have affected implementation.

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.

This study was one of three modules in a larger study designed to define, identify, and disseminate information about best practice physical activity programming in community-based organizations. The National Council on the Aging (NCOA), together with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), conducted Module 1, a national competition for NCOA Awards for Excellence in Physical Activity Programming. The purpose of the competition was to bring national attention to best practice in physical activity programming operated by local public or non-profit organizations that serve older adults. NCOA was assisted in this endeavor by the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), the Healthy Aging Research Network of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers, and a variety of nationally known physical activity experts. Module 2 was a census of physical activity programs for older adults that was conducted in seven locations by Healthy Aging Research Network. Module 3 was this National Impact Study, a study of best practice programming at three community-based organizations serving older adults. It was designed to answer the research question, "Do best practice physical activity programs provided by community-based organizations have a measurable impact on the health and well being of participants?" The three studied organizations were among the ten winners of the best practice competition.

Data were collected from previously sedentary, volunteer participants from each of the three organizations. The goal was to enroll 250 older adults at each site for a total of 750 subjects across the three programs. At each site, one half of all subjects (n = 125) were to be assigned to the treatment group and the other half to a control group. Subjects in the treatment group participated in the best practice program classes while the control group could enroll in other exercise classes but not the best practice program classes. The subjects were to be interviewed three times: baseline, three months, and nine months. Each interview contained two parts: (1) the administration of health and exercise related questions and (2) the administration of four physical fitness tests that assessed the respondent's strength, flexibility and aerobic endurance. Background information collected by the survey includes age, education, employment status, marital status, income, race, and Hispanic origin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships (EHS-CCP) datasets contains data from two studies: (1) the 2016 National Descriptive Study (the NDS), which collected information about the 2015 EHS-CC Partnerships grantees and their child care partners (including child care centers and family child care providers) and the activities they engaged in to develop and maintain partnerships and meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards, assess their quality improvement needs, and support high quality caregiving and learning environments for infants and toddlers; and (2) the 2022 EHS-CCP Sustainability Study (the Sustainability Study), a follow-up study of the 2016 NDS, which collected information about how partnerships from the first round of grants had fared as of 2022 and factors that supported or impeded partnership sustainability. Both studies were conducted by Mathematica.

The NDS collected data through web-based surveys of grantee directors and a sample of child care directors and family child care providers. The Sustainability Study collected data using web-based surveys of EHS program directors and child care providers in sustained and dissolved partnerships. It also collected qualitative data using semi-structured interviews to provide more in-depth information from purposively selected providers in sustained and dissolved partnerships. (Both NDS and Sustainability Study analyses of EHS programs are conducted at the grant level, with information about partnerships between providers and any delegate agencies rolled up to the level of the EHS-CCP grant. The term "program" is used in the Sustainability Study. Previously, in the NDS, "grantee" was used to refer to the same level of analysis.)

The responses to the survey of grantees and their delegate agencies produced three NDS datasets. The first dataset, Partnership Grantee and Delegate Agency Director Survey, contains data from a survey of Early Head Start grantees and their delegate agencies. This dataset contains questions answered by the grantee or delegate agencies about themselves and contains one observation per grantee. Datasets two and three are also associated with the grantee and delegate agency survey. The second dataset, Grantee and Delegate Agencies Partner Characteristics, contains responses to the initial survey from the grantee or delegate regarding characteristics of all of their child care partners. This dataset was used to create a random sampling of approximately 20 percent of the child care partners for additional questions as well as a separate Child Care Partner survey, which were used to create both datasets three and four. Dataset three, Grantee and Delegate Agencies Randomly Sampled Partner Characteristics, contains responses from grantee and delegate agencies regarding the partners identified by the random sampling created from dataset two. The second survey conducted by Mathematica was of these selected child care partners, and dataset four, Child Care Partner Survey, is comprised of responses to questions asked of the child care partners about themselves. Demographic information contained in these datasets includes education level, degree field, length of occupation, and occupation.

The Sustainability Study examined how partnerships from the first round of grants had fared as of 2022 and factors that supported or impeded partnership sustainability. The Sustainability Study also looks at features of sustained partnerships (partnerships from the NDS that were still in place at the time of the Sustainability Study) as well as active partnerships (which include sustained partnerships as well as those that are new since the NDS, and regardless of whether they are funded through an EHS-CC Partnerships grant).

There are four Sustainability Study data files. Two program director survey files (one at the program level, and one at the provider level, for information about individual child care providers reported by the program director), one child care provider survey file, and one file containing transcripts of semi-structured interviews with dissolved and sustained partnership providers.

Citation

Skidmore, S., Clochard, A., Carlson, B., Doran, E., Cannon, J., Bernstein, S., Albanese, S., Del Grosso, P., and Xue, Y. (2023). Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships Sustainability Study Data Documentation. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles, beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherence to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions. Treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity, tested outcomes (primarily recidivism), and estimated costs.

1,504 individuals who met eligibility criteria for HOPE were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Phases of the study included a process evaluation with fidelity analysis, outcomes evaluation, and cost evaluation. Data collection activities included site visits, documentation review, stakeholder interviews, procuring administrative records, conducting interviews for probationers at three different timepoints (baseline, 6 months, 12 months), drug testing oral swabs, and a weekly telephone-based interview with a subset of probationers to assess attitudinal changes.

This collection contains data from the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering [MSF-IP]. The MSF-IP is an evaluation of a grant program funded by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to promote or sustain healthy relationships and to strengthen families in which a father was incarcerated or otherwise involved with the criminal justice system (e.g., recently released or on parole or probation). From 2006-2011, grantees were required to serve justice-involved fathers and their committed partners with services to promote healthy marriage; they were also permitted to provide activities to support parenting and foster economic stability.

The MFS-IP evaluation was funded to document program implementation and the impact of programming on outcomes such as relationship quality and stability, parenting and co-parenting, family financial well-being, and recidivism. This collection includes data from the impact study, conducted across five grantees: the Indiana Department of Correction, the RIDGE Project (Ohio), the New Jersey Department of Corrections, the Osborne Association (New York), and the Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice. The collection includes de-identified interview data for 1,991 men and 1,482 intimate and co-parenting partners.

The interviews took place from December 2008 through August 2014. Couples were first interviewed during the male partner's incarceration (with the timing of baseline interviews not related to the man's admission or release date in most sites) and then interviewed again nine and 18 months after baseline. In the two largest sites (Indiana and Ohio), an additional 34-month follow-up interview was conducted. The interviews were similar in content at each interview wave and for the male and female interviews, but differed based on male partner's trajectory of incarceration and release over the follow-up period.

Topics within this collection include demographics, personal characteristics and attitudes, criminal history and behavior, incarceration experiences (including family contact during incarceration), program and service receipt, expectations for release, family structure and functioning, intimate relationship quality, parenting and co-parenting quality, child well-being, employment, housing, substance use, and experiences with reentry.

Since 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has funded sites to engage in reforms intended to improve the national response to sexual assault cases. The goals of this initiative are to (1) create a coordinated community response that ensures just resolution to unsubmitted sexual assault kit (SAK) cases through a victim-centered approach and (2) build jurisdictions' capacity to prevent the development of conditions that lead to high numbers of unsubmitted sexual assault kits. Site efforts to address these issues include agencies such as law enforcement, prosecution, forensic laboratories, and victim advocacy service organizations. Westat was awarded a contract by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to assess components of BJA's Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI). The study includes (1) an evaluability assessment of 17 sites to determine their readiness for an evaluation, (2) a process evaluation and system reform assessment of the 17 sites, (3) a feasibility assessment of using case level data for an outcome evaluation, and analysis of a subset of unsubmitted SAK cases to identify how characteristics of incidents, offenders, and victims are associated with case processing decisions and outcomes, and (4) development of a long-term outcome evaluation plan.

Two sources of data are archived with NAJCD: (1) coded qualitative data from primarily on-site interviews the Westat Team conducted in 2018 with stakeholders from 17 of the fiscal year (FY) 2015 SAKI grantees and 2 private lab facilities and 2) quantitative case-level data from the 2 FY 2015 SAKI grantees on SAKI cases associated with previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits that were determined to contain foreign DNA or biological evidence through laboratory testing. The interview data file contains coded data from 172 interviews the research team conducted with one or more agency representatives regarding their organization's goals, strategies, and activities for processing sexual assault kits, and associated lessons learned, challenges, and expected outcomes. The quantitative case-level data file includes case-level information on 576 sexual assault kits determined to have DNA and associated cases included in the 2 sites' SAKI inventories. The case-level data captures information on case or offense-level information (e.g., date of offense, date offense reported to police, number of victims and suspects involved, investigation and prosecution activities), victim-level information (e.g., victim age, sex, race, participation in investigation), and suspect-level information (e.g., suspect's age, race, sex, criminal history).

Discipline in schools is typically disproportionate, reactive and punitive. Evidence-based strategies that have been recently developed focus on shifting schools to a more proactive and positive approach by detecting warning signs and intervening early. This project evaluates the implementation of an evidence-based intervention to improve students' mindsets and feelings of school belonging. This grant-funded project was designed to enhance school capacity to implement a Tier 2 intervention, Student Engagement and Empowerment (SEE), to improve student attendance, behavior, and achievement, while simultaneously evaluating the effects of this intervention. The intervention and research project were individualized to fit existing school operations in the school district. A grant-funded coach supported delivery of SEE at each school for the duration of the 3-year grant. SEE was delivered by trained teachers in the classroom over the course of a seven-session curriculum. The overarching project goal was to scale up and simultaneously evaluate a Tier 2 intervention that could be sustained after completion of the grant.

The originally proposed research procedures consisted of an evaluation of the effects of the SEE program on the outcomes of students at elevated risk for disciplinary action and school dropout. Outcome data was collected for at-risk students in classrooms delivering the SEE program, and a comparison sample of at-risk students in classrooms not delivering the SEE program. Researchers initially hypothesized that students receiving the program would evidence a greater sense of belonging to school, endorse greater growth mindset, have better attendance and fewer suspensions/expulsions and course failure, and have better behavioral outcomes than students in the comparison group.

Funded by the National Institute of Justice, and in collaboration with the Flippen Group, the South Carolina Department of Education, and the districts of Charleston, Georgetown, Greenville, and Richland County Schools, WestEd conducted a randomized controlled trial of violence prevention and a school climate improvement program known as Capturing Kids' Hearts Campus by Design (CKH).

CKH is a skill intensive, systematic process, whole-school intervention, designed to strengthen students' connectedness to school through enhancing protective factors (strong bonds with teachers, clear rules of conduct that are consistently enforced) and targeting modifiable risk factors (inappropriate behavior, poor social coping skills). The CKH training program aims to address the mechanisms and processes of social skills instruction that lead to improved student behavior by promoting skills acquisition (i.e., modeling, coaching, and behavioral rehearsal), enhancing skills performance, removing competing behavior, and facilitating maintenance of social skills.

Components of CKH have been widely used throughout the United States. As of 2013, CKH training has been offered to over 200,000 staff in more than 7,000 schools. Although widely used, the whole package of CKH training and service has not been sufficiently subjected to a rigorous evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the program.

The purpose of this study is to test and evaluate the Capturing Kids' Hearts package of programs and processes offered in the school-wide model, CKH Campus by Design, which includes Capturing Kids' Hearts, Process Champions-Plus, Campus TrAction Pacs, Teen Leadership, CKH Recharged, and Leadership Blueprint.

The cross-site evaluation of the Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) was a seven-site study designed to 1) describe the implementation and sustainability of each AORDP project through a process evaluation, 2) determine the per capita program costs of each AORDP project through a cost study, and 3) determine the effectiveness of the programs through a multicomponent outcome study. The seven evaluation sites were located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The objectives of the outcome evaluation were to determine the effects of program participation on recidivism and other outcomes and assess whether program participation increased engagement in services, including substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The outcome evaluation consisted of two components:

1. Cross-site prospective study designed to collect longitudinal survey data with a sample of program participants and appropriate comparison or control subjects to assess the impact of the SCA funding on access to services and reentry outcomes, such as substance use, employment, housing, and health.

2. Site-specific recidivism analyses using administrative data to assess the impact of AORDP program participation on recidivism outcomes for all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site

The Wisconsin School Violence and Bullying Prevention Study sought to understand the impact of comprehensive bullying prevention programs on outcomes related to violence, safety, and bullying rates. This study focused on 24 middle schools (grades 6 to 8) in Wisconsin.

To examine the effectiveness of the school's current anti-bullying program, the Bullying Prevention Program Assessment tool (BPPAT) was completed at the end of the school year. The BPPAT focused on administrative policy and procedures geared towards students, faculty, parents, or administrators. This tool examined the following items: policy and procedures, program implementation, staff training, parental education and communication, student training, reporting systems, and continuous quality improvement (CQI). Students and faculty were given surveys to determine bullying rates and perceptions of school safety. The school safety survey was given to all students concerning their bullying victimization and perception of school safety. This survey contains the following demographic variables: age, sex, grade, and race. The verified bullying incident data contains incident reporting from faculty, which focused on the type of bullying and the demographics of the perpetrator and victim. After new bullying prevention programs were implemented, students were given the safety and bullying victimization survey which focused on perceptions of bullying and school safety.

The number of bullying incidents, number of student victims and perpetrators, and the demographic characteristics of victims and perpetrators were retained in aggregate form for each school were submitted to the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) for analysis.

Many schools have implemented programs to address bullying, such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), or broader school behavioral issues, such as School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), but there have been calls to integrate school interventions in order to address the limits of each "stand alone" program. The purpose of this project was to develop an intervention combining OBPP and SWPBIS strategies into one integrated program, evaluate its effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial (RCT), analyze the program's cost effectiveness, and examine the use of school-based mental health services in elementary, middle, and high school settings. Implications for policy and strategy are also discussed.

School-level data were presented including disciplinary incidents, student and teacher attendance, program costs, and the presence of mental health services. Students and teachers within intervention and control conditions were surveyed about their perceptions of bullying, school safety, and school climate. Teachers in intervention schools were asked about program satisfaction, self-efficacy, and fidelity. Students were asked numerous questions pertaining to physical and mental health, bullying perpetration and victimization, and substance abuse. Teachers and students were asked their grade, gender, and race.

The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluations surveyed 150 youth to examine the role of trauma and violence on justice-involved lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning/unsure or asexual (LGBTQA) and gender non-conforming youth (GNC).

Youth were surveyed and administrative human services and juvenile justice data were also analyzed. The correctional staff were surveyed with an organizational self-assessment on employee perceptions of trauma-informed practices and policies. A subset of youth (N = 60) were interviewed using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire Revised Version 2 (JVQ-R2) and the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) tool to assess trauma and victimization.

This survey also collected demographic information as well as the participants' history of harassment, bullying, suspension, expulsion, housing arrangements, and foster care involvement.

How is the process of radicalization understood over time? Do current radicalization to violence differ from earlier waves? How can these understandings be utilized to prevent radicalization to violence and--equally important--understand the reach and impact of programs designed to do so? The overall goal of this project was to pursue the following aims:

• Aim 1: To understand how adversity and social bonds relate to changes in openness to violent extremism over time.
• Aim 2: To evaluate experience and perception of, and the effectiveness of, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) activities.
• Aim 3: To evaluate mechanisms of change in violent extremism.
• Aim 4: To understand similarities/ differences in experiences and/or histories of Somali youth who joined Al-Shabab vs. those known to have been killed in Syria, fighting with ISIS and other terrorist groups.

The above aims were accomplished through extending an ongoing longitudinal research program to span 5 years, and expanding a psychological autopsy sample to include Somali youth who have left Minneapolis and been killed fighting with ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria. Data collection for the longitudinal study consisted of conducting an additional wave of structured interviews with Somali youth (between the ages of 21-33); interviews included assessments of structural adversity (resettlement hardships, trauma exposure, and discrimination), social factors (connection to the resettlement community and/or Somali diaspora community, internet use, and level of acculturation) delinquency, gang involvement, civic engagement, and support for legal and illegal (violent) actions in support of political change. The researchers used latent transition analysis (LTA), generalized estimating equation modeling, and linear regression modeling to accomplish Aims 1-3. Aim 4 was accomplished by using a combination of open source data analysis, psychological autopsy and case analysis methodology. The researchers expanded our current in-depth case studies of Somali youth who left Minneapolis to join al-Shabaab (N = 23, males aged 22-30) to include those who joined ISIS or Al-Nusra (N=4, males aged 18-29). Research questions associated with Aim 4 were analyzed using a psychological autopsy method of developing case histories. Case histories were coded for themes and analyzed for convergence or divergence with case histories of youth who joined Al-Shabab. Scholarly products include manuscripts in journals relevant to criminal justice, policy briefs, and interim and final reports. This project builds on partnerships between Boston Children's Hospital, Somali communities, and Georgia State University.

The Early Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES) is a nationally representative descriptive study of Early Head Start. The first cohort of Baby FACES was fielded in 2009-2012. It used a longitudinal design and followed two age cohorts of children (newborns and 1-year-olds) through their time in Early Head Start. Baby FACES was redesigned in 2015 to employ a repeated cross-sectional approach to provide a comprehensive snapshot of Early Head Start with a nationally representative sample of programs, centers, home visitors, teachers/classrooms, and enrolled families, children of all age groups, and pregnant women in Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Regions I through X. Using the cross-sectional design, the second cohort of Baby FACES was fielded in the spring of 2018 (Baby FACES 2018) and a third is planned for spring of 2020 (Baby FACES 2020). Baby FACES 2018 and 2020 have a particular focus on the processes in the classrooms/home visits that support responsive relationships, including teacher-child relationships, staff-parent relationships, and parent-child relationships. These studies address the overarching research question: How do Early Head Start services support infant/toddler growth and development in the context of nurturing, responsive relationships?

In 2012, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched a demonstration field experiment, the Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP) and Evaluation to examine: (1) the use of an "advocacy" role for mentors; and (2) the use of a teaching/information provision role for mentors. The overall goal of MEDP was to develop program models that specified what advocacy and teaching look like in practice and to understand whether encouraging the general practice of advocacy and teaching could improve youth outcomes. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted a rigorous process and outcome evaluation of programs funded by OJJDP in 2012. The evaluation was designed to rigorously assess the effectiveness of programs that agreed to develop and implement enhanced practices incorporating advocacy or teaching roles for mentors, including providing focused prematch and ongoing training to mentors, and providing ongoing support to help mentors carry out the targeted roles.

MEDP grantees comprised collaboratives that would offer coordinated implementation of the same set of program enhancements in three or four separate established and qualified mentoring programs located within the same regional area. The MEDP collaboratives varied widely in their geographical locations, their size and experience in mentoring, and the structure of their mentoring programs. The types and structures of mentoring programs also varied across, and sometimes within, collaboratives. All the collaboratives proposed enhancements in the way they would train mentors for their roles, and in the way they would provide ongoing support to the mentors and in some cases the youth that they were matched with.

This data collection consists of multiple types of respondents (youth, parents, mentors, and staff) across multiple data collection periods.

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.

Bullying affects large numbers of U.S. students in elementary schools and is associated with short and long-term harms for both victims and bullies. Although prevention is critical, schools also need effective interventions for dealing with bullying once it occurs. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, and in collaboration with the Oakland Unified School District and No Bully, WestEd conducted a two-year study of the impacts of the No Bully System (NBS) - a set of interventions designed to activate adult and peer support systems within the school for the targets of bullying. No Bully trains staff to prevent and interrupt student harassment and bullying and ensure school-wide antibullying policies are in place. The core component of NBS is the Solution Team where a trained adult facilitator (Solution Coach) brings together a group of 6-8 students (Solution Team) that includes the bully or bullies, bystanders and pro-social peers, and leads the team through a series of three brief meetings to end the bullying of one of their peers by cultivating empathy and developing peer-driven solutions. The target is not included in the initial meetings though s/he is invited to attend the final session.

The collection contains 2 SPSS data files: NoBully_ST-Log-Data_final_archive.sav (n=94; 47 variables) and No-Bully_Survey-Data_final.sav (n=6410; 204 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 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.

This study examined the implementation of a pilot parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG). Drs. Caleb Lloyd and Ralph Serin developed the NG model with funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the National Institute of Corrections developed the NG curriculum for parole officers to implement. The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the implementation of NG in three study sites: Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Des Moines, Iowa.

This mixed-methods study focused on understanding how NG was implemented as it was piloted in the three sites, and assessed NG-trained parole officers' fidelity to the NG model. In order to better understand NG's implementation and the business as usual practices it was intended to replace, the study also included a second group of parole officers who were not trained in NG. The groups were not randomly assigned. Data collected for this study included interview data, parole officer questionnaires related to concepts of the NG curriculum, coaching logs providing measures of whether officers received coaching and its frequency, video recordings of parole supervision meetings, and parole caseload data.

Demographic variables included as part of this collection are parole officers' age and sex, and site location. The data collection includes 3 SAS data files:

• Parole officer-level data (archive_raf170831_po): Includes 31 cases and 26 variables.
• Video-level data (archive_raf170831_video): Includes 241 cases and 15 variables.
• Questionnaire-level data (archive_raf180719_tests): Includes 50 cases and 8 variables.

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.

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.

This study evaluates the impacts of re-entry programs developed by seven grantees awarded funds under the Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Demonstration Program to reduce recidivism by addressing the challenges faced by adults returning to their communities after incarceration.

The collection contains 3 SAS data files: admin30.sas(n=966; 111 variables), MIS.sas(n=606; 48 variables), and survey.sas(n=789; 273 variables) and 1 SAS syntax file.

This study sought to evaluate the functional independence in children at a Centers for Pediatric Rehabilitation Teleton (CRIT) facility in Guanajuato, Mexico through the use of the WeeFIM Instrument (0-3 Module). The dataset in this collection was generated in May 2013 from electronic health records for secondary analysis of de-identified data. The goal of CRIT, that this research sought to evaluate, was to improve social integration for children with disabilities in Mexico through comprehensive rehabilitation services, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, neurotherapy, speech therapy, physical and rehabilitation medicine, psychology, social integration, and school for parents.

The collection includes one dataset (35 variables, 5,993 cases). Demographic variables included in the collection: Age, gender, and city of residence.

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.