Search Results

The Age and Generations Study documented employee and employer outcomes related to the experiences of multi-generational teams in five industry sectors, and examined how the work relationships of these team members might change over time. The five industry sectors included in this collection were retail, pharmaceuticals, finance, health care, and higher education. Various questions focused on the organization and on how the interactions of multi-generational work units affected outcomes for employees in the department/unit, as well as their performance and productivity outcomes. Additionally, the survey requested information on employees' perceptions of their work experience, work that is done by their work groups, opportunities for learning and development, organizational policies, and their assessments of their health and well-being. Demographic variables included gender, birth year, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, number of children, hourly wage, salary, and household income.

The first wave of the Art Museum Director Survey was launched in early 2020. It examined strategy and leadership issues from the perspective of the directors of art museums across the United States. Respondents were asked about their role as museum directors, their strategic priorities and leadership practices, budgeting and resources allocations, current and expected future staffing, their institutions' public trust and engagement with new and existing audiences, collections care and stewardship, their institutions' fiscal health and financial viability, and organizational and talent management. Conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (the survey's closure was on March 30th 2020), the data from the first wave of the survey offer a glimpse into pre-pandemic perspectives and priorities of art museums. Launched in April 2022, the second wave of the Art Museum Director Survey offers insights into the evolving strategies of museums over the past two years, covering governance, leadership, collections, public engagement, staffing, and budgets. It also evaluates shifts in directors' perspectives since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and explores responses to other national and international crises. Demographic variables include respondents' institutions' admission fees, years in their current position, years in the museum sector, their highest degree earned, the position they held prior to their current position as a museum director, the staff size of the museum, and the type of museum (academic or municipal).

These data were gathered on behalf of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, in partnership with the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD). The goal of the survey was to study the representational diversity within art museums through quantitative means. The survey instrument, developed by Ithaka S+R, was administered to directors of AAMD and AAM member art museums. The first cycle of data were collected in 2015 (February-March 2015), the second cycle in 2018 (July-September 2018), and the third cycle in 2022 (February-April 2022). The collected data were sent to researchers at Ithaka S+R, who appended, cleaned and analyzed the data, and presented findings in a public research report. The survey collected demographic and employment data for over 30,000 museum employees. About 27,000 of these are employed at AAMD museums, and approximately 3,000 are from (non-AAMD) AAM member museums. 332 art museums responded to the survey in 2018 and 136 of them also participated in the survey in 2015. The third cycle gathered data from 328 museums in North America between February and April 2022, encompassing records for over 30,000 individuals. The 2018 instrument was slightly expanded to capture additional specifics of the composition of art museum employees. For the third cycle, significant enhancements were made to the survey instrument, particularly in expanding the position and race categories, separating categories such as "Finance" and "Human Resources," as well as "Information Technology" and "Web Development," which were combined in the previous survey. Additionally, new positions such as "Librarian," "Public Engagement," and "Diversity/Equity/Inclusion" were included to better track changes in these areas. The data gathered in the third wave of the study offer valuable insights into the evolving demographics of the museum sector and the pandemic's impact on staffing.

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration. The Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII) study (aka Assessment study) focused on implementing assessment and treatment planning processes. Screening and assessment were used to identify substance abuse-related problems and to develop programming to address the problems so identified. The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve the quality of interagency communication through the effective use of assessment and case planning processes and treatment referrals. Both inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies. Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol. Throughout the study period different subsets of individuals working at correctional facilities and treatment programs at the study sites were asked to complete surveys. During the Baseline period of the study survey data were collected from correctional staff, correctional directors, treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional executives and treatment executives. These data can be found in (DS1-DS12). The executive respondents provided information at the organizational level for the programs they oversaw (DS5, DS6). Next, Needs Assessments were completed by the change teams and their facilitators (DS13-DS14). The change teams and facilitators also responded to surveys on Process Improvement Planning (DS15-DS19). During the Implementation stage, surveys were administered to select substance abuse treatment programs, change team facilitators, change team members and the immediate supervisors of the change team members (DS20-DS27). Selected correctional and treatment staff members (in the Early-Start sites only) were asked to complete Follow-up surveys at the end of the OPII process (DS28-DS33). Staff members who completed surveys also provided demographic data (DS36-DS41). DS42 is a restricted use version of DS41. Change team me,mbers kept track of the time they spent on OPII activities (DS35). Change team success was evaluated by a subset of raters (DS34). Surveys were administered at 21 study sites and there was a total of over 2,700 survey respondents.

Launched on April 28, 2009, Kickstarter is a Public Benefit Corporation based in Brooklyn, New York. It is a global crowdfunding platform that helps to fund new creative projects and ideas through direct support from individuals (backers) from around the world who pledge money to bring these projects and ideas to life. Kickstarter supports many different kinds of projects. Everything from films, games, and music to art, design, and technology. Funding on Kickstarter is based on the all-or-nothing model. Backers who pledge their support towards a particular project won't be charged unless the funding goal has been reached. Successfully funded projects reward their backers with one-of-a-kind experiences, e.g., limited editions, or copies of the creative work being produced. This study includes three datasets: (1) Kickstarter Project (public-use file), (2) Backer Location file, and (3) Kickstarter Project (restricted-use file). The public-use Kickstarter Project dataset contains detailed information about all successful and unsuccessful Kickstarter projects (N=610,015) from 2009-2023, including the project category and subcategory, project location (city, state (for U.S.-based projects), and country), funding goal in original and U.S. currencies, amount pledged in dollars, and the number of backers for each project. The restricted file adds the project title, 150-character project description, and the URL for the project on the Kickstarter site. The Backer Location dataset includes information about backers' country and state and the total amount pledged for each geographic location.

Measuring the Impact of Curation Activities (MICA) was a project undertaken collaboratively between ICPSR and the University of Michigan School of Information from 2019-2023. MICA sought to improve understanding of the data curation process, secondary data usage, and the relationships between the two. The MICA datasets connect records for each of ICPSR's archived research studies to the research publications that use them and related curation activities available for a subset of studies. The datasets are organized around studies and papers as primary entities. The studies table lists ICPSR studies, their metadata attributes, and usage information; the papers table was constructed using the ICPSR Bibliography and Dimensions database; and the curation logs table summarizes the data curation steps performed on a subset of ICPSR studies.

In 2010, the United States Congress authorized the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, which started a major expansion of evidence-based home visiting programs for families living in at-risk communities. MIECHV is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in collaboration with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The authorizing legislation required an evaluation of the program, which became the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE). The evaluation is being conducted for HHS by MDRC with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, the University of Georgia, and Columbia University. MIHOPE was designed to learn whether families benefit from MIECHV-funded early childhood home visiting programs, and if so, how. The study included the four evidence-based models that 10 or more states chose in their initial MIECHV plans in fiscal year 2010-2011: Early Head Start - Home-based option, Healthy Families America, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Parents as Teachers. MIHOPE was the first study to include all of these four evidence-based models. To provide rigorous evidence on the MIECHV-funded programs' effects, the study randomly assigned more than 4,200 families to receive either MIECHV-funded home visiting or information on community services. As is the standard method in studies that use random assignment, the primary analytical strategy in MIHOPE was to compare the outcomes of the entire program group with those of the entire control group. As per the authorizing legislation, the study measured early effects on family and child outcomes in the areas listed below, with the exception of school readiness and academic achievement (which were not included at this point because children were too young to measure those outcomes): Prenatal, maternal, and newborn health Child health and development, including child maltreatment Parenting skills School readiness and child academic achievement Crime and domestic violence Family economic self-sufficiency Referrals and service coordination Videos and Video Metadata: Two sets of videos are included in the MIHOPE restricted access files. They include: Mother-home visitor interactions at 387 home visits and Interactions between child and mother using the "Three Bags" and "Clean-Up" tasks with 2,832 families. The mother-home visitor interaction videos were recorded only for treatment group families at two points in time: the first was, on average, about eight weeks after the family's first home visit and the second was about eight months after the family's first home visit. Overall, 264 families are included in the mother-home visitor interaction videos in total, with 123 of these families recorded at both points in time. The mother-child interaction videos, during which the child and mother play with toys contained in three bags and place the toys back in the bags (the "Three Bags" and "Clean-Up" tasks), were recorded when the 15-month in-home assessments were conducted and are available for 2,832 families in the treatment and control groups. The videos are only linkable to a few pieces of metadata, (home visiting model, video ID, treatment status, and variables indicating whether the family appears in the home visit videos, the three-bag task videos, or both). The videos in the restricted access data are not linkable to any other data included in the restricted access files. Additionally, the videos may only be viewed at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research's on-site Physical Data Enclave in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation-Strong Start (MIHOPE-Strong Start) was a large-scale evaluation that rigorously tested the effectiveness of evidence-based home visiting in improving birth and health outcomes during pregnancy and in the year after birth. Local programs included in the study's analysis implemented one of two evidence-based models: Healthy Families America (HFA) or Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP). These models were chosen because earlier evaluations found some evidence of their having positive impacts on birth outcomes. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) partnered with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to sponsor the study. MIHOPE-Strong Start was part of the CMMI's Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, which evaluated whether enhanced, nonmedical prenatal interventions, when provided in addition to routine medical care, have the potential to improve birth outcomes and reduce health care costs for women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under contract with OPRE, MDRC conducted MIHOPE-Strong Start in collaboration with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, and New York University. The analysis for MIHOPE-Strong Start included 2,899 women and 66 local programs (37 HFA and 29 NFP programs) operating across 17 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. Women were eligible for MIHOPE-Strong Start if they were pregnant and at least 8 weeks from their due date. The MIHOPE-Strong Start analysis included a subset of families and local programs that were recruited for MIHOPE, the national evaluation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program. Specifically, the MIHOPE-Strong Start impact analysis included information on 46 local home visiting programs and 1,845 families that were initially recruited for MIHOPE but met the MIHOPE-Strong Start eligibility criteria. An important distinction between MIHOPE-Strong Start and MIHOPE is that MIHOPE included only programs receiving MIECHV funding, while MIHOPE-Strong Start included both MIECHV and non-MIECHV-funded programs. In both studies, families were randomly assigned either to an evidence-based home visiting program or to a control group who was given information on other services available in the community. The random assignment design was intended to create program and control groups that were similar when women entered the study, so that systematic differences in the outcomes of interest observed between the two groups can be attributed to the home visiting services rather than to the preexisting characteristics of the women.

The goal of this project was to analyze the collaboration between the Urban Institute and Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) to develop a plan to optimize MPD's public surveillance system. This was done through a process and impact evaluation of the MPD's strategy to improve operations, install new cameras, and integrate video analytic (VA) technologies centered around automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) and high-definition cameras connected to gunshot detection technology. The unit of analysis was two neighborhoods in Milwaukee, identified as "focus areas" by the researchers, where VA efforts were intensified. Additionally, all block groups within Milwaukee were included to measure crime before and after intervention, along with all intersections and block groups that received VA technologies against control groups. Variables include crimes based on date and location, along with whether or not locations had VA technologies. The following neighborhood demographic variables were included from the United States Census Bureau: resided in a different home, renters, under age eighteen, black residents, female headed households, public assistance recipients, below poverty line, unemployment, Hispanic residents, and foreign born.

The Arts Engagement Project is a survey of 4,828 undergraduate students conducted at the University of Michigan (U-M) that asked questions about the impacts, precursors, barriers, frequency, and perceptions of co-curricular arts engagement in college. The study followed the students from their entry into the university through their graduation to create a baseline of understanding about the impacts of arts engagement in college at U-M. The Arts Engagement Project data is intended to provide insights for the design of arts-based experiences in higher education, as well as the impacts of the arts on student learning and engagement.

The study was established by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in 2006 with the goals of 1) identifying innovative research-based approaches to address topics of vital concern to the corrections field, 2) evaluating the potential impact of those approaches on corrections practice and policy, and 3) developing strategies for effective dissemination and application of the knowledge gleaned from testing these innovations in real-world corrections settings. Creating a healing environment in corrections, which draws from the theory and research on transformational leadership, organizational culture, and workforce development, represents one such innovative strategy selected by the Norval Morris Project to develop, implement, and test. In 2011, the NIC and the Virginia Department of Corrections (VA-DOC) launched a joint workforce transformation initiative to implement operational practices (e.g., leadership development and coaching, dialogue circles, training on evidence-based practices, etc.) that would create a "healing environment" throughout the VA-DOC. The Healing Environment Initiative (HEI) is designed to foster positive change and growth for both employees and justice-involved people, and ultimately promote safer communities. From 2011-2015, researchers at the Urban Institute (Urban) measured and assessed the influence of the HEI on VA-DOC operations using two main data sources: three waves of a self-administered department-wide online staff survey conducted in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and selected performance indicators. The VA-DOC staff survey measured (1) staff perceptions of what it is like to work for the VA-DOC; (2) workforce knowledge of, involvement in, and support for the HEI; and (3) staff attitudes toward reentry and people incarcerated or under supervision by the VA-DOC. On average, approximately 4,400 staff responded to the survey at each administration. Response rates ranged from 44 percent at Wave 1 to 38 percent at Waves 2 and 3.

The Washington Representatives Study includes information about thousands of organizations involved in Washington D.C. politics, their organizational characteristics including the kinds of interests they represented and the nature of their membership, if any, and the activities they undertook in the pursuit of policy influence. This collection encompasses all organizations listed in the Washington Representatives directories (published by Columbia Books) for 1981, 1991, 2001, 2006, and 2011 as being active in national politics by virtue of either having an office in the D.C. area, or hiring D.C.-area consultants or counsel to represent them. These organizations have been classified into 96 categories based, principally, on the kinds of interests represented. Variables include organization name, membership category, founding year, and main objective, as well as number of lobbyists hired, number of amicus briefs filed, political action committee (PAC) donations made, and web-based lobbying activities.