Search results

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study examined adolescent sexual assault survivors' help-seeking experiences with the legal and medical systems in two Midwestern communities that have different models of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)/Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) interventions.

In Dataset 1 (Qualitative Victim Interviews), investigators conducted qualitative interviews with N=20 adolescent sexual assault victims 14-17 years old. From these interviews, investigators identified three distinct patterns of survivors' post-assault disclosures and their pathways to seeking help from SANE programs and the criminal justice system: voluntary (survivors' contact with the legal and medical system was by their choice), involuntary (system contact was not by choice), and situational (circumstances of the assault itself prompted involuntary disclosure). Interviews included responses that described the assault, their experience with both the SANE/SART programs and the criminal justice system, and victim and offender demographic information.

In Dataset 2 (SANE Programs Quantitative Data), investigators obtained SANE program records, police and prosecutor records, and crime lab findings for a sample of N=395 (ages 13-17) adolescent sexual assault victims who sought services from the local SANE programs in two different counties. The data collected examined victim's progress through the criminal justice system. Factors that could potentially affect case progression were also examined; age of victim, relationship to offender, assault characteristics, number of assaults on victim, and evidence collected. Differences between the two different counties' programs were also examined for their effect on the case progression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ELMC Study collected data to describe the objectives, activities, approaches, strategies, and other aspects of the Early Learning Mentor Coach (ELMC) initiative from the perspectives of Head Start grantees, coaches, and staff. In October 2010, the funds to support the ELMC initiative were distributed to 130 Head Start grantees in 42 states and the District of Columbia for a seventeen month period. Grantees used the funds to hire coaches to provide on-the-job guidance, training, mentoring and technical assistance to Head Start staff. The grant recipients reflected the diversity of Head Start programs, including Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and American Indian and Alaskan Native Head Start grantees. Data was collected using a mixed-methods design (qualitative and quantitative) and the following data collection instruments: a grantee census survey; a coach census survey; coach telephone interviews; and staff telephone interviews with staff who received coaching. At this time, only the quantitative data are available via ICPSR.

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 was a process evaluation of three programs funded by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to identify and provide services to victims of sex and labor trafficking who are U.S citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPR) under the age of 18. The three programs evaluated in this study were:

1. The Standing Against Global Exploitation Everywhere (SAGE) Project
2. The Salvation Army Trafficking Outreach Program and Intervention Techniques (STOP-IT) program
3. The Streetwork Project at Safe Horizon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Head Start REACH: Strengthening Outreach, Recruitment, and Engagement Approaches with Families (HS REACH) project included a mixed-methods study to understand recruitment, selection, and enrollment approaches that Head Start programs use to engage Head Start-eligible families, including those experiencing adversities.

The dataset in this release included a large, purposive sample of 60 Head Start programs across 15 geographic areas. The sample included program directors, staff with primary responsibility for eligibility, recruitment, selection, enrollment, and attendance (ERSEA), parents and caregivers who participate in the Head Start programs, and community organizations that Head Start programs partner with to recruit, select, and enroll families.

The Heard Start REACH project was designed to answer the following research questions:

1. How do Head Start programs and their partners support family recruitment, selection, and enrollment, especially among families with different adversities or demographic characteristics and different community contexts?
2. What factors shape Head Start program practices, and how do they differ across families with different adversities and demographic characteristics and across different community contexts?
3. What are Head Start families' perceptions of and experiences with Head Start recruitment, selection, and enrollment? How do experiences differ across families with different adversities and demographic characteristics and across different community contexts?
4. What factors shape families' recruitment, selection, and enrollment experiences? How do those experiences differ across families with different adversities and demographic characteristics and across different community contexts?
5. What Head Start recruitment, selection, and enrollment practices are most promising with families, including families with different adversities or demographic characteristics and different community contexts?

Users should note that while the mixed-methods study did include qualitative transcripts, the transcripts are not included in the release to protect respondents' privacy.

These replication files contain all extracts from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) used in the paper "Self-Targeting in U.S. Transfer Programs." No other code or data files are provided here. See the paper's main replication kit.

The Public Libraries Survey (PLS) provides statistics on the status of public libraries in the United States. It is a voluntary survey conducted annually by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 survey is the 25th in the series.

The data files include all public libraries identified by state library administrative agencies in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The reporting unit for the survey is the administrative entity, defined as the agency that is legally established under local or state law to provide public library service to the population of a local jurisdiction.

For Fiscal Year 2013, IMLS collected the following information via a web-based survey for the PLS:

• Library Data - Data on each public library, such as its name and address, population of legal service area, service outlets, collections, full-time-equivalent staff, and operating revenue and expenditures State characteristics data, including the reporting period starting and ending dates, the state total population estimate, and the total unduplicated population of legal service areas for the state. These data are contained in dataset 1 and include 9,309 records; 9,290 were public libraries and 19 were administrative entities that closed in or temporarily closed for FY 2012.
• State Data - Each state library agency reported these data on the "State Characteristics" record because they are not library-level data. These data are in dataset 2 and include 56 records, one for each state and outlying area.
• Outlet Data - Data on each public library service outlet, such as its name and address, type, county location, metropolitan status, square footage, public service hours per year, and number of weeks a library outlet is open. These data are in dataset 3 and include 17,554 total records, 17,463 are public library service outlets (central, branch, bookmobile, and books-by-mail-only outlets). The remaining 91 records are outlets that closed or temporarily closed for FY 2012.

This data collection is useful to researchers, journalists, the public, and policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels. These data are used by federal, state and local officials, professional associations, and local practitioners for planning, evaluation, and policy making.

The Public Libraries Survey (PLS) provides statistics on the status of public libraries in the United States. It is a voluntary survey conducted annually by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 survey is the 26th in the series.

The data files include all public libraries identified by state library administrative agencies in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The reporting unit for the survey is the administrative entity, defined as the agency that is legally established under local or state law to provide public library service to the population of a local jurisdiction. In this survey, the term public library means an administrative entity.

For Fiscal Year 2014, IMLS collected the following information via a web-based survey for the PLS:

• Library Data - Data on each public library, such as its name and address, population of legal service area, service outlets, collections, full-time-equivalent staff, and operating revenue and expenditures. State characteristics data, including the reporting period starting and ending dates, the state total population estimate, and the total unduplicated population of legal service areas for the state. These data are contained in dataset 1 and include 9,305 records; 9,295 were public libraries and 10 were administrative entities that closed or temporarily closed for FY 2014.
• State Data - Each state library agency reported these data on the "State Characteristics" record because they are not library-level data. These data are in dataset 2 and include 56 records, one for each state and outlying area.
• Outlet Data - Data on each public library service outlet, such as its name and address, type, county location, metropolitan status, square footage, public service hours per year, and number of weeks a library outlet is open. These data are in dataset 3 and include 17,566 total records, 17,492 are public library service outlets (central, branch, bookmobile, and books-by-mail-only outlets). The remaining 74 records are outlets that closed or temporarily closed for FY 2014.

This data collection is useful to researchers, journalists, the public, and policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels. These data are used by federal, state and local officials, professional associations, and local practitioners for planning, evaluation, and policy making.

The Public Libraries Survey (PLS) provides statistics on the status of public libraries in the United States. It is a voluntary survey conducted annually by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 survey is the 27th in the series.

The data files include all public libraries identified by state library administrative agencies in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the outlying areas of American Samoa and Guam. The reporting unit for the survey is the administrative entity, defined as the agency that is legally established under local or state law to provide public library service to the population of a local jurisdiction. In this survey, the term public library means an administrative entity.

For Fiscal Year 2015, IMLS collected the following information via a web-based survey for the PLS:

• Library Data - Data on each public library, such as its name and address, population of legal service area, service outlets, collections, full-time-equivalent staff, and operating revenue and expenditures. State characteristics data, including the reporting period starting and ending dates, the state total population estimate, and the total unduplicated population of legal service areas for the state. These data are contained in dataset 1 and include 9,251 records; 9,231 were public libraries and 20 were administrative entities that closed or temporarily closed for FY 2015.
• State Data - Each state library agency reported these data on the "State Characteristics" record because they are not library-level data. These data are in dataset 2 and include 53 records, one for each state and outlying area.
• Outlet Data - Data on each public library service outlet, such as its name and address, type, county location, metropolitan status, square footage, public service hours per year, and number of weeks a library outlet is open. These data are in dataset 3 and include 17,408 total records. The file includes identifying information and a few basic data items for public library service outlets (central, branch, bookmobile, and books-by-mail-only outlets). The file includes 17,328 outlets in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 8 outlets in the outlying areas, and 72 records for outlets that were reported as closed or were temporarily closed for FY 2015.

This data collection is useful to researchers, journalists, the public, and policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels. These data are used by federal, state and local officials, professional associations, and local practitioners for planning, evaluation, and policy making.

The Public Libraries Survey (PLS) is a voluntary census of public libraries conducted annually by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, 2017, and 2018 surveys are the 28th, 29th, and 30th in the series, respectively. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) served as the data collection agent for all three surveys.

The PLS data files include all public libraries identified by state library administrative agencies in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the outlying territories of American Samoa and Guam. The Northern Mariana Islands participated in FY 2017 and FY 2018, and the U.S. Virgin Islands participated in FY 2018. The reporting unit in each state or territory for the survey is the administrative entity (AE), defined as the agency that is legally established under local or state law to provide public library service to the population of a local jurisdiction. In this survey, the terms public library and public library system mean an AE. The AE may have a single outlet or multiple outlets. The term "outlet" refers to a library point of service, which may be a physical building, bookmobile, or a books-by-mail provider. Each PLS collected the following information:

• Data from each public library, such as its name and address, population of legal service area, service outlets, collections, full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff, and operating revenue and expenditures (see Appendix F). These data were reported in the AE record.
• State characteristics data, including the state total population estimate, the total unduplicated population of legal service areas for the state, and the state's reporting period start and end dates (see the survey questionnaire in Appendix F, items 100-103). Each state library administrative agency reported these data in the state characteristics record because they are not library-level data.
• Data from each public library service outlet, such as its name and address, type, county location, square footage, public service hours per year, and number of weeks it is open (see Appendix F). These data were reported in the outlet record.

This data collection is useful to researchers, journalists, the public, and policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels. These data are used by federal, state and local officials, professional associations, and local practitioners for planning, evaluation, and policy making.

The Public Libraries Survey (PLS) is an annual survey of U.S. public libraries. Policymakers and practitioners depend on PLS data to allocate funding and strategically manage libraries. Academics rely on PLS data to conduct original research about public libraries. Data in the PLS come from over 17,000 outlets, and it represents a "gold standard" for national information about public libraries. While the PLS is an invaluable resource for the public library community, other organizations collect data that extends the reach and significance of the PLS.

This dataset extends the PLS using information from the Public Library Association (PLA), the Association of Bookmobile and Outreach Services (ABOS), and the U.S. Census Bureau. PLA data comes from Project Outcome, a free toolkit and online resource for public libraries to document the outcomes associated with public library services. Since 2015, Project Outcome has collected more than 390,000 responses to surveys at 2,200+ libraries in the U.S. and Canada describing the outcomes resulting from library services. The standardized surveys used by Project Outcome have enabled libraries to aggregate their outcome data and analyze trends by topic, type, and program. ABOS data comes from a 2023 national, non-representative survey of public libraries regarding their outreach departments, services, and vehicles. Census data is from the American Community Survey and provides demographic information regarding the geographies that public libraries serve.

As part of an Institute of Museum and Library Services grant, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research curated these data for reuse and mapped them to libraries in the PLS. The result is a combined dataset that documents the impact of library programming and outreach on nationwide communities. To enhance these data, a committee led by the University of Missouri, School of Information Science and Learning Technologies identified supplemental variables (e.g., Census demographic figures) and guided data curation by creating a "data module" specifying curation enhancements.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a comprehensive, research-based framework of recommended practices for integrating police into the educational environment. This research tested use of a multi-faceted school-based law enforcement (SBLE) framework to determine how the framework contributes to multiple outcomes. The objectives for this study were to: (1) implement a randomized controlled trial to test a comprehensive framework for SBLE involving 25 middle and high schools; (2) assess the impacts of this framework on student victimization and delinquency, use of exclusionary discipline practices (e.g., suspension, expulsion), school climate measures, and student-officer interactions; and (3) disseminate tangible findings that can immediately be translated into practice and further research in schools nationwide.

The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) funded agencies to develop programs to improve criminal justice, employment, education, health, and housing outcomes for released prisoners. SVORI was a goal-oriented initiative that specified outcomes that should be achieved by programs that were developed locally. The original Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI funded under NIJ grant 2004-RE-CX-0002 included a quasi-experimental impact evaluation to determine the effectiveness of programming. Specifically, the purpose of the impact evaluation was to determine whether individuals who participated in enhanced reentry programming, as measured by their enrollment in SVORI programs, had improved post-release outcomes than comparable individuals who did not participate in SVORI programming. Impact evaluation data collection for both SVORI and non-SVORI participants consisted of four waves of in-person, computer-assisted interviews and oral swab drug tests conducted in conjunction with two of the follow-up interviews. The research team collected data on a total of 2,391 individuals including 1,697 adult males (Part 1), 357 adult females (Part 2), and 337 juvenile males (Part 3). As part of the impact evaluation, experienced RTI field interviewers conducted pre-release interviews with offenders approximately 30 days before release from prison and a series of follow-up interviews at 3, 9, and 15 months post-release. These data provided information on criminal history and recidivism occurring by December 31, 2007. The Adult Males Data (Part 1), Adult Females Data (Part 2), and the Juvenile Males Data (Part 3) each contain the same 5,566 variables from the 3 waves of offender interviews, 10 drug test lab results variables, and 3 weight variables. (Note: Some interview questions were only asked of adults, and other questions were only asked of juveniles.) Offender interview variables include demographics, housing, employment, education, military experience, family background, peer relationships, program operations and services, physical and mental health, substance abuse, crime and delinquency, and attitudes toward those topics.

Under NIJ Grant 2009-IJ-CX-0010, the original Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI data were updated in order to examine the questions of, "What works, for whom, and for how long?" This included follow-up interview questions of those previously (and currently still) incarcerated. New variables derived from data collected under the original SVORI impact evaluation between 2004 and 2007 were also added to Part 3. Part one included an additional 100 variables, part two an additional 102 variables and part 3 an additional 99 variables.

The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is a longitudinal survey that provides comprehensive information about income and assistance program participation of individuals and households in the United States. The survey collects data and measures changes in characteristics like economic well-being, family dynamics, education, assets, health insurance, child care, and food security.

SIPP data tables provide wealth and debt measures at the nation and state levels. National estimates offer detailed wealth and debt statistics for a variety of demographic, social and household characteristics. These measures include information on major contributors to wealth such as home equity and retirement accounts, as well as common types of debt such as vehicle debt, credit card debt and student loans. The state-level data highlight household net worth estimates at the state level broken down by selected asset and debt categories.

Arts and Entertainment industries tracked by SIPP:

• 8561. Performing Arts Companies
• 8562. Spectator Sports
• 8563. Promoters of performing arts, sports, and similar events, agents and managers for artists, athletes, entertainers, and other public figures
• 8564. Independent artists, writers, and performers
• 8570. Museums, art galleries, historical sites, and similar institutions

The SIPP also contains measures of whether one's children take lessons after school (ELESSON), attend religious services or events (ERELIG), or play on a sports team (ESPORT) in the Child Well-being subtopic area.

The data are accompanied by supporting materials such as data dictionaries, an online codebook and an updated users' guide. For more information about SIPP data available through ICPSR, see the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) Series.

This study is driven by the hypothesis that intervention and prevention programs to address violence and bullying in general, and cyberbullying in particular, can affect students' cyberbullying perpetration and victimization outcomes. Cyberbullying can occur throughout a student's day via various information and communication technologies. Thus, school administrators, teachers, and researchers have a unique opportunity to implement prevention programs that will, in addition to reducing toxic behavior, increase students' academic achievement, attendance, and rates of high school graduation. The researchers used meta-analytic techniques, such as combining all available effect sizes using robust variance estimation, to determine program effects. Specifically, the team answered the following questions:

1. What is the overall impact of anti-cyberbullying, traditional anti-bullying, anti-violence, and school-climate intervention and prevention programming on cyberbullying perpetration and victimization?
2. Are there certain program characteristics, types, or genres that are ineffective at producing meaningful changes in students' cyberbullying behaviors?
3. Are there additional characteristics of the primary studies' methodologies, measurements, or samples that significantly and meaningfully moderate the intervention effect size?
4. Do the programs have an impact on secondary outcomes, such as traditional bullying perpetration and student achievement?