Participant Demographics Clause Samples

Participant Demographics. A total of 270 women were surveyed for this study. All participants were part of a neighbor women’s group, nearly two-thirds (63%) had a child under the age of 2, half were currently lactating (49%), and 11% were pregnant at the time of survey administration. Most participating women had not completed formal education beyond primary school (83%). Fewer than half (44%) of the participating households self-reported having access to a latrine, and roughly half (51%) reported using surface water as their primary source of drinking water. Food insecurity was very high among participating households, with nearly all households reporting anxiety and uncertainty about food supply as well as having insufficient food quality or quantity in the previous 30 days (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2007) (Table 2). Few households (12%) had a hygienic food preparation space by operational definition, and fewer than half of households (42%) were storing food hygienically. A quarter of the women (26%) were able to list 5 of 6 key handwashing times, and water and soap presence at handwashing stations was low (12% and 7%, respectively); nearly half (41%) of observed CU2 hands were clean, and self-reported handwashing with soap was high. About a third of households (34%) demonstrated an absence of human and animal feces, garbage, and other ▇▇▇▇▇ in the area that caretakers reported as the primary play location of the CU2 (Table 3).

Participant Demographics. Participant ages ranged from 18-79 with the mean age of participants being 35 years old. Six (38%) of the participants were unmarried, 6 (38%) were married women aged 25-40 years old, and 4 (25%) were over 40 years old. Eleven (69%) participants completed more than primary education and 5 (31%) completed primary or less than primary. The most common religion among participants was Christian (non-Catholic) 9 (56%) and the two most common ethnic groups that participants belonged to were Acholi, 4 (25%) and Baganda 3 (19%). The living situations of the participants varied as 4 (25%) lived in a single family home, 7 (44%) lived in a compound with shared living spaces including their sanitation facilities, and 5 (29%) did not clearly specify(Table 1).

Participant Demographics. Participants of the quantitative portion of this study were district parents (𝑛=150) with children in elementary, middle schools, and high schools, both, GATE and non-GATE identified. Out of those 150 parents, 10 parents volunteered to be interviewed, which provided qualitative data. The following table reports their race, gender, age, household arrangement, birthplace, and year of education whether in the United States or their country of birth. Demographic Data for Parent Participants (𝑁=150) Background Characteristics Categories Counts Percentage Race African American 3 2 Asian 2 1 Latino/Hispanic 136 91 White 7 5 Other 2 1 Gender Male 15 10 Female 135 90 Age 21-31 24 16 ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇ 52-61 6 4 Household Two Parent 118 79 Single Parent 29 19 Other 3 2 Birthplace USA 44 29 Mexico 99 ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1 <1 Asia 2 1 Education Elementary (K-6) 20 13 Middle School (7-9) 47 31 High School (10-12) 52 35 Undergraduate 19 13 Graduate 12 8 Parents GATE 64 43 Non-GATE 86 57 The majority of participants were Latino/Hispanic (𝑛=136) females (𝑛=135) between the ages of 32-41 (𝑛=83) reporting a two parent household (𝑛=118) with non-GATE students (𝑛=86). Most participants were born in Mexico (𝑛=99) and received at least a middle school or high school education in their country (𝑛=99). It is important to note that in Mexico, elementary school goes up to 6th grade, middle school from 7-9th grade, and high school from 10-12th grade. Anything above high school is considered college/university. Parent Education Frequency (𝑛=150) Since this study focused on identifying GATE versus non-GATE parent involvement, it was necessary to identify parent characteristics to determine which types of parents had more home and school participation. The following trends emerged. GATE parents (𝑛=64) reported more years of education whether in the United States or in their home country with an average of

Participant Demographics. Pharmaceuticals Cognitive and Psychological measures

Participant Demographics. Sixty-nine women participated in the ▇▇▇▇: ▇▇ ▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇, ▇▇ MW and 19 OW (Table 2.1). We were unable to get 2 women per category per village as planned because there were not enough RMW in each village who were able to participate. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 (mean 36.6). All women interviewed were Hindu, 85% had a card indicating they lived below the poverty line (BPL), 66% were General Caste (who, along with Brahmins, are not eligible for caste-related government benefits), 62% had children, 69% continued to experience menstruation, and 63% had water and 54% had toilets within their household compound. Forty-six women participated in FGDs: 23 unmarried and 23 married women. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 70 (mean 30.7), 98% were Hindu, 67% had a BPL card, 65% were General Caste, 80% continued to experience menstruation, 70% had water and 59% had a toilet within their household compound (Table 2.2).

Participant Demographics. All 13 participants were ages 18 and older, although the clinic saw patients starting at the age of 16. All interviews were conducted in the CEC site. Four participants identified as transmen and nine as transwomen. All participants spoke Spanish as their primary language and the majority were born and raised in México City (three were born outside of Mexico City). Only two participants disclosed their HIV positive status and considered it to be an integral part of their healthcare needs. All patients varied in their length of time as patients with CEC and their transition process from three months to five years.

Participant Demographics. Demographic Characteristic Total Sample (n=30) Age Ethnicity: n (%) Annual Income*: n (%) Education Level: n (%) Daily Medication Adherence Chapter 4: Recommendations

Participant Demographics. 73 Quantitative Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 76 Distribution of Transfer Requests by Race ................................................... 76 Special Education Services Received by Sample.......................................... 79 Qualitative Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 83 Research Question 1: School Personnel Findings ......................................... 89 Themes Overview: Trustworthy Relationship between Families and Educators Families .................................................................................................... 92 Themes Overview: Systemic Racism ........................................................................ 96 Themes Overview: School Supports 101 Restorative Practices 101 Supports and Services Available to Students and Families 102 Themes Overviews: Relationships with Students 103 Fostering a Positive Relationship with Students 103 Themes Overview: School District Bureaucracy 106 Broken Promises to Families 106 Themes Overview: Students’ Challenges in the School Environment 107 Factors out of the School Control 108 Factors that are Under School Control 108 Themes Overview: Successful Outcome of a Safety Transfer 109 Factors that are under School Control 110 Factors that are Outside the School Control 110 Triangulation: Parents’ and School Personnel Voices Common Themes 111 Research Question 2 :School Characteristics Findings 114 Research Question 3: PBIS Findings 119 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 122 Summary of the Study 122 Interpretation RQ1 123 Interpretation RQ2 129 Interpretation RQ3 131 Implications for Practice 132 Authentic School-Parents Partnership 132 Rethink School District Processes: Safety Transfer 133 SWPBIS and TFI 134 Recommendations for Further Research 134 Limitations 135 Delimitations 136 Summary 137 REFERENCES 139 APPENDICES 147 Appendix A: Qualitative School Personnel Interview Questions 147 Table 1. 1. School District Students' Demographics ....................................................... 21 Table 2. 1. Disciplinary Data for Students Attending Public Schools in the United States for the 2015-2016 School Year ............................................... 53 Table 3. 1. Visual Representation of the Research Questions, Variables, Constructs and Instruments Used in the Data Collection Process................. 60 Table 4. 1. Demographic Data ...

Participant Demographics. From January to March 2019 we approached 43 staff, and 25 of took part in the focus groups. Those who declined did so because of the focus group timing (n=9), or they were required to remain on the ▇▇▇▇ to maintain minimum staff numbers and carry out clinical duties (n=4); five did not specify a reason. A total of 18 participants were also available to take part in the member-checking focus groups. Table 5 presents participants’ demographics. We identified five primary themes, which we discuss below in addition to subthemes. Figure 8 provides a visual overview of these themes and subthemes. Table 5 Participant demographics Characteristics Focus group Total (N=25) Member-checking groups (N=18) 1 (n=6) 2 (n=6) 3 (n=4) 4 (n=5) 5 (n=4) Mean (SD) 37.8 (12.4) 39.5 (11.3) 37 (10.8) 55.4 (7.4) 44.5 (5.1) 42.7 (11.6) 44.4 (12.8) Range ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇ 22-64 Women 3 6 3 3 1 16 12 Black African 4 0 4 4 4 16 15 Black Caribbean 1 3 0 1 0 5 1 White British 1 3 0 0 0 4 2 Staff nurse 5 6 1 4 4 20 16 Student nurse 1 0 2 0 0 3 1 ▇▇▇▇ manager 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 Time in post (years), Mean (SD) 5.4 (3.4) 5 (4.8) 4 (5.7) 10.8 (4.7) 4.6 (2.1) 6.5 (3.4) 6.4 (4.8) 70 Figure 8 Visual overview of themes and sub-themes