Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Child Care Interview, Wave 3, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 13680)
Alternate Title: PHDCN CCI, 2000-2002
Principal Investigator(s): Earls, Felton J., Harvard Medical School; Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Scientific Director. Columbia University. Teacher's College. Center for the Study of Children and Families; Raudenbush, Stephen W., Scientific Director. University of Michigan. School of Education, and Survey Research Center; Sampson, Robert J., Scientific Director. Harvard University. Department of Sociology
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One such measure was the Child Care Interview. It was administered to subjects' primary caregivers (PCs) in Cohort 0. It included questions on the structure of child care arrangements, the flexibility and stability of this arrangement, and other questions related to child care. It also asked some questions similar in nature to those asked in PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): SCHOOL AND DAY CARE SCREEN, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13653).
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions ; consult the restrictions note to learn more. You can apply online for access to the data. A login is required to apply for access. (Instructions on YouTube.)
Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Earls, Felton J., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Robert J. Sampson. Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Child Care Interview, Wave 3, 2000-2002. ICPSR13680-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-02-06. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR13680.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR13680.v1
This study was funded by:
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. Child Care Bureau
- Harris Foundation
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. Head Start Bureau
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (93-IJ-CX-K005)
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Mental Health
- United States Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement
- Turner Foundation
Scope of Study
Date of Collection:
Unit of Observation: individual
Universe: Children, adolescents, young adults, and their primary caregivers, living in the city of Chicago in 1994.
Data Types: survey data
Data Collection Notes:
The Murray Research Center conducted the initial data and documentation processing for this collection.
At present, only a restricted version of the data is available (see RESTRICTIONS field). A downloadable version of the data is slated to be available in the near future.
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. It was designed to advance the understanding of the developmental pathways of both positive and negative human social behaviors. In particular, the project examined the causes and pathways of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, substance abuse, and violence. At the same time, the project provided a detailed look at the environments in which these social behaviors took place by collecting substantial amounts of data about urban Chicago, including its people, institutions, and resources.
Longitudinal Cohort Study
One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. The age cohorts include birth (0), 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences.
Child Care Interview
The data in this collection are from Wave 3 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was administered between 2000 and 2002. The data files contain information from the Child Care Interview protocol. The Child Care Interview instrument included questions on the structure of child care arrangements, the flexibility and stability of this arrangement, and other questions related to child care.
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods
The city of Chicago was selected as the research site for the PHDCN because of its extensive racial, ethnic, and social-class diversity. The project collapsed 847 census tracts in the city of Chicago into 343 neighborhood clusters (NCs) based upon seven groupings of racial/ethnic composition and three levels of socioeconomic status. The NCs were designed to be ecologically meaningful. They were composed of geographically contiguous census tracts, and geographic boundaries, and knowledge of Chicago's neighborhoods were considered in the definition of the NCs. Each NC was comprised of approximately 8,000 people.
Longitudinal Cohort Study
For the Longitudinal Cohort Study, a stratified probability sample of 80 neighborhoods was selected. The 80 NCs were sampled from the 21 strata (seven racial/ethnic groups by three socioeconomic levels) with the goal of representing the 21 cells as equally as possible to eliminate the confounding between racial/ethnic mix and socioeconomic status. Once the 80 NCs were chosen, then block groups were selected at random within each of the sample neighborhoods. A complete listing of dwelling units was collected for all sampled block groups. Pregnant women, children, and young adults in seven age cohorts (birth, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) were identified through in-person screening of approximately 40,000 dwelling units within the 80 NCs. The screening response rate was 80 percent. Children within six months of the birthday that qualified them for the sample were selected for inclusion in the Longitudinal Cohort Study. A total of 8,347 participants were identified through the screening. Of the eligible study participants, 6,228 were interviewed in the Wave 1 data collection, 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection, and 4,850 were interviewed in the Wave 3 data collection.
Data collection for Wave 3 began in 2000 and ended in 2002. It included a letter sent to study participants notifying them that they would be contacted to schedule an interview. Additional information on the contact log included the dates and research assistant ID of the Wave 2 interview (or the status of the case if incomplete in Wave 2), a list of household composition and ID numbers of other household members in the study, the name the telephone was listed under, the recontact information from Waves 1 and 2, and an updated history of addresses.
For all cohorts except 0 and 18, primary caregivers as well as the child were interviewed. The primary caregiver was the person found to spend the most time taking care of the child. Separate research assistants administered the primary caregiver interviews and the child interviews. The primary method of data collection was face-to-face interviewing, although participants who refused to complete the personal interview were administered a phone interview. An abbreviated telephone interview was conducted for the primary caregivers in Cohorts 0-15 and Cohort 18 study participants in Wave 3 who lived outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants were able to travel for interviews. In Wave 3, phone interviews were also conducted with the study participants in Cohort 15. People who refused to complete the two-hour in-person interview were administered the phone interview. A total of 391 telephone interviews were conducted during Wave 3, representing 6.3 percent of the sample.
Proxy interviews were conducted with study participants who were emancipated minors (under 18 but married or living independently). The study participants answered questions from the primary caregiver's interview on the primary caregiver's behalf. In Wave 3, one primary caregiver and eleven study participants (young adults) were interviewed in jail. They were located in either the Cook County Jail or in one of the state prisons. Those study participants in a state system outside the nine-county area were also interviewed by phone. Study participants in foster care could not be interviewed. The Department of Children and Family Services did not allow interviews of the foster parent or the child. Permission was granted for a brief period in Wave 1, therefore there are some children in the sample who could not be followed up in Waves 2 and 3. Some children were not in foster care in Wave 1 but were placed in foster care by Wave 2 or 3. They were also not followed up. Lastly, some participants were interviewed in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, as they were in foster care during Wave 2.
Some participants in Wave 1 spoke a language other than English, Spanish, or Polish. In Wave 3, an abbreviated version of the primary caregiver's protocol was administered, and the research assistant arranged for someone in the household to translate on the spot. In Wave 3, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish.
Depending on the age and wave of data collection, participants were paid between $5 and $20 per interview. Other incentives, such as free passes to museums, the aquarium, and monthly drawing prizes, were also included.
Interview protocols included a wide range of questions. For example, some questions assessed impulse control and sensation-seeking traits, cognitive and language development, leisure activities, delinquency and substance abuse, friends' activities, and self-perception, attitudes, and values. Caregivers were also interviewed about family structure, parent characteristics, parent-child relationships, parent discipline styles, family mental health, and family history of criminal behavior and drug use.
For primary caregivers included in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, an addendum interview was administered consisting of measures or portions of measures from the Wave 2 interview. An addendum was also given to the Cohort 15 and 18 study participants who were not included in Wave 2. A total of 164 primary caregivers and 62 young adult (Cohorts 15 and 18) addendums were completed in Wave 3.
Child Care Interview
The Child Care Interview was administered to subjects' primary caregivers (PCs). It included questions on the structure of child care arrangements, the flexibility and stability of this arrangement, and other questions related to child care. It also asked some questions similar in nature to those asked in PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): SCHOOL AND DAY CARE SCREEN, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13653).
Sample: Stratified probability sample.
Mode of Data Collection: face-to-face interview, telephone interview
Description of Variables: The data file contains information relating to child care. Primary caregivers (PCs) were asked if the subject's child care arrangements were the same all year or if the summer was different from the school year and whether, in the past month, the subject had spent time in more than one child care arrangement. The respondents were also read some general statements about how easy it was for them to find the subject's child care and asked to tell how often each of the statements was true for them. The statements included such items as "In my neighborhood, child care is hard to find", "My child has had stability in his/her child care arrangements", and "I have difficulty paying for child care". There was also a series of questions to which the respondent replied "Yes" or "No" regarding child care including "In choosing child care, I've felt like I had to take whatever I could get" and "I would be willing to pay more for the care I have now". PCs also gave information relating to how much time was spent transporting the subject to and from child care, if child care problems ever forced the PC to stop working or going to school, who in the family took responsibility for child care, and what type of arrangement they would prefer to use if cost and location were not a problem. There were also questions regarding how far the PC would like the subject to continue in school and how much school the PC thought the subject actually would complete.
The overall response rate for Wave 3 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study was 78.19 percent or 4,850 participants. The response rates for subjects by cohort were:
- 76.0 percent for Cohort 0
- 80.5 percent for Cohort 3
- 80.2 percent for Cohort 6
- 77.5 percent for Cohort 9
- 74.9 percent for Cohort 12
- 71.3 percent for Cohort 15
- 67.4 percent for Cohort 18
The response rates for primary caregivers by cohort were:
- 76.6 percent for Cohort 0
- 81.3 percent for Cohort 3
- 80.6 percent for Cohort 6
- 79.0 percent for Cohort 9
- 79.1 percent for Cohort 12
- 77.0 percent for Cohort 15
- 0 percent for Cohort 18
Presence of Common Scales: none
- Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Original ICPSR Release: 2007-02-06
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)