Search

Across the nation, states and school districts face a persistent shortage of educators with expertise in promoting both the English proficiency and academic achievement of English learner (EL) students. To help improve educators' qualifications and classroom instruction for ELs, the National Professional Development (NPD) program has awarded grants for EL-focused educator professional development projects since 2002. This U.S. Department of Education-funded program allows grantees to serve the varied types of educators who work with ELs, including those preparing to join the educator workforce, and encourages grantees to focus on professional development topics and approaches supported by rigorous research evidence. In addition, the NPD program encourages grantees to engage in evaluation activities, including performance measurement and rigorous evaluations of project effectiveness, that may inform project improvement and contribute to evidence building. This study examines the extent to which NPD grantees implemented their projects in ways aligned with these program objectives, drawing primarily on a 2021 survey of all 2016 and 2017 NPD grantees.

The report "How a Federal Grant Program Is Training and Supporting Educators of English Learners" examines the extent to which National Professional Development (NPD) grantees implemented their projects in ways aligned with program objectives, drawing primarily on a survey of all 2016 and 2017 NPD grantees. This document provides background information about the NPD program (Appendix A), the data sources and measures used in this study (Appendix B), supporting statistical details and supplemental findings related to the findings presented in the report (Appendix C), and findings from additional analyses that are not discussed in the report but may help readers better understand the findings (Appendix D).

This report provides a brief summary of the status of FY2025 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) appropriations as of the cover date of this report. It also provides background on the scope of the LHHS bill generally and the context for congressional appropriations decisions, including the submission of the President's budget request for FY2025 and budget enforcement in the absence of a budget resolution. On May 23, 2024, the House Appropriations Committee voted to report its draft initial suballocations for all 12 subcommittees, including LHHS (30-22). (These draft suballocations, and subsequent revised suballocations, have not yet been reported to the House.) The Senate Appropriations Committee reported to the Senate its full set of suballocations (S.Rept. 118-190) on July 11, 2024 (15-11). On July 10, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the FY2025 LHHS bill in full committee, and voted to report the bill (31-25). The bill (H.R. 9029) was reported to the House on July 12, 2024 (H.Rept. 118-585). Previously, the LHHS subcommittee had approved the draft LHHS bill on June 27, 2024 (voice vote).

This document includes the "FY 2023 Annual Performance Report" (APR) and "FY 2025 Annual Performance Plan" (APP). The APR provides narrative and data on the Department of Education's (Department's) progress toward the strategic goals and objectives outlined in its "Fiscal Years [FYs] 2022-2026 Strategic Plan" (ED625432), and the APP details the Department's planned strategies and activities to achieve those strategic goals and objectives.

The federal government provides varying types of support to postsecondary students and schools, including student financial assistance (e.g., Pell Grants and Direct Loans) authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Postsecondary schools seeking to participate in these federal programs must meet a variety of requirements, including being accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) as a reliable authority on the quality of the education being offered. The United States does not have a centralized authority exercising singular national control over postsecondary educational institutions. Consequently, the character and quality of postsecondary schools and their programs can vary widely. The role of accreditation in higher education is to serve as a marker of a level of acceptable quality across the wide array of postsecondary schools and educational programs. The accreditation process is voluntary and educational institutions or programs must request it. While ED-recognized accrediting agencies' review processes are guided in part by federal requirements, specific procedures for reviews are adopted by the individual agencies and vary among them. This report provides an overview of accreditation of postsecondary education in the United States, including its role in the HEA Title IV program integrity triad. It begins with a brief history of accreditation's historical role and purpose in higher education. It then describes the organization of accrediting agencies and the accreditation process. Finally, it discusses the federal role in accreditation.

The describes the nation's progress in (1) providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities under IDEA, Part B, and early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families under IDEA, Part C; (2) ensuring that the rights of these children with disabilities and their parents are protected; (3) assisting States and localities in providing IDEA services to all children with disabilities; and (4) assessing the effectiveness of efforts to provide IDEA services to children with disabilities. The report focuses on children with disabilities being served under IDEA, Part B and Part C, nationally and at the State level. Part B of IDEA provides funds to States to assist them in making FAPE available to eligible children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21, who are in need of special education and related services, whereas Part C of IDEA provides funds to States to assist them in developing and implementing statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary interagency systems to make early intervention services available to all eligible children with disabilities, from birth through age 2, and their families.

While the U.S. population has become increasingly diverse, college faculty may not reflect those same levels of diversity. Little is known at the national level about the relationship between faculty diversity and student outcomes. Separately, faculty have reported experiencing discrimination at colleges. GAO was asked to review faculty diversity and employment discrimination at colleges. This report examines (1) selected aspects of diversity among faculty, (2) efforts by colleges to recruit and retain a diverse faculty, and (3) how Education and EEOC process employment discrimination complaints at colleges. GAO analyzed Education data on faculty and students from fiscal years 2003-2021, national workforce data from the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics ranging from calendar years 2014-2021, Education complaint data from fiscal years 2011-2022, and EEOC complaint data from fiscal years 2011-2021 (each set was the most recent available). GAO also conducted literature reviews; reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and policies; and interviewed agency officials and selected higher education experts.

The Department of Defense (DOD) offers education and training to foreign military personnel--known as international military students--at United States (U.S.) DOD sites. After a student killed 3 people at a base in Florida in 2019, questions were raised about personnel safety at DOD sites hosting students for training. The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 includes a provision for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review DOD's implementation of security vetting for international military students and accompanying family members. This report assesses the extent to which: (1) DOD has developed vetting procedures for international military students and addressed any implementation challenges; and (2) State and DOD have shared information related to students' training at DOD sites in the U.S. GAO reviewed documentation, analyzed vetting result data for October 1, 2019, through March 31, 2023, and interviewed DOD and State officials and stakeholders from six unified combatant commands and three U.S. embassies. Some stakeholders found opportunities for improvement, and GAO is making four recommendations, including for DOD to assess vetting implementation and take action to mitigate any factors affecting implementation as identified in its assessment, and for DOD and State to clarify roles and responsibilities for sharing information.

A committee report accompanying a national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2022 includes a provision for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Department of Defense's (DOD's) payroll system for overseas DOD Education Activity employees. This report: (1) describes the status of DOD's efforts to address auditors' prior recommendations to improve its civilian payroll system, which includes overseas DOD Education Activity employees; and (2) examines the process DOD used to calculate overseas DOD Education Activity employees' pay, including base pay, differentials, additional allowances, and deductions, as well as how the department communicated payroll changes to employees. GAO reviewed an extract from a database containing all civilian payroll notices of findings and recommendations as of March 2023 to report on the status of prior recommendations. GAO also examined fiscal year 2021 payroll records (the most recent available at the time of GAO's analysis) and interviewed DOD representatives to gain an understanding of the payroll process. GAO traced payroll records for 10 employees to supporting documentation and verified the calculations using applicable criteria. GAO also reviewed payroll adjustments for 24 employees that were the result of either normal adjustments or payroll errors. Since DOD was not able to provide sufficient supporting documentation timely, the number of DOD Education Activity employees that GAO was able to review was too small to support generalizable conclusions.

Negotiated rulemaking (neg-reg) has now been used by administrations of both parties to enact major changes to Department of Education rules. The goal of neg-reg is consensus, and the agency's proposals and the conversations during the rulemaking sessions naturally determine whether that goal will be achievable with the parties at the table. To launch a negotiated rulemaking, the department must first notify the public that neg-reg will take place and on which topics. This might have resulted in more deliberately crafted rules or forced the rejection of more half-baked or politically fringe ideas. However, it has also forced administrations to spend the better part of a presidential term simply reversing what the previous administration did, with little opportunity for forward momentum. Congress should at least reconsider whether negotiated rulemaking is a net benefit when it next reauthorizes the Higher Education Act (HEA) and, more broadly, set a higher bar for the enactment of new regulations than for the repeal of failed ones.

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) Office of Inspector General (OIG) annual plan identifies the audits, inspections, and other activities that the OIG intends to undertake to assist the Department in fulfilling its responsibilities to America's citizens and students. The FY 2024 Annual Plan details the assignment areas they plan to devote to evaluations of the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of Department programs and operations. It aligns the OIG's work and resources to achieve their mission, meet the goals of their 5-year Strategic Plan (see ED620770), and focuses attention across the management challenges facing the Department. The activities presented in the FY 2024 Work Plan are conducted under the OIG's first Strategic Plan goal. These activities were developed in consideration of factors that include an assessment of risk to the Department's programs and operations, the OIG's mission and goals, stakeholder feedback, FY 2024 management challenges, and resource availability. These activities are outlined in four priority areas: (1) specialized work specific to pandemic relief; (2) student financial assistance programs and operations; (3) elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and vocational education grant programs and operations; and (4) Department management and operations. At the end of the work plan, the authors include a table that correlates the FY 2024 Work Plan projects to the FY 2024 Management Challenges.

The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) fiscal year (FY) 2023 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to advance the mission of the Department to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. As evidenced by the information contained in this AFR, the Department has demonstrated that it is a good steward of financial resources and has put in place well-controlled and well-managed business and financial management systems, processes, and practices. The AFR also provides high-level financial and performance highlights, assessments of controls, a summary of challenges, and a demonstration of the Department's stewardship. The AFR is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, management assurances regarding internal controls, and forward-looking information. The Financial Section provides a message from the chief financial officer, the Consolidated Balance Sheet and related notes, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides the unaudited financial statements and related notes, required supplementary information, the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2024, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, "Payment Integrity Information Act" reporting details, civil monetary penalty adjustment for inflation, Climate Related Financial Risk, and the "Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act of 2016" and grant closeout process reporting. The Appendices section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations.

This Semiannual Report presents the activities and accomplishments of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General (OIG) from April 1, 2023, through September 30, 2023. The report highlights audits, investigations, and related work issued during this time frame and includes summary tables containing statistical and other data as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and other statutes. Sections include: (1) Pandemic Relief Oversight; (2) Disaster Recovery Oversight; (3) Federal Student Aid Programs and Operations; (4) Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education Programs; (5) Department Management and Operations; (6) Other OIG Efforts; (7) Required Reporting; and (8) Acronyms and Abbreviations.

Mental health supports for students refers to a broad range of wraparound services and interventions provided by schools to support students' social, emotional, and mental well-being. Access to high-quality, culturally responsive mental health supports in schools is critical to students' long-term growth and development. This brief lays out the challenges and barriers that exist for students experiencing mental health issues, and offers steps that can be taken at both the national, state, and local level.

Teacher shortages have reentered the national consciousness in a major way, as quarantines and the intense stresses created by the COVID-19 pandemic drained teaching staffs, causing some schools to close temporarily for lack of staff. According to the U.S. Department of Education, all 50 states reported shortages in more than one area for the 2022-23 school year. To handle the shortages, schools have increased class sizes, canceled course offerings, added duties to the responsibilities of existing teachers, and hired underqualified individuals to fill the positions--all of which undermine students' learning. At a time when the nation is necessarily focused on learning recovery for students impacted by the pandemic, resolving shortages should be a national education priority. The moment may be ripe for the set of transformations needed to develop a much stronger education profession in this country. The United States needs a nationwide Marshall Plan for teaching, similar to that enacted after World War II to rebuild Europe, but for rebuilding the teaching profession. A Marshall Plan for teaching should focus the powers of the federal government on supporting recruitment, preparation, support, and retention in teaching in seven key areas: (1) Increase educators' net compensation through tax credits, housing subsidies, and salary; (2) Strengthen recruitment by making teacher preparation debt-free; (3) Support improved preparation by expanding high-retention pathways into teaching; (4) Provide high-quality mentoring for all beginning teachers; (5) Increase investments that enable educators to expand and share expertise; (6) Incentivize the redesign of schools to support teaching and learning; and (7) Rethink school accountability. [This research was supported by Skyline Foundation.]

This guide is designed for use by school, district, and state education agency staff to improve the effectiveness of efforts to collect and use discipline data, including reporting accurate and timely data to the federal government. It explains the importance of collecting discipline data, identifies key considerations for agencies implementing and managing a discipline data system, and discusses how discipline data can be used and reported effectively. Case studies provide examples of successful practices used in local education agencies (LEAs) and state education agencies (SEAs). One goal of the Forum is to improve the quality of education data gathered for use by policymakers and program decision makers. An approach to furthering this goal has been to pool the collective experiences of Forum members to produce "best practice" guides in areas of high interest to those who collect, maintain, and use data about elementary and secondary education. The accurate, consistent, and timely collection and reporting of discipline data by schools, districts, and SEAs is one of those high-interest areas. This guide reflects the judgment of experienced data managers. There is no mandate to follow these principles. The authors hope that the contents are a useful reference to others in their work.

Only a few innovations ever successfully scale throughout education systems. Previous research highlights two reasons for this scarcity of success stories: either the innovations are badly designed, or the environment is not conducive to accepting and absorbing the education innovations. Even the best innovations with the most strategic scaling plans can underestimate the power held by the broader environment over scaling success. The research that informs this report found that government decisions about scaling education innovations are not primarily about the merits or impact of the specific model being considered. Rather, a series of "factors external to the innovation" influence decisionmaking about whether the innovation should be adopted and whether it can scale. We might call this "the power of the broader environment." For this report, the authors have organized the many factors of the power of the broader environment on decisionmaking into five dimensions: (1) National politics; (2) Donor priorities; (3) Education transfer and contextualization; (4) Education technology; and (5) Absence of meaningful data. This report explores how the identified factors shape decisionmaking and considers what this means for scaling teams hoping to institutionalize their innovations into public education systems or expand the innovations' impacts in new ways. The report concludes with recommendations for scaling teams, donor representatives, government decisionmakers, and others about how to understand and make productive use of these factors and more strategically harness the larger system within which it operates.

We know the importance of learning experiences that happen beyond the confines of a traditional classroom. But how might federal policy support such experiences to prepare young people for life after high school? That's where work-based learning comes in -- a strategy designed to help students connect what they learn in the classroom with what is expected in the workplace by integrating learning with real-world applications in partnership with industry professionals. While momentum is growing at the local and state levels to design and implement PK-12 through workforce pathways to support work-based learning, there is still much work to be done in creating truly supportive policy environments. This set of federal policy recommendations outlines how enabling policies could further incentivize and focus increased resources on pathways and work-based learning.

"Shifting Sands: Confounded Errors" focuses on failures by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to consider empirical evidence available in the public domain early in the pandemic. The report finds compelling circumstantial evidence that lockdowns and masking mandates imposed during the pandemic had no proven benefit to public health outcomes. [Introduction by Peter W. Wood.]

When either privileged or under-resourced families navigate gray areas in the law, including federal laws related to students with disabilities such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, inequities are revealed. Research and emerging trends have raised increasing concerns about unfairness and abuses of disability policies, particularly with regard to intersectional disadvantages and advantages that may emerge in the implementation of Section 504, depending on a student's social identities. In this policy brief, the authors present research that should inform policymaking around Section 504. They also consider the trends documenting ongoing and even increasing inequities in how the law is being used. Because many of these inequities are systemic, they provide recommendations that include policy actions at the federal, state, and local levels.

This Semiannual Report presents the activities and accomplishments of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General (OIG) from October 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023. The report highlights audits, investigations, and related work issued during this time frame. Sections include: (1) Pandemic Relief Oversight; (2) Disaster Recovery Oversight; (3) Federal Student Aid Programs and Operations; (4) Elementary and Secondary Education Programs; (5) Department Management and Operations; (6) Other OIG Efforts; (7) Required Reporting; and (8) Acronyms and Abbreviations. [For the previous report, "Semiannual Report to Congress, No. 85. April 1, 2022-September 30, 2022," see ED625683.]

There is a growing call to reconsider current approaches to national and state assessment system policies and practices. State and local education agency leaders, educators, community leaders, and advocates have voiced concerns that current state assessment systems--defined primarily by end-of-year multiple-choice tests--are unable to meet contemporary needs for information that supports teaching and learning. More than 20 states are involved in efforts to transform one or more aspects of their assessment systems; however, the process of securing federal assistance and approval to make transitions to substantially improved systems poses numerous challenges. This report synthesizes policy analyses and findings from legal and research analyses, as well as consultations with national, state, and local leaders, to (1) outline the history of federal testing guidance and state responses that have shaped the current context, (2) describe strategies states and districts are pursuing to evolve their assessment programs into high-quality systems that both signal and support better teaching and learning processes for all students, and (3) identify key ways that the federal government could support assessment reforms that enable thoughtful assessment of meaningful skills in ways that also better support teaching and learning. [This report was written in collaboration with Michael DiNapoli, Tara Kini, Tiffany Miller, and Julie Woods. For the Policy Brief, see ED630213.]

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) invited states to use multiple measures of "higher-order thinking skills and understanding," including "extended-performance tasks," to create state assessment systems that support teaching for deeper learning. However, few states have been able to navigate federal assessment requirements in ways that result in tests with these features that can support high-quality instruction. This brief describes three ways that federal executive action can help states realize their visions for more meaningful assessments: (1) Better align technical expectations for assessment quality with ESSA's intentions; (2) Enable ESSA's Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority to better support innovation; and (3) Create additional pathways to higher-quality assessments through existing or new funding mechanisms. [This report was written in collaboration with Michael DiNapoli, Tara Kini, Tiffany Miller, and Julie Woods. For the full report, see ED630214.]

This is the 44th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2022. Section 664(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as reauthorized in 2004, requires that the Department of Education report annually on the progress made toward the provision of a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities and the provision of early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities. The 44th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2022 describes our nation's progress in: (1) providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities under IDEA, Part B, and early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families under IDEA, Part C; (2) ensuring that the rights of these children with disabilities and their parents are protected; (3) assisting States and localities in providing IDEA services to all children with disabilities; and (4) assessing the effectiveness of efforts to provide IDEA services to children with disabilities. The report focuses on children with disabilities being served under IDEA, Part B and Part C, nationally and at the State level. [For the "43rd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2021," see ED616723.]

This document includes the "FY 2022 Annual Performance Report" and "FY 2024 Annual Performance Plan." The "FY 2022 Annual Performance Report" provides narrative and data on the US Department of Education's progress toward the strategic goals and objectives outlined in its "Fiscal Years 2022-2026 Strategic Plan" (ED625432) and the "FY 2024 Annual Performance Plan" details the Department's planned strategies and activities to achieve those strategic goals objectives.

This primer summarizes the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), the Educational Technical Assistance Act (ETAA), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (NAEPAA). The report is organized in a manner that aligns with P.L. 107-279, the law that enacted the three acts. The ESRA authorizes much of the federal government's efforts to collect statistics and conduct research on the U.S. educational system. Part A of the ESRA establishes the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) as an independent research institute and the National Board of Educational Sciences to advise and approve priorities for data collection and research. Parts B thru E of the ESRA authorize four National Education Centers that carry out the research and data collection duties of IES. The ETAA authorizes support for technical assistance activities and the development of state systems that integrate student-level data from preschool through postsecondary education and employment. The NAEPAA authorizes support for assessments of the academic achievement of students across the United States. Although authorities in the acts expired in FY2008, funding has continued through annual appropriations legislation. In FY2023, $734 million was appropriated to support IES' activities.

Racial preferences, as practiced in academia and elsewhere, by definition, discriminates against individuals based on their race. Radical academics and writers, including the founders of critical race theory, have long supported the use of race as a predominant factor in postsecondary and graduate school admissions. If the Court rules as it should that postsecondary institutions cannot use race as a factor in school admissions, that decision will be a crucial step away from racial prejudice and towards meritocracy and colorblindness--two pillars of the civil rights movement. Other college officials might want to abandon racial prejudice in school operations, but biased college accreditors may coerce them into maintaining discriminatory policies. Accreditors, however, also contribute to the prejudicial environment in college admissions through their accrediting requirements. Lawmakers must reform the postsecondary accreditation system. What may sound like merely a set of bureaucratic reforms to the accrediting process would be, in fact, a long-overdue reform of higher education, improving student access to institutions, allowing colleges to make decisions in students' best interests instead of under pressure from federal rules, and provide more transparency for students and families in the college application process.

The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) fiscal year (FY) 2022 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to advance the mission of the Department to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. As evidenced by the information contained in this AFR, the Department has demonstrated that it is a good steward of financial resources and has put in place well-controlled and well-managed business and financial management systems, processes, and practices. The AFR is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, management assurances regarding internal controls, and forward-looking information. The Financial Section provides provides a message from the chief financial officer, the financial statements and notes, required supplementary information, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2023, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, "Payment Integrity Information Act" reporting details, civil monetary penalty adjustment for inflation, "Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act of 2016" and grant closeout process reporting, and the FY 2021 Climate Adaptation Plan. Finally, the Appendices section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations. [For the 2021 Agency Financial Report, see ED617854. For "U.S. Department of Education FY 2022 Annual Performance Report and FY 2024 Annual Performance Plan," see ED627577.]

According to the Department of Defense (DOD), the United States of America's competitors and adversaries are taking advantage of vulnerabilities in the information environment to advance their national objectives and offset the U.S.'s position as the preeminent warfighting force. DOD's military operations in the information environment play a pivotal role in engaging our adversaries. House Report 117-118 included a provision for US Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review DOD training that prepares leaders and service members to operate and make decisions in a contested information environment. In this report, the GAO (1) describes DOD guidance that supports the department's education and training efforts to prepare leaders to make decisions in a contested information environment and (2) assesses the extent to which DOD provides education and training designed to prepare leaders to make such decisions. GAO reviewed selected DOD strategies, policies, and course syllabi; analyzed information related to the conduct of military exercises; and interviewed officials with knowledge of the department's education and training efforts.

Research data services--support offerings which enable and improve data-intensive research--have garnered sustained attention from library research support service providers for nearly two decades. Because of the critical role they play in supporting research on college and university campuses across the country, particularly at research intensive universities, research data services have more recently become a central area of concern for an increased number of stakeholders, including offices of research, campus IT, and other units involved in the research enterprise. Despite the widespread recognition of their importance, however, the development of research data services has been largely ad hoc, lacking cohesive cross-campus collaborations or strategic frameworks. As a result, many data-related services are siloed, difficult to locate, and available informally or by word of mouth, leaving researchers and administrators confused about the availability of data research support offerings, where they are located, and who can access them. The resulting opacity is a major barrier to better coordinating these offerings to minimize inefficiencies while continuing to offer services that are ready to adapt to researchers' evolving support needs. Ithaka S+R has been following trends in research data services for several years as part of their research into the support needs associated with data-intensive research methodologies. In 2020, Ithaka S+R conducted a pilot project to inventory research data support services in the United States. This study revealed broad patterns and trends in the distribution and provision of research data services at US higher education institutions and marked an important first step toward understanding the quality, relevance, and capacity of university-based research data services. Since the publication of the 2020 inventory, foundations and the federal governments in both the US and Canada have increased requirements around data management and sharing. As a result, the need for universities to develop an efficient infrastructure of research data services is an even more urgent strategic priority now than it was in 2020. Yet even as the pressure on universities has grown, provisioning such services remains a challenge. While many universities have made substantial investments in research data services and are likely to continue to make further investments, obstacles such as decentralization and inefficiency, insufficient staffing, lack of technical expertise, and ambiguity about the needs of researchers continue to limit the impact of these investments. In light of these persistent challenges, and in the interest of providing up-to-date data to inform university decision making, Ithaka S+R revisited the inventory and expanded the scope to include Canadian universities. The new inventory findings are part of a larger collaboration with 29 research universities focused on coordinating research data services offered across campus and aligning them with the evolving needs of their research communities. These findings are based on a comprehensive review of data services offered at a representative sample of 120 US institutions (including R1, R2, and liberal arts colleges), and eight institutional members of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL).