There were approximately 18.58 million college students in the U.S. in 2022, with around 13.49 million enrolled in public colleges and a further 5.09 million students enrolled in private colleges. The figures are projected to remain relatively constant over the next few years.

What is the most expensive college in the U.S.? The overall number of higher education institutions in the U.S. totals around 4,000, and California is the state with the most. One important factor that students – and their parents – must consider before choosing a college is cost. With annual expenses totaling almost 78,000 U.S. dollars, Harvey Mudd College in California was the most expensive college for the 2021-2022 academic year. There are three major costs of college: tuition, room, and board. The difference in on-campus and off-campus accommodation costs is often negligible, but they can change greatly depending on the college town.

The differences between public and private colleges Public colleges, also called state colleges, are mostly funded by state governments. Private colleges, on the other hand, are not funded by the government but by private donors and endowments. Typically, private institutions are  much more expensive. Public colleges tend to offer different tuition fees for students based on whether they live in-state or out-of-state, while private colleges have the same tuition cost for every student.

This dataset provides information about 2007 Endowment figures across Colleges and Universities in the World (mainly in the United States). The Study was conducted by NACUBO. Results are also listed for 2006 and percentage change has also been listed between the two years. Locations are mapped by the lat/lon coordinates of the institution. More information on the study can be found at http://www.nacubo.org/ The National Endowment Study is the largest and longest running annual survey studying the endowment holdings of higher education institutions and their foundations. Information is collected and calculated on behalf of NACUBO by TIAA-CREF. Seven hundred and eighty-five (785) institutions in the United States and Canada participated in the 2007 NES, which is the largest number in the 35-year history of the study and the seventh consecutive year of record-breaking participation since NACUBO began its partnership with TIAA-CREF in 2000. NACUBO, (National Association of College and University Business Officers) founded in 1962, is a nonprofit professional organization representing chief administrative and financial officers at more than 2,100 colleges and universities across the country. NACUBOs mission is to promote sound management and financial practices at colleges and universities. Data was accessed on 1/23/2008 http://www.nacubo.org/Images/All%20Institutions%20Listed%20by%20FY%202007%20Market%20Value%20of%20Endowment%20Assets_2007%20NES.pdf

This poverty rate data shows what percentage of the measured population* falls below the poverty line. Poverty is closely related to income: different “poverty thresholds” are in place for different sizes and types of household. A family or individual is considered to be below the poverty line if that family or individual’s income falls below their relevant poverty threshold. For more information on how poverty is measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (the source for this indicator’s data), visit the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty webpage.

The poverty rate is an important piece of information when evaluating an area’s economic health and well-being. The poverty rate can also be illustrative when considered in the contexts of other indicators and categories. As a piece of data, it is too important and too useful to omit from any indicator set.

The poverty rate for all individuals in the measured population in Champaign County has hovered around roughly 20% since 2005. However, it reached its lowest rate in 2021 at 14.9%, and its second lowest rate in 2023 at 16.3%. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) data shows fluctuations between years, given their margins of error, none of the differences between consecutive years’ estimates are statistically significant, making it impossible to identify a trend.

Poverty rate data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Age.

*According to the U.S. Census Bureau document “How Poverty is Calculated in the ACS," poverty status is calculated for everyone but those in the following groups: “people living in institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes), people in military barracks, people in college dormitories, living situations without conventional housing, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old."

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (25 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

Percentage of the population aged 0 to 24 in low income, by age group and type of living arrangement. This table is included in Section A: A portrait of the school-age population: Low income of the Pan Canadian Education Indicators Program (PCEIP). PCEIP draws from a wide variety of data sources to provide information on the school-age population, elementary, secondary and postsecondary education, transitions, education finance and labour market outcomes. The program presents indicators for all of Canada, the provinces, the territories, as well as selected international comparisons and comparisons over time. PCEIP is an ongoing initiative of the Canadian Education Statistics Council, a partnership between Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada that provides a set of statistical measures on education systems in Canada.

NOTE: As of 2/16/2023, this page is no longer being updated. This table shows the number and percent of people that have initiated COVID-19 vaccination and are fully vaccinated by race / ethnicity and town. It includes people of all ages. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. A person who has received at least one dose of any vaccine is considered to have initiated vaccination. A person is considered fully vaccinated if they have completed a primary series by receiving 2 doses of the Pfizer, Novavax or Moderna vaccines or 1 dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The fully vaccinated are a subset of the number who have received at least one dose. Race and ethnicity data may be self-reported or taken from an existing electronic health care record. Reported race and ethnicity information is used to create a single race/ethnicity variable. People with Hispanic ethnicity are classified as Hispanic regardless of reported race. People with a missing ethnicity are classified as non-Hispanic. People with more than one race are classified as multiple race. A vaccine coverage percentage cannot be calculated for people classified as NH Other race or NH Unknown race since there are not population size estimates for these groups. Data quality assurance activities suggest that NH Other may represent a missing value. Vaccine coverage estimates in specific race/ethnicity groups may be underestimated as result of the exclusion of records classified as NH Unknown Race or NH Other Race. Town of residence is verified by geocoding the reported address and then mapping it a town using municipal boundaries. If an address cannot be geocoded, the reported town is used. Town-level coverage estimates have been capped at 100%. Observed coverage may be greater than 100% for multiple reasons, including census denominator data not including all individuals that currently reside in the town (e.g., part time residents, change in population size since the census) or potential data reporting errors. The population denominators for these town- and age-specific coverage estimates are based on 2014 census estimates. This is the most recent year for which reliable town- and age-specific estimates are available. (https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Town-Population-with-Demographics). Changes in the size and composition of the population between 2014 and 2021 may results in inaccuracy in vaccine coverage estimates. For example, the size of the Hispanic population may be underestimated in a town given the reported increase in the size of the Hispanic population between the 2010 and 2020 censuses resulting in inflated vaccine coverage estimates. The 2014 census data are grouped in 5-year age bands. For vaccine coverage age groupings not consistent with a standard 5-year age band, each age was assumed to be 20% of the total within a 5-year age band. However, given the large deviation from this assumption for Mansfield because of the presence of the University of Connecticut, the age distribution observed in the 2010 census for the age bands 15 to 19 and 20 to 24 was used to estimate the population denominators. This table does not included doses administered to CT residents by out-of-state providers or by some Federal entities (including Department of Defense, Department of Correction, Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Indian Health Service) because they are not yet reported to CT WiZ (the CT immunization Information System). It is expected that these data will be added in the future. Caution should be used when interpreting coverage estimates for towns with large college/university populations since coverage may be underestimated. In the census, college/university students who live on or just off campus would be counted in the college/university town. However, if a student was vaccinated while study

This data originates from the Public Health Outcomes tool currently presents data for available indicators for upper tier local authority levels, collated by Public Health England (PHE). The data currently published here are the baselines for the Public Health Outcomes Framework, together with more recent data where these are available. The baseline period is 2010 or equivalent, unless these data are unavailable or not deemed to be of sufficient quality. The first data were published in this tool as an official statistics release in November 2012. Future official statistics updates will be published as part of a quarterly update cycle in August, November, February and May. The definition, rationale, source information, and methodology for each indicator can be found within the spreadsheet. Data included in the spreadsheet: 0.1i - Healthy life expectancy at birth0.1ii - Life Expectancy at 650.1ii - Life Expectancy at birth0.2i - Slope index of inequality in life expectancy at birth based on national deprivation deciles within England0.2ii - Number of upper tier local authorities for which the local slope index of inequality in life expectancy (as defined in 0.2iii) has decreased0.2iii - Slope index of inequality in life expectancy at birth within English local authorities, based on local deprivation deciles within each area0.2iv - Gap in life expectancy at birth between each local authority and England as a whole0.2v - Slope index of inequality in healthy life expectancy at birth based on national deprivation deciles within England0.2vii - Slope index of inequality in life expectancy at birth within English regions, based on regional deprivation deciles within each area1.01i - Children in poverty (all dependent children under 20)1.01ii - Children in poverty (under 16s)1.02i - School Readiness: The percentage of children achieving a good level of development at the end of reception1.02i - School Readiness: The percentage of children with free school meal status achieving a good level of development at the end of reception1.02ii - School Readiness: The percentage of Year 1 pupils achieving the expected level in the phonics screening check1.02ii - School Readiness: The percentage of Year 1 pupils with free school meal status achieving the expected level in the phonics screening check1.03 - Pupil absence1.04 - First time entrants to the youth justice system1.05 - 16-18 year olds not in education employment or training1.06i - Adults with a learning disability who live in stable and appropriate accommodation1.06ii - % of adults in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation1.07 - People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness1.08i - Gap in the employment rate between those with a long-term health condition and the overall employment rate1.08ii - Gap in the employment rate between those with a learning disability and the overall employment rate1.08iii - Gap in the employment rate for those in contact with secondary mental health services and the overall employment rate1.09i - Sickness absence - The percentage of employees who had at least one day off in the previous week1.09ii - Sickness absence - The percent of working days lost due to sickness absence1.10 - Killed and seriously injured (KSI) casualties on England's roads1.11 - Domestic Abuse1.12i - Violent crime (including sexual violence) - hospital admissions for violence1.12ii - Violent crime (including sexual violence) - violence offences per 1,000 population1.12iii- Violent crime (including sexual violence) - Rate of sexual offences per 1,000 population1.13i - Re-offending levels - percentage of offenders who re-offend1.13ii - Re-offending levels - average number of re-offences per offender1.14i - The rate of complaints about noise1.14ii - The percentage of the population exposed to road, rail and air transport noise of 65dB(A) or more, during the daytime1.14iii - The percentage of the population exposed to road, rail and air transport noise of 55 dB(A) or more during the night-time1.15i - Statutory homelessness - homelessness acceptances1.15ii - Statutory homelessness - households in temporary accommodation1.16 - Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons1.17 - Fuel Poverty1.18i - Social Isolation: % of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would like1.18ii - Social Isolation: % of adult carers who have as much social contact as they would like1.19i - Older people's perception of community safety - safe in local area during the day1.19ii - Older people's perception of community safety - safe in local area after dark1.19iii - Older people's perception of community safety - safe in own home at night2.01 - Low birth weight of term babies2.02i - Breastfeeding - Breastfeeding initiation2.02ii - Breastfeeding - Breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks after birth2.03 - Smoking status at time of delivery2.04 - Under 18 conceptions2.04 - Under 18 conceptions: conceptions in those aged under 162.06i - Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds - 4-5 year olds2.06ii - Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds - 10-11 year olds2.07i - Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in children (aged 0-14 years)2.07i - Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in children (aged 0-4 years)2.07ii - Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in young people (aged 15-24)2.08 - Emotional well-being of looked after children2.09i - Smoking prevalence at age 15 - current smokers (WAY survey)2.09ii - Smoking prevalence at age 15 - regular smokers (WAY survey)2.09iii - Smoking prevalence at age 15 - occasional smokers (WAY survey)2.09iv - Smoking prevalence at age 15 years - regular smokers (SDD survey)2.09v - Smoking prevalence at age 15 years - occasional smokers (SDD survey)2.12 - Excess Weight in Adults2.13i - Percentage of physically active and inactive adults - active adults2.13ii - Percentage of physically active and inactive adults - inactive adults2.14 - Smoking Prevalence2.14 - Smoking prevalence - routine & manual2.15i - Successful completion of drug treatment - opiate users2.15ii - Successful completion of drug treatment - non-opiate users2.16 - People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment2.17 - Recorded diabetes2.18 - Admission episodes for alcohol-related conditions - narrow definition2.19 - Cancer diagnosed at early stage (Experimental Statistics)2.20i - Cancer screening coverage - breast cancer2.20ii - Cancer screening coverage - cervical cancer2.21i - Antenatal infectious disease screening – HIV coverage2.21iii - Antenatal Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Screening - coverage2.21iv - Newborn bloodspot screening - coverage2.21v - Newborn Hearing screening - Coverage2.21vii - Access to non-cancer screening programmes - diabetic retinopathy2.21viii - Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening2.22iii - Cumulative % of the eligible population aged 40-74 offered an NHS Health Check2.22iv - Cumulative % of the eligible population aged 40-74 offered an NHS Health Check who received an NHS Health Check2.22v - Cumulative % of the eligible population aged 40-74 who received an NHS Health check2.23i - Self-reported well-being - people with a low satisfaction score2.23ii - Self-reported well-being - people with a low worthwhile score2.23iii - Self-reported well-being - people with a low happiness score2.23iv - Self-reported well-being - people with a high anxiety score2.23v - Average Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) score2.24i - Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over2.24ii - Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over - aged 65-792.24iii - Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over - aged 80+3.01 - Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution3.02 - Chlamydia detection rate (15-24 year olds)3.02 - Chlamydia detection rate (15-24 year olds)3.03i - Population vaccination coverage - Hepatitis B (1 year old)3.03i - Population vaccination coverage - Hepatitis B (2 years old)3.03iii - Population vaccination coverage - Dtap / IPV / Hib (1 year old)3.03iii - Population vaccination coverage - Dtap / IPV / Hib (2 years old)3.03iv - Population vaccination coverage - MenC3.03ix - Population vaccination coverage - MMR for one dose (5 years old)3.03v - Population vaccination coverage - PCV3.03vi - Population vaccination coverage - Hib / Men C booster (5 years)3.03vi - Population vaccination coverage - Hib / MenC booster (2 years old)3.03vii - Population vaccination coverage - PCV booster3.03viii - Population vaccination coverage - MMR for one dose (2 years old)3.03x - Population vaccination coverage - MMR for two doses (5 years old)3.03xii - Population vaccination coverage - HPV3.03xiii - Population vaccination coverage - PPV3.03xiv - Population vaccination coverage - Flu (aged 65+)3.03xv - Population vaccination coverage - Flu (at risk individuals)3.04 - People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection3.05i - Treatment completion for TB3.05ii - Incidence of TB3.06 - NHS organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan3.07 - Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to health protection incidents and emergencies4.01 - Infant mortality4.02 - Tooth decay in children aged 54.03 - Mortality rate from causes considered preventable4.04i - Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases4.04ii - Under 75 mortality rate from cardiovascular diseases considered preventable4.05i - Under 75 mortality rate from cancer4.05ii - Under 75 mortality rate from cancer considered preventable4.06i - Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease4.06ii - Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease considered preventable4.07i - Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease4.07ii - Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory disease considered preventable4.08 - Mortality

This dataset shows the number of people enrolled in various levels of school, according to where they live. The data is part of the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and is the result of a cooperative effort between various groups including the State Departments of Transportation, U.S. Census Bureau, and the Federal Highway Administration. The data is a special tabulation of responses from households completing the decennial census long form. The data was collected in 2000 and is shown at tract level.

This dataset shows the number of people enrolled in various levels of school, according to where they live. The data is part of the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and is the result of a cooperative effort between various groups including the State Departments of Transportation, U.S. Census Bureau, and the Federal Highway Administration. The data is a special tabulation of responses from households completing the decennial census long form. The data was collected in 2000 and is shown at tract level. This data can be found at http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Fields.asp?Table_ID=1341.

"Enrollment counts are based on the October 31 Audited Register for the 2017-18 to 2019-20 school years. To account for the delay in the start of the school year, enrollment counts are based on the November 13 Audited Register for 2020-21 and the November 12 Audited Register for 2021-22. * Please note that October 31 (and November 12-13) enrollment is not audited for charter schools or Pre-K Early Education Centers (NYCEECs). Charter schools are required to submit enrollment as of BEDS Day, the first Wednesday in October, to the New York State Department of Education." Enrollment counts in the Demographic Snapshot will likely exceed operational enrollment counts due to the fact that long-term absence (LTA) students are excluded for funding purposes. Data on students with disabilities, English Language Learners, students' povery status, and students' Economic Need Value are as of the June 30 for each school year except in 2021-22. Data on SWDs, ELLs, Poverty, and ENI in the 2021-22 school year are as of March 7, 2022. 3-K and Pre-K enrollment totals include students in both full-day and half-day programs. Four-year-old students enrolled in Family Childcare Centers are categorized as 3K students for the purposes of this report. All schools listed are as of the 2021-22 school year. Schools closed before 2021-22 are not included in the school level tab but are included in the data for citywide, borough, and district. Programs and Pre-K NYC Early Education Centers (NYCEECs) are not included on the school-level tab. Due to missing demographic information in rare cases at the time of the enrollment snapshot, demographic categories do not always add up to citywide totals. Students with disabilities are defined as any child receiving an Individualized Education Program (IEP) as of the end of the school year (or March 7 for 2021-22). NYC DOE "Poverty" counts are based on the number of students with families who have qualified for free or reduced price lunch, or are eligible for Human Resources Administration (HRA) benefits. In previous years, the poverty indicator also included students enrolled in a Universal Meal School (USM), where all students automatically qualified, with the exception of middle schools, D75 schools and Pre-K centers. In 2017-18, all students in NYC schools became eligible for free lunch. In order to better reflect free and reduced price lunch status, the poverty indicator does not include student USM status, and retroactively applies this rule to previous years. "The school’s Economic Need Index is the average of its students’ Economic Need Values. The Economic Need Index (ENI) estimates the percentage of students facing economic hardship. The 2014-15 school year is the first year we provide ENI estimates. The metric is calculated as follows: * The student’s Economic Need Value is 1.0 if: o The student is eligible for public assistance from the NYC Human Resources Administration (HRA); o The student lived in temporary housing in the past four years; or o The student is in high school, has a home language other than English, and entered the NYC DOE for the first time within the last four years. * Otherwise, the student’s Economic Need Value is based on the percentage of families (with school-age children) in the student’s census tract whose income is below the poverty level, as estimated by the American Community Survey 5-Year estimate (2020 ACS estimates were used in calculations for 2021-22 ENI). The student’s Economic Need Value equals this percentage divided by 100. Due to differences in the timing of when student demographic, address and census data were pulled, ENI values may vary, slightly, from the ENI values reported in the School Quality Reports. In previous years, student census tract data was based on students’ addresses at the time of ENI calculation. Beginning in 2018-19, census tract data is based on students’ addresses as of the Audited Register date of the g

As the need for energy grows, so does the cost and the environmental risks. One of the great energy solutions is wind energy. This dataset illustrates the top 20 wind energy potential states in billions of kWhs for wind classes of 3 and higher. Source: American Wind Energy Association URL: http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Wind_Energy_An_Untapped_Resource.pdf Date Accessed: November 19, 2007

Abstract

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) funded a two-year Threshold Country Program (TCP) to increase girls' educational attainment in Burkina Faso through the construction of schools and complementary interventions. The program, locally known as BRIGHT, was implemented in 132 rural villages throughout the 10 provinces of Burkina Faso in which girls' enrollment rates were lowest. The BRIGHT program consisted of constructing primary schools with three classrooms and implementing a set of interventions that included inputs such as separate latrines for boys and girls; canteens; take-home rations and textbooks; and ?soft? components, such as a mobilization campaign, literacy training, and capacity building among local partners. The program was implemented during 2005 to 2008.

Mathematica Policy Research was contracted to conduct a rigorous impact evaluation of the program. The evaluation assessed whether and the extent to which the program affected the school enrollment and performance of children in the 132 villages where BRIGHT was implemented. 2 As part of the Burkina Faso Girls' Education Impact Evaluation, Mathematica oversaw data collection from rural households and schools in that country.

Overview of the Evaluation

The impact evaluation sought to answer three key questions:

(1) What was the impact of the program on school enrollment?

(2) What was the impact of the program on test scores?

(3) Were the impacts different for girls than for boys?

Summary of Results

In general, the main conclusions are that BRIGHT had about a 20 percentage point positive impact on girls’ primary school enrollment, and had positive impacts on Math and French test scores for both girls and boys. The evaluator was unable to separately estimate the impact of each component of the intervention (schools, textbooks, etc.)

Analysis unit

Individuals, Households, School.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample frame comprised all households within the 293 villages that applied to the program, including all of the villages in the study's participant and comparison groups. Data collectors, however, were unable to locate two villages, probably because the spelling of the village names on the application did not match village names found by the data collectors-perhaps due to dialect differences or misspellings. As a result, the survey included 291 villages, of which 132 were participant villages and 159 were comparison villages. [Note: The analysis file excludes four additional villages. Two were excluded because they were the only villages that applied for the program from their department and thus were not eligible for the analysis used. The other two villages were excluded because no data were reported for them. Therefore the dataset includes data on 287 villages.]

HOUSEHOLD SAMPLING

In each village located, interviewers conducted a census of households to develop a village-level sampling frame. Households in the study are defined as groups of people living together (in a common physical space), working together under the authority of a person called head of household, and taking their meals together or from the same supply of food. The members of a household must have lived together in this fashion during at least 9 of the previous 12 months. During the census, interviewers identified households with school-age girls (5- to 12-years old) and collected information about the household's access to beasts of burden.

Following the census, the households with school-age girls became the sample frame, and 30 of these households were randomly selected to be surveyed in each village. The sampling frame at the village level was stratified by access to beasts of burden, a proxy for wealth. Three strata were identified: households that owned at least one beast of burden, households that did not own a beast of burden but had access to one, and households that neither owned nor had access to a beast of burden. Under the hypothesis that means of production are positively correlated with income, the University of Ouagadougou suggested the above stratification method to ensure a representative household sample. From each stratum, interviewers selected 10 households to be surveyed. For each stratum, interviewers wrote the name of each head of an eligible household on a piece of paper, placed the pieces of paper in a hat, and then drew 10 names. The process was conducted publicly in each village.

SCHOOL SAMPLING

School data was collected using different sampling techniques for Wave 1 and Wave 2. For Wave 1, interviewers asked village elders to name all the schools, if any, that children from that village attended regularly. Interviewers then selected the up to three schools closest to the village center, within 10 kilometers, as the schools to be surveyed for that village. [Note: This strategy could have introduced sampling bias if villages had children attending more than three schools, and different types of schools were systematically located closer to village centers; however, in 98.7% of villages with any children attending school, only one or two schools were named. ]Data were collected from more than 300 schools.

For Wave 2, interviewers used the household data as the starting point. From the 8,491 completed household surveys, children were identified as currently attending 367 schools. Of those, 316 were attended by three or more children in the sample. Of those, schools that were within 10 kilometers of the children's village were targeted for interview. Data from more than 280 schools were obtained, and matched with 7,316 of the children in the sample.

Wave 1 school data were also matched with children in the household sample. Data from 270 schools were matched with more than 7,400 children in the sample. Only data from the matched schools are found in the dataset.

Sampling deviation

As described above, we were unable to survey four of the 293 applicant villages in our household survey. In addition, two villages were the only villages in their department, making it impossible to create the relative score variable needed for the RD design. As a result, we dropped these six villages from consideration in our analysis and focused on the 287 villages for which we had meaningful applicant and household survey data.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Mathematica developed two questionnaires: a household questionnaire and a school questionnaire. The household questionnaire asked about household demographics, children's educational outcomes (enrollment and attendance), and parents' perceptions of education. The school survey asked about schools' characteristics and children's attendance and enrollment.

The household questionnaire drew heavily from several existing questionnaires used widely in developing countries, including the Demographic and Health Survey (USAID), the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (UNICEF), and the Living Standards Measurement Study (World Bank). Reliance on these questionnaires provided two important benefits. First, given their wide and successful use in developing countries, including Burkina Faso, they enhanced our confidence in the validity and reliability of the questions in the household questionnaire. Second, reliance on the existing questionnaires allows researchers to compare our results with results from the earlier surveys in both Burkina Faso and other countries. Where necessary, we adapted or added survey questions to yield detailed information to answer the research questions. The household survey included the following modules:

• Household characteristics. This module asked for information about the head of household, such as religion, ethnicity, and education; information about the household itself, including GPS coordinates, construction materials, and water source; and intervention-specific information, such as whether any children were attending preschool (Bisongo) or whether any women were participating in literacy training.

• Household listing form. This module asked the respondent to provide a complete list of all children between 5- and 12-years-old residing in the household. Basic information collected on these children included relationship to the head of household, sex, age, and whether the child had attended school at any time during the 2007-2008 school year.

• Education. This module was administered for all children 5- to 12-years-old who attended school at any time during the 2007-2008 school year. Questions addressed access to textbooks; information about the school attended, including specific interventions such as separate latrines, participation in feeding programs, and attendance; and reasons the parents sent the child to school.

• Child labor. This module was administered for all children 5- to 12-years-old, and asked whether the children were engaged in work for persons outside the household (for pay or in-kind) and whether they performed various chores.

• Mathematics assessment. This module was administered to all children 5- to 12-years-old. Children were shown pre-printed cards and asked to identify numbers, count items, indicate which number was the greater of a pair of numbers, and perform simple addition and subtraction.

• French assessment. This module was administered to all children 5- to 12-years-old. Children were shown pre-printed cards and asked to identify letters, read one- and two-syllable words, and identify the correct noun and verb from a list to fill in a blank in a simple sentence. Examples came from grade 1 and 2 Burkina Faso primary education reading texts.

The school questionnaire was based largely on the World Bank's

This dataset explores Percentage of eighth-grade public school students and average scores in NAEP writing by race and state, USA, 2007 Notes: Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate. # Rounds to zero. Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacifi c Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Writing Assessment.

The United States MSA Boundaries data set contains the boundaries for metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. The data set contains information on location, identification, and size. The database includes metropolitan boundaries within all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The general concept of a metropolitan area (MA) is one of a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration with that nucleus. Some MAs are defined around two or more nuclei. Each MA must contain either a place with a minimum population of 50,000 or a U.S. Census Bureau-defined urbanized area and a total MA population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). An MA contains one or more central counties. An MA also may include one or more outlying counties that have close economic and social relationships with the central county. An outlying county must have a specified level of commuting to the central counties and also must meet certain standards regarding metropolitan character, such as population density, urban population, and population growth. In New England, MAs consist of groupings of cities and towns rather than whole counties. The territory, population, and housing units in MAs are referred to as "metropolitan." The metropolitan category is subdivided into "inside central city" and "outside central city." The territory, population, and housing units located outside territory designated "metropolitan" are referred to as "non-metropolitan." The metropolitan and non-metropolitan classification cuts across the other hierarchies; for example, generally there are both urban and rural territory within both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.

This data set illustrates where the youth of the nation reside. Included in the data set are the rankings of city by age and the median age of the city. Source: Census data, Onboard 2006 projection URL: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2007/top25s/youngest.html Date Accessed: October 16, 2007

This dataset displays data from the 2005 Census of Japan. It displays data on data on Institutional Households and Household Members throughout prefectures in Japan. This dataset specifically deals with Students in School Dormitories. This data comes from Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication's Statistics Bureau.

This dataset graphically tracks Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. The dataset covers many types of investment, including manufacturing, trade, and financial aspects. This data covers 2005 figures, and shows which markets are heavily invested in by foreign nations. This data was collected from the Bureau of Economic Analysis : http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2007/07%20July/0707_dip_article.pdf and credit is given to Marilyn Ibarra and Jennifer Koncz. The authors of : Direct Investment Positions for 2006 Country and Industry Detail The data was accessed on October 1, 2007. Statistics are quoted in the Millions.

The data is based on Economic Research Service (ERN) of USDA's dataset that shows where the creative people are in the U.S. Its an interpretation of Richard Florida's thesis that much of urban development is determined by people who work in the so called ideas and knowledge industry. The workers who are in ideas and knowledge industry are attracted to areas that offer jobs in these industries and also because of desirable traits such as quality of life indicators. For details see http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/creativeclasscodes/ and http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CreativeClassCodes/methods.htm

This dataset provides point data for all NCAA Division 1 college men's basketball schools, as of 2008.

This dataset explores residence and migration of all freshmen students in 4-year degree-granting institutions who graduated from high school in the previous 12 months, by state for Fall 2004 NOTE: Includes all first-time postsecondary students enrolled at reporting institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2005. (This table was prepared September 2005.) http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_209.asp Accessed on 11 November 2007

This dataset displays data from the 2005 Census of Japan. It displays data on Private Households throughout prefectures in Japan. This dataset specifically deals with number of Private Households, Number of Private Household Members, and Average number of Members per Private Household. This data comes from Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication's Statistics Bureau.