Search Results

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.

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: The Standing Against Global Exploitation Everywhere (SAGE) Project The Salvation Army Trafficking Outreach Program and Intervention Techniques (STOP-IT) program The Streetwork Project at Safe Horizon The goals of the evaluation were to document program implementation in the three programs, identify promising practices for service delivery programs, and inform delivery of current and future efforts by the programs to serve this population. The evaluation examined young people served by the programs, their service needs and services delivered by the programs, the experiences of young people and staff with the programs, and programs' efforts to strengthen community response to trafficked youth.

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: What are the characteristics of Head Start programs, including structural characteristics and program policies and practices? What are the characteristics and observed quality of Head Start classrooms? What are the characteristics and qualifications of Head Start teachers and management staff? Are the characteristics of programs, classrooms, and staff changing over time? What are the demographic characteristics and home environments of children and families who participate in Head Start? Are family demographic characteristics and aspects of home environments changi,ng over time? How do families make early care and education decisions? What are the experiences of families and children in Head Start? 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? What gains do children make during a year of Head Start? Are children's school readiness skills (average skills or average gains in skills) improving over time? Does classroom quality vary by characteristics of classrooms, teachers, or programs? What characteristics of programs, teachers, or classrooms are associated with aspects of classroom quality? Do the school readiness skills of children in fall and spring and their gains in skills vary by child, family, program, and classroom characteristics? 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 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: What do family engagement efforts look like in Head Start? How are families engaged in Head Start and in their children's learning and development at home and in the community? What staff are involved in family engagement efforts, and in what ways are they involved in those efforts? How are comprehensive family services provided in Head Start? How do parents and staff characterize their relationships and interactions with one another? 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: 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? What are the experiences of families and children in the Head Start program? How have they changed? 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? What are the qualifications of Head Start teachers in terms of education, experience, and credentials? Are average teacher education levels rising in Head Start? 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?,tm> The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2014 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices. Appendix A - Elements Of The FACES Design And Key Measures Used (And Child Outcomes Captured): FACES 1997 - FACES 2014 Appendix B - Copyright Permissions Appendix C - Instrument Content Matrices Appendix D - Instruments Appendix E - Spring 2015 Center/Program Codebook Appendix F - Spring 2015 Classroom/Teacher Codebook Appendix G - 2014-2015 Child Codebook Appendix H - Spring 2015 Family Engagement Family Service Staff Interview Codebook Appendix I - Spring 2015 Family Engagement Parent Interview Codebook Appendix J - Spring 2017 Center/Program Codebook Appendix K - Spring 2017 Classroom/Teacher Codebook Appendix L - Descriptions of Constructed/Derived Variables Appendix M - Synthetic Estimation for Child Growth Across Two Years

The focus of this study is on the relationship between participants in a mentoring program for youths at risk and program staff. A motive for this study is to determine the existence of a genuine long-term impact between these two groups. Although numerous mentoring programs argue that there are benefits to their existence, there had been previously little data to justify these claims. This study contains a mixture of statistical data and qualitative information.

The Oklahoma School Readiness Reach-by-Risk Report 2015 serves as the second publication in the series and updates data published in 2014. The Report is intended to provide policy makers and other early childhood education stakeholders with the most current data available on multiple school readiness risk factors across multiple domains, and the reach of services provided in each of the state's 77 counties. This Report is a continued effort to highlight counties whose children are at the greatest risk of starting kindergarten unprepared to learn, and counties that are underrepresented in terms of quality early childhood education and child care services. This report is divided into two main sections, Risk and Reach. The Risk section consists of an analysis of nine socioeconomic and demographic indicators found by empirical research to increase a county's risk for poor school preparedness. The Reach section assesses the county-level service density of six early childhood programs and services designed to contribute to the cognitive and social-emotional development of young children. This Report provides current data on factors that place children at risk of being unprepared for school compared to the reach of several services and programs that promote school readiness. New for 2015 is the analysis of changes in risk and reach classifications between 2014 and 2015, including risk rank percentile changes.

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 State of Preschool Yearbook is annual review of access to, quality standards in, and resources devoted to state-funded preschool programs for 3- and 4-year-old children in the 54 programs in 40 states and the District of Columbia providing such programs, based on a survey of administrators of state-funded preschool programs. This edition of data covers the 2011-2012 school year, and accompanies the 2012 State of Preschool Yearbook.

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: 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? Are there certain program characteristics, types, or genres that are ineffective at producing meaningful changes in students' cyberbullying behaviors? Are there additional characteristics of the primary studies' methodologies, measurements, or samples that significantly and meaningfully moderate the intervention effect size? Do the programs have an impact on secondary outcomes, such as traditional bullying perpetration and student achievement?